Making my SLT into meditation [Archive]

anerlich

11-20-2002, 09:51 PM

I spent three years doing about thirty minutes of menditation a day. The people I were involved with in this had a weird agenda, along the lines of my "False Prophet" article on Rene's site, and these days I am DEEPLY cynical of many such practices and the whole MA/spirituality/satori/nirvana line of thought, if that is not a contradiction in terms on some level.

The main questions for you IMHO are:

What do you want to achieve through meditation?

What do you want to achieve through SLT?

Are the goals of the practices compatible?

If yes to the last, you can probably double up. If not you can't.

The time saving, efficiency and economising line of thought probably violates some tenets of some aspects of the practice (do it THIS way and achieve enlightenment in not 32, but 12 (TWELVE!) minutes per day!!! Call now, 1-800-AUMMMM!). But then I suppose so does having goals (even to reduce the time spent to reach the results you're not supposed to seek after anyway).

As I said, I don't really buy into this. Enlightenment's right here, right now. The harder you try to reach it, the more practices and layers and organisations and gurus and teachers and masters and Sifus you put between it and yourself, the further away it gets ....

It's a window manager on my Linux box.

cha kuen

11-22-2002, 03:09 AM

Anerlich,

To answer your questions, I'm practicing sitting meditation right now to help with my spirituaity. However, chi kung is also a form of meditation and helps with spirituality as well.

I do my SLT to work on my wing chun and that's it.

So i'm doing my SLT and then my sitting meditation. At first I was thinking of doing a tai chi standing post meditation instead of the sitting one because I can work on being connected and rooted at the same time as I work on my spirituality.

Then I thought, what the hell- why don't I just do my SLT in a meditative manner such as concentrating on my breath and such. I believe that when I get into deep meditation and learn how to get Deep easily, I can apply deep meditation with anything. Even taking a sh*T !! haha.

Yes I agree that spirituality is right here and now and that I don't need to talk to any dai lalama or masters. It comes from within. I personally had these "awakening" expereince that were like a natural exstacy!! I want it so i'm working for it.

I don't believe in joining a spritual lesson class that costs money. F- that.

kung fu books (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=taichimaster06&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25)

wingchunner

11-22-2002, 07:57 AM

If it came to be a choice between SLT and meditation it will be SLT. However, I think that a standing meditation will help your SLT. Seated meditation will also, but I don't think quite as well as the standing. If you are unable to do the standing meditation for at least 20 min., I would recommend putting that time towards other WC training.

Marty

cha kuen

11-22-2002, 08:53 AM

Thanks for the advice but I don't think I will ever have to choose between meditation (spirituality) and martial arts.

As for the "put more time into wc" that is something that has alwasy bugged me. Many people say "instead of doing that, just put more time into your training."

That statements is saying that we all have a full schedule in our lives and have no extra time slots. What if I have a lot of free time? Then I could do this and that and it wouldn't matter. It would be like instead of me playing basketball, I would meditate. Or instead of watching 30 minutes of TV, i take that time to do standing meditation or hell, even learn BJJ.

Most people misunderstand that since someone is talking about 2 things, related to the martial arts, they suddenly switch to a "either or " mode.

Example. John is doing wc and wants to learn BJJ as well. Some may say, just spend more time working on your wc. What if John does spend an hour everyday doing wc, and he still has time and wants to do BJJ? Are you stil gonna tell him to spend more time on wc? Why can't he go learn BJJ? It's the same thing as him spending 2 hours a day watching MTV, instead he goes to learn BJJ. (or meditate, standing or sitting)

Not much relevant to the original post topic but I think it's a point to be brought up since many poeple in the MA say " spend more time doing ___" as if we are all slackers with 100% busy schedules. =]

kung fu books (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=taichimaster06&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25)

yuanfen

11-22-2002, 08:58 AM

cha kuen- doing slt "mindfully" and sitting meditation are two quite different things. They can be complementary but they are NOT the same.

Marshdrifter

11-22-2002, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by cha kuen
Can I just do my slt and focus on my breath to kill two birds with one stone?

You could, but you wouldn't be improving your Wing Chun or at least, not as much as you could be.

There are lots of different types of meditation. I think that doing
SLT while being mindful of your SLT can be a meditation of a sort,
but it would be different and perhaps not as effective a meditation
as, say, zazen.

It'd be best to do both, I think.

wingchunner

11-22-2002, 11:10 AM

for the lashing of your keyboard. I see I'm to be the recipient of your frustration of people saying "put more time into wc".

FWIW, your original post suggested you were open to thoughts. I gave you mine.

My point was this: your time would be better spent doing something worthwhile than spending only a small amount of time doing meditation.

BTW, meditation doesn't have to be spiritual to be beneficial.

Also, as time goes by, SLT will become more meditative; though I am not sure I would say that it is meditation.

Marty

cha kuen

11-22-2002, 01:48 PM

Marty,

I wasn't thrashing you. I was just simply talking about another issue that you brought up and thank you for brining that up. I have always been told things like that and I've been meaning to post a topic but never got around to it. (Because i've been practicing so much wc! j/k)

Your post just reminded me on it and I just wanted to take the opportunity to talk about it that's all. I'm just giving another perspective that most people may not see.

I did put a happy face at the end!! =]

Didnt mean to thrash you.

regards,

cha kuen.

cha kuen

11-22-2002, 01:50 PM

Yuanfan,

Would you say that praticing SLT and standing meditation are the same? They are very similar aren't they? SLT and tai chi standing post?

wingchunner

11-22-2002, 02:06 PM

The tone of your post seemed pretty harsh. Even with the smiling face.

I know you were just ranting, but I wanted to determine if that's all it was or if you were really a jerk.

just a rant. good.

Marty

yuanfen

11-22-2002, 03:21 PM

cha kuen asks:
Yuanfan,

Would you say that praticing SLT and standing meditation are the same? They are very similar aren't they? SLT and tai chi standing post?

-----------------------------------------
Cha kuen: If in ygkym you do not make the martial hand motions but let your hands hang on the sides or even the front you are doing something parallel to the taiji standing post. The taiji folks
do not pronate their toes in, the pelvis and kua arrangements are different- but the functions are equivalent- knowing each gravitational path with relaxed but sound structure, storing energy, and calming the mind.
If you do the hand motions then you are focusing on doing the martial motions willfully for martial development.

I dont see a problem in doing the both standing and the motions
as separate things....one for personal development and the other for martial foundations.

fa_jing

11-25-2002, 10:27 AM

I think seated, still meditation is great, if you know what you're doing. The thing is, I no longer have time and silence for this practice. I do my Yoga meditatively, it's pretty nice.

Tap Man

11-25-2002, 12:20 PM

Cha Kuen,

I have found almost all the hand motions from SLT in other arts such as Ba Gua, Bak Siu Lin, and Filipino Hilot practices. Certain movements in each art not each art having all the movements. If you were just looking for different meditations and breathing exercises while practicing SLT the chi kung's from these arts have some very good meditations that are not too far off from the motions of SLT. That is if you wanted to compare various breathing techniques and rhythms to the SLT form. I have found that for relaxing doing Kundalini breathing while doing the SLT also works great for clearing the lungs and for meditating. However that is just my experience with it. I think in the end all martial arts are to unify the mind, body, spirit connection so as long as you are getting that then go with what feels rights. Hope this is helpful.

Tap Man Out

anerlich

11-25-2002, 02:41 PM

Arguably, seated meditation was developed to quiet the mind. Standing post meditation to cultivate the flow of chi. And SLT to practice fighting techniques.

The concpetual purpose of SLT is different from either of the other practices.

While this is a bit simplistic, I believe it still applies.

If you think you can combine two of these practices and thereby also combine results achieved, the big question is whether 2+2=3, 2+2=4, or 2+2=5.

Synergy's wonderful, but IMO happens far less often than our wishful thinking would have it.

yuanfen

11-25-2002, 03:01 PM

Anerlich:Arguably, seated meditation was developed to quiet the mind. Standing post meditation to cultivate the flow of chi. And SLT to practice fighting techniques.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good distinctions.
Yuanfen

[Censored]

11-25-2002, 04:24 PM

Arguably, seated meditation was developed to quiet the mind. Standing post meditation to cultivate the flow of chi. And SLT to practice fighting techniques.

They are good distinctions, as far as distinctions go. But I'd like to hear your argument for fighting as SLT's original purpose and reason for development.

Unless, of course, it's an argument by authority. ;)

anerlich

11-25-2002, 07:14 PM

They are good distinctions, as far as distinctions go. But I'd like to hear your argument for fighting as SLT's original purpose and reason for development.

Well, I did say it was simplistic. :D

I guess the purpose of SLT is more to develop structure that can be used in fighting. If it's revolutionary beginnings are to be believed, WC was a no-nonsense style whose primary purpose was for fighting rather than health cultivation. You're learning to redirect and to hit, not to move qi around the body.

The "tree-hugger" exercise, though, is for chi cultivation and health. While that could have combat applications, that is not its primary purpose.

So if you want to cultivate chi, hug a tree rather than SLT. If you want to improve your WC structure for combat, do SLT rather than the standing post exercise. If you want a particular result, do the exercise purported to develop it best,

Unless, of course, it's an argument by authority

I hope it didn't come across like that. Of course, a formerly prolific poster here who recently decided to switch to MMA training tried to have us believe that authority comes after visiting 16 schools and training for less than a year. ;)

yuanfen

11-25-2002, 08:25 PM

Tapman says:I have found that for relaxing doing Kundalini breathing while doing the SLT also works great for clearing the lungs and for meditating. However that is just my experience with it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some kundalini, some slt!
Sounds like neither fish nor fowl.
RH must be doing a version
by himself hmmmm.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
joy chaudhuri

Kathryn

11-25-2002, 10:12 PM

Yawn...The Chosen One speaks.

Yet again, Yuanfen has something to offer someone when they ask for nothing. What a gift. What a glorious educator he is.

Yuanfen can mean "bringing people together through fate" be it a great teacher and good student as Joy says, or a King and his servant, a man and his torturor or even more complex. For is is not only through "fate" or "destiny" as Joy describes but through karma, your previous life-actions determining your current existence.

Joy, you are curiously selective when it comes to karma, aren't you? I could be a part of your karma. I could be your karma calling you on your superciliousness. I could be your karma calling you on your arrogance.

Who are you exactly to offer critique of someone's meditation practices? Who are you exactly to insult other schools or other forms of martial arts? Who are you exactly to offer advice as if it were gospel?

Of course, you show yourself to be The Joy of Pomposity when you write. Extravagant phrases flow, yet they are filled with constant misspelling. You critique technique of various people, yet you are constantly in front of the keyboard posting and not fine-tuning your own wing chun. You claim other posters are arrogant and condescending when anyone with more than three active brain cells can see that you are one of the most disrespectful.

Quit gibbon all the people so much fen (as in fen=filth, sh**,insults, etc). Maybe then, your opinion of yourself could actually be somewhat warranted.

John Weiland

11-25-2002, 10:36 PM

Hi Kathryn,

Originally posted by Kathryn
Yawn...The Chosen One speaks.

Yet again, Yuanfen has something to offer someone when they ask for nothing. What a gift. What a glorious educator he is.

Joy has earned the right to say what he wants. What he's said on this thread makes a lot of sense. Have you ever done meditation or SLT or combined the two? What has been your experience?

Yuanfen can mean "bringing people together through fate" be it a great teacher and good student as Joy says, or a King and his servant, a man and his torturor or even more complex. For is is not only through "fate" or "destiny" as Joy describes but through karma, your previous life-actions determining your current existence.

Joy, you are curiously selective when it comes to karma, aren't you? I could be a part of your karma. I could be your karma calling you on your superciliousness. I could be your karma calling you on your arrogance.
One's karma is one's karma, I suppose. Look to your own.

Who are you exactly to offer critique of someone's meditation practices? Who are you exactly to insult other schools or other forms of martial arts? Who are you exactly to offer advice as if it were gospel?

Uh, he is a college professor with a PhD and lots of academic written works to measure him by. Additionally, he uses his real name on this forum so a diligent student can compare his posts to the man. He is also of Indian birth and raised in a culture permeated with such discussion. What are your credentials?

Of course, you show yourself to be The Joy of Pomposity when you write. Extravagant phrases flow, yet they are filled with constant misspelling.

:rolleyes: Examine your own spelling. Are you Joy's "torturor (sic)?"

You critique technique of various people, yet you are constantly in front of the keyboard posting and not fine-tuning your own wing chun. You claim other posters are arrogant and condescending when anyone with more than three active brain cells can see that you are one of the most disrespectful.

I think you are projecting.

Quit gibbon all the people so much fen (as in fen=filth, sh**,insults, etc). Maybe then, your opinion of yourself could actually be somewhat warranted.
A little self-reflection might be in odor. :D :rolleyes:

Rolling_Hand

11-25-2002, 11:02 PM

--Joy, you are curiously selective when it comes to karma, aren't you? I could be a part of your karma. I could be your karma calling you on your superciliousness. I could be your karma calling you on your arrogance.--Kathryn

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Kathryn,

It's nice to see a stand up person like you here.

Whatever exists in our world is worth experiencing. Today, perhaps, there is a snowfall at Yuanfen's house.

Mr Punch

11-26-2002, 12:07 AM

Interesting chat, until you decided to bate Trolling Hand, Joy...

But I tend to agree with John Weiland on Joy, and Anerlich on the subject.

Trolling Hand and Kathryn5A can go **** themselves, or each other if it makes them happy.

Rolling_Hand

11-26-2002, 05:24 AM

How easy it is to see your brothers's faults,
How hard to face your own.
But life is hard
For the man who quietly undertakes
The way of Tao,
He sees light.
There is no fire like passion,
Kathryn is here to help someone
To see light.

Humm...

yuanfen

11-26-2002, 07:13 AM

My point ( --- re:"breathing"
in kundalini yoga---there are many different kinds of breathing and one needs
decent instruction there as in wing chun. Incorrect kundalini breathing can be harmful (serious advice).

The popularization of yoga and yoga terms has brought its own baggage as also in wing chun--note- IMO of course.

In the slt- just doing the motions regularly and mindfully will show the way to proper breathing "naturally". Adjustment(to the task at hand) is built into the slt.

((there is not a personal remark in the above, the trolls not withstanding).

joy chaudhuri

Tap Man

11-26-2002, 07:29 AM

YIP CHUN SAID IN A SEMINAR:

"If you could choose, which would you prefer: to be a good fighter, or to have good health? Most people would choose good health. So, if you teach Wing Chun, I would like you to emphasize the health aspect of the art."

THIS QUOTE IS TAKEN FROM DAN LUCAS NOTES AND MARTIN ENG'S TRANSLATIONS, AND CAN BE FOUND ON WINGCHUN.ORG SITE UNDER THE YIP CHUN SEMINAR NOTES. YIP CHUN HAS ALSO STATED IN HIS BOOKS, ONE WITH DANNY CONNER AND ONE WITH MICHAEL TSE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HEALTH ASPECT OF WING CHUN AND SLT. HE SAYS SPECIFICALLY IN THE BOOK WITH DANNY CONNER THAT THE WING CHUN TRAINING, FORMS/CHI SAU, IS WHAT KEEPS HIM IN SUCH GOOD SHAPE AT SUCH AN AGE.

SO AS I TAKE CHA KUENS ORIGINAL QUESTION THERE ARE THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND A WAY TO USE THE SLT FOR MEDIATION AND HEALTH WITH OUT THEN MINDSET OF FIGHTING TECHNIQUES AND IT MAKES THEM HAPPY AND CONTENT. IF YOU WISH TO BALANCE OUT YOUR PERSONAL TRAINING THEN PERHAPS SEEKING OUT THEIR METHOD IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO LOOK OUTSIDE OF WING CHUN FOR MEDITATIONS AND/OR CHI KUNGS FROM SLT.

JOY WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON KUNDALINI? DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE METHOD COMBINED WITH SLT FOR MEDITATION? HAS MY POST BORED YOU INTO FALLING ASLEEP?

FOR THE RECORD I TYPE IN ALL CAPS ONLY TO DISTINGUISH MYSELF FROM QUOTES OR REPLIES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOUTING.

Tap Man Out

yenhoi

11-26-2002, 07:40 AM

My original SIfu was Michael Tse. The SLT was to be done slowly ( first section) intentfully (breath, centerline, elbow, forward). He emphasized the health aspect of the art, and softness, and rootedness, and centerline, and........... anyways. WCK is not YOGA. Listen to yuanfen, dont screw with the breathing, and dont do the SLT attempting for an empty mind.

yuanfen

11-26-2002, 08:09 AM

Tap Man's post and reply:

JOY WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON KUNDALINI? DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE METHOD COMBINED WITH SLT FOR MEDITATION?

(no)

HAS MY POST BORED YOU INTO FALLING ASLEEP?

(dozing. my earlier slt early early at 4 am saved me from zzz)

FOR THE RECORD I TYPE IN ALL CAPS ONLY TO DISTINGUISH MYSELF FROM QUOTES OR REPLIES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOUTING

((What record? Typing in capitals is normally bad netiquette.
Dont have to take my word for it- check around)) yuanfen/joy chaudhuri

Tap Man

11-26-2002, 08:50 AM

Interesting. A very good friend of mine teaches Kundalini Yoga, and yes I am very much aware that WCK and Yoga are very different, and he felt that combining elements of the Kundalini breathing with certain aspects would work for health benefits.

Thanks for the heads up on the harmful effects he too warned of certain things to be careful about. Which is why when I do any of the Breathing I do it strictly as he taught it to me with the cautions full in mind.

I am not saying combine WC and Kundalini to form some super spiritual art or exercise. My point has been that if you want to mediate and you are studying from someone who stresses fighting more than meditating, either check out other WC branches that have meditations in their teachings or take up some other type of training to include it in your personal routine and lifestyle. I believe in keeping the arts seperate for training the specifice art and training it the way it is taught by your sifu/guro. I think the founders of most martial arts combined elements to form arts that were specific to them. Isn't WC itself a combination art, from the hand techniques, to the weapons from other arts? Some times combining works for the individual.

As for "netiquette" I explain why I post in caps when I reply to quotes or comments pasted in my posts to prevent any misdirected intentions. As many backhanded comments are thrown my way, and and no one seems to care about "netiquette" until after i've countered, I choose to state that i'm not shouting or attacking anyone so that it is clear to distinguish my responses from the pasted quotes.

We seem to agree on disagreeing!

The posts on this thread has just been my opinion on what has worked for me and my posting of that fact. For Cha Kuen, who is the whole reason we are on this particular thread, I hope that you were able to get some information out all the posts on this thread to help you in your training.

Tap Man Out

[Censored]

11-26-2002, 12:22 PM

I guess the purpose of SLT is more to develop structure that can be used in fighting. If it's revolutionary beginnings are to be believed, WC was a no-nonsense style whose primary purpose was for fighting rather than health cultivation. You're learning to redirect and to hit, not to move qi around the body.

Well, are they to be believed? Anyway, we need understanding and not blind beliefs.

What person with a need for fighting ability, will spend a few months standing in SLT to observe the result? I am talking about original intent and purpose, not just some useful side effect or coincidence.

Can anyone provide a reasonable chain of ideas, which lead to the adoption of SLT for fighting.

So if you want to cultivate chi, hug a tree rather than SLT. If you want to improve your WC structure for combat, do SLT rather than the standing post exercise. If you want a particular result, do the exercise purported to develop it best.

Forget "purported". Let's look at the evidence. What is the original meaning of SLT? What makes it unique? What can it do better than anything else? What is its essence, and what has been grafted on since its discovery?

I hope it didn't come across like that.

Not at all. I was only pre-empting a certain type of reply we don't need to hear.

Marshdrifter

11-26-2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
Can anyone provide a reasonable chain of ideas, which lead to the adoption of SLT for fighting.
How about this:

Wing Chun is a fighting art.
In order to learn any fighting art, including Wing Chun, correctly, you must develop a foundation of the basic skills and concepts.
The basic skills and concepts for Wing Chun are taught in the first form.
Merely knowing the form is not enough. In order to fully build a foundation, one must practice SLT repeatedly and with corrections from oneself and one's Sifu.
These skills will be built upon, and reinforced, by the later forms and various two person drills, such as chi sao.
Skipping the "building the foundation" portion of your training may not preclude one from becoming a good fighter (although they'll probably only get so far with no foundation), but most likely does mean that the fighter is not using Wing Chun.

Just some thoughts.

[Censored]

11-26-2002, 02:26 PM

Sorry Marshdrifter but that doesn't work. State your premises explicitly and leave out irrelevant details. Or just fill in the blank:

1) I want fighting skill.
2) SLT as kung-fu does not exist. (If it did, then we are not talking about original purpose.)
...
N-1) ________?
N) I will stand in SLT for long periods of time, on a daily basis, and thereby build fighting skill.
:confused:

anerlich

11-26-2002, 03:04 PM

YIP CHUN SAID IN A SEMINAR

[Censored] - now THAT is an argument by authority. It might contain some truth, though.

2) SLT as kung-fu does not exist. (If it did, then we are not talking about original purpose.)

Don't understand what you are getting at here. Without that making sense you have two empty lines of reasoning, not just one at N-1.

Marshdrifter

11-26-2002, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
Sorry Marshdrifter but that doesn't work. State your premises explicitly and leave out irrelevant details. Or just fill in the blank:

1) I want fighting skill.
So you just want fighting skill? Does this imply it doesn't have to
be Wing Chun? If not, then just get into a lot of fights to gain
practical experience. If so, then you've gotta do SLT. A lot. You've
also gotta do Chi Sao and Chum Kiu, and arguably a whole host
of other drills. Again, a lot.

2) SLT as kung-fu does not exist. (If it did, then we are not talking about original purpose.)
Here, you're starting to lose me. Are you using "kung-fu" to mean
"good skill," in which case I'd disagree, or do you mean "SLT as a
style of kung-fu separate from Wing Chun?"

N) I will stand in SLT for long periods of time, on a daily basis, and thereby build fighting skill.
:confused:
I'm still fuzzy on what you're asking, here, so I'm gonna take a
stab in the dark.

Doing SLT all by it's lonesome, will develop many important
qualities needed for effective Wing Chun (read: fighting skill), but
will not, still--all by it's lonesome, develop fighting skill. Going by
your list, as I understand it, it would look something like:

1. I want Wing Chun fighting skill.
2. Wing Chun fighting skill is a misnomer and actually refers to a set of skills that work together to create fighting skill. Amongst
these skills are core or foundation skills which the other skills need to function.
3. These foundations skills are taught within the first form of Wing
Chun, abreviated as SLT to help make up for various differences in spelling between different lineages.
4. As one practices SLT with proper guidence, SLT and the
corresponding foundation skills, will improve.
5. As the foundation skills improve, the Wing Chun fighting skill
will improve.

Note that your "N" corresponds with my #4 with #5 being your
"thereby" statement.

[Censored]

11-26-2002, 03:50 PM

Don't understand what you are getting at here. Without that making sense you have two empty lines of reasoning, not just one at N-1.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer. "I" in 1) refers to the person who invented SLT. In 1800 A.D., 1500 A.D., or whenever it actually happened. Prior to that, there was no SLT. After that, there was, with its original and intended purpose.

N-1) may need to be more than one statement.

Marshdrifer, you are giving a very complicated and obscure answer to a very simple question.

If you cannot give a simple, clear, and direct answer to the question I posed, then you have no business talking about the "purpose of SLT". If there is no simple, clear, and direct answer, then you cannot talk about the "purpose of SLT". Not you personally, but any appointed or self-appointed expert on the subject.

We looking for evidence that SLT was originally intended as fighting training. Time to put up, or shut up. ;)

Marshdrifter

11-26-2002, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
Sorry, I should have made that clearer. "I" in 1) refers to the person who invented SLT. In 1800 A.D., 1500 A.D., or whenever it actually happened. Prior to that, there was no SLT. After that, there was, with its original and intended purpose.
Oooooohhhhhhhhhh...

I would think the inventor of SLT made it with the intent to
either practice or pass on the skills of Wing Chun, perhaps both.
The person was sitting around thinking to herself, "I've got this
kick butt fighting style, but I need to come up with a concise way
of passing it on." She probably came up with a form that was the
predecessor of SLT. SLT, as we know it, most likely came about
through a series of revisions.

Marshdrifer, you are giving a very complicated and obscure answer to a very simple question.
I apologize. I had no idea what it was you were trying to ask.

If you cannot give a simple, clear, and direct answer to the question I posed, then you have no business talking about the "purpose of SLT". If there is no simple, clear, and direct answer, then you cannot talk about the "purpose of SLT". Not you personally, but any appointed or self-appointed expert on the subject.
I'm certainly no expert on this, or arguably any, subject. That said,
there can be no simple, clear, and direct answer without a simple,
clear, and direct question.

Could you state it again in a simple, clear, and direct manner for
those of us with poor reading comprehension skills?

We looking for evidence that SLT was originally intended as fighting training.
Well, I'd think that was somewhat obvious. Wing Chun seems
to have always been a method of fighting. SLT was most likely
always meant to help teach Wing Chun. Does learning a method
of fighting not count as "fighting training?" If not, please define
fighting training.

Grendel

11-26-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Marshdrifter
I would think the inventor of SLT made it with the intent to
either practice or pass on the skills of Wing Chun, perhaps both.
The person was sitting around thinking to herself, "I've got this
kick butt fighting style, but I need to come up with a concise way
of passing it on." She probably came up with a form that was the
predecessor of SLT. SLT, as we know it, most likely came about
through a series of revisions.

Wing Chun oral traditions support this. Wing Chun is a fighting system that pares down and eliminates superfluous techniques. Sil Lim Tao has been retained ever since it was added, so it must be essential to teaching Wing Chun fighting skills, as I have come to recognize them.

I apologize. I had no idea what it was you were trying to ask.

LOL! Who could? :D

I'm certainly no expert on this, or arguably any, subject. That said,
there can be no simple, clear, and direct answer without a simple,
clear, and direct question.

A very Wing Chunish statement. :D

Could you state it again in a simple, clear, and direct manner for
those of us with poor reading comprehension skills?

Well, I'd think that was somewhat obvious. Wing Chun seems
to have always been a method of fighting. SLT was most likely
always meant to help teach Wing Chun. Does learning a method
of fighting not count as "fighting training?" If not, please define
fighting training.
I will patiently await the answer.

Regards,

[Censored]

11-26-2002, 04:54 PM

would think the inventor of SLT made it with the intent to
either practice or pass on the skills of Wing Chun, perhaps both.
The person was sitting around thinking to herself, "I've got this
kick butt fighting style, but I need to come up with a concise way
of passing it on."

You think the essence of Wing Chun came first, without SLT. And SLT came later. So SLT is not really the core of Wing Chun? Or, Wing Chun today is fundamentally different than it originally was? Or SLT is insignificant?

She probably came up with a form that was the
predecessor of SLT. SLT, as we know it, most likely came about
through a series of revisions.

What was the predecessor? Where are all the revisions now?

Could you state it again in a simple, clear, and direct manner for those of us with poor reading comprehension skills?

Prove the original intended purpose of SLT. Prove it was for fighting. In a way that any reasonable person can accept.

Well, I'd think that was somewhat obvious. Wing Chun seems
to have always been a method of fighting. SLT was most likely
always meant to help teach Wing Chun.

State your evidence. The evidence will tell us whether it is obvious or likely.

yuanfen

11-26-2002, 05:45 PM

Attempting to answer Censored's questions.
1. Allow for the fact that in many traditional Asian arts and fields of knowledge
authorship was often cumulative. This makes dealing with their history in the western sense somewhat problematic specially where the transmission is direct and literature practically non existent. Plus all history in varying degrees are stories- riddled with the historian's inferences. Having stated the qualifier---keeping it simple.
2. hung gar - atleast some families of hung gar also has the YGKYM
3. But building the slt on the ygkym seems to be a core foundation of wing chun.
4, I recently saw a picture of Ip Man in YGKYM ina list menber's collection. The pic is so much more vibrant and strong when compared to the pics towards the end when he was already quite ill. It reeks of martial quality- eyes bright looking ahead-
not much aura of a meditative pose.
5. The seated posture(s)-padmasana, sukhasana are best for meditation. Some Buddhist versions use a cushion. The gravitational path for efficient energy in motion in the spine is clear yet less efort is needed for erectness when compared to standing- clearly nota primary martial stance.
6,The slt can be used for health purposes. Health and martial activity are not necessarily mutually exclusive- though some non wc postures and practices can be bad for health IMO.
7. Standing postures can be informed with mindfulness but are not the ideal for samadhi
8.. IMO- the slt was developed with martial activity in mind. The correct completion of each motion involves transfer of explosive
energy along a specific path and in specific gates.

Of course any activity can be an occasion for learning "mindfulness"...but one does not need to do martial motion for midfulness.(Flower arrangement can suffice or sipping cha) Hence the primacy of the martial foundations of the slt
..evn with its association with one temple or another.

Joy Chaudhuri/yuanfen

PS Sorry for keyboarding errors with two fingers. Never typed either.
Number 2 pencil has carried me far.

[Censored]

11-26-2002, 06:26 PM

4, I recently saw a picture of Ip Man in YGKYM ina list menber's collection. The pic is so much more vibrant and strong when compared to the pics towards the end when he was already quite ill. It reeks of martial quality- eyes bright looking ahead-
not much aura of a meditative pose.

Does this list member have a scanner?

anerlich

11-26-2002, 07:01 PM

If you cannot give a simple, clear, and direct answer to the question I posed, then you have no business talking about the "purpose of SLT". If there is no simple, clear, and direct answer, then you cannot talk about the "purpose of SLT". Not you personally, but any appointed or self-appointed expert on the subject.

I understand this is not personal. I find these excellent questions and quite challenging.

To be honest, I can't answer your questions definitively and doubt anyone else alive today could either.

Modern history discounts the role of the Shaolin Temple in WC's development, though all Chinese endeavors prior to Communism seem to be touched by Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

If Rene, Robert Chu, and Y.Wu are correct, verifiable history takes us back no further than the Red Boats. As the protagonists were supposedly fugitive revolutionaries, scretly plotting the return of the Ming, it seems to me that their focus would have been on fighting, to escape capture or to undertake revolutionary activities.

In my own experience, WC has always been presented to me as a system of combat, not of health cultivation or spiritual enlightenment. And always as a style and training method to achieve fighting competence in a short time with little other accumulated mental baggage.

I don't know that SLT has an "essence" per se. I think yuanfen's idea of it being passed on as part of an oral tradition makes sense. At various times, various people may have emphasised different aspects of it to students, discovered other qualities within it that others missed or did not regard as having the same relevance - possibly even seeing things that weren't there.

Except in the world of religion, it is rare that a revelation results in a new tool or practice springing fully-formed and complete into existence. Rather it grows over time through iterative experimentation and exploration, and the influence and synthesis with external ideas. I can't see WC or SLT being any different.

If this sounds like a long winded way of saying "I don't have a **** clue," maybe it is.

Marshdrifter

11-26-2002, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
You think the essence of Wing Chun came first, without SLT. And SLT came later. So SLT is not really the core of Wing Chun? Or, Wing Chun today is fundamentally different than it originally was? Or SLT is insignificant?
These are excellent questions. I do think that the form came after
the conceptual fighting style. It seems to me that it would be hard
to create a form before you have started to solidify the core
principles of a martial style.

I think the core principles of Wing Chun were formulated and put
into the first form. Is SLT the core? Not really, the skills are the
core. SLT teaches these skills. Augustine Fong's SLT is different
than the one from my lineage. Does it still teach the core skills?
You betcha. The forms are part of the transmission of the style,
a type of teaching, not the style themselves. OTOH, in my lineage,
there is no other standardized way of teaching the principles.
I think there are a couple of other lineages (someone correct me
on this, please) that do teach different drills instead of the three
"common" forms.

What was the predecessor? Where are all the revisions now?
I do not know what the predecessor was. Presumeably, it came
from another martial art, or perhaps a hybrid of other martial arts.
These in turn became refined over time. We can sort of see how
the revisions have spun off in how the differences of the various
lineages exist. This does not make any one of the
lineages "better" than the others. Not all of the previous revisions
were necessarily worse than what is practiced today. They may
not have been all that different either. Revising something does
not necessarily require a huge reworking.

Prove the original intended purpose of SLT. Prove it was for fighting. In a way that any reasonable person can accept.
Thank you for restating that. I'm not sure that this is provable
through anything better than a sort of analogous evidence. I can't
think of any martial art, that both claims to teach fighting ability
and has forms, that does not use the forms to help teach the
martial art, and hence the fighting ability of that martial art. If you
or anybody else can, I'd like to hear about it. I know that some
classes just teach forms, but don't make claims about fighting
ability and I know that some make claims about fighting ability
but couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack, but I don't
know of any that claim to teach fighting ability and teach forms
but claim the forms don't improve the fighting ability (if only
through the improved transmission of the art).

State your evidence. The evidence will tell us whether it is obvious or likely.
My evidence is the failure to produce any evidence that disproves
my hypothesis (that being all martial arts claiming to teach fighting
ability and using forms within that art use the forms to aid in
transmission of that art and thus the fighting ability found within
that art). I shall continue to keep my eyes and ears open and if I
find such evidence, I shall have to rework my hypothesis. This is
the method of the science I was trained in, so please show me
the evidence that would lead you to think otherwise, if you indeed
do.

[Censored]

11-27-2002, 12:15 PM

I'm not sure that this is provable through anything better than a sort of analogous evidence. I can't think of any martial art, that both claims to teach fighting ability and has forms, that does not use the forms to help teach the martial art, and hence the fighting ability of that martial art. If you or anybody else can, I'd like to hear about it.

That is not the question. I can stab you with a screwdriver, but it doesn't prove a screwdriver was invented for stabbing, nor does it suggest stabbing is the tool's optimal purpose. And if I am not using an optimal tool then I am wasting my time and energy.

Marshdrifter

11-27-2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
I'm not sure that this is provable through anything better than a sort of analogous evidence. I can't think of any martial art, that both claims to teach fighting ability and has forms, that does not use the forms to help teach the martial art, and hence the fighting ability of that martial art. If you or anybody else can, I'd like to hear about it.

That is not the question.
Correct. That is my answer to your "question," which, when I
asked for a "simple, clear, and direct" question, you had provided
as: "Prove the original intended purpose of SLT. Prove it was for fighting. In a way that any reasonable person can accept." I believe I have done so by showing the evidence that supports
my hypothesis, stating that I haven't any evidence that disproves
my hypothesis, implicitly invoking Occam's razor (which satisfies
the "any reasonable person" condition), and asking for anybody
on the forum to please provide any evidence to the contrary. So
far, nobody has provided any.

I can stab you with a screwdriver, but it doesn't prove a screwdriver was invented for stabbing, nor does it suggest stabbing is the tool's optimal purpose. And if I am not using an optimal tool then I am wasting my time and energy.
I hope it won't come to that. :)
Your example is true. However, using the same line of reasoning
I used for the forms:

Most people use screwdrivers for screwing in screws. If asked,
most people will tell you screwdrivers are designed to screw
in screws, even if they use these screwdrivers for other purposes,
such as opening paint cans. It can then be inferred, via Occam's
razor, that the primary purpose of screwdrivers is to screw in
screws.

I'm kind of glad you switched from original purpose to optimal
purpose, as my hypothesis holds up better when dealing with
optimal, although it arguably works for original as well.

[Censored]

11-27-2002, 02:15 PM

That is my answer to your "question," which, when I
asked for a "simple, clear, and direct" question, you had provided
as: "Prove the original intended purpose of SLT. Prove it was for fighting. In a way that any reasonable person can accept." I believe I have done so by showing the evidence that supports
my hypothesis, stating that I haven't any evidence that disproves
my hypothesis, implicitly invoking Occam's razor (which satisfies
the "any reasonable person" condition), and asking for anybody
on the forum to please provide any evidence to the contrary. So
far, nobody has provided any.

- Other martial arts use forms to teach their martial art and fighting ability.
- SLT is a form.
- Therefore SLT was originally intended to teach fighting ability.

Is that your proposal? It ain't reasonable.

- Prove it wasn't intended for fighting, otherwise I will assume it was.

Do what pleases you, but this is not reasonable either. :)

- Applying "Occam's razor", SLT was probably intended for fighting.

This is a nonsensical interpretation of Occam's razor! You have confused "popular" with "simple".

I'm kind of glad you switched from original purpose to optimal
purpose, as my hypothesis holds up better when dealing with
optimal, although it arguably works for original as well.

I did not. "Invented for" = "original purpose".

11-27-2002, 02:25 PM

LOL @ you guys. As my Grandpa used to say to us kids, "Fight nice, now." :D

Regards,
- kj

reneritchie

11-27-2002, 02:40 PM

Western culture often tends to view things as separate where others may not. Water, ice, and steam, for example, are different states of the same substance (H2O). Likewise, as Joy pointed out, there is a vast culture from which WCK/SLT evolved, and unless it was dropped down by aligns or given over by gods in a dream, it developed from this culture, which included concepts of Buddhism, Taoism, Confusionism, TCM, Qigong, etc. So, all this "prehistoric DNA" remains in the art, even if some never call upon it.

(And, FWIW, Hendrik's WCK family seems to believe SLT needs to be fully complient with TCM health improving practice, making at least one older example of multiple states in SLT).

RR

Marshdrifter

11-27-2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
- Other martial arts use forms to teach their martial art and fighting ability.
- SLT is a form.
- Therefore SLT was originally intended to teach fighting ability.

Is that your proposal? It ain't reasonable.
Sorry, that first part should read: "Wing Chun, as well as other
martial arts, use forms..."

How is this unreasonable?

- Prove it wasn't intended for fighting, otherwise I will assume it was.

Do what pleases you, but this is not reasonable either. :)
This part, taken out of context, makes it sound like I offered no
evidence to support my thoughts. If I have evidence that supports an idea, but have none which disproves that idea, I
would naturally believe that idea. How is this unreasonable?

- Applying "Occam's razor", SLT was probably intended for fighting.

This is a nonsensical interpretation of Occam's razor! You have confused "popular" with "simple".
You're missing a step in the logic there. Sorry, I should've been
more explicit.

My statement was "I can't think of any martial art, that both
claims to teach fighting ability and has forms, that does not use
the forms to help teach the martial art, and hence the fighting
ability of that martial art."

If this is true, and it will be assumed to be until new evidence
shows up, then which is the most simple explanation with
regards to Wing Chun? This is the point that Occam's razor is
being applied.

1. As long as SLT has been around, it has been used to aid in the
teaching of Wing Chun.

2. SLT was originally meant for some other, unspecified, purpose,
but was later adapted as a means of teaching Wing Chun. The
original use of SLT has since died out, or has become so obscured
through it's use of teaching Wing Chun skills as to be
unrecognizable.

I'm kind of glad you switched from original purpose to optimal
purpose, as my hypothesis holds up better when dealing with
optimal, although it arguably works for original as well.

I did not. "Invented for" = "original purpose".

In your screwdriver analogy, you switched from talking about
the original purpose ("invented for") of the screwdriver, to
talking about it's "optimal purpose." The optimal purpose of
something is not necessarily the purpose for which it was
intended.

Marshdrifter

11-27-2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by kj
LOL @ you guys. As my Grandpa used to say to us kids, "Fight nice, now." :D

Regards,
- kj

Hi KJ, I can't speak for [Censored] (or even get him to understand
me, sometimes :) ), but I think this debate has been nothing but
a fun time.

Marshdrifter

11-27-2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
Western culture often tends to view things as separate where others may not. Water, ice, and steam, for example, are different states of the same substance (H2O). Likewise, as Joy pointed out, there is a vast culture from which WCK/SLT evolved, and unless it was dropped down by aligns or given over by gods in a dream, it developed from this culture, which included concepts of Buddhism, Taoism, Confusionism, TCM, Qigong, etc. So, all this "prehistoric DNA" remains in the art, even if some never call upon it.
Hi Rene,
This wouldn't suprise me in the least. I firmly believe there's more
than just fighting in WCK and SLT. However, I do believe that
WCK's primary focus is that of a fighting art. If, as I believe, SLT's
first focus is to help teach WCK (and it's primary focus), then it
helps teach fighting. A nebulous position, perhaps, but it's my
thoughts on the subject and I'm currently enjoying defending
them.

S.Teebas

11-27-2002, 04:04 PM

I think what this boils down to is if SNT is a core part of what you learn now. For me is definately is. I fell i can sumarise and practice a large percentage of what im learning in the SLT. Obviously somthings cant and require aditional tools, eg wall bag, dummy, chi sau.

Others have other means to achieve their goals.

[Censored]

11-27-2002, 04:28 PM

Sorry, that first part should read: "Wing Chun, as well as other
martial arts, use forms..." How is this unreasonable?

If you are 6'0" and 210lbs today, what does this tell us about your size on the day you were born? LOL, not much.

...This part, taken out of context, makes it sound like I offered no evidence to support my thoughts.

Do you consider popular notion to be evidence? Fine, Kung Fu is the same as Karate then.

If I have evidence that supports an idea, but have none which disproves that idea, I would naturally believe that idea. How is this unreasonable?

It is as reasonable as the evidence in favor. Which you haven't yet provided.

My statement was "I can't think of any martial art, that both
claims to teach fighting ability and has forms, that does not use
the forms to help teach the martial art, and hence the fighting
ability of that martial art."
If this is true, and it will be assumed to be until new evidence
shows up, then which is the most simple explanation with
regards to Wing Chun? This is the point that Occam's razor is
being applied.
1. As long as SLT has been around, it has been used to aid in the
teaching of Wing Chun.
2. SLT was originally meant for some other, unspecified, purpose,
but was later adapted as a means of teaching Wing Chun. The
original use of SLT has since died out, or has become so obscured
through it's use of teaching Wing Chun skills as to be
unrecognizable.

LOL, is Occam's razor for disregarding irrelevant details, or for pulling arbitrarily simple theories from thin air?

"SLT was originally intended for Wing Chun fighting, because it has always been used for Wing Chun fighting." And the evidence for that is, "SLT is used today for Wing Chun fighting, and other forms are used by other martial arts". You've boggled my mind. :)

11-27-2002, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Marshdrifter
... I think this debate has been nothing but
a fun time.

LOL. I had little doubt.
- kj

Marshdrifter

11-27-2002, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
Sorry, that first part should read: "Wing Chun, as well as other
martial arts, use forms..." How is this unreasonable?

If you are 6'0" and 210lbs today, what does this tell us about your size on the day you were born? LOL, not much.
Ah. That's an interesting point.

In linguistics, one figures out what an unwritten protolanguage
was like by comparing the various dialects decended from the
protolanguage for common elements. If we were looking for the
protolanguage word for, say, "dog" we'd make a list of the word
meaning "dog" from all of the dialects. From this list, we pick out
the most common elements in the word to help form what is
believed to be the protolanguage word for "dog." This occurs for
a staggering amount of words and eventually, rules as to how
the dialects have shifted, start to be seen. This is one case how
the frequency of occurance in traits, does consist of evidence.

In archaeology, if I find a 15 sites where pottery type "x" is
found in stratigraphic association with projectile point "y" but
not with projectile point "z," I would build the hypothesis that
pottery type "x" is used by the same people as projectile point "y"
and that the people using projectile point "z" did not use pottery
type "x." Of course, this is a simple hypothesis that will be revised
over time. Failure to find a site where pottery type "x" is
associated with projectile point "z" does indeed strengthen the
argument.

...This part, taken out of context, makes it sound like I offered no evidence to support my thoughts.

Do you consider popular notion to be evidence? Fine, Kung Fu is the same as Karate then.
LOL! I never said it was good evidence, but sometimes it's the
only evidence you have. Besides that, in my examples above, as
well as the argument I've been using for this debate, there have
been no occurances of a contrary example. Really, we just need
a few schools that claim to be able to fight and teach forms admit
that forms do not help learn the fighting system.

In your Kung Fu is Karate example. There is demonstrable
arguments against this school of thought. We have a
methodological advantage here as we can take Kung Fu and we
can take Karate, put them side by side and compare them. We
can not do this to something undocumented from 500 years ago.

Unless, that time machine of yours is working. :)

If I have evidence that supports an idea, but have none which disproves that idea, I would naturally believe that idea. How is this unreasonable?

It is as reasonable as the evidence in favor. Which you haven't yet provided.

Well, I've provided all what evidence I actually have, trusting that
the knowledge pool here (and there are some well travelled and
knowledgable people on this list) would provide with evidence
that goes against what I said. A "Hey, this style isn't like that"
would be useful. As long as it's truthful, that is.

I pretty much can't provide anything more until you send me a
check for a really large sum of money, so I can quit my job and
go off to do some real fieldwork. So, where's my money? ;)

LOL, is Occam's razor for disregarding irrelevant details, or for pulling arbitrarily simple theories from thin air?

It's for the simplist of competing theories to be supported over
the more complex ones. In my case, I felt it was more likely that
forms have been for teaching fighting arts, than they were for
something else, then became used (universally, as far as I can
tell) to teach fighting arts.

"SLT was originally intended for Wing Chun fighting, because it has always been used for Wing Chun fighting." And the evidence for that is, "SLT is used today for Wing Chun fighting, and other forms are used by other martial arts".
Interesting paraphrasing. I'd say the second one would be closer
to what I've been trying to say if it read "All documented (to my
knowledge) cases of forms being used by fighting arts were used
to aid in teaching those fighting arts."

Let me expand upon that with a couple of thoughts:

If SLT, or indeed other forms had been used for something other
than teaching the fighting arts they're a part of, how did they
come to be in the first place?

and

If SLT, or indeed other forms had been used for something other
than teaching the fighting arts they're a part of, we could, at the
least, expect to see some form of diversification in use of forms
within various fighting arts (some would be for teaching, some
would be for something else, some would be for yet another
something, &c.). Most cultural aspects diverge or stay the same
over time. Very few cultural aspects actually converge, and those
that do (e.g. diet) tend to be the products of industrialization.

You've boggled my mind. :)
Cool. :cool:

BTW, I totally agree with S.Teebas that what SLT is used for today
is much more important than it's original reason.

[Censored]

11-29-2002, 12:10 PM

If SLT, or indeed other forms had been used for something other than teaching the fighting arts they're a part of, how did they come to be in the first place?

I was hoping we could restrict the discussion to SLT. We already know where the other earlier forms came from; they were "health dances". We would know this by applying common sense, even if there weren't loads of supporting historical documentation and evidence.

It's for the simplist of competing theories to be supported over
the more complex ones. In my case, I felt it was more likely that
forms have been for teaching fighting arts, than they were for
something else, then became used (universally, as far as I can
tell) to teach fighting arts.

If we only want simplicity, I can propose a far simpler theory with no basis in reality. "All martial arts forms were originally intended solely for strengthening the legs." :)

This might be a good time to state some verifiable premises explicitly:

1) Anyone who depended solely on SLT, as self-defense training, would be killed.

2) Even in conjunction with other modern Wing Chun training methods, it takes at least a few months of SLT, to be able to practically apply SLT. I'm not talking about flinging arms around and approximating movements from the form, I'm talking about specific and deliberate application.

If SLT, or indeed other forms had been used for something other than teaching the fighting arts they're a part of, we could, at the least, expect to see some form of diversification in use of forms within various fighting arts (some would be for teaching, some would be for something else, some would be for yet another something, &c.).

We do. Most people today call it "qigong".

BTW, I totally agree with S.Teebas that what SLT is used for today is much more important than it's original reason.

LOL, you aren't sure what the original reason was, yet you're sure it's less important then building fighting ability at a snail's pace? That's tragic comedy. :eek:

Marshdrifter

11-29-2002, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
I was hoping we could restrict the discussion to SLT. We already know where the other earlier forms came from; they were "health dances". We would know this by applying common sense, even if there weren't loads of supporting historical documentation and evidence.
I was unaware that forms have come from "health dances." How
do we know this, using common sense, if not historical
documentation?

It's for the simplist of competing theories to be supported over
the more complex ones. In my case, I felt it was more likely that
forms have been for teaching fighting arts, than they were for
something else, then became used (universally, as far as I can
tell) to teach fighting arts.

If we only want simplicity, I can propose a far simpler theory with no basis in reality. "All martial arts forms were originally intended solely for strengthening the legs." :)
:)
Occam's razor is a tool. It generally serves me well. I strongly
suggest that it should never be used for relationship questions. ;)
For historical context, it's probably one of most useful tools for
discerning a good starting point for research.

This might be a good time to state some verifiable premises explicitly:

1) Anyone who depended solely on SLT, as self-defense training, would be killed.

2) Even in conjunction with other modern Wing Chun training methods, it takes at least a few months of SLT, to be able to practically apply SLT. I'm not talking about flinging arms around and approximating movements from the form, I'm talking about specific and deliberate application.
I agree with both of these.

Most people today call it "qigong".

LOL! Yep.

BTW, I totally agree with S.Teebas that what SLT is used for today is much more important than it's original reason.

LOL, you aren't sure what the original reason was, yet you're sure it's less important then building fighting ability at a snail's pace? That's tragic comedy. :eek:

Nah. I've previously stated that I think SLT was originally meant
to help teach Wing Chun. I'm not sure, but that's what seems
likely to me. Regardless of what the original use of SLT was, I
know what it's currently used for, at least at the school I go to,
and that's teaching Wing Chun.

So, if SLT originally had a different reason (e.g. as Qigong) than
what it is currently for, why did it change? If that reason is as
universal as it appears to be, was the old reason actually useful?

Also, I don't know much about qigong, can a form help teach a
martial art and be a type of qigong at the same time?

[Censored]

11-29-2002, 06:12 PM

I was unaware that forms have come from "health dances." How do we know this, using common sense, if not historical
documentation?

We know it through common sense, deriving it from those two premises. Forms bring martial benefits over months and years, and are therefore justifiably useful to only a percentage of the population. The health benefits can come in days and weeks, addressing acute and chronic problems, and are therefore useful to practically anyone.

As for the historical records, I'll let you do your own research.

People with an immediate and practical need for fighting ability are wasting their time with SLT. So when you say that its original purpose must have been fighting, what exactly are you assuming and what are you implying?

A fundamental fighting form, where the feet don't move? LOL. ;)

So, if SLT originally had a different reason (e.g. as Qigong) than
what it is currently for, why did it change? If that reason is as
universal as it appears to be, was the old reason actually useful?

I don't know. What I do know is that what takes a dozen generations to build, takes only one generation to destroy. :(

Also, I don't know much about qigong, can a form help teach a
martial art and be a type of qigong at the same time?

Certainly. Even so, there seem to be pieces missing from this puzzle.

Marshdrifter

11-29-2002, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by [Censored]
I was unaware that forms have come from "health dances." How do we know this, using common sense, if not historical
documentation?

We know it through common sense, deriving it from those two premises. Forms bring martial benefits over months and years, and are therefore justifiably useful to only a percentage of the population. The health benefits can come in days and weeks, addressing acute and chronic problems, and are therefore useful to practically anyone.
Erm... hmm... I don't know.

The two premises point out that it takes a long time for SLT to
"take effect" and even then, it will not solely make you a good
fighter.

By my perhaps uncommon sense, all this says is that it'll take a
long time to learn SLT and SLT is just a portion of what you'll need
to know in order to make your Wing Chun effective. This does not
lead to making assumptions about health benefits.

I'm not saying there aren't any health benefits, but I don't know
that anybody developed SLT for the purpose of benefiting health.

I have friends who snowshoe a lot. It's good exercise, and while
it's used primarily as an exercise where I currently live, it wasn't
invented for that reason.

People with an immediate and practical need for fighting ability are wasting their time with SLT.
As I said in an earlier post:
"So you just want fighting skill? Does this imply it doesn't have to
be Wing Chun? If not, then just get into a lot of fights to gain
practical experience. If so, then you've gotta do SLT. A lot. You've
also gotta do Chi Sao and Chum Kiu, and arguably a whole host
of other drills. Again, a lot."

Of the martial arts I'm familiar with (mostly through friends), most
take a large amount of time before you can actually utilize that
system in a fight.

Only Bart Simpson has learned the touch of death on the first
day. :)

That's not to say you're not going to go home with skills that you
could use early on (e.g. chain punching), but these early skills
seem to be lacking a lot of what makes Wing Chun, imo, great.

So when you say that its original purpose must have been fighting, what exactly are you assuming and what are you implying?
The primary assumptions are:

1. Wing Chun is a fighting art.
2. Failure to learn Wing Chun fundamentals will mean you won't
be using Wing Chun when you fight.
3. SLT teaches, in most lineages, the fundamentals of Wing Chun.

And by using these I come up with:
In order to use Wing Chun in a fight, it's necessary to learn SLT.

There are lineages that, iirc, don't teach SLT. They have other
drills which teach the basics. Because this is discussion is about
SLT, it's not really relevant.

A fundamental fighting form, where the feet don't move? LOL. ;)
SLT is not the entire system. But it teaches the essentials. There
are other forms and drills which expand on it, as I'm sure you
know.

I don't know. What I do know is that what takes a dozen generations to build, takes only one generation to destroy. :(
And sometimes vice versa and sometimes it was never really
there at all. History is a weird thing.

Certainly. Even so, there seem to be pieces missing from this puzzle.
Like what?