Intent Yi (意)

[windwalker099]

Have looked at the older threads on "intent"

Thought it might be interesting to discuss common reactions people have,
if any when used.

In the video, the teacher uses his finger to help channel intent through his body, the other person’s body reacts to the intent.

When working with his student, you can see the teacher’s whole body respond — even though the student might not fully understand what’s happening.
The teacher talks him through it, creating a reaction.

When the teacher demonstrates directly on the student, the student’s responses are smaller, localized more contained.
This causes the teacher to extend physical further so the student can sense what’s going on.

Why might one person’s reaction be full-bodied, while another’s is more localized?

 

[Marsha Larts]

The most direct method of imparting understanding of that application that I've seen.

Good on that teacher

 

[Fungus]

Our shihan also teaches that intent is the most important thing. It is ideal harmony between mind body and spirit; as opposed to mechanistically doing a technique without intent, which is gets weak.

So when then judge your techhiqnue, the heart is seeing that you have intent, that you mean to accomplish sometihg with your technique - be it to break or finish your opponent. If intent is in place, they will overlook technical flaws in execution.

 

[windwalker099]

Our shihan also teaches that intent is the most important thing. It is ideal harmony between mind body and spirit; as opposed to mechanistically doing a technique without intent, which is gets weak.

So when then judge your techhiqnue, the heart is seeing that you have intent, that you mean to accomplish sometihg with your technique - be it to break or finish your opponent. If intent is in place, they will overlook technical flaws in execution.

Some thoughts,

Having genuine resolve — is essential in any martial art.

In Chinese internal arts, 意 (Yì) is a little more nuanced then the English translation of "intent"

On one level, it works on the other person’s center — moving it directly or leading it to shift — often without them realizing it. That’s why balance can be lost, or the ground can seem to disappear underfoot, before any visible movement occurs.

In the video, the teacher uses pointing as a physical reference — as a way to channel intent through it without being caught up in the physicality of the point being focused through.

Even if the student can’t feel what it’s acting on, the teacher can still create a reaction by guiding and correcting the student’s movement and focus — acting as their feedback loop allowing the student to use it on him..

When the teacher demos on the student. He may not understand he is already off balance, the student requires the teacher to extend the physical action further to him realize that he is.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When working with his student, you can see the teacher’s whole body respond
...

When the teacher demonstrates directly on the student, the student’s responses are smaller, localized more contained. ... Why might one person’s reaction be full-bodied, while another’s is more localized?

Which respond should be the correct one?

If you push me,

- I rotate my body, yield, and guide your force away, I don't need to move my feet.
- I borrow your force, jump back, I need to move my feet.

IMO, both are correct responds. If you want to

- "borrow force", full-bodied is better.
- "yield", localized is better.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In Chinese internal arts, 意 (Yì) is a little more nuanced then the English translation of "intent"

Yi (thinking) is abstract. It's difficult to control when your Yi (thinking) start and when your Yi (thinking) stop. Qi (breathing) is concrete. It's easier to control when your Qi (breathing) start and when your Qi (breathing) stop. It's easier to control your Qi than to control your Yi.

I just did "sit to stand" test 2 days ago. During my test,

- if I think about my breathing and allow my body to coordinate with my breathing, I can do 23 within 30 seconds.
- if I think about my body movement without thing about my breathing, I cannot reach to that number.

This is why I always believe that "Taiji 1 move should be equal to either 1 inhale, or 1 exhale" training is important. Many Taiji people do their form so slow that each move can be longer than 1 inhale or 1 exhale. When they do that, I don't know how they can train Yi, Li, Qi coordination.

 

[windwalker099]

Interesting post,,,some thoughts

Yi (thinking) is abstract.

Agree

Don’t consider myself any kind of authority on this, have had an interest in it for quite some time.

My first interactions with the word came in Beijing with my teacher’s group. I asked about something I felt during training, and was told:

This is called Yì (意) — don’t think about it, don’t try to practice it, don’t force it. In time, it will come, and you will know it.

This thread isn’t really about the theory, although it can help explain some of the reactions.
The question raised was about the difference in reactions between the student and the teacher shown in the video. It’s interesting — the obvious question is: why is the teacher’s reaction so different from the student’s?
Or is it ?

It's difficult to control when your Yi (thinking) start and when your Yi (thinking) stop. Qi (breathing) is concrete. It's easier to control when your Qi (breathing) start and when your Qi (breathing) stop. It's easier to control your Qi than to control your Yi.

I just did "sit to stand" test 2 days ago. During my test,

- if I think about my breathing and allow my body to coordinate with my breathing, I can do 23 within 30 seconds.
- if I think about my body movement without thing about my breathing, I cannot reach to that number.

This is why I always believe that "Taiji 1 move should be equal to either 1 inhale, or 1 exhale" training is important. Many Taiji people do their form so slow that each move can be longer than 1 inhale or 1 exhale. When they do that, I don't know how they can train Yi, Li, Qi coordination.

In some practices, one is told not to think about the breath at all. In others, reverse breathing is emphasized. In our group, breathing was never a major focus — just a few simple guidelines: inhale through the mouth, exhale through the nose.

When I work with others, I tell them: just exhale. The rest will take care of itself

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm not familiar with "intent" at least I don't think so.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'm not familiar with "intent" at least I don't think so.

My definition may be slightly different than in CMA, but the below quote comes close:

you have intent, that you mean to accomplish sometihg with your technique - be it to break or finish your opponent.

To put it another way, it is a committed purpose of action. Musashi wrote something like, "When you cut you must be intent on killing the enemy." It is the overriding purpose of an action. Another way of saying, "do it like you mean it."

In class or kata practice you should visualize the opponent in front of you, meaning to do you harm rather than just lazily throwing out a technique. (Sometimes you do practice slow and easy to work on execution, but you must also practice sometimes as if you're in a real fight. Without this element one's martial progress will be lacking.) Watching a particular form done with and without intent will look almost like two different forms - The difference between reciting and singing a song.

In an actual fight intent gives your technique an abstract boost on an unconscious level:

If intent is in place, they will overlook technical flaws in execution.

Aside from competition or testing (something I considered in grading), this is true in an actual fight to some degree. Intent is just not going berserker, it is more quiet and internal, a strong guiding controlled hand that affects and focuses one's state of mind and technique effectiveness and IMO, "proper" form takes a back seat.

Our shihan also teaches that intent is the most important thing

It is a very important part of good MA - without it, it is not "martial."

 

[windwalker099]

I'm not familiar with "intent" at least I don't think so.

IME kinda depends on the practice.

To check if one's understanding is the same...one might see if they can cause the same reactions in another person
as shown in the video or others like it..

Something developed indirectly, used directly.

Most references to the "word" Yì (意) can be found within practices based on using the concept directly.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

one might see if they can cause the same reactions in another person

I asked you a question in another thread and you didn't answer. My question is, "If you can push a 200 lb opponent back, can you push a 200 lb animal, or 200 lb dead weight back?" If the answer is no, what will be your reason?

If "internal" power can only work on a live human being, what's the usage of "internal" power if you are alone in the woods all by yourself?

 

[windwalker099]

I asked you a question in another thread and you didn't answer. My question is, "If you can push a 200 lb opponent back, can you push a 200 lb animal, or 200 lb dead weight back?" If the answer is no, what will be your reason?

If "internal" power can only work on a live human being, what's the usage of "internal" power if you are alone in the woods all by yourself?

No answer is still an answer.

At the time, if one had been offered, would you have understood or accepted it?

You’re starting from your own premise and asking me to validate it.

From my own direct experience, “internal” skill works with a living body’s balance, nervous system, and structural tension. Those factors don’t exist in dead weight or act the same way in an animal, so the effect won’t be the same. It’s not about raw mass — it’s about how that mass is organized and responsive in the moment.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

“internal” skill works with a living body’s balance, nervous system, and structural tension. Those factors don’t exist in dead weight or act the same way in an animal, so the effect won’t be the same. It’s not about raw mass — it’s about how that mass is organized and responsive in the moment.

Thanks for your answer.

Will "internal" power works on a blindfold person? In other words, if your opponent closes his eyes, can you still use your "internal" power to push him back?

The reason that I ask because I know if I hold a sharp knife and stab toward my opponent, before my knife can touch on his chest, he may jump back (similar to LKJ). But if my opponent is blindfold, his respond will be different.

Does this mean that "internal" power is more phycology than physical?