How Old Is The Term Taijiquan? (13.7.2013)

‘The body of Henning’s article may be considered a rehash of the old ‘Wudang’ vs. ‘Shaolin’ mythology, with the facts (where they can be established), presented in a logical, if not meandering fashion; dates, names of emperors and portions of lineages, etc. China’s ‘Self Strengthening’ movement is mentioned near the end, as the final impetus for the association of Zhang Sanfeng with the development of Taijiquan – but oddly enough, Henning (who has written in military journals), does not acknowledge that this movement developed in China as a response to the rampant Western Imperialist aggression typical of the time. Curiously Henning makes no reference to the pre-Song uses of the term ‘Taiji’ which are known to refer to the practice (and usage) of martial arts. It is ironic therefore, that Henning would refer to Chinese myths and legends as ‘ignorance’, when so much of his historical omissions and oversights could well attract a similar criticism.’

Working With The Mind.

‘Even this material plane with its apparent solidity and predictable behaviour is a manifestation of the mind itself. It is not an illusion, nor is it real. Language and concept break down when the mind reaches beyond its innate conditioning. What is seen (or perceived) is reported through the limitation of human language, which is itself the product of living within a material world. It is not designed to formulate concepts that lay beyond its normal cognitive reach. This explains why advanced science, insightful philosophy and transcendental religion appear to be expressing truth in a nonsense language that appears incomplete and often irrational. To explain that which lies just beyond the senses stretches conventional language to its limit. Logic dictates that such descriptions can not be soundly provided and that to stay true to the originating perception, the descriptions provided must be open ended – as if the open end in the logic is in fact a map pointing the way toward the truth. The material plane assumes a completeness and totality for itself that is blatantly not true. The logic based upon the observation and measurement of matter, likewise also assumes a completeness that is incorrect from the position of the multiverse. Of course, closed systems of logic are complete within their respective operational boundaries, but this completeness is highly localised and not indicative in any way of a possession of higher knowledge or wisdom. The use of enclosed (local) logic systems to explain the entirety of what exists outside of itself – is itself an error in philosophical speculation. Rigid thought patterns are reflective of the rigid material forms that they measure. The multiverse is neither rigid nor flexible and it can not be assessed or limited to a set of binary opposites, or conceptual dichotomies.’

1 13 14 15