Well, this isn't very deep, but it'll make my point for me. The jin skills that are the physical manifestation of "the Qi of Heaven and the Qi of Earth" (something Ueshiba referred to in his writings, BTW) are the one jin. Everyone who knows anything knows that. The "Chanssujin" (reeling-silk jin) of the Chen-style is called by them as "the basic jin from which the Chen-style gets its power". But then again, everyone knows that the chanssujin is composed of the four directions of the basic jin: peng, lu, ji, an. So anyone who would build a thesis or misunderstand the difference between chanssujin being commonly called the main (most important) jin of the Chen style and mixing that up with the "one jin", simply shows what they don't know. There's no way to hide it once a statement like that gets out in public.
Of course, there are a *number* of other similarly-revealing statements archived in AW and some other forums that do that same sort of inadvertant disclosure of what someone really understands. Now if someone makes fairly basic mistakes and then compounds it by saying they've never read anything deep, you can imagine how it looks to any of a number of knowledgeable readers who wonder about even the ability to understand anything deep if simple errors are made.
Incidentally, this whole topic of reeling-silk/spiralling expands deeper and deeper, making any discussion of "spiralling" another topic that can easily show what someone knows. But of course you already know that, right?
OK, your turn. Here's a very simple one. You misunderstood about the "one jin" (basic jin) and how it's a duality (the jin that starts from the feet, is controlled by the waist, and expressed in the fingers). See if you can explain the physical basis for that duality.
Mike Sigman
BTW, Dan. When you get into the personal comments about my "questionable abilities", be aware that I've also heard a number of stories about peoples' "questionable abilities", but I try to leave the personal smears out of a discussion, as much as possible. Please try to do the same. It's sort of Chicken***t, although I doubt you really understand that. If you can maintain a functional, in-depth discussion, please try to do so.
BTW.... I asked for one example of a detailed posting from you in my previous post .... you seem to have forgotten already.
Quote:
|
Where.... show me one instance of real and useable information that is correct. Maybe I've missed it. If so, I'll apologize.
|
Mike Sigman