Got Chan? Got Research? Got education?

[Hendrik]

Got Chan?

it is said in the six patriach sutra that

"figthing is the heart (mind) of Win or Lost
That is against the Tao
This type of heart (mind) give raise to You me race .. time
How with this type of Heart (mind) can one uses it to enter Samadhi? "

Think about it. Is the Practice Got Chan basic?

Don't even have to go that far talks about Cuan Cen or Transmission of the School teaching or the Mind Seal of Da mo by who... lineage .....
That simple.





Got Research?
It is said that "pointing at deer and call it a horse".

This "pointing at deer and call it a horse" happen in ancient China when group of people decide to call a deer a horse for political reason of self benifit.

How close to fact is a research can be if the mentality is calling deer a horse?





Got the education?
It is said that " love the junior"

This "love the junior" is an idea of confucian. Junior is the future. To educate the junior, Not filling them with delusion. Junior has tendency of reacting to defend their family impulsively without thinking.

How far can a junior progress without good foundamental understanding of the subject and training. How can the junior comprehend deeper scriptures?
If the junior has no training and going around challenging with what the junior don't even have a clue. How sad is it? That is destroy the future. Smart words can't change facts. Challenging can't destroy facts.

Love the junior? that is the basic. It doesn't even has to go as far for lineage or who is in what position in a lineage. It doesnt matter. How can the junior carry on if the junior is lack of foundamental eduction and training? and with a always you are wrong, I am right attitude?

[Savi]

Hendrik,
Very good points you bring up Hendrik! I do not read any scriptures, but I understand what you are saying. Glad we see eye to eye on this.

My Sitaigung says: "If I give you a horse, don't give me back a mule."

This is in relation to the passing of information (all kinds of info). It is tradition in my kung fu family to follow this saying; not to change anything that is taught to you, as it has been passed down to them.

Can you imagine someone changing the Chan scriptures just to fit their understanding of it? UNTHINKABLE!!!

"Sometimes, what is Chan cannot be said, for it will no longer be."

That's all...
-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Can you imagine someone changing the Chan scriptures just to fit their understanding of it? UNTHINKABLE!!!

**The next time you find Hendrik asking why and how and when, don't answer. Hendrik has all the answers under his hat.

--"Sometimes, what is Chan cannot be said, for it will no longer be."

**Well said.

--That's all...
-Savi.

**hey brother, that's more than Hendrik can chew. LOL!

[[Censored]]

Nice to see you back Hendrik. I still don't know why Rolling_Hand is chasing you around, still don't care.

[planetwc]

Nice indeed. :)

As to Junior Roger Rolling Hand, what do you expect for a 12 year old? :rolleyes:

I held out hope when he actually contributed a post about a wing chun book. Short lived I guess. :confused:


Originally posted by [Censored]
Nice to see you back Hendrik. I still don't know why Rolling_Hand is chasing you around, still don't care.

[Rolling_Hand]

Junior David,

Remember the times in your life

When nature has given you solace.

Hmmm...

It's time for you to go home

And relearn the SLT from your Sifu

BTW,

Say hi to Sifu Ken for me.

Humm...

[Chango]

I find your post quite interesting. Scripture can be a very interesting topic! I say to that some insist that they have a horse to offer even knowing it's a product of a horse and donkey! The mule is sterile and cannot produce a horse nor a donkey or even another mule for that matter. This relates very much to WCK! Polotics and all LOL!

Savi,
Your words are great treasures for the mind! :) but only for those who grasp them and not understand them in a fixed context. I really enjoy how you have pointed out how things are not all that they seem. do you think he got it?



Hendrik- can one have Chan with out scripture?? to quote scripture (assuming in the correct context) does this give on Chan? is this proof of Chan? what do you think? ;)

[byond1]

watch me fling the diamond sutra into a fire

[Hsanto]

Originally posted by byond1
watch me fling the diamond sutra into a fire


Great fire to generate light in the dark night.

Then,
I will burn scripture of White Crane
I will burn Scripture from Emei
I will burn Scripture of SLT...
to make light until the Sun rise.....

When the Sun has raised ... even though, the blind will not see.

Spring will return soon... it is january.

[Rolling_Hand]

Great fire to generate light in the dark night.

Then,
I will burn scripture of White Crane
I will burn Scripture from Emei
I will burn Scripture of SLT...
to make light until the Sun rise.....

When the Sun has raised ... even though, the blind will not see.

Spring will return soon... it is january.

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

Think about the last time

You listened to your inner voice,

What did it say?

*No place like home*

Hendrik (Hendrik Santo) and *Hsanto* are coming home tonight.

Btw,

Have you expanded the circle of your Ch'an over the past year?

[yuanfen]

Welcome back Hendrik.

[reneritchie]

Hi Hendrik,

Welcome back!

(BTW - I'm a web designer, and I would find it funny if a person or group of people who weren't, but were bakers and told the ingredients they made their bread with were bought online from a web-site, came online to argue with me about HTML code. But that's neither here nor there.)

[t_niehoff]

Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

(BTW - I'm a web designer, and I would find it funny if a person or group of people who weren't, but were bakers and told the ingredients they made their bread with were bought online from a web-site, came online to argue with me about HTML code. But that's neither here nor there.) RR

Rene, I am offended by your tone! Don't you understand that anyone and everyone can be a Chan master nowadays? Even you, you poor misguided miscreant. Since "Chan exists outside the scriptures" anything we say can be Chan. You just need a little practice. Say things like "you need to empty your cup" to anyone that disagrees with you or "sometimes, what is Chan cannot be said, for it will no longer be" when you can't think of a reply. Other Chan masters will understand; those that don't are fools. In other words, Chan is all about attitude -- acting like you know it all when in fact you haven't a clue. I once mistakenly believed that because I never studied under a recognized Chan master of a verifiable lineage but only read some websites on "Dark Zen" that I could not be a Chan master; but this is not the case. So just because Hendrik was a long-time disciple of a recognized Chan master of a recognized lineage, it doesn't mean his insights into Chan carry any weight. If you don't believe me, then your cup is full. TN

Terence (aka "storm cloud", my Chan name)

[reneritchie]

There is no Rene. Understand that, then bend yourself.

[burnsypoo]

wha-bam.


Originally posted by reneritchie
There is no Rene. Understand that, then bend yourself.

[planetwc]

Rolling Hand,

Tell me your full name or email it to me offline and I'll send your regards to Ken. Has he ever met you?

If you are local to the San Francisco area, you should stop by and visit our school.

regards,

David Williams
dlw@wingchun.com


Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
Junior David,

Remember the times in your life

When nature has given you solace.

Hmmm...

It's time for you to go home

And relearn the SLT from your Sifu

BTW,

Say hi to Sifu Ken for me.

Humm...

[reneritchie]

Burnsypoo is correct.

[Savi]

Originally posted by t_niehoff


Rene, I am offended by your tone! Don't you understand that anyone and everyone can be a Chan master nowadays? Even you, you poor misguided miscreant. Since "Chan exists outside the scriptures" anything we say can be Chan. You just need a little practice. Say things like "you need to empty your cup" to anyone that disagrees with you or "sometimes, what is Chan cannot be said, for it will no longer be" when you can't think of a reply. Other Chan masters will understand; those that don't are fools. In other words, Chan is all about attitude -- acting like you know it all when in fact you haven't a clue. I once mistakenly believed that because I never studied under a recognized Chan master of a verifiable lineage but only read some websites on "Dark Zen" that I could not be a Chan master; but this is not the case. So just because Hendrik was a long-time disciple of a recognized Chan master of a recognized lineage, it doesn't mean his insights into Chan carry any weight. If you don't believe me, then your cup is full. TN

Terence (aka "storm cloud", my Chan name)

Master Rene, I was not aware Terence had todai. If not, I was not aware that tenure was the qualifier to be ranked as a master. My mistake.

Master Terence, wrt your last post:
Your words reflect someone who destroys himself. Reread your post. Does Master Terence know martial arts was developed to kill the ego, and not kill thyself? I read much resentment and sarcasm in your post. I'm sorry you follow a path of suffering and torment. So you know: I do not see myself as better, equal, or worse than you. No comparison is appropriate. If you feel threatened by these words, I cannot help that. Only you can kill your own ego. Perhaps then, your words will reflect a different nature.

What I wrote to Master Hendrik was not to imply insult or attack. It was meant to be taken at face value. That's all, no more, and no less. That is the nature of Wing Chun. There should be a new article on Chan on this web site. Perhaps you should read it. For the record, Sifu Loewenhagen does not teach Chan Buddhism to his todai, nor has he ever stated he is a Chan Master.

Cool?
-------------------------------

WRT HFY I would like to share my thoughts:

"Can you see the forest from your tree?"

Anyone can look through the gates of Hung Fa Yi, just as anyone can peer into the windows of your home. But that does not mean they become an expert on what is HFY, or what you and your family are all about. Nor does it mean they truly know what they look upon.

Hung Fa Yi is very small in comparison to the martial arts world (gong wu). It is a little forest among many others. Often times, we only have time to see one or two trees within the forest. Other times, we may be able to see a section of the forest. But even seeing is not enough. "We cannot see the forest for the trees." Looking at singular, or even multiple parts of any picture will not give you the whole picture. In this case, you will not be able to recognize the forest, in size or shape; just a lot of trees. We cannot *identify* with HFY by experiencing a few of its trees, until we can relate to it first. Once we can relate to it, our finger is no longer the focus, the moon is.

Let us not find ourselves too eager to pull the card of 'expert judgement' on things we have not experienced, or do not fully understand.

Keep practicing,
-Savi.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Burnsypoo is correct.

ROTFLMFAO.

[planetwc]

Savi,

I don't think the comments regarding Chan were being directed at you. At one point several months ago, one of the HFY students started talking about how one could not understand HFY principles without a grounding in Chan etc.

It just so happened that Hendrik not only has a Wing Chun background but is heavily schooled in Chan given he is a disciple of a Chan patriarch. At that time his comments regarding Chan were derided by some HFY students and trolls. So where does that leave the rest of us? If someone schooled in Chan, who is a practicing Buddhist is derided and dismissed, then is the mention of Chan a smokescreen (I don't think it is) or just a way to erect a wall about the discussion of HFY information and VTM research on the topic.

It would be equivalent to stating that you couldn't understand a tan sao without a law degree and bar membership. Then Terrence discloses he IS a lawyer and suddenly Wing Chun students without his credentials, training, and applied background in that area are arguing with him about case law.

[Grendel]

I don't think Chan is the issue. Bran is the issue. HFY adherents need more roughage.

[Mckind13]

A little off topic but:

Savi wrote: Master Rene, I was not aware Terence had todai. If not, I was not aware that tenure was the qualifier to be ranked as a master. My mistake.


What does qualify a person to be ranked a master or to classify them as such?

David

[Rolling_Hand]

David,

I had met Sifu Ken through Eddie Chong.

I still have my mook jong in Stockton.

Once every six months I would go to visit my kung fu friends in

Bay Area.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by burnsypoo
ROTFLMFAO. It's not that funny! ;)

[t_niehoff]

Hi David,

DM wrote:

What does qualify a person to be ranked a master or to classify them as such? DM

A "master" is someone that can't do it but wants others to think he can. For example, a "master" claims that he knows the ultimate fighting art but never fights anyone. In contrast, genuine fighters never claim to be "masters" as their experience makes them humble. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Terence - If we're employing an east-west convergence, while not as common in north america, in some of europe there is still a strong master/apprentice system (typically in the world of craft (not arts and crafts, but the making of things be it capentry or engines, etc.) This master craftsman and his apprentices is somewhat similar to a sifu and todai, if one chooses to use it (rather than teacher/student or another english set of terms). Thus, a master is someone expert at their craft. Someone called a master, then, is someone thought to be expert in their craft (based on the perception of the caller, which can be highly individualized and variable). There are also, as Robert Smith wrote, different levels of master (how many Michael-Angelos are there really in one generation?)

On a personal note, though, while I do not have nor want any students at this point, nor plan to take any in the foreseeable future, if I did, I also would avoid like the plague having any todai, tosuen, tosap, etc. call me 'master'. IMHO, it is a destructive rather than constructive adjective for the relationship. Too often, I think, Shaw Bros. rather than Chinese culture is promoted/seen as the model here in the West.

Savi - Terence does indeed have students, though there is no requirement for a master to do so (indeed, in modern times many great martial artists have taken no apprentices and are all but unknown). There is a requirement for a teacher to take a student, I believe, if there's to be no duality. My point was, has been for a long time, and remains that if the VTM and their members are so insistent on crying foul and demanding respect (which, in some cases, I do believe is warrented), they should also act as an example, not commit fouls, and always extend the respect they demand. As I've repeated said, character is not displayed in how one treats one's friends or those one agrees with, but in how one treats those one does *not* agree with. In other words, to fight for what your organization believes in is nothing, to fight for the right of Terence or Joy or Hendrik or anyone else to have and express a different opinion is the important thing, just as I would fight for your and the VTM's right to have and express yours.

RR

[kj]

Originally posted by reneritchie
As I've repeated said, character is not displayed in how one treats one's friends or those one agrees with, but in how one treats those one does *not* agree with. In other words, to fight for what your organization believes in is nothing, to fight for the right of Terence or Joy or Hendrik or anyone else to have and express a different opinion is the important thing, just as I would fight for your and the VTM's right to have and express yours.

There's a delightfully American ring in that.
- kj

[t_niehoff]

Hi Rene,

RR wrote:

Thus, a master is someone expert at their craft. RR

OK, I can accept that. But, of course, it begs the question of how someone *earns* the title of expert in their craft. The european craftsman you allude to do it by actually producing results with their craft. (Similarly, I am, for example, a chess master. I earned that ranking by playing in USCF tournaments and obtaining a certain "rating" via results obtained over time -- by defeating other rated opponents in chessgames). So, since WCK is a kuen faat (fighting method), then I'd assume that being able to actually fight at some higher skill level would be a essential requirement to being a "master." Apparently, however, most WCK "masters" prove their fighting ability via demonstrations, i.e., showing how they can make their stuff work against a co-operative, non-resisiting stuntman in front of folks that don't know any better. ;) Or, they claim to have "fought and won against some of the 'world's best'" without citing specifics (and we know that if they had beaten someone good, they'd be mentioning names!). WCK has so many masters and grandmasters. TN

My personal philosophy is perhaps best echoed by the YMWCK kuen kuit, "Hoc Mo Mo Gong Sien Hou, Tat Jie Wai Sien" (don't speak of who is senior or junior. The one who attains the skill first is the senior). Of course, we can only measure our skill by our performance -- the thing so many "masters" avoid. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

KJ - "There's a delightfully American ring in that."

North American, or have you found out about our Canuck "Not-Withstand Clause" endrun around constitutional rights? ;) Saddly, though, I think the ring harkens back more to an America of old, of statesmen more than politicians (who nowadays don't even seem to believe in what they're saying, but will fight to the foul and beyond to prevent you saying so or otherwise).

t_niehoff - I provide room for both fighter and coach. Not to the extent of 'those who can't do, teach', but that there need be both and not every individual excels at both. And again, levels of both (local, state/provincial, national, international level fighters, and elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate, etc. level coaches/teachers). Of course, there are also those genuine enough simply to enjoy what they do without the need to make any claims about it at all.

RR

[Savi]

Originally posted by planetwc
Savi,

I don't think the comments regarding Chan were being directed at you. At one point several months ago, one of the HFY students started talking about how one could not understand HFY principles without a grounding in Chan etc.


I understand they were not being directed at me, I felt the need to add my two cents in though. I also understand what you are saying, and I THINK I remember parts of that discussion... even I was raised in the path of Buddhism but it was difficult for me to see HFY as WC for a while. WRT the above quote, it might have been a debate on HFY principles from a philosophical standpoint. I don't recall. Therefore I cannot say to be certain.

Much, if not all HFY principles are multilayered, and symbiotic with one another. There are principles on Space, concepts of Time and Energy, along with military strategy and tactic. To a beginning student, a principle of space only illustrates proper positioning of the body. However, to an upper sash level the principle takes on a more internal meaning which could take root in health; use of chi flow and energy usage - whilst staying true to the spacial meaning of the principle.

Any one principle of HFYWCK is only a part of the picture, therefore, for it to be HFY, every principle must be expressed and unified at one moment in time (in harmony) for any given purpose. That is Weng Kiu - an understanding from a philosophical standpoint.

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

For example, (to a beginner) a Wing Chun punch has meaning in that it is structurally sound when the elbow is pointed to the hip, the body is properly squared up to the punch, and the feet parallel to the line of the attack. All these are just spacial details - a surface understanding.

To an intermediate player, a Wing Chun punch becomes the electrical connection between their root and their opponent, only functional based on proper structure. A punch has meaning if it is transfer of energy and proper structure.

An advanced student sees it as a reflection of the opponent. Should somebody throw a punch at them without proper structure, it is seen as them asking to be show how to throw a proper punch. So we help them. Broken structure is an expression of disharmony - a path of self-destruction. As a martial artist it is my duty to maintain harmony, and help them on their path. That's more of a philosophical perspective.

See what I mean? So to understand HFY principle from philosophy, one has to be versed in the Saam Mo Kiu concept; the 3 levels of awareness (wandering, aware, focused). This is uniquely a Shaolin philosophy, but can be applied to all aspects of life. To understand HFY from a structural standpoint, one must be versed in the Time and Space Concept. To understand HFY from an energy standpoint, one must understand Saam Mo Kiu, the TSC, and Yi Hei (proper spirit/intent/energy) of the Here and Now.

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

Why do some people not identify with HFY? The only thought I have (to add to the above paragraph), is HFY must be understood through Hau Chyun San Sau (direct, face to face and on-hands experience). Hung Fa Yi can only be learned and understood in this manner. Part of Chan, as I understand, is that learning is a face-to-face process, through all of our senses.

Take a look at the name itself of our kung fu. WING CHUN. WING consists of two characters: yim and weng. Yim translated means secret, discrete, or talk. Weng translated means always, everlasting. Put the two together and you still have Weng, but spelled in english to make a distinction is spelled as Wing. 'Wing' translated is praising: "Always talk about", which, in some family circles means the system is taught strictly in an oral fashion, from Sifu to Todai. That is consistent with Chan thought.

'Weng' translated is always or everlasting, still a connection to Shaolin Chan thought, as in Weng Kiu (everlasting bridge/awareness; a state of enlightenment). So, to say that Wing Chun has no root in Chan, may be justified based on what family circle you come from. But to those whose meaning is the latter, may see a strong connection. To identify with HFY highly depends on where your point of reference is on the spectrum in relation to where HFY is, as with anything.

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

WRT Sifu Neihoff's thoughts on defining a master, either he thinks of himself in the same fashion; which would account for his perspective on other masters and set an extremely bad example on his todai and his Sifu. Or Sifu Niehoff does not consider himself to be a master of his defintion. Might need further research :). Rene, I agree with your perspective. I haven't really thought about it in that vein.

Take care,
-Savi.

[passing_through]

planetwc,

one of the HFY students started talking about how one could not understand HFY principles without a grounding in Chan

Evidently, you misunderstood me. HFY principles originate in Chan - hence, having a grounding makes them more recognizable.

Hendrik not only has a Wing Chun background but is heavily schooled in Chan given he is a disciple of a Chan patriarch

"Don't matter who yer daddy is, ya stills gots ta do yer own growin'"

Leaning on someone else's understanding is an illusion. Was he a good student? Is he a recognized student? A recognized authority? Would that mean anything because recognized authorities are nothing more than people that promote themselves? (not my belief) Because Hendrik studied with a Chan patriarch, by definition, does he has more knowledge than anyone else? Personally, I don’t care about the answers to any of these questions. What matters is to experience for yourself and make up your own mind.

I have found some of his writings interested and few portions relevant - but in the main, Hendrik writes to show others up when he disagrees with their assertions. Additionally, from what I understand of his writings, Hendrik feels that fighting and Chan have no connection as fighting only creates karma and suffering - and let his lineage is supposed to be from Ermei Buddhism which combines fighting, health and Buddhism, similar to Shaolin traditions... Fighting/Chan connections might fall to an issue of semantics. Regardless, Chan and fighting, and ultimately, Chan and anything can be connected to lead to greater understanding and freedom.

his comments regarding Chan were derided by some HFY students

Note the origin of the derision - as I've posted before, "he started it"

So where does that leave the rest of us? If someone schooled in Chan, who is a practicing Buddhist is derided and dismissed

You are presuming that Hendrik is acting out of a sincere desire to help rather than to attack that which contradicts his as-yet-unpublished findings.

It would be equivalent to stating that you couldn't understand a tan sao without a law degree and bar membership

Only if it was asserted that Taan Sau originated in the law - in which case I would work to have the necessary qualifications to understand. But that's just me, I guess.

FWIW, I have been researching and studying Chan for quite some time. It is not easy to collect or format information when you ask a question and get "Three pounds flax" as an answer... to use law as an example as you did, there are general standards of language in learning and teaching the law. Chan does not limit itself to language, changing the words used in each generation, place, and person... so to use Hendrik as a judge of all things Chan is a false sense of security. He does not and cannot speak for all Chan... only his experience. That HFY contradiction some of this experience from his teacher is to be expected. Many schools of Chan disagree with each other - and talk a lot of shiza and get VERY personal about it... Even Hui Neng couldn't resist getting in some barbs about the "Gradual School" in the Platform Sutra...

======================

Rene,

In other words, ..., to fight for the right of Terence or Joy or Hendrik or anyone else to have and express a different opinion is the important thing, just as I would fight for your and the VTM's right to have and express yours

and as I've stated, to fight for any cause makes you a 'ho or a mercenary. However, no one is trying to censor anyone. Just people all over the place trying to tell each other what to do.

and mind your words...

those genuine enough simply to enjoy what they do without the need to make any claims about it at all

Are we to conclude from your comment that those that make claims are not genuine? Surely you meant this in a different light so as not to slight anyone and everyone who's ever said anything about anything...

Jeremy R.

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

WRT Sifu Neihoff's thoughts on defining a master, either he thinks of himself in the same fashion; which would account for his perspective on other masters and set an extremely bad example on his todai and his Sifu. Or Sifu Niehoff does not consider himself to be a master of his defintion. Might need further research . Rene, I agree with your perspective. I haven't really thought about it in that vein. S

Don't call me "sifu"; I'm not your teacher. And I don't use titles or feel the need for titles. TN

Why do some people not identify with HFY? The only thought I have (to add to the above paragraph), is HFY must be understood through Hau Chyun San Sau (direct, face to face and on-hands experience). S

I can think of a few other reasons. ;) TN

So to understand HFY principle from philosophy, one has to be versed in the Saam Mo Kiu concept; the 3 levels of awareness (wandering, aware, focused). This is uniquely a Shaolin philosophy. Savi

What makes you call this a "uniquely Shaolin philosophy"? What makes you think it is related to Shaolin at all? And does no one else have it? Can you direct me to where the "3 levels of awareness" is recorded anywhere in Shaoilin or Chan canons? Or is this just another of those many undocumented claims? TN

Terence

[Savi]

Originally posted by t_niehoff


Don't call me "sifu"; I'm not your teacher. And I don't use titles or feel the need for titles. TN

Terence

Sure thing Terence, I just thought it would be approrpriate to call you Sifu Neihoff considering you have todai. Only being respectful, as I would call any martial arts teacher Sifu. However, I will still hold true to Moh Duk and show the proper respect to those who display the same character.


Originally posted by t_niehoff


What makes you call this a "uniquely Shaolin philosophy"? What makes you think it is related to Shaolin at all? And does no one else have it? Can you direct me to where the "3 levels of awareness" is recorded anywhere in Shaoilin or Chan canons? Or is this just another of those many undocumented claims? TN




*I* do not call it a "uniquely Shaolin philosophy." Who am I anyway Terence? I am nothing to you. There is nothing left of me for you to attack. I cannot guide you anywhere to any source. Why? I am not your Sifu, nor am I a credible source for information. I merely give my ideas and share my experiences, rather than thinking reality is defined on a piece of paper to present it to you in HTML format.

I cannot give you any answers to your questions because, based on how you word your questions, you do not seem to know what you are questioning. You cannot cannot even identify what we are talking about. Therefore, I do not know what it is I am answering. If I did answer, that means 1) I know what you are really asking, and 2) I trust you; which I don't.

If you are really asking for answers in a humble and respectable manner, which I am NOT demanding or expect, I might be inclined to think about your question and answer it if I can. Or somebody else may feel qualified to answer your questions. I'm tired of your finger pointing. The moon is much more interesting.

Keep it up, I'd like to see where it takes you.
-Savi.

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

So to understand HFY principle from philosophy, one has to be versed in the Saam Mo Kiu concept; the 3 levels of awareness (wandering, aware, focused). This is uniquely a Shaolin philosophy. Savi

Then I asked:

What makes you call this a "uniquely Shaolin philosophy"? TN

To which Savi responds:

*I* do not call it a "uniquely Shaolin philosophy." Savi

And then he explains:

I cannot guide you anywhere to any source. Why? I am not your Sifu, nor am I a credible source for information. I merely give my ideas and share my experiences, rather than thinking reality is defined on a piece of paper to present it to you in HTML format. Savi

This liitle exchange is a nutshell of what occurs when questions are raised with the VTM or HFY claioms. What do you think it says about your (and HFY/VTM) credibility when you make grandiose claims of HFY having some "uniquely Shaolin philosophy" but when asked to supply some proof that the "3 levels of awareness" is *in fact* Shaolin, you first deny making it and then can't support your claim with any genuine evidence? Why not just say "our (the HFY) philosophy involves 3 levels of awareness" and leave it at that? Don't you guys see how by doing the former (and not the latter) that your verbage reeks of marketing fluff? TN

Terence

[Savi]

If you are really asking for answers in a humble and respectable manner, which I am NOT demanding or expect, I would be inclined to think about your question and answer it if I can.

Considering your Yi Hei from all of your last posts, one can only wonder why you cannot stop concentrating on your finger. Your 'Lauh' might need more work. Let go of your emotions. I am not qualified to give you the answers you look for. In fact, I don't have them at all.

I told you, I am nothing and therefore have nothing. Am I marketing anything? I only represent what is in my head. How much would you like to pay for it?

-Savi.

[Geezer]

The thing with MR T is he's a "Lawyer", lawyers try and get you to say more than you want to.
At the end of the day, the less you say the less he has to work with;)

[reneritchie]

Hey folks,

Lotsa stuff...


"Don't matter who yer daddy is, ya stills gots ta do yer own growin'"

Then what does it matter if WCK comes from Shaolin or Chan? Why even bother to find out?


Hendrik writes to show others up when he disagrees with their assertions.

That's incorrect. He writes to counter what he believes are perversions or manipulations of WCK and Chan (his personal belief system, not just "something he studies"). Remember, English is his 3rd or 4th language, so some generosity would be appropriated in reading his comments. He also suffers from a mind not made up about whether or not to put all his cards on the table (caught between traditional secrecy and modern burdens of proof).


as I've posted before, "he started it"

Probably not true, but in either case not a much of the "leading by example" there. And before I get a bunch of "I'm an individual, I can do, say, act how I want" part of the responsibility undertaken by the VTM when they chose to promote themselves as working for the good of the WCK community is a duty to do just that. As a member and oft seen "face" of the org., you're job is to reach out *humbly* to Hendrik and other elements of the WCK community, even if they (especially if they) disagree with you, and work to make everyone (every branch) a part of the larger undertaking.


and as I've stated, to fight for any cause makes you a 'ho or a mercenary.

I'm sorry if my Canuck English is confusing. I didn't write "fight for any cause", I wrote (paraphrased) "fight for the rights of others to have causes different than yours". Not only is this moral, it's ethical, as anyone who truly believs what they present should also believe it strong enough to stand in the face of different opinions.

(And you can be a 'ho or a mercenary without fighting for any cause, just a more specific type of either or both).


Are we to conclude from your comment that those that make claims are not genuine?

Gotta find a Yanky/Canuck dictionary online somewhere... 8)

Savi - Traditionally speaking, you do not call someone who has "todai" a sifu. You call your sifu, sifu (father/teacher), and only your sifu. There's a different way to render sifu (teacher/teacher) which is used as an honorific in China but this has no todai requirement. It's simply used out of respect for someone with skill (typically martial arts teachers, cooks, taxi drivers, mechanics, etc.)

Terence - Savi is perfectly within form to call you an (honorific not paternal) sifu due to your skills in martial arts, law, and chess. Of course, now you've all but guaranteed they'll call you something else as well. 8P

RR

[Savi]

Rene, certainly that is understood. What I meant was calling another teacher Sifu Joe or Sifu __________. That is not in debate, although I think it did come across as me calling any teacher MY kung fu father. But that's not what I meant. I will call Joe, Sifu Joe out of respect, unless they state otherwise. That's all. I only call my Sifu, Sifu, with no name attached. But what I do and prefer is not relevant.

Oh well, like to move on, yes?
-Savi.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by Savi
If you are really asking for answers in a humble and respectable manner, which I am NOT demanding or expect, I would be inclined to think about your question and answer it if I can.

Considering your Yi Hei from all of your last posts, one can only wonder why you cannot stop concentrating on your finger. Your 'Lauh' might need more work. Let go of your emotions. I am not qualified to give you the answers you look for. In fact, I don't have them at all.

I told you, I am nothing and therefore have nothing. Am I marketing anything? I only represent what is in my head. How much would you like to pay for it?

-Savi.

how come you keep giving pseudo cantonese lessons? I can understand (and love) to hear the wing chun specific terminology, and even some of the cultural verbage as well... but it's getting borderline pretentious don't you think?

[t_niehoff]

A couple of points . . .

1) I personally find the history of WCK interesting. I've read a great deal about aspects related to our history, and whatever I could on our history. What I've found most often presented as 'WCK history' is not history presented for its own sake, but time and time again as an attempt to legitimize or promote someone's "school" of WCK. Since Benny/VTM now practices, teaches, and promotes HFY on the one hand and then with the other hand also presents HFY history as factual and accurate, I think anyone can see the (appearance of a) conflict of interest and why some of us are justifiably doubtful of the objectivity of their "research".

2) There are characteristics in the presentation of good research (going into detail, specifics, documentation, references, corroboration, openess,`etc.) and there are characteristics of the presentation of propaganda/marketing (claims based on vague assertions, hyperbole, self-aggradizement, etc.). Once one is aware of the characteristics, it is easy to separate the one from the other. Look at the typical VTM article on WCK history and it's easy to see the into which category they fit.

3) There is a great deal of role playing in MAs. I don't know why. But it exists -- unfortunately. And it is fairly easy to identify (dressing up, mystical aspects, names, etc. -- just like in Dungeons and Dragons). "History", I've found, can also be tied into that role playing. From my perspective and IME, role playing has nothing whatsoever to do with, and in fact actually interferes with, the real purpose of WCK -- to train us to fight.

And then if we put all of these points together . . . you may begin to see my concerns behind all of this.

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik can't access KFO for some reasons and sent the following post to me and asked me to post it for him. TN

Hendrik writes:

"Don't matter who yer daddy is, ya stills gots ta do yer own growin'"

Sure true.

However, It is very sad that some one is dreaming and pretending that Jacky Chan is his real daddy.
While real Jacky's son is growing ....

As for Chan? ha ha ha,
Chan is about No Self.

How can one claims to study Chan and know it all ,
But, preaching the ---
fighting fighting.... my system is the number one, original, advance martial art, invented to against Qing or the Manchurian....

If there is No self where the against Qing fighting fighting thought is from?
Doesn't make a micro dust of sense. So, Got Chan?
-------------

"Hendrik writes to show others up when he disagrees with their assertions. "


Hendrik is just a messenger. why shoot the messenger?
Ha ha ha. sure everyone can blame Hendrik on anything. But the fact is.
Someone doesn't have a clue about Chan, Wingchunkuen, and SLT. So, Got education?
-------------

"He also suffers from a mind not made up about whether or not to put all his cards on the table "

Open my cards? Ha Ha Ha it is not cards.
it is rolls and rolls of WCK related scriptures.
It is open for those who respect the WCK ancestors.
some people in this forum saw them.
Some see more and some see less but they see.

On other hand,
Why should I open for those who has no respect of the Wing Chun Kuen ancestors, the Patriach of Buddhism, and the Buddha?
And trying to distort Buddhism Chan teaching for self benifit.


Hendrik


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

[byond1]

T--when you say "i actually find history of wck interesting"---i agree...it is my hobby.....and is interesting and something that is worthy of spending my time on.....i get very frustrated though when no one wants to really talk.....the few people who really know something about our history arnt talking. some because they want to keep it for themselves, simply selfish....some will only trade info and if you dont have anything to trade, your out of luck....some dont want to be attacked by others with differing opinions, silly i know..cant even express your opinion without death threats....these type of attitudes takes the fun out of it. no question is bad..imo....its the way the questions are asked where allot of the problems come from.
i think we can look at how non martial art research groups work and than modal ours after a tried and true method.
well storm cloud how long have you liked d and d?


has anyone seen cho family slt? how does it compare (principle) to ym or yks slt? is the cho slt anything like weng chun saam pai fut?

[reneritchie]

Brian,

I've seen the Cho SLT several times, both from Hendrik and a nearly identical set performed in Guangzhou by another gentleman from the Chinese branch (one Cho brother stayed in China in the 1900s, the other went to Malaysia, from whom Hendrik descends - the fact that we can still find the set in China and that it matches so closely, IMHO, is a very good sign). Hendrik also performed the first 1/4 (which is roughly analogous to the YKS or YM Siu Lien/Nim Tao) at the last Friendship Seminar in LA.

The Cho Siu Lien Tao has four sections, roughly what we would consider SLT, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee, and the core cycles (inside/outside up/down) performed one after the other without interuption. To me, it looks more cicular than the YM sets, and even than the YKS ones. It does not resemble Chi Sim WCK choreography (though every set performed by humans for fighting will have core movements like punches, kicks, etc.)

RR

[Hsanto]

Rene,


Thanks. You are right.

However, there are internal part which are not easy to spot externally. IMHO. Circular is not about it needs or Choregrah to be circular but movements has to accord to nature....


Hendrik

[passing_through]

"Don't matter who yer daddy is, ya stills gots ta do yer own growin'"

Then what does it matter if WCK comes from Shaolin or Chan? Why even bother to find out?

You misunderstood - doesn't matter where Hendrik claims his roots - he's still got to do his own growing. Quoting classics is meaningless... otherwise, just a parrot *squak*

Hendrik writes to show others up when he disagrees with their assertions.

That's incorrect. He writes to counter what he believes are perversions or manipulations of WCK and Chan (his personal belief system, not just "something he studies"). … *snip*… He also suffers from a mind not made up about whether or not to put all his cards on the table (caught between traditional secrecy and modern burdens of proof).

Ah, yes. Ignoring his "traditional secrecy" as that's probably just marketing and nothing else (as has been asserted by others in regards to *any* form of secrecy), the first time I ever heard of someone called Hendrik Santo was online in a critical post he wrote about "some experts" (his use of quotation marks too, if I recall)... Never did he approach the authors of the piece of which he was so critical in the humble posture you would demand of me. I understand from his example that the first time I encounter someone with which I disagree is to criticize them. Noted for future reference.

Presuming that Hendrik can “write to counter” as you put it, and is justified in his action I presume that anything I write is also justified. Continuing to use him as an example, it doesn't matter whether I try to make myself understood or not, to boot. I can just write whatever self-referential stuff I want and when people don’t understand I can just laugh at them. That's a relief! Here, I’ve been trying to write as clearly as possible and people get mad and blame me because they can’t understand… genius! From now on, poems and song lyrics! *air guitar*

Probably not true, but in either case not a much of the "leading by example" there.

Actually, true. I'm not so pretentious as to think that anyone would look to me as an example. And when did you sign on as VTM spokesperson?

part of the responsibility undertaken by the VTM when they chose to promote themselves as working for the good of the WCK community is a duty to do just that

You know what's best? Better than I? You're no more the judge of actions than anyone else. You've got a book to protect and a business partner to support - cries of defending everyone and trying to be everybody's friend aside. Calls for responsibility and examples should start with ourselves. I don't tell you how to act.

you're job is to reach out *humbly* to Hendrik and other elements of the WCK community, even if they (especially if they) disagree with you, and work to make everyone (every branch) a part of the larger undertaking.

How I reach out, to whom, when, and where are of my concern, not yours. I'm a human being and I have little interest in approaching people that routinely slap me in the face. As for reaching out... I manage to travel with Sifu Meng to meet just about everybody that’s active in the Wing Chun community… and support just about every workshop about which I know (even those outside my immediate frame of reference, and support competitions… ayup… I’m just a walking ego, I guess… always trying to get everywhere to *experience* what someone has to say for myself… all about me… lol!

I wrote (paraphrased) "fight for the rights of others to have causes different than yours".

and I wrote that no one is moving to censor anyone so your moral stance, meritorious or not, is empty. Hope off the soap-box, bub.

stand in the face of different opinions

Ah... so I should anticipate Hendrik not to disappear again any time soon, then?

Gotta find a Yanky/Canuck dictionary online somewhere... 8)

Or watch what you say in the first place – which is more efficient?

Jeremy R.

[reneritchie]

Actually, true. I'm not so pretentious as to think that anyone would look to me as an example.

That's not lack of pretention, it's an attempt to shirk responsibility. What "you" think is irrelevant, what matters is that a lay person who didn't know "you" better would see the words "Ving Tsun Museum" and give the material they present the faith and credence "museums" have historically enjoyed. Since "you" chose that word, you now own that responsibility, and it cannot be so easily nor so glibbly shrugged.


And when did you sign on as VTM spokesperson?

I signed on as a member of the WCK community, but I have in the past, and still do, recommend that if anyone (including "you") wants to claim a word such as "museum" (or "institute" or similar) that "you" find a spokesperson with a solid PR background and a very good ability to relate to others, especially others with differing points of view, and who can handle criticism with grace and consideration. IMHO, this is essential, and while it should have been done years ago (it would have, I'm almost positive, elminated almost all the bad feelings currently enjoyed), it's still not too late. With a large organization, there surely must be someone even in-house that is experienced in that capacity.


You know what's best? Better than I? You're no more the judge of actions than anyone else.

Are you proposing "know better than Jeremy" as an actual criteria? Perhaps I don't, but either way, an intelligen person would consider an opinion offered without ego or abuse. Even a fool can stumble upon the truth, after all.


You've got a book to protect

I don't protect it (except from repeated, deliberate miquotes). It stands on its own, insights and errors all. And, surprisingly enough, I'm happy to share the experiences, good and bad, I earned through that process, with other members of the WCK community, even when they're less than gracious in return.


and a business partner to support

CWC is done and published, and I have no current business relationships with anyone. True, I do not like to see other members of the WCK community slandered, and will do my best to provide better information (whether it be for Robert Chu or Benny Meng or anyone else) when I have it, but that again is something I wish more people would do. Most, sadly, remain silent, or worse, deliberately post misinformation to discredit other WCK family members in the misguided belief their own credibility will somehow grow through it.


cries of defending everyone and trying to be everybody's friend aside. Calls for responsibility and examples should start with ourselves. I don't tell you how to act.

I don't try to be anyone's friend. I simply try to give back something to an art that has given me more than I could ever imagine. And I agree with you, responsibility and leading by example should be personal (though you have tried to tell me how to act ;) ). HOWEVER, I'm just one, small, insignificant member of the community, I am not an *organization* which claims to be a "museum" and published a manifesto about its goals. That bears weight - weight chosen to be borne - and with it comes greater responsibility than that of any one person (great leaders of that community, aside). Doesn't matter what "John Doe" does in the end - who'll remember? But it matters what the people in the spotlight do, even if they turned that spotlight on themselves.


How I reach out, to whom, when, and where are of my concern, not yours.

As a prominent member of an organization calling itself the "Ving Tsun Museum" it's not anyone else's concern? With respect, you do not appreciate your position in the community.


I'm a human being and I have little interest in approaching people that routinely slap me in the face.

If I had felt likewise, there would have been less chapters in Complete Wing Chun, and there would be far less information up on my website. It's a cost of doing business--putting the art before yourself.


As for reaching out... I manage to travel with Sifu Meng to meet just about everybody that’s active in the Wing Chun community… and support just about every workshop about which I know (even those outside my immediate frame of reference, and support competitions… ayup… I’m just a walking ego, I guess… always trying to get everywhere to *experience* what someone has to say for myself… all about me… lol!

You can read back what you wrote. You don't need me to tell you anything on that score.


and I wrote that no one is moving to censor anyone so your moral stance, meritorious or not, is empty. Hope off the soap-box, bub.

Since "you" aren't the government, you can't legislate censorship, and since you're not the publisher, you cannot control content. However, you can, either by openly supporting, or tacitly supporting through your silence, a systematic smear campaign on internet forums designed to drive away anyone who dares voice an alternative opinion.

I'm happy to step off the soap-box, if you or anyone else at the VTM (once again, an organization self-proclaimed to be for all of WCK) will just step on. Heck, the same trolls even insult "you're" technical advisor, and you give them the silent nod (through lending them your credibility when they attack others). Stand up and use your bully pulpit to state that the VTM respects the opinions of others, and denounces the attacks on other members of the WCK family - a family who supposedly the VTM exists to benefit. Welcome other opinions, help to foster and nurture them through your attentions, and in so doing, help ensure a healthy, and thriving milieu for everyone's work and benefit. (If the goals of the VTM are what "you" claim them to be).


Ah... so I should anticipate Hendrik not to disappear again any time soon, then?

If you were leading by example, it wouldn't matter, would it?


Or watch what you say in the first place – which is more efficient?

For you or for me? (I don't recall you getting all bunched up over me suggesting someone might possibly remain silent because they taught martial arts - you picked one of several equally possible reasons to get huffy over. That says a lot more about how you read than what I wrote).

With respect, as always,

RR

[Hsanto]

Rene,

Some think the agenda behind motive of others is just money.
Some think the agenda behind motive of others is just marketing.
Some think the agenda behind motive of others is just fame..

People who loves marketing or fame or money oftern will not understand about responsibilities for other fellow human...
because there is no such thing to serve the fellow human but what is the benifit for oneself.

With that even Chan can be twisted and for sale. it is just a trade mark...

So, for such type of people that is not much to communicate because the value is different.

On the other hand,
I don't like the Writing of Yik Kam also. It is a waste of time to learn to read those classical chinese always refer to this book that book this sutra that sutra....
But,
Why is the world has to feed one like a baby?
and if one feed others like baby will they grow but rely on the feeder?

But then, some rather to get feed like a baby but respect like the master of the universal since they thought they are the reference of others. I guest, for who thinking that way needs to follow his own talk --- One has to grow by his own.



AM I going to dis appear? Hendrik is just a name. It doesn't matter who is Hendrik. It is about Facts and the will of Heaven not about Hendrik. Some others might be able to the job better than me and that is great.


Hendrik

[passing_through]

How can one claims to study Chan and know it all ,
But, preaching the ---
fighting fighting.... my system is the number one, original, advance martial art, invented to against Qing or the Manchurian....

Not preaching anything, not claiming to know it all
HFY is number one for me, not talking for y'all.
Yet I always challenge my self, my teacher and my thoughts,
Never believing, always treeing, climbing a tree not bought.

Yet you are quick to criticize
Have you even used your eyes?

Sorry attempts at modesty,
never all that you can be,
holding, hiding, fighting, crying
you should be out there, helping in the trying.

If there is No self where the against Qing fighting fighting thought is from?

Time to be a general, time to be a monk.
What is *your* reality? Based on all junk?
If you have something to say, make your point quite clear.
Hiding behind veiled insults only shows you, dear.

Does the world flow in the logic of life or counter to it?
Harmonize against the flow - have you even been through it?
It's not about the ego, it's following the flow
Nature tells us what to be, the faat show how to go.

When is the time and where is the space,
what is the energy you keep putting in my face.
Always find the harmony, and never drop your head.
Or the water will engulf us, if you do not fear to tread.

[Rolling_Hand]

--AM I going to dis appear? Hendrik is just a name.--HS

**It's the experience of tremendous freshness and freedom from pollution in your state of mind.

--It doesn't matter who is Hendrik.--HS

**Brother, you love to talk about yourself all the time. why?

-- It is about Facts and the will of Heaven not about Hendrik.--HS

**Is this about Hendrik's facts or Ch'an?

-- Some others might be able to the job better than me and that is great.--HS

**Don't talk about others. You are your only master. You must first do a harder thing ; Straighten yourself, then defeat sorrow.