The term ‘master’ derives from the Latin root ‘magister’ meaning teacher or ruler; and by extension, it means a person of consummate skill in some area of activity, as opposed to a mere journeyman. It can also mean someone who inspires devotion or reverence on the part of his followers. However, a person can be all or any of these things and yet fail to be a good teacher. There is only one measure of a good teacher; does s/he produce good students?
Many Tai Chi books refer to a golden age when ancient masters were paragons of all the know virtues; invincible sages imbued with mystical powers. Yet these same masters lived and died like other men. Indeed some famous members of the Yang gamily died of illness in middle age. Although ghosted books on Tai Chi Chuan have been produced by members of the major Tai Chi families, little has been added to them to enrich the philosophy or literature of China. If such masters truly possessed the powers claimed for them, it is remarkable that they should demean themselves by descending from the astral planes to consort with ordinary mortals!
Just as philosophers and ideologues throughout the ages have attempted to justify their ideas, however perverse or wicked, by recourse to the actions and words of thinkers of the past, so many modern masters analyse every thought and deed in the light of their often twisted and erroneous interpretations of the Tai chi Classics. Refusing to accept that the Classics are not the sole repository of human wisdom on the subject of Tai Chi Chuan, they would cloak everyone in the straitjacket of their rigid orthodoxies no matter what the cost. They don’t know the concept of Zhong Yong and they don’t know that they don’t know it!
Mencius wrote that the evil of men is that they like to be the teachers of others rather than trying to reform themselves first. According to Mencius, Confucius denied that he was a sage and yet today, many third rate Tai chi teachers call themselves ‘Master’ or even ‘Grandmaster’. Some even dare to use the literary style ‘Tzu’ after their names in a vain attempt to equate themselves with the great philosophers of China, such as Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu.
Tai chi Chuan is often referred to as a Taoist martial art and in many a book much innocent fun is made of Confucianism and the importance which it placed on rites and correct conduct. It is ironic that many such authors exhibit a far greater degree of rigidity and humbug than Confucius and his followers ever did. A cursory perusal of the Analects of Confucius shows that Confucian thinkers emphasised a natural ease in applying the rules of propriety. However, they also emphasised that in exhibiting this natural ease, the rules of propriety should still be followed. So it is when interpreting and applying the guiding principles of the Tai Chi Classics.
The mad English king, George III, in one of his more lucid moments observed that much of Shakespeare is sad stuff, only one mustn’t say so. So it is with Tai Chi Chuan, save that in the strife-torn world of the internal martial arts, there is a much higher proportion of sad stuff than is to be found in the works of the Bard of Avon.
We have masters who pat one another on the back, endorsing one another’s sad books and articles and awarding themselves grandiose titles. We have masters without fighting experience speaking authoritatively on how to deal with opponents and debating technical niceties. Others claim to be able to uproot opponents without touching them and when their subtle skills fail to work, the fault is with their insufficiently sensitive protagonists.
Other masters put forward other people’s ideas as their own, denigrate teachers of genuine ability, but then lay claim to the same skills without possessing any of them. Yet others deny the existence and value of anything they don’t know, while fabricating and touting empty ‘secret’ techniques and training methods.
Having alluded to some of the more negative aspects of masters, I’d now like to suggest some positive ones.
A master in the true sense:
By practising I mean that the teacher should spend some time training with the class and also privately. In particular he should do the more physically and technically demanding training with students to give them confidence. When teaching, it is not enough just to issue commands; a martial arts gym is not a drill square. Although we must practise drills, the students should be told the purpose of different exercises. Where the teacher does not know this, he should say so and attempt to find out, rather than misleading his students. Anybody who purports to teach in exactly the same way as his teacher can’t be considered a master, although he may be a competent instructor. Tai Chi is an art and therefore to be a master you must be able to make it your own art rather than merely copying another.
Experience is the greatest of all teachers and to be a master you must be able to use your experiences to develop your art. By the same token, you should provide your students with ways of developing their art. Competitions, books, videos, seminars all can aid in this process.
I believe that if a master does not wish to teach something to a particular student at a particular time, he should simply not teach it rather then prevaricate or pretend to teach it. An insincere teacher will produce insincere students. Great masters do not necessarily make good men; good men do not necessarily make great masters. The fact that a master has many flaws in his personality does not make him any the less a master. The fact that an instructor is highly moral in character does not necessarily make him a more effective instructor.
Discipline and etiquette in Tai chi classes are thorny questions. If too harsh and rigid then the students live in fear of the teacher. Of course some martial art students occasionally need to be hurt by the teacher. This is particularly so when they are training in a way that is dangerous to themselves and/or to others. However, it is not usually necessary to break bones. Some students need strongly worded criticism from time to time; others require gentle encouragement. Students should not be treated the same unless they are the same.
In the Far East it is customary to address the teacher as ‘Sifu’ and to address fellow students as elderly/younger brother/sister depending on whether they learned before or after you. In my own classes, I don’t follow this procedure and students call me Dan or (rarely) Mr. Docherty. Some teachers require bowing both before and after each class and also when students take a partner for pushing hands or self defence. My teacher never had this practice and only required a student to bow to him and more senior members of the school when undergoing bai shi.
I much prefer this approach to that encountered in other schools where they seem to spend as much time bowing to one another as they do training.