Kiu Sao and Chi Sao

[Savi]

I have a question. In previous discussions there have been mention of Kiu Sao and Chi Sao (workshop announcement thread). A couple of posts have concluded that Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are this:
-----------------------------------------------------
1) There is NO difference between Kiu Sao and Chi Sao. They both go hand-in-hand (cannot be seperated), and every Wing Chun has Kiu Sao and Chi Sao.

definition: Kiu Sao is like 'step 1' to get to Chi Sao 'step 2'... Kiu Sao is part of Chi Sao....

method: Kiu Sao-to-Chi Sao-to-hitting
-----------------------------------------------------
OR
-----------------------------------------------------
2) Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two different methods for combat/training. Kiu Sao [as a primary offense/defense] is used to disable the opponent's attack. If the opponent can put your Kiu Sao in check (ie: match your skill), then Chi Sao [as a secondary defense] comes into play.

definition: Kiu Sao is forearm-to-forearm contact. With this method you can go straight to hitting from forearm contact.
definition: Chi Sao is wrist-to-forearm contact. With this method you can recover/counter from an opponent's techniques if you Kiu Sao is put in check, then go to hitting.

primary method: Kiu Sao (forearm)-to-hitting
secondary method: Kiu Sao (forearm)-to-Chi Sao (wrist)-to-hitting
-----------------------------------------------------
OR
-----------------------------------------------------
3) Kiu Sao is not part of/has no place in Wing Chun, BUT if only literally translated: Kiu = Bridge, and Sao = Hand, then we all have it.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is my understanding of what has been written on the forum thusfar. I would like to get some feedback about your understanding of this. If you could first explain your definition of Kiu Sao, and your definition of Chi Sao, that would be helpful. Are they one in the same (no difference)? Or do you only train one of the two? I look forward to your responses.

Thank you,
-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Hey Savy,

The term Kiu Sao, as I use it, just means "Bridge Arm", and is any bridge arm of the system (Tan Kiu Sao, Bong Kiu Sao, Chum Kiu Sao), though most are just shortened to Kiu or Sao. I believe this definition extends beyond WCK.

The term Chi Sao, as I use it, refers to the Kiu Sao (or just Sao for ease of use) when "sticking" (in contact). While there are famous training platforms such as Luk/Poon Sao, Huen Sao, Ngoi/Noi Lim Sao, etc., almost every bridge arm can/should be explored in the Chi Sao context.

San Sao, as I use it, then refers to the Kiu Sao when not in initial contact, and the method by which they can be brought into contact (either with other kiu sao, or other parts of the opponent's body - various parts of the head/neck always being nice choices). While for some reason never seeming to enjoy as much fame as Chi Sao, almost every bridge arm can/should be explored in the San Sao context as well.

Dap Kiu (Joining two bridges bridging) is another term sometimes used when Chi Sao and San Sao are of sufficient skill that the formality of training platforms can be set, for the most part, aside and you can just bridge and go.

So, if we would look tactically, they train different things. Depending on the actual situation that emerges. If you're not caught completely by surprise, Dap Kiu will usually occur. If the opponent is skillful, Chi Sao might have to occur during Dap Kiu to eliminate their ability to counter, and thereafter to maintain control and enable follow up (since it's not prudent to assume instant total victory).

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but its where my current thinking is.

RR

[Hendrik]

Kiu Sau is a term describe about arm.

Chisau is a term about the practice method of how arm manuval in a certain ways.

Kiu sau has nothing mysterious but just a common term.

There are Chi Kiu. There are Tiu Kiu. There are Chong Kiu.........
Those are about method arm manuval.


In Cho family there is a practice of
Stick 8 points continous bridge. or Chi bat dim lin wan kiu.

There are Chong Kiu Sau practice....

The is also a chi sau two men set title: Chi Sau Loong.
The term Loong is a Fujianese term means "play or playfull. where it involved even knee house..... ground kick......

A practice, something good to know, but is it the most secret....... of kungfu the oldest.....

NO!
A practice is just a practice. how many ways one's arm can changing ?
and if one is a human,
one can figure out if one is delegently investigate......

Futhermore, a term is just a term. Kiu is just a term.

[yuanfen]

Rene says:The term Kiu Sao, as I use it, just means "Bridge Arm", and is any bridge arm of the system (Tan Kiu Sao, Bong Kiu Sao, Chum Kiu Sao

((Same here. Yuanfen /joy))

Hendrik:
Kiu Sau is a term describe about arm.

((True. Bridges can be trained and are in various ways-
including two person work in wing chun, hung gar and most southern styles)) Yuanfen/Joy))

[canglong]

Hendrik, when you say arm are you including the hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder or just the forearm from wrist to elbow?

Could you be more specific about the differences of Chi Kiua, Tiu Kiu, Chong Kiu and the practice of stick 8 points continous bridge or Chi bat dim lin wan kiu.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Kiu sau has nothing mysterious but just a common term.--Hendrik

Hendrik,

Quiety consider, receiving all opinions equally. The worst time to speak when you don't know what you're saying. In other words, Obstacles have a funny way of working in your favor these day

Btw, how much do you know about Hung Fa Yi Kiu Sao?

[Mckind13]

It is funny. When you talk to a child about right or wrong or about lying, they often get defensive, feeling bad for something they may have lied about or cheated in. Even if you weren’t accusing them of doing anything wrong.

It seems to apply to some in the HFY family too. Why get so defensive, there are others out there who claim to be the original or the best because of lineage. Maybe you are afraid you are like them. If you feel bad when someone talks about false claims, maybe you are unsure about your art. Maybe you just have doubts about what is true and what isn’t or maybe you don’t understand everything yourself.

I personally did not see huge differences between HFY and other systems I have seen. I must admit I have not seen it a lot myself though. The big difference I witnessed was the difference in language and the use of Kiu Sao as a specific looping drill. I am sure also, that there is much more to everyone’s Kiu Sau then can be described here.

One point I did find interesting was that I heard your Si Gung say something that I had heard from a few other Sifu. He said something to the effect that Kiu Sau was for testing the opponent’s energy and then deciding what to do from there, go to Chi Sau or San Da.”

I believe Andreas Hoffman (sp please?) said something similar at his seminar and I have heard much the same thing from my Sifu as well as other instructors.

Oh well, I am spent…night all.
:o zzzzzz!

[Mckind13]

I need to add that I did not hear others say that Kiu Sou was for deciding to go to Chi Sau or San Da from anyone other then Sifu Gee. What I meant was that others have said it was for testing the opponents bridge etc.

David

[reneritchie]

A couple quick points:

Canglong: Kiu Sao is a generic term. If you want to be specific in Chinese, you add extra terms: Sao Bei, Sao Geng, Sao Jee, etc. This is not really a question about one system or personal understanding or another, just a question about whether its being taught in Chinese or English, and whether an individual teacher is layering in certain contexts.

Mkind13: My experience is the same. Unless an art is *not* WCK, then the differences exist because of teaching methodology and personal attainment. That's it. And just like some people prefer different cars, or some learn math better one way than another, and I prefer Corel over Adobe, Imagine over Lightwave, some WCK teaching approaches better suit some students (and the approach that best suits you can evolve, as you do, over time).

Hendrik: No one brought up "original" and while the thread did smell a little like a set up based on previous general experience, Savi has thusfar seemed very upfront (and hopefully will return to this thread with some timely responses to the substantive posts).

RollingHand: Please stop stalking Hendrik.

RR

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by reneritchie
A couple quick points:

Hendrik: No one brought up "original" and while the thread did smell a little like a set up based on previous general experience, Savi has thusfar seemed very upfront (and hopefully will return to this thread with some timely responses to the substantive posts).

RollingHand: Please stop stalking Hendrik.

RR

Rene,

I brought up "original" because I also brought up the name from Fujian. I don't want people to mistaken about technical post as Advertisement post. That is my view. So, people can take it or leave it.

As for RollingHand, it doesn't matter.
One cannot beat something with nothing. There is a different between proper technical naming and naming for as one likes it.
The longer one writes to against any facts disregard of how one trying to sound wise or sacastics....the more one is going to lose one's confident. Opinion cannot replace reality.

[Savi]

Sorry for not putting more input into this, or making it sound like a loaded question. I primarily just wanted some input from different perspectives about Kiu Sao/Chi Sao. I was wondering what kind of Kiu Sao is defined or categorized in other lineages/styles. Well, let me share some things coverd on Kiu Sao in the November workshop at the VTM.

HFY Kiu Sao at the HFY SNT level is trained in 5 progressions. In order:

Fut Sao Kiu Sao, Gahn Sao Kiu Sao, Biu Sao Kiu Sao, Bong Sao Kiu Sao, and Kwan Sao Kiu Sao.

Hung Fa Yi Kiu Sao is based on the Saam Mo Kiu concept - Wandering; Fau Kiu - Awareness; Saan Kiu - Focused; Weng Kiu. The first three Kiu Sau progression teaches us to deal with situations from a disadvantageous position (Fau Kiu), where you are attacked from the side varying in distance (precontact or contact), arm straight or bent (on contact) from a state of unawareness. The last two Kiu Sao progressions deal with an attack from the front (Saan Kiu where an attack enters the inside or outside your lead hand).

These progressions train only/specifically forearm to forearm contact (both arms), and find how one goes from Kiu Sao to San Da (hitting) without going to Chi Sao. From my understanding of HFY's definition, Chi Sao (wrist to arm) is required when the opponent has any possibility of return fire, or is able to neutralize/bypass your Kiu Sao technique (listed above). These Kiu Sao were covered during the workshop.

-Savi.
---------------------------------------------
To McKind13,

I apologize, but this does not address the thread at hand...

Insecurities, false claims... Maybe we do, maybe we don't. According to your post, you are implying that some people in the HFY family are also acting like children or don't know what we are talking about. I cannot speak for any one person other than myself, (but to me) you are doing the same thing everybody else is doing in a MUCH MORE polite manner, which I personally appreciate :). You are asking us to take a look at ourselves before we interact with the public; to look in the mirror, which is fine. The HFY family has many people in it with their own personalities and have a right to express themselves as they please and feel. I ask myself, is my tea cup clean? Is it empty? Yes and yes.

The HFY family traces their lineage back to the Hung Fa Ting/Weng Chun Tong in the Southern Shaolin Temple, as does a few other families to the Hung Fa Ting according to VTM research. Many articles have been published about our lineage to share our information, but it puzzles me that certain parties on this forum accuse us of making up stories and call it marketing. Why receive the HFY family in such a 'childish' manner? They tell us to "Prove it!" and put us on trial using the 'academic method' (by andrews: prove you're right method) instead of the 'scientific method' (restated by taltos: prove it's wrong). A trial requires the 'innocent until proven guity' perspecitve right? The question I am inclined to ask in return is "Prove us wrong..." It's an honest question. Has anybody tried to take this perspective? I am relatively new to the kung fu community, but it makes me wonder if all kung fu families had to go through the same process when they were introduced to the general public.

McKind13, put yourself in our shoes. Many people will not accept us for even existing, and will not acknowledge that we may have something different. They come back and say "We have that too." OK, in what way? In form? In structure? In logic flow? In energy? In training progression(s)? You have Kiu Sao, I have Kiu Sao, it's all the same right? "It doesn't matter that HFY looks and moves different, we have everything they do." HMMM... Let me point the mirror to you. WHY is the HFY structure different? Where did it come from? How did it evolve to look the way it does? I will tell you the answer is NOT a marketing device, personal decision, or personal expression; not because somebody thought it looked cool, or better than something else. "Oh, it must be the Time and Space Concept thing!" Whatever that is, right? Exactly... (refer the kungfu cowboy's thread (example) on the Time and Space Concept for explanations)

Context is everything, and in kung fu, context is in the mind as well as in the body. The context may bring you to a whole new level in your kung fu [if it is recognized]. Something inside you understood that and satisfied your curiosity in Ohio, or you would have followed up with your invitation to Sifu Loewenhagen's school right? How much have you thought about what you heard/expereinced at the VTM? You say you didn't see much difference in the HFY, but everybody else at the seminar [that wasn't from the HFY family] saw much more. What is it they saw that you didn't? The Siu Nihm Tau form isn't much different? Footwork? Idioms? Training methods? Your statement about 'not much different' tells me that HFY looks like everything else. With different structure comes different applications, principles, natures, concepts, tactics and strategies. But it is not much different? If the language is the same but the context is different, should one ask 'why?' or 'how?' as opposed to others that say 'it's all the same anyway.' ?

I really respect you as a martial artist and a Sifu, please don't read this as being hostile. You and I did Kiu Sao at the VTM and I remember that your perspective did change from the start to the end of the seminar. How relevant is that difference? You sacrificed your time/money/energy to go out and experience HFYWCK, took many notes, asked many questions, and meet with the Sifus of HFY, but its sounds like your post is saying you didn't gain or notice much. Fascinating. Why take so many notes and ask so many questions if not much was new/different? I don't understand where you're coming from.

[Rolling_Hand]

As for RollingHand, it doesn't matter.
--One cannot beat something with nothing. There is a different between proper technical naming and naming for as one likes it.
The longer one writes to against any facts disregard of how one trying to sound wise or sacastics....the more one is going to lose one's confident. Opinion cannot replace reality.--Hendrik

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

Hendrik,

Are your ideas getting across? It isn't easy doing what you want. Especially when others say you're being selfish. You always like to give your opinions about other WCK families. But you wouldn't answer some of Jeremy's questions on your own teacher. Why? People are not interested in your politics and opinions. The world always finds a way to praise and a way to blame. It always has and it always will. Maybe others like Hung Fa Yi and Jee Sim WCK families see this more clearly than you and your Cho's family.

Rene Ritchie: Please don't assume anything. You want to progress, not regress. If you like to play your own little game with HFY family, please go back to your own back yard-wcml. People here would like to learn more about HFYWCK from Savi, not your Rene's a la trolling.

[reneritchie]

RollingHand please stop stalking me.

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

They tell us to "Prove it!" and put us on trial using the 'academic method' (by andrews: prove you're right method) instead of the 'scientific method' (restated by taltos: prove it's wrong). A trial requires the 'innocent until proven guity' perspecitve right? The question I am inclined to ask in return is "Prove us wrong..."
-----------------

Sorry to come out of lurk mode, but the above quote seems confused. First, the scientific method - a very specific methodology for specific kinds of inquiries - is not a viable tool for every sort of question. It will not, for example, help in determining whether or not so-and-so taught someone (lineage claims), whereas other forms of evidence will (photos, corroboration, certificates, etc.) nor will it establish whether or not certain techniques or methods are "superior" to others. Second, fwiw, the scientific method actually requires that one attempt to vigorously disprove their own hypothesis. And clearly no one seems to be doing that. ;) Third, "innocent until proven guilty," while adopted in certain criminal courts, is not the standard for proving anything (drug companies don't tell the FDA "prove our drug does work and is safe!")-- the criminal courts standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The problem associated with the "prove us wrong" mentality is that anyone and everyone can take that approach -- are we then required to accept what everyone says as true?! Common sense tells us that the burden of proof is on the claimant. If you say that you have built a better mousetrap, then don't expect everyone to believe you and don't expect folks to stand in line to compare their mousetrap with yours. Instead, the burden is on you to prove your claim. And when someone makes claims of a better mousetrap but is reticent about proving them, it only suggests that the claims are hyperbole.

Terence

[Rolling_Hand]

--Sorry to come out of lurk mode, but the above quote seems confused.--Terence

Hung Fa Yi = Honey

Bees = Robert Chu's camp (Hendrik, David Mckind, Terence)

See what is.
See what is not.
Follow the honey bees.
Noises.

[reneritchie]

Savi - thank you for your reply, I'm just saddened so much of it was taken up by non-thread related issues. Personally, when it comes to application threads, I don't care hoot if your lineage or mine is 10 000 years old or was invented last Tuesday. All I care about is the application and the reasoning behind it (an no one has a monopoly on insight, so the more the merry-er in my opinion!). If we stick to that, and ignore any off topic foolishness, maybe we could have some interesting threads.

t_niehoff - I think I just heard a great cocophony of collective groans, shrieks, screams, the sounds of various trolls and stalkers readying their incohernt posts, and a few scattered cheers for you first post. Your points on "proof" are interesting and quite valid. As I'm trying to keep this focused on application, I think it shows some insight into that as well. Application is the only proof. In the moment, there is no lineage, no marketing, no claims, no words, just success and failure. I think this is what Bruce Lee said when he mentioned "Jeet Kune Do" was just a name, and that it only existed if it worked. If you could intercept your opponent, you were doing Jeet Kune Do, and if you couldn't, it didn't matter who you learned from or what you called it. I also think this fits with the idea of Instant Method, where attainment is proof in and of itself, even when the pedigree isn't present (though you may still have to take your robe and bowl and go hide in the mountains, lest you get smited ;) ) So, to tie it all together, we can use the various Kiu Sao terms, speak of Chi Sao, etc. but the goal behind them can never be forgotten, lest it become cataloging for cataloging's sake.

RollingHand - Please do not welcome t_niehoff to the forum by stalking him. And please don't try to discredit the HFY/VTM folks by pretending to be associated with them. We all know they wouldn't tolerate your stalking, trolling, and anti-WCK badmouthing behavior here or on the former VTAA forum for a minute.

RR

[yenhoi]

Its like everyone on this thread knows each other. :eek:

Only in some courts in some countrys are you innocent until proven guilty. This is not a court, there are no lawyers, judges, etc. Just random people on the internet, mostly.

[Rolling_Hand]

RollingHand - Please do not welcome t_niehoff to the forum by stalking him. And please don't try to discredit the HFY/VTM folks by pretending to be associated with them. We all know they wouldn't tolerate your stalking, trolling, and anti-WCK badmouthing behavior here or on the former VTAA forum for a minute. --RR

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

Rene Ritchie: Please don't assume anything. You want to progress, not regress. If you like to play your own little game with HFY family. Please go back to your own back yard-wcml. People here would like to learn more about HFYWCK from Savi, not your Rene's a la trolling.

When you begin to feel comfortable being a gentle and decent person, you'll no longer have to make up your nonsenses about other people and other WCK families. When tenderness evolves in that direction, then you can truly appreciate the world around you.

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

I think I just heard a great cocophony of collective groans, shrieks, screams, the sounds of various trolls and stalkers readying their incohernt posts, and a few scattered cheers for you first post.

You know what happens when you tempt fate:confused:


This takes me back to the good ol days of the WCML;)

Terence, where's you're introduction:confused:
We would like to know who we're talking/writing too:confused:

Sheldon;)

[reneritchie]

RollingHand - You have made 4 posts on this thread, none on topic. Please don't tell me not to assume the HFY/VTM wouldn't put up with your blatent stalking, trolling, and anti-WCK badmouthing. And please stop stalking me.

[Geezer]

Cr@p

[Geezer]

Whoops

[t_niehoff]

Someone calling themselves "Geezer" wrote:

Terence, where's you're introduction
We would like to know who we're talking/writing to

Sheldon
-------------------

Sorry, I didn't think that in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls one was expected to introduce themselves. ;)

Terence

[AndrewS]

Hey Terence,

welcome to the fray. As much as we've disagreed on things in various discussions, my thinking has benefited from your analyses. It's good to hear from you again.

Savi,

getting to application- forearm to forearm vs. wrist to forearm- so kiu sao implies contact with a closer range (forearm to forearm)? Is chi sao when either your forearm contacts another's wrist or your wrist contacts another's forearm or both?

The 'scientific method'- I believe that was someone else's addendum to my statements. I tend not to be someone to confuse the social sciences with science. If you don't understand why many people have serious issue with your lineage claims, take a look at the controversies over the founding of Liu Ho Ba Fa (sp?), or claims by Yang exponents that their art has no connection with Chen taiji.

Take it easy,

Andrew

[Geezer]

t_niehoff Wrote>

Someone calling themselves "Geezer" wrote:
Terence, where's you're introduction
We would like to know who we're talking/writing to

Sheldon


t_niehoff Wrote>

Sorry, I didn't think that in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls one was expected to introduce themselves.

So, you're not really Terence then seeing as your in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls:confused:

http://www.aldertons.com/english-.htm

I think the link may help you out when it comes down to being a bit of a Geezer;)

Sheldon:D

[reneritchie]

AndrewS- This is interesting as well. When engaged, do you want to just hit the opponent and only bother with controlling their bridges if you have to, or is controlling their bridges a must on the way to hitting them. (Eg. if someone punches, you can change the line and counter punch all in one shot, or you can join bridges, position to cut off the offense, manipulate to destroy the defense, then hit, then stick and see - the first is faster but riskier, the second more complex but more robust).

(BTW - Stop trolling, we all know LHBF is a recent mish-mash and real Chenjia was lost during the PRC, forcing the family to scramble to recreate it using Tongbei... :p )

[Savi]

Hi AndrewS,
Let me preface that the following information if from my understanding of HFY...

Your question: "kiu sao implies contact with a closer range (forearm to forearm)" seems only to address depth (distance) from the opponent.

When I was first getting into the seminar I myself was a bit confused as to the exact difference seperating Kiu Sao from Chi Sao. My background in Wing Chun is from the Yip Man/Moy Yat line so Kiu Sao (as I have been exposed to) in HFY was from a different perspective/context. In those three days I did have a much clearer understanding of the identity of the two. In Kiu Sao, YOU have forearm contact, and in Chi Sao, YOU have wrist contact. Kiu Sao techniques (as defined in the HFY) are not defined/determined by range, because the differences are determined by the level of risk.

--------example--------

Sometimes I think of it as plan A (Kiu Sao): intercept the opponent's weapons, destroy their effectiveness and capabilities with minimal effort/maximum safety, take out the target. Hence our method of Kiu Sao to San Da.

If plan A fails, go to plan B (Chi Sao). Switch from forearm-to-forearm (kiu sao) contact to wrist-to-forearm (chi sao) contact. If you are successful in the switch, it is impossible for the opponent to regain/counter with their wrist according to the TSC. Now IF your expression of the Time and Space Concept (TSC) is incorrect (refer to the Paradigm of the Time and Space Concept thread by kungfu cowboy), then you would have to revert back to a Kiu Sao application (and another Chi Sao app if neccesary) IF they are able to counter. Hence here, the method would be:

1) Kiu Sao to Chi Sao to San Da -OR-
2) Kiu Sao to Chi Sao to Kiu Sao to (Chi Sao then San Da) or (San Da)

If both persons stay in Chi Sao you get looping which of course requires more time, space, and energy. Same goes if both persons stay in Kiu Sao; more looping. One would have to switch out of Chi Sao to Kiu Sao to prevent that (if their skills are equal), and try to capitalize on the shift and get to San Da.

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

I hope that wasn't confusing. We utilize Kiu Sao and Chi Sao based on level of risk. How skilled is the opponent against your Kiu Sao? That's the determining factor. My Sifu refers to this as 'Risk Management.' Also in HFYWCK there are no looping drills/exercises as somebody mentioned before. This is because of the methods listed above.

-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Savi - Interesting, do you ever go closer than forearm?

[yuanfen]

Savi said:
In Kiu Sao, YOU have forearm contact, and in Chi Sao, YOU have wrist contact. Kiu Sao techniques (as defined in the HFY) are not defined/determined by range, because the differences are determined by the level of risk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Savi- hopefully without revisiting old non dialogues---
I dont yet per your discussion see the need for so many terminological distinctions that you are making between wing chun and HFY. Firstly what I do and I think for lots of IM wing chun folks as well- what is emphasized is the nature of the motion
and not "techniques". If one overemphasized techniques then one goes down the road of creating endless subcategories of technques for the bridge versus techniques for other parts. Chi sao is not fighting anyway- but is a very important developmental tool.
Doing it well develops everything- the kiu, the distancing, the assesment of risk, and the adptation to the level of risk.
joy chaudhuri

[AndrewS]

Hey Savi,

Alright- let's go to specific examples, 'cos I'm still confused. Wrist/wrist vs. wrist .forearm vs. forearm/forearm- if you're forearm to forearm, you should be a bit closer together, no?

Moreover, if you contact forearm/forearm, then bail out to wrist/forearm if that fails, this implies you're opening up some distance, to feel another way in? Yes, no. . .

Hey Rene,

To me, controlling a bridge doesn't mean I have my hand on it. If I'm inside with my neckpulling hand to one side, and the other hand striking, with my legs in the game, I have nice control of the limb on the side of the neckpulling hand from jerking the neck and barring the same side shoulder with the elbow. I may get hit, but I can cut off most power shots from that side from this clinch position if I keep rocking the other guy's balance.

My 'bridge' on a low shooter will have nothing to do with his hands- the head, neck and shoulder will be my primary contact points, and if I screw up and he gets his arms to my legs, I'll attempt to control through my contact there.

I guess I see thinking of the arms as bridges as limiting.

As to which I prefer- in application, whichever works best for me at the time. The former seems safer if I have much better speed and timing than the other person, the latter safer if that's not the case.

Later,

Andrew

P.S. I'm not trolling, LHBF is a millenia-old martial art fully recreated from an ancient daoist manual and is the precursor and touchstone for all other neijia, arising independantly from them while simultaneously being their progenitor art. . .

[Mckind13]

Savi,

Thanks for the reply.

Most HFY people I have met are very nice but on this forum a lot of us get reactionary.

(Savi) the 'scientific method' (restated by taltos: prove it's wrong).

This may be true but even while Einstein had people trying to prove him wrong; he also spent the rest of his life trying to prove them right. Not sure if that proves anything but we can not flat out except any new theory, nor can we expect to try and disprove it when so little has really been released by your family.

(Savi) Let me point the mirror to you. WHY is the HFY structure different? Where did it come from? How did it evolve to look the way it does?

Savi, the DNA as Hedrick called it of Wing Chun is all very similar and different genetic traits present themselves differently depending on the parents and the dominant or recessive genes.

As far as your structure being different, it really is not. The stance is different and some of the distances seem different from what I do but in truth we all have to receive pressure the same and align our arms the same to pull off Tan, Bong or Fuk properly. Slightly different expressions of the same core ideas. Additionally, when I saw some of your seniors at the seminar actually move to San Da range it seemed convincingly similar to any number of other Sifu I have seen demonstrate.

(Savi) I will tell you the answer is NOT a marketing device, personal decision, or personal expression; not because somebody thought it looked cool, or better than something else. "Oh, it must be the Time and Space Concept thing!" Whatever that is, right? Exactly... (refer the kungfu cowboy's thread (example) on the Time and Space Concept for explanations)

I agree that Time and Space is probably not just made up for marketing, though I cannot say weather the exact names are a reflection of Sifu Gee’s educational background or a direct translation from HFY family’s stated lineage of Shoalin and Chan. I do not know enough here.

I can say that the way it seems to be given out in very small pieces without alluding to a larger picture smacks of marketing and lengthening the education process. This is my opinion and I am sure there are other reasons behind it as well.

(Savi) Something inside you understood that and satisfied your curiosity in Ohio, or you would have followed up with your invitation to Sifu Loewenhagen's school right?

Well not entirely, I only had time for one trip before the end of the year, but maybe in the New Year I will come and visit. I really hopped that I could have done Chi Sau with more people but everyone seemed so busy with Sifu Gee. Anyway, I got a good impression of the art and the manner it was taught in so I enjoyed myself and learned a lot.

(Savi) What is it they saw that you didn't? The Siu Nihm Tau form isn't much different? Footwork? Idioms? Training methods? Your statement about 'not much different' tells me that HFY looks like everything else. With different structure comes different applications, principles, natures, concepts, tactics and strategies. But it is not much different? If the language is the same but the context is different, should one ask 'why?' or 'how?' as opposed to others that say 'it's all the same anyway.' ?

Maybe you should ask what did I see/feel that other didn’t?

(Savi) I really respect you as a martial artist and a Sifu, please don't read this as being hostile. You and I did Kiu Sao at the VTM and I remember that your perspective did change from the start to the end of the seminar. How relevant is that difference? You sacrificed your time/money/energy to go out and experience HFYWCK, took many notes, asked many questions, and meet with the Sifus of HFY, but its sounds like your post is saying you didn't gain or notice much. Fascinating. Why take so many notes and ask so many questions if not much was new/different? I don't understand where you're coming from.

Savi, I enjoyed working out with each and everyone there. I also enjoyed the material and gained a lot of insight into what was being said and done in the context of the HFY school of thought. I thank everyone for making the time and expense I put into it worthwhile. You have to understand though, if you look only at outwards appearances or only at the differences that is all you see. If you look at the similarities, again this may be all you’ll see. What I saw was a system with a different terminology, a slightly different form set and slightly different drills for building similar skills, similar understanding, and similar functionality as we others do when the do WCK.

Thanks for the reply lets meet again and keep open dialogue.

David

[Mckind13]

Savi - Hi

(you wrote) Sometimes I think of it as plan A (Kiu Sao): intercept the opponent's weapons, destroy their effectiveness and capabilities with minimal effort/maximum safety, take out the target. Hence our method of Kiu Sao to San Da.

Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?

Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.
Of course I would never hit someone who wasn't threatening me or didn't have it comming :)

David

[Rolling_Hand]

--Chi sao is not fighting anyway--Yuanfen

No kidding!
The problem is that you misjudged your oppt.

[yuanfen]

No trolling RH. No stalking. RH

[Grendel]

Hi David,


Originally posted by Mckind13

Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?

Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.
Of course I would never hit someone who wasn't threatening me or didn't have it comming :)

I don't mean to nitpick, but doesn't striking an opponent create a bridge?

Regards,

[Rolling_Hand]

Who's invoking you with their deception?

Rene Ritchie?
No, he isn't that smart.

Red5angel?
Maybe...

Rolling_Hand?
Humm....

Interesting...gentle people who smile without arrogance or aggression.

[yenhoi]

grendel :D

[Wingman]

Originally posted by Grendel
I don't mean to nitpick, but doesn't striking an opponent create a bridge?

I believe it does. When you strike your opponent and he tries to nullify your attack; he is actually offering his bridge once contact is established. If you control the bridge, you have access to the "castle".

[Mckind13]

Grndel wrote - I don't mean to nitpick, but doesn't striking an opponent create a bridge?

Regards,

Striking does create a bridge but i said an arm to arm bridge.

I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.

David

[Wingman]

Originally posted by Mckind13
... I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.

If you have nothing else to do, strike!

[canglong]

Reneritchie I see your point but your point did not answer my question, hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.



"You have to understand though, if you look only at outwards appearances or only at the differences that is all you see. If you look at the similarities, again this may be all you’ll see." --Mckind13

David, Does this mean you believe neither Savi nor yourself are capable of seeing past your own particular lineages?

Lastly David if your opponent as you refer to them doesn't "strike" the conditions needed for the creation of a bridge will not be met. This may indeed be one of the lessons of the seminar you may want to review.

[desertwingchun2]

Yuanfen Wrote
>>> If one overemphasized techniques then one goes down the road of creating endless subcategories of technques for the bridge versus techniques for other parts.

Joy, I agree with you on this one. Not just over emphasizing bridge techniques but techniques in general. All things considered equal, I believe a skilled principle fighter will always have an advantage over those who aquire their skill solely on technique.

Chi sao is not fighting anyway- but is a very important developmental tool.

Again I agree. The popular Chi Sao drill is not fighting and does develop skill. For me I look at the drill as a teaching technique for developing said skill. But when you look past the technique and focus on the principles, thats where one finds the lesson and relevance of Chi Sao in actual combat.

>>>Doing it well develops everything- the kiu, the distancing, the assesment of risk, and the adptation to the level of risk.

Here I need to ask when "doing Chi Sao well" and having developed the above (kiu, distancing, etc...) - Have you used your Chi Sao to train for combat or a drill? If for combat is that when Chi Sao becomes not just a drill to prepare skills for fighting but an actual applicable meathodology of fighting in and of itself?

In writing this I'm asking myself is Chi Sao a drill, a concept or both ...

I dont know if this was on topic or not but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to agree with Joy for once.

-David

[Hendrik]

Especially when others say you're being selfish.


Selfish? LOL

Check it out,
1, where does the link to Taiping.... source from? Check back a few years ago.
2, Who post the Emei's summary and white Crane stuffs?.....
3, Go to Shang Hai Dien Chun Dong and link all the history pices and give it out for free.




You always like to give your opinions about other WCK families.

There is a different between discussing about WCK technical and WCK family. I don't have problem with David, Joy, Blood God, Jim.... and they don't have problem with me.





But you wouldn't answer some of Jeremy's questions on your own teacher. Why?

I don't need to answer and answer and answer what I have been post.
My teacher and what I know is not a secret. Read the www.wingchunkuen.com.

On the other hand, what have you answer about
all those Chan and root of the WCK issues?



People are not interested in your politics and opinions.

It is very strange that I am here to discuss about Kiu Sau and you want to link everything to politics. By the way, there is a different between opinions and facts.


Maybe others like Hung Fa Yi and Jee Sim WCK families see this more clearly than you and your Cho's family.

You better check with Hung Fa Yi's Garret and Jee Sim's Andreas if you represent them before you post this sentence above. They might not like what you have post.


Bees = Robert Chu's camp (Hendrik, David Mckind, Terence).

There is no Camp there is technical discussion. Get that straight.

[Chango]

Hello David,

<snip> I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.

The strike can only happen when a true superior position is gained! We will not break our structure or put ourselves at risk to strike. Some might say well "that is true with all WCK" How everI think we might have a different idea of what true superior position is. In the HFY system we have very specific methods to point this out. I hope we can meet again a further this discussion. I cannot see us really being able to discuss precise positons via this forum.

<snip>Savi, the DNA as Hedrick called it of Wing Chun is all very similar and different genetic traits present themselves differently depending on the parents and the dominant or recessive genes.

David I think you would agree that due to HFY's "Consistant" and precise nature. If you make one small change in the base information it cannot be recognized as HFY. So for it to be kinda or very simular to other WCK we are not talking about the same thing. HFY has very precise references. It would be like changing one of the 36 chromozone. This would create a very different Cell-tissue-organ-to-organism. So if you take the HFY information and say it is like etc... Simularities may be at first glance. I have to admit before I got more HFY base information. I did alot of saying it is like Yip man system this way and that way. I found that I could not really progress in my HFY until I stopped doing this. I found that the differences had been quite significant. So much to the point that I did not mind having to go back and revisiting all of my Wing Chun information. after doing so I realized that this was my crutch and was the very thing that denied me of my understanding of the HFY information . By doing this I can really appreciate both the Yip Man information and the HFY information as two different things. So when someone says to me what is the difference between the HFY and Yip Man systems I say to them " do you have a few minutes and who is buying the coffee" I have to say from the opening moves of the form the meanings are different. To give you an idea of HFY's precise nature you can tell if a person has a base understanding from the first move of the form! The key elements and awarness of one's structure can be seen right away. There is not a grey area when it comes to this.


Chango (Saat geng sau)

:cool:

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by canglong
hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.


Since Rolling Hands said I am political and selfish. Why should I share? LOL

[Grendel]

Hi David,


Originally posted by Mckind13
Grendel wrote - I don't mean to nitpick, but doesn't striking an opponent create a bridge?

Striking does create a bridge but i said an arm to arm bridge.

You actually said the following:

Originally posted by Mckind13
Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?

Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.



I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.

I think I misunderstood where you were leading the discussion. Good question for HFY. I'll look forward to a HFY answer. :D

Regards,

[canglong]

you should share because you are political and selfish and sharing will help you in your cause.

[Mckind13]

Tony/canglong

You misunderstood what I said. Savi asked what it was that others saw that made HFY look different to them that I did not see. I said that maybe I saw everything they did only I recognized the similarities.

I think we are capable of looking past our own lineages and understanding on many levels what we see or even read.

So for those that saw a completely different art/lineage, good for them.

But when I saw the application done, and felt the energy used by Sifu Gee, I felt and saw the similarities.

I have not had a broad exposure to WCK but I can recognize differences in form versus differences in the functionality even if the concepts behind the applications are a little different.

BTW. I do not see HFY as having the exact same ideas or strategy as other Wing Chun schools but I do see the family resemblance more then some others might.

Tony wrote - Lastly David if your opponent as you refer to them doesn't "strike" the conditions needed for the creation of a bridge will not be met. This may indeed be one of the lessons of the seminar you may want to review.

I understand that Tony, and from the context of the seminar as I understand it the Kiu Sau is all about creating that bridge effectively and in the best possible way.
That was, however, not my question. Does the strategy of HFY dictate that you create a bridge (Kiu Sau if you want) when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

David McKinnon

[canglong]

David,
you seem to have posed this particular question without any regard for the philosophy or principles of HFY. I think that would be a common mistake. To the priciple of the question as I see it, there is no need for strategy where no threat exist. The philosophy as I see it, says you are in a state of harmony so enjoy it. As for application kiu sau does not necessarily mean san da will follow or that it has to. Kui sau is a means of demonstrating your ability to get to a nuetral or superior position in order to curtail the need for strikes. If your opponent is unable to recognize your ability to attain these positions you can further demonstrate them by moving from kiu sau (arm bridge) to chi sau (striking point) while preventing your opponent the opportunity to do the same and that I think is key. Then further if he is unable to recognize your ability to do this you can further demonstrate your superiority by striking. The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike.

[Grendel]

Hi Canglong,

All of what you write makes surprising good sense. I think I begin to see your differentiation between kiu sau and chi sao. Still, it seems like Wing Chun to me.


Originally posted by canglong
David,
you seem to have posed this particular question without any regard for the philosophy or principles of HFY. I think that would be a common mistake. To the priciple of the question as I see it, there is no need for strategy where no threat exist.

Stating the obvious, yes.


The philosophy as I see it, says you are in a state of harmony so enjoy it. As for application kiu sau does not necessarily mean san da will follow or that it has to. Kui sau is a means of demonstrating your ability to get to a nuetral or superior position in order to curtail the need for strikes.

This I don't understand. Why would you not want to dispatch your opponent with strikes once you have position?


If your opponent is unable to recognize your ability to attain these positions you can further demonstrate them by moving from kiu sau (arm bridge) to chi sau (striking point) while preventing your opponent the opportunity to do the same and that I think is key.

You have provided good definitional clues here.


Then further if he is unable to recognize your ability to do this you can further demonstrate your superiority by striking. The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike.
Here you lost me. If we're in a fighting situation, you don't stop until your opponent is out, right? Are you referring perhaps, to a training exercise when you say there is no need to strike? If so, I'd agree with HFY principles on that point then. But, if it's only a training exercise, do you have instances when you'd move to chi sao, but you remain in kiu sau range because you have control over your partner anyway? Please clarify this use.

Regards,

[canglong]

Grendel,


Yes, we are talking wing chun as you can see I am a newbie so I may have missed that point in time where HFY was classified as something other than wing chun. To get back on track we'll just go forward considering HFY as wing chun.

David's post I was replying to didn't specify a fighting situation. Although to answer your question and Davids with my own understanding I would have to say our teaching is that striking is not the martial way but demonstrating your superior ability to strike and not strike is the martial way. Remeber Rene's story about the old man in the park he didn't have to clobber rene to convince him to upgrade just show him something superior. When your opponent doesn't have the ability to strike you striking that opponent is nothing but wasted energies on your part.

[canglong]

Grendel,

"do you have instances when you'd move to chi sao, but you remain in kiu sau range because you have control over your partner anyway? Please clarify this use."

The short answer is yes, the reason being you can attain san da position to strike from kiu sau. No need to go to chi sau, but if your opponent is not a threat and you have control that control at kiu sau range may be all that is warranted in that situation, or or paraphrasing my Sitiagung chi sau is a priviledge that you attain via persuasion of your kiu sau.

[Rolling_Hand]

Re: Fau kiu

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by canglong
hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.

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

--Since Rolling Hands said I am political and selfish. Why should I
share?--Hendrik

--ouch
you should share because you are political and selfish and sharing will help you in your cause.--canglong

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

A fool is happy until his mischief turns against him.

Canglong,

Thanks to all HFYWCK brothers, you guys are wonderful and I really am learning a lot from your lineage.

[t_niehoff]

FWIW, I have a slightly different perspective of kiu (bridge) and chi sao. For me, since first and foremost I seek to control my opponent, the term "kiu" to me reflects having a solid connection to my opponent's center (to best guarantee control), regardless of the method of joining (dap/jip). For example, you can touch (mor) someone's chest and not have control of their center (so there exists no bridge). However, if you press firmly enough to make (feel) the connection, you've established the bridge. Combine having the bridge with breaking the opponent's body structure (have him on his heels when you make the connection), and you can easily control him. Similarly, if I strike my opponent's shoulder or some other part (rather than his center) - so that I haven't disrupted his center - my strike doesn't become a bridge (to his center) at all. And so kiu sao for me is no more than establishing a bridge to the opponent (his center) via the arm. Thus, as I see it, kiu denotes a certain *quality of connection*. From this perspective, I can stick (chi) and not have a bridge (kiu) and I can touch (mor) and not have a bridge (kiu). Yet whenever I touch or stick, I seek to bridge (chum kiu) in accordance with the kuen kuit: "mo kiu jee jouu kiu" (if no bridge, then erect one).

Terence

[reneritchie]

If you want someone to respect your opinion, you should respect theirs, even if you disagree with it. If what you train is WCK, than a WCK person should be able to look at it and see it as WCK. If not, than you should be content to be doing something other than WCK. I'm not sure you can have that both ways ("We're WCK but completely unlike any other kind of WCK").

So, if you're not completely unlike any other kind of WCK, and other WCK people can see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is. There are similarities and differences in every teacher's approach, some more, some less, but in the end it has to be similar enough to be the same art (unless you cease being WCK altogether). You can choose to focus on the differences, or on the similarities. Neither represents the complete picture, but both are valid perspectives and denying one denies the other.

To think that anyone who disagrees with you is blind or stupid or doesn't understand or has alterior motives is arrogant and self-limiting. Empty cups should be empty on all sides of a discussion, and the reasons you believe other people are wrong should be the same reasons you watch yourself for being wrong as well.

Both David and Savi have well expressed opinions, and I personally welcome them both. You need both inner knowledge and outer perspective to get a good sense of a thing. Maybe outsiders are too far removed, but insiders are often too involved as well. A balance is a good thing to have.

If anyone can't see and respect that, *they* have the problem.

AndrewS - Understood and agreed. Bridge Arm is classically an arm, and the terminology seems to stem in large part from that liguistic characteristic, but I also think our art in application goes beyond that (even into psychological bridges).

Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don't worry about the bullies (they're caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.

MKind13 -
when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

Someone attacking your girlfriend, for example, or friend. They are busy bridging someone else, but you may (or will) need to intervene.

Trolling_Hand - Please stop stalking me.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
Re: Fau kiu


A fool is happy until his mischief turns against him.



Rolling Hand,

You are certainly very Right!

the term kiu certainly was redefined to be..... .

That shows and justified itself on the lack of Classical Chinese Martial art vocab. and understanding..... a mix up


Only fool will certainly trying to shoot the messanger.:cool:

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by reneritchie


Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don't worry about the bullies (they're caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.




Thanks Rene,

Kiu is specificly defined.

The term Kiu of certain people has been redefined since I don't want to say they don't have clear understanding.

There are atleast other terms has to be included.

Now, mixing alots of stuffs and called it kiu is the source of confusion.

There is a reason why kids in the USA has to take SAT Vocab. test.
To be specific one needs Vocab. The higher the education the more vocab. is needed for communication, classification, and organization.

I am not impressed if the WCK original ancestors couldn't figure out between Kiu, Wai, Sai......

[Rolling_Hand]

Rene Ritchie,

Chairman Moa once gave his party members these hints on speech-making: Be sincere, be brief and be seated.

------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want someone to respect your opinion, you should respect theirs, even if you disagree with it. If what you train is WCK, than a WCK person should be able to look at it and see it as WCK. If not, than you should be content to be doing something other than WCK. I'm not sure you can have that both ways ("We're WCK but completely unlike any other kind of WCK").

So, if you're not completely unlike any other kind of WCK, and other WCK people can see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is. There are similarities and differences in every teacher's approach, some more, some less, but in the end it has to be similar enough to be the same art (unless you cease being WCK altogether). You can choose to focus on the differences, or on the similarities. Neither represents the complete picture, but both are valid perspectives and denying one denies the other.

To think that anyone who disagrees with you is blind or stupid or doesn't understand or has alterior motives is arrogant and self-limiting. Empty cups should be empty on all sides of a discussion, and the reasons you believe other people are wrong should be the same reasons you watch yourself for being wrong as well.

Both David and Savi have well expressed opinions, and I personally welcome them both. You need both inner knowledge and outer perspective to get a good sense of a thing. Maybe outsiders are too far removed, but insiders are often too involved as well. A balance is a good thing to have.

If anyone can't see and respect that, *they* have the problem.

AndrewS - Understood and agreed. Bridge Arm is classically an arm, and the terminology seems to stem in large part from that liguistic characteristic, but I also think our art in application goes beyond that (even into psychological bridges).

Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don't worry about the bullies (they're caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.

MKind13 -
quote:when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

Someone attacking your girlfriend, for example, or friend. They are busy bridging someone else, but you may (or will) need to intervene.

Trolling_Hand - Please stop stalking me.

[reneritchie]

Hi Hendrik,

I think you make valid points but you also have to realize that most of the people posting here aren't Chinese, and some don't have a very high level of Chinese education (myself included). Some of us do no a little, but we still struggle. Absent our own knowledge, we usually depend on our teachers, who in some cases don't have very good grasps of English, and in many cases the languages themselves lead to problems in transliteration.

So, people discussing "Kiu" or anything else here are, in large part, regurgitating what they heard from someone in whom they have faith. It is not personal knowledge, and thus is limited to both the expression they received and the understanding they (we actually) have attained. Thus, if someone says "kiu sao" means forearm to forearm, or it means bridge arm or it means something else, absent anything else, that's what it will mean to us.

This is my long winded reasoning for you to post more/better information. Some may not remember that before most of us gained more/better info on the 'net, instructors were content to tell us Fook Sao was "Monkey Hand" or "Bent-Wrist Bridge", but we've come a long way since then, and hopefully will continue to go further still.

As much as people scream about maintaining an open mind, it needs to apply to all of us.

[Rolling_Hand]

Rolling Hand,

--You are certainly very Right!--HS

**Just about everyone needs personal attention from Hendrik!

--the term kiu certainly was redefined to be..... .--HS

**Now, you can smile again!

--That shows and justified itself on the lack of Classical Chinese Martial art vocab. and understanding..... a mix up--HS

**The problem with having a blind spot is that others see it and you don't.


--Only fool will certainly trying to shoot the messanger.--HS

**Look not for recognition, but follow the awakened, and set yourself free.

Humm....

[Grendel]

Hi Tony,


Originally posted by canglong
Grendel,

"do you have instances when you'd move to chi sao, but you remain in kiu sau range because you have control over your partner anyway? Please clarify this use."

The short answer is yes, the reason being you can attain san da position to strike from kiu sau. No need to go to chi sau, but if your opponent is not a threat and you have control that control at kiu sau range may be all that is warranted in that situation, or

Your posts are very well worded and clear up a lot of my confusion. :D


or paraphrasing my Sitiagung chi sau is a priviledge that you attain via persuasion of your kiu sau.
LOL! :D Well said, again.

Regards,

[Mckind13]

Tony wrote:

I think that would be a common mistake. To the priciple of the question as I see it, there is no need for strategy where no threat exist. The philosophy as I see it, says you are in a state of harmony so enjoy it. As for application kiu sau does not necessarily mean san da will follow or that it has to. Kui sau is a means of demonstrating your ability to get to a nuetral or superior position in order to curtail the need for strikes. If your opponent is unable to recognize your ability to attain these positions you can further demonstrate them by moving from kiu sau (arm bridge) to chi sau (striking point) while preventing your opponent the opportunity to do the same and that I think is key. Then further if he is unable to recognize your ability to do this you can further demonstrate your superiority by striking.

Me Wrote :)

Okay I can see if it is a philosophical thing but darn if I have been able to get anyone from your camp to explain the flow of interaction between themselves and an opponent outside the context of what I heard at the Kiu Sau seminar.

To difficult or has this idea not been introduced to the majority of you yet?

Not trying to be inflammatory here but if I use my understanding of my WCK I get it from the that’s not HFY side and if I try to use my limited HFY knowledge I get the its not write or that is outside of the Kiu Sau drill bit.

Some minor points

There is no need for strategy where no threat exists – You always need strategy when dealing with people, even when no perceived threat exists.

You are in a state of harmony so enjoy it – Harmony exists as balance, balance needs to be both passive and aggressive. Both waiting for the attack and ready to take the initiative.

The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike. – This does not seem to fit in with the “combat system to train soldiers and overthrow the government ideals I have heard about.

In your opinion how does the HFY Chan philosophy fit with the battlefield philosophy of fighting for your life?

How does that fit into Kiu Sau?

(This is nice dialog lets keep it up)

David

[Mckind13]

Maybe this should be a new post but what about

Kiu Gerk.

Making a bridge with the legs :)

I noticed that the distance in the Kiu Sau drills were not conducive to immediately using your legs as a tool (in other words, required a change).

When I bridge with an opponent one goal is to place my bridge, body and ma into a favorable position that allows me to interact with my opponents arm, body, legs etc.

Have you experienced any drills that address using the legs in a similar fashion as you do your arms in Kiu Sau.

David

[canglong]

Hello all,

t_niehoff,
May I ask is that your perception of what you were taught or is that indeed exactly what you were taught because it sounds to me as if you presume you are either faster or more skilled than everyone you meet. Your definition of bridge seems to be a one way bridge. Meaning if someone were controling your center you might not consider that a bridge. I believe there could exist a situation where two equally skilled operatives create a bridge without advantage and this too would constitute a bridge, this is just what I was taught and I believe that to be true.

reneritchie,
I am not sure if we are here for respect some might be but I tend to think one thing we are all after for sure is truth. You don't have to respect the messenger you just need to understand the message.

Grendel,
yeah that was funny when I heard it too you need to see his face when he says it.

[canglong]

Hey David how's the surf?

"explain the flow of interaction between themselves and an opponent outside the context of what I heard at the Kiu Sau seminar. " -- I don't fully understand the statement so I can't answer, could you elaborate.



"if I use my understanding of my WCK I get it from the that’s not HFY side and if I try to use my limited HFY knowledge I get the its not write or that is outside of the Kiu Sau drill bit." -- hey David so do I so do I. lol

With the strategy we just differ because no I don't believe you need strategy 24/7 ready and aware yes but strategy comes as needed.

"The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike. – This does not seem to fit in with the “combat system to train soldiers and overthrow the government ideals I have heard about. " -- I think it fits into a combat system that distinguishes between a battlefield and a non battlefield where on one death is expected and on the other life is respected.

Chan philosophy as I understand it does not see war as fighting but as an existence out of balance. When chan seeks to restore harmony death may occur but that is not the intent. To that end kiu sau is a tool for restoring harmony of one's immediate personal space.

[reneritchie]

but I tend to think one thing we are all after for sure is truth.

Truth is man's attempt to deal with the mind numbing vastness of the universe. It's a crutch, an illusion, a maguffin, an abstract of human hubris. It's a closed mind, an easy answer, an aborted journey. If anyone ever tells you they offer the "truth", or asks you if something is "true", they are either placing artificial constraints on their subset of reality, or trying to sell you something, and you should run as fast as you can the other way ('specially if they're ringing your doorbell on the weekend, pamphlet in hand).

What I'm here for is something between good tea table conversation and the chance some other perspective, through the mental work required to determine its value, may spark some personal insight (an iterative process). That and a productive pass time while I wait, chained to my desk, for some work related material to finish processing...

RR

[t_niehoff]

Tony Jacobs wrote:

t_niehoff,
May I ask is that your perception of what you were taught or is that indeed exactly what you were taught because it sounds to me as if you presume you are either faster or more skilled than everyone you meet. Your definition of bridge seems to be a one way bridge. Meaning if someone were controling your center you might not consider that a bridge. I believe there could exist a situation where two equally skilled operatives create a bridge without advantage and this too would constitute a bridge, this is just what I was taught and I believe that to be true.

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

My perception is based on what I was taught, what I have experienced, and my personal understanding. It has nothing to do with "speed", but does indeed have to do with having skill (do you really expect to beat someone better skilled?).

I'm sorry but I don't understand your questions. Certainly according to my view one can create a bridge without advantage (just connecting to my opponent's center doesn't in and of itself give me an advantage if I don't use that connection), and two people can have their centers connected without either having an advantage. Our drills in WCK (can) teach us, IMO, how to establish a bridge (center-to-center connection), how to use it, how to prevent our opponent from using it against us, etc. The point of my original post was that "kiu" for me denotes a certain quality of connection -- as I see it our arms can touch in any number of ways (wrist-to-wrist, forearm-to-forearm, wrist-to-forearm, palm-to-wrist, and on and on) but merely touching in and of itself doesn't give us the ability to control, it is the quality of connection that does. I hope this makes my meaning clearer.

Terence

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by canglong
Chan philosophy as I understand it does not see war as fighting but as an existence out of balance. When chan seeks to restore harmony death may occur but that is not the intent. To that end kiu sau is a tool for restoring harmony of one's immediate personal space.







The Hui Neng's Stanza said.

There is not a Bodhi Tree
There is not a Mirror
There in the orginal is not a thing
How can it collect dust?



From one's Buddha nature, one give raise Wu Ming, then create a me and you, then space then time then create a Kiu Sau......then fighting... it goes on and on to create more karma .....

That is not Chan teaching. That is the opposite of Chan teaching.
That is not return the light to shine. That is diffuse the light....



All these differentiation false attachment mind and creation of different fighting Karma.
Can you call that Chan?
is that accord to Chan's teaching?


In the Qing Dynasty, Some Hung Mun using the name of Chan and Damo to propagate thier non sense. That is not Chan.


Some Japanese uses Chan as a tool to provoke self righteousness for figthing and killing. That is not Chan.

This is 2000's. Don't fall into those trap. , Chan teaching is about return to the origin. Not to travel away from the origin. not create more ignorance karma.

Certainly people will start all sort of arguement to attack.
That is fine and expected.

the facts is where is the mind seal from Kashapa and who passed it to one.
Don't using Chan to mess up other's mind and life.

What is not balance when all living beings are equal ?
Chan is about The Samyaksambodhi not about Kiu Sau.

[Hendrik]

Rene,


in Chinese,
There is a term "Foo Hui"
Meaning, to attach things to what it has no relationship just to make things look and sound big.

There is a story about Foo Hui
When the first emperor of Ming Dynasty, Chu Yuan Chaang decided to become emperor.

His ass kissing officials like Hu Wei-Yoong.... started to link Chu's ancestors to great scholars..

Luckily that Chu has a very good empress, Empress Ma
and a great official Liu Po-Wen. They stop these stuffs.
Otherwise, there will be big back fire years later.

This is a bad habit. Hopefully WCK people don't learn this bad habit. otherwise when it back fire. one will be in deep souce.

It is not worthed.

[yuanfen]

Hendrik-While your English will give some folks fits- you make some very good points. The question of Chan and the martial arts is a topic that will take a long time to flush out ina net forum.

But there has beena lot of rationalization of justifying one's opinions by claiming the umbrella of Chan -both historically with the hung men and Japanese militarism and contemporaneously. On the latter atleast some of Dogen's shoto zen folks opposed the militarism and paid the price of imprisonment and death. The others (many rinzai folks etc) got manipulated by the militarists.

Buddhism is the middle way and different from Jain ahimsa. An attacked monk using his staff and folks using double knives and also using violence because someone has disturbed harmony in their opinion by entering their space are quite different things. And of course the PRC pushing the Shaolin myths commercially is also nonsense.. In the Qing Dynasty, Some Hung Mun using the name of Chan and Damo to propagate their non sense. That is not Chan. You make the appropriate points on Hui neng, Kashyapa and other aspects of Chan.

The mechanics and dynamics of wing chun and other TCMA-s have their own logic and uses and responsibilities...but to simply wrap the mantle of Chan to legitimize a specific martial art is spurious IMO...who else's can it be?

BTW how does the CHO family approach wing chun and the ethics involved? Curious.

Joy Chaudhuri

[Savi]

Forgive my directness...

When speaking about Chan/Zen Philosophy we must be mindful not to step on Hendrik's toes. Mr. Hendrik has demonstrated an extreme bias to the HFY's relationship to Shaolin Chan in the past and today. I understand Hendrik's bias being that the HFY is complete non-sense because it doesn't fit into his picture.

It is with great humility that we all share [with others] our PERSONAL understanding of our kung fu and history in a respectable manner, but to be received by Hendrik's words [I see] is tough, and difficult to see his intentions as Sifu Chaudhuri pointed out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hendrik, from your posts I can see you do not fully comprehend Hung Fa Yi or Shaolin Chan. Tony Jacob's depiction is based on ethics and address the 'here and now' (war time vs. peace time) situation. Is that not Chan/Zen? His answer is very accurate, skillfully worded, and in accordance with HFY/Shaolin nature. If you understand HFY nature and history, you will see how accurate it is. If you do not fully understand the history and nature of HFY, you should not speak for us. The question was about HFY's marriage to Shaolin (Chan) Buddhism, not another sect of Chan. From what I know, you do not study HFY. Can you answer McKind13's question? Are you familiar with Shaolin Chan? Does your Chan originate from there, or another place?

Hendrik, when I read your posts I find certain comments very insinuating. This may be my ignorance, but that's why I'm letting you know. I find your comments gravitate more towards negativity and gossip; counter-productive to this discussion. What do I mean? You last post about Foo Hui should have been directed towards the HFY members. Why? The Hung Fa Yi was named after the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty, therefore you speak of HFY heritage and I do not appreciate how you are wording your history lesson. Can you distinguish the reality from the illusions (fact from fiction) of your last post?

Did you feel it neccesary AND relevant to educate Rene on this forum about Foo Hui for any particular reason, IF NOT to express your feelings indirectly about the HFY family heritage? Why not address 'Foo Hui' to us all? And please tell how Shaolin Chan is a part of HFY since you seem to be an authority on that particular relationship. You make it a point to have the HFY family sound like we do not know what we talk about. We speak of our understanding. That's it. Are you saying that we do not understand our understanding?

If you have something to say about HFY or Kiu Sao, then please say it. Remember, McKind13's question was about HFY's operational connection to Chan. If you do not recognize Shaolin Chan as legitemate, then you are right and we are wrong. No more discussion neccesary. Not to mention everything else from Shaolin... Are you the rock skipping over the water, or the water itself?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

McKind13, your question is well received, but it does require an understanding of HFY history to understand the answer. If this is going to be an in-depth discussion about history and philosophy (which would be a great discussion too) I think it should begin on a seperate thread.

I recommend that you and Mr. Hendrik both visit www.mengsofaz.com under the academics link. Read up on the 'internet chat rooms' article and this may bring new information to your table. More information on HFY history is also available on the website, and at the VTM website.

Sorry for wasting any bandwidth.
-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Hey Hendrik, Joy,

Good points, if off-topic. In history, this was often the case with the Secret Societies, which made up links to Shaolin or Ming (no one seems to have had any direct ones, they just knew a friend who knew a friend who had once met a Ming Scion or a Monk) and would use it to raise money, as would some local temples (not Shaolin, also often not Buddhist) the way modern churches use Bingo. It was, for lack of a better modern parallel, a network marketing enterprise, used to fund many things, some noble, some not. Sun Yat-Sen, like your story, also sought to make up history to help make his Nationalist movement more attractive to Foreign Secret Society leaders, based on these olds marketing ploys. Despite his group of "historians" he ultimately failed as well. Perhaps he lacked as far-seeing an Empress. Yet many in the West were raised on these stories and will do and say much in defense of them. People will, in most cases, believe who they want to and what they want to, since they have vested interest in doing so.

Did Chan monks fight and kill in the old days? Maybe some did, didn't make killing righteous under Chan precepts, but it probably did provide opportunity for rationalization, the way other religions have rationalized Crusades.

Anyway, to get back to application, this is also something common. Does you application really work, or do you make up rationalizations? And do your rationalizations hold up? (It didn'yt work because you made a mistake is one thing, but it didn't work because your adversary 'punched wrong' is quite another).

With things like San Sao, Chi Sao, etc. whether they are 1000 years old or made up last Tuesday, they must also hold up under application, and not just philosophy (lest ye be the most philosophically enlightened body on the ground), and if they are claimed to be from a certain culture, must hold up to that culture (A 'space shuttle uppercut' is nice in modern lingo, but anachronistic from a latter Song Dynasty art ;) ) And, if the art being discussed is extent in varying forms, it must also hold up in contrast to those art (an art claiming to be WCK with no Tan, Fook, or Bong, and a set remarkably similiar to Yangjia Taiji, would be questionable).

So, to sum, it is useful to analyze any teaching/learning process (which is what we're really discussing here) in terms of its benefits to us (does it help us learn/teach better, with better being more efficient attainment, and attainment in this case being successful application). Not as useful, but still interesting, is to analyze whether its historically consistent (though older != better, there is some folk sense that it does).

BTW- For those not familiar with t_niehoff, and despite his desire to remain an anonymous troll, he is a 20+ year WCK practitioner (who refereshingly eshews the titles master, sifu, and even poobah) with previous experience in the Leung Ting WT, William Cheung TWC, and currently Robert Chu approaches to WCK, with degrees in physics and law (good for science vs. 'science' debates ;) ), and some training in logical reasoning (which makes his choice of participating here rather bewildering). I believe he's available somewhere in the US (you folks have far too many states for me to keep track of) for contact WCK, and, rumor has it, latin dancing. Agree or disagree (and we've done both over the years), IMHO, Terence is an aset in that, either way, you're always forced to really think through your ideas, which serves to strengthen, or challenge previous perceptions, and always leads to new insights. (I'm sure the stalkers are already warming up, but don't sweat them, TN, their impotent little buggers and hiding behind screen names and talking tough is the only thing that keeps them from remembering that).

RR

[reneritchie]

Hi Savi,


Mr. Hendrik has demonstrated an extreme bias to the HFY's relationship to Shaolin Chan in the past and today.

This is true, and so does your group, the only problem lies in that you both seem to extremely dislike the bias of the other, and not recognize it goes both ways. A wise person knows there's some Yin in Yang and vice versa, and that each of you could be wrong (if you don't believe you could be wrong, IMHO, you have no place in a reasonable discussion). I will point out, however, that over the course of this discussion, we have learned that Hendrik has studied directly with a student of Xu Yun, and has spent time with 2 or 3 other students of Xu. And while he's asked who provided the Shaolin Chan training and the mind-seal to your group, he has repeatedly been ignored (even though he himself has been accused of dodging questions).

Also, since we're being direct, I find it odd that people who always seem to demand others be open minded aren't themselves upon to other ideas/beliefs. What if Hendrik is wrong, or what if Savi's group is wrong? Both are possibilities. Can we accept them, and thus prove our place in a mature discussion?

I personally lean away from their being any ancestral Shaolin or Chan connection to WCK, but I remain open to the possibility there might be, and would enjoy seeing information (not opinion, because while I enjoy that, and it makes me think, there's nothing tangible about it) supporting that theory. Because of this, should I be called closed minded? Should I be attacked on message boards, insulted, bullied, etc.? Because, like Hendrik, I have been and am still. And are such acts worthy of those who ask others to be open minded?


I recommend that you and Mr. Hendrik both visit www.mengsofaz.com under the academics link. Read up on the 'internet chat rooms' article and this may bring new information to your table. More information on HFY history is also available on the website, and at the VTM website.

That "article", which is now in edited version, along with a companion article, were part of disgusting, dishonorable, deplorable attacks on myself and others. They were ill-conceived, poorly informed, badly written, factually inaccurate, petty, politcal manipulations of the worst kind. I assume you're not aware of what went on there, but it is not something I consider good form in bringing up.

RR

[Geezer]

Richard Loewenhagen Wrote On
http://www.mengsofaz.com/>

In the past, a direct attack on a person's integrity would result in a duel or challenge. If such attacks persist, they will once again do so! Attacks on personal integrity will not be forever ignored! There is an ancient martial phrase called "Ming Yi" meaning "name righteousness". If you study martial arts, you must understand this courtesy. Your name is everything. It is the root of Chinese culture that emphasizes never insulting another's integrity or name. To do so will most certainly result in direct confrontation!

I find this interesting, I don't think this is completely an Asian thing, I'm all about an "Eye For An Eye".
The part of London I'm from it's part of life there, you take care of buisness. How many modern day MAs are adopting a turn the other cheek attitude, how many people think it's childish too talk about "actually taking care of a verbal/physical attacker".:confused:
My family means the world to me, if someone knocks on my door and insults my Wife I'm not going to ignore it and hope they go away I'm going to knock(give it a go anyway)the living $hit out of them.:confused:
When will people realise that for some this is what there all about and if you make the insult you should be prepared to back it up and except the challange if it comes your way.
How many people are prepared to fight even though they know there may be a chance they might get the cr@p kicked out of them.:confused:
I know this went off topic abit but I think it fell in line with what Rene talked about and Richards article( I didn't want to quote everything though).

Sheldon:)

[reneritchie]

Geezer,

[Edited because I've said my piece on the matter and I'd rather stick to discussing the art and not the people]

As for the rest, philosophically, it's immature (not a personal attack, a description of that thinkings place on the human evolutionary scale). It is might makes right, rather than might for right, mob rule, and the dominance of thuggery over civility. In such a world, anyone with strength could say whatever they wanted, no matter how much BS it was, and through sheer initimidation, keep any other opinions, no matter how righteous, subjugated. It is also why countries like the US, UK, Canada, etc. have representational forms of government, and legal systems.

If someone insults you (not you Sheldon, the generic plural you), and you cream them, you're a fool and will likely go to jail, where you'll probably find out pretty quickly what being on the receiving end of things feels like. If someone insults the martial arts you practice, and you threaten them, you're beyond a fool (and should really seek psycological help for anger management, impulse control, ego wrangling, and emotional attachment prioritization, etc.). Fight to protect yourself, your family, and your land from threat of physical violence. Otherwise, if it ain't true, answer it in kind or laugh it off.

RR

[Rolling_Hand]

Hendrik, when I read your posts I find certain comments very insinuating. This may be my ignorance, but that's why I'm letting you know. I find your comments gravitate more towards negativity and gossip; counter-productive to this discussion--Savi

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

Hung Fa Yi = Honey

Bees = Robert Chu's camp (Hendrik, David Mckind, Terence)

See what is.
See what is not.
Follow the honey bees.
Noises

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

Rene and Hendrik,

People are not interested in your personal opinions and politics. You guys have been playing your silly game with HFY/Jee Sim families for too long. Enough is enough and stop trolling. Many of us here are more interested in learning about HFY kiu Sao, not your personal opinions.

[Savi]

Rene, Terence, All...

Truly sorry about mentioning the article. I was not aware there was more history AND other parties involved. My intention was to focus on the Chan discussion. Terence, I did not know you were the same one involved in the article either.

:( ***My apologies to all involved.*** :(

Hopefully water under the bridge?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Terence, thank you for sharing your information on this thread about Kiu Sao. Let me share my understanding of the bridge:

Bridge: point of control where the opponent's center of gravity can be identified and manipulated.

To me, striking and mere contact with someone does not constitute a bridge. From my understanding, a bridge:

1) gives me the ability to gather info: read movement, weight distribution, and energy about the person and

2) is a point where I have sufficient control to manipulate their center of gravity to where is ideal for me and

3) allows me to move in harmony/sync with their movements and energies without losing my own harmony

Will bridging always occur? I say only if they give you a reason to establish one. One example... If a punch is coming in long, wide and high from the side, I say go into the strike with a 'Kiu sao' ready for the intercept (ie: a Biu Sao Structure) whilst striking the centerline (preferably the head) with body momentum. Upon contact of the weapon into the Biu Sao Structure, your own momentum should shift the opponent's center of gravity towards that contact point. As long as you maintain your structure throughout the ranges of motion you should not lose control of the Kiu.

Kiu Sao, that has been discussed here, shares a place in all Wing Chun, and other styles, in one form or another. I am glad we are all openly sharing our kung fu here :)

If anyone is willing to share, what type of steps does your WC lineage follow to train Chi Sao?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Again, please excuse me about the article. I had no ill intentions.
-Savi.:(

[reneritchie]

Savi - Apology accepted, and water definately under the bridge. I didn't think it was meant to invoke old problems. Nuff respect for the continued mature manner in which you conduct yourself.

Your comments on bridging match many of my own thoughts. I always try to do the least I need to, and force my opponent to the most they have to, yet I remain ever ready to do more if I'm unfortunately forced to.

We train Chi Sao as we train most things, in a step by step manner. In terms of movement, we take almost every one from the form and train the single motions until they move properly and begin to become reflex. Then, over time, we add additional movements, explore error recovery if we make a mistake, etc. In other words, move from the simple to the more complex (though we try to avoid the really complex 8) ).

Rolling_Hand - As if your repeated attempts to discredit HFY through feigned association weren't bad enough, your mention of Jee Shim, despite Hoffmann sifu's express request to have his family left out of trolling, is an all time low. Now, please stop stalking me, and please remember Hendrik is a married man (making your obsession with him all the more disturbing).

RR

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

Terence, I did not know you were the same one involved in the article either.

***My apologies to all involved.***

Hopefully water under the bridge?
----------------------

No need to apologize; I wasn't offended. :) TN

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

Terence, thank you for sharing your information on this thread about Kiu Sao. Let me share my understanding of the bridge:

Bridge: point of control where the opponent's center of gravity can be identified and manipulated.

To me, striking and mere contact with someone does not constitute a bridge. From my understanding, a bridge:

1) gives me the ability to gather info: read movement, weight distribution, and energy about the person and

2) is a point where I have sufficient control to manipulate their center of gravity to where is ideal for me and

3) allows me to move in harmony/sync with their movements and energies without losing my own harmony

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

Seems consistent with what I was saying. TN

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


Will bridging always occur? I say only if they give you a reason to establish one. (Savi)

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

From my perspective, since I always seek to control the opponent then I always seek to bridge -- we have the second form (chum kiu) telling us that as well as the kuen kuit (for example, when there is no bridge, establish one). TN

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

One example... If a punch is coming in long, wide and high from the side, I say go into the strike with a 'Kiu sao' ready for the intercept (ie: a Biu Sao Structure) whilst striking the centerline (preferably the head) with body momentum.

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

Again, from my perspective, your punch should be a bridge (kiu) in that it connects to the opponent's center (and fwiw, the choice of target, like most everything else, depends on the circumstances) to destroy his structure. However, as I practice WCK, "body momentum" is not a power source. TN

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

Upon contact of the weapon into the Biu Sao Structure, your own momentum should shift the opponent's center of gravity towards that contact point. As long as you maintain your structure throughout the ranges of motion you should not lose control of the Kiu. (Savi)

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

I strive to "use stillness to overcome movement", not momentum to overcome movement. TN

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

Kiu Sao, that has been discussed here, shares a place in all Wing Chun, and other styles, in one form or another. I am glad we are all openly sharing our kung fu here (Savi)

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

IMHO there is no "all WCK", rather there is just WCK. And I agree your sentiments about sharing. TN

Terence

[scuba steve]

Savi,

I read the article in question by Sifu Lowenhagen.

I was struck by one of his comments:

"In truth, Chan (Zen) teaching itself requires the passing on of knowledge in a person-to-person, face-to-face format. In other words, Chan (Zen) will never truly lend itself to the "freebie" learning concept of email and the Internet. True students will still have to carry the burden of seeking knowledge from true teachers and true participation in action, not just written words. Likewise, true students will need to remain dedicated to supporting those teachers or they simply won't exist."

Out of curiosity how long has Sifu Lowenhagen been a Chan Buddhist?

What does he think of:

"The Buddha is a dried piece of dung of the barbarians, and sainthood is only an empty name."

"What is Buddha?" "This Flax weighs three pounds."

Would Ming Yi apply to either?

More to the point, is Ming Yi part of Chan dao?

[Savi]

Hi Scuba Steve,
You will have to ask/call/e-mail/write Sifu Loewenhagen himself. The contact information is on his web site.

Although I do like philosophical discussions (not to dismiss any other questions), I would like to spend more time on this thread with Kiu Sao/Chi Sao. I would like to ask that we move the discussion away from the article :).

----------------------------------------------
Body Momentum, Emptiness and Stillness...

Hm, actually Terence, I think I should clarify something in the bridging example. It is definitely an involved problem trying to explain these type of 'what if scenarios' online.

Let's put this into the perspective of Intercepting vice Redirecting from the initial engagement. The difference in these two methods is this:

- Intercepting is a more aggressive strategy, where Time allows you to intercept the weapon upon delivery. In this case, there is also the neccesary space to acheive this (more time and space). Pres. Bush might call this a pre-emtive strike. Also, using this method is highly dependant upon you being able to maintain your structures (what we refer as Body Unity) in motion. Your mass+velocity against the weapon is what I mean by Body Momentum, body unity in motion.

- Redirecting is a defensive strategy where the weapon is already in your space. Less time and space to deal with the threat. This is a much higher risk situation.

Stillness, in my context, is to be in complete awareness of your environment, where all your senses are tuned into the 'here and now.'....a state of mentality. So from my perspective it applies at all times. You may be moving (like scanning the battlefield), or still (like locking onto the target, but waiting for it to come to you)

Emptiness, as I understand it, is to be receptive, yielding to energy so that you may transfer the energy through yourself to direction/place suitable for you to function and capitalize on the opponent. More of a redirective strategy, but can also be utilized in the interceptive method. Using an aggressive strategy with a redirective technique (ie: tan sao)

I was visualizing the punching/biu sao-kiu sao example where more time and space were available to use the Intercepting method stated above.

-Savi.

[canglong]

Reneritchie,
You don't want the truth all you want is the tea and the dialogue. Why are you always the first to stand disturb the tea and object when you feel someone has not delivered the truth. If you want to stay on the topic might I suggest you not reply to every post off topic.

[Savi]

Originally posted by Mckind13
I noticed that the distance in the Kiu Sau drills were not conducive to immediately using your legs as a tool (in other words, required a change).

When I bridge with an opponent one goal is to place my bridge, body and ma into a favorable position that allows me to interact with my opponents arm, body, legs etc.

David

During the seminar, leg strategies were briefly covered. HFY shares the same strategy that one must have all limbs ready and able to attack/defend on the battlefield. This is consistent with the Time and Space Concept which was stated on "The paradigm shift of the Time and Space Concept" thread.

When drilling HFY Kiu Sao in the first three progressions, if you recall, the foot work must carry you to each side of the opponent for a proper flank. If you are able to express the TSC throughout the range of motion you will always have both legs in range for defense and offense.
-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Rolling_Hand
- As if your repeated attempts to discredit HFY through feigned association weren't bad enough, your mention of Jee Shim, despite Hoffmann sifu's express request to have his family left out of trolling, is an all time low. Now, please stop stalking me, and please remember Hendrik is a married man (making your obsession with him all the more disturbing).--RR

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

Rene Ritchie,

Can you have your cake and eat it, too.? Unlike you, I've had many good experiences with HFY family members in the past. Dwelling on other people's faults. Multiplies your own and you accelerate your aggression. The harm you do turns against you grievoisly. Know this. Seek wisdom, and purity. Please stop stalking HFY's name with your nonsense. (making your obession with them all the more disturbing).

Live in joy, in peace, even among the troubled.

Humm...

[Rolling_Hand]

--That is not Chan teaching. That is the opposite of Chan teaching.
That is not return the light to shine. That is diffuse the light....--Hendrik
-----------------------------------------------------------
Do your thoughts trouble you?
Does passion dirturb you?
Do you really understand the teaching of Ch'an?
The fool is his own enemy.
Honor the man who is without passion, hatred, illusion and desire.
Then,
Ch'an...

Humm...

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by yuanfen


BTW how does the CHO family approach wing chun and the ethics involved? Curious.

Joy Chaudhuri


Joy,

I am a buddhist and then I practice Yik Kam or Miu Soon's SLT.
The mother is the Emei 12 zhuang as you know.

So, here are how the Emei 12 Zhuang's writing about the subject you are asking.




" The character of Crane is no fighting.
Thus it has the virtue of the Phenix...

Holding the Buddhism Precepts and politely social with the visitors....

(Even when we are) in Asura's Realm,
Compassionate is always there
As the disciple of Buddha,
We hold the precept of not killing and hurting as the ultimate.

The Dharma place subduing the Heart's Demon in the important place.
Once attain the Samadhi, instantly one be one with the Amitaba Buddha...."




Hope this give you a snap short of what is the mother's teaching which I belive in.


Joy, notice it said in "Asura Realm."
Meaning when one get into the fighting state one had roll into the Asura Realm, That is no longer the Buddha or Boddhisatva Realm. Fighting can never be Chan.


Even in the Surangama sutra, the buddha recalls a story in his previous life that he poke at a big fish's head with a spear. and, in the present life, he still has to carry the karma of having headache due to that poke at the big fish.


One has to pay back the karma one created without exception even one is Buddha.



Again as the Hui Neng put it in his stanza:


Fighting is the mind of win or lost
that is opposite to the Dao
That kind of thought give raise to You/Me, Race, Time.
How can such thought lead one into Samadhi?

Thus it is absurd to claim even in fighting one still doing Chan.

Who say so? the 6th Patriach, Hui Neng.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Savi
Forgive my directness...

When speaking about Chan/Zen Philosophy we must be mindful not to step on Hendrik's toes. Mr. Hendrik has demonstrated an extreme bias to the HFY's relationship to Shaolin Chan in the past and today. I understand Hendrik's bias being that the HFY is complete non-sense because it doesn't fit into his picture.

It is with great humility that we all share [with others] our PERSONAL understanding of our kung fu and history in a respectable manner, but to be received by Hendrik's words [I see] is tough, and difficult to see his intentions as Sifu Chaudhuri pointed out......

I find your comments gravitate more towards negativity and gossip; counter-productive to this discussion--Savi




-Savi.

Savi,

First, the subject is about Kiu Sau.
Then you bring Chan up.

I comment on Chan as I have learn it and read it from Chan teaching's sutras and sastras.

You seem to not like that so you accuse me on extreme bias....negativity and gossip; counter-productive.


and then
bring up the HFY and Shao Lin which is not the Chan topic.





As for Chan, Chan is Chan. I don't create it. and you cannot define it as you like.


It was Documented in the Sutras, Sastra, and passed down with 47 Patriach of Chan since Kasyapa. So you don't like the facts?
Don't blame me or accuse me.


Check into the teaching of those 47 Chan patriach.
Check into the Sutra and Sastra.
and look for yourself what is what?

Why is the world has to be as you like it to be?
And when it is not the way you like it.
You blame me.

Now, if you convince that your great understanding of Kiu Sau and Chan.

Proof to all of us where you can find kiu sau and Chan in the Sutras and Sastras. I am interested to learn from you.


By the way, the following is what Joy wrote:

".....But there has been a lot of rationalization of justifying one's opinions by claiming the umbrella of Chan -both historically with the hung men and Japanese militarism and contemporaneously. On the latter atleast some of Dogen's shoto zen folks opposed the militarism and paid the price of imprisonment and death. The others (many rinzai folks etc) got manipulated by the militarists...."


Joy see what I am talking about clearly.


Look Savi, I am not interested in this WCK family or that WCK family.

I am here to discuss technical issues about CHAN.

You can understand you Kung fu anyway you want but stop accusing me.

Why shoot the messenger?

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand


People are not interested in your personal opinions and politics. You guys have been playing your silly game with HFY/Jee Sim families for too long. Enough is enough and stop trolling. Many of us here are more interested in learning about HFY kiu Sao, not your personal opinions.


Rolling Hand,

1, The subject of discussion is about KIU SAU and CHI SAU, then get migrate into CHAN. Since you always act wise please return to the focus CHAN.

2, You like it or not like it there are Chan Patriach's Teaching documentations, Sutras and Sastras one can checked into.

3, if you belive you are right, it is no need to accuse or blame or set up others to others. Just shows the evident of connection to Chan.

Bottom line it is a techincal discussion. That simple.

[Chango]

Hello,
In hopes to bring things back to the original topic at hand. HFY has kiu sau like many other southern shaolin systems. HFY has a very precise Kiu sao. HFY has a very precise Chi sao. Kiu sau is the foundation for Chi sao. Of course I do not mean for all WCK only HFY. I have to say this becuase HFY Chi sao is a very specific thing and we are not speaking for all WCK only HFY. Sure I understand that alot of people have different ideas and understandings of what Kiu sau is. This may not be consistant with HFY Kiu sau. Thus causing some of the confusion.

Rene,

I have to admit Rolling hand does have a point. I have also noticed that every time HFY or Chi Sim history has been mentioned Hendrick, yourself and a few others seem to jump in a repeat your opinions and theorys on the subjects. It does seem like you and those others seem to have some type of personal interest in doing this. It comes across as though you all have some sort of conection. I could be wrong but I think many other would agree that this has been the case. In most of these cases we are only sharing what we have to offer and in some cases we do not have any interest in debating the topics. I could be wrong but this does seem to be the case. I'm just asking you to step back and take a look at this. Again I could be wrong but things can be precieved this way. It has been going on for quite some time now. Maybe you don't see it.

At this point I would like to get back on topic of HFY Kiu sau and Chi Sao how they are connected. I think maybe those that are interested in further discussion of this information might find some answers from reviewing some of the reviews from the workshop. Here is a link so that you can read through and maybe gain many perspectives on the subject.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/2002/nov01-03_2002.php


Chango (SGS)



:D

[Hendrik]

"You last post about Foo Hui should have been directed towards the HFY members. Why? The Hung Fa Yi was named after the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty, therefore you speak of HFY heritage and I do not appreciate how you are wording your history lesson. Can you distinguish the reality from the illusions (fact from fiction) of your last post?"


Stop putting words in my post.

Ask the TaiChi guys, is TaiChi really created by Chang Sang-Feng?
Ask Hung Siew-Chuen the King of Taiping. is he the son of GOD?
Ask....


Have you ever think about:

As in the story, Chu Yuan-Chang doesn't execute his wife Emperor Ma and Liu Po Wen. But instead agree with them to do the right thing to protect his good name.
That is a good attitude one needs to learn.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Chango

I have to admit Rolling hand does have a point. I have also noticed that every time HFY or Chi Sim history has been mentioned Hendrick, yourself and a few others seem to jump in a repeat your opinions and theorys on the subjects. It does seem like you and those others seem to have some type of personal interest in doing this. It comes across as though you all have some sort of conection. I could be wrong but I think many other would agree that this has been the case. In most of these cases we are only sharing what we have to offer and do not have any interest in debating the topic. I could be wrong but it this does seem to be the case. I'm just asking you to step back and take a look at this. Again I could be wrong but things can be precieved this way. It has been going on for quite some time now.


Chango (SGS)



:D

Chango,

Certianly everyone has thier point if looking with thier point of view.

In my understanding,
The whole thing started with
VTM published a magazine article about HFY and Chisim are the oldest of WCK.

Certainly, with that publication, VTM sets it up for others to question that claim.

Since VTM mention Ip Man's Line, YSK...... and mine line. Certainly, we will like to ask VTM to back the claim with evidents.

It will not be fair if one can make claim on others and expect others to take it as the truth isn't it?

It is also not fair that only VTM can make claim and others cannot show evidents that it is not the case, right?

See, it is simple if you don't want others to jump in the history discussion. Don't make claim for others.

If one makes claim for others one has to accept other's questioning and discussion.
what do you think?


By the way, Chan discussion is about Chan not about other.
It is not right that the non Chan practitioners talks about Chan and the Chan buddhist cannot present the Chan teaching.

Why should a Chan Buddhist accept quitely about what other claim about Chan which is not accord to Chan teaching for past 1000years?



May be you can say it is the USA it is a free speech place. Certainly, but Free Speech goes both ways.

May be we all have to call a halt on all of these.
but then will everyone willing to look into oneself other then blame others?

[reneritchie]

I'm *very* nice to the VTM/HFY members on this board, and I'm very respectful of their claims. However, many of them (Savi, Levi, Matt Kwan, and a few others are noteable exceptions) are quite rude and disrespectful towards me and mine. It goes both ways.

Right now, its a few bad apples from the HFY/VTM side who are being closed minded, and ruining what is an interesting thread for the rest of us. Cut it out.

And Chango, you especially are a disappointment. Despite Andreas' very express request, you keep lumping his system into your discussions. While I know you have no respect for me or my views, I thought, at least, you'd respect his wishes.

Let us also not forget that Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung, Cho, and almost every other family traces their lineage back to Shaolin (mostly through Ng Mui Si Tai), so singling out theories to the contrary as being anti-HFY just shows the incredible tunnel vision still being practiced by some people. It is our heritage as well. You have no exclusive rights to any of it. If you think you do, *you're* the problem.

Instead of jumping all over anyone who disagrees with you, which is counter the precepts your own organization is supposed to stand for, how about extending the same respect you seem so adament in demanding? If you can't, you have no place in mature discussion and only do your own argument harm. Get off the board and stop the embarassment.

Now, if any of you *really* want to have a discussion, and don't just want everyone to listen, doglike, at your feet and bark out nothing but appreciation for the scraps we are tossed, please do so and cut out the cr@p. No more trolling_hand posts that are nothing but personal attacks without any on-topic content, and no more Chango personal attacks with requests that everyone get back on topic. Leave Levi, Savi, myself, and those with interest in the actual topic get on with it. Have that much decency at least.

And Hendrik, you stop trolling to. It takes two to tango and while the HFY/VTM people should stick to the topic, so should everyone else. Not everyone of their posts is about "original" and "Shaolin" and "Chan", and even if they mention it, you don't have to let it be a hot button.

RR

[yuanfen]

Hendrik- thanks for explaining how you link ethics with wing chun.
It is very clear to me...but then since many of the terms...asura realm, samadhi, karma(the way you are using the term). amitabha
etc are very familiar to me- I didnt have trouble seeing the links.
joy chaudhuri

[Geezer]

Chango Wrote>

I have to admit Rolling hand does have a point. I have also noticed that every time HFY or Chi Sim history has been mentioned Hendrick, yourself and a few others seem to jump in a repeat your opinions and theorys on the subjects. It does seem like you and those others seem to have some type of personal interest in doing this. It comes across as though you all have some sort of conection. I could be wrong but I think many other would agree that this has been the case. In most of these cases we are only sharing what we have to offer and in some cases we do not have any interest in debating the topics. I could be wrong but this does seem to be the case. I'm just asking you to step back and take a look at this. Again I could be wrong but things can be precieved this way. It has been going on for quite some time now. Maybe you don't see it.

Hendrik Wrote>

Since VTM mention Ip Man's Line, YSK...... and mine line. Certainly, we will like to ask VTM to back the claim with evidents.

I would still like to have a look at the book Hendrik has talked about on many occasions detailing "his" familys history.:confused:

Rene Wrote>

I'm *very* nice to the VTM/HFY members on this board, and I'm very respectful of their claims. However, many of them (Savi, Levi, Matt Kwan, and a few others are noteable exceptions) are quite rude and disrespectful towards me and mine. It goes both ways.

When you say your very nice, do you mean "you" don't openly attack them but on a certain mailing list you wouldn't shut down the people that do attack them:confused:

Rene Wrote>

Let us also not forget that Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung, Cho, and almost every other family traces their lineage back to Shaolin (mostly through Ng Mui Si Tai), so singling out theories to the contrary as being anti-HFY just shows the incredible tunnel vision still being practiced by some people. It is our heritage as well. You have no exclusive rights to any of it. If you think you do, *you're* the problem.

I can understand this but certain people on a certain mailing list "I'm naming no names" wouldn't even entertain their ideas or theorys.:(

I have allot of respect for you Rene and the VTM people, but fairs fair, you keep on dragging in Sifu Hoffmanns name, I'm sure if he had such a big problem with it he would chime in and say so himself.:confused:



Sheldon:(

[t_niehoff]

Hi Savi,

Savi wrote:

Body Momentum, Emptiness and Stillness...

Hm, actually Terence, I think I should clarify something in the bridging example. It is definitely an involved problem trying to explain these type of 'what if scenarios' online.

Let's put this into the perspective of Intercepting vice Redirecting from the initial engagement. The difference in these two methods is this:

- Intercepting is a more aggressive strategy, (Savi)

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

For me, jeet (intercepting/cutting-off) is not a "choice" (any more than dap/jip is a choice) of strategy, but is part of the core expression of WCK. TN
--------------------

where Time allows you to intercept the weapon upon delivery. In this case, there is also the neccesary space to acheive this (more time and space).
(Savi)
-------------------

From my perspective, jeet involves more than just dealing with my opponent's "weapon" and instead deals with cutting-off his offensive potential -- his total offensive potential; distance/space isn't a factor IMO (I can jeet from contact, non-contact, close-body, off-fighting, etc.). TN
--------------------

Pres. Bush might call this a pre-emtive strike. (Savi)

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

Do you mean in the sense of "ne dong, wo dong sien" (he moves, but I arrive first)? TN
---------------------

Also, using this method is highly dependant upon you being able to maintain your structures (what we refer as Body Unity) in motion. Your mass+velocity against the weapon is what I mean by Body Momentum, body unity in motion. (Savi)
---------------------

That is what I assumed you meant. I agree that one should always maintain body-unity and structure (fwiw, I think we all use the "buzzwords" but I don't think we all necessarily mean the same things). From my perspective, body-unity in motion is something different than body momentum. TN
----------------------

- Redirecting is a defensive strategy where the weapon is already in your space. Less time and space to deal with the threat. This is a much higher risk situation. (Savi)
----------------------

My perspective is different. As I see it, WCK doesn't use "defensive strategies"; and "redirecting" - by which I assume you mean dai (leading/guiding) - can be used at any range/space IMO. TN
-----------------------

Stillness, in my context, is to be in complete awareness of your environment, where all your senses are tuned into the 'here and now.'....a state of mentality. So from my perspective it applies at all times. You may be moving (like scanning the battlefield), or still (like locking onto the target, but waiting for it to come to you) (Savi)
-----------------------

I see "stillness" as more than a "state of mentality" and more as a description of WCK's fundamental approach toward application. TN
-----------------------

Emptiness, as I understand it, is to be receptive, yielding to energy so that you may transfer the energy through yourself to direction/place suitable for you to function and capitalize on the opponent. More of a redirective strategy, but can also be utilized in the interceptive method. Using an aggressive strategy with a redirective technique (ie: tan sao)

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

I didn't bring up "emptiness". FWIW, I don't particularly like the term "energy" since it sounds so very Star Warsy and isn't an accurate description of what is really going on. And without repeating my points above, let me just say that from my perspective tan sao is not a "redirective technique" (any more than a punch is a redirective technique - i.e., any "redirection" is incidental to controlling the line and bridging to the opponent's center). TN
-----------------------

I was visualizing the punching/biu sao-kiu sao example where more time and space were available to use the Intercepting method stated above.

-Savi.
------------------------

See above. TN

Terence

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by reneritchie

Let us also not forget that Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung, Cho, and almost every other family traces their lineage back to Shaolin (mostly through Ng Mui Si Tai), so singling out theories to the contrary as being anti-HFY just shows the incredible tunnel vision still being practiced by some people. It is our heritage as well. You have no exclusive rights to any of it. If you think you do, *you're* the problem.

And Hendrik, you stop trolling to. It takes two to tango and while the HFY/VTM people should stick to the topic, so should everyone else. Not everyone of their posts is about "original" and "Shaolin" and "Chan", and even if they mention it, you don't have to let it be a hot button.

RR


Rene

This will my last post on these subject because I don't think it goes any where.


1, with Yik Kam's SLT writing, Miu Shoon Told his student Yim Yee that the Art he taught to Yim Yee is not Ng Mui's White Crane style. But a fusion of his own style and White Crane.
Now, we all know with evident that is Emei 12 Zhuang and White Crane from Fuchien.
As for Shao Lin, Which Shao Lin? Nothern? Southern? Southern Po tien, Southern Chuan Chiu,....... You read history from Ching Po-Chi.


2, Chan is Chan. it is similar to Wing Chun cannot be Wrestling.
Personally,
I can accept that others have opinion or their view. However,
when it comes to FACT.
As in Buddhism said, one never use Dharma to trade for relationship. Eventhough in Chan teaching everything is equal but one still has to be differentiate between Black and White.
The question is: is it or is it not.


I sincerely hope that WCK progress.
without the back ground of differrentiating Black and White how is the WCK going to progress? Based on fable?

Finally,
before I stop posting for this subject.
Here is a stanza from Young Chia

" right or not right
Wrong or not wrong
if it is right, One will similar to the Dragon Princess instantaneously attain buddha.
If it is wrong, one will fall into hell similar to the buddhist monk ( Lucky star)..."

Note: Lucky star claim that he had attained the 4th stage of Arahatship where he only attain the 4th level of Samadhi.
When he got into uncontrolable situation, he blaimed Buddha to being lie to him and not taking instruction to set himself free . he doesnot realized that it is he himself has make a mistake.

[reneritchie]

Gee, Geezer agrees with Chango who agrees with Rolling Hand. What a surprise. 8) You guys really have to take this act on the road sometime. Barnum would be thrilled.

(BTW - As you well know, the WCML was an is a level playing field, the only problem is some people don't like to take as good as they give, and cry and moan about it, never addressing their own behavior, and, it seems still not willing to.)

And congrats to all for ruining another great technical thread with all this BS. What a proud moment. (And just to intercept Trolling_Hand, you are already incorrect and stop stalking me).

RR

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Hendrik- thanks for explaining how you link ethics with wing chun.
It is very clear to me...but then since many of the terms...asura realm, samadhi, karma(the way you are using the term). amitabha
etc are very familiar to me- I didnt have trouble seeing the links.
joy chaudhuri

Joy,

This will be my last post in this forum.
So, you might asking why is Hendrik here?
As you might already know.
It is about sharing the education based with WCK people.


I purposely directly translate the term, ASURA, SAMADHI, AMITABHA.... because hopefully someone care enought to read more into the related Buddhism teaching be it the Chan..... TCM, or Chakras related subject.

YEs, there are 9 level of training in the EMEI 12 Zhuang based.
And starts from 4 level or so it is about Ilumination Body or the RainBow body type of deal. So, without the based of education and stuck in all the fables of Chan this Chan that and Shao Lin this Shao Lin that and not willing to speak for the truth is not going to go anywhere.

I wish WCK the best. However, if people not starting to read, think, and learn the flatform of the past. There is no way out.
May be I am wrong. But what if I am right? The development of WCK in the past 40 years has shown, IMHO, pulling the reverse gear or not progressing compare with the RedJunk era. Just look at the terminology we use today. it is confusing and not specific.
Tan can be anything. Kiu can be anything....
Sorry I am not attacking anyone but just take for example.
Still I might be wrong but what If I am right?



Bye to all.
Sorry if you think I am against any family or you or your teaching.
I am not. I am just a messenger.


Sensing? Chi sau? Kiu Sau....
I know where you want to go. However, without the understanding of Wai, Shen, Sai...., the Mai transportation, the syncronization of breathing...... .
How can one get there? Can Just argue the death out of it can get there?
see, even making a neuclear bomb one needs uraniun. Can't just argue.

I


And as someone said before giving the Neuclear bomb out is similar to giving a kid a sharp razor blade.
Without the proper Chan teaching what to manage the "Neuclear" bomb?

I rather go live in the MARS!

will not win popularity contest and that is not my goal.
My point is simple. I take the path I took. and if what I did is right follow it. If not, through them into the Garbage.

Best wishes for all and have a Happy Thanks giving.
Hendrik has died in this forum. Isn't it great. No more Hendrik's trolling and stalking. LOL

[reneritchie]

Hendrik,

It's our loss, though I'm sure several troll types are too self-involved to realize it yet. Anyway, I never believe you when you say you're done. You care too much about WCK and Chan, and can't help but drop in from time to time.

(As they say, it's no good speaking if people aren't ready to listen, you just get frustrated and they just get upset).

RR

[yuanfen]

Hendrik says;
Joy,

This will be my last post in this forum.
---------------------------------------------------
((Why? Hope not. But understandable if it is.
Thanks for your honest efforts in discussing
the links or the lack thereof between Chan
and the martial arts. Important to be "disengaged"
in net discussions.))

Joy Chaudhuri/yuanfen

"No more good should be attempted than people can bear"
Solon- the ancient classical western law giver.

[Rolling_Hand]

Rolling Hand,

1, The subject of discussion is about KIU SAU and CHI SAU, then get migrate into CHAN. Since you always act wise please return to the focus CHAN.

2, You like it or not like it there are Chan Patriach's Teaching documentations, Sutras and Sastras one can checked into.

3, if you belive you are right, it is no need to accuse or blame or set up others to others. Just shows the evident of connection to Chan.

Bottom line it is a techincal discussion. That simple.--Hendrik

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

Hendrik,

How can a troubled mind understand Ch'an?

If a man is disturbed

He will never be filled with knowledge.

If you don't negate your habitual patterns,

You can never understand Ch'an.

Humm...

[Chango]

Rene,
I should have known that you would not be willing to look in your own back yard.

<snip> And Chango, you especially are a disappointment. Despite Andreas' very express request, you keep lumping his system into your discussions. While I know you have no respect for me or my views, I thought, at least, you'd respect his wishes.

<snip>RollingHand - Please do not welcome t_niehoff to the forum by stalking him. And please don't try to discredit the HFY/VTM folks by pretending to be associated with them. We all know they wouldn't tolerate your stalking, trolling, and anti-WCK badmouthing behavior here or on the former VTAA forum for a minute.

-- It is clear that my intentions are not to drag Chi Sim into this. I have a very good relationship with Sifu Hoffman and I hold hi regard for the Chi Sim leneage and system. I have nothing but respect for this lineage. I show the same respect for Chi Sim as I do my own lineage. I only state the fact that you (and a few others) feel the need to but in every time these two lineages are mentioned. I'm just calling you and a few others on it. Rene stop hiding behind other people! speak for yourself. This is not the WCML inspite of what you seem to think you are not the Internet WCK police! (ROFLOL!) I clearly said that "I could be wrong" in my post to you. I was only asking you to take a look at yourself. But your response only reflects the fact that you do have such issues and refuse to deal with them. You sir have been a disappointment not only to me but many others for quite some time now. But this is not the time nor the place to go down that road. So let's just agree to disagree and leave the personal things out of this.


Hendrik,
I think the problem that you are having with seeing the conection of WCK to Chan is the fact that you are blinded by your own lineage. You seem to not have the ability to think outside of your own system. I cannot speak for your lineage so it may not have any connection. But I can say with out question that HFY is. It also seems that you want your Chan served to you only a certain way and if not delivered to you "your way" You then refuse to see what is clearly Chan. You may not see the connection. however I don't think it is from the lack of information being presented. you just may not be ready yet. That is not something we can do for you. I find it quite odd how you are comfortable at saying "this is not Chan". It may not fit into your perseption of Chan. But that might change in the future. But then again maybe not.


Chango (SGS)
:D

[Rolling_Hand]

Rene Wrote>
quote:I'm *very* nice to the VTM/HFY members on this board, and I'm very respectful of their claims. However, many of them (Savi, Levi, Matt Kwan, and a few others are noteable exceptions) are quite rude and disrespectful towards me and mine. It goes both ways.--RR

Geezer Wrote>
When you say your very nice, do you mean "you" don't openly attack them but on a certain mailing list you wouldn't shut down the people that do attack them--Geezer

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

How does a glimpse of goodness relate with Rene Ritchie's ongoing experience in here?

[Mckind13]

Chango – While there are many different sects of Buddhism, I seem to find a lot of underlying themes in all the web pages and articles I have read about the topic. If your art is so involved in Chan, couldn’t you and Hendrick find some common language and points of discussion? Also what besides SMK is Buddhist, what kuen kuit do you have or traditions do you practice that other Buddhists practice? Have you really explored it?

I am not taking a shot at you or your family. I really only want to explore this with you and all our kung fu brothers but so many times on this list it seems like you or some other posters might not have the firmest grasp on understanding everything you are talking about.

I often see things go on about how yours is different but when we inquire about more detail it is often indescribable or must be seen in person. Yet after the HFY seminar, many of that family suddenly became able to describe certain parts of stances, Kiu Sau, etc that they had not been able to before.

If I understand I can explain in the clearest language possible. I can only do my best and if I do not know I say so.

While it helped me greatly to see and meet many of you I came away from the seminar with the language and understanding enough to explain it how I saw, felt and interrupted it. While it may not have been verbatim what Sifu Gee was trying to get across, I could still do it.

Hendrick says it is not Chan.

You say it is Chan just not his Chan. You say it is Shao Lin Chan.

What is your Chan then, do you know?

What are the ideas, concepts and exercises you train everyday in class.

Help me understand, lift the veil of secrecy so we can see that you are honest about your art.

[planetwc]

Chango, Savi, Rolling_hand et al,

Hendrik is a practicing Chan Buddhist. He is a personal disciple of a senior Chan master. He has quoted you chapter and verse from the 1000 year history of Chan, according to the leaders of that religion namely it's patriarchs. All of this information is quite publically available.

Yet still you offer nothing to state where your sources are in terms of Chan other than that Hendrik has a closed mind.

Where are your FACTS with regards to Chan Buddhism?

Who is the authority from which you quote and state your facts on Chan Buddhism? Is it Garrett Gee? Is he now ALSO a Chan Patriarch? Who recognizes him as such?

How much Chan literature have you read? How long have you been studying the Chan religion and been a praticing member of that faith?

Have you read ANY of the sutras?

Hendrik has been kind enough to post you quite specific sutras and quotes from VERY famous patriarchs within the Chan religion yet you seem quite willing to IGNORE those quotes as if hopefully they will go away. Until you do so, they won't go away. Perhaps Hendrik will, which is our collective loss on this matter, since he has the deepest training and background of anyone you've encountered so far.

Frankly until you address the quotes and basic philosophy of Chan, I can't see how you can possibly expect anyone to consider you having ANY credibility with regards to Chan doctrine and philosophy.

For the sake of argument name 6 patriarchs who have influenced Hung Fa Yi, and from each one post a sutra or a story from them which ties into Hung Fa Yi's relationship to Chan.

If you can't why not?

The reason you are getting such grief from me and others is because you are making very bold statements here and are unwilling to back them up with cold hard FACTS. It went that way with the claims of Hung Fa Yi "Science" and it has already gone that way with Hung Fa Yi "Chan Buddhism".

Perhaps what you now want to say is that Hung Fa Yi is the one true Chan and that 1000 years of mainstream Chan history is wrong and that you have a secret true Chan. :rolleyes:

That may "cut it" within your organization, but I don't think it is going to fly one bit here on the public stage.

My advice is leave out the bold claims regarding Chan, science, and being the proto-Wing Chun, etc.

No one begrudges you wanting to study what you study. More power to you, your sifus and Sijo. Train well, enjoy what you do, and do so in health and happiness.

However, when you attempt to foist off poorly researched opinions in public without enough rigor--expect yourselves to be called on it.

Rene is being an nice guy about this stuff and has far more patience than most in dealing with the lack of facts eminating from the VTM and branch schools of HFY. But then, he's a polite guy.

At this rate, you may find yourselves with no more credibility than say OE Simon (http://www.neochan.com/founder.html) and his Temple Kung Fu (http://www.templekungfu.com/home.htm)

And that would be sad indeed.

[Rolling_Hand]

----I am not taking a shot at you or your family. I really only want to explore this with you and all our kung fu brothers but so many times on this list it seems like you or some other posters might not have the firmest grasp on understanding everything you are talking about.--Mckind

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

You and your friends have done enough running after other party. Why trouble yourself? You don't want to stroke resentment. Consider if your critcisms are meant to haraangue or bolster before sharing. Developing tenderness towords yourself allows you to see your problems. The kind of gentleness towards yourself and appreciation of yourself is very necessary. It provides the ground for helping yourself and others.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Hendrik has been kind enough to post you quite specific sutras and quotes from VERY famous patriarchs within the Chan religion yet you seem quite willing to IGNORE those quotes as if hopefully they will go away. Until you do so, they won't go away. Perhaps Hendrik will, which is our collective loss on this matter, since he has the deepest training and background of anyone you've encountered so far.--Plantwc

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

The Tao is a silent flower which blooms through the night,

But the night through which it blooms is the flower itself.

For these honey bees like Hendrik, Mckind, Rene Ritchie and Plantwc.

No Tao, no flower, no Ch'an.

Just noises!

[t_niehoff]

Can someone explain to me how using Ch'an Buddhism benefits their individual development and practice of WCK (as opposed to its "more traditional" role as a vehicle for enlightenment)? And how this differs from "the normal" road of WCK development and practice. This is not an attempt to flame, but a serious inquiry.

Thanks,

Terence

[reneritchie]

Chango is incorrect, and once again is the pot stuck on hold with a barely used kettle.

Trolling_Hand is incorrect, and should stop stalking me and filling this board with his anti-WCK spamming.

PlanetWC pak sao's the taste out of the mouth of correctness.

reneritchie is still being *very* nice.

[Savi]

Hi all,
I have been busy for the past two days enjoying the holiday, I hope everyone did the same.

This morning I read post after post of 'finger-pointing' in every direction. In some cases, the finger was pointed to those not pointing a finger. Has this discussion become the "I'm right and you're wrong" atmosphere? Or is it people trying to ask open questions from their point of view, and perceived as 'finger-pointing' from the other side? Not neccesary. There are many questions people are asking that I'd like to answer, but the quantity is too great for me to do in one sitting.

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

Hendrik (if you're still following the thread), I'm going to be straight forward with you without asking any questions that may be misinterpreted, and I'm not being hostile here. I have stated to you in a previous thread that I am not a scholar nor teacher in Chan Buddhism, but that I have begun studying it. I have not been shown by my Sifu, or any generation before him, forms of documentation that state they are certified Chan teachers, but it doesn't mean that they aren't AND it doesn't mean that they are. It doesn't mean that they don't have any, but it doens't mean that they do either.

My Sifu and family are focused on Wing Chun training. That is where the majority of training time is spent. We do train in a publicly accessible facility categorized by the state as a recreational/fitness facility. Not a place they would categorize as a church or places of that nature. Hence the primary focus on Wing Chun. It is left to the individuals to further their study into philosophy/religion.

My studies of Chan/Zen (so far) come from the author Ming Zhen Shakya in the book The Seventh World of Chan Buddhism, Part II. In particular, the relevant section I am reading is 'Zen and the Martial Arts.' I will not go into detail about it (not the right place), but you can find it at: www.hsuyun.org - This, along with my kung fu teachers, is where my understanding [thus far] is coming from.

I have never stated that you are wrong in what you believe in to be right. Let's make sure we understand that. But I invite you to read the information I am currently reading about so you can see where I am coming from (link is above). My picture is not complete with regards to Chan. I am in the process of building it. However, as I stated before, I interpret some of your posts as 'shots' at my personal understanding, BASED on how you WORD your comments. That's all. I didn't say that you, as a person, are insinuous or wrong. I said your words are. Also, I was not trying to put words in your mouth, only your eye balls. j/k (humor, laugh, nevermind... )

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

This turned into a Chan discussion. BUT keep in mind this is a kung fu forum. What I am currently reading (referenced above) is about Chan AND the martial arts... I think the information from Ming Zhen Shakya would be more accurate [to the nature of this forum] to discuss here. (I'm not done reading it though...) Again look for the section entitled 'Zen and the Martial Arts.' Terence, I think this might bring some light to your question also.

I guess we forgot about Kiu Sao/Chi Sao unless there is no more to discuss? Thanks to everyone sharing their knowledge.

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

Rolling Hand, I am one of those flowers when it gets too noisy:). I do have something I'd like to share regarding what you posted, and this isn't a shot at anybody. I'd just like to mention it.

When truth is not recognized, the time is not right. Silence is my only reaction...

-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Savi is a flower (though the part on truth can easily cut several ways), hopefully there will be more. I for one enjoy the application threads, and wish they could stay lineage/politcs free.

(BTW, doesn't anyone from the HFY/VTM family find Rolling_Hand's behavior on this forum inappropriate? Several of you seem almost supportive of him. Hopefully you don't mean this to be mistaken for agreement with his personal attacks towards other sifu (such as Augustine Fong who is listed as a VTM Advisor on the VTM website) and other practitioners? Silence often is used as form of tacit approval, after all).

RR

[Rolling_Hand]

--(BTW, doesn't anyone from the HFY/VTM family find Rolling_Hand's behavior on this forum inappropriate? Several of you seem almost supportive of him. Hopefully you don't mean this to be mistaken for agreement with his personal attacks towards other sifu (such as Augustine Fong who is listed as a VTM Advisor on the VTM website) and other practitioners? Silence often is used as form of tacit approval, after all).--RR

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

Rene Ritchie,

Stop trolling and stop hiding behind HFY, VTM, Jee Sim, Andreas Hoffmann, Augustine Fong, Geezer and Rolling Hand. Please speak for yourself ONLY.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your thoughts, your words.

In a small notebook, keep a list of moments of happiness your experience. The wise harm no one.

Humm...

[reneritchie]

Rolling_Hand - Please stop harming yourself.

[Rolling_Hand]

Gee, thanks!

Just about everyone needs Rene Ritchie's personal attention.

Humm...

[reneritchie]

If there was a mirror, I would tell you to look deeply into it. Since there is no mirror, I can only ask that you look as deeply into yourself and hope you have the strength not to recoil.

Do not embrace emptiness. Do not cling to dust. Taste the full freshness of life and rejoyce a little from time to time. Your trolling and stalking will wait for you!