I read on someone's website recently that Yueh Fei created Hsing-Yi by adapting Baji techniques for use by soldiers wearing armor. Is Baji an "internal" art? Anyone have an informed take on this?

There are (many) different versions of history that lie behind the two arts. While you can never be certain with these things, most stories would indicate that the earliest verifiable teachers of the two arts are Ji Long Feng (a.k.a Ji Ji Ke) a Hsing I teacher who was born around 1620, and Wu Zhong who is said to have learned Baji as a youth from a Daoist priest around 1730. Some attribute the actual founding of the arts to these two people, and if true then Hsing I cannot come from Baji.

Yes Baji is an internal art, if it's done well. It's traditionally been associated with bodyguards such as the famous Huo Dian Ge who was a bodyguard to the last emperor (Pu Yi). Unarmed, both are good at close range, but if you wanted to protect a "client" Baji can be used specifically while Hsing I is useful because you don't evade too much (and thus open a line of fire to a client). I'd say that Hsing I's usefulness in bodyguarding is symptomatic of it's battlefield origins while some more detailed thought has gone into Baji's bodyguarding stuff. I agree that Hsing I is a battlefield art - this is not just based on history. Most Hsing I weapons methods do not interfere with comrades standing on either side of you (contrast other arts where you'd turn your friends into bacon with your impressively flailing sword). Baji has a lot of weapons methods, but they are much more varied - that is - they are both for individual combat or battlefield. There would be no reason to adapt Baji for the battlefield as it has methods for that.

Take away San Ti Shi, Hsing I's basic general purpose posture, and Hsing I is effectively a set of strategies and ideas that can be applied to any art. Baji however is heavily dependant on the (excellent) structure of postures that are not general purpose in nature (i.e. specific posture for specific job) and do not include San Ti Shi. Baji also has underlying principles, such as the famous Liu Da Kai, that do not map onto Hsing I's in a direct sense. Again based on this I'd say Hsing is unlikely to have come from Baji.

The method of internal power generation in Baji is different Hsing I.

In an indirect sense the two arts have a lot in common. Both are learning frameworks that get you to a similar place in the end. Mendel and Darwin also got to a similar place in the end, and at around the same time, but we know for a reasonably certain fact that they never met or communicated with each other.

Still you never know - with Chinese history we never affirm anything that we do not deny ten times over.

Thank you for your reply, it's an excellent post. So, you insinuate that Baji is (possibly) designed for bodyguards? In studying the uses of various european weaponry, I find that there is a great difference between battlefield weapons and personal dueling. I find the same when comparing martial arts for life-and-death fighting and tournament competition. Do you feel that Hsing-I's battlefield origins compromise its personal combat effectiveness in any way?

Thanks Kenneth. In theory yes, in practice no. Hsing I is very good for personal combat. This is symptomatic of the way that it can be used. For instance, suppose you're ringed in by opponents and have learned 5 elemenst Hsing I (let's forget the animals as that would make the situation less simplistic) and 5 elements fighting to the point of being free with it. In theory you should have a big problem in that 5 elements Hsing I is strongest on or near the centre line, and here you have multiple centre lines. But Hsing I is very good at going "through" an opponent's position. Therefore you can try to determine who is the weakest of the assailants (quickly) and go through them as if they were a "door" to exit the ring. I'm not suggesting it's an easy thing for real, just easier than standing within the circle. Having said that sometimes the smallest person is not the best one to choose as the door

I'd liken Hsing I's effectiveness in personal combat to Yao (goshawk/sparrowhawk's) ability to take birds out of covered bird tables. Yao didn't develop it's ability to fly through spaces narrower than it's wingspan for the purpose of attacking feeding birds at table, but for avoiding the branches of trees in the forest. Still it's very good at that - something few other raptors can achieve. In this analogy you could say that Baji might indeed have a birdtable attacking methods. After weapons were banned by the Manchu, Master Ji Ji Ke asked himself how he could defend himself (as you know he was a spear expert). His solution was simple - instead of trying to learn new methods he simply adapted his spear methods to the new requirement of personal defence.

In terms of human Hsing we can see it again. Yao Hsing methods were partly developed to attack the weak points in Chinese armour (which wasn't nearly as protective as you might think from the few high quality surviving examples - only the quality stuff did survive) with the sword of spear. But they are very good for circumventing an unarmed guard with a fist as well.

Baji and Hsing I are both excellent for personal combat, but have come to this position from two differing approaches. Baji from a specific approach, and Hsing I from an adaptive approach.

Are you familiar with the probability(?) that Morihei Ueshiba studied some form of Bagua? It makes sense. I have a book of Gozo Shioda doing Aikido, and his stepping looks like Hsing-Yi. I once had an old translation of a chinese book on Bagua, and the techniques looked just like aikijitsu. So your explanation of hand techniques derived from weapons techniques fits right in (Aikido has hand movements anolagous to the movements of the katana). It also explains why Aikijitsu was so much "higher" than the other jujitsus. I was thinking of ordering Adam Hsu's Baji tapes. You can't learn a martial art from tapes, but I realize techniques are a dime a dozen. It is the principles of an art that are its most valued asset, and ironically, those are what is given away most freely.

I see many similarities between aikido and bagua and to me the verdict is not yet out if bagua came to Japan like other chinese arts did.

However, like Xing Yi came from the spear Aikido and aikijutsu came from the sword. The evolution and history is rich in this. If you want to be good in Aikido learn the sword and all empty hand moves come from it - ikyo is just a downward cut(even like pi chuan), shihonage is also a pivot then sword cut. There are only two techniques in aikido - entering and turning and the same with the sword.

I once saw shihonage done as several different techniques in a book. In still pictures, they all seemed like the same technique. After closely examining the pics for a while, I noticed in each one that Uke's angles of attack were different. Am I correct in assuming that "technique" in this case doesn't mean the outward appearance of the practitioner's body, but in the way he handles a particular line of force from his opponent?

I read once of a demo by O Sensei where he seemed to throw using the same technique over and over and over again and became frustrated with his students, saying that it had been different each time and why could they not see it.

Kenneth Sohl,

I believe that the each particular variation of "O Sensei" was a technique based upon a principle technique.

From my (limited) research into Tai-Ji Quan it appears that the "Single Whip" is a base/principle technique from which many others techniques are derived (i.e. "Retreat and Repulse the Monkey," "Brush Knee Twist Step," "High Pat on Horse," "Look at the Fist Under the Elbow," etc., etc.) -- for each involve one hand striking forward (with upward & downward variations) while the other hand manipulates an opponent's limb out to a side (with upward & downward variations). Likewise, "Cloud Hands" is another base/principle technique from which springs such moves as "Wild Horse Parts its Mane" & "White Crane Cools its Wings."

In Tai-Jutsu certain core techniques are learned as a principle-base for later variation (called the Kihon Happo). These core techniques aren't set in stone. Core techniques (for learning a basic principle & from which to vary from afterwards) are usually a handfull or two of techniques chosen from a large pool of techniques. An instructor may always use the same core techniques, or he may periodically choose other techniques as replacements or additions to his core base.

Suppossedly Sun-style Ba-Gua Zhang is also based upon a few core techniques. Single & Double Palm changes are at its root, with eight other forms -- derivations of the root -- as a supplementary core from which all its hundreds or more of varying techniques spring from: techniques that I as a novice couldn't tell how they came out of the forms; years later, (not having completed my lessons) I have just an inkling of an idea about such things. For example: I couldn't tell from where the basic hip displacement technique came out of Single Palm Change; but now I can see it as a variation of the very end of the form (a thumb-down "emptying the cup" variation). It took me years to discover this on my own, but it was always there in front of my face.

Xing-Yi is apparently the same: first learn to move the whole body in (up to) five basic directions, then expand/vary/adapt from there.

Sometimes variations are great & may seem unlike the core technique; sometimes such are subtle & may not seem like variations at all. Perhaps "O Sensei" was using subtle variations.

fellas,
great posts. from what i see both arts come from an "enlightened spirit", awareness, and they follow the expressed path of the practitioner. Even baquazhang is said to have initially 3 postures but as more people began learning, more "postures" began to be created.

Taking this to another level, the founder of hapkido also learnt from Takeda but his art is a direct opposite of Ueshiba's principles.

I always thought Hapkido techniques (other than the kicks and Ki-Hap) were taken from Aikijitsu.

Sokaku Takeda was Uyeshiba's teacher of Daito Ryu Aikijitsu.

Stan

What are the three 'original' Ba Qua postures that you know of? Are you sure that 'postures' is what you meant?

Sys Op Feel free to start this on a new thread.

I would assume he meant the 3 original palm changes that Dong taught. I guess he can answer for himself though....

Sysop, I hope you don't over-react to this stuff, quite often, one gets a better view from wandering afield.

Heya,

The Brickpolisher brought up a few interesting ideas in his excellent posts. As a Baji practisioner, I'm always interested in discussing the art and learning more about it and its relation to other arts. So let's see ...

Brickpolisher wrote:
"Unarmed, both are good at close range, but if you wanted to protect a "client" Baji can be used specifically while Hsing I is useful because you don't evade too much (and thus open a line of fire to a client)."

I think that more than that Baji has been specifically designed for use by bodyguards, it has been picked up by folks in the profession. Of course, if it's practisioners and teachers have been involved in bodyguarding, certainly this has influenced the development of the art in some way. I'm curious though, which are the things in Baji you see to be more closely linked with its use in this profession?

Brickpolisher wrote:
"Take away San Ti Shi, Hsing I's basic general purpose posture, and Hsing I is effectively a set of strategies and ideas that can be applied to any art. Baji however is heavily dependant on the (excellent) structure of postures that are not general purpose in nature (i.e. specific posture for specific job) and do not include San Ti Shi. Baji also has underlying principles, such as the famous Liu Da Kai, that do not map onto Hsing I's in a direct sense. Again based on this I'd say Hsing is unlikely to have come from Baji."

and

"Baji and Hsing I are both excellent for personal combat, but have come to this position from two differing approaches. Baji from a specific approach, and Hsing I from an adaptive approach."

I'm also curious as this difference you perceive, that Baji has a specific and Xingyi an adaptive approach. I'm not in disagreement, just trying to better understand what you're saying. I'm not very familiar (except superficially) with Xingyi, so this is certainly hampering my ability to compare and discern similarity/difference.

I'd appreciate the insight.

Daredev1l,

Perhaps "adapted" refers to an adept spearman using movements & principals simular to spear-combat moves & principals for empty-handed combat as well (as I heard that Xing-Yi was developed by a famous spearman).

Daredevil,

On the first question I'd say that you're right to point out that Baji has been picked up by people in the bodyguarding profession - but this has been to an extreme extent, and may be one that has actually altered the way that Baji is done over time. No doubt that Baji is useful in other contexts. The bodyguarding aspect is partly a matter of "facing up hard" to the attacker when that's not really needed - the only reason you would do that is to protect a client and we can see this kind of thing in many (most?) Baji applications. The difference is outwardly subtle but inwardly more obvious - one of those things that's easier to see in practice than in words.

On the second question the Liu Da Kai are a straightforward example - of course there are different interpretations, but generally they are six specific methods for making holes the the opponents defence. Xing Yi would classify this type of thing as jin. Chan ("wind around") is "one thing" in Baji, but in Xing Yi that kind of action can stem from several different roots depending on the strategic context - for example from Long Xing or from She Xing. They are very different Xings but doesn't mean they can't end up coming out in that way. A Xing is something that originally made an animal suited to its way of life and fighting/hunting/defending. In nature you can see many cases of parallel evolution where two different species end up doing the same kind of thing. Xing Yi strategies mirror this. To me, Baji is kind of the equivalent of "one species" if you like, not twelve harmonised through one underlying root.

Being a battlefield thing Xing Yi has a very strategic and reactive base - effectively the enemies actions dictate to a reasonably large extent how you respond. Baji takes a somewhat more proactive approach in this regard. Obviously that's not to say that you can't do that with Xing Yi as well.

On the battlefield it's well known that no plan survives contact with the enemy - Xing Yi strategies and reactiveness (one root, thousand branches, ten thousand endings) are there to deal with that.

This may all be a bit of an over-generalisation though - as with all these things its more an experiential thing than something concrete that you can put into words.

I'd highly recommend learning Xing Yi to any Baji practitioner and vice versa. The two arts do indeed have much in common, not least in the type of person that they both appeal to, and in the fact that they don't fit in all that well to orthodox "classifications" of martial arts - but the underlying principles are somewhat different.

Wish I could give a better answer - the questions are very good.

Mike has a point with the adapting Xing Yi methods from spear to unarmed. You really don't need to change your overall position very much (not at all in any significant way) to change a Xing Yi spear or sword method into an unarmed Xing Yi methods. While you can obviously adapt unarmed Baji methods to make them weapons methods I think in general your overall body position is going to be somewhat, though not a lot, different.

OK, evidently Hsing-Yi and Baji (over time) developed into 2 different things, but what about principles of movement and emitting power? Are they similiar?