Core differences between Shaolinquan and Taijiquan

[Zhang Wuji]

I have been following with interest comments like "transferring my Shaolin skills to Taijiquan" and vice versa. I myself have been using my Shaolin Cosmos qigong skills in my Taijiquan form practice and qigong, including qi flow, smile from the heart and directing the qi.

My question is: is there a limit to the transfer of the skills between the two great arts?

Leaving aside the Chen-style theory that says that Taijiquan was invented by Chen Wangting, the accepted history of Taijiquan is that it was created by Zhang Sanfeng who was a Shaolin exponent. Sifu notes that when Zhang Sanfeng created Taijiquan, he bequeathed to it more than 1000 years of Shaolin martial legacy plus his own insights: See "The Complete Book of Tai Chi Chuan". In Dr Yang Jwing MIng's "Taiji QInna", he notest that using Shaolin skills to explain Taiji qinna does not affect the "purity" of Taijiquan since the roots of both arts are similar.

Now, at the highest levels of Taijiquan and Shaolinquan, there is probably a convergence (I do not know this for sure), in that both are hard and soft. But this does not mean that the principles in one art are always applicable in the other - recall the discussion in "This is Zen, that is Tao".

At the review course, Sifu demonstrated the direct linear approach of Shaolin Zen in combat versus the circular (and some may say superfluous, redundant) motions in Taijiquan. This led me to think if there are irreconciliable differences between the two.

Since Zhang Sanfeng created a new style, there must be something radically different from Shaolinquan that even the common roots cannot explain. One of the well-known differences is the use of "slow practice" as a means to train "fast combat action".

Not having been trained in Wahnam Taijiquan, I can only speak from the Yang-style perspective (Yang Shaohou, not Yang Chengfu). These are some of the essential elements I can identify at my current low level. Perhaps Shaolinquan exponents can compare them to their own Shaolin practice.

a) No muscular tension at all during practice - not sure about actual combat(I believe Shaolinquan at all levels has a hard-soft element).
following from that - very low stances are discouraged because they lead easily to tension, hence the less demanding 3-circle stance.

b) Always moving after the opponent, instead of seizing the initiative. This does not mean waiting for a strike; once the enemy's qi is detected, the Taijiquan exponent can move. All of Taijiquan is dependent on the opponent's actions and intentions.

c) Sticking close to the opponent, applying the sensing skills of Pushing Hands. Shaolinquan has various ranges to work with. This could also explain some of the threads that were discussing why Taijiquan has a tendency to move forward, rather than retreat.

d) Using ground energy extensively. I have written about this quite often, that in the style I have learnt striking power is partly dependent on ground qi as well as the dan tian. I am not speculating here because that was how I broke a brick before I learnt qigong from Sifu. Ground qi was used to add force to my strike. In Shaolin qigong, taking in ground energy is discouraged and cosmic energy is preferred (something I agree with).

BY the way, this is not a misinterpretation of the classics' saying that "the roots comes from the lower legs, transmitted through the thighs..." The idea is not a literal interpretation of the saying in that all qi comes from the legs. The theory is that vital energy (qi), joins with the qi coming in through the yongquan, goes back to the dantian and spine and out as a strike. According to the other threads I have read in the forum, upon striking, the qi also sinks into the dantian (as to this, I have no experience, having never consciously felt such sinking). These are not exclusive secrets as I found similar explanations in English language books, which is why I am disclosing them here.

I do have some other essential principles but perhaps fellow forum members have better points to contribute?

[Antonius]

is there a limit to the transfer of the skills between the two great arts?

Judging from Sifu's skill in Taijiquan, I'd say nothing we should be concerned about.

The main problem I see in combining the two arts is practice. Who has time to simultaneously practice both to a deep level? (Not me! )

[Ovidius]

In Thieu Lam school webpages (in Finnish only) the main difference between Shaolinquan and Taijiquan is said to be noi gong, which is a part of mind training: in Taijquan that noi gong part is more emphasized.

[Andrew]

I would guess that by "noi gong", they mean nei gung --- internal art. Somehow I don't think there is a great deal of difference in the complete systems - at least not as we know them in Shaolin Wahnam.

Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

Different for a reason!

The oldest Shaolin Buddhist Kung-Fu styles and systems pre-date all of the current major styles and systems of Tai-Chi Chuan by several hundred years at least. Thus, the Tai-Chi styles we see today were influenced in their development by the Shaolin methods, rather than the other way around. The influence was one of comparison in which the Soft/Internal styles such as Tai-Chi Chuan sought to identify and resolve the weak aspects of Shaolin theory and martial application. Hence, the Internal factors of mind which serve to develop and maintain strong chi energy dynamics were given a top priority in the training, and different physical principles and a different style of athletic performance were adopted to produce different results. Tai-Chi Chuan of any style has a different stylistic 'look' in performance, and a different 'mindset' both in training and in combative application. And of course, built upon Taoist philosophical ideas instead of Ch'an Buddhist ideas.
The older Tai-Chi Chuan styles, especially the older Yang, Chen, and Wu-Tang Shan styles, are a reaction to and an improvement on most Shaolin methods which pre-date them. As a result, the core Shaolin styles have been expanded to include many more methods than the initial Five Animal Styles, and other Buddhist Temple methods have appeared which borrow from the Soft/Internal Styles like Tai-Chi Chuan to develop Hard/Soft combination styles like White Eyebrow Style (Bok Mei Pai), Southern Praying Mantis Style (Kwong-Sai Jook Lum Tong Lung Pai), Wing-Chun Kien, etc.

Additionally, it is quite common for Masters of Shaolin and other Buddhist Temple methods to incorproate Tai-Chi Chuan styles into their personal practices, especially after the age of 40-50 years, for health benefits beyond those found in their primary styles, and as a means of maintaining a high level of fighting skill which doesn't depend on youthful athleticism. It is almost unheard of, however, for Tai-Chi Chuan Masters to add Shaolin styles to their personal practices because they perceive no need to do so! And those who choose to practice both, if they have the available time to do so, rarely attain the highest levels of skill with the Internal Arts since the continued practice of Shaolin Arts and principles are generally an impediment to such development.

I believe that each martial artist must choose one or the other for whatever reasons and then devote themselves wholly to training in the style or system of their choice in order to receive the greatest benefit from their training. Trying to practice both leaves one neither here nor there, i.e. Softer than Hard...but Harder than Soft, more Internal than External...yet more External than true Internal, always impeded by irreconcilable differences!

[MoMoJuice]

Additionally, it is quite common for Masters of Shaolin and other Buddhist Temple methods to incorproate Tai-Chi Chuan styles into their personal practices, especially after the age of 40-50 years, for health benefits beyond those found in their primary styles, and as a means of maintaining a high level of fighting skill which doesn't depend on youthful athleticism.

Dear Sifu Stier,

I would like to add a few things from the very little that I know. Though I'm sure the Shaolin WahNam instructors will have much better comments on this subject.

Traditional Shaolin Kung Fu is very rare these days, and what people "perceive" or know is Shaolin Kung Fu may not be the same as the Shaolin Kung Fu practiced at the Temple 300 years ago. With time everything changes, if we take Tai Chi Chuan for example, we can see that in the last 100 years it has been watered down and degenerated so much that it is mostly thought of as a Dance!

Shaolin Kung Fu as it is practiced everywhere these days is mostly hard and does not contain the "internal" aspects that it once had. After the burning(s) of the Shaolin Temple the monks had to modify the Kung Fu they knew in order to pass these arts to their "revolutionary" students in a shorter time. So "most" of their lineages after that lost most of the essence and the internal aspects. From what I know, real Traditional Shaolin Kung Fu is more internal than Wing-Chun Kien.

It is almost unheard of, however, for Tai-Chi Chuan Masters to add Shaolin styles to their personal practices because they perceive no need to do so!

That may be true. Though from what I read, many of the greatest Tai Chi Chuan masters of the past knew or practiced some "hard" style before learning Tai Chi Chuan. That gave them an advantage over people who practiced nothing before that.

Thank you,
MoMo.

[Antonius]

What most people call Shaolin is what we would call "Third Class Kungfu." It bears little resemblance to genuine Shaolin Kungfu. These days, few people even know that Shaolinquan is an internal martial art, which is a tragedy.

If a Shaolin master needs to incorporate Taijiquan for health benefits, then he's not a genuine Shaolin master. Period. The health benefits of genuine Shaolinquan are at least equal to, and arguably much greater than those of Taijiquan. For example, the internal training methods found in Shaolinquan are far more numerous than those found in Taijiquan.

These days, some so-called Shaolin masters (including some so-called Shaolin monks) incorprorate Taijiquan into their practice because they inherited an incomplete art -- one that is only hard. Genuine Shaolinquan, like all genuine kungfu including Taijiquan, includes aspects of both hard and soft.

Whenever an art is incomplete, people will look elsewhere to fill in the gaps. Sifu Wong has taught Shaolin Chi Kung to hundreds of Tai Chi (Dance) students and also some masters, enabling them to apply internal cultivation to their incomplete Tai Chi. The fact that the vast majority of Tai Chi exponents today have no internal cultivation does not tell us that genuine Taijiquan is incomplete. It merely tells us that genuine Taijiquan, like genuine Shaolinquan, is very rare.

[Sifu Stier]

What a hoot! You would be wise to recant before certain Masters track you down, Anthony, to administer a reality check! I seriously doubt that notable Grandmasters like Chan Pui (Wah-Lum Temple Northern Praying Mantis), Wong Doc-Fai (Choy Lee Fut), or Yang Jwing-Ming (Northern Shaolin Chuan), among many others, consider their Shaolin Arts to be 'Third Class Kung-Fu', nor consider themselves less than fully qualified Masters of their respective Buddhist Temple Styles, or these Arts as incomplete just because they perceive some benefits from the practice of Tai-Chi Chuan in addition to their primary styles. In fact, Master Chan Pui also lives in the State of Florida, so I'll see what I can do to make sure that you are able to connect with him and his school. You've been so good to me here, that this is the least I can do for one as deserving as you!

Most non-Chinese practitioners think that knowing more material equates to attaining higher skill levels, as you stated. Nothing could be further from the truth! Quality in training, not quantity of learned sets and training exercises,
is the only assurance of attaining high skill levels in any style. Period.

It is true as you said that all styles combine elements of Hard and Soft in varying degrees. It is exactly this difference by degree that makes it so difficult to combine styles at opposite ends of the spectrum from one another. None of the Shaolin Style Masters mentioned above, or any of a long list of other legitimate Masters, consider their Arts to be only Hard. Your totally erroneous perception of other styles will no doubt be modified after your inevitable 'reality checks'. Your attitude invites challenges from those who resent being labeled as 'Third Class', 'non-genuine', 'incomplete', 'so-called Masters'. Wow! I surely do not envy you. Enjoy!

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

I'm already acquainted with Sifu Chan Pui, Sifu Wong Doc-Fai, and Sifu Yang Jwing Ming. I've met all three of these gentlemen, and enjoyed their books. I've trained with Sifu Yang, watched Sifu Wong Doc-Fai's classes, and seen Sifu Chan's demonstrations. However, I did not refer to their Kungfu as "Third Class," so I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

The Kungfu most people today associate with "Shaolin" is that of the modern "monks". It is this Kungfu that I was referring to when I mentioned "Third Class Kungfu."

Dr. Yang began his study of Taijiquan at age 16, so he is hardly an example of a Shaolin master "switching" to Taijiquan. Furthermore, I'm sure Dr. Yang would agree that his Shaolin White Crane has more than enough Chi Kung to promote health.

Sifu Wong Doc-Fai is a grandmaster of Choy Li Fatt, which is an external school of Shaolin that emphasizes combat efficiency, not health. Anyway, I believe Sifu Wong Doc Fai has been practicing Taijiquan since he was in his 30s.

To the best of my knowledge, Sifu Chan Pui has been practicing Taijiquan since the 1970s, but I believe it is his wife's specialty, though I could be wrong. Furthermore, Northern Praying Mantis Kungfu, though of Shaolin origin, is not technically Shaolinquan. The Wahlum system of Chan Pui is Tanglanquan and is more closely connected to the Wahlum temple in Shantung province.

[Zhang Wuji]

First of all, let me express my admiration of Andrew and Antonius, who presumably do not know the Vietnamese language to infer that Thieu Lam means Shaolin, and noi gong - neigong.

As was mentioned in the Thieu Lam Taijiquan thread, there is no history of Taijiquan in Vietnamese martial arts. The reason for this can be found in the political history of VIetnam and China. Circa 1500, the two cultures which had enjoyed very close corss-cultural exchanges, began deviating and the break was complete when the Roman Latin alphabet was used to replace the written language of the higher classes. Before that, one can directly translate words from Chinese into Vietnamese, which was much like another spoken dialect (the Vietnamese will probably kill me for this )

Taijiquan became popular in the Qing dynasty, by which time, Vietnam was quite isolated from China politically. It is therefore not unlikely that Taijiquan was not seen in Vietnam unlike Shaolinquan which was transmitted there 1000 years ago. Also, Taijiquan is a northern art, given its status in Beijing. Geographically, it was unlikely for it to have reached the deep south before the 20th century.

Why the digression into history? Well, I have heard of and read about Vietnamese masters who were very accomplished in their qigong levels. They can perfrom the same feats as Chinese masters without the benefit of Taijiquan in their culture. HIgh-level Taijiquan and Shaolinquan achieve the same ultimate benefits - combat efficiency, spiritual cultivation and health.

What I am thinking about is - what happens if you take the two routes of Shaolinquan and Taijiquan simultanously to reach that same destination? If there are dfferences in their training methodology and principles, would training in both together cancel the benefits of either out?

StierSifu seems to suggest this (correct me if I did not understand correctly):

It is almost unheard of, however, for Tai-Chi Chuan Masters to add Shaolin styles to their personal practices because they perceive no need to do so! And those who choose to practice both, if they have the available time to do so, rarely attain the highest levels of skill with the Internal Arts since the continued practice of Shaolin Arts and principles are generally an impediment to such development

Perhaps StierSifu could expand on this topic, since high-level Shaolinquan has the same elements of Taijiquan - it is supposed to be flowing and rou, not hard like beginner's Shaolinquan (or should i say 3rd class kungfu). I think both you and Antonius agree that true Shaolinquan masters "combine elements of Hard and Soft in varying degrees". Would it be right to say a true Taijiquan master need not incorporate Shaolinquan and vice versa?

I would also be interested to know more about:

The older Tai-Chi Chuan styles, especially the older Yang, Chen, and Wu-Tang Shan styles, are a reaction to and an improvement on most Shaolin methods which pre-date them

What was it about the Shaolin principles that needed improvement?

Because Shaolinquan was so varied, is it possible that Taijiquan was meant to improve on the lower levels, instead of very high-level Shaolinquan like One-Finger Zen (yizhi chan) and Yijin Jing/Xisui Jing, which are most certainly not pure Hard?

Did Zhang Sanfeng create a totally new art with conflicting principles (conflicting with Shaolinquan) or was it just his training method that was different (practice slow, use fast), along with improvements like "sticking jing" which I don't think is present in Shaolinquan (although other "jing" like "listening jing" is at higher levels, according to the wuxia novels I have read).

[Darryl]

High Level vs High Level

high-level Shaolinquan has the same elements of Taijiquan - it is supposed to be flowing and rou, not hard like beginner's Shaolinquan (or should i say 3rd class kungfu)

One key misunderstanding that may be present here is that we may be referring to a High-level practitioner and a High-level Art in different ways.

I teach Shaolinquan and I teach it to beginners. Within Shaolin Wahnam, I am definitely a beginner. Within any genuine Internal Art, I am definitely a beginner. Recently, I gave a demonstration of footwork at a Kungfu school in Malaysia and when I said I was a beginner, they corrected me and wouldn't accept that I was a beginner. Cultural differences aside, the key point is that I am most definitely not at the 'High-level' of a genuine Internal Master.

I have had several students come to my classes who have practiced either Aikido or Taijiquan before, yet they have been amazed to discover that the 'hard Shaolinquan' taught within my class was more internal that the 'soft' arts that they had previously been learning. This is a key difference of High-level teachings - even though the student is at the beginning, it's very apparent that the Art is both Hard and Soft right from the start.

High level arts themselves are not neccessarilly always taught at a high level, nor are the practitioners of these arts neccessarily of a high level. There is no insult or accusation here, just an open and honest statement. While the majority of Internal Arts nowadays are a shadow of what they were and what they could be (an example of a High level art being taught at a low level), a High level Art has little to no need for any other Arts to be included. This is not an insult to other styles, to other Masters or to other lineages purely because I am refering to High Level Arts, not just Shaolin Wahnam. I truly believe that the Shaolinquan taught by Sifu Wong is taught as a High Level Art and I count myself extremely fortunate that I am able to train in such an Art. The fact that I trained in other arts beforehand gives me a comparison between high and low level Arts, practitioners and teachings (not teachers). Some of the other members within Shaolin Wahnam also trained with low, mid and high level Masters in low, mid and high Level Arts.

In summary, someone can be a low level practitioner of a high level Art. The Art itself does not automatically solve all purposes and ideals of the practitioner, but it may have the potential to do so. A high level practitioner of a low level Art may reach the limits of their Art and go looking for more, or they may adapt what they have learned to suit their purposes. When a High Level practitioner adapts a High Level Art, they must have their reasons for doing so. As to what those reasons are, it is unlikely that Low to Mid level practitioners would know or even understand the reasons beyond intellectual consideration.

[Antonius]

Hi Wuji.

Thank you for the history diversion. Very interesting.

If there are dfferences in their training methodology and principles, would training in both together cancel the benefits of either out?

I don't think so. If you tried to simultaneously practice Shotokan Karate and Taijiquan, they might conflict. But not Shaolinquan and Taijiquan.

I think Emiko's excellent post on Noodle Making might be of interest here. Basically, I think both Shaolinquan and Taijiquan are kinds of noodles.

Wuji, it might also help to think of Shaolinquan more along the lines of other internal martial arts, like Xingyiquan and Baguazhang. Xingyiquan is certainly "harder" than Taijiquan, and yet many masters, especially around the turn of the century in China, practiced it and and other combinations of the "Three Internals" together without conflict. So just think of Shaolinquan as another "Internal."

Did Zhang Sanfeng create a totally new art with conflicting principles (conflicting with Shaolinquan) or was it just his training method that was different (practice slow, use fast), along with improvements like "sticking jing" which I don't think is present in Shaolinquan (although other "jing" like "listening jing" is at higher levels, according to the wuxia novels I have read).

I think it's important to remember that the Shaolinquan today is different than the Shaolinquan of Zhang Sanfeng's time. The art evolved. Furthermore, the scope of the art as it exists today (in our tradition) is so vast that it is difficult to say "this is Shaolinquan."

For example, different brances of Shaolinquan also includes "sticking jing." Remember that Wing Choon came from Shaolin, so "sticking hands" is in the category of "sticking jing." Similarly, the "kneading hands" of Wuzuquan (Five Ancestors' Kungfu) and "asking bridge" of Hung Ga Kungfu are also examples of "sticking jing."

For those who know Crossroads at Four Gates, the first few movments of the set are a form of "sticking jing." Combat Sequence 17 also involves "sticking jing."

[Sifu Stier]

Hsing-Yi Chuan, properly practiced and performed, is not 'harder' than real Tai-Chi Chuan. The principles of its practice are the same, but the 'look' of the Form Sets are initially different in appearance. I say 'initially' because the Fast Tai-Chi Chuan Set of Yang Pan-Hou, performed with small circles, more compact stances, more agile footwork, and a faster speed of performance than the Long Imperial Form Set, looks very much like the Shan-Hsi Hsing-Yi Chuan Form Set. So much so, in fact, that if the two Sets were performed one after the other, most audiences would think that they were the same style, and if performed together without any pause between the end of one and the beginning of the other, they would appear to most folks as one long unified Set. It is exactly because the various styles of Tai-Chi Chuan, Hsing-Yi Chuan, and Pa-Kua Chang are based on identical principles, both mentally and physically, that they can be practiced and taught together without any conflict of interest or mutual impediment to respective skills development. This is not true of the concurrent practice of any or all of these Arts with most Shaolin Arts. You are only deceiving yourself to think otherwise.

And lastly, if your Shaolin Arts are so complete and perfect, and as good or better than the true Internal Arts, why do you include Tai-Chi Chuan in your teaching synopsis? The Shaolin material should be totally sufficient in and of itself, shouldn't it? If it lacks nothing, why was something else added to it? The discrepancies and contradictions of your comments are many indeed!

[Darryl]

Dear Sifu Steir,

I'm not sure if your comments were aimed at me or not, but I'll answer them anyway .

why do you include Tai-Chi Chuan in your teaching synopsis?

I don't. I teach Shaolin Kungfu and Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung. I don't teach Taijiquan, nor do I practice Taijiquan. However, some of the Shaolin Wahnam family have chosen to learn Taijiquan from my Sifu instead of learning Shaolin Kungfu. Correspondingly, they don't teach Shaolin Kungfu in their classes.

While some of the skills and tactics used may be very similar - and indeed, the patterns may look very similar - the fundamental philosophies and strategies behind the patterns are far more likely to show the differences in the respective Arts.

The Shaolin material should be totally sufficient in and of itself, shouldn't it?

Yes . If you were to ask one of my Taijiquan brothers or sisters, they would be able to give an answer as to why they practice Taijiquan but since I don't, I won't.

If it lacks nothing, why was something else added to it?

It wasn't. As I said before, the existing Art was adapted by someone who had already reached a very High Level in their own practice. Since I haven't reached such a High Level, it would be pointless for me to attempt to understand why they did what they did and instead, I would benefit far more by continuing to practice my own Art and increase my own understanding of that Art. As I said before, I am a beginner in my chosen Art and precisely because I am a beginner, I don't worry about what I know, or what I think I know and instead I train, I take my time and I progress in my Art while enjoying my life.

The discrepancies and contradictions of your comments are many indeed!

There are no contradictions and hopefully this post will help to clear up any of the misunderstandings that may have arisen. As I said before, I'm talking of High Level Arts, not just High Level Shaolin Kungfu.

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

You are only deceiving yourself to think otherwise.

Thank you for your concern, but I will stick with my own opinions. Having studied Taijiquan, Baguazhang, and (internal!) Shaolinquan, I can see the similarities and differences from direct experience. If you choose to think that this is deluded, then that is your prerogative.

However, it is fairly obvious from your posts that you have no experience of internal Shaolinquan, so I don't really see how you can compare it accurately with other arts.

And lastly, if your Shaolin Arts are so complete and perfect, and as good or better than the true Internal Arts, why do you include Tai-Chi Chuan in your teaching synopsis?

It is not included in the synopsis. I don't teach Taijiquan to any of my students.

A few years back, Sifu Wong chose to start teaching Taijiquan precisely because many of his students (who came to him eager to make their Tai Chi dance internal) begged him to teach it. Rather than teach them Shaolinquan to fix the problems with their Taijiquan, Sifu decided (in line with Shaolin philosophy) to be more direct and to simply teach them Taijiquan. He continues to give students that option, which is very generous.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see Sifu stop teaching Taijiquan over the next few years (except to his Wahnam Taijiquan disciples). Sifu has a soft spot for Taijiquan, but Shaolinquan is his real passion.

The Shaolin material should be totally sufficient in and of itself, shouldn't it? If it lacks nothing, why was something else added to it?

There are no discrepancies. Since you enjoy spending so much time on our site, perhaps you might do a little reading to acquaint yourself with the philoshophies and practicies of Shaolin Wahnam as taught by Sifu Wong Kiew Kit. The Table of Contents might be a good place to start. The article, Why Shaolin Kungfu is the Greatest Martial Art, might also be of interest.

To answer your question, our Shaolin arts are more than sufficient. Nothing was added to them. If anything, Sifu Wong took his Shaolin arts and applied them TO Taijiquan, not vice versa. If Sifu's Taijiquan is powerful (which it is), then it's because of his Shaolinquan.

It is worthwhile to point out that the hundreds upon hundreds of Sifu Wong's students who have been cured of so-called incurable illnesses were all cured by practicing Shaolin Chi Kung, not Taijiquan or Taiji Chi Kung.

So in short, Sifu doesn't teach Taijiquan to complete his Shaolinquan, but rather teaches Taijiquan to help people complete their Taijiquan. Sifu has a humorous quote that has become famous in Shaolin Wahnam. I will paraphrase the sentiment (which is meant to be amusing) here:

-Chi Kung is for lazy people.
-Taijiquan is for people who are willing to work a bit harder.
-Shaolinquan is for people who want the very best and are willing to work extremely hard for it.