To compensate for my shoddy practice habits, I'm reading about tai chi chuan push hands right now.
Tai chi chuan can be divided into two different practices: the form, a set of fairly rigidly defined postures and movements; and push hands, the sparring practice. Unlike, say, boxing or karate, the idea isn't to hit the opponent, and unlike judo or wrestling, you're not trying to grapple or overpower the opponent. Push hands is about unbalancing the opponent - finding the point where the opponent is off-center and exploiting it, turning the opponent's force on itself. Picture a massive dam holding back a river. One trickle of water finds a weak spot and suddenly, *wham*, the dam crumbles under its own weight.
The trick to doing this involves sticking to your opponent, sensing your opponent's next movement, and turning it... slightly. And doing this while remaining completely relaxed and centered yourself.
Here, from Xiang Kai Zhang's "A Study of T'ai Chi Push-Hands":
Therefore the Explanation of Practice says, "The body is like a wheel; the waist is the axle." Since the body is like a wheel, if there is pressure on the left, turn to the left. If there is pressure on the right, turn to the right.
This is natural law. But if you want skillful practice, the hands responding as the mind wishes--this is not a very easy matter. It is also said, "Looking up, he seems even higher. Looking down, he seems even deeper. Advancing, he is even further away. Retreating, he is even closer." The meaning of the first three sentences is that one leads the opponent's force so that it comes upon emptiness. That is to say, if he attacks upwards, I lead him even higher. If he attacks down, I lead him even lower. If he attacks straight in, I lead him further. In each case, I follow his incoming posture and direct him to an empty place. I neither struggle nor oppose. The fourth sentence explains the inability to retreat (from a T'ai Chi boxer). If the opponent advances and I retreat, I crowd myself into a corner.
It's a very paradoxical state of mind - alert and moving, still and centered. Leading by following. Going right where THE MAN wants you to go, and then a little further, and then a small twist....
For me, the fun part is trying to apply this to everything in life. Not to mention figuring out how to do even the first part of this in actual push hands practice.
-----------
The rest of the essay totally rocks, by the way.
I'm also fond of this bit here:
The four points listed below are the most important principles for developing the knack of push-hands:
1. Slowness: Whether adhering or moving away, you must be searching for, listening to the opponent's energy at each step of the way (whether the opponent moves an inch or a foot). You must not disregard any part of your interaction.
2. Circularity: It is most important to prevent your hands from forming right angles (whether in your own posture, or in relation to the opponent). You must in all places maintain the circular form.
3. Stability: In fixed step push-hands, you are allowed to alternate which leg is in front, but you are not allowed to step away. This is because the purpose of push-hands is to make the legs and waist a strong foundation. If the opponent oppresses you, you must be able to use leg power (literally, sitting the legs or dropping into the legs) and the turning of the waist to neutralize his posture. As you become accustomed to this, the waist and legs will naturally have kung-fu. ["kung fu" actually means "mastery"]
4. Closeness: Whenever you search for and listen to the opponent's energy (applying leg and waist kung-fu), you must stay close in for your movements to be effective.
Slow, circular, stable & close. When you're doing push-hands, you're never supposed to lose contact with the opponent. Some of the most basic push hands practice has two practitioners facing each other, touching wrists and gradually swaying back and forth. At the advanced level, it can start out this way, but quickly becomes like watching two waterspouts bouncing around each other. Which is (wooo!) pretty cool.
There is no gloss or explanation necessary for this. It speaks for itself.
And this is what Jesus means, I think, in this very passage when he says, "Love your enemy." And it's significant that he does not say, "Like your enemy." Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don't like what they do to me. I don't like what they say about me and other people. I don't like their attitudes. I don't like some of the things they're doing. I don't like them. But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody, because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, "Love your enemy." This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.
Now for the few moments left, let us move from the practical how to the theoretical why. It's not only necessary to know how to go about loving your enemies, but also to go down into the question of why we should love our enemies. I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this was at the very center of Jesus' thinking, is this: that hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. [tapping on pulpit] It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that's the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate, that it doesn't cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.
I think I mentioned before that sometime ago my brother and I were driving one evening to Chattanooga, Tennessee, from Atlanta. He was driving the car. And for some reason the drivers were very discourteous that night. They didn't dim their lights; hardly any driver that passed by dimmed his lights. And I remember very vividly, my brother A. D. looked over and in a tone of anger said: "I know what I'm going to do. The next car that comes along here and refuses to dim the lights, I'm going to fail to dim mine and pour them on in all of their power." And I looked at him right quick and said: "Oh no, don't do that. There'd be too much light on this highway, and it will end up in mutual destruction for all. Somebody got to have some sense on this highway."
Somebody must have sense enough to dim the lights, and that is the trouble, isn't it? That as all of the civilizations of the world move up the highway of history, so many civilizations, having looked at other civilizations that refused to dim the lights, and they decided to refuse to dim theirs. And Toynbee tells that out of the twenty-two civilizations that have risen up, all but about seven have found themselves in the junkheap of destruction. It is because civilizations fail to have sense enough to dim the lights. And if somebody doesn't have sense enough to turn on the dim and beautiful and powerful lights of love in this world, the whole of our civilization will be plunged into the abyss of destruction. And we will all end up destroyed because nobody had any sense on the highway of history. Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.
Does it scare you how pertinent this seems? How contemporary this seems?
It scares me.
You can find more Martin Luther King material here, at the wonderful Education Planet website. Includes links to video and audio clips.
This morning, NPR ran a fascinating interview with author Gavin Menzies.
"I came to the astonishing conclusion that a huge Chinese fleet of 800 vessels had sailed from China in March 1421 and they'd circumnavigated the world and they had created settlements in North and South America, in Australia, New Zealand, across the Pacific and in the Indian Ocean."
He painted a rather vivid picture, based on existing historical records, of the Chinese admiral eunuch Zheng He, the bold commander of 800 ships -- the largest fleet ever assembled -- sent out from China by Emperor Zhu Di to explore and settle new lands.
Unfortunately, while they were out exploring the world, lightning storms destroyed buildings in Beijing, and Zhu Di (or at least his court) became convinced that he wasn’t meant to be emperor after all. The Mandarins took over, recalled the fleet, and burned all records from Zhu Di’s reign. Along the way, Zheng He's master chart - a detailed map of the world - found its way to Portugal, giving their explorers a good idea of what they were going to “discover” before they got there.
Menzies claims to have looked over a copy of this master chart, preserved in a Portuguese museum. He also points to concrete evidence for his astonishing claim, in the form of jade, porcelain and other materials unique to China found by European explorers in the New World.
Salon is not so excited by the whole thing.
"He has not, unfortunately, discovered anything new," said Levathes. "What he's done is to present it in a jumbled manner so you have no idea what's going on and what the time frames are." There was one aspect of Menzies' work that Levathes admitted to admiring, however: "His promotional machine is nothing less than extraordinary," she said.
As part of that “promotional machine," you do have to admire the pretty 1421 website, which includes samples from the book and a newsfeed for Chinese discoveries in the New World.
Neither Menzies site nor the Salon critique appear to mention some recent discoveries of the similarities between early Olmec writing & artifacts and the Shang Chinese alphabet & bronzework from the same period, thousands years before Zheng He set sail... or evidence of 3rd century visits by Buddhist monk Hui Shen (or Heoi Shin).
Actually, there seems to be a lot of widely accepted documentation of Chinese contacts with the New World before Columbus. People have been discussing the idea for ages.
As far as the scholars are concerned, the question isn't did the Chinese come to America. It's just how much of an impact did the Chinese have on the "New" World in the years (or even centuries) before Columbus ever left port?
-----
According to one of the links off the NPR page, Menzies wants to build one of Zheng He's flagships - and has the backing to do so.
Check out more on Zheng He and his big boats:
--------
UPDATE:
PBS has made a special based on Menzies' book, with a companion website here.