The first post on kua can be found here.
It looks like I’m not the only one thinking about the kua these days. A new blog on IMA called Internal Arts IA has a long interview with Joseph Chen about the importance and usage of the kua. Here’s an excerpt that I found interesting:
Kua is the joint responsible for transmission of power. The mistaken notion of dantian acting as the transmission should be amended, to recognize the primary role of kua. The dantian, ( in Tai Chi functional terms, not qigong usage), is defined as the area between the kua and the arm pit. This is one big ball. When this area turns you won’t see the kua turn. On the surface, you only see the area from the kua to arm pit turn. Therefore many people practice shoulder movement, turning dantian from the top. We must emphasize turning of the dantian from the bottom.
My primary Chen style teacher has said this many times. The kua, not the dantian, is responsible for the transmission of power. I also like how Joseph Chen separates talking about the dantian in functional versus qigong terms. Many people get used to this idea of the dantian in terms of qi, or cosmic energy production, etc. But that’s a dead-end IMO. Bringing the material back down to earth in terms of function is the way to go.
This is a long interview that will likely answer many of the questions many of you might have about the kua. I highly suggest reading and digesting the whole thing since this topic is so important and quality info on it is so rare.
P.S. I just thought of a short-cut to see if you’re relaxing the kua or not. This doesn’t totally meet the requirements, but one way to check is to place your hand in the groove between the top of your thigh and your torso (inguinal groove?). If you’re sinking the kua correctly, your upper thigh will press on one side of your hand and the bottom of your gut will press on the other. But be careful not to arch the back to create this. Maybe that will help.
0 responses so far ↓
Thomas To // July 24, 2008 at 7:40 pm |
“Kua is the joint responsible for transmission of power. The mistaken notion of dantian acting as the transmission should be amended, to recognize the primary role of kua. The dantian, ( in Tai Chi functional terms, not qigong usage), is defined as the area between the kua and the arm pit. This is one big ball. When this area turns you won’t see the kua turn. On the surface, you only see the area from the kua to arm pit turn. Therefore many people practice shoulder movement, turning dantian from the top. We must emphasize turning of the dantian from the bottom.”
I have learned that it is best to see the dantian as where the body’s centre of gravity (CG) is located. That would be a point, not a ball. In normal circumstances (e.g. in various stances), your CG should be within your body and ideally something near the centre point between the two sides of your waist. 留心在腰間 – here 心, usually taken to mean the mind, can here be interpreted as the centre or core, i.e., the CG. I tend to think that the term dantian does not exactly refer to the CG, but the two should share the same location. I see dantian as that physical part of the body.
In Taijiquan, in its purest form, all the work is done by the dantian. Starting with the sides of the waist being pulled toward the dantian by the intrinsic muscles around the dantian, (skipping a lot of details in between) all the way to linking the fingers and toes to the dantian, any part of the body is working as one piece with the dantian. It involves 纏絲, 合, 整 and 架.
In that sense, I don’t think the kua is any special in its role of power transmission. Any body joint should be able to take on that function. Think of examples like arm-wrestling on a table and newaza. You would need to use joints other than the kua. However, the central role of the dantian remains unchanged. That is if one really knows how to use it. I don’t.
Hermann // July 25, 2008 at 9:28 am |
CG as center of a slightly bigger Dantian?
Thomas To // July 25, 2008 at 11:09 am |
I see dantian as a thing of pragmatic truth. If we dissect a body, we cannot find an organ that we can see and hold. It is like the numerous 經脈 (meridian lines in English?) in traditional Chinese medicine, which are part of the framework for practices like acupuncture but not something that can be touched or seen.
Why do we make reference to the dantian? Other than that a lot of literature on disciplines such as Taijiquan often refer to the dantian, it is because it is a fixed location, a point of reference within the human body that makes communication more convenient. It is easier to say dantian than “the place of your body where your CG normally is”.
Why don’t we refer to CG whenever we mean the dantian? CG is not a fixed place in the body. You can move it up, down and sideways, by changing your body posture or using your diaphragm. You can even move your CG outside your body, like when you bridge or do a forward somersault breakfall.
Going back to your question, I don’t see how the dantian can be “bigger”. In for example Taijiquan, I see the dantian as a point and not a 3D object with volume.
Note that I am referring to the dantian here for the purposes of body mechanics, not qigong, where it is believed that the dantian is a place where 元氣 is situated. In fact, there are more than one dantian in a body. You may have come across references of 上丹田 upper dantian, 中丹田 middle dantian and 下丹田 lower dantian. Depending on your sources or school of qigong, the locations of the various dantian may vary.
Hermann // July 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
Yeah, but when you talk of CG, it will be one very small and defined point, whereas nobody ever here in Taiwan told me of the dantian as such a small point. Instead it is an area in all my many schools.
A little strange is the different location of the 3 centres by different schools, don`t you think?
Chad // July 26, 2008 at 4:19 am |
Actually, Hermann, the anatomical center of gravity is not a small defined point but an area around the anterior lumbar spine. Thomas is correct in saying that dantien is a term of conveinience rather than a term of definition. It could be interpreted as an infitesimally small point at any particular moment, but for all intents and purposes, the fact that our bodies are not rigid blocks of wood precludes there being a well defined center of gravity.
Hermann // July 26, 2008 at 10:36 am |
Who says so?
No, in my western trained mind, that would be an unclear mixture of western and eastern concepts.
The CG is a very much definite point in any object, while the Dantian is an eastern term, having to do nothing with convenience but with a totally different concept of the human body. Still, it happens that the CG falls within the Dantian as an area.
Thomas To // July 28, 2008 at 1:56 am |
As the dantian is something that is artificially defined and described, I see no reason why you cannot personally define it to be of the size of a golf ball or tennis ball.
The classic Taijiquan literature from what I can remember do not specifically define the size of the dantian. Nor do they specify that the dantian is a point.
I myself find it logical to see the dantian as a point. It is consistent with the core principle of Taiji – the concept of one.
When performing Taijiquan techniques, a requirement is that the body functions as one entity. That “one” is the dantian. The body has to form a frame whereby the dantian is the core, such that the body moves together with the dantian.
It starts with the two sides of the waist (左腰 and 右腰) being pulled medially inward, toward the dantian. (太極生兩儀 – from “taiji” (one), “two” are formed.) A dimension is formed. The two sides of the waist can now work with and for the dantian.
Then, using the two sides of the waist, the tailbone and first thoracic vertebrae are pulled toward the dantian. The second dimension is formed. Now the tailbone and first thoracic vertebrae can work with and for the dantian.
Next are the shoulders and hips. Then elbows and knees. After those are obviously the wrists and ankles. All the way to the tips of fingers and toes.
This process is 合 “he”. The body can now function as a frame for the dantian. One could also say that the dantian is now extended to the whole frame, a three-dimensional object. Hence I see it logical to call the original point of dantian as an infinitesimally small point. This way the “he” process logically shows how a point forms into a 3D object in function.
This “he” process is also why I don’t have a problem with people calling the dantian a 3D object. The dantian will eventually become (in functional terms) a 3D object anyway.