The “other” Bagua Zhang?

Over the last few decades, research into the art of Bagua Zhang—its founder, lineage, and historical development—has become increasingly available to the public. A number of prominent scholars have dedicated their careers to demystifying and clarifying the history of Bagua Zhang, aiming to separate fact from fiction and distinguish legitimate traditions from spurious claims. Among the most notable of these researchers is Professor Kang Gewu, whose doctoral thesis focused precisely on this subject. His groundbreaking work has significantly contributed to a clearer understanding of Dong Haichuan’s art and its dissemination.

Naturally, throughout the decades, various individuals have made claims regarding alternative lineages of Bagua Zhang—purportedly stemming from different people, places, or sources. However, in the majority of cases, when these claims have been scrutinized and investigated, they have failed to stand up to evidence. Their connections to Dong Haichuan or his disciples have been revealed and other claims were unfounded or fabricated etc.

One particularly prominent case arose nearly three decades ago involving the Tian family—specifically Tian Hui and his son, Tian Keyan. They claimed that their art, named Tian Family Yin-Yang Bagua Zhang, originated from Mount Emei and had been passed down through their family independently of Dong Haichuan. According to their assertion, they were the rightful inheritors of a separate transmission of Bagua Zhang - one they claimed to predate Dong Haichuan.

Unsurprisingly, this claim sparked considerable interest within the Beijing martial arts community. Professor Kang Gewu, along with several other respected researchers and practitioners, launched an investigation into the matter. The outcome revealed that the facts were inconsistent with the Tian family’s claims. Evidence showed that their system was derived from the lineage of Dong Haichuan’s disciples and had, in fact, been compiled by the Tian family themselves. Following the publication of these findings, the Tian family sued Professor Kang. The court, however, ruled in Kang Gewu’s favor, validating his evidence and research.

Despite the ruling and the exposure of the facts, the Tian family's claims have continued to circulate internationally. Given the time that has passed—nearly thirty years—the controversy has largely faded from public consciousness. Unfortunately, this has contributed to confusion and misinformation surrounding the history of Bagua Zhang in the global community. In more recent years, similar claims of Bagua Zhang lineages stemming from various "mountains," with practitioners donning different costumes and adopting exotic names, have emerged—but those are topics for another time.

Returning to the Tian family case, I thought it would be useful for the international Bagua Zhang community to revisit an article published in China in 2000. It features a letter from the late Yin style Bagua Zhang master, Xie Peiqi, who at the time felt strongly compelled to set the record straight while the controversy was still fresh. His words provide valuable clarification and insight into the matter.

Xie Peiqi (1920–2003) was a disciple of Men Baozhen, who in turn studied under Yin Fu, one of Dong Haichuan’s most well-known disciples. Before his passing in 2003, Xie appointed He Jinbao as his successor, who continues to teach and propagate the art today.

What follows is a full translation of that original article, as it appeared in the year 2000.

Untying the Bell (Exposing the Truth) with a Conversation — On My Disciple Shi Junjie

Preface

In the ongoing discussion concerning the origins of the Baguazhang practiced by Tian Hui, this journal has previously published articles by Tian Keting, Huang Xin, and Kang Gewu. In this issue, we are publishing Mr. Xie Peiqi’s article titled “Untying the Bell with a Conversation—On My Disciple Shi Junjie.” We now present the perspective of the person directly involved to readers who are following this issue closely. As for whether Shi Junjie was truly a disciple of Xie Peiqi, or whether Tian Hui learned Baguazhang from Shi Junjie—whether this “bell” has indeed been untied through this article—remains to be seen. Should readers or either party in this matter uncover new findings or perspectives, we encourage continued submissions.

Our hope is to further deepen the discussion regarding the origins and lineage of Baguazhang. Through open dialogue, we aim to discard falsehoods and preserve the truth, restoring historical clarity. In doing so, we hope to trace the genuine roots of Baguazhang and promote an academic ethos of seeking truth from facts within the martial arts community.

In his article “Basic Knowledge of Baguazhang,” Huang Xin of Yunnan cited Kang Gewu’s 1984 article “A Study of the Origins of Baguazhang: An Examination of Another Branch of the Baguazhang Lineage” to state:

“Tian Hui learned Baguazhang from Shi Junjie, the senior disciple of Xie Peiqi, a fourth-generation inheritor of Baguazhang.”

While he was alive, Tian Hui remained silent and indifferent toward this investigation. In September of last year, his son, Tian Keyan, published a rebuttal article titled “An ‘Investigation’ That Cannot Withstand Investigation.”

Over the past half year, I have been teaching and giving lectures abroad and had no time to read domestic publications. Upon returning to China, I saw that Tian Keyan’s article had mentioned me by name. Thus, I now feel it necessary to speak up and present the true facts of the matter to my fellow martial artists and to those who care about the martial arts. I welcome scrutiny and verification—what is true cannot be faked, and what is false cannot be made real.

Xie Peiqi (left) with his Shifu, Men Baozhen (seated)

My Relationship with My Disciple Shi Junjie

On the first day of the tenth lunar month in 1958, I took students to pay respects at the grave of Elder Dong (Haichuan), and by chance, I encountered Shi Junjie, who had also come to visit Dong’s tomb. That was how we first met. After that, Shi Junjie began learning Baguazhang and locking and seizing (qinna) from me. In 1961, Shi Junjie and several other students formally became my disciples. Those who became my disciples at the same time included Liu Fang, Liu Shichang, Zhang Shizhong, Liu Xun, Du Fengru, Xue Changhai, Zhang Liang, He Jinbao, Fang Ruiting, Wang Lihai, and others. Among my formally accepted disciples, Shi Junjie was older and had decent skill, so he became the senior disciple in my school.

Unfortunately, this disciple of mine passed away early. He primarily learned from me portions of Baguazhang such as the Qian Trigram Lion Form Palm, the Zhen Trigram Dragon Form Palm, and the Li Trigram Rooster Form Palm etc. Sadly, he passed away before completing his studies, which to this day remains a deep regret for me.

Shi Junjie and Tian Hui

The acquaintance between Shi Junjie and Tian Hui began through their family members. Shi’s second wife and Tian’s wife worked at the same workplace and had a close friendship, through which the two men gradually got to know each other. At the time, both men were martial arts enthusiasts. Shi was studying Baguazhang and locking and seizing (qinna) with me, while Tian Hui practiced Gongliquan (a type of strength-building boxing).

Tian wanted to learn Baguazhang, so he began following Shi to study. At one point, Shi asked me whether he could teach others. I casually told him he could, without inquiring into who exactly he intended to teach. After that, Tian Hui began practicing Baguazhang with Shi on a weekly basis.

During this period, Tian once borrowed Shi’s Baguazhang training notebook. When I learned of this, I immediately criticized Shi Junjie, telling him that he should not casually reveal his training notes—especially not lend them out to others. I then strictly ordered him to retrieve the notebook. After repeated reminders, Shi’s wife eventually retrieved the notebook from Tian’s home. This took place around 1970.

Around 1982, Tian Hui accompanied Shi Junjie to visit me at my home. During the conversation, Tian asked me, “Teacher Xie, do dragons exist in the human world?” I replied, “No.”

Tian said: “The dragon is a feudal construct. I want to change the dragon form to the python form, and the phoenix form to the roc (peng) form.”

I replied: “The dragon and phoenix are born of Heaven and Earth, representing the primal yang and yin. Without the dragon and phoenix, there is no transformation between yin and yang. A python is just a type of snake.”

The above is the historical truth of the matter between my disciple Shi Junjie and Tian Hui. I welcome all, including Tian Keyan, to investigate and clarify the facts, and to correct public opinion.

Xie Peiqi
February 16, 2000