What is WCK? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

PaulH

10-06-2003, 09:05 PM

Your chameleon WC skin never fails to amaze me, Hendrik! Ha! Ha! For brevity's sake, I agree with you and am going to retype with my abbreviations on certain words what Wong was saying in an interview by Jose Fraguas (Martial Arts & Combat Sports - March 2001). It still speaks volume to me today.

Q: Do you have a martial arts philosophy?
A: There is an old Chinese saying that goes, "Courage first, strength second, and kung fu third." To secure victory in a face to face fight with fist and kicks, one must be courageous. The courage comes from one's own self-cultivation and is one of the purposes of trials of skills. The 2nd is strength and vigor. The KF you see in real combat is only a few actions. What counts in real combat is determination, courage, and vigour. If you are superior in this aspects, then you can often knock down your opponent with two or three simple techniques...

Q: Are you a traditionalist?
A: I firmly believe that WC is something very logical. As long as it stays logical it doesn't matter what you call it or what you're actually doing. If it is logical, if it works, use it! Make the art your slave, and never allow the art be your master.

Q: Why do you think WC is so popular around the world?
A: I think Bruce Lee contributed a lot to that! But if a martial art system is not logical, simple, and useful it will disappear. It's just a matter of time. Think about the many countries and political systems that don't exist anymore. If there is something lacking in meaning and purpose it will definitely fade away. WC is growing all over the world - so that should tell you something.

Regards,

reneritchie

10-07-2003, 12:05 PM

WCK is a martial artifact primarily from Foshan, China. Many people tinker with it today for fun, dueling, and leisure practice.

duende

10-07-2003, 12:44 PM

I can see why YOU would think Wing Chun needs some evolving. That has been made clear to me by many things including the level of understanding made present in many posts.

What is unclear to me is why you think you can make such broad statements as if you actually have some knowledge of the other Wing Chun knowledge out there. Then you backstep by throwing a little humor into the mix.

Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy.

Alex

Phenix

10-07-2003, 01:08 PM

What is unclear to me is why you think you can make such broad statements as if you actually have some knowledge of the other Wing Chun knowledge out there. ----D

This is a discussion forum. Anyone can make thier claim. and if you don't like it. then present your case for discussion. It is about the subject not about the person. you got it?

As for the knowledge of the other wing chuns, this is a great question for you. How much do you know about other WCK? how many masters have you learn the art of WCK from?

Then you backstep by throwing a little humor into the mix.----D

Hahahahaha, what backsteP? read my post up there if you don't agree with me, then you can argue. why frame me?

My advise for you is that focus on the subject of discussion instead of having pre-judgement and look at the whole world against you.

Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements---D

How much do you know and understand about Chinese Culture?
HOw much do you know and understand about Chinese evolution of military philosophy? How many Chinese Military Classic have you read and understood?

Answer these questions above before you draw any conclusion.

As whether I fool or not fool others. the history will judge me. as for your claim, history will also give you a fair judgement.

AS FOR YOUR CLAIM ABOUT ME FOOLING OTHERS. HAHAHA, i CAN POINT TO THE EXACT CHAPTER/S AND PHRASE WHICH WCK IS USING AS A PART OF CORE PHILOSHOPY. Now, you have to dig out your evidents that I fool others. otherwise, you are speaking without support, but based on your personal view right?

. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy. --D

Sure you can think that way.
Again, sorry this is a country of freespeach and encourage different point of view. You have different view, post it up.
Why don't you post your story or history or HIS -story?

I sense you have lots of fear whenever I post anything. May be you want to find out why do you have such a fear?

and you are not baiting me here to tell you which chapter/s of Sun Tzu so that you can continous on to evol your WCK isn't it?
:D

read what WSL said, and then think about it.

planetwc

10-07-2003, 01:09 PM

Life is about change.

Evolution occurs across all species.

Our knowledge across all areas of human endeavors continues to advance and evolve.

Why should Wing Chun Kuen be any different?

Or do we think we are somehow the Amish version of Fighting somehow frozen 250-300 years ago?

The journey here is about acquisition and refinement of martial skill. The difference to be concerned about is entropy vs evolution.

The improper or incomplete transmission of skill is more what we need to guard against.

We have unprecedented access to vast amounts of systems and approaches to martial combat which were not available to the founders of the art. We know more about the human body, training regimens, approaches to kinesiology, physical conditioning etc.

Given access to those systems and their movements should give our teachers better ways to teach us to deal with them--because they are no longer secret or unknown to us.

If nothing else, we should be able to devise even MORE effective ways of transmitting knowledge about the core concepts of the system and ways to rigorously crosscheck the transmission.

We have immensely better ways to record the ways of movement, structure and form of our teachers than was ever possible over the previous centuries.

duende

10-07-2003, 02:35 PM

[As for the knowledge of the other wing chuns, this is a great question for you. How much do you know about other WCK? how many masters have you learn the art of WCK from?]

I've studied under two different systems. I found that enough for me to see the vast diferences in concept and understanding. I still however, would never speak for anyone except myself.

[My advise for you is that focus on the subject of discussion instead of having pre-judgement and look at the whole world against you.]

No pre-judgement here.... I read it, re-read it, then came to MY OWN conclusion that it was nonsense.

[How much do you know and understand about Chinese Culture?
HOw much do you know and understand about Chinese evolution of military philosophy? How many Chinese Military Classic have you read and understood?]

I've read the "Art of War" as has any college student who has taken any humanties courses. I just think it's much more practical and less abstract then what your writings prescribe.

I've also read enough philosophy to know that it's better to have understood one book then to have read many... kinda like Wing Chun, in that it's better to really understand the nature of one move, and fully realize all it's uses, then to be constantly searching for more moves, updates, and "improvements"

Planet WC

Life is about change, but logic, and absolute truth is not. You can bring about the benefits of modern technology to training etc... but for me all that just clutters and obscures the simplicity. I put my money on an old master stuck out in the woods training anyday over a modern technologically enhanced martial artist. For me it's all about time, everything else is a distraction to my training.

PS. by absolute truth, I was referring to the laws of physics

ntc

10-07-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by duende
I can see why YOU would think Wing Chun needs some evolving. That has been made clear to me by many things including the level of understanding made present in many posts.

What is unclear to me is why you think you can make such broad statements as if you actually have some knowledge of the other Wing Chun knowledge out there. Then you backstep by throwing a little humor into the mix.

Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy.

Alex

Duende:

Not sure what you were trying to achieve by this post..... it reads as though you are hitting out at Phenix. Well, just know that this is a discussion thread, and one of the things that Phenix does often (and does well) is throw out somewhat generic, yet debatable topics to open up discussions. Phenix is Asian, I believe (and so am I), and so he will likely share a lot of his philosophical thoughts (I tend to do the same) with others on this thread. And very often, these discussions result in very eye-opening thoughts and information, regardless of the background, lineage, or experience of the posters. Oftentimes, one would not necessarily agree or disagree with certain points, but by sharing one's viewpoint based on his/her own WC background, we are able to gain some insight into something new, and sometimes refreshing thoughts. As you yourself pointed out, you have studied under two different systems and can appreciate the vast differences that can occur between systems, and this is the reason why a lot of us come to this forum is to share our own experiences and to learn more about those from outside our school/system, not to mentioning adding to our knowledge of the system.

I guess my point is that these discussion threads would be much more enlightening without bickering, politics, attacks, etc. Debating is not the same as attacking, and is always welcome, for very often it is through debates and being inquisitive that we end up adding to our own understanding and knowledge.

Look forward to reading more about your thoughts on how the different systems differ.

ntc

10-07-2003, 03:10 PM

And by the way, FYI... I don't personally know Phenix, other than reading his posts here like everyone else. There is no particular reason for my previous post or the possibility that some of you may wonder why I appeared to be defending Phenix, other than the fact that I felt there was an attack on him that was not really necessary. If there was no attack there, and it was just a case that I misunderstood and took stuff out of context, then pardon my poor English and interpretation, and I do apologize for misunderstanding.

I am not here often, but the times that I have been here, I have found a lot of the discussion threads interesting (although some of the bickering tend to make it disappointing at the same time). I don't necessarily agree with Phenix all the time, whether from a philosophical or Wing Chun point of view, and that is OK, because all of us are entitled to our own opinions and ideas. Our knowledge is based on our own individual experiences and background, and unless two people are from identical backgrounds and possess identical personalities, it is likely that there will be differences between the two of them. What I do appreciate, however, is that he does take the time and energy to speak his mind and to share his thoughts with others. Likewise, there are a lot of others who do the same, which make these threads worth visiting.

yuanfen

10-07-2003, 03:40 PM

FWIW---
1. On Sun Tzu. There is no question on the impact of The Art of War on Chinese Miltary theory. But even though it's context was the battlefield it has had an impact on individual matial training as well. It seems to me- ofcourse IMHO and all that- that as battle field arts evolved- one outgrowth was the development of close quarters work. It is here that with gradual pruning emerges good wing chun-it assumes close quarters individual contact work... early shuai chao(?) also assumed close quarters work but didnt have the variety of the body weapons of later wing chun.

The YGKYM and the varations in footwok, centerline theory and positioning as alternatives to too much dependence on muscle strength, proper breathing and tactile control and timing work-some form of chi sao---put things synergistically intp the core where Sun Tzu's insights provide new meanings.
After all wing chun did not evolve in medieval Europe- general evolution didnt create it....though it has spread by leaps and bounds.

2. On history for its own sake--- who learned from whom... generally I pass.

3. But historical insights that can point towards what we could do-
is another thing and can be helpful. Like WSL's story on running into and havinga problem with a low attack. Its helpful to practice in making sure that different angles are covered in our reflex system.And as we encounter people who like being on the floor-
one needs to prepared-without abndoning ship.

4. On evolution. Of course things evolve. But therein can lurk the shadows of dogma. Things do get lost. Early (Asian) Indian steel making techniques - basis of the Damascus blade-was lost for a while. Some unique Pueblo pottery making methods were lost for a while.

History is not always a story of linear progress. In TCMA for instance--- after the first two generations or so of Yang style taichi- some things were lost--- including the training and capacity for real fajing and explosive power, The Chens in their village went about their business except for some folks who learned from Chen Fake, Then afterthe Cultural revolution real martail arts came out of hiding here and there- and lots of folks are imitating or trying to imitate first class fajing....
saying-oh yeah we have that too when they didnt.

So through WW2 and the Marxist revolution and the escape to HK /Macao Ip Man was fairly close chested about the details of his art. Ever so often in the talk or recollection of the next generation by comparison and deduction some additional insights are still forthcoming. If one is clear and has the right reason- not changing is foolish and not adapting things for ones own persona is also foolish but it's notalways transmissible to some one else Someone who gets by with strangth rather than skill may not transmit his skills toa weak person...Similarly not being open to insights from the past when it happens is foolish too.

So where do I end up- in the middle way- but it traversing athe middle way aint easy.

ntc

10-07-2003, 03:49 PM

Yuan... good post.

yuanfen

10-07-2003, 04:13 PM

Thanks NTC.

duende

10-07-2003, 05:39 PM

NTC,

I think the purpose of my post was very clear. I don't agree with the main premise of this thread. On top of that I feel that there is extremely biased information being spread here, and I think it's important for any novice or newcomer here to know that what's being presented in this thread is in no way status quo. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I do however sincerely appreciate the graciousness of your post.

btw, I do not mean to give the impression that I do not believe the "Art of War" is apparant in WC theory. I just disagree with the initial way it was linked with WC

afwiw... the WSL story does not apply to my system, good story nonetheless.

ntc

10-07-2003, 05:46 PM

Ah.... I see where you were getting at. Thanks for the clarification.

Phenix

10-07-2003, 05:47 PM

Thanks NTC and Joy,

FACTs:

1, The Heaven, Human, Earth is a concept from I-Ching. it is not CHAN!

2, Sun Tzu, is also Chatagorize in Tao, Heanven, Earth, Method, Human. IT is derive down from the I-Ching.

3, For he who not just read Sun Tzu and thinking he knows Sun Tzu. There is a saying. Before sun Tzu Sun Tzu, after Sun Tzu Sun Tzu, which means the wisdom before sun tzu's time was kept in sun tzu . the wisdom after sun Tzu's time has already said in Sun Tzu. There is a big different read a book and attent a chinese class in college and thinking knowing Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu's study was clasified as BIn Cia or the military expertise. Thus, one needs to have teacher who master Sun Tzu, otherwise, even the term were not translated properly.

4, Chinese use "still shape" and "dynamic momentum" as the main keys of war. as example, As applied in WCK, in general, "shape" as we see in WCK or white Crane WCK of fujian the Center Line theory. "Potential " is the chain punch.
feel and avoid the head on is also the key both for WCK and Sun Tzu. Thus, for past 2000 years nothing has changes philosophically but evol in the implementation of application technics.

Appliying the shape and momentum,

What was post here, none of them is STABING from the BACK.

the "shape" is center on center front.
as the Chinese said, when the title is proper and the words is proper.

the "dynamic momentum " of The trandition of Chinese culture, to I-Ching to Sun TZu to today's WCK. it is a single flow with evol and adaptation of application to fit every different era.

If anyone has different view, certainly it is great to brought it up for constructive discussion.
shooting the messengers or getting politics is not appreciated. In fact, don't make the fool of oneself, attacking the person before even clear about what is going on the issue. AS Confusian says, " if know said so, if don't know said so."

I personally understand there are dream which will be broken when the cards where open one by one. However, when the cards open, one will get more then what is in the dream. Because, dream is an illusion one never reach. but when the cards of philosophy, methodology open up. then one can realize the "dream" in reality.

call me strange or anything. Can I be right or wrong? sure. I am no god. But then, it is about the issue not about the people. I welcome everyone's different views, without that WCK will not grow well in 21 century. It is about team work and keep evol the methodology. not any original or any oldest .....

Evol or obsolete. But, one thing I want to stress, by based the philosophy and methodology in Sun Tzu, White crane, TCM,....
WCK will not vanished. IF WCK is based just only on a fomular or a method. then WCK will be vanished.

WATER HAS NO UNCHANGE DYNAMIC MOMENTUM. ARMY HAS NO CONSTANT POTENTIAL SHAPE.

ARe we going to violate our own core philosophy ---- Chinese ART of WAR --sun tzu?

ntc

10-07-2003, 05:59 PM

Well.... cool... seems like we are all cleared up. And like both Phenix and Duende are indicating, there are differences in WC as it is practiced today, and everyone'e opinion is being welcome in this thread. As Phenix put it, without addressing all the different views out there and learning from there, it would be difficult for WC to grow into the 21st century.

But at the same time, Duende also has a good point that as we share information, remember that we all have good information about WC, and who is to say who is right and who is wrong? In fact, based on our own training, we are all respectfully correct. However, it is also important to indicate that these are personal opinions and not universal truth/standard about WC, otherwise the newcomer/newbie might be given wrong impressions of the art. There is something to be said about this point.

And I hope no one sees me as being righteous, or anything like that, cause I am not. I just am really enjoying this thread, and I think it is a very interesting topic of discussion on what WCK is perceived as from each of our own points of view. And I hope everyone is encouraged to come out and share their own perceptions.

That said, let the discussion continue....

Phenix

10-07-2003, 06:15 PM

also has a good point that as we share information, remember that we all have good information about WC, and who is to say who is right and who is wrong? --NTC

IMHO, there is history and His-story. there is proper way to disagree compare with attacking people instead of focus on the subject.

Information doesnt means fact. and facts doesn't means relevant. we need to have accurate thinking training. IMHO.

In fact, based on our own training, we are all respectfully correct.---ntc

What do you think? if we say everyone is respectfully correct disregard how they want to drive in highway? :D

However, it is also important to indicate that these are personal opinions and not universal truth/standard about WC, otherwise the newcomer/newbie might be given wrong impressions of the art. ---NTC

Thus, I always post and Challenge people post thier fact and relevant fact and discuss with facts.

I post my points of I-Ching, Sun Tzu, Shape, momentum, center line, chian punch........
NOw it is Alex's turn to explaim why the following is concluded this way. I love to see his factual evidents to prove me as what the statement says. I love people to prove me wrong and so I learn something.

"Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy."

I am sure my worst enemy until I attain BUddha hood. :D that you are right!

PaulH

10-07-2003, 06:31 PM

I am very sorry to inform you, Hendrik, that you are absolutely wrong! WC comes more from The book of 5 rings than the "Art of War". Let look objectively at the revered science of numerology. 5 rings = 5 elements = 5 petals of Ng Mui's plum flower. Why, we even have ring training and star pattern stepping! You yourself even talked of the 5 bodies! 5 is really a good WC number. Give me a Five?

P.S. Plenty of sound philosophy and strategies on top of that! It's time that we recall Sun Tzu and put Mushahi in his rightful place in the WC state. Ha! Ha!

woseung

10-07-2003, 07:04 PM

Hendrik,

Do you know your own system of Wing Chun? If you don’t even know your own system, how can you ask such a general question of the whole Wing Chun Clan?

If you say you know your system, what is your qualification? Every question I’ve ever seen you ask is so general it starts to border on ignorant. Asking “What is Wing Chun Kuen” is like asking, “What is Chinese?” Wing Chun could be a tool for combat, a hobby, a tool for spiritual enlightenment, etc. It could even be a unique product of a certain culture at one time and place in human history.

In your initial post, “Is WCk is an implementation of methodology based on a Philoshophy.” What is meant by Philosophy? What is meant by methodology? What are the specifics of the implementation? I suggest you post some technical information on your system so we can compare specifics instead of talking about generalities. How does your system compare to the Yip Man system?

You wrote, “No formular works all the time and forever in real life.” Having a background in science, I find this statement puzzling. There are many formulas that work “all the time and forever in real life.” Civil Engineers use formulas created in Newtonian Physics based on rules established centuries ago. I suppose it is possible to build a bridge using Quantum Physics but that’s quite a bit over-engineered give the scale of bridges. Regardless of specifics, your statement is false.

This type of general discussion could go on forever without getting anywhere. Your system of Wing Chun is less well known; why don’t you begin by talking about what you know?

What paradigm shift are you talking about in the Ming Dynasty? Isn’t that just grave-site investigation, as you said elsewhere?

Also, the more I read your posts the more I see a seemingly hidden agenda in your posting and in the direction of your questioning. For all your talk of humility, your ego is fairly easy to read.

Phenix

10-07-2003, 07:13 PM

Hi Paul,

sure, great idea. dig into it you might be right. who knows?

Phenix

10-07-2003, 07:36 PM

Do you know your own system of Wing Chun? If you don’t even know your own system, how can you ask such a general question of the whole Wing Chun Clan?
If you say you know your system, what is your qualification? ---W

This is an architype of attacking the messenger not focus on the topic.

Every question I’ve ever seen you ask is so general it starts to border on ignorant. Asking “What is Wing Chun Kuen?is like asking, “What is Chinese??Wing Chun could be a tool for combat, a hobby, a tool for spiritual enlightenment, etc. It could even be a unique product of a certain culture at one time and place in human history.---W

Sure it is general.

Everyone can has thier own definition and that is ok. But atleast there is a definition.

If there is a not definition, then one cannot answer the general question. not to mention the details one.

But general is not gray or undefine or can be freely define, right?

In your initial post, “Is WCk is an implementation of methodology based on a Philoshophy.?What is meant by Philosophy? What is meant by methodology? What are the specifics of the implementation? I suggest you post some technical information on your system so we can compare specifics instead of talking about generalities. How does your system compare to the Yip Man system?-----W

I-Ching is a philosophy. Whether you use coins or randam number generator to exercise the IChing is methodology.

All WCK do SLT/SNT. right?

You wrote, “No formular works all the time and forever in real life.?Having a background in science, I find this statement puzzling. There are many formulas that work “all the time and forever in real life.?Civil Engineers use formulas created in Newtonian Physics based on rules established centuries ago. I suppose it is possible to build a bridge using Quantum Physics but that’s quite a bit over-engineered give the scale of bridges. Regardless of specifics, your statement is false. ---W

IF I tell you I have a war formular to win all the war since 2000 years ago. will you believe me?

if I tell you I have a fighting formular for you to beat all the Thai Boxer, BJJ, and Kyokushin, and BOxer..... will you believe me?

Is such things exist in the world?

Chinese WAR classic said ---- WATER HAS NO UNCHANGE DYNAMIC MOMENTUM. ARMY HAS NO CONSTANT POTENTIAL SHAPE.
YOur enermy yesterday is not your enermy tommorow. (thus, the same method will rarely work twice.)

so you think those War artist 2000 years ago is smarther then us or dumber then us?

Or you praise the ancestors of WCK who has this philoshophy of CHANGE ;
and design in the methodology of instantaneous and spontenous sensing to the art to make WCK very adaptive and fluid and flexible ;
instead of following this type of kiu to against that type of kiu.... but has no sense on what happen under the stream of energy flow?

the above show clearly the link of IChing philosophy, Art of WAR, and WCK. don't you agree? IF not please present your model.

This type of general discussion could go on forever without getting anywhere. Your system of Wing Chun is less well known; why don’t you begin by talking about what you know? ---W

general is about bringing everyone to aware what is the basic.
I would like to know the general before lost in trees of unrelated imformation.

he who is clear about general and details can see a full word from a small flower. he who is not clear about the general always lost in the branches of the trees. What do you think about this saying?

What paradigm shift are you talking about in the Ming Dynasty? Isn’t that just grave-site investigation, as you said elsewhere?---W

since 2000 years ago, the time of Sun Tzu, the philosophy of ART of WAR were form there is no paradigm shift in MIng dynasty.
In fact, the Ming general lost to the Japanese pirate. until Gen Chi Chi Kuan reform .

Also, the more I read your posts the more I see a seemingly hidden agenda in your posting and in the direction of your questioning. For all your talk of humility, your ego is fairly easy to read. ----W

sure
there is a hidden agenda. that agenda is to educate everyone include me from discussion.

as for ego, Buddha said " heaven and earth, "I" am the most respectable.
is that an ego of the buddha? or it is a mirror which show the reader's ego?

Thank you for your opion, and my suggestion to you is focus on the topic not on me. I am sure you agree, right?

there will be a paradigm shift, when it is not about YOu or me. but bring up the reason to discuss, agree or disagree in a reasonable way focus to the topic. ---- WHAT IS WCK?

anerlich

10-07-2003, 08:04 PM

IMHO, there is history and His-story. there is proper way to disagree compare with attacking people instead of focus on the subject.

There is a difference between a personal attack, and questioning the process of argument that leaves to various claims being made.

It is dirty pool to try to deflect criticism of unproven assertions and leaps of faith being presented as scholarship and logical argument, by claiming that the persons who do so are "attacking me personally".

That's just another twist on the ad hominem attack which you protest about so vehemently. They are criticisng your atatements, not your character.

There is also no shortage of personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, going in both directions from what I see. You have more or less said that without a Chinese background and many years of study no one can understand Sun Tzu. A statement such as this automatically begs the question of "well, who are you to say that?"

Anyone who tries to take the high moral ground needs to examine his own statements, logic, and actions before trying to lecture others thereon.

BTW, I lay no claim to any high moral ground. I *am* a ba$tard sometimes. I just think most of those who appoint themselves as moderators of the discussions on here have some way to go before they come close to the standards they demand of others.

canglong

10-07-2003, 08:14 PM

originally posted by phenix
For me the core philosophy of WCK is Sun TZu the art of War. The back ground of Sun Tzu is I-Ching. and the implementation is WCK. This is your opinion.
originally posted by phenix
Buddhism's mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM is just a part of the unique implementation named WCK. This too is your opinion. Once again preaching about facts and giving only opinion

originally posted by phenix
My advise for you is that focus on the subject of discussion instead of having pre-judgement and look at the whole world against you.
originally posted by phenix
This is a discussion forum. Anyone can make thier claim. and if you don't like it. then present your case for discussion. It is about the subject not about the person. you got it?
originally posted by phenix
I sense you have lots of fear whenever I post anything. May be you want to find out why do you have such a fear? This is your double standard! Again preaching about staying on topic then moving to a personal attack.
originally posted by phenix
Thus, for past 2000 years nothing has changes philosophically but evol in the implementation of application technics. Then when you try and provide facts you argue against them yourself, for what you consider evolution could easily be interpreted as improper use of sound philosiphical ideas that have not changed for over 2000 years. This is why I agree with Alex when he says you are your own worst enemy.

Phenix

10-07-2003, 08:40 PM

[QUOTE]

There is also no shortage of personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, going in both directions from what I see. You have more or less said that without a Chinese background and many years of study no one can understand Sun Tzu. A statement such as this automatically begs the question of "well, who are you to say that?"---- An

Why don't you post the following before post your opinion? :D

"Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy."

Back to the Topic,

What is WCK for you ?

Phenix

10-07-2003, 08:54 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
For me the core philosophy of WCK is Sun TZu the art of War. The back ground of Sun Tzu is I-Ching. and the implementation is WCK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is your opinion. --C

Sure, that is my opinion and I back it up with factual data.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
Buddhism's mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM is just a part of the unique implementation named WCK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This too is your opinion. Once again preaching about facts and giving only opinion --C

Certainly, this is my thesis and I again Back my thesis with factual evidents.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
My advise for you is that focus on the subject of discussion instead of having pre-judgement and look at the whole world against you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
This is a discussion forum. Anyone can make thier claim. and if you don't like it. then present your case for discussion. It is about the subject not about the person. you got it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
I sense you have lots of fear whenever I post anything. May be you want to find out why do you have such a fear?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is your double standard! Again preaching about staying on topic then moving to a personal attack. -C

If I throw a sun punch at you and expect you to stand there so that I can hit you with my set up. will you do that?
and If my punch didn't hit you and I complain that you are not fair you are double standard. what will you say? :D

By the way, Why don't you post this before what you post up there? so that it is chronologically correct?

"Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by phenix
Thus, for past 2000 years nothing has changes philosophically but evol in the implementation of application technics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then when you try and provide facts you argue against them yourself, for what you consider evolution could easily be interpreted as improper use of sound philosiphical ideas that have not changed for over 2000 years. This is why I agree with Alex when he says you are your own worst enemy.

Question: What is the Philosophy of TaiJichuan?
Ans : TAI JI

Question: What is the implementation of application technics of TaijI Chuan?
Ans: Chen, Yang, Wu, WOO, Cheng.....

Question: Does the philosophy of TaiJi Changes since the exist of I-Ching?
Ans: what do you think? The definition of TAIJI changes?

You can agree with whoever you choose based or not based on any facts. that is ok. But there is a may be, may be you both don't understand what I am posting?

Back to the topic instead of spend the bandwidth on me.

Question: What is the philosophy of WCK?
Ans: ??????? ?

anerlich

10-07-2003, 09:32 PM

Bang on, Canglong. Exactly right.

"Why don't you post the following before post your opinion? "

""Maybe you can fool others here by referencing the "Art of War" to give credibility to your statements. But for me, the more you post, the more I think you are your own worst enemy."

Duh, Because someone else already posted it, so it would be redundant. Plus, it's peripheral to my argument. Why do YOU think I should post it?

"What is WCK for you ?"

A traditional Chinese martial art. IMO, culture and religion neutral in the modern age. The present and future of it is FAR more important than the past.

Phenix

10-07-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by anerlich

"What is WCK for you ?"

A traditional Chinese martial art. IMO, culture and religion neutral in the modern age. The present and future of it is FAR more important than the past.

Great, certainly no one can go back to live in the past.

and what is the philosophy behind WCK As equal to TaiJi of TaiJichuan according to you?

yylee

10-07-2003, 10:56 PM

WCK is a strange thing, it is probably an alien invention :D

- first, it has that strange so called "Yutt Tan Saam Fook" movement that have many WCners puzzled for years, still won't have a firm idea why it is there and what it is for.

- in Chi Sau, many times teachers ask you to keep the contact points near the wrists, but in fact a bigger power drive is from the elbow. So don't be fooled by the contact point, the elbow behind is what you shall watch out for. Don't be fooled by what you see, there is a bigger conspiracy behind, hehehehe.....

- we may entertain the opponent with one type of hand (Wu), while using a different type (Bong) to attack. So multi-dimension is the key.

- there is a saying called "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail). It is like when you ask Hendrik how the hell does Sun Tzu get involve in the discussion, then Hendrik returns with a question saying "What is WCK to you?".

- By throwing that "What is WCK to you" question back to you, he then keeps to the center of his thread. His tail is still aiming at your center.

- so Sun Tzu or no Sun Tzu, we still use all these so call strategies and mind games which are slowly becoming culture and religion neutral.

- and on top of that WCK has this strange YJKYM the neutral stance which have many WCner's puzzled for years and still want to talk about it in forums.......

PaulH

10-07-2003, 11:03 PM

Hendrik,

Do you ever feel like Winnie the pooh trying to explain to the swarm of angry bees that you are harmless really when you touch their honey? Some of your stuffs are just too close for comfort! Hope you don't take me seriously. Go, Arnold!

Regards,

duende

10-07-2003, 11:40 PM

See... I'm not the only offended by blanket generalities, and obscure qualifying of fact.

But then again that's how you win a governorship. Right Paul???

Woseung,

Thanks so much for your post. It helped me define better some similar thoughts going through my head.

duende

10-07-2003, 11:57 PM

Yylee,

You make WC sound like a game. With all your desriptions of it's mysterys and conspiracys.

I don't have time for that... For that kind of entertainment, frankly I'd much rather go read a book. Maybe that's why you find Hendrik's posts to be amusing.

For me WC is primarily hardcore physics based martial science. I don't need to romanticize it.

Savi

10-08-2003, 12:06 AM

Duende & Woseung, I'm with you on the shared perspective. (sorry for the absence here as of late...) To give MY answer to the original question of "What is WCK?"...

WCK represents the perfect harmony (balance/union) of:
* Combat: self defense,
* Health: Hei Gung/Faat Ging, and
* Philosophy: Chan Buddhism (Taoism, Confucianism, & Buddhism)...
...where each of the three areas are consistently reflected in each other. WCK is a path where we are taught to better understand oneself through an objective approach to reality - ultimately leading oneself to a true identity. As far as I know, there are only two systems in the world that hold to these three areas.

All of the how's and why's and what's to this answer I do not think are tolerable by the creator of this thread, so I'll leave it at that. Thumbs up Duende and Woseung!

yuanfen

10-08-2003, 05:22 AM

Good diversity of opinions.

But FWIW, I dont think that one has to know much about
Chan Buddhism to do wing chun kuen.

Core Chan epistemology has some parallel to but is not the same as daoism. Chan's origins are in Dhyan ( a specific mahayana approach). In its pure form it rejects violence and the killing arts...
urges people not to enter even the profession of the butcher.

There are different mixes of ideologies in Chinese history- neo confucianism, legalism, etc. Generalizations on Chan, etc---not so simple.

Wing chun is a "gate" for learning "natural" self defense by making more and more efficient use of what one has. Some wing chun folks by staying the course can learn other things about life.

Wing chun began in a Chinese setting. In differring proportions -
buddhism, daoism, military theory, theories of the body(TCM)
are interwoven in that setting and legacy. Technology transfer can vary with understanding of that setting and teaching, learning and practice..

BeWater

10-08-2003, 06:32 AM

I've only been practicing WC for a short time, but I've arrived at the opinion that WC is all about change. How to change and how to react to changes. To me, the WC system is a "roadmap". Follow the road map, i.e. do the forms and san saos with the correct theory and the correct intent, and you will be able to deal with any type of change. Changes in combat, changes in life, changes in the all things in the universe.

That being said, I don't think the roadmap (WC system) itself is subject to change. It was perfected by those much smarter than I, long ago. By changing the system you lose it's essence. The system doesn't need to be changed -- it has everything that is needed. It is only when the practitioner fails to grasp the system in its entirety that they feel the need to alter it. The consequence is that the knowledge they pass on is forever incomplete because it is not true WC.

To learn and pass on WC you must remove all notions of self. Once you have truly learned the system you may apply it (change it?) for *yourself*, but you are still obligated (to one's sifu, and to the system itself) to pass it on exactly as it was taught to you, thus retaining the essence of the system.

Extremely effective self-defense is, in a manner of thinking, a by-product of correct training. It is not the goal. True Wing Chun is the journey, not the destination.

Just my two cents. :)

Phenix

10-08-2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by yylee

- there is a saying called "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail).

It is like when you ask Hendrik how the hell does Sun Tzu get involve in the discussion, then Hendrik returns with a question saying "What is WCK to you?".

YY,

Do you know where the "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail) philoshophy is from? hahahaha

read these

15. Those who were called skillful leaders of old knew
how to drive a wedge between the enemy's front and rear;
to prevent co-operation between his large and small divisions;
to hinder the good troops from rescuing the bad,
the officers from rallying their men.

29. The skillful tactician may be likened to the
shuai-jan. Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found
in the ChUng mountains. Strike at its head, and you
will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you
will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle,
and you will be attacked by head and tail both.

how the hell does Sun Tzu get involve in the discussion?

then Hendrik returns with above quate from Sun Tzu and a question saying after read the above and thinking about the implementation such as: be it a snake or an arm of Tan and Bong..... it doesnt matter, well, "what is WCK for you" ?

as it was said,

¥ý®]¤l®]¤l, «á®]¤l®]¤l.

Before Sun tzu (collected in) sun tzu,
after Sun Tzu (has been said in (suntzu)

hahahahahaha Wing Chun Kuen.
See, I get very specific. and I have not yet to see a post get so specific. Ok Let's time it, one second, two second..... when will anyone post anything real specific to back up your opinions?

.

yylee

10-08-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by duende
Yylee,

For me WC is primarily hardcore physics based martial science. I don't need to romanticize it.

the conspiracy lies between the contact point and the elbow, it is called a "lever" - hardcore physics right? ;)

Phenix

10-08-2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by PaulH
Hendrik,

Do you ever feel like Winnie the pooh trying to explain to the swarm of angry bees that you are harmless really when you touch their honey? Some of your stuffs are just too close for comfort! Hope you don't take me seriously. Go, Arnold!

Regards,

Go Arnold! hahaha. Life is a movie. :D

Read these from Sun tzu

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance
to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either
to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry
which can on no account be neglected.

26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many
calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.
The general who loses a battle makes but few
calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations
lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat:
how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention
to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

16. Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may
be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all;
amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head
or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat.

17. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline,
simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness
postulates strength.

The ancient sage said : ¬°¤Ñ¤U¥ß¤ß, ¬°ÉE¥@¶}¤Ó¤f
have you see anything without ¤ß or heart which stay long?

May be it is the time that we all have to work to ¬°¤Ñ¤U¥ß¤ß.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by yylee

the conspiracy lies between the contact point and the elbow, it is called a "lever" - hardcore physics right? ;)

Sure, but it is said, ¤â±q¤ßµo. hand issue from heart (mind)

So, is it only hand or it is from Heart (mind) and with awareness?

Phenix

10-08-2003, 07:41 AM

[i]to you, thus retaining the essence of the system.

Extremely effective self-defense is, in a manner of thinking, a by-product of correct training. It is not the goal. True Wing Chun is the journey, not the destination.
[/B]

Good point!

Phenix

10-08-2003, 07:53 AM

WCK represents the perfect harmony (balance/union) of:
* Combat: self defense,
* Health: Hei Gung/Faat Ging, and
* Philosophy: Chan Buddhism (Taoism, Confucianism, & Buddhism)...
...where each of the three areas are consistently reflected in each other. WCK is a path where we are taught to better understand oneself through an objective approach to reality - ultimately leading oneself to a true identity. As far as I know, there are only two systems in the world that hold to these three areas. -----S

great.

and please elaborate the philosophy into precise and concise if possible? and also the two only systems in the world, we all like to know about it, right?

Similar to TaijiChuan's philoshophy is TaiJi. Concise and precise.

If Taiji people starts with I-Ching Taoism, Lao Tzu, TCM.......... that is a way too messy, not focus, and gray . Don't you think so?

All of the how's and why's and what's to this answer I do not think are tolerable by the creator of this thread, so I'll leave it at that. Thumbs up Duende and Woseung!---S

I don't think anyone care about what the creator of this thread tolerable or not. If you have a reason, reason it out and show the factual evidents for the defence, so everyone can see, don't you think that is a good way?

Phenix

10-08-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by yuanfen

Wing chun began in a Chinese setting. In differring proportions -
buddhism, daoism, military theory, theories of the body(TCM)
are interwoven in that setting and legacy.

Technology transfer can vary with understanding of that setting and teaching, learning and practice..

Joy,

Great.
and once we build up and clear up the basic terms, the source ,and protocall . we can have a high speed transfer.

ntc

10-08-2003, 09:17 AM

Phenix,

I can see where the other people are coming from. If you re-read your postings in your answers to questions addressed or information given, your style of answering, especially in its cryptic and generic, questioning manner, does tend to give one an impression that you consider yourself above all others, regardless whether it was your intent or not. And the more vocal people will come out and comment like they have, and it is not the case that they are trying to attack you or something like that, but they feel like they are trying to answer the question posed on this thread yet don't feel you are quite doing the same. I think that if everyone stuck to specifics and really tried to share their own knowledge and wisdom WITHOUT forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others, that would help.

This is just an observation of mine, and not written as an intent to attack you or anyone else. I am Chinese, too, born and raised in China, have studied Lao Tzu and other Chinese philosophers like so many of you in this thread, and I believe a lot of good information is being shared here. Let's not let our egos or communication styles get in the way.

By the way, I don't recognize some of the usernames here, so in all likelihood, they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background and then flow back into your thougts of WCK.

yylee

10-08-2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Phenix

Sure, but it is said, ¤â±q¤ßµo. hand issue from heart (mind)

So, is it only hand or it is from Heart (mind) and with awareness?

that is called "conspiracies behind conspiracies" ;)

shhhhhhh.... don't blow the cover!

Phenix

10-08-2003, 10:29 AM

[NTC,

I can see where the other people are coming from.
If you re-read your postings in your answers to questions addressed or information given, your style of answering, especially in its cryptic and generic, questioning manner, does tend to give one an impression that you consider yourself above all others, regardless whether it was your intent or not. --NTC

Your observation can be true may be that is also your feeling which is perfectly valid.

Since I am not perfect, thus, certainly there is lots can be improve.

However, Cryptic of one person is plain and simple for others.
we all different.

with the Sun Tzu quoting I post here in details do you think that is Cryptic and generic?

As for above all others or not, it is people's impression.

Say, if you are defending your thesis in front of your major professors and other students.
will you have confident ?
So, other students might see one as acting as above all others but in the reality it is about confident not about above others right?

And the more vocal people will come out and comment like they have, and it is not the case that they are trying to attack you
or something like that, but they feel like they are trying to answer the question posed on this thread yet don't feel you are quite doing the same. ---NTC

the more voice is the better.
Obviously, some will like what I say and some will not. I don't get bother by it.

However,

As for it is a personal attack or not, if you re read the post and see who starts to make personal accusation and attacking?

As in Chinese it say, whoever is clean is clean.

I think that if everyone stuck to specifics and really tried to share their own knowledge and wisdom WITHOUT forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others, that would help.---NTC

Sure, agree.

however, as I bring up to you before.

not all Information is FACTS. and,
within FACTS is relevant or irrelevant.

Thus, presenting Relevant FACTS sure will be seem as forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others. Because in reality, subsconciously, we reject reality to protect our fantasy. And the best way to fight this is attacking the messenger instead of looking into the topic.

By the way, a collective of unrelated imformation is not Wisdom. Wisdom is the capability to see the whole and differentiate the information from the relevent facts. Sorry if this definition bother you.

This is just an observation of mine, and not written as an intent to attack you or anyone else. I am Chinese, too, born and raised in China, have studied Lao Tzu and other Chinese philosophers like so many of you in this thread, and I believe a lot of good information is being shared here. Let's not let our egos or communication styles get in the way. ---NTC

I certainly appreciate your opinion.
HOwever, since you are chinese, do you like to follow the some old Chinese attitude of Yes Man --- everyone is great. and accept claim making without the support of facts?

It is easy to smooth everyone's ego by agree with everything everyone making claim about to be budy budy.
But, does any one willing to talk about facts?

By the way, I don't recognize some of the usernames here, so in all likelihood, they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background and then flow back into your thougts of WCK. ---NTC

Thanks for you advise. However,

This post Started as What is WCK? and I post what is my view for the topic. NOT the truth of universe.

The rest everyone can elaborate. Thus, I don't see what is my background matters. It is an open discussion.

Remember the wingchun saying? -- learning has no senior or junior. He who masters the art is the teacher.

So, there might be new commer or new bee who is wise and presnet a great view.

Everyone can speak up what they feel, what they think, what they believe about the topic.

See, I don't believe in people who set themself up to be the oldest , or sifu say's , or the elder son with the secret teaching, and request the whole world to follow thier words, as it happen in old Chinese Culture where there is a Tribal structure.
We all see this type of structure doesn't work from the history.
It prevents one to have free thinking, to explore and model reality better. the tribal type of structure only forcing people to say yes to any information given by the sifu ---Sifu Says, we are the oldest. Sifu Says, our line is the best. Sifu Says.... but then who can guarentee sifu is not lying or making up stories and sifu himself has no abilities to differentiate between facts and just imformation. I appology for being straigh here. But, do you think this type of system will grow?

What is your believe?

So, again, let's not off topic
What is WCK philosophy for you? care to share?

[Censored]

10-08-2003, 10:35 AM

Casting pearls or throwing rocks? Sure, it's all the same...to swine. :D

Phenix

10-08-2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by [Censored]
Casting pearls or throwing rocks? Sure, it's all the same...to swine. :D

if pearls are not throwing out in tons. when will one be able to differentiate between rock and pearls?

Things always has to start somewhere.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by yylee

that is called "conspiracies behind conspiracies" ;)

shhhhhhh.... don't blow the cover!

See, in reality an elephant is just an elephant. That simple.
So, going through the different components of an elephant and showing the full picture of elephant is important.

Then, after had seen the elephant inside out. it is that simple. elephant is an elephant.

certainly, some will deny to see elephant because they love to study one single component of the elephant and call themself expert. and that is valid.

ntc

10-08-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Phenix

OK... here are my responses to your post addressed to me:

Say, if you are defending your thesis in front of your major professors and other students.
will you have confident ?
So, other students might see one as acting as above all others but in the reality it is about confident not about above others right?

--> There is a difference between confidence and humulity/respect for other's opinions.... the two should not be confused.

Thus, presenting Relevant FACTS sure will be seem as forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others. Because in reality, subsconciously, we reject reality to protect our fantasy. And the best way to fight this is attacking the messenger instead of looking into the topic.

--> What you have shared, you are saying that it is factual. You cannot disregard what others are saying as potentially non-factual unless they indicate that it was their own personal opinion. Quoting Lao Tzu is factual only as far as what Lao and the other philosophers have written.... the interpretation will likely differ between individual, and therefore is only a fact that a certain individual interpreted it a certain way. ONLY the original author can really say what was originally intended to be meant at the time of writing.

By the way, a collective of unrelated imformation is not Wisdom. Wisdom is the capability to see the whole and differentiate the information from the relevent facts. Sorry if this definition bother you.

--> What makes you think this bothers me? Cause it does not, not the least bit. You have the right to define wisdom based on your blief, and I can respect that, just as much as I have the right to define wisdom based on my belief.

I certainly appreciate your opinion.
HOwever, since you are chinese, do you like to follow the some old Chinese attitude of Yes Man --- everyone is great. and accept claim making without the support of facts?

--> First of all, I find that statement somewhat condescending and disrespectful to Chinese in general, so I don't really appreciate the remark. And that is not just for myself. I don't know which China you are referring to by stating that "old Chinese attitude of Yes Man", cause that is defnitely NOT an attitude found in the China I was born in !!! Yes, you do respect your elders and try not to argue with them as much, but that is out of respect for them as elders and NOT a MUST. In fact, I have found much more disagreements and confrontations amongst Chinese people than I have seen here in the US. Why do you think there was so much warring going on in China over the centuries... one of the key reasons was that there were points to prove and people were NOT yes-man. If they had been yes-man, everyone would have been slaves to the current emperor at the time, and events like the Tiannamen massacre would not have existed! Maybe the Chinese that you have encountered were Yes-man type, which is unfortunate for you because that is soooooo not true for Chinese in general.

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have "an old attitude of being yes-man", that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience.

It is easy to smooth everyone's ego by agree with everything everyone making claim about to be budy budy.
But, does any one willing to talk about facts?

--> I don't think everyone is trying to be "budy budy"... just more civil and respectful of each other's opinions, and making these discussion beneficial to everyone. Most people (and correct me whoever thinks I am wrong) are interested in and open to discussing facts. You don't have to go further than follow the discussion threads on the true history of WC. But is is when real facts mixed with perceived facts and pushed as the real stuff that will create controversies.

This post Started as What is WCK? and I post what is my view for the topic. NOT the truth of universe.

--> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins.... what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions... just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion.

The rest everyone can elaborate. Thus, I don't see what is my background matters. It is an open discussion.

--> Like you said, it is an open discussion. Perhaps people might want to know your background because you are apparently sharing a lot of information and people are genuinely interested in following in your footsteps. Maybe people think you are an idiot and want to avoid where you came from. Maybe people feel some common bond with you and your thoughts and wanted to validate this via your background. Who knows? Maybe people are wondering if you are a Taoist priest? Maybe people are wondering if you are a professional philosopher? a professional fighter? All this will stem as people become interested in what you are saying. After all, didn't you first read the philosopher's writings because they were well-known teachers of philosophy of their time and that caught your attention in the first place? There are soooo many books on philosophy out there.... why did you not pick any of the others? (again, I am not looking for your answer... just trying to make a point)

See, I don't believe in people who set themself up to be the oldest , or sifu say's , or the elder son with the secret teaching, and request the whole world to follow thier words, as it happen in old Chinese Culture where there is a Tribal structure.
We all see this type of structure doesn't work from the history.
It prevents one to have free thinking.

--> Again, I don't agree with you on this. Tribal communities do exist, I admit, and it is nowhere more obvious than in Chinatown communities. However, that does not imply that there are no free thinking.... it merely indicates that there are certain families of thought that are used as a basis of reasoning. A good example is republican versus democratic versus communist (etc.). They are everywhere... do they prevent free thinking? Not necessarily, but they do provide the guidelines based on which reasoning and actions are taken. This is practiced by everyone from all walks of like in everyday life.

I have one more comment to make. Please don't underestimate the knowledge that people who come to these threads have about Chinese (and Asian) culture in general. Some of them, though not Asian, have spent a lifetime's worth or close to them being very involved with our culture, and know much about it. And, just because we were born over there and not here in the US, that does not make us all-knowing either. By openly discussing with folks, we can all learn a great deal from all. And again, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE "Buddy Buddy" with everyone... I am just very interested in sharing thoughts and ideas, which is why I came here in the first place. I did not come here to confront anyone.... there is enough of that in the street, and I can look there if I ever want to pick a fight with someone.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 12:24 PM

NTC

--> What you have shared, you are saying that it is factual.

You cannot disregard what others are saying as potentially non-factual unless they indicate that it was their own personal opinion. --NTC

Sun Tzu is a factual of Chinese art or War philosophy for more then 2000 years old. disregards of personal opinion right?

And, it is beyong anyone's opinion that the Sun Tzu exist and within it does record philosophy used in WCK right?

Quoting Lao Tzu is factual only as far as what Lao and the other philosophers have written.... the interpretation will likely differ between individual, and therefore is only a fact that a certain individual interpreted it a certain way. ONLY the original author can really say what was originally intended to be meant at the time of writing. ---NTC

Factual and original are different things.

--> First of all, I find that statement somewhat condescending and disrespectful to Chinese in general, so I don't really appreciate the remark. And that is not just for myself. I don't know which China you are referring to by stating that "old Chinese attitude of Yes Man", cause that is defnitely NOT an attitude found in the China I was born in !!!

please re read my post. you must be reading too fast.

" SOME OLD Chinese attitude of Yes Man " not ALL.

If you read the Chinese histories, be it in Soong Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty .... the Royal generals or officials always executed by the emperors. and the YEs man and sweet talker always in high position. Why?

Yes, you do respect your elders and try not to argue with them as much, but that is out of respect for them as elders and NOT a MUST. ---NTC

To be fillia and respect elderly is great characteristic of Chinese.
Without the root, or the source of the water. there is no tree or water.

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have "an old attitude of being yes-man", that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. ---NTC

Again, it is record in the history we can see what happen there.

I just bring up the case, and you focus on " It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. " which is not nessary right?

--> I don't think everyone is trying to be "budy budy"... just more civil and respectful of each other's opinions, and making these discussion beneficial to everyone.

Most people (and correct me whoever thinks I am wrong) are interested in and open to discussing facts.

You don't have to go further than follow the discussion threads on the true history of WC.

But is is when real facts mixed with perceived facts and pushed as the real stuff that will create controversies.--- NTC

I agree with you.

--> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins.... what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions... just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion. --NTC

If you re read my post, instead of those side track post, I think you will have a good idea of what and how things are. Needs some thoughts and see if you agree with me.

--> Like you said, it is an open discussion. Perhaps people might want to know your background because you are apparently sharing a lot of information and people are genuinely interested in following in your footsteps.

Maybe people think you are an idiot and want to avoid where you came from.

Maybe people feel some common bond with you and your thoughts and wanted to validate this via your background. Who knows?

Maybe people are wondering if you are a Taoist priest? Maybe people are wondering if you are a professional philosopher? a professional fighter? All this will stem as people become interested in what you are saying.

After all, didn't you first read the philosopher's writings because they were well-known teachers of philosophy of their time and that caught your attention in the first place? There are soooo many books on philosophy out there.... why did you not pick any of the others? (again, I am not looking for your answer... just trying to make a point) -NTC

Honestly, I careless about who am I. If the idea I post sound interesting to anyone dig in, if not just leave it out.

I post this topic up so that everyone can present from different wide angle is the bottom line.

I have one more comment to make. ---NTC

Sure all comment are welcome.

Please don't underestimate the knowledge that people who come to these threads have about Chinese (and Asian) culture in general. Some of them, though not Asian, have spent a lifetime's worth or close to them being very involved with our culture, and know much about it. And, just because we were born over there and not here in the US, that does not make us all-knowing either. By openly discussing with folks, we can all learn a great deal from all. And again, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE "Buddy Buddy" with everyone... I am just very interested in sharing thoughts and ideas, which is why I came here in the first place. I did not come here to confront anyone.... there is enough of that in the street, and I can look there if I ever want to pick a fight with someone. --NTC

Good point. Understood and thanks.

Certainly,
It will be great for the experts to steps in because rising the bar is a great things.

BUt, you still own me on :D

What is WCK philosophy for you? care to share?

taltos

10-08-2003, 12:25 PM

NTC,

Well done! Your points were non-confrontational, timely, and appropriate for everyone here. Very commendable. You set a good baseline for us all.

FWIW, I am a Caucasian American Born and Raised. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Anthropology, with a minor in Religous Studies and History. I specialized my course work in Asian Studies. I have been studying the Yip Man Lineage of Wing Chun through the Ving Tsun Museum's Curriculum since 1997, and I have been studying the Hung Fa Yi Lineage of Wing Chun since 2000. I am also a practicing Buddhist.

Not that any of that gives me any credibility or authority whatsoever, but as you said, "they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background." Although that wasn't specifically directed at me, it is certainly appropriate to all.

So, I believe the original question was "What is WCK?" Well, to me Wing Chun Kuen is the collection of principles and concepts that facilitates maximum fighting efficiency for the human form. I could go on and on with the internal aspects, the philosophy, et al, but that's the end product to me, so that's the heart of the matter to me.

Thank you again for a grounding post.

-Levi

Phenix

10-08-2003, 12:35 PM

Levi,

Great, since you have a great back ground.

So care to share

What is WCK philosophy for you?

say , in the form as Taiji for Taijichuan?

PaulH

10-08-2003, 12:44 PM

I have a distinct impression that this thread is a moving testimony of that famous poetic line: "How do I love thee, let me show you a few things..."

Touching on WC philosophy, I am impressed again by that marvelous Lebanese genius, K. Gilbran who independently arrive at the core of the whole WC matter, i.e., individual freedom.

"On Freedom

And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom."

And he answered:

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,

Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.

Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.

And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.

You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,

But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?

In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.

And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?

If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.

You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.

And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.

For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?

And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.

And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.

Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.

These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.

And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.

And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom. "

Change or Freedom. Take your pick. I'm easy going. Ha! Ha!

taltos

10-08-2003, 12:54 PM

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking in terms of "say , in the form as Taiji for Taijichuan?", but how about this:

TO ME, the core philosophy of Wing Chun is to perceive and acknowledge reality. In manifestation, this has two facets:

In application, Wing Chun is designed to address what is REAL and what is EFFICIENT.

In training, the methodologies of Wing Chun are designed to expose and eliminate what is ILLUSION and what is UNNECCESSARY.

Combat is no place to discover what works and what doesn't, and training is no place to fight until the fatal, bitter end. The progenitors of Wing Chun realized this, and managed to create a system that allowed both facets if the art to be expressed and realized without one contradicting the other, or without the need of multiple philosophies. That, in and of itself, is a magnificent accomplishment. However, the only way those two facets can function in tandem is when the student has the proper mindset, and is aware of WHAT they are doing, and WHY, at all times. Without this proper mind set, the system and the methodologies can be corrupted and perverted, with the effect ranging from a simple personal expression of a minor difference, to entirely new forms and lineages.

From where I stand right now in my Kung Fu Journey, that's how things look to me.

-Levi

ntc

10-08-2003, 01:02 PM

Taltos: thank you, and it is really great to hear that you are into Buddhism. I think that there is a lot to be said about how the Buddhists approach life in general, and the resulting harmony and tranquility that comes from the approach.

ntc

10-08-2003, 01:28 PM

Phenix: thanks for the reply and I appreciate the feedback. Here are my comments:

Originally posted by Phenix

And, it is beyong anyone's opinion that the Sun Tzu exist and within it does record philosophy used in WCK right?

--> in general, I will agree with you on this, because the discussed philosophy of war is definitely used by martial artists who have a good solid foundation of the art of war, like most of us here. However, there will be some people who are not into/ignore the philosophical aspects of this and who focus ONLY/MAINLY on how defeat/maim/hurt the opponent. Regarding these people, I will disagree with you that it is beyond ANYONE'S opinion, because this group of people will have the opinion that Sun Tzu does not exist. Period. Regarding Sun Tzu in WCK, since his works pertain to martial arts in general, and WCK being one of the arts, it would definitely have a belonging there.

Factual and original are different things.

--> Agree only to a certain extent, because the origin of something cannot be denied and are part of factuals. Other factuals may result over time (such as... did Yip Man really learn WCK and teach WCK? the answer is of course "yes", but this has no correlation to how/when Wing Chun was born. Both are facts, and one is both a fact and original)

If you read the Chinese histories, be it in Soong Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty .... the Royal generals or officials always executed by the emperors. and the YEs man and sweet talker always in high position. Why?

--> Remember that NOT everyone in China was in the military or belonged to the government. For those in the government, the way how the emperors rules was via intimidation and fear... if you obey, you will be ok, if not, then beware. Pretty much the same that happened in Iraq. However, there were also a lot of people who were not in the government. I am sure most everyone in this thread have read about uprising against the emperors and governors in olden days China... these are definitely NOT yes-man.

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have "an old attitude of being yes-man", that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. ---NTC

Again, it is record in the history we can see what happen there.

I just bring up the case, and you focus on " It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. " which is not nessary right?

--> My point was raised not out of confrontation purposes, but to indicate that unless it is clear whether a point you made is your own interpretation or an actual fact supported by evidence, you will very likely stir up a possible controversy and challenges by others in a negative way.

--> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins.... what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions... just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion. --NTC

If you re read my post, instead of those side track post, I think you will have a good idea of what and how things are. Needs some thoughts and see if you agree with me.

--> I agree and disagree with you. However one thing is clear, there are people on this thread and elsewhere who are somewhat uncomfortable with some of your posts, and maybe all it takes is some clarification and everything will be ok. Good communication is not easy, and it does not take much to mis-communicate. Some form of clarification is always never too many and is oftentimes welcome to promote clear, precise communication.

Honestly, I careless about who am I. If the idea I post sound interesting to anyone dig in, if not just leave it out.

Well, the same should hold true for everyone, including yourself and myself. Like you said as well, everyone has his/her own opinion, and we should respect that. If there is something you don't buy into, you can always leave it out. If you have something worth discussing, table it. However, things are different when you try to (or appear to try to) make a point that is THE correct point. That is when things get stirred up. I personally don't take an interest in your background at all... I like reading some of your posts. But I can definitely see how some of the posts can come across to you trying to show that you are the one with the correct answers. And based on our discussion, it seems like this is far from the truth, in which case, it won't hurt to just add some form of clarification.

passing_through

10-08-2003, 02:01 PM

Hendrik,

For me the core philosophy of WCK is Sun TZu the art of War. The back ground of Sun Tzu is I-Ching. and the implementation is WCK.

Your statement is unnecessarily vague. There are (at least) two possible readings:

1) The core philosophy of WCK is Sun Tzu's Art of War (the background of Sun Tzu is I-Ching) and the implementation (of Sun Tzu's Art of War) is WCK.

2) The core philosophy of WCK is Sun Tzu's Art of War. The background of Sun Tzu is the I-Ching. The implementation (of The I-Ching) is WCK.

Statement 1 can be reduced to Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu Art of War
Statement 2 can be reduced to Wing Chun = Implementation of I-Ching

Now, for the sake of argument, suppose my take on Sun Tzu is not as Philosophy but as simple, practical military thinking of a strategic nature. As such, I can find correlation between Sun Tzu and quite a variety of topics, even when the author is wholly ignorant of the Art of War. By way of analogy, there is such a book as "The Tao of Pooh" discussing the nature of Taoism through the medium of a storybook bear's actions - but this does not mean that A.A. Milne was thinking of Taoism when he wrote the original stories.

But, regardless of all that above, and your follow-up posts you haven't answered your own question. The best you've come is to state: WCK is an implementation of methodology based on Philoshophy.

Wow! What, in life and the real world, is NOT an implementation of methodology based on Philosophy?

You then went further stating, "Buddhism's mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM is just a part of the unique implementation named WCK." Is the I-Ching and Sun Tzu part of Buddhism? You've tried to argue that Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu Art of War and now you're adding something else into the mix. If your addition is true, then you left out the % of WCK that is Buddhist based and the % is I-Ching based from your initial argument.

Also, if your addition is true, then your initial position (Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu ) is false. You’ve stated numerous times that Buddhism espouses non-killing as a virtue (not in those words, but words to that effect). Therefore, the study of war and Buddhism are antithesis of each other. As an aside, Sun Tzu is I-Ching based not Buddhist based (you’re conjecture). Therefore, you can't hold Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu + Buddhism's mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM as valid because the logic contradicts itself.

Should your initial position have been, Wing Chun = unique implementation of Sun Tzu’s Art of War WITH Buddhism’s mind cultivation/white crane/TCM)? If so, that begs a question: Can there be other arts that are differently unique implementations of the same? Or… ah well, these questions are just Hell, aren’t they?

As for it is a personal attack or not, if you re read the post and see who starts to make personal accusation and attacking?

Um.. re-reading this whole thread, in school yard parlance "you started it." And we've been down that road before. Rather than simply state what you have to state, you try to get in some crack at others. Very mature.

"no new paradigm shift at the end of Ming dynasty, if yes, one can brought that phylosophy up"

Yes (Saam Mo Kiu) - which has been discussed to death on this form and gone nowhere. You refuse to accept any proofs except those you deem worthy – which means there is no discussion possible. You’re right, all else are wrong because you have different standards of evidence. When something is posted from someone with which you disagree, you challenge the credibility of the source. When the same action is turned to you, you cry out that you’re being attacked personally.

As for being Cryptic... you're certainly not clean. But I'm not Chinese. And your constant mention of being Chinese is ultimately an ad Hominem attack. By asking if people are Chinese you're questioning the capability of the person, not their argument. Odd that you do what you complain others are doing to you. Seems to me that if something is wrong, it's wrong. Asking their level of training/familiarity with Chinese classics also can become an ad Hominem attack very easily (How much have you studied "classic X" because anyone with any knowledge would know you're saying something stupid.") - it becomes an appeal to authority, which is also a fallacy.

And finally,

if so certainly method will have to be UPDATE every era since environment Changes.

In regards to environment: f=ma is correct unless we have to factor in gravity or moving at relativistic speeds. However, factoring in gravity or moving at relativistic speeds does not “change the environment” in regards to f=ma - it includes factors that were always part of the environment, but which are usually safe to ignore. When Einstein came up with relativity and special relativity he didn’t change the Universe. He only changed the human understanding of the Universe by adding more variables. However, this new understanding only becomes relevant when moving at relativistic speeds or caught in an extreme gravitation force like when “skimming” black holes (which may or may not exist).

if you want the relativistic version of F=ma, it’s F= d/dt (mv), or it can also be written as F=dp/dt, where p=mv. If you want to understand it, the acceleration a in the original form can also be written as dv/dt, the derivative of velocity over time. The Newtonian version assumes that the mass m is constant; the relativistic version simply moves the mass into the derivative so that the mass can also vary over time (if the mass remains constant, the equation reduces to the Newtonian version). You can convert from invariant mass to relativistic mass with the equation: mr = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Put more generally, you made as assertion about the Taiji... can the TAIJI change? Not the human understanding of the manifestations of the TAIJI, but the TAIJI itself. If "all is change" - can "all is change" be changed? Your assertion is false.

No formular works all the time and forever in real life.

In regards to formula: Quadratic formula works all the time for the purpose for which it exists. Your assertion is false.

Before attacking a concept, you should make sure you understand it in the first place rather than attacking a straw man. And as been touched on before, the formula has been discussed to the point that more words are meaningless. To understand the formula, take a trip and experience it for yourself. There's a HFY workshop this weekend in Phoenix - gonna talk about HFY, history and Chan... might make for an interesting weekend for some of the KFO members.

Jeremy R.

reneritchie

10-08-2003, 02:27 PM

Hey Jeremy,

Enjoyable post, as usual.

Einstein might have changed the universe, only something outside of it would know for sure. The universe might change all the time, as part of it, we really wouldn't know.

By way of analogy, there is such a book as "The Tao of Pooh" discussing the nature of Taoism through the medium of a storybook bear's actions - but this does not mean that A.A. Milne was thinking of Taoism when he wrote the original stories.

This was what i was trying to say a long time ago WRT WCK and Buddhism (that Buddhism might be used to discuss WCK, but that this does not mean the developers of WCK were thinking of Buddhism). I'll have to keep an eye out for the Tao of Pooh.

Chango

10-08-2003, 03:13 PM

Rene,

<quote> This was what i was trying to say a long time ago WRT WCK and Buddhism (that Buddhism might be used to discuss WCK, but that this does not mean the developers of WCK were thinking of Buddhism). I'll have to keep an eye out for the Tao of Pooh.

--- This then brings us back to subject of history. It is clear for some as to if the "devlelopers had buddism in mind". This being evident by the historical paths.Of course some disagree and will nomatter what is placed before them. however To keep things P.C. not going down the history road I can only only say that there are a few WCK lineages that have Buddhism at their very core as a matter of fact the practice of these lineages material can be simply put as a form of Buddhist meditation. I find this to be quite fascinating and enriching to the spirit as I learn more. These lesson add just another facet and demention to the practice of Martial arts. I hope others get the opertunity to experience this as well. If you have not exprience this I hope you will with more insite.

Sifu Chango Noaks

ZIM

10-08-2003, 04:14 PM

This is the Lit-Crit corner, so I'd thought it'd be thoughtful to supply a link for free acrobat e-books. (http://www.blackmask.com/page.php?do=page)

There one will find Art of War, Dhammapadda, Buddhist writings, Tao Te Ching, Book of Five Rings, Kahlil Gibran, Clauswitz's On War [for equal time], some Einstein and physics works... but NO Tao of Pooh, sorry.

Everybody should at least be on the same page. ;) :p

PaulH

10-08-2003, 04:30 PM

Thank you for this most enlightening link, Zim!

Regards,

Phenix

10-08-2003, 05:34 PM

NTC,

--> in general, I will agree with you on this, because the discussed philosophy of war is definitely used by martial artists who have a good solid foundation of the art of war, like most of us here.

However, there will be some people who are not into/ignore the philosophical aspects of this and who focus ONLY/MAINLY on how defeat/maim/hurt the opponent.

Regarding these people, I will disagree with you that it is beyond ANYONE'S opinion, because this group of people will have the opinion that Sun Tzu does not exist. Period. Regarding Sun Tzu in WCK, since his works pertain to martial arts in general, and WCK being one of the arts, it would definitely have a belonging there.---NTC

You certainly welcome to disagree with me.

As for the people who are not into/ignore the philosophical aspects.....

Say, the "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail).
people doesn't have to know where the philosophy of it is from however they practice it. Right?

Look at this,

--- Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found
in the ChUng mountains. Strike at its head, and you
will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you
will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle,
and you will be attacked by head and tail both.--- Sun Tzu

So, it is not about discussion of philosophy or not. it is there. even if some choose to ignore it, the idea is there 2500 years ago right?

Now, when asking the question WHAT IS WCK?

we have to look into where all these things are from.

and we cannot deny the Sun Tzu's influence on WCK either if one discuss or not discuss philosophy right?

--> Remember that NOT everyone in China was in the military or belonged to the government.

For those in the government, the way how the emperors rules was via intimidation and fear... if you obey, you will be ok, if not, then beware. Pretty much the same that happened in Iraq.

However, there were also a lot of people who were not in the government. I am sure most everyone in this thread have read about uprising against the emperors and governors in olden days China... these are definitely NOT yes-man. ---NTC

How many years the Emperor dictatorship system rule China?
Thousand of years right? people are condition sutlely after thousand of years of living under those environment.

Be in Goverment or not,
How many dare to even to cut thier pigs tail and lost thier head in Qing Dynasty?

There sure were some Royal Officias who speak the truth, but very rare . As can be read in the history.

I pray the one who stand infront of the array of tanks. But where is he now?

--> My point was raised not out of confrontation purposes, but to indicate that unless it is clear whether a point you made is your own interpretation or an actual fact supported by evidence, you will very likely stir up a possible controversy and challenges by others in a negative way. -NTC

Do you think the American landed in Moon is one's interpretation?

There are still some older people don't believe in the American had landed in Moon while in the Moon cake featival.
So, how do you stop the possible controversy and challenges by these people in a negative way?

--> I agree and disagree with you. However one thing is clear, there are people on this thread and elsewhere who are somewhat uncomfortable with some of your posts, and maybe all it takes is some clarification and everything will be ok.

Good communication is not easy, and it does not take much to mis-communicate. Some form of clarification is always never too many and is oftentimes welcome to promote clear, precise communication. -NTC

There certainly always others who will feel uncomfortable with the fact that the American Landed on moon. Some because they have fantasy. Some because they pray to the Moon Goddess and there goes their believe system. Some will worried that they will no longer sell thier moon cake. Every one will have a reason right?

I agree with you communication is difficult.
And it is even more difficult to those who pray to the Moon Goddess disregard how clear one see on tv the video clip of Apolo 11's landing.

--->Well, the same should hold true for everyone, including yourself and myself. Like you said as well, everyone has his/her own opinion, and we should respect that. If there is something you don't buy into, you can always leave it out. If you have something worth discussing, table it.

However, things are different when you try to (or appear to try to) make a point that is THE correct point. --NTC

May be next time you want to come with me, to explain about the American has landed on the moon decade ago; so that those old aunties will not accuse me on making THE correct point. or calling me smart axx :D

That is when things get stirred up. I personally don't take an interest in your background at all... I like reading some of your posts.

But I can definitely see how some of the posts can come across to you trying to show that you are the one with the correct answers.

And based on our discussion, it seems like this is far from the truth, in which case, it won't hurt to just add some form of clarification. ---NTC

Communication needs some basic understanding and a patient to listern. without that it is difficult.

WCK is a very difficult subject.

Hopefully, people understand somedays that the attainment of
Åéµý is the key. without ¤¤¤ß«ä¸ô or ¤ßªk. attainment is next to impossible . No to mention if there is Nam Yin Bak Chek. Using the trafic rule of south for the North. that is a kiss of death.

You know, in Chan. One force the heck out of the followers that is called ¹G¤H¹G¹Ò. without that how can the next generation be great is it said.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 05:48 PM

Levi,

Great post.

Jeremy,

One can make assumption, have perfect arguement setting with one's own logic, to conclude on how a white horse is not a horse right?

As for " (Saam Mo Kiu) - which has been discussed to death on this form and gone nowhere. You refuse to accept any proofs except those you deem worthy ?"

Following your logic pattern: ( hope you don't mind. )

since there is no factual evident that Yat Chan exist thus everything come after based on him Such as SAM MO KIU doesn't exist, right?

since there is no factual evident that Tan Sau Ng doing WCK thus everything come after based on Tan Sau Ng such as SAM MO KIU doesnt exist , Right?

How can you prove with Factual evidents that the term Saam MO Kiu is not an invention of modern time?

You know, I don't like these type of Logic because it doesn't seem to be right. So, well, ignore all the above logical derivation according to your logical pattern.

Back to the topic.

So what is the philosophy of WCK according to you?

Phenix

10-08-2003, 06:05 PM

Hey Rene,

So what is your philosophy of WCK?

As for TaijIChun is TaiJi?

hahahhaa. every one get the same question.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Chango
Rene,

<quote>
--- This then brings us back to subject of history.

It is clear for some as to if the "devlelopers had buddism in mind".

This being evident by the historical paths.

Of course some disagree and will nomatter what is placed before them.

however To keep things P.C. not going down the history road I can only only say that there are a few WCK lineages that have Buddhism at their very core as a matter of fact the practice of these lineages material can be simply put as a form of Buddhist meditation.

I find this to be quite fascinating and enriching to the spirit as I learn more. These lesson add just another facet and demention to the practice of Martial arts. I hope others get the opertunity to experience this as well. If you have not exprience this I hope you will with more insite.

Sifu Chango Noaks

So for you what is WCK's philosophy ?

Savi

10-08-2003, 09:41 PM

The "What is the philosophy of WCK?" is such a broad question to ask to such a broad audience here. It is really dependant on what lineage is being addressed. In this case, Hendrik is actually asking for every lineage's philosophy - in which case there is not one correct or incorrect answer. Why? There are over a dozen well known lineages out there, and each generation in each family may have their own philosophy regarding what they were taught. Others are quite clear of what the philosophy of their WCK is all the way back to their origins. Hendrik seems to be asking for a specific "blanket" answer to all WCK when there is not (pointing back to our diversity).

There are some schools whose only focus is on the teaching of techniques and methods. There are schools out there only teaching techniques and nothing else. There are even schools out there who don't even teach the Why's and How's or What's to what they teach. So to ask the original question of "What is WCK?" or even "What is the philosophy of WCK" is either:

1. bait to brag about his own perceived 'WCK', or

2. an honest question pointing to the fact that he doesn't know his own material.

While there are people out there searching for answers in other styles to the questions they have of their own WCK, there are also people out there who understand the WCK they study and live. Those are the ones who understand their WCK inside and out. There is no other way around it, and that is what we must face.

canglong

10-08-2003, 10:04 PM

NTC
welcome to my world excellent post wish I could say the same about some of the replies you have received.
The last 2 pages have all been very well thought out and presented with uncommon clarity not usually seen on these pages well done to all those participating.

Savi, Exactly as I pointed out earlier hendrik has now changed the question in an attempt to rescue himself from the limb he now hangs from.
What is WCK? this does not =
So for you what is WCK's philosophy ? Once again you have lost focus in a thread you started.

Phenix

10-08-2003, 10:11 PM

There is a story about a father trying to force his young son to go for hair cutting.

So, instead of the father asking the son --- Do you want to cut your hair.

The father said, " Do you want uncle or auntie to cut your hair? "

Those mis-leading Technics in arquement is great.

However, it is just an arguement trick.
In addition, There sure lots and lots of tricks.

some such as :
trying to pick everything apart, using wild logic, and provide false conclusion...bombard one with different attack from lots of others.... to over flow and to force the other party into control....

Win with those tricks only shows one knows the trick. Lost to it doesnt mean anything about knowing the topic of discussion or not.

I am not going to cut my hair. So don't ask me I would like Uncle or Auntie to cut my hair. :D

What's new under the Sun (Tzu)? None.
As it said, before Sun Tzu Sun Tzu, after Sun Tzu Sun Tzu. right? hahaha

don't spent time on me.
I am just a no body not worthed for your time.

Get back to the topic.
So what is WCK's philosophy for you? if you rather like it boarder What is WCK for you?

PS. I am leaving for business trip for weeks. so have fun! Bye Bye...

Savi

10-09-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Phenix
There is a story about a father trying to force his young son to go for hair cutting.

So, instead of the father asking the son --- Do you want to cut your hair. The father said, " Do you want uncle or auntie to cut your hair? "

Those mis-leading Technics in arquement is great.

However, it is just an arguement trick. In addition, There sure lots and lots of tricks. So now this has become a psychological game has it? Here several people present their views of the topic and how it has been presented, but you call it "mis-leading Technics & arguement trick" Actually, your last post is exactly what you are claiming others are using.

My Sisuk Jeremy (passing through) has an uncanny wit to see the strengths and weaknesses of many things to such a depth I cannot express. Woseung and Duende are also no different in relation to identifying illusions vs reality. Canglong has his own communication style - yet we all seem to see the same thing - even though we are from different parts of the world. What trick is it that you are talking about here? Sorry yo, I don't see how your hair cut story has any bearing here.

Originally posted by Phenix
some such as :
trying to pick everything apart, using wild logic, and provide false conclusion...bombard one with different attack from lots of others.... to over flow and to force the other party into control....

Win with those tricks only shows one knows the trick. Lost to it doesnt mean anything about knowing the topic of discussion or not. So now this "anti-historian" (quoted from Hendrik in another thread) uncovers his intentions. I had no idea that you started this thread with an intent for control/power. This reminds me of one of the six states of Samsara... And perceiving several of these 'counter-to-your-posts' posts as attacks only confirms passing through's assessment of your tactics. There is no trick here, no hocus pocus, not even an attack.

Originally posted by Phenix
don't spent time on me. I am just a no body not worthed for your time. Get back to the topic. You know, this isn't about you at all. I have no idea how you got that impression... Martial Arts as a whole is about understanding reality through the removal of illusions. It doesn't matter if it's combat, or cyber talk. That's what all this is about.

Originally posted by Phenix
So what is WCK's philosophy for you? if you rather like it boarder What is WCK for you? I already answered, guess you aren't really following your own thread? Have fun on your trip. BTW, no one here has advised you to get a haircut (as in forcing you to believe/recognize what others can identify with).

planetwc

10-09-2003, 02:17 AM

His point was, you only offered 2 choices in your post, just like the haircut.

ie when did you stop beating your wife?

There might be a third option to those you listed which is to ask people what they view WCK to be from their own perspective.

Then again, maybe there is no spoon. :)

Where that leaves the Tick, I'm not sure.

================
So to ask the original question of "What is WCK?" or even "What is the philosophy of WCK" is either:

1. bait to brag about his own perceived 'WCK', or

2. an honest question pointing to the fact that he doesn't know his own material.

anerlich

10-09-2003, 04:58 AM

"and what is the philosophy behind WCK As equal to TaiJi of TaiJichuan according to you?"

I have neither an opinion on nor interest in that particular subject.

Hope that is clear enough.

Mckind13

10-09-2003, 07:22 AM

While I am carrying a full load in school, I do not have allot of time to post. I have followed this thread though and I think it has been good so far. :)

Some points of contention:

In a discussion about a single topic it is okay to change the focus of your initial assertion. It makes the conversation interesting and can lead to thus far unexplored areas of debate.

It is amusing how some people like to jump on Hendrick en mass over presumed threat (?). Get over yourselves. If your belief system is so fixed then what’s the worries. If you are insecure or something.

When training, sometimes it is good to be the one who is struck and pushed and at the disadvantage. It teaches us a certain type of skill and awareness. It also improves our training partners skills. Play in the forum and discuss bring up new ideas and see where it leads.

What is my Wing Chun?

Facing, Changing, Breaking, Controlling and Regaining the Centerline.

WCK is to me perfecting my understanding of the Wing Chun principles to the point that adaptation to a situation is as fast as possible. It is walking the middle path between adherence to the form of the art and the functional application of its techniques.

My image of the art adjusts every time I experience something new. Thus far I have not had to rethink the principles just rethink the practical way of applying them.

Wing Chun comes from the heart - the mind directs the intention, they both have to be aware.

David

passing_through

10-09-2003, 08:22 AM

Hendrik,

One can make assumption, have perfect arguement setting with one's own logic, to conclude on how a white horse is not a horse right?

I don’t believe you - I’d like to see that argument.

Regardless, I fail to see how your statement is germane to the discussion at hand. I used YOUR assumptions, not mine. I restated them - you’re free to correct me if I misstated them. However my conclusions/statements/comments stand. Are you saying that your inital assuptions were false?

Or are you insinuating something? If insinuating something, speak directly and be done with it. Playing games is a waste of time.

You know, I don't like these type of Logic because it doesn't seem to be right. So, well, ignore all the above logical derivation according to your logical pattern.

Your logic is sound but your conclusions are incorrect because you’re initial assumptions are false. And you’re making a straw man argument again.

Back to the topic.
So what is the philosophy of WCK according to you?

huh? That’s the topic? I thought the topic was, “what is WCK?”… that IS the name of the thread… oh, drat… now I’m being all tricky by pointing out how you’ve changed the direction of your questioning.

In regards to cutting hair… was that story a non-sequitur or did you actually have a point?

some such as :
trying to pick everything apart, using wild logic, and provide false conclusion

Using fallacies, like you have done in this thread several times, is playing tricks. If you’re accusing someone of committing a Fallacy you should simply state the Fallacy being used and prove it rather than being implicit about it. However, there is something to be said about being implicit. Being “subtle” and implicit you don’t actually have to prove that someone’s statements are actual fallacies. You can just insinuate it and not have to prove anything… You’re committing a “Tu Quoque” - "You, also" or "You're another" (Latin)

You’re pointing out (through implication) a false dichotomy that doesn’t actually have anything to do with the subject (What is WCK). By doing so, you are trying to distract attention away from the substantive points I’ve made about your logical errors. If you feel I’ve tried to pick everything apart, state where and prove that picking things apart is some kind of Fallacy. If you feel I’ve used wild logic, state where and prove the logic is wild. If you feel I’ve made false conclusions, state where and prove the conclusion is false.

Jeremy R.

passing_through

10-09-2003, 08:29 AM

David,

In a discussion about a single topic it is okay to change the focus of your initial assertion.

Be that as it may, Hendrik has at different times, asked “What is WCK” and “What is the philosophy of WCK”, claiming both as the topic of this thread. I submit that neither is the topic of this thread and his insistence on returning to the topic of the thread is misleading. This topic of this thread is some as yet unspecified implicit insinuation as to the validity of certain Wing Chun families. It is evidenced in his initial post. I pointed that out in my reply to him, which he ignored by coming after me instead of defending his assumptions and insinuations.

It is amusing how some people like to jump on Hendrick en mass over presumed threat

I don’t reply to Hendrik over presumed threat. I reply to him when he makes vague, vacuous statements that are illogical. Making conclusions based on false assumptions leads to false conclusions. Simple as that. Collecting bits of information is not wisdom. Purporting to be innocent in intent when it can be demonstrated that intent is not innocent kinda bugs me.

WCK is to me perfecting my understanding of the Wing Chun principles to the point that adaptation to a situation is as fast as possible. It is walking the middle path between adherence to the form of the art and the functional application of its techniques.

This begs the question, what are the Wing Chun Principles? I presume the Kuen is the application of the principles… but the principles remain undefined in your post.

By your statement of “Wing Chun comes from the heart” are we to conclude that Wing Chun Principles come from the heart? If not, from where do Wing Chun Principles come? If yes, are all things from the heart = Wing Chun? That sounds kinda dangerous to me. Is there another interpretation of what you were saying? Or were you just being vague on purpose? 'Cause, you know, Hendrik wants answers in the format of "Taiji to Taijiquan as ? to Wing Chun". Oh, wait, I’m asking too many questions.

And before anyone asks, as for me “what is WCK?” Yes. One good vagueosity deserves another. :rolleyes:

Jeremy R.

ntc

10-09-2003, 08:39 AM

Mckind, wanted to comment on your observations:

Originally posted by Mckind13
While I am carrying a full load in school, I do not have allot of time to post. I have followed this thread though and I think it has been good so far. :)

--> Good luck in your studies at school.

It is amusing how some people like to jump on Hendrick en mass over presumed threat (?). Get over yourselves. If your belief system is so fixed then what’s the worries. If you are insecure or something.

--> I think you may have misinterpreted this thread. No one on this thread is attacking Hendrick OR feel threatened. Actually, from the responses to the "what is WCK question" thus far, the contrary has surfaced... seems like most people have a very good understanding of WCK and how they describe its value to them is very, very encouraging and refreshing.

The debate here has been the cryptic way in which Hendrick (I assume that is phenix... if not, boy, am I way out of line, and I apologize, in which case, totally ignore this post) is communicating, and there is a request for clarity on which of his remarks are facts (since he is so intent on emphasizing), or individual viewpoints, which most of us are sharing and the question is apparently asking. Also, people as just requesting him to be just a bit more specific in what he is trying to say versus going around a big philosophical block, some of which don't necessarily apply here. I think folks here are genuinely interested in knowing about people's perceptions of WCK, which is why they are here, and if a certain proven fact was shared, I know that these folks will be excited to know that they have attained some additional knowledge and would move to do some more research themselves. However, before they did that, they also wanted to be able to know if someone was posting someone's own opinion or a true fact.

And thanks for sharing your thoughts on WCK.

ntc

10-09-2003, 08:52 AM

Phenix:

Thanks for your reply post. I am not going to comment on your responses, as I can respect your right to communicate the way you want to and think as you would as well. However, I will say that it does appear that some of your points contradict themselves and is oftentimes confusing, and some of the reasoning puts a big question mark on my face. Oh well....

Regarding the cultural topic, it is also too bad, in MY opinion, that you see the Chinese history as being so suppressive and that this is such a focal point of your impression of the culture (based on your own statements), even though vaying levels of suppression certainly does exist throughout its existence. at the same time, all societies exhibit some form of suppression here and there (eg, we all have to pay taxes, right? In all honesty, if I had the choice to decide whether to pay taxes or not, it would be to NOT pay taxes. But alas, that is not for me to decide... I am told that I have to pay taxes or I will be legally punished, and so I am paying taxes. And, yes, I know very well where the taxes go to and why they are important.) Personally, my love for my culture is around, among other things, the many philosophies, art forms (kung fu and otherwise), beautiful country, work ethics, family values, and strong, persevering attitude of the people. It is also so nice to see so many immigrants come to the US and abroad, as now they are able to share this with everyone else, and at the same time, learn new things that they can bring back home as well. And, mind you, I am NOT trying to be "buddy buddy" here.... I am just sharing my viewpoint about my culture. And can you say that I am idealistic?? You can and perhaps I am.... and certainly nothing wrong with that... that is just who I am and who God made me out to be.

And so, like you said, back to the original question "what is WCK", and I am going to end my debate with you. Or, has it now changed to "what is WCK to you philosophically", or "does WCK adopt Lao Tzu".... or ???

By the way, the person who faced the tank during the massacre is alive and well in China with his family... I saw a documentary with him in it taken recently during the anniversary of the massacre. So, no, his confrontation did NOT cause him his life, his head, his hand, or his fingers.

ntc

10-09-2003, 08:56 AM

Passing_through: excellent points and obervations.

ntc

10-09-2003, 09:32 AM

Oh yes, someone pointed out to me that I had not addressed what WCK is to me personally.

Well....

As a fighting art:
I have found WCK to be a very effective fighting art, and especially in street fight types. The charateristics of the art (passive, yet aggressive; soft, yet hard; leveraging your opponent's strength and size to your advantage) works very well for me based on my own personality and physical size. The no-nonsense, direct, centerline theory-based approach has been proven to be very effecient and effective in confrontations with other people. WCK also emphasizes on you building/developing a set of natural tools/weapons that you can conjure up very naturally if you are ever in a confrontation. For example, a natural reaction for most people (trained or untrained in WCK, or otherwise), is that is something is suddenly seen to be coming towards your eyes, you will naturally be inclined to (a) duck, (b) close your eyes, (c) reach out to block/parry the object, (d) do something to avoid the object (of course, if you have very slow reaction, there is also the chance that you will be hit by the object). Nonetheless, the point here is that a natural reaction will arise from you to get away from the object.

It is also something that I am very happy that I possess that I hope never to have to use in a life-threatening situation. But I know that if I were with my family in a hostile environment, I would be very glad that I knew WCK for survival's sake and protection of my family.

From a philosophical point of view:
WCK has allowed me to push myself beyond my earlier percieved boundaries. It has been able to give me confidence and to take risk, not to mention face undesired results with a positive outlook. I find that the more I practice WCK, the more of an impact it has on my personality (in a good way). I am much less rowdy today than when I first started a few decades ago, and have been accomplishing a lot both as a martial artist and as an individual as well. I have found that my philosophical way of teaching the art (because that was how it was taught to me) has had a very positive impact on the students I teach as well.

There is a lot to be said about how a martial art will impact a person's life and attitudes in life, and yes, it can be both positive or negative, depending on the individual. For me, fortunately, it has mostly been positive. Wing Chun's sayings have also been a good influence in many ways, for example take the following:

"mok pa dar" (don't be afraid to his/to be hit)
- encourages one to take risks when opportunity arises, and not to be afraid of failures

"mok tarm dar" (don't be greedy to hit)
- when no openings exists, don't force one and take unwise/unnecessary risks

"par dar jung bei dar" (afraid of being hit, will get hit)
- when one is afraid of failure, chances of failure become high because one becomes one's own major obstacle

I could go on, but these are some examples of how some of Wing Chun's sayings have impacted me in my way of life.

From a health stand point
I practice WCK daily, anywhere from 30 mins to 3 hours, and have been doing so for the last three decades. The slow, soft aspect of Sil Lim Tao has been a great source of Qi Gong and meditation for me, and the art as a whole has helped me to remain calm and relaxed at all times. I don't use half the muscle groups to do stuff (only use those as needed..... something I learned from my Chi Sao training). I have been very healthy, hardly sick, and very even tempered, and WCK for me has a lot to do with it.

Phenix

10-09-2003, 10:48 AM

NTC,

While in Transit let me response to you:

Thanks for your reply post. I am not going to comment on your responses, as I can respect your right to communicate the way you want to and think as you would as well. --NTC

Thanks and as I said before I am not going to change your way of thinking. either.

However, I will say that it does appear that some of your points contradict themselves and is oftentimes confusing, and some of the reasoning puts a big question mark on my face. Oh well... ---NTC

Certainly, everything can be view as one like. And I don't claim I am perfect.
You can have big question marks and that is perfectly normal.

So, to conclude before I fly out for weeks.

Since you believe in our ancestors, Legend has it that :
WCK is a combination of Crane and Snake.

Here we know,

the "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail) philoshophy can be found from Sun Tzu --- Shui -Jan Snake 2000 years ago.

29. The skillful tactician may be likened to the
shuai-jan. Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found
in the ChUng mountains. Strike at its head, and you
will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you
will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle,
and you will be attacked by head and tail both. ---Sun Tzu.

In addition,

as the discussion before:

The Crane can be found from -- White Crane Eng Chun Kuen of Fujian.

The Zee Mo or Chong or center line theory.

Ng Mui Can related to the white crane term five points plump flower of Ng Diem Mui Fa

Including the Bo Pai Cheong......
and inch Jing Join power ......

So, the ancestors dont lies ? I believe they don't .
Too many co-incidents across field and across time.

Oh Well, you can choose to believe it or not .
I wont force decision.
that is your freedom. I will not like to influence you.

and hope that while I am gone people who think different present thier evidents. Since it is an open discussion.

As for the Buddism, that is another evidents. But no Shao Lin's Chan.

if some disagree, I will be real happy that people bring out thier evidents in term of trace able person, documentation.....

Agrument is great but
White horse is not a horse according to those smart arguers.

Evidents?
There is a ¥Õ°¨«D°¨½× --- debate of White Horse is not Horse -- in Chinese classic. Perfectly make sense and no contradiction.

Jeremy, you migh want to read this classic. Not my invention. But was in China long before Ming dynasty.

Thanks for everyone's input. I learn alots.
until see you guys again!

.

passing_through

10-09-2003, 12:01 PM

Bai Ma Lun

too long to send as a PM, go figure...

There is a ¥Õ°¨«D°¨½× --- debate of White Horse is not Horse -- in Chinese classic. Perfectly make sense and no contradiction.

Except it does contradict itself and here's the demonstration of how:

used as base text (http://www.scheidemantel-florian.de/china/philosophie/kungsunlung.html)

"B: "Ask for a horse, and either a yellow or a black one may answer. Ask for a white horse, and neither the yellow horse nor the black one may answer. If a white horse were a horse, then what is asked in both cases would be the same. If what is asked is the same, then a white horse would be no different from a horse. If what is asked is no different, then why is it that yellow and black horses may yet answer in the one case but not in the other? Clearly the two cases are incompatible. Now the yellow horse and the black horse remain the same. And yet they answer to a horse but not to a white horse. Obviously a white horse is not a horse.""

Nope, sorry. Ask for a horse, and either a yellow or a black one, or a white one may answer. In the above quote, black horse and yellow horse are not in the subset of Horse called white horse. So, black horse and yellow horse are not equal to white horse... but that doesn't effect the 'horseness' of the subset of Horse denoted as white horse.

By B's logic, neither the yellow horse nor the black horse are horses either. ("Now the black horse and the white horse remain the same. And yet they answer to a horse but not to a yellow horse. Obviously a yellow horse is not a horse.") And since no actual horse can exist without possessing a color property, there is no such thing as a horse. Any horses you meet, therefore, must be figments of your imagination.

Or is this discourse trying to touch on something akin to Plato's idea of Forms - in which case, the argument as translated is incomplete and incorrect. The translation doesn't distinguish between a collective Horse concept and a specific horse. It appears to be using the same terms interchangeably, leading to confusion. If there is a better translation that makes a clearer distinction between an ideal Horse vs. a specific horse, I’d like to read it.

The mistake here is that the author is using logic that supports the conclusion "Not all horses are white horses" and instead reaching the conclusion "White horses are not horses." It's a fallacy of Illicit Conversion.

Some horses are not white.
Therefore, white things are not horses.

Jeremy R.

reneritchie

10-09-2003, 12:20 PM

Hey Chango,

Thanks for your reply. I do believe people teach WCK from a Buddhist point of view, but I personally have yet to see anything that would indicate it was conceived that way (e.g. anything that shows it happened 1000 years ago vs. 100 vs. 10). When/if I do (perhaps in your just released book), I will happily reformulate my opinion, and thank you for helping me do so.

As to the rest,

There appears to be so much baggage as to make discussion difficult to the point of being unproductive. That which we dislike in others is often a reflection of what we dislike in ourselves, so perhaps we can all try to put some baggage down, come to terms with our ourselves, and avoid snipping and sniping at each other.

canglong

10-09-2003, 01:51 PM

originally posted by ntc
I think you may have misinterpreted this thread. No one on this thread is attacking Hendrick OR feel threatened. Actually, from the responses to the "what is WCK question" thus far, the contrary has surfaced... seems like most people have a very good understanding of WCK and how they describe its value to them is very, very encouraging and refreshing. The debate here has been the cryptic way in which Hendrick (I assume that is phenix... if not, boy, am I way out of line, and I apologize, in which case, totally ignore this post) is communicating, and there is a request for clarity on which of his remarks are facts (since he is so intent on emphasizing), or individual viewpoints, which most of us are sharing and the question is apparently asking. Also, people as just requesting him to be just a bit more specific in what he is trying to say versus going around a big philosophical block, some of which don't necessarily apply here. I think folks here are genuinely interested in knowing about people's perceptions of WCK, which is why they are here, and if a certain proven fact was shared, I know that these folks will be excited to know that they have attained some additional knowledge and would move to do some more research themselves. However, before they did that, they also wanted to be able to know if someone was posting someone's own opinion or a true fact.

And thanks for sharing your thoughts on WCK.
This is only a few post before yours Rene I am not quite sure why you would have missed it but in any case here it is again. Excellent post ntc.

Mckind13

10-09-2003, 01:55 PM

Hey Jeremy
(Jeremy) Be that as it may, Hendrik has at different times, asked “What is WCK” and “What is the philosophy of WCK”, claiming both as the topic of this thread. I submit that neither is the topic of this thread and his insistence on returning to the topic of the thread is misleading. This topic of this thread is some as yet unspecified implicit insinuation as to the validity of certain Wing Chun families. It is evidenced in his initial post. I pointed that out in my reply to him, which he ignored by coming after me instead of defending his assumptions and insinuations.
(David) I go with the spirit of Hendricks posts, mischievous as they may sometimes be, it seems he asks most questions and asks if you have a defined reason for that belief. I don’t think it is as hard as some make it. Though sometimes ol’ HS does make it a little hard. Maybe we should ask questions that clarify it a bit more. Also it help that my roommate could be an Evil Hendrick clone and so I get some of the logic.

(Jeremy) I don’t reply to Hendrik over presumed threat. I reply to him when he makes vague, vacuous statements that are illogical. Making conclusions based on false assumptions leads to false conclusions. Simple as that. Collecting bits of information is not wisdom. Purporting to be innocent in intent when it can be demonstrated that intent is not innocent kinda bugs me.
(David) Vague, and Illogical I can except as your opinion but calling him vacuous is a personal attack and as you pointed out has no place in a logical debate or discussion.

WCK is to me perfecting my understanding of the Wing Chun principles to the point that adaptation to a situation is as fast as possible. It is walking the middle path between adherence to the form of the art and the functional application of its techniques.

(Jeremy) This begs the question, what are the Wing Chun Principles? I presume the Kuen is the application of the principles… but the principles remain undefined in your post.
(David) The Wing Chun principles I use are from the Chu Sao Lie method. Like the scientific method they grew from hypothesis to theory to accepted rules that describe my understanding of how my martial universe functions. When I train I am constantly conducting experiments to test there validity and make sure they work in every situation.

(Jeremy) By your statement of “Wing Chun comes from the heart” are we to conclude that Wing Chun Principles come from the heart? (David – Yes) If not, from where do Wing Chun Principles come? If yes, are all things from the heart = Wing Chun? (David – Yes) That sounds kinda dangerous to me. Is there another interpretation of what you were saying? Or were you just being vague on purpose?
(David) Jeremy, for me and if I am wrong in my understanding of what the ‘Heart’ implies then it will have to be my own interpretation. Heart for me denotes the mind/intention/understanding of the art and the tenacious spirit of the art. The combination of understanding and knowledge with the warrior’s mindset. Since I train intelligently and with intensity I have a good understanding of the art. So I have taken the principles to heart and now they flow from me.
Nice chatting with you.
David

passing_through

10-09-2003, 02:20 PM

calling him vacuous is a personal attack

It can be interpreted that way but that wasn't the spirit in which it was intended. Vacuous comes from the Latin vacuus meaning empty. I was being both sarcastic (these kinds of threads just seem to suck people into them) and serious pointing to the heart of Chan, to be empty. Posts are just posts - it's the meaning we give them that causes our reactions, for good or ill.

The Wing Chun principles I use are from the Chu Sao Lie method.

Still begs the question, especially in light of Hendrik's thrust of Taiji=Taijiquan as ?=wingchunkeun. But never mind. I have a feeling I know what you're trying to communicate – Hendrik’s questions read to me like having an expert in top-down management and an expert in bottom-up management having a conversation. Their expectations of each other are often 180 degrees opposite, leading to confusion and miscommunication all over the place.

By your statement of “Wing Chun comes from the heart” are we to conclude that Wing Chun Principles come from the heart? (David – Yes) If yes, are all things from the heart = Wing Chun? (David – Yes)

(David) Jeremy, for me and if I am wrong in my understanding of what the ‘Heart’ implies then it will have to be my own interpretation. Heart for me denotes the mind/intention/understanding of the art and the tenacious spirit of the art. The combination of understanding and knowledge with the warrior’s mindset. Since I train intelligently and with intensity I have a good understanding of the art. So I have taken the principles to heart and now they flow

oh, so "wing chun comes from the heart" doesn't mean YOUR heart, it mean's Wing Chun's heart, right? How can in inanimate object, such as a philosophy, have a mind/intention/understanding? It's a theoretical system of conjecture, not a person. Now, I'm just being pedantic but that's just to show the futility of stating pretty much anything. There can always be questions to things stated, no matter how clear we try to make it...

I think your point about the heart is Wing Chun Principles when trained intelligently and with intensity flow from your heart. This isn't quite what you originally stated in my opinion. 'Wing Chun from the heart' cannot equal 'all things from the heart = Wing Chun' without also adding some kind of qualifier... like having studied/trained Wing Chun intelligently and with intensity. Or else, someone could do anything, claim it was from the heart and say that it's Wing Chun, right?

Jeremy R.

passing_through

10-09-2003, 02:21 PM

Rene,

I do believe people teach WCK from a Buddhist point of view, but I personally have yet to see anything that would indicate it was conceived that way

Rene, before I came into contact with Grand Master Gee and Grand Master Hoffmann, I felt pretty much the same as you. Being exposed to both of those systems, in addition to my own studies, both arts are very much based on Buddhism as the essential theme. It's not that these two masters use Buddhism to teach, rather the art itself is Buddhist in nature. In the past, Grand Master Moy Yat's teaching methodology was focused on Chan - but using Chan methodology to teach Wing Chun. That has a different nature. Sigung Moy Yat can relate Chan to Wing Chun but that didn't make what we were training Buddhist in nature.

And regardless of Buddhist/Taoist/Ectist to be good at fighting, you have to give up the ego and see what's there. Learning any martial art will help in that regard, provided the student has the right intent.

Jeremy R.

ntc

10-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Canglong: thanks... appreciate the compliment.

ntc

10-09-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by passing_through

And regardless of Buddhist/Taoist/Ectist to be good at fighting, you have to give up the ego and see what's there. Learning any martial art will help in that regard, provided the student has the right intent.

This is an excellent point, and couldn't have been indicated better. How often have we all encountered at one point or another, and whether learning kung fu, or any other class, languages, science, etc., someone whose learning ability was reduced by sheer ego??

Mckind13

10-09-2003, 04:00 PM

The Wing Chun principles I use are from the Chu Sao Lie method.

(Jeremy) Still begs the question, especially in light of Hendrik's thrust of Taiji=Taijiquan as ?=wingchunkeun. But never mind. I have a feeling I know what you're trying to communicate – Hendrik’s questions read to me like having an expert in top-down management and an expert in bottom-up management having a conversation. Their expectations of each other are often 180 degrees opposite, leading to confusion and miscommunication all over the place.

(David) You might be correct but like the question with only two obvious answers, why not give a third? Discuss your (general you) concepts and paradigms surrounding Wing Chun and don’t fit it into someone else’s box.

oh, so "wing chun comes from the heart" doesn't mean YOUR heart, it mean's Wing Chun's heart, right? How can in inanimate object, such as a philosophy, have a mind/intention/understanding? It's a theoretical system of conjecture, not a person. Now, I'm just being pedantic but that's just to show the futility of stating pretty much anything. There can always be questions to things stated, no matter how clear we try to make it...

(David) Lets look at the first bit. It could mean both. Since I know have an understanding of the principles, methods, concepts and I incorporate these ideals not only in my training but in my daily life, then Wing Chun flows from me; it is part of my mentality and my intentions when I act. Wing Chun also has a spirit separate me. Like the constitution holds the spirit of the founding fathers or a Sutra holds the Dharma of the person who dictated it, then so does the art contain the spirit of the founders and my teachers, grand teachers etc. As the only example I can give, the more I train the Baat Jaam Dao the more I fell, and understand the Butchers mindset the form contains. Jeremy, you wrote” the futility of stating pretty much anything. There can always be questions to things stated, no matter how clear we try to make it...” As for this bit, all I can do is be as succinct as possible and discuss with those that find the statements interesting enough to pursue the conversation.

(Jeremy) I think your point about the heart is Wing Chun Principles when trained intelligently and with intensity flow from your heart. This isn't quite what you originally stated in my opinion. 'Wing Chun from the heart' cannot equal 'all things from the heart = Wing Chun' without also adding some kind of qualifier... like having studied/trained Wing Chun intelligently and with intensity. Or else, someone could do anything, claim it was from the heart and say that it's Wing Chun, right?

(David) Once internalized all things flow from the heart. If you do not internalize Wing Chun then are you doing Wing Chun? Do your ancestors Chi Sao for you? Does your Sifu tell you what Wing Chun is or does he guide you to understanding? And once you have understanding can Wing Chun come from anywhere else but inside?

David

woseung

10-09-2003, 07:08 PM

Hendrik,

This is not the first time I've seen you employ your "Ninja Wing Chun." When someone stands up you to, you disappear. And later on, in a cloud of smoke, you start a different thread.

You still haven't answered my question. I practice Yip Man Wing Chun and I'd like know more about your system. Maybe next time you're around.

Phenix

10-10-2003, 01:08 AM

reply this before catching red eyes plane.

This is not the first time I've seen you employ your "Ninja Wing Chun." When someone stands up you to, you disappear. And later on, in a cloud of smoke, you start a different thread.---w

Strange that no one discuss these below which is in my early post . :D

1,

the "Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail) "Gum Chong Gan Bil/Pil Bong Folk" (press the center shoot out bong or folk
philoshophy can be found from Sun Tzu --- Shui -Jan Snake 2000 years ago.

29. The skillful tactician may be likened to the
shuai-jan. Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found
in the ChUng mountains. Strike at its head, and you
will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you
will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle,
and you will be attacked by head and tail both. ---Sun Tzu.

2,

The Crane can be found from -- White Crane Eng Chun Kuen of Fujian.

The Zee Mo or Chong or center line theory.

Ng Mui and Ng Diem Mui Fa

Including the Bo Pai Cheong......
and inch Jing Join power ......

3,
As for the Chan Buddishm and WCK, I will be real happy that people bring out thier evidents in term of trace able person, which patriach, documentation.....

without trace-able evidents all yours and mine's are just opinions.

May be the real "Ninja Wing Chun" is hiding behind attacking Hendrik so that it is always off topic. ok you can attack my english or my hair style..... to prolong the smoke for hiding :D

Phenix

10-10-2003, 02:07 AM

how about making a list?
----------------------------------------------------

what is WCK in ----Hendrik's view?

-------- philosophy

Example:

29. The skillful tactician may be likened to the
shuai-jan. Now the shuai-jan is a snake that is found
in the ChUng mountains. Strike at its head, and you
will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you
will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle,
and you will be attacked by head and tail both. ---Sun Tzu.

--------implementation :

Example:

"Gum Tau Gutt Mai" (he presses your head you lift your tail) "Gum Chong Gan Bil/Pil Bong Folk" (press the center shoot out bong or folk (compare this to the sun tzu qout above)

From White Crane Eng Chun Kuen of Fujian

1, The Zee Mo or Chong or center line theory.
2, crane Bong....
3, inch Jing Join power and improvements ......

From Emei .... more stuffs... :D

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

Taijichuan ------- Taiji
Wingchunkuen ----- characteristcs of Water

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

simple , direct, and effective right? instead of all those sentences and logic....similar to spegetti! :D

what is yours?

just list yours and ofcorse need evidents . :D)

hahaha Have Fun!

(don't attack my english seeentennncee , my graaaama, my spelling, oh my my hair style tooo, hey i don't have a guetar! so don't use your logic to prove i am jimmy hendrix :D)

got to go.
and black out for weeks. in Em.... hahaha
bye bye

reneritchie

10-10-2003, 10:25 AM

Jeremy,

That leads to an interesting contrast. If an art is Buddhist in foundation (created), then it could be trained or taught by someone who was not Buddhist at all (granted, perhaps they would miss something, but no universal force would show up and make their head explode for trying or anything). For example, there are some people who train versions of Fung Siu-Ching's WCK without a Buddhist mindset. Conversely, someone can train or teach an art without Buddhist foundation but with a Buddhist mindset (your example of [Moy Yat sifu]).

BTW- In the Buddhist model, from where do you see the non-Buddhist elements deriving? (Eg. Taoist concepts like Two Motions, Five Elements, etc.) From the integrated nature of Chinese Buddhism to begin with, from separate sources at the time, from later integrations...

reneritchie

10-10-2003, 10:31 AM

Hendrik,

Have a safe trip.

You continually share a lot of information, even with English as your 3rd or 4th language. However, it can be confusing (sometimes almost borderline bi-polar ;) ) at times, and if a message is not digestible by those for whom it is intended, it will be lost. In other words, it doesn't matter how good your punch is if you don't adapt it to circumstances of the moment and land it on your target.

Perhaps while on the plane you can spend some time contemplating the people to whom you're trying to communicate, and ponder what method would best allow you to achieve your goals.

Looking forward to hearing from you when you return,

ntc

10-10-2003, 12:17 PM

Rene..... good and timely post/advise.... thanks.

PaulH

10-10-2003, 10:04 PM

I like David McKind's middle road. He got the spirit! Here is my documented evidence - a blatant plagiarized work of Ian Mitroff's thoughts :

"The fact that there is no single, perfect, final method or model to capture combat truth misses the essential point that there is after all a method for realizing this very fact. The wondrous thing is not that we are unable to have perfect combat knowledge, but that we are able to have any combat knowledge at all. Even more wondrous is that we are able to learn at all. There must be some structure in combat that makes learning possible so that we can then write about it. What kind of combat learning is it that is variable enough to permit human freedom, creativity, learning, and also incompleteness at the same time? This is the important question.

Since there is no final version of combat truth that is open to human beings, this establishes that the decision to pick a particular version on which to base one's actions is ultimately a heroic act and not a "logical" one. The choice of a particular action and the associated belief in it are among the greatest risks humans ever face."

WCK by so and so is just as good as any so and so Martial Arts today. Go easy on yourself when you speak so loud and confident about others. You never know when you have it coming! Ha! Ha!

Regards,

Mckind13

10-11-2003, 01:12 AM

Thanks Paul

That is very nice

David

Phenix

10-11-2003, 08:24 AM

Hi Rene,

Steal a little time in another airport.

Have a safe trip.---- RR

Thanks.

You continually share a lot of information, even with English as your 3rd or 4th language.....
Perhaps while on the plane you can spend some time contemplating the people to whom you're trying to communicate, and ponder what method would best allow you to achieve your goals. ----RR

hahaha, it is just a simple post due to an insperation I got the other day,

the goal is just to present my view from an angle and hope to triggle everyone's thought process. Nothing that complecate at all.

it is interesting to find out how different people react or response.
as for not clear or contradiction.... well, wck is not simple. it involve lots of people and century of evol and transformation... inaddition, culture stuffs is difficult. it often doesn't following logic. at least the chinese culture believe in human is non-logical.
also, for example. say the color red, in some culture it means stop, it means trauma, it means lost of control... but in chakra system --- the root chakra is red and red means free flow energy, it means life. as Red Blood means flow of life force.... so the different between reality and what it takes in a culture is complicated.....

I don't have all the answer, even though I post some evidential information out. since these days the term scientific is all around, and without evidents it is not scientific right? But, I believe in everyone found out thier own answer.

similar to the heros in the mythodology writing, they have to find out about themself, face thier fear, solve thier issues inside and outside influent.. and at last arrive at thier own. As RED means moving forward but not stop as in the stop sign. well, hope that WCK is based on a philosophy similar to Sun Tzu which is usefull 2500 years ago to 1999's iraq war... then based on some rigid opinion which will block the growth and transformation of WCK into the 22th century. we all contribute to rigidness of ourself....

May be we have to learn from the chakras system where we can "think" with different chakra's personality. I guess, Joy can give a great view on this better to me. Hey, your reality is not neccesary the same with mine. so, I can accept even disagree.

for chinese Red is great, good luck and flow. for indian root Chakra means alive or flowing of energy...

Thus, one just can't use the american Stop Sign color as bases to think the whole world is according to american stop sign.
and derive and conclude that is the way how ancient chinese or indian think. Red means stop.

a free will world. what is matter is everyone keep growing and getting better as a person and as wcners. IMHO.

as my joke of contemplating stop sign is Chan.
red means stop or red means go? :D

got to go . and fly...

yuanfen

10-11-2003, 05:21 PM

Hendrik-
I just pressed the wrong button and a long reply- perhaps mercifully disappeared in cyber space. No matter. Some bulleted summaries...

#Rene gave some good advice. You should work on articles even before finishing your research...explaining each thesis separately such as the fukien/emei crane/snake link alone which i found intriguing---because I have seen enough of the textual and diagramatic
historic sources that you have. You havent finished closing all the holes yet but it is an intiguing thesis. The ygkym like standing stake posture from the emei records (12 postures) was particularly intriguing.

#there are many different schools of buddhism. Junjiro Takakusu's out of print classic "Essentials of Buddhism" outlines some of the key epistemological differences. The main Chan-specially southern Chan is strikingly self consistent in rejecting
killing or preparing monks for killing. Martial monks are acrretions from other sources- as well as people being lay monks for a while or soldiers and renegades wearing monk clothing for convenience
or disguise..
Classic Chan even advises against the butcher's trade. Nowhere in the Boddhidharama "sermon" transmissions or in the surangama or the lankavatara sutra is there any sanction for developing the killing arts. Ergo--- roots of martial arts including wing chun have come IMO from a complex mix of ideas not just pure Chan. Buddhist temples were community centers which had
varieties of people at the periphery with the real monks at the center of concentric circles which all make up the community or sangha.((I am NOT using Theravada or Tibetan conceptions of sangha or buddhism)

#Even in the corruption of Shaolin today---you have old religious monks--- young athletic not particularly religious monks and all kinds of schools in the surrounding areas- all claiming the umbrella "shaolin".

# on the chakras. At one time in the transmission of Buddhism there was extensive communication-both ways -between India and China- somethings shared, somethings different- sometimes the same. Dont get me going on the monkey king. In the proper kundalini meditative posture the chakras are indeed "aligned". The 3 dan tiens of Chinese body theory also corresponds to 3 of the chakras. The chakras are wheels and they are aligned -linear
fashion down to top. The integration of lines and circles are important principles of motion and energy flow.

#the base chakra- muladhara- is important for rooting...muladhara literally means -holding the root- visualized as red signifying life force. The red symbolism is important in Chinese semiotics as you have pointed out also. Interestingly in esoteric kundalini symbolism-the energy force snakes its way upward from the base root to the top of the head. The force is female and called "shakti". Shakta is male often "muscle". One of the visualizations is that of a red flower including the red hibiscus-
in India- sometimes refrred to as the Chinese rose!!
Incidentally- primeval--- in my late wife;s american Indian tribe (Muscogee Creeks) red(jate) symbolized blood and life. Some warriors would paint one side of the face red and the other half black when going to war- symbilizing that they were prepared for either life or death. But I digress- as you often do. You are not crazy- just sometimes disorganized in coomunications.
The third chakra(lower dantien) puts brakes on runaway enrgy and emotions and stores energy, prana, chi.
(I know that Andrew N is skeptical of these paradigms- which is ok. We all have to think for ourselves and diversity is aok with me in life's journey).

#Ng Mui's synthesizing of snake and crane may be mythical---
but myths are storehouses of insights and information.

Have a good trip. Not to worry about changing minds in net conversations. In most discussions people leave by the same door through which they came. Its not serious-its only email!!
sorry for my gramma and spill too! Ingles is my 3rd language!!

yuanfen/joy