Qi is real. Joanna, your caustic, negative, sarcastic, arrogant, and ignorant statements will not stand.

Reading your misinformed angry posts yesterday and today on various websites has compelled me to disregard my usual position of not arguing online. Having glanced at your obnoxious website, I see very clearly your position. I am not fooled.

You are attempting to Christianize Taijiquan, and in a way that I find particularly offensive. Your approach is rude and your posts are deeply disrespectful to the masters who brought the internal arts to the West for you to enjoy, and to the hundreds of masters before them.

You have misunderstood Taiji, Qigong, and the Internal Arts comprehensively, and you are speaking from a place of fear regarding the Spirit, and the Essence, and these intangible words that relate to very real, very specific things, that clearly do not jibe with your religious worldview.

I wont bother debating if Qi is real. You’re welcome to your opinion, and your website, and your teaching approach.

I am a fan of martial arts, but I have no interest in fighting. I know there are many ‘false masters’ in fancy clothes who can’t fight, and who go on and on about qi. That’s not what this is about.

Im a pacifist. And I wish you no harm. But, I think perhaps you don’t realize exactly how intensely offensive your posts are for those of us who do approach the internal arts from a western scientific perspective. We ‘qi-bunnies’ who spend our time with students who have serious health issues that they need to deal with right now, every day, and who use their minds and their qigong practice to stay well, or to heal themselves.

I appreciate a skeptical mind, and a scientific, logical approach based in reality. But, were you to do the research, you might be surprised to find that when medical professionals today research meditation, the relaxation response, the placebo effect, and the body’s natural healing abilities, all roads lead to the same place that qigong and the Internal arts have been talking about for thousands of years. Yes, we now know about hormones, and DNA, and such, but those components rely on a base medium of energy. The Chinese word for energy is…

I can go into specifics at length if needed, but Im just so annoyed right now by your words. Suffice to say, the clinical studies at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Tufts, and Harvard medical Schools, the NIH, and many other western scientific medical facilities deal with using the mind to lead qi through the various circulatory systems to allow the body to naturally heal itself. Without qi, the body is dead meat.

Qi = the conscious metabolic energy in every one of the 100 trillion living cells your body is comprised of.

You mentioned that there is no consistency in the discipline of qigong. This is entirely incorrect. There are thousands of documents written by hundreds of masters over the last 4,000 years that all say basically exactly the same thing. They lay out a very clear and concise path of how to use the mind to lead the qi throughout the body, to develop it to a higher capacity, etc. There is, in fact, nothing vague about it. And that view of the body is also corroborated by other cultures that did not interact with the Chinese. Yes, you can can find 10,000 contradicting theories online, but thats true of everything.

But it is clear to me that you are not listening. You have made your decision. With your brain. Which is made of cells. Which are made of molecules. Which are made of atoms. Which are made of…

The only real reason I am compelled to write I guess is that beginners could read your mean-spirited posts and get a very wrong idea of what Taiji is about.

David Silver, qigong teacher

All hail to that level of skill! (no skill). They are clever indeed (not clever) but it works for them.
Next week I shall get my taiji pajamas, talk in tongues, do my performance to warrant my big fees without doing anything that is real taijiquan!

At the MTA our push hands type drills are dived into push hands, sticky hands and hitting hands. Each of which focuses on a different skill.

As for writing a blog on it, maybe I will sometime in the future, but at the moment hitting hands is quite new to me. I don’t feel that I have the knowledge or experience to be able to discuss it in any detail.

Renli introspects: I agree, it was only a demo, it was what it was. It remains to be seen if they will release a video demonstrating sparring, or even some of their resistance drills (i.e. hitting hands, pushing hands), etc. In the end, while I agree with you a demo is not really indicative of an ability to apply in a high-pressure situation, I am forced to concede that it is also not an indication that they can’t.

Renli is 100% right as to not wanting to be on the reciving end of a punch from Joanna, I know I have recived a few! Almost 3 weeks ago I practiced a hitting hands drill with Joanna and although my ribs are healing nicely now, they do still give me a little trouble occasionally. Belive me the lady can hit!

Renli’s response: Cool, Kenny Well, I must admit you’ve piqied my interest by mentioning a hitting hands drill. If it’s not a school secret, can you write a blog article describing it? I’ve done several kinds of hitting hands drills in other arts but I am curious to know how you are integrating it into the martial aspect of tai chi. Or have I misunderstood, is it just push hands? If you have anything to liken it to (sticky hands, three, five or seven star blocking exercises, etc) I would love to hear more. Thanks!

Renli’s response: I’m not surprised – Among “us insiders” there’s a generally accepted paradigm that “it has to be shown” and/or “it has to be felt” (IHTBS/IHTBF). This is verified by Chen Xin’s ‘new’ book, where he says internal power is done by volition and does not necessarily require moving the body. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that you cannot “see” the martial power in Joanna’s movements. It takes a highly trained eye and even then you are only looking for clues, and they can elude you.

That being said, Joanna doesn’t recognize “internal power”, she denies it. The irony that her movements have some qualities of internal power (although granted, some qualities are also missing) has not been lost to me.

Otherwise I might be persuaded to offer $5K to anyone from MTA who can punch their way out of a wet paper bag.

Only joking

Response from Renli: I sincerely hope so, “Flagon”… if that is your real name. There are in fact videos available on youtube of Joanna and Julie. Look up the user “martialtaichi“. Here are some examples:
Martial Rotation Assorted Clips
Tai Chi Boxing
Tai Chi Eight Methods Clip Compilation
So yes, I do believe they can punch and no, I don’t think you would want to be on the receiving end
That being said, Joanna –> MORE VIDEOS!! Come on, show us some sparring or at least some push hands or something.

Now this could go on indefinitely and I really do have other things to worry about – there is a war on, you know. I’ll say goodbye now.

Renli’s response: A war? I see… o_O

Renli responds: Yes, I also apologized – I’m glad we’re over this ^^

That said, I’d also like to try to explain things from my perspective. Yes, the offending comment was meant to be a joke, albeit a cutting one, but I don’t think it is quite fair of you to make out that you are the sole injured party here.

When you posted the sentence “What’s even worse is that people begin to believe this is the end-goal of qigong/internal martial arts…..” on the “Oh Please” thread on Kenny’s blog, that was the very first time those phrases (qigong/internal) had ever been uttered there. Seriously – such words are anathema to the MTA.

With that in mind it is probably fairly clear that we are in somewhat different worlds to each other. We like to make our position clear – to distance ourselves as much as possible from the mainstream, so that people won’t say “what qigong do you do?” We do none. “But what about working with internal energies?” We don’t think that way. “But how does your practice differ from hard external styles?” We completely reject that dichotomy.

Renli Responds: I don’t know about you, but I’ve done Hung Gar, Longfist, and a few other arts which (at least) start out on the external side. For me it is not a dichotomy but a different approach to basic training. So while “dichotomy” might not be the best word, I have a feeling it applies on some level here. I don’t think it’s about rejecting it, but about focusing on the goals you feel you need to accomplish. Right?

As we have made our position so very clear, and you have been involved in qi debates with me before, you must know that to go on an MTA member’s blog and mention qigong and internal arts is in itself a provocative act, particularly as the blog sports a “100% Qi-Free banner,” and as you did so in such a nudging and winking manner.

Renli Responds: I don’t think it is provocative to mention Qi (also see response to comments below)

You went on to say:
“Oh. I didn’t mean to imply it was real or anything (when in rome..) I was just saying that out of the people who are very well known and can deal with the qi paradigm (i.e. top level family people), you get a lot of antagonism towards no-touch skills.”

By this comment it is pretty clear that your agenda does include trying to undermine our rejection of qi:
“Well, not that qi works or anything but to comment on what Joanna said, within the confines of the qi-paradigm, there is information which comes from the source/the lineage, and information which does not. [snip -renli]”

Renli responds: No, my agenda does not include trying to undermine that rejection, Joanna. I have said so many times, do not accuse me of this again. I prefaced everything I said with “not to say qi is real but”, etc. and I have also stated many times that I am not trying to undermine anything you say or do with respect to your position on qi. My problem with you is that you repeatedly make false statements about what other people say, do, and practice. Claiming that I have an agenda to undermine your position on qi, after I have gone to the length I have to disclaim that, is proof positive. For the record, my agenda is getting you to stop making such ridiculous claims as the above.

After being told off, you then played hurt with this comment:

“I’m upset that you’re taking such a hardnosed approach – since no one said qi existed.
I was just trying to make a point about people like chen xiao wang, ma yue liang, etc. and how they agreed with what you were saying.
No touch is BS. It isn’t about Qi. Not everything has to be made into a discussion about qi.”

Renli responds: That’s right, because as stated my point was not about mentioning qi. If I can’t make a rational argument to you because it happens to include the word qi, then you have a problem. How do you say you’re 100% Qi free anyways, without mentioning the word Qi?

If you are going to be fair, you must agree that it was you who turned the discussion into a discussion on qi. Seriously, if you want to avoid hurt feelings, I would suggest that the best thing to do not to cross verbal swords with us in the first place. I have no interest in the cut and thrust of debate and if you do not wish to fight, you should not taunt.

Now I really think it is time we agreed to differ and called a truce, but obviously if you do not wish to, that is up to you.

Renli responds: Using the word qi in the manner I did was not a verbal sword, nor any form of affront to you or kenny or what you do or the policies of the MTA. As far as I’m concerned, there is no truce because there is no war..