Gong Fu and Morality

[daohong]

I was hoping to see some of your responses to my comment about martial arts and the cultivation of virtue. The reason for this is that I know how little this is emphasized by many of the teachers we are familiar with. When it comes to PM the question becomes more difficult because of how the MA developed. By that I mean that wang long was ( according to many) not involved in any religious community and merely wanted to develop a fighting system that would defeat the buddhist monks. Just the same, I have no doubt that he was heavily under the cultural contexts in place at the time.... which were Daoist and Confucian. What do you think about This Discussion??? IS it valuable? DId not the founders of Most all the MA styles have a philisophical worldview in mind along with spiritual goals which their Gong Fu helped them to achieve??

[Robinf]

I think this is a wonderful topic to explore.

Personally, I don't see how we can judge the development of any system based on stories. We don't know for certain just why Wong Long (or is it Wang Lang?) developed the system. The story goes as it goes, but it might not necessarily be true.

I don't think martial arts can be developed without the individual's morality. The martial art is what the individual makes of it.

Personally, I don't know enough about Taoist or Confucianist to make judgements. The only book on Taoism I've read is the Tao of Pooh (as in Winnie the Pooh). Great read, but I don't know how accurate it is to the Taoist belief system. I enjoyed the principals and put them to use in my practice and sparring.

But, since schools cater to the public, I don't know if it's possible to assign a religion to a martial art and demand people follow it. Everyone has their own religious beliefs and that must be respected.

Robin

[spiralstair]

If you want to sail across the great ‘water’ you need a strong ship, one that will support you well on the long journey. Then you must learn to ’sail’ it well, staying away from the known ‘shoals’ and guiding firmly through both extremes of storm and boredom.

In the long outward journey of 'higher level’ moral/spiritual practice one's BODY is the ship that supports, protects, and ‘carries’ the spirit. Many ‘spiritual’ people neglect the condition of their ship with the common result of illness (physical and psychological) interrupting or corrupting their moral/spiritual journey as they reach the deeper ‘ocean’/older ages.

The care and maintenance of the ship is done best through a practice that continually strengthens, grounds, and rejuvenates the body like a traditional martial art.

Chi doesn't know virtue from evil. It is undifferentiated. It can go ‘either’ way, from service to control. An effective martial practice builds the chi, while simultaneously giving the dedicated practitioner an outlet for expressing aggression and handling fear, the two traditional ‘barriers’ to virtuous spiritual development.

Ideally, the martial art functions like a strong ship, with timbers that withstand the ‘waves’, and sails that refuse to rip in the winds. Still though, every ship needs a Captain, and the compass he reads is in his heart. It is there (inside one’s heart) that each martial artist must choose what ‘heading’ he is on. Yes others have gone this same way before, but all they can say is “land is that way’. The storms and dangers we will face are uniquely our own, from our own time and influenced by our own personality. The gift from our martial ancestors is a strong and effective boat, but we still have to sail it.

[BeiTangLang]

A wise person once told me, "if you want to learn martial arts, go to a place that teaches martial arts. If you want to learn morality & virtue, go to a place of religious worship*".
I agree.
I do not think that a kwoon should have to teach morality nor virtue; just martial arts!

*actually he said "church".

[flem]

spiralstair,

eskimos didn't need ships at all. seems they've recently found proof of them way down in south america- but i do get your point, well said

beitanglang,

on the surface i believe that what you say is true, but of course then we have to define martial art, which i think has to contain a code of ethics. besides, your arguement basically denies shaolin, nowadays that's easy but back in the day...

[laotzumantis]

neither Taoism nor Buddhism are deistic. in their original states, neither were religions which offered a faith-based system to their adherents, but rather philosophies based upon an objective observance of nature, and of man's seamless integration with it.

based on this supposition, it's somewhat amazing to me that the traditional chinese martial arts are so separate from their philosophical roots.

when did the study of a taoist martial art (bagua, hsing i, taiji chuan) or a buddhist art (too many to mention, including our own PM) become separate from the philosophy that gave rise to it?

my own philosophy is Taoist. my interest and pursuit of it is a direct outgrowth of my study of 7*PM. all that said, none of my Sifu's have ever directly 'taught' me any Taoist philosophy, although my desire at times has been otherwise.

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by flem
beitanglang,

on the surface i believe that what you say is true, but of course then we have to define martial art, which i think has to contain a code of ethics. besides, your arguement basically denies shaolin, nowadays that's easy but back in the day...

Yes, but not all ma's are from shaolin. If mantis were being taught at a temple today, I would not attend. As far as ones ethics goes, I cannot see a temple nor martial art change those without brainwashing you. your personal ethics/morality/virtue are ingrained into you from your childhood. Granted they change in phases (approx 5 times in a lifetime), but the "core base" almost always stays the same despite what face you show others.
No need to go back in the day,...more mantis has been taught outside a temple than it has ever been taught inside one.
Great topic!
Best Wishes,
BTL

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

Would we give someone a gun with no instruction on the appropriate use of it?... Personally, i find it irresponsible to teach Martial Arts without the ethics of appropriate use.. That does not imply religion.

Philosophically, i find Taoist beliefs to be sound and rooted in historical justification.. i offer instruction as to the philosophical basis of Taoism to those interested at a seperate time from regular class, but.. i do not support religious adherence to any system, that is a personal choice. Frequently i make reference to Taoist perceptions relative to Tai Chi during regular class but that is part of Tai Chi's history and shouldn't be ignored.

In a total system of Kung Fu history is important, health is important, ethics are important... i have dismissed more than one student due to an unhealthy attitude or a poor moral standard.. if you don't weed the garden the whole crop suffers..

Be well..

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
Greetings...

Would we give someone a gun with no instruction on the appropriate use of it?... Personally, i find it irresponsible to teach Martial Arts without the ethics of appropriate use.. That does not imply religion.

**********
While I agree with you, what about Lee Harvey Oswald? He was very well trained in the use of his weapon. No indication of what his mental state was till it was too late. My cousins boy; nameless, was a blackbelt in m/a. Broke one cops ribs & one of their arms & had to be stun-gunned.
Just a couple examples off the top of my head.
***********


Philosophically, i find Taoist beliefs to be sound and rooted in historical justification.. i offer instruction as to the philosophical basis of Taoism to those interested at a seperate time from regular class, but.. i do not support religious adherence to any system, that is a personal choice. Frequently i make reference to Taoist perceptions relative to Tai Chi during regular class but that is part of Tai Chi's history and shouldn't be ignored.

In a total system of Kung Fu history is important, health is important, ethics are important... i have dismissed more than one student due to an unhealthy attitude or a poor moral standard.. if you don't weed the garden the whole crop suffers..

Be well..

Teaching the history of your art is what one should be doing as a teacher. I am glad you are ddoing so. Tai Chi is an art rich in history & steeped in powerful fighting origin.
Religion has no place in the ma classroom for sure.
While I agree with dismissing a student for unhealthy attitude & displaying poor moral standards, dismissing someone for it vs. teaching it as part of an art are diametricly opposed.

If someone is already moral & vituous, what is there to teach?


Just some thoughts.

Very fun discussion indeed.

[laotzumantis]

taoism and buddhism, at least as far as my understanding of it's depth of curriculum in the temples went, included a wide-ranging array of discipline that was seen as contiguous: meditation and herbology were just a couple of those.

meditation to aid in mental focusing and rechanneling 'events' such as fear and pain; herbology and anatomical study to supplement and heal the body, both during the training process and following injury - do not these areas of study, which are widely regarded as part of the "religions" of our various art's histories - have a place in the modern MA school?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


While I agree with you, what about Lee Harvey Oswald? He was very well trained in the use of his weapon. No indication of what his mental state was till it was too late. My cousins boy; nameless, was a blackbelt in m/a. Broke one cops ribs & one of their arms & had to be stun-gunned.

I cannot account for individual personality flaws.. i can, however, attend to my own sense of moral obligation.. i am compelled by my own values to teach respect for ALL life, to emphasize that violence is the LAST resort, to balance my lessons that may hurt another person with lessons on how to help heal that person as well.. and, in the end, teach how to decisively and favorably manage a physical confrontation..


While I agree with dismissing a student for unhealthy attitude & displaying poor moral standards, dismissing someone for it vs. teaching it as part of an art are diametricly opposed.

If someone is already moral & vituous, what is there to teach?

Regardless of the character of a new student, as far as i'm concerned, they deserve the opportunity to demonstrate a desire for change if its needed, indeed, if already moral and virtuous there is no harm in supporting those values with regular instruction.. I cannot "teach" appropriate values, i can only live my version of them.. i can counsel students as to flaws i perceive, or praise them for exemplary behavior.. but, whenever it becomes clear to me that a student's intent is dishonorable and he/she is unwilling to change, i must not let that attitude be associated with my own school or negatively impact other students.. CMA is an amazing and comprehesive system for health, meditation and superior self-defense.. should it not also represent a moral standard?

Be well..

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by laotzumantis
taoism and buddhism, at least as far as my understanding of it's depth of curriculum in the temples went, included a wide-ranging array of discipline that was seen as contiguous: meditation and herbology were just a couple of those.

meditation to aid in mental focusing and rechanneling 'events' such as fear and pain; herbology and anatomical study to supplement and heal the body, both during the training process and following injury - do not these areas of study, which are widely regarded as part of the "religions" of our various art's histories - have a place in the modern MA school?

Herbology, anatomical study & focusing the mind are indeed a part of ma's. teaching someone wrong from right is ingrained in a person from childhood & can only rarely be changed.
I am not opposed to helping someone by praise or discouragement as TaiChiBob said, but as he also said,"I cannot teach approprate values..". Nor should he be expected to as a Martial Arts instructor.
However, being held to a moral "higher" standard just because you participate in martial arts is unrealistic, but indeed something one should strive to acheive on a personal level.
Once again, I do not think kung fu should ,nor does this.
As far as being a student in a school that does try to teach morality, you are most likely filled with very good students, but some that are surely putting on a false face for your benefit.

Best Wishes,
BTL

[HuangKaiVun]

I know a lot of kung fu guys who talk like they're the paragons of moral virtue but have absolutely no respect for others.

100% of the time, it's due to inadequate training.

[flem]

beitanglang,

there is truth to what you say, but as bruce lee said in tao of jeet kune do "it takes effort to be kind...." can't remember the rest, don't want to get up(lol) any way, your basic arguement is that we bring our morality to the school, but as you said we change, what 5 times in a lifetime?, i feel that many enter the school during those times. some looking for THE answer, others just seeking a step, but all trying to find direction of some type. i think the example given in the 1st karate kid describes what can and can't be taught/learned. i do not think religeon should or need be taught, but the inner standards that a teacher pocesses will be passed on. this forum is a prime example of this after all so many ex wal lummers are catorgorized as having similar thought patterns, the pong lai guys... the state the arts are in today are diiirectly related to this attitude that they need no moral compass- the martial arts are more than that or they are empty- as i know a large # of people who THINK they have fighting skills, but that is as far as it goes!

[BaldMonk]

I think the difficulty is the use of words here. Religion is being used where I think spiritiality is more appropriate. I think that the practice of Wude (martial virtue) is an integral part of Martial arts practice. When one gets to the higher levels of martial arts I think one returns to their Taoist and/or Buddist roots. I think thats why during the cultural revolution there was such a frantic striiving by the "authorities" to get rid of the traditional wushu which was later replaced with the contemporary form which is more prevelant today. The moral aspect is absent. The traditional path I think is one where the whole person, mental, physical and spiritual is improved. This is not necessarily a good/evil type thing. I'd like to think the improvment that comes from striving to these levels is beyond the good/evil paradigm. This makes sense since the underlying philosophies of Taoism/Buddism don't go there either. So there's definitely a spirtual element. If that improvement isn't there then your Kung Fu won't be totally there I don't see them as being separate things. The spiritual element is an extention of the physical morals come along for the ride. Kung fu is awareness and awareness is spiritual.

Just my thoughts

[flem]

baldmonk,

you are right on brother, that is what i was after, yours is just more understandable- even to me!

[Ryu]

"Teaching" ethics should be conducted in the same manner as other types of teaching. Discussion and questioning should be encouraged, and whoever asks of anyone to be virtuous should be striving for that road him/herself.

Ethical theory is central to my degree in philosophy, and makes up a great deal of my thinking and everyday life. Ethical practice and thought do not necessarily belong to Religion in the way many are using the word here. If you want to learn virtue and ethics you should be able to find them almost everywhere......not just in a building dedicated to a religion. (If it is, one runs the risk of understanding ethics as simply "opinions" and not a basis for human need, human society, and cultural richness.)

Take care.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Excellent post..

Excellent choice of words... Ethics..


a basis for human need, human society, and cultural richness.)

Thanks, and Be well..

[joedoe]

Right on Ryu. Ethics must be taught along with the skills. Would you hand a shotgun to a 10 year old without teaching them when it should and should not be used?

[JusticeZero]

I hear lots of talk about how one should teach "morals" with MA. Don't you really mean that you think people should be taught YOUR morals? Ethical codes can vary to levels that some find abhorrent while still being present. My art teaches a moral code; it teaches the most effective ways of being a treacherous, passive-agressive, lying, cheating backstabber. Does that count?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

There is a difference between ethics and morals.. morals tend to be personal in nature, subjective and arbitrary..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a basis for human need, human society, and cultural richness.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethics serve society and culture, enhance existence..

It is all too easy to dismiss our social and humane responsibilities in favor of some macho "dark art" BS.. much more difficult to teach by example.. We make choices, we can choose to contribute to social harmony or to incite social chaos.. As teachers we should accept the responsibility of our actions. We exist as a collective interdependent society, no man is an island (note to self, that sounds familiar).. In the now infamous quote "better to be a warrior in the garden than a gardener in the war".. implies that the garden is the better place to be regardless of martial prowess.. Cultivate peace, be prepared for war..

We can teach neither morals nor ethics.. we can only live the example and offer guidance.. teaching is only effected by the student's willingness to accept that which is offered..

Be well...

[Ryu]

"Don't you really mean that you think people should be taught YOUR morals? "

"There is a difference between ethics and morals.. morals tend to be personal in nature, subjective and arbitrary.."


There's not too big a difference between ethics and "Morality" with a capital M. It's become somewhat a game of semmantics.
I at times use the terms "ethics" and "morality" and "virtue" interchangebly. For the most part I use the word ethics because for some reason people tend to be less defensive of that word. :) Even though to me it really means the same thing.

I believe in norm relativity, not moral relativity.

If objective ethical standards exist for the world's people, that ethical standard doesn't change because a few do not wish to follow those standards.

Take the idea of friendship. In order to be a good "friend" in the definition of the word, one must put effort into the relationship by being trustworthy, kind, helpful, etc.
Say Sam and I are "friends." Sam, however, stabs me in the back numerous times, lies to me, is cruel, etc. Our "friendship" then will dissolve. This doesn't mean that friendship is relative, it simply means that "Sam" for what ever reason chose NOT to follow the necessary aspects of being a friend.

Where most of the confusion takes place in ethical/moral complexities is usually within surface level differences between people, cultures, etc.

Case in point. Say we have a culture that eats the remains of its dead. We will call it Culture A.

We also have a culture that does not eat its dead. But buries them in the ground instead. We will call it Culture B.

Culture B is horrified at Culture A, and claims that culture A is "immoral" because they eat the dead (something culture B thinks is wrong.)

Culture A thinks burying the dead in the dirty ground is immoral, and claims that Culture B is immoral!

Now it looks like we have a problem that only "moral relativity" can solve. But it's not the case.

If we look past surface level differences in cultural practice, and look at the MOTIVATION behind said practices we find that....

Both Culture A and Culture B do what they do to HONOR THE DEAD. Both think that it is moral to respect the dead of their society.

This is the same moral. The same Ethic. It is only showing itself in different cultural ways.

When Culture A and B can see this. Harmony will be made.


So when someone chooses not to follow the definition of ethical or moral codes, it does not mean morality is relative or non-existent. It simply means that person chooses not to follow it.

That's about all I'll say on the issue.

"Ethics serve society and culture, enhance existence..

It is all too easy to dismiss our social and humane responsibilities in favor of some macho "dark art" BS.. much more difficult to teach by example.. We make choices, we can choose to contribute to social harmony or to incite social chaos.. As teachers we should accept the responsibility of our actions. We exist as a collective interdependent society, no man is an island (note to self, that sounds familiar).. In the now infamous quote "better to be a warrior in the garden than a gardener in the war".. implies that the garden is the better place to be regardless of martial prowess.. Cultivate peace, be prepared for war..

We can teach neither morals nor ethics.. we can only live the example and offer guidance.. "

I agree with this 110% I couldn't have put it better myself.
Fortunately, the idea of Universal Ethics is gaining popularity around the globe. My thesis and graduate studies revolve around this.

Take care,
Ryu

[Ryu]

"My art teaches a moral code; it teaches the most effective ways of being a treacherous, passive-agressive, lying, cheating backstabber. Does that count?"



Well it depends. :) Is the motivation behind this in order for you to protect yourself, your loved ones, and make sure YOU will be the winner in an altercation with someone who wishes to hurt you or some other innocent person?

If it is, then it does count. You are following universal standards of Martial Virtue.

If the motivation is to hurt, dominate, and humiliate others than you're not following the universal standards of martial virtue.


Well gotta go everyone,
Ryu

[bung bo]

my shrfu hasn't spent a whole lot of time speaking of morality in the martial arts. not to say that the topic isn't addressed, it is just more dealt with in our mutual respect toward one another in class. some of my kung fu brothers and my teacher and i have had long conversations on the subject and i really enjoy it. (i consider this part of my training, too) anyway, even if there is no talk during class on the subject, and i'm going really hard and blood , sweat, and tears and all that stuff i find it is a spiritual experience for me.

[Former castleva]

I do not think ALL of the founders of arts had highly philosophical visions to pass on.
In JMA context,arts are/can often be wonderfully categorized as "jutsu" for technique and "do" for lifestyle.What one makes out of that is pretty much up to the invidual.
I could as well wrap a philosophy system around figure skating if wanted to.
I think when it comes down to it in daily life,those simple and functional ideas-"parental moral" that you might find in form of anecdotes or rules from most martial arts is enough and would actualize in the form of peaceful living,nothing fancy.