Going through Chen Yu's Book

[Robin Wu]

Andy linked me to Chen Yu's book.

First, I like that the book starts out with saying that our Yi Lu has more stuff than Laojia's Yi Lu:

总体上讲：一路柔多刚少，手法较多，比所谓的老架多 15 式，故为 89 式。如：中盘、退步压肘、海底翻花、初收、三换掌等。

Translation:
Generally speaking: The First Routine has more softness and less hardness, with more hand techniques, having 15 more postures than the so-called Old Frame (Lao Jia), hence the 89 postures. Such as: Zhōng Pán, Tuìbù Yā Zhǒu, Hǎi Dǐ Fān Huā, Chū Shōu, Sān Huàn Zhǎng, etc.

I found the following line interesting:

劲别复杂，手型复杂。具不完全统计，两路拳 140 多种劲别，同时发劲也多。据武林界称，陈发科公祖师在北京传授这套拳架时，两路拳 154 个单式，600 多个式子，3000 多种发劲，人称“千手寸观音”全身无处不浑然，全身无处不是手。

Translation:
The types of power (Jin) are complex, and hand forms are complex. According to incomplete statistics, the two routines have over 140 types of power, and simultaneous power emissions are also numerous. According to martial arts circles, when founding master Chen Fake taught this routine frame in Beijing, the two routines had 154 single postures, over 600 sub-postures, and over 3,000 types of power emission. People called it the "Thousand-Hand Avalokitesvara," with the whole body being flawlessly integrated, and no part of the body not acting as a hand.

A lot of the book reads like a conglomeration of famous sayings in "classics" in Taiji circles. There was a very length write up about how Taiji, Bagua, and Xingyi, while different in some ways, also share the same principles.

For example, the principle of.... give yourself the advantage while putting the opponent at a disadvantage. It spent a lot of pages... just talking about that in a very broad sense.

To me, it felt like reading: "We have so much in common... we all breathe oxygen."

 

[Andy Malone]

600 sub postures sounds accurate. Every time I learn a new "movement" from Marin I feel like learned a form.

 

[Lousi Meng De]

Andy linked me to Chen Yu's book.

First, I like that the book starts out with saying that our Yi Lu has more stuff than Laojia's Yi Lu:


Translation:
Generally speaking: The First Routine has more softness and less hardness, with more hand techniques, having 15 more postures than the so-called Old Frame (Lao Jia), hence the 89 postures. Such as: Zhōng Pán, Tuìbù Yā Zhǒu, Hǎi Dǐ Fān Huā, Chū Shōu, Sān Huàn Zhǎng, etc.

I found the following line interesting:


Translation:
The types of power (Jin) are complex, and hand forms are complex. According to incomplete statistics, the two routines have over 140 types of power, and simultaneous power emissions are also numerous. According to martial arts circles, when founding master Chen Fake taught this routine frame in Beijing, the two routines had 154 single postures, over 600 sub-postures, and over 3,000 types of power emission. People called it the "Thousand-Hand Avalokitesvara," with the whole body being flawlessly integrated, and no part of the body not acting as a hand.

A lot of the book reads like a conglomeration of famous sayings in "classics" in Taiji circles. There was a very length write up about how Taiji, Bagua, and Xingyi, while different in some ways, also share the same principles.

For example, the principle of.... give yourself the advantage while putting the opponent at a disadvantage. It spent a lot of pages... just talking about that in a very broad sense.

To me, it felt like reading: "We have so much in common... we all breathe oxygen."

*Waiting on that shared link so I can act like I can read Chinese and impress my kids since my “coin behind the ears” party trick lost its pizazz

 

[Robin Wu]

*Waiting on that shared link so I can act like I can read Chinese and impress my kids since my “coin behind the ears” party trick lost its pizazz

​

https://annas-archive.gl/md5/0b8e7a7acd7d6e50e9af4a85ef1fb089

 

[Lousi Meng De]

​

https://annas-archive.gl/md5/0b8e7a7acd7d6e50e9af4a85ef1fb089

!!!…cheers to you my guy!🫡

 

[Zhuolun]

Generally speaking: The First Routine has more softness and less hardness, with more hand techniques, having 15 more postures than the so-called Old Frame (Lao Jia), hence the 89 postures. Such as: Zhōng Pán, Tuìbù Yā Zhǒu, Hǎi Dǐ Fān Huā, Chū Shōu, Sān Huàn Zhǎng, etc.

So misread the software what in fact says:

Generally speaking: The First Routine has more softness and less hardness, has many hand techniques, and compared to the so-called Old Frame (Lao Jia) has 15 more postures than the so-called Old Frame (Lao Jia), hence the 89 postures. Such as: Zhōng Pán, Tuìbù Yā Zhǒu, Hǎi Dǐ Fān Huā, Chū Shōu, Sān Huàn Zhǎng, etc.

A lot of the book reads like a conglomeration of famous sayings in "classics" in Taiji circles.

Not a lot but in fact very little of it, maybe even none of it at all. Did you not see how carefully and precisely the text describes what Marin teaches us and not only describes it but rules out what Marin has taught us would be wrong? Or did you read not to learn but only to idle?

There was a very length write up about how Taiji, Bagua, and Xingyi, while different in some ways, also share the same principles.

For example, the principle of.... give yourself the advantage while putting the opponent at a disadvantage. It spent a lot of pages... just talking about that in a very broad sense.

I remember a piece Chen Yu included from Chen Zhaokui where the latter summarized what he thought distinguished the art, in small part as representing an advance on earlier arts as an internal art (and only in this sense like xingyiquan and baguazhang) but in greater degree considering the art strictly alone, going so far as to mention certain points of shenfa. He was far from talking platitudes. Or must we examine how well you read some other part than this?

While I have several things to handle today before I must return to work tomorrow, know this about me that I beat down distortions with pleasure. Take care before pronouncing one as though it were truth.

 

[Robin Wu]

So misread the software what in fact says:



Not a lot but in fact very little of it, maybe even none of it at all. Did you not see how carefully and precisely the text describes what Marin teaches us and not only describes it but rules out what Marin has taught us would be wrong? Or did you read not to learn but only to idle?


I remember a piece Chen Yu included from Chen Zhaokui where the latter summarized what he thought distinguished the art, in small part as representing an advance on earlier arts as an internal art (and only in this sense like xingyiquan and baguazhang) but in greater degree considering the art strictly alone, going so far as to mention certain points of shenfa. He was far from talking platitudes. Or must we examine how well you read some other part than this?

While I have several things to handle today before I must return to work tomorrow, know this about me that I beat down distortions with pleasure. Take care before pronouncing one as though it were truth.

For the first part, what I found amusing was that they went out of their way to mention 15 sequences that Laojia didn't have and listed some of them. So in that regard, it doesn't seem like that changed in your revision.

Regarding famous sayings, I apologize because I think that was a poor (and wrong) way for me to phrase it. It's just that I've heard many stories from Marin of how Chen Yu talked, what he talked about, etc... so some of the content in the book made me question: "How much of this is meant to make the target audience happy?"

Did you not see how carefully and precisely the text describes what Marin teaches us and not only describes it but rules out what Marin has taught us would be wrong?

So, it was never my intention to use this book to verify if what Marin taught was right or wrong.

However, now that you mention it, I wouldn't use this book for such an objective.

For example, Jingang Dao Dui. Doesn't it say to turn your right foot 40 degrees?

I remember Marin mentioning seeing that part in the book and his reaction to it.

So there are aspects to this book that I take with a grain of salt, not because I distrust either Chen Yu or Marin, but simply due to the target audience of the book and circumstances.

 

[Marin]

At first read of this thread I thought I understood the topic. At second reading I began to feel that my grasp of the topic was questionable. In my continuing quest to contribute to what is my best guess on the topic I share an informative Link:

 

[Andy Malone]

At first read of this thread I thought I understood the topic. At second reading I began to feel that my grasp of the topic was questionable. In my continuing quest to contribute to what is my best guess on the topic I share an informative Link:

My last Honda Civic blew its head gasket at 500000 miles. Everything Scotty said here was true.

 

[Zhuolun]

. . .

The 15 moves: No, of course not. We read that part the same, and you reported it right to everyone who might read it here. How much Chen Yu saw it fit to compare his yilu to the yilu of 'laojia' on the other hand: That you reported wrong. You see that your software reported Chen Yu to say 'more than in laojia' where he in fact said simply 'quite numerous.' Mistakes like that add up. I pointed the one out so that you and the others would know you had started from an inexact text, also to show that using software alone makes you fall far short of where you would reach by knowing the language, the road there hard but the fruits more than equaling it.

The spirit of the book: Not just to make an uninformed public happy (in a negligent way of one who just goes through motions of publishing something that only seems instructive without in fact being so) but taking pains to represent the art faithfully with precision, measure, and, on details, even some generosity. That is how both Chens seem to me wrote. I saw I had to correct you and berated you for representing the book as flawed in a way it in fact was not and for naming as though a merit something trivial while mentioning not one real merit. It is nothing good to hear somebody and talk about him without some bit of reverence, let alone the very people who deserve it for giving us what we train. If though Marin tells us they really did write in something like bad faith and disguised it better than anybody, I am prepared to accept what is fact, though with surprise.

40 degrees: I even remember once watching Chen Yu say in a video not to open the right foot all the way to '45 degrees' when he had it pointing due east and but instead to open it to just '40 degrees' when he showed it the way he and we normally do the move. Well, I would call those two angles 90 and 80, so I also find the '40' suspect. Did he round the Qishi foot angles up so that he already called those 45? I wonder. What then do I find the book useful for? This: Preparing myself to train for longer and more strictly, especially from the parts after the section on yilu choreography from Chen Yu and Chen Zhaokui on how they trained, fires hot and long they put themselves through in times sparer and simpler than these today. Of choreography and shenfa I read enough to be impressed with how exactly they described how one must have the kua, chest, buttocks, eyes, etc., but in practice I will admit I am still too busy with what Marin gives, methodical and detailed as it is, and with other parts of life to use that material for real.

OK I will leave things here, practice less tonight than I would like, and sleep. For our own part in this I consider us now reconciled.

 

[Robin Wu]

The 15 moves: No, of course not. We read that part the same, and you reported it right to everyone who might read it here. How much Chen Yu saw it fit to compare his yilu to the yilu of 'laojia' on the other hand: That you reported wrong. You see that your software reported Chen Yu to say 'more than in laojia' where he in fact said simply 'quite numerous.' Mistakes like that add up. I pointed the one out so that you and the others would know you had started from an inexact text, also to show that using software alone makes you fall far short of where you would reach by knowing the language, the road there hard but the fruits more than equaling it.

The spirit of the book: Not just to make an uninformed public happy (in a negligent way of one who just goes through motions of publishing something that only seems instructive without in fact being so) but taking pains to represent the art faithfully with precision, measure, and on details even some generosity. That is how both Chens seem to me wrote. I saw I had to correct you and berated you for representing the book as flawed in a way it in fact was not and for naming as though a merit something trivial while mentioning not one real merit. It is nothing good to hear somebody without some bit of reverence, let alone the very people who gave us what we train.

40 degrees: I even remember once watching Chen Yu say in a video not to open the right foot all the way to '45 degrees' when he had it pointing due east and but instead to open it to just '40 degrees' when he showed it the way he and we normally do the move. Well, I would call those two angles 90 and 80, so I also find the '40' suspect. What then do I find the book useful for? Preparing myself to train for longer and more strictly, especially from the parts after the section on yilu choreography from Chen Yu and Chen Zhaokui on how they trained, fires hot and long they put themselves through. Of choreography and shenfa I read enough to be impressed with how exactly they described how one must have the kua, chest, buttocks, eyes, etc., but in practice I will admit I am still too busy with what Marin gives, methodical and detailed as it is, and with other parts of life to use that material for real.

OK I will leave things here, practice less tonight than I would like, and sleep.

So I actually did not interpret the machine translation the way you did.

The broader context immediately before the quote was that the art contains both Yi Lu and Er Lu, and I only quoted the Yi Lu portion.

Because of that context, when the translation said “with more hand techniques,” it was ambiguous to me what the comparison target was. I was actually leaning towards it implying there being more hand techniques than Er Lu.

The translation itself did not explicitly say “more hand techniques than Lao Jia,” since “with more hand techniques” was a separate clause from “compared to the so-called Lao Jia, it has 15 more postures.” Also note that in the original post, I specifically bolded the Lao Jia comparison while not bolding the hand technique.

Even when using your translation, why mention that it has many hand techniques for Yi Lu but not mention that for Er Lu? If both Yi Lu and Er Lu has many hand techniques, why specifically say that for Yi Lu? That context is probably why the machine chose to translate it that way even if it's wrong.

So either way, it's a bit ambiguous. But I can see why not providing that context of Er Lu being a comparison made the machine translation misleading. But I didn't take it to mean what you thought due to the bigger context.

As for the merit of the book, it is true that I don't venerate the book the way you do. For you, maybe the book foreshadows future things. For me, I've already seen it. It's hard to venerate something you've already seen, not to mention the things that aren't in the book or things that aren't even taught anymore.

 

[Marin]

The 15 moves: No, of course not. We read that part the same, and you reported it right to everyone who might read it here. How much Chen Yu saw it fit to compare his yilu to the yilu of 'laojia' on the other hand: That you reported wrong. You see that your software reported Chen Yu to say 'more than in laojia' where he in fact said simply 'quite numerous.' Mistakes like that add up. I pointed the one out so that you and the others would know you had started from an inexact text, also to show that using software alone makes you fall far short of where you would reach by knowing the language, the road there hard but the fruits more than equaling it.

The spirit of the book: Not just to make an uninformed public happy (in a negligent way of one who just goes through motions of publishing something that only seems instructive without in fact being so) but taking pains to represent the art faithfully with precision, measure, and, on details, even some generosity. That is how both Chens seem to me wrote. I saw I had to correct you and berated you for representing the book as flawed in a way it in fact was not and for naming as though a merit something trivial while mentioning not one real merit. It is nothing good to hear somebody and talk about him without some bit of reverence, let alone the very people who deserve it for giving us what we train. If though Marin tells us they really did write in something like bad faith and disguised it better than anybody, I am prepared to accept what is fact, though with surprise.

40 degrees: I even remember once watching Chen Yu say in a video not to open the right foot all the way to '45 degrees' when he had it pointing due east and but instead to open it to just '40 degrees' when he showed it the way he and we normally do the move. Well, I would call those two angles 90 and 80, so I also find the '40' suspect. Did he round the Qishi foot angles up so that he already called those 45? I wonder. What then do I find the book useful for? This: Preparing myself to train for longer and more strictly, especially from the parts after the section on yilu choreography from Chen Yu and Chen Zhaokui on how they trained, fires hot and long they put themselves through in times sparer and simpler than these today. Of choreography and shenfa I read enough to be impressed with how exactly they described how one must have the kua, chest, buttocks, eyes, etc., but in practice I will admit I am still too busy with what Marin gives, methodical and detailed as it is, and with other parts of life to use that material for real.

OK I will leave things here, practice less tonight than I would like, and sleep. For our own part in this I consider us now reconciled.

In general I prefer not to get involved in resolving social dynamics problems on this site, or in my school. The way I avoid this is by not bringing those problems into the school as best I can. But here we are, and here I am, required to get involved. Robin does well on his own, but this is beyond that.

To put things simply; Andy:
Please "read the room". Take a look around at the general vibe of this site, and the state of interaction between students in person in the school. Very clearly, students on and off this site are respectful, nice, and accommodating to each other.

You are not in a position, nor have cause to berate anyone for any reason here. The majority of the membership is not fluent in Chinese reading or writing. If anyone chooses to use google translate to examine text no one is in a position to condemn nor criticize. We are all doing our best. Feel free to contribute clarity if you have it, in a positive way. Subtle inaccuracy in translation is not evidence of negligence or disrespect for the lineage, nor is it evidence of a flawed personality. Outrage, or hostility over such minor things is concerning, especially since you just trained with Robin 4 days ago. Where is the respect and camaraderie?

If you are angry or have unaddressed personal feelings over something, that needs attention and self reflection. Otherwise (and concurrently) this appears a toxic manifestation of ego; identifying opportunities to attack and demean your seniors for inflated alleged transgressions in linguistics or reverence to elevate self perception of status. Regardless of which diagnosis we choose you forget yourself here. This is not the way to view your role in this community, nor the way to interact.
I let this ride for a bit because I found it confusing and surprising, how could you see this approach as appropriate? I do not know, nor do I expect to know, but do take some time and self reflection and change it.