Lok Hup Ba Fa (luihebafa)

[DaPoets]

There are a small number of these odd spin off groups that praise Master Moy Lin Shin as if he himself endorsed their group when that is not the case. It's actually kinda sad that they teach Master Moy's Taoist Tai Chi, and then just call it Yang style... Their students are really confused. At least the TTCS students know that Master Moy's Tai chi is a hybrid of Yang and his own Taoist teachings...

Master Moy frequently went to China to see his teacher when ever he could... Since Ben Chung is doing his own thing and teaching Master Moy's Tai Chi, who does Ben Chung and his crew go to for training? Nobody from TTCS is teaching him....

 

[DaPoets]

Also in a somewhat traditional manner I guess... Master Moy didn't teach anyone everything he knew, he spread it around to different people. Even Tony Kwon only knows a large chunck of what Master Moy wanted to teach and he trained with him nearly every day for 28 years. (Tony is my instructor)

 

[mograph]

There are a small number of these odd spin off groups that praise Master Moy Lin Shin as if he himself endorsed their group when that is not the case.

I thought praising your late sifu was respectful?

It's actually kinda sad that they teach Master Moy's Taoist Tai Chi, and then just call it Yang style... Their students are really confused. At least the TTCS students know that Master Moy's Tai chi is a hybrid of Yang and his own Taoist teachings...

Outside the TTCS, it is a "modified Yang style set" or a variation of the Yang style set. Only the TTCS calls it "Taoist Tai Chi". Mr. Moy's modifications weren''t significant enough to warrant referring to the set as a unique style like Chen, Wu and Yang. Even Cheng Man-ching (you've heard of him?) referred to his set as "Yang Tai Chi in 37 Postures."

Master Moy frequently went to China to see his teacher when ever he could... Since Ben Chung is doing his own thing and teaching Master Moy's Tai Chi, who does Ben Chung and his crew go to for training? Nobody from TTCS is teaching him....

Where does Mr. Kwon go for training?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Outside the TTCS, it is a "modified Yang style set" or a variation of the Yang style set. Only the TTCS calls it "Taoist Tai Chi". Mr. Moy's modifications weren''t significant enough to warrant referring to the set as a unique style like Chen, Wu and Yang. Even Cheng Man-ching (you've heard of him?) referred to his set as "Yang Tai Chi in 37 Postures."

Exactly, it is, at least to me (a traditional Yang guy) modified Yang. And if you are talking to the Yang family they do not call the style of Cheng Manching Yang style either they call it Chang Manching style. I am guessing the Yang family would not call anything that TTCS does Yang style but I have not heard or read any comment by the Yang family on TTCS

Where does Mr. Kwon go for training?

If I understand where you are going with this I feel this is a good question. There comes a time when you no longer need to go train with your sifu. My sifu has not trained with his sifu for many many years and he was allowed to go out on his own, per his sifu, prior to his sifus death.

Just because someone no longer sees their sifu or another sifu for training is not necessarily a bad thing. And in some cases it can be a real good thing, names like Chen Wangting, Yang Luchan, Wu Yuxiang, Wu Jianquan Sun Lutang come to mind

 

[East Winds]

One of the things I object to with the TTCS and Moy's teachings is that he had the arrogance to believe that he could "improve" on a form synthesised by one of the all time great Masters. A quote from Gu Liuxin is "After Yang Cheng-fu went south, he began to explicitly emphasise the use of taijiquan in treating illness and protecting health" What has Moy added to the Yang Family Taijiquan form that was not already put there by Yang Cheng-fu?

Very best wishes

 

[DaPoets]

The forms look obviously different, especially the stretching, hip placement, and intent of the movments, So I'm surprised at your question... But to be honest that's odd that you call it arrogance when those that created new forms were not nessecarily "great masters" at the time, but because of what they created they were eventually considered "great masters". A new form has to start from somewhere and because a form is new, it's going to be critisized and ripped apart by others as it's practice spreads. It's the way of things I guess.

My strength, balance, endurance, agility, awareness, state of mind, are all on a much higher level now due to my intense Taoist Tai Chi practice for the last 6 months (12 years of doing it but pretty intense the last 6 months as I have more free time in my life now). Now if I were practicing a more traditional form would I be improving even more? Who's to say, and yeah perhaps since TTCS isn't the end all be all, but the bennifits are amazing.

About the Tony Question on who he trains with, he actually spoke about how much he practices last night and his own personal development, and he did just get back from traveling in China for nearly a month. I didn't ask any question about it as it wasn't really the right time. Perhaps next week. It was a great class last night in Toronto though... I'm pretty much there every Tuesday and the class is 2 - 3 hours long.

One of the things I object to with the TTCS and Moy's teachings is that he had the arrogance to believe that he could "improve" on a form synthesised by one of the all time great Masters. A quote from Gu Liuxin is "After Yang Cheng-fu went south, he began to explicitly emphasise the use of taijiquan in treating illness and protecting health" What has Moy added to the Yang Family Taijiquan form that was not already put there by Yang Cheng-fu?

Very best wishes

 

[East Winds]

DaPoets,

Thanks for your continued input to this board. However, like most members of the TTCS you are "looking through the wrong end of the telescope". Members of the Chen, Yang, Wu and Sun families who developed their respective forms were acknowledged by their peers to be great masters. They didn't have to wait for it to happen.

"Now if I were practicing a more traditional form would I be improving even more"?. The simple answer is yes. By ignoring the martial (the Yang aspect if you like) you are ignoring 50% of Taiji. The TTCS emphasises the Yin aspect to the detriment of energy balance. Also I would be very happy to debate the merits of TTCS postures in relation to Traditional Yang Family postures, but that would perhaps better be placed on a new thread.

However I admire your fortitude in continuing to defend the TTCS in the face of such criticism. The unfortunate aspect is the continued regurgitation of TTCS propaganda.

Very best wishes

 

[mograph]

Also I would be very happy to debate the merits of TTCS postures in relation to Traditional Yang Family postures ...

As would I, since I'd like to know more about Yang style postures as an expression of the Tai Chi Classics. Possibly with the Wile translation as a basis?

- TTCS
- Yang
- Classics

Shall we start a new thread, East Winds?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Possibly with the Wile translation as a basis?

I know of Pinyin (which is what I deal in) and Wade-Giles which if forced I can change Pinyin to and a Yale romanization systems which I know little about.

But what is the Wile Translation?

Or is that a translator that translated some text?

 

[mograph]

Sorry Xuesheng, I should have been more specific: I meant the translation by Douglas Wile in his book Lost T'ai-chi Classics from the Late Ch'ing Dynasty. Here's the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Tai-Chi-Classics-Dynasty-Chinese-Philosophy/dp/079142653X

It contains both English (Wade-Giles, maybe) and Chinese text, so the subtleties of the text are made accessible to Chinese readers.

Or another book would be fine ...

 

[East Winds]

mograph,

Yes, that would be a good idea. I have Douglas Wile's book. Incidentally, another very book by Wile is "Tai Chi's Ancestors : The Making of an Internal Martial Art" " (ISBN 0-912059-04-4).

Very best wishes

 

[DaPoets]

Seems like an interesting book. I'll have to read it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry Xuesheng, I should have been more specific: I meant the translation by Douglas Wile in his book Lost T'ai-chi Classics from the Late Ch'ing Dynasty. Here's the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Tai-Chi-Classics-Dynasty-Chinese-Philosophy/dp/079142653X

It contains both English (Wade-Giles, maybe) and Chinese text, so the subtleties of the text are made accessible to Chinese readers.

Or another book would be fine ...

Thanks.

 

[jamelser]

Hi All,

Interesting that I stumbled across this site (at this point in my life). I thought I would just add a few pennies worth of info on this topic. Sorry if I am long winded about this.

The essence of the training through the TTCS, FLK and GPLHA was that of tempering the body and taming the heart (dual cultivation) through physical training or meditation. Physical training could be seen as 'one' path to help the relief of suffering of sentient beings.

The founder (Mr. Moy) was a monk, first, and used martial training (tai chi, lok hup) as a way to progress individuals development. Other ways of training or tempering were volunterism, meditation, Taoist/Buddhist rituals, understanding propriety, etc. He did have a profound understanding of the internals, and taught from the prospective of health and development. The organizations give an opportunity, on a broad global scale, to experience or understand this tradition. In the beginning of the organization, focus was on martial applications, but that focus receded and other directions took precedent.

Does that mean the TTCS is a one stop shop......in my humble opinion, no.

I have seen many debates about the merits of the TTCS, it's tai chi or it's chi kung, and have come to the place that the it really doesn't matter. The TTCS has a place in the world and offers many things, as do other disciplines. The problem lies in the discussion of 'who's better' or 'whats missing'. I have heard this debate in both the TTCS and on these types of forums.

Human grouping causes us to segregate, define, place value, etc......where as the training that we all do, should melt those distinctions. Where can we see the value of all things regardless.


Small tangent...........

It is impossible to know the addicts pain, until we ourselves try to let go of our own attachments.

So....It really is impossible for a non-tai chi person to 'know' what tai chi is all about unless they do it. It really is impossible to know the value of what TTCS has to offer until you are immersed in it. It is impossible to know what another discipline has to offer until you are immersed in that training.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Having said all of that, after a certain point, there are some fundamental things that the TTCS does that places limits on progression. Some of these blocks are intentional and others are not. Some of them were pointed out in this post. If individuals are developed enough to see those blocks, and choose to circumvent them then, for the betterment of themselves, then yes, there are consequences, within the parameters of the TTCS. Just as similar to the Catholic church frowning upon a church leader practicing Buddhism. It may not be conducive to an open learning process, but is probably necessary, in those groups minds, to the survival or purity of the organization.


I trained for 13 years, in the TTCS learning as many of the disciplines and it's nuances as I could (including Lok Hup). I was immersed, passionate and open. I wholehearted supported the activities and contributed my time and energy. I progressed a lot and if I stayed, I could have probably learned more, except as I developed, I felt I needed a different perspective. In my mind, to be a better teacher, I felt I needed to learn other forms, other styles, to understand better. In the position that I was in, I would not have been afforded that option.


My point is that I personally had undergone, intense wonderful transformations and understanding through the TTCS. Many people have had these transformations through the TTCS. Unfortunately, I have seen discussion from people from other styles that play down, even cut down, these transformations. This is unfortunate. On the other side of the coin, the TTCS does exactly the same thing with it's members, in reducing or minimizing the effects of what other styles offer. This is also unfortunate.


Again, this has been an interesting and timely post for me. I am now training with another group and I am learning tons from this other style. Some complimentary, some completely different. Interestingly enough, my instructor is happily taking instruction from me on lok hup ba fa. I have longed for this type of symbiotic relationship and it seems I have found it.


Sorry again for the long winded post. Just my 2 cents.

Regards,


J

 

[taichiplayer]

There are a small number of these odd spin off groups that praise Master Moy Lin Shin as if he himself endorsed their group when that is not the case.

Actually that is not the case in my experience. Any group I have talked to never claimed to be endorsed by Moy Lin Shin himself. They only say that they received training from him.

It's actually kinda sad that they teach Master Moy's Taoist Tai Chi, and then just call it Yang style... Their students are really confused. At least the TTCS students know that Master Moy's Tai chi is a hybrid of Yang and his own Taoist teachings...

I'm afraid you are somewhat misled here as well. My experience is that most students know the lineage of their art. What makes it difficult is that the TTCS has trademarked the name, so out of respect for the TTCS and of course the law of the land, they are prevented from using the words Taoist Tai Chi. As a matter of fact, the opposite is quite true. 100% of the teachers taught by Master Moy that I have had the pleasure of knowing, TTCS or non-TTCS have nothing but profound respect and gratitude for the man. In my book that is something we could all learn from.


Master Moy frequently went to China to see his teacher when ever he could... Since Ben Chung is doing his own thing and teaching Master Moy's Tai Chi, who does Ben Chung and his crew go to for training? Nobody from TTCS is teaching him....

I would also like to point out that this little tidbit is useless information. Of course he did. I expect I will go back to my teacher from time to time as well. The important fact here is that there is no more Master Moy for any of these teachers to go back to. So the whole idea is really quite pointless. It doesn't make any difference whether you are a TTCS member or not. Nobody can go back to the source any more, not even the TTCS.

 

[mograph]

Nobody can go back to the source any more, not even the TTCS.

When a master dies leaving more than one disciple, or without a clear disciple, there's bound to be a shift or a split. There's no guarantee that the organization remaining on the property after the split will give the best instruction. For that, one should look to the disciple(s), wherever they are, and if they exist.

But of course, taichiplayer is right. Nobody, even the disciples, can go back to the source if he has passed on. The disciples become the new source, one degree removed.

 

[taichiplayer]

When a master dies leaving more than one disciple, or without a clear disciple, there's bound to be a shift or a split. There's no guarantee that the organization remaining on the property after the split will give the best instruction. For that, one should look to the disciple(s), wherever they are, and if they exist.

But of course, taichiplayer is right. Nobody, even the disciples, can go back to the source if he has passed on. The disciples become the new source, one degree removed.

I would like to make one clarification here. I mean no offense to TTCS. I have had great instructors in and out of that organization and am eternally grateful for the basic training I received. While I am no longer with TTCS, that is mainly due to the political climate that exists there and the outrageous fees they charge for training. They have a wonderful facility and if you can find them, some fine instructors. My path did not lead me in that direction. That's it. No other hidden meanings at all.

 

[taichiplayer]

I'd like to bring this thread back to the original topic of Lok Hup Ba Fa.

I find that the "what club you belong to thread" to be quite unproductive.

Has anyone read Paul Dillon's translation of Li Dongfengs Five Character Secrets? It is published by YMAA and is not available from them at this time.

It is a really good read on the origins of Liuhebafa and I was wondering if there are anyone has some opinions or comments about the book?

 

[mograph]

Amazon seems to have Dillon's book.

I liked it, particularly the character-by-character translation. Dillon also includes a more polished English translation, with the caveat that it's just one possible translation, and that's fine.

I think the text can be applied to any Chinese martial art. Sorry, I'd give a more in-depth review, but the book is out on loan right now.

Here's a review:
http://www.themartialist.com/0304/fivecharacter.htm

 

[Formosa Neijia]

I'd like to bring this thread back to the original topic of Lok Hup Ba Fa.

I find that the "what club you belong to thread" to be quite unproductive.

Has anyone read Paul Dillon's translation of Li Dongfengs Five Character Secrets? It is published by YMAA and is not available from them at this time.

It is a really good read on the origins of Liuhebafa and I was wondering if there are anyone has some opinions or comments about the book?

I have it and it's good. The way he breaks down the Chinese is unique. You can really get a feel for the language. He gives multiple translations: literal, flowing, and then a commentary. Plus he gives the Chinese characters and pinyin.

It's a great book. Get it while you can.