Wing Chun's New Heritage

[sihing]

Just wondering what you all think about the rewriting of WC history, inparticular the disappearance of NG Mui and Yim Wing Chun. Do you think its true? Do you not want to believe the new evidence? Does it make sence, or should we not really care at all?

Please feel free to reveal more evidence for or against these new revelations.

For me, in the lineage I belong to, we believed that WC was created by the 5 Grandmasters of Shaolin to counter all other styles as a way to create warriors for the revolution in a more timely fashion and to give them something different and more effective to use. We believe Ng Mui was the creator of the actual techniques but not the theories behind it. This makes sense since my beginnings as a teacher of this art I have found women pick up on the techniques much easier then most men.

Please share your thoughts......

sihing

[AmanuJRY]

Who's concept of "re-writing history" are you referring to.

The book "Complete Wing Chun" is a very good source for the differing histories of Wing Chun/Weng Chun (Thanx Rene and Robert).

By process of comparing these histories reveals that all liniages refer to the Red Junk Opera company, so it can be reasonably assumed that WC was filtered throught it. Before then the histories are a mix of differing stories, most incluing one or more of the "Five Elders". I do believe to some degree these earlier stories were probably made up to keep the knowledge of the art from the manchu and to create propaganda that because these famous monks/nuns were responsible for it that it carried some sort of magical property.

Anything prior to recorded history of WC can only be considered as legend. It's kida like asking if I believe King Authur really existed and if he was the one who found the Holy Grail.

[sihing]

mostly Benny Meng's version/investigation. I've read some things on the VTMA website, and a article in Inside Kung-fu author'd by Meng. Just wondering what others thought or if there was more information from someone on this forum.

Sihing

[AmanuJRY]

I haven't read Benny Meng's take on it yet, but like I said "Complete Wing Chun" by Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu - is an exellent collection of histories as well as training and techniques. In the final chapters they give a summery and state their theory of the truth. Also, you could check out "Roots of Wing Tsun" by Leung Ting as well, although it is limited to the divided schools of Ip Man liniage (should be called "Roots of Ip Man Wing Tsun").

[Ultimatewingchun]

Although there is an answer out there somewhere - regarding what "really" happened way-back-when...in the early days of wing chun...

The thick, black smoke of politics continues to hold the true facts captive.

So don't expect any lifting of the veil anytime soon!

[yylee]

I thought Wing Chun was just snake + crane. :)

[PaulH]

Uh...Bien! Good Ming sees otherwise...It dings my dear and sacred core a great deal to discover that my favorite ancestral "Long Beak" is not even mentioned in the new evidences. =)

[KPM]

The various versions of WCK legends as well as areas of research into things that may be closer to actual "history" has been hashed out in detail in many different threads in this forum. Just do a few searches and see what you come up with. Search for posts by "phenix." He took part in the vast majority of them in one way or the other. :-)

Keith

[reneritchie]

There's no 'Re-Writing' of WCK history, there's just a maturing of Western WCK culture which allows for better discernment between history and legend (something the Chinese have known all along, even if at times they have not bothered to share the distinction).

To help understand, imagine the situation were reversed and you had Englishmen in China teaching martial arts, inlcuding the quarter-staff and bow, and as part of their tradition they passed along the story of Robin Hood and Little John.

Now, the story is very exiting, it gets people involved and motivates them, and it does draw on certain historical elements (Richard II), and reflect some of the feelings of injustice of the time, but it is not history. And almost any Westerner could explain to you the differece--it's part of our cultural heritage.

The same goes for many/most of the Southern Chinese MA creation myths, drawn from legends that grew out of the High Qing era, and used by teachers trying to establish themselves in China, then the colonies, then the West.

Ask any native Chinese and they'll likely understand these stories the way you understand Robin Hood, King Arthur, Heracles, etc.

And personally, I love the stories of Ng Mui and Yim Wing-Chun and all the rest. Much more compelling then something as commonplace as evolution of existing arts over time under stress.

[sihing]

well I do think its still a rewriting of the history, whether or not the original writing was fiction or not. Two of the main characters are now gone, so that's a big change. Funny though I still look at it as a exciting past, most of the history is still the same, espeacially the whole purpose behind the creation of WC.

For those of you out there that are in communication with older lineage masters(for e.g. Yip's first students, etc..) what do these masters think of the new evidence that has come about over the last couple of years. Victor/Phil, does GM Cheung believe what has been reported, how about Yip Chun and others?

Sihing

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by reneritchie
And personally, I love the stories of Ng Mui and Yim Wing-Chun and all the rest. Much more compelling then something as commonplace as evolution of existing arts over time under stress.

So do I.

I find it interesting that legends/myths are a better source for inspiration than cold historic detail.

My real facination comes with finding the truths to famous legends. Just as there was probably a real Celtic hero that inspired the King Arthur myths, there is probably some truth to the legends of the Five Elders - just don't hold your breath for the History Channel to get around to that one!:cool:

[JAFO]

The way I've heard it explained is that the true origins of Wing Chun will never be known for a certainty and at any rate are not entirely relevant at this point. Given how many variations have popped up just in the last 30 years, it's almost guaranteed that the Wing Chun of today is much different than what it was at the turn of the century, let alone what it was during the Red Boat era.

I've heard it said that there was a big evolution of WC in Fatshan in the early 1940s, with some material having been greatly 'refined'. This has resulted in modern variants that are more technical than previous variants that had come before. This is not to say that the previous lines necessarily disappeared or went extinct, only to say that there is more than one legitimate line of WC out there.

Nor was WC really uniform, even prior to the '40s. There were supposedly different groups of people receiving different levels of instruction depending on their affiliations and their respective roles in the clans. The stories go that many people received instruction up through about the 2nd form or so because that was a relatively quick and easy solution to the question of how to train a large group of people. Some people specialized for specific roles; some focused on the weapons, others were trained as bodyguards, etc. Some of those who showed more talent and work ethic got brought in a little closer to the inner circles and received extra training in a smaller and more intimate environment.

If you think about it, such a version of not-so-distant history could make a certain amount of sense. Not everyone would have had need of the more technical aspects of WC, nor would the amount of time and talent and affiliations amongst all the players have ever been equal. The most comprehensive instruction could only have been effective in very small groups.

Regardless, I wasn't there and so I don't know. All I can 'know' is what I see in the here and now. I'm certain I don't study the WC of Ng Mui; I study a more modern version of WC as that version exists today. I don't think it's the only 'real' version of WC nor do I believe that other versions are wrong or incorrect. In my view, the correctness of a WC version is defined soley by it's effectiveness. To whatever degree mixing other elements from other styles is effective, the WC lines that do it are also correct.

[Ultimatewingchun]

James Roller (sihing):

Rather than talk about what William Cheung thinks of the latest, shall we say...developments...theories...etc.

all of which has been covered MANY times on threads on this forum in the past - and almost always leads to nonstop bickering...

let me just say that, in my opinion, whether or not Ng Mui and Madame Wing Chun actually existed or not...is irrelevant.

Almost everyone agrees that - whoever the specific people in the beginning were - the origin of wing chun had to do with a movement begun in secret...the purpose of which was to come up with a new kung fu system meant to train a revolutionary army bent on overthrowing the Manchu's.

[quiet man]

For me, in the lineage I belong to, we believed that WC was created by the 5 Grandmasters of Shaolin to counter all other styles as a way to create warriors for the revolution in a more timely fashion and to give them something different and more effective to use.

My sifu tells pretty much the same story.

I myself am unsure what to believe, but the more I learn about wing chun every day, the more I become convinced of one thing: no way has just one person had invented wing chun! :D I don't care if your name is Ng Mui, or Yim Wing Chun, or whatever. This thing is so big, so complex, so wonderful, it couldn't have been invented by an individual. :)

Maybe the aliens left it here :D ...

[sihing]

I agree with your thinking there too, WC wasn't created by only one person. Its too sophisticated and is so different from other forms of Kung-Fu that something unusual happened when the art was being developed. I also agree with what some of the others have said, the WC of today is different than in the past, its always evolving each generation. Since this is a art of concepts then this is easily done. As to all this talk being "Irrelevant" I wouldn't say that. It isn't the most important thing to talk about that's for sure but it would be nice to know the exact history of WC. This is a public forum on the subject right?

Sihing

[JAFO]

It might be nice to know the true origin of WC, but in the end it's like asking the question "who invented the fork?", or to use a less euro-centric view, "who invented Dim Sum?" Sure there's an answer somewhere out in the cosmos, but it's only interesting in light of the utility of the results.

Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn't have the same mystique as the question of "how did they do it?". Wouldn't you really rather know the answer to that one?

[AmanuJRY]

sihing

As to all this talk being "Irrelevant" I wouldn't say that. It isn't the most important thing to talk about that's for sure but it would be nice to know the exact history of WC.

How would you suggest finding the exact history of WC?
It would take the History Channel a team of archeologists, a handful of "Experts" and last but not least some SPECULATION. Which this public forum does not have at it's disposal.
This brings us to why we say it isn't important (to our development of skills), not irrelevant, it doesn't affect your training, it's just a history lesson.

If anyone knows how to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the real history of WC, by all means tell us. Otherwise we can share in the legends and nail down the facts (like the furthest we can trace actual history is the Red Junk Opera).

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by JAFO
Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn't have the same mystique as the question of "how did they do it?". Wouldn't you really rather know the answer to that one?

That, Observer, is an AWESOME question indeed!:cool:

[Da_Moose]

Sihing,

The article you refer to makes no mention of re-writing Wing Chun History. Perhaps you missed that very first, bold faced paragraph? It simply says the article presents the VTM's latest research, makes no conclusions, and presents them to the reader to make his/her own decision. It doesn't say "We are now presenting the supreme facts about Wing Chun" or anything like that. of course, I also do not believe the article to be the only thing you're referring to in this thread. Meng Sifu does not claim to be presenting the world with the hardest facts possible, only what the research of the VTM has lead him to find. As for Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun not being present, maybe you should re-read that article as those names are repeated a few times in the article.

AmanuJRY writes:
I haven't read Benny Meng's take on it yet, but like I said "Complete Wing Chun" by Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu - is an exellent collection of histories as well as training and techniques. In the final chapters they give a summery and state their theory of the truth.
Likewise, this article is simply the VTM's theory of the truth regarding Wing Chun. Remember, the staff from the Museum have conducted a decade of research into the origins of Wing Chun, travelling to visit many families, train with them, and learn directly from them, not from what they heard about these families. These experiences have proabably allowed the VTM to come up with more objective data derived from collective, direct experiences and research. They have heard many origin stories and such and most likely have taken the collective similarities and researched them until exhaustion. No doubt the authors of Complete Wing Chun have conducted similar studies in order to present their theories of the truth.

PaulH writes,
Uh...Bien! Good Ming sees otherwise...It dings my dear and sacred core a great deal to discover that my favorite ancestral "Long Beak" is not even mentioned in the new evidences. =)

One, please be considerate and spell the Author's name correctly, it's Meng, not Ming. Second, the Sanke and Crane are mentioned in the article, check out the 3rd misconception a little closer.

Rene Ritchie writes:
There's no 'Re-Writing' of WCK history, there's just a maturing of Western WCK culture which allows for better discernment between history and legend (something the Chinese have known all along, even if at times they have not bothered to share the distinction).
Kudos to that. As people begin more and more to want to know the truth behind something, they need to look more objectively at things. That is all this article has done. As more consistent research is conducted by interested groups, the more unified it will most likely become. Keep in mind that historians and researchers do not have the luxury of accepting everything at face value, it’s in their nature. They seek to understand the facts of things.

As JAFO notes, the truth behind the history of Wing Chun may never be known in its entirety. Too many different styles of the art have evolved, each with its own flavor of uniqueness. Some similarities exist, and some differences. Different members of the Red Boat held different clearances so to speak. Keep in mind, it was a revolutionary organization. Depending on what they were privy to, their perspective of WC may have been different than someone else’ in the Opera. Hence, different styles and histories.

Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn't have the same mystique as the question of "how did they do it?". Wouldn't you really rather know the answer to that one?

Nice question JAFO. Perhaps one for another thread?

[PaulH]

Da Moose,

I think good Benny might have a chuckle or two. All in good humor. =) E\_

[sihing]

Quote: Da_Moose
"The article you refer to makes no mention of re-writing Wing Chun History. Perhaps you missed that very first, bold faced paragraph? It simply says the article presents the VTM's latest research, makes no conclusions, and presents them to the reader to make his/her own decision. It doesn't say "We are now presenting the supreme facts about Wing Chun" or anything like that. of course, I also do not believe the article to be the only thing you're referring to in this thread. Meng Sifu does not claim to be presenting the world with the hardest facts possible, only what the research of the VTM has lead him to find. As for Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun not being present, maybe you should re-read that article as those names are repeated a few times in the article."

Well in my hand right now is a Inside Kung-fu Mag, May 2000, a article written by Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen, stating and I quote "Recent findings uncovered by historians and martial arts teachers reveal that Ng Mui played no role in the creation or development of wing chun kung-fu, if she ever existed at all". Also earlier in the article it claims that Yim Wing Chun never existed too. Many times in this article these claims are stated as facts verified by certain sources. So I don't think my interpretation of the VTM's finding was mistaken. But who really knows what happened back then anyways, unless we can go back in time, we may never know what really happened.

Sihing

[Da_Moose]

Sihing,

My bad, I thought we are discussing the current article in Inside Kung Fu, not one from 4 years ago.


PaulH,

Sifu Meng may have a good chuckle about what? And by the way, why are you referring to him by his first name? Are you on such a basis with him? If not, please check your etiquette and manners.

[PaulH]

Steve,

For internet chats, I call people by their first name. Beside, I don't know Benny Meng personally, so my ettiquette is quite reasonable. But if you are offended by my humor, then consider this post an apology and let go on to higher things! =)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Why are you referring to Benny Meng by his first name???????????????????????????????"

How about this...I'll start referring to him as sidai.

Don't try to put Benny Meng on a pedestal.

He doesn't belong there.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by sihing
I agree with your thinking there too, WC wasn't created by only one person. Its too sophisticated and is so different from other forms of Kung-Fu that something unusual happened when the art was being developed. I also agree with what some of the others have said, the WC of today is different than in the past, its always evolving each generation. Since this is a art of concepts then this is easily done. As to all this talk being "Irrelevant" I wouldn't say that. It isn't the most important thing to talk about that's for sure but it would be nice to know the exact history of WC. This is a public forum on the subject right?

Sihing


Great speculation.


BUT,
Designing WC is not designing the whole car starting from the wheel.

Designing WC is about integration. If WXZ can design his Yee Chuan. If Oyama can design his Kyokushin. If Yang TaiJi can design by a single person why not WCK?

Thus, as I have heard,
There are Keys that will open the SLT and once one realized that one will know about SLT and where the SLT comes from. And once's one realized that, one will know SLT is not from Shao LIn..... that is not hard at all.

Hope that those keys appear in the world again and thus this issue solve. Let's pray hahahaha. :D

[David Peterson]

Dear All,

My late Sifu, Wong Shun Leung, always maintained that the "legend" concerning Ng Mui, Yim Wing Chun, et al, was the invention of a reporter for a popular martial arts magazine in Hong Kong, and that this now well known (in all its subtle variations) tale was first published in the mid-50s. According to WSL, when the reporter came to Yip Man and asked if he could gather the info for a series of articles that was being done on several well known systems of MAs in Hong Kong, Yip Man basically told him to go off and write it, after which the late GM simply embellished it a little and approved its publication. My Sifu always said that prior to that time, Yip Man NEVER ever mentioned any such "history", and that it was all news to those training at that time. All they had been told was that they were learning the art taught by the legendary 'Fatsaan Leung Jan', in fact, it wasn't until after nearly a month or so after my late teacher started training under Yip Man in 1954 that he even knew that he system he was training (Wing Chun) was the same as the one practised by his boyhood hero, Leung Jan. The reason for this was that everyone knew of the man (LJ), but few actually knew what Kung Fu it was that LJ actually gained his formidable reputation by.
;)
DMP
ps: I like myths & legends too, but I don't necessarily believe them, nor do I think that it's any big deal. The system is what counts, wouldn't you all agree?

[Savi]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"Why are you referring to Benny Meng by his first name???????????????????????????????"

How about this...I'll start referring to him as sidai.

Don't try to put Benny Meng on a pedestal.

He doesn't belong there. Oh that was a good laugh Parlati Sifu. Hey, speaking of titles... has anyone read this thread by my Sigung Meng?

Relevancy of Titles (http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=546)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by David Peterson
The system is what counts, wouldn't you all agree? Absolutely....Thanks for insight into the legend.

Bill

[duende]

David Peterson...

Thanks for your insight. I've heard similar accounts before, but not with all the details you've given. Even before I joined HFY the story of Ng Mui struck me as fantastic. Sorry, but I'm just way too cynical about human history and it's inherrant sexism.

I did get a laugh though with the statement that WC is easier to teach to women. In MA's, woman learn some things faster, and men learn other things faster... This is due to our core differences, and is no way unique to WC.



Victor,

don't fret... there's enough pedastals to go around.

[Chango]

Hello all,
I think this article has proven to be very effective in bringing thought to a few topics about the great art of WCK. For those who disagree with it's content. You must admit this article is very clear and wonderfully orchestrated.

Victor,
Sidia etc.... I think you would have a different tone if we all beging calling GM Cheung "William". Keep in mind we practice ettique to display our level of kung fu (as in Mo duk) not to put others on a pedastal. If I was speaking to one of your students I would demonstrate the courtesy of atleast reffering to you as Parlati, Sifu. But I guess that's just my kung fu LOL! If you have students no matter if I agree with you or not I personally feel the need to show the proper respect. That's how I was taught. You might be or see it different. (shrugging my shoulders and shaking my head)

Peterson,Sifu
As usuall your comments bring great insite from the point of view of your Sifu WSL. I really enjoy hearing of discussions between GM Ip Man and his students. Not ever having the pleasure or blessing of meeting your Sifu I take from his words that he was a realist. I have read many things about him and find his fighting and insite into training very interesting. Good to hear from you.

Hendrick,
are you serious? come on man please? maybe you crossed your wires somewhere becuase you keep referring to Oyama and Kyokushin and Tia Chi. LOL! I don't think someone's cup was empty when they started learning thier wing chun! LOL! Or maybe your WCK lesson was not coplete enough to make a prefound impression? LOL! BTW why are you trying to direct this thread down the Shaolin nonShaolin path? I know you only have your SLT to judge from but that is not where everyone else is setting!

Last,
All in all each point made by the article does point to the faults in logic found in some of the common things told to people who study our wonderfull art. Great job Da Moose!

Chango

[Da_Moose]

Sifu Parlati,

I did not make any statement to place Sifu Meng on a pedestal. He is a master level instructor and should be given the proper respect. I do not place people on pedestals. Everyone is a human being, none of us perfect. We all put our pants on the same way, one leg at a time. Perhaps the element of etiquette was lost on you in my posts? As my sihing Chango said, we show proper respect in order to show our level of kung fu, and our manners as human beings. It is disrespectful for people to call someone they don’t know by first name. Let’s say I know what you look like and I see you somewhere and simply shout out “Hey, Victor!” You’d probably take some offense to that as you don’t have the slightest inkling of who I am and why I am addressing you by first name. I know I would feel that way. Besides, if you’re a Sifu, shouldn’t you be the one helping to address etiquette, not shooting it down, no matter what personal issues you may have?

PaulH
I understand that this is the web and all, that at times people are more informal than others. However, given that you were talking about Sifu Meng rather than to him…..

In general,
Etiquette is one of the highest things in society, so we are already discussing higher things. Without etiquette, where would humanity be? As martial artists, we all need to be aware of our actions more so than the average person. There is no excuse for breaches of etiquette, especially when typing messages. When speaking, it’s a bit different as we can become caught up in the moment and temporarily forget ourselves. But written messages should be carefully proofread for things like that. Martial artists study how to be in the proper time and space with the correct energy, this applies to more than just being in the combat arena. It applies to our daily lives.

[Ultimatewingchun]

David Peterson:

Great post about what WSL had to say about the "legendary' figures in wing chun history, and what Yip Man had to say about it...Convincing. I believe your account is very accurate.

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

To the HFY people who post on this forum:

Look...Yes, I have issues with Benny Meng. But let's put that aside for a second. I have no problem when people refer to me as "Victor" when they post on this forum. And if people want to refer to William Cheung as "William" - again, that's okay with me.

Even if they don't know me...and don't know William Cheung.

In fact, you may have noticed I have changed my signature on my posts...dropping the word Sifu. My students still call me sifu - and that's fine. But there are other people around here who also have students - but they don't sign as Sifu so-and-so.

So I decided to join the club.

I think the whole title thing (and the rituals...fancy uniforms, etc.) within the martial arts - especially Chinese and Japanese arts...are overdone, and are from a different era and culture than the one I live in. And besides - there are too many people walking around with all sorts of titles who really don't deserve to have one.

They just announce to the world that they are Mister Bigshot of some lineage-or-another...and the rest of us are then expected to address them as such. Too much can be hidden underneath that.

The world is changing...becoming more democratized. Don't show me titles - show me what you can do, and/or what you know. Then I'LL decide how to address you. That's the attitude throughout most of the world today - and I think it's a good one.

[Ernie]

victor

[[The world is changing...becoming more democratized. Don't show titles - show me what you can do...and what you know. Then I'LL decide how to address you. That's the attitude throughout most of the world today - and I think it's a good one.]]]


your post was great and honest, this part sums it all up
i'm very impressed by your growth and openess , and if i'm ever lucky enough to meet , i probably yell out hey victor and bum rush you with a big hug and a god d amn it it's good to see you ha ha
just don't choke me out
:D

i find titles and robotic ''etiquette'' just silly , i make it a point to blow past that stuff right away and get to the core of the person
if that person has a good soul and is warm and receptive . then they get the respect a good person deserves ,
if it's a martial art thing they need to earn that by pulling it off on me or in front of me
talking is easy , haveing a titile is nothing , the essence of the person is what counts

to many programed walls to seperate us people , just knock them down :)

since i don't care about history , i'm sorry for jumping into this thread. but when i see some one just being striaght out and honest like victor was , i couldn't help myself
you can resume regular scheduled bashing from this point on :cool:

seacrest out

[PaulH]

Alas, only yesterday I still see the silent crane brood over the still water, and the snake of old launch itself into another sneaking attack. But grim and determined reporters armed with facts waded in and troubled its water. Alas, poor Yim! I know her well! Farewell, my heroine! =)

[CFT]

Why not call him Mr. Meng if you don't like the pseudo-oriental titles? Assuming he is not a Quaker, we can observe normal societal etiquette at least.

Sure, some of us are more laid back regarding titles, but the other person may not be. It is only polite to use a title until that person wants to make things less formal.

If you are in the habit of addressing someone by their first name right off the bat, then don't be surprised if they find offence at the over-familiarity. If they don't, then they're either too polite to mention it or genuinely don't care.

In terms of this thread, things seem to have escalated unnecessarily. :(

[taltos]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I think the whole title thing (and the rituals...fancy uniforms, etc.) within the martial arts - especially Chinese and Japanese arts...are overdone, and are from a different era and culture than the one I live in.

For me personally, I kind of like the fact that I don't have Hing, Je, Dai, or Mui, bit have Sihing, Sije, Sidai, and Simui.

I don't see how reminding myself that the "teacher" ("si") nature is ever present in everyone in my family... even the person who just walked in 5 minutes ago. The reminder that I can learn from everyone is hardly "overdone" for me and (I sincerely hope) is not "from a different era and culture than the one I live in."

No one was looking for pedestools, just courtesy. Which can never be a bad thing.

-Levi

[taltos]

CFT...

Right on the money.

Great Post, and it applies to every aspect of our lives... not just the martial arts.

-Levi

[yuanfen]

"Why not call him Mr. Meng if you don't like the pseudo-oriental titles?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Context can make a difference. If Victor has known him and called him Benny- I see no problem.

If he were a forum participant- then Benny may be ok for others.

I see no problem if his people call him sifu or sigung on the forum.

For some if they have not met him Mr. Meng seemd commonly polite enough. If beginners want to use generic Meng sifu--it seems ok.

For most- Benny Meng seems ok- specially if one has met him.

If someone has not met him and had no interaction then calling him Benny may show unnecessary familiarity.

I for one gnerally go by context in these things-- I am "Joy" in this democratic net forum- I am not necessarily Joy to very stranger outside of the forum. A mutual Mr would do initially.
I am Joy to my bros and sisters- but not necessarily Joy to beginning students.Atleast Mr., possibly sifu or in another non martial cotext-professor. Confusing? Very clear to me. Contextual meanings and appropriate civility.

But exclusive usage of anonymous names on the net are problematic and points to the possibilty of a lack of integrity.
lack of courage and/or self assurance.

Joy

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Chango
Hendrick,
are you serious? come on man please?
maybe you crossed your wires somewhere becuase you keep referring to Oyama and Kyokushin and Tia Chi. LOL!


I don't think someone's cup was empty when they started learning thier wing chun! LOL!


Or maybe your WCK lesson was not coplete enough to make a prefound impression? LOL!



BTW why are you trying to direct this thread down the Shaolin nonShaolin path? I know you only have your SLT to judge from but that is not where everyone else is setting!


Chango



Chango,

Since you are so serious, LOL

set up a meeting with the present abbort of Shao Lin, present Emei martial art leader, Chen Xiao-Wang of Chen Taiji, the white crane of Fujian leader and me, make a Kung Fu Magazine special report article with Gene as the host. you can join if you want. if you want get the historian Cin Bo-Ji to join also.

There, ask those big guys after my presentation, is it Shao Lin, Wu Dang or white Crane/ Emei? May be my wire is cross or may be what your believe is totally off? hahaha :D


You are wrong again about Oyama, TaiChi, you didn include Yuen Chuan, Shao Lin from the Arahat or Loh Han Dang of Southern China..... etc. hahahaha. you only see a small tip of ice berg. BTW, my first Martial art training is in Judo. hahaha


Empty the cup? hahahaha. Read The power of NOW and ask for yourself do you "know" what is talking about there. if not you dont even know where is the cup. So, until you know where is the cup what is a cup. how can you empty it? LOL

You dont believe me? great , set up the meeting with the Shao Lin's abbort and his best Zen monks or even the present Abbort of the Greatest Zen temple of China, The Puo LIn Zen temple. So lets find where is the CUP. (instead of where is the beef. lol)


Complete WCK, SLT? hahahaha Get those top guys in China let them be the judges how about that.


Say, Chango. Learn to know where is the Cup what is a CUP before even talk about A Cup. LOL.

So, set up that meeting. See, with one meeting, you can totally make hendrik shut up and disappear forever from this forum. But then watch out since the world is about Ying Yang :D if the wind blow in an opposite direction. You might have to be Shut up forever about the cup, for you have never even seen a CUP. So you know nothing about A CUP. But it is fair right? let those top guys from China make the decision. I might be full of it. or I might be "full" of it. :D hehehee

It is all about CUP! hehehheheehe
have a nice week end while I am traveling out of the country.

Dont worry, you always have a chance to know the cup. even if you dont know what is a cup now. ;) I wish to be disappear from this forum forever that is so great to be shut up forever--- a peacefull vacation! hehehehe.

[duende]

Phenix,

Your cup may be full, but it's not filled with WC tea... just your own ****.

How typically egocentric of you to think that the Saolin abbot or any other KF experts would care to spend their time on you.

What would you show them anyways... your SLT, then after that more of your SLT, and then after that.... you guessed it more of your SLT.

What an incomplete picture of WC.

Of course you could always try to win them over with one of your famous slide shows. Ha!!! That would surely be a laugh!

But not nearly as funny as your past statements that your knowledge of Chan is greater than the Saolin Abbot's.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by duende
Phenix,

Your cup may be full, but it's not filled with WC tea... just your own ****.

How typically egocentric of you to think that the Saolin abbot or any other KF experts would care to spend their time on you.

What would you show them anyways... your SLT, then after that more of your SLT, and then after that.... you guessed it more of your SLT.

What an incomplete picture of WC.

Of course you could always try to win them over with one of your famous slide shows. Ha!!! That would surely be a laugh!

But not nearly as funny as your past statements that your knowledge of Chan is greater than the Saolin Abbot's.


Wow, great opinion from a guy who think he saw the CUP in the dream. ;)


Keep making judgement on something or someone one has zero idea.

Keep making up and assign statements to others. ...

what a Funny way to live. when do you become the spokeman of the abbort of Shao lin? hahahaha, Cant the Abort of Shao Lin speak for himself? and you are not Yim Wing-Chun too, so stop pretend you are her and grade others. hahahaha. :D



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

Time is what keeps the light from reaching us. there is no greater obstracle to God than time. ------ Meister Eckhart.

Nah, Time is not Zen!

[Phenix]

Originally posted by sihing



We believe Ng Mui was the creator of the actual techniques but not the theories behind it.

Please share your thoughts......

sihing


What is that theory? what kind of theory?

[canglong]

originally posted by hendrik
set up a meeting with the present abbort of Shao Lin, present Emei martial art leader, Chen Xiao-Wang of Chen Taiji, the white crane of Fujian leader and me, make a Kung Fu Magazine special report article with Gene as the host. you can join if you want. if you want get the historian Cin Bo-Ji to join also. When your book comes out maybe this is something you can do yourself instead of wasting everyones time on this forum.
originally posted by hendrik
you are not Yim Wing-Chun too, so stop pretend you are her and grade others. your own words and actions are the cause of your failing grade plain and simple all cause and no effect too much yin and not enough yang too much talk and no action too much chat and not enough communication.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by canglong
your own words and actions are the cause of your failing grade plain and simple all cause and no effect too much yin and not enough yang too much talk and no action too much chat and not enough communication.


Great Idea!

one has to first see where is the CUP before talking about CUP. otherwise how can one communicate about a cup :D?

[Da_Moose]

"See, with one meeting, you can totally make hendrik shut up and disappear forever from this forum."

-Phenix (Hendrik)

Funny, I recall you already making a big stink about how you were going to leave this forum a some months ago anyway, yet, you're still here!!??

[canglong]

To be a good communicator you must first learn how to listen. hendrik you break every rule then ask others to obey them you read the sutras but you don't understand we heard you the first time WCK is not from Shaolin saying it over and over does not add any more validity to your argument just because you say it in another thread that doesn't verifying your earlier statement. You can't even prove that your SLT is only the first part of what we all know as SNT with CK and BJ missing. So you actual have more important things to be concerned with in your training than whether or not WCK is or is not from Shaolin first you need to establish why it is a standard practice for WCK to have 3 empty hand forms yet you only have one.

[ntc]

Canglong:

Why bother with him?

If a person out there likes to read Phenix's rambling, then them read his writings. Otherwise, just ignore his posts like I do.

My two cents.... as part of our kung fu culture back in China, it is pretty common to acknowledge a person as a "Sifu" if that person has gained your respect. If not, then just address that person as Mrs. (lastname) or Mr. (lastname). You could always address Benny Meng as Mr. Meng. In fact, "Master" is not a term used lightly.... for example, people like the abbot in ShaoLin would be considered a "Master".

Now, I know, I know... there will be those of you out there who have absolutely no interest in all this "Sifu", "Master", etc.... so, just ignore my post. No problems there. Those who are interested, take it for what it is worth.

[kj]

FWIW. When I met Benny Meng, that is how he was introduced to me, and that is what the people present (including students and other sifus) called him. There was nothing at all formal or pretentious asked or expected. We have met on numerous occasions, always on very friendly terms, mutually respectful, and ever on a first name basis.

It would seem very odd indeed to add in a level of formality that never previously existed, or reflecting of a hierarchical relationship that we do not personally share in common. It would be quite like asking Benny and everyone here to begin addressing me henceforth as Mrs. Connors. I don't respect people any less for calling me Kathy Jo or kj; in fact I prefer it, and excess formality usually feels rather uneasy. You'd laugh out loud if you could read the bubble over my head when some well meaning but unnecessarily polite young person addresses me quite formally as "Ma'am."

Over my years in Wing Chun internet circles, it has become widely customary to drop titles and positional authority at least in these contexts, allowing us to address and interact with each other on a peer level and even playing field, at least in dialog. In my observation and experience, this more personable, informal, and friendly approach has generally proven to be a constructive and healthy practice, especially given how often and easily sensitive internet relationships are strained. It also affords a far greater consistency and less contentiousness with respect to inevitable title "challenges" of various flavors.

But then again, what do I know. My sifu, who is in many ways a very modern man and in other ways quite traditional, rather insists on *not* being called "sifu." While not 100%, this first name basis is more often the practice than not in our closer circles, even with my teacher's classmates and other "seniors." They are almost universally embarrassed at being addressed other than by their given names, especially by those who are not their students. And I can't imagine anyone in the know daring to call my teacher "Master" while he is in earshot!

So individual and group cultures definitely vary. It's often challenging enough to enforce rules and customs within a single family-group, let alone to try and compel the fragmented, diverse, and often divisive larger community into compliance.

I fully realize and respect that things can be quite different within family or intimate group circles, and for very good reasons. Heck, you wouldn't believe some of the ways I address my husband when I think no one's listening. But again, that's just between us. ;)

As always, just one of endless alternative views on things.

Regards & Peace,
- Kathy Jo

[Da_Moose]

KJ writes:
"So individual and group cultures definitely vary."

This is so true. I was only making a minor point regarding how to address the author of the article. Now it has kind of sidetracked the whole thread's initial theme. In my school, we adhere to a somewhat more formal etiquette, calling our Sifu by "Sifu" or "Sir". It helps to remind us that he is our teacher first and foremost, that there is a special relationship there. As Sifu can also mean father, it reminds us of that nuance as well. No one calls their father by first name do they? I understand that each individual and each subculture has its own nuances and such. But even so, there are common etiquttes in place in society, as KJ and some others have mentioned that should be observed when talking to/about people if they are not involved, or if you're unsure of how to address them. It's just a common courtesy that should be expected of everybody, regardless of the medium. However, specific cultural etiquettes cannot be imposed on everyone outside that culture. Guess I just have to remember everyone here is from a distinct subculture, albeit we all study kung fu and I thought some formalities and etiquettes were common in the martial arts community.

For those who only use formalities after someone has proven themselves to you, I also think along those lines. I do not advocate respecting a title over a person. I have known many peopel not deserving of their titles, but I still offer them the minimal courtesy due based on their positions. Being a teacher myself, I am more sensitive to issues of etiquette when it comes to forms of address. None of my students have ever called me by first name, nor have their parents. I'm Mr. Rudnicki to them. Stephen/Steve to my fellow teachers. Most cultures don't typically deviate from that. Unless on a first name basis with someone, we are generally taught to call them by Mr. or Mrs. *****. I would guess that most everyone would use that same courtesy when talking about people as well.


Now, back to the topic of the thread.

[Ng Mui]

Yes there is a concerted effort to rewrite Wing Chun’s origins. Much of this comes from Asian men who cannot admit they study a style created by a woman.
If you are from the Yip man lineage than you must believe the story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mui.
Believe all of what is taught or none at all.
And for those of you, who say ’’we can’t be for sure what happened back then.’’ Bah!
Maybe you did not know your sifu’s teacher, but your teacher did.
And maybe he did not know his Sifu’s teacher, but his teacher did.
So in a unending line the story gets passed on along with the techniques.

If they could be wrong about the origins than everything is suspect.
And if everything is suspect, then lets all enroll in Krav Maga classes and go out for pizza.
I’m Buying

[PaulH]

Thanks for speaking in behalf of Mrs. Yim Wing Chun, Abbess Ng Mui! =)

Tyranus Humus Rex

[CFT]

Originally posted by Ng Mui
If you are from the Yip man lineage than you must believe the story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mui.
Believe all of what is taught or none at all.
And for those of you, who say ’’we can’t be for sure what happened back then.’’ Bah!
Maybe you did not know your sifu’s teacher, but your teacher did.
And maybe he did not know his Sifu’s teacher, but his teacher did.
So in a unending line the story gets passed on along with the techniques.There is a flaw in your logic. You make the assumption that there is an unending line in the story. As Nick Forrer already posted, WSL and his peers were all shocked to hear about the story of Ng Mui & Yim Wing Chun because it was unknown to them before the newspaper article.

Even if there is an oral tradition, there is no way you can prove that some embellishments, or even outright fabrications, didn't get added along the way. You need verifiable published documents to really prove the history of something.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello David P.,


I think you may have confused something! The "story" legend of Ng Mui and Yim WC were around long before the mid 50's. Also, many lineage including Leung Jan's Koo Lo teaching refer to Ng Mui and Yim WC in their history and Leung Jan died around 1901 in Koo Lo village. Long long before the 50's! Also, Yuen Kay San lineage, Yik Kam lineage etc. and YM Futshan pupils all have those two figures in their historical stories! Perhaps you are refering to what guys like Wang Kiu and other early Hong Kong pupil mention as the Leung Bik story that was supposed to be the invention of the HK reporter named Lee Man! Especially since Sifu Yip never mentioned Bik in his own written history. Either way a story is just a story and you are correct when you say its the system that counts!


Regards,


Dear All,

My late Sifu, Wong Shun Leung, always maintained that the "legend" concerning Ng Mui, Yim Wing Chun, et al, was the invention of a reporter for a popular martial arts magazine in Hong Kong, and that this now well known (in all its subtle variations) tale was first published in the mid-50s. According to WSL, when the reporter came to Yip Man and asked if he could gather the info for a series of articles that was being done on several well known systems of MAs in Hong Kong, Yip Man basically told him to go off and write it, after which the late GM simply embellished it a little and approved its publication. My Sifu always said that prior to that time, Yip Man NEVER ever mentioned any such "history", and that it was all news to those training at that time. All they had been told was that they were learning the art taught by the legendary 'Fatsaan Leung Jan', in fact, it wasn't until after nearly a month or so after my late teacher started training under Yip Man in 1954 that he even knew that he system he was training (Wing Chun) was the same as the one practised by his boyhood hero, Leung Jan. The reason for this was that everyone knew of the man (LJ), but few actually knew what Kung Fu it was that LJ actually gained his formidable reputation by.

DMP
ps: I like myths & legends too, but I don't necessarily believe them, nor do I think that it's any big deal. The system is what counts, wouldn't you all agree?

[Phenix]

Canglong....1, 2, 3, 4, .... etc

You know. It is just a simple thing. Either one has seen a cup or not? why use those good comunicator... big words?
If one have never see a cup then there is nothing to tell be it a great communicator.. hahhaha.


ntc,
sure, sure, why bother Why bother with me. That is perfect. But see who is rambling? hahahaha. I just post a post and 1,2,3,4... as usual start all sort of great communication but no cup.

Is ntc means Never even Think a Cup exist? hehehehe. :D

Why bother with me. so dont reply. ok. hehehehe



Hey guys have a great weak end!





let me rambling my favorite song for tonight in this airport. hahahaha :D you guys are sooooo serious that it is no fun!


Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science books
Don't know much about the chinese I took
But I do know that I love you to rambling
And I know that if you loved me to rambling too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much WCK
Don't know much about Chan and Zen
Don't know what a CUP is for
But I know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be

Now I don't claim to be an A student
But I'm tryin' to be
Oh maybe by being an A student, baby
I can win your love for me



------ lead guitar ------

But I do know that I love you to ( rambling)
And I know that if you loved me too
What a wonderful world this would be

[canglong]

originally posted by hendrik
If one have never see a cup then there is nothing to tell be it a great communicator.. hahhaha. You are now and forevermore blind to the experiences of others you can not know whether another has or has not enjoyed or been exposed to the experience of viewing the cup so the best you can hope for is a common bond shared through cooperative knowledgeable thought provoking dialogue (communication) anything else is a waste of time. Lyrics to the songs of others are a poor expression of communication because once again you are relying upon the experience of others. If you have nothing to learn why always ask of others if you have nothing to contribute why waste the time of those that are here to communicate earnestly. You need less worry of others and more concern with self - Siu Nim Tao good luck in your search

[Phenix]

Originally posted by canglong
You are now and forevermore blind to the experiences of others you can not know whether another has or has not enjoyed or been exposed to the experience of viewing the cup ......



hehehhe, Everyone just have to know and master OHM's Law.

And they can tell you. whether the circuit is short circuit or not no matter what And how one experience and describe it label it. a short circuit is a short circuit. one can have 3 or 30 or 300 sets if it is an open circuit and short circuit. all will not work.


The law of the world is simple. If one have never found a cup, see one. Never Touch one, Never Drink with one. No matter how big the words one uses to describe it. It is hollow.

[duende]

Phenix:

lots of cups but no kung fu

[Jim Roselando]

Canglong/Duende,


Why dont you guys join the discussion about the Snake body/Emei on that thread? Since you have strong feelings towards that not being accurate you can show your evidence/research to discuss!

Then! We call can drink from each others cup and see what makes more sense or not agree at all. Either way it doesn't matter as long as we are happy but since this is a discussion group lets discuss with some structural/region data/info. to support (or debate) ones theory!

What are your theories as to the the Snake/Crane and if you dont believe in it then what do you feel were the root art/arts of WCK and what structural info. do you use to support those beliefs?


Regards,

[duende]

Jim,

Actually I don't have strong feelings about Hendrik's theories. I don't really care at all. He can believe whatever he wants.

He has a problematic habit of posting pointless ramblings and posts on threads that either don't concern him, or he has no real knowledge of.

Plain and simple.

I have no interest in joining your Emei thread. You can talk about coiling energy and convince yourselves that that links WC to White Crane all you want. Personally, I find that pretty weak, as coiling energy is present in many many other Chinese MA's. But hey... if you find that kind of reasoning interesting, good for you. I'm not going to rain on your parade.

The only things Hendrik has ever proven is
that his knowledge of KF is very small. His evidence is shallow. And his pictures/proof are ridiculous.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende,



Jim,

Actually I don't have strong feelings about Hendrik's theories. I don't really care at all. He can believe whatever he wants.

Ok! Its all about what makes us happy. Yet! Sometimes its good to investigate as we might learn from each other. JR

The problem I have is with his pointless ramblings and posts on threads that either don't concern him, or he has no real knowledge of.

Plain and simple.

I was not a big fan of Hendrik's writing early on. They are not easy to follow but once you can read HS then they have more meaning IMO. Yet! Just because they have some meaning for some it does not mean they have meaning for others. JR

If you all want to talk about coiling energy on another thread, and convince yourselves that that links WC to White Crane go ahead. Personally, I find that pretty stupid, as coiling energy is present in many many other Chinese MA's. But hey... suit yourself. I'm not going to rain on your parade.

Would you be willing to describe coiling energy as you see it relating to WC? Stupid for you is not stupid for others and vice versa. What I think is kind of funny is how someone can claim something is stupid and not analzye the DNA that supports the theory. There are many ways to coil depending on the art. Compare the DNA otherwise you cannot debate as to what is more likely a link to what. If you feel that hold no water than explain what you feel is the roots and discuss the evidence you have to support it or you dont have to say anything but that means you have not right to compain about what someone says IMO. JR

I find Hendrik's knowledge of KF very small. His evidence shallow. And his pictures/proof ridiculous.

Thats ok! Nothing wrong with that but what you think is very small or shallow others may not. I for one think Hendrik's knowledge is extremely deep. His writing reflects the same ways the greats of old China and Japan wrote. His pictures and structural evidence show more likely as to a possible link to the roots. Stuff that can be easily checked by the average person. Others like to link to something with no DNA to back up their theory or debate without discussion DNA. All is fine but if we want to put someone down (or boost them up) then discuss the DNA.


Regards,

[Phenix]

Originally posted by duende
Phenix:

lots of cups but no kung fu




I totally agree with you.

Sure, in order to know what is a cup needs kung fu of telling the truth.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by duende
Jim,


He has a problematic habit of posting pointless ramblings and posts on threads that either don't concern him, or he has no real knowledge of.

Plain and simple.



I find Hendrik's knowledge of KF very small. His evidence shallow. And his pictures/proof ridiculous.

.



Check the above post. It seems that I put in my two cents and there are 1,2,3,4,.... starts to rambling. hehehhe. Not me.

Speaking of no knowledge of. .... and what your good opinion...

Get those Shao Lin and Emei and Chen Taiji leaders for a meeting. Get Kungfu magazine be the propretory magazine for its front cover page and Gene be the Host. May be Gene can help set thing up like this when the leader of Shao LIn/ Wu Dang/ Emei visit his place.

Let them judge. Let them hang me. and you can watch they hang me infront of all those Grandmaster of Chinese Martial art with a big smile :D

how about that?






BTW. since you are not doing the WC I am doing. you dont like what I post. You are at the top of the WC mountain. You are the best and the most knowlegeble, and the number one like Mohamed ALI.

Since I know ZIP Zero.... Why bother? why bother even join into the discussion what I post out? Dont spent any energy on the discussion that I participating in, leaving me and the little WC people alone for us to speak.. That way, me and the little WC people can discuss and talk about all the "stupid" things we dont know and you can spend time speaking with God which you will be more happier.

why spend the energy with the knowing nothing stupid hendrik? hahhahaha. Dont spend your time even replying this post. Save your energy to not talk to the low life like me. :D

[duende]

Originally posted by Jim Roselando


Would you be willing to describe coiling energy as you see it relating to WC? Stupid for you is not stupid for others and vice versa. What I think is kind of funny is how someone can claim something is stupid and not analzye the DNA that supports the theory. There are many ways to coil depending on the art. Compare the DNA otherwise you cannot debate as to what is more likely a link to what. If you feel that hold no water than explain what you feel is the roots and discuss the evidence you have to support it or you dont have to say anything but that means you have not right to compain about what someone says IMO. JR

I find Hendrik's knowledge of KF very small. His evidence shallow. And his pictures/proof ridiculous.

Thats ok! Nothing wrong with that but what you think is very small or shallow others may not. I for one think Hendrik's knowledge is extremely deep. His writing reflects the same ways the greats of old China and Japan wrote. His pictures and structural evidence show more likely as to a possible link to the roots. Stuff that can be easily checked by the average person. Others like to link to something with no DNA to back up their theory or debate without discussion DNA. All is fine but if we want to put someone down (or boost them up) then discuss the DNA.


Regards,

A good example of coiling energy in HFY is in our Jun Sau, which is present in our SNT. Chi Sim also has a similar technique in their Fa Kuen. A student of ours who also studies Saolin 5 animals stlye also has the same technique.

Techniques are just movements. It's the logic flow, concepts and philosphy behind those techniques that make a system what it is. For every White Crane picture Hendrik produces as evidence because of physical similarities, I'll give you five pictures from other systems with those same similairites.

So don't talk to me about DNA.

Hendriks writings do a great dishonor to the greats of China and Japan. Not only does he plaguerized their ideas, but he has to put them though his personal nitwit cuisinart, and what gets spit out is just a mumbling mess.

He also has a fondness for taking my lineages concepts and repackaging them.

In both of these cases, superficial awareness is present, but the true knowledge focus is not.

KF is ONLY learned through hands on interaction. Only a very low level of understanding comes from books. Less from pictures. Even less from the internet.

Like I said before... to each his own. If you feel he has something to teach you... go for it. It's your time to waste.

BTW, I've never posted anything negative on any of Hendrik's white crane threads. They do no concern me. So your mentioning of complaints by me don't hold any water.

[black and blue]

Plagiarize ideas?

While H's posts are probably the most infuriating to read... I don't think he's ever passed off what he says as being purely his own ideas.

But his 1,2,3,4 comments made me laugh, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for that alone. :p

[canglong]

Jim,
What duende says is very much on point. One of the first things taught in my young kung fu life a while back is there is no right or wrong only different perspectives or levels of understanding along with unique individual experiences I haven't forgot that and I would hope that others are being taught this valueable lesson as well. Speaking for myself there is absolutely nothing hendrik can say, write or practice that will add or subtract from my own personal training. That being the case there really is no need to bother debating the origins of wing chun or anything else with him. You he and others can and do a good job of going in circles about white crane and emei so I leave that to you the only request that I would make of hendrik in these discussions is that he stop putting Shaolin down in order to raise emei up. Is there really a need to be malicious towards Shaolin or anyone else when trying to advance your arguments. hendrik is continually guilty of this and my post regarding his post are just a subtle reminder of his reckless and needless behaivor on this forum. Take the recent ranting about the "cup" for instance do you think a practicing buddhist would or should sit here and argue about who has and has not seen the "cup" doubt it very much maybe you don't but the point is hendrik waste time with post like that as if he can show that he knows somethng that others don't and I just find that amusing now you may see it differently going back to differing perspectives and all but I would hope that over time with more knowledge and fact behind those perspectives they will grow beyond what they currently appear to be.

[CFT]

Originally posted by canglong
Take the recent ranting about the "cup" for instance do you think a practicing buddhist would or should sit here and argue about who has and has not seen the "cup" doubt it very much maybe you don't but the point is hendrik waste time with post like that as if he can show that he knows somethng that others don't and I just find that amusing now you may see it differently going back to differing perspectives and all but I would hope that over time with more knowledge and fact behind those perspectives they will grow beyond what they currently appear to be. Not wanting to put Hendrik down ... but maybe he has not attained enlightenment yet? Or maybe he has and he is sacrificing his place in Nirvhana to educate us? :p

Even the head abbot of Shaolin gets involved in mundane matters like administration and copyright enforcement.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende/Canglong,


Guys! Sorry for the partial reply but work is crazy!


A good example of coiling energy in HFY is in our Jun Sau, which is present in our SNT. Chi Sim also has a similar technique in their Fa Kuen. A student of ours who also studies Saolin 5 animals stlye also has the same technique.

Techniques are just movements. It's the logic flow, concepts and philosphy behind those techniques that make a system what it is. For every White Crane picture Hendrik produces as evidence because of physical similarities, I'll give you five pictures from other systems with those same similairites.

So don't talk to me about DNA.


It all about whats going on inside! I have no doubt Chi Sim/5 Animals and maybe your HFY version of WC have similar energy yet I have watched some of all these arts and perhaps the DNA is different from what I consider to be WCK. If someone was to say; Jim, Chi Sim is Shaolin art. I would check it out and then say; Seems to be as the art reflects it after watching it. Same goes for 5 Animals etc.. When I look at WCK I do not classify it in that category. Why? Because of whats going on inside it different! So, while your HFY may be more related to Shaolin DNA it goes against Rou Jing Chinese Martial Art properties IMO. This is just my opinion from watching footage of what you do and what Chi Sim does and what other WCK/Internal Rou Jing art do. Nothing better/Nothing worst! Just my feelings and it does not mean I am right!


He also has a fondness for taking my lineages concepts and repackaging them.


I have watched HFY performed by a few people. Hendrik's understanding of Chinese MA would not allow him to steal from you guys as what you guys are doing is different from what he strives for. The structural properties of HFY are way too different for him to do that!


Canglong,


That being the case there really is no need to bother debating the origins of wing chun or anything else with him. You he and others can and do a good job of going in circles about white crane and emei so I leave that to you the only request that I would make of hendrik in these discussions is that he stop putting Shaolin down in order to raise emei up. Is there really a need to be malicious towards Shaolin or anyone else when trying to advance your arguments.

Who is putting down Shaolin? If someone says A and someone says B then when B states their research to debate A then is that mean there is a malice intent towards A? A discussion forum is just that. HFY claims Shaolin! Thats cool! Some other WCK do not! Thats cool to! If HFY claims to be the original and others believe this or that then whats wrong with debating theories on a discussion forum? I think too many jump in and debate without the info. to support a healthy debate and thats when comments like Cup may come out. The first thing we should know is what type of art we do! Rou Jing or Shaolin! Once that is established then we can discuss like adults. One can also point fingers towards you my friend. How many times have people told everyone that Hendrik SLT is the equivalent of average WCK 3 sets? How many times have others who have visited Hendrik stated the same? How many times in the past have we heard that at one time WCK only had one long set? Yet! Ater knowing all this you still feel the need to state stuff like:

You dont even have CK or BJ so you are lacking etc..


That is also a waste of time so lets all discuss like adults versus repeating non-sense and we can all grow together!


Gotta run!



Regards,

[duende]

It all about whats going on inside! I have no doubt Chi Sim/5 Animals and maybe your HFY version of WC have similar energy yet I have watched some of all these arts and perhaps the DNA is different from what I consider to be WCK. If someone was to say; Jim, Chi Sim is Shaolin art. I would check it out and then say; Seems to be as the art reflects it after watching it. Same goes for 5 Animals etc.. When I look at WCK I do not classify it in that category. Why? Because of whats going on inside it different! So, while your HFY may be more related to Shaolin DNA it goes against Rou Jing Chinese Martial Art properties IMO. This is just my opinion from watching footage of what you do and what Chi Sim does and what other WCK/Internal Rou Jing art do. Nothing better/Nothing worst! Just my feelings and it does not mean I am right!

Precisely, it is all about what's going on inside. Like I said before... techniques and forms are nothing without the concepts and true understanding of the logic flow behind them.
Therefore your opinions from watching videos, or hendriks theories from looking at pictures have no real credibility.

To truly understand the concepts of Tin Yan Dei, Kiu Sau, and the non-linearity of the five energies you must have hands on experience. Words are meaningless with out real experience.

I have watched HFY performed by a few people. Hendrik's understanding of Chinese MA would not allow him to steal from you guys as what you guys are doing is different from what he strives for. The structural properties of HFY are way too different for him to do that!

FYI... I wasn't referring to structure or forms. What I was referring to was his repackaging of our views on Chan and WC concepts on this forum. Time and time again he has argued with us over Chan and WC concepts, only to later post our views reworded under his name on a new thread.

This does not surprize us though... given who he associates himself with.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende,


Precisely, it is all about what's going on inside. Like I said before... techniques and forms are nothing without the concepts and true understanding of the logic flow behind them.

Well, we agree on this but probally are thinking about it in a totally different way. JR

Therefore your opinions from watching videos, or hendriks theories from looking at pictures have no real credibility.

I disagree. The have as much value as the next guy. JR

To truly understand the concepts of Tin Yan Dei, Kiu Sau, and the non-linearity of the five energies you must have hands on experience. Words are meaningless with out real experience.

Really! You cannot tell what something is by watching it? One can easily tell by watching Sum Nung that he had the short shock force. One can easily tell from watching Yip Man play on the dummy that he had a good understanding of the WC way. Hendrik watches Fung Chun and said this:

As the old Chinese saying " with a move shown by an expert, one will recognized it is or is it not".

SLT, CK, BJ, DLT....... points.... all are names. That single move itself shown not the name of how one catagorized his/her curricurum.

As the old Chinese saying " The outsider anticipate the busy party, and the insider anticipate the depth of Kungfu".

A move is a move, but it says alots.
But then, how much moves one has to practice until a move says alots? There is no short cut.

Old Master Fung convicenced me about the authenticity of his art. As for other's who claim to be x or y or original and trying to force others to belive and changing ancestors......
Sorry to say, that doesn't even come close to the surface. IMO.


This was from an old debate and discussion that went on!


Thanks for the chat!

[duende]

Jim,

I'll just lastly say this...

Being able to tell short shock force and good WC knowledge at the dummy is very very different than being able to derrive historical DNA evidence as to a MA's systems roots.

Surely you can see the difference. But if not... then let's agree to disagree, and not begin a looping pattern. As I'm sure we can agree that that would not be good WC.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende,


Lets just agree to disagree!

We both have totally different ideas as to what WCK is. Which is fine! :-) Not to mention this historical debate!


Take care,

[Phenix]

Originally posted by CFT
Not wanting to put Hendrik down ... but maybe he has not attained enlightenment yet? Or maybe he has and he is sacrificing his place in Nirvhana to educate us? :p



you know how to sing the starry starry night?

let me sing it for you. :D

"Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)"

Starry, starry night
Paint your palette blue and grey
Look out on a summer's day
With eyes that know the darkness in my soul
Shadows on the hills
Sketch the trees and daffodils
Catch the breeze and the winter chills
In colours on the snowy linen land

.......

Like the strangers that you've met
The ragged men in ragged clothes
The silver thorn of bloody rose
Lie crushed and broken on the virgin snow

Now I think I know
What you tried to say to me
And how you suffered for your sanity
And how you tried to set them free
They would not listen
They're not listening still
Perhaps they never will...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hendrik:

About the use of drugs while doing martial arts...

"Just say no."

[Miles Teg]

Last part of song:
"They would not listen
They're not listening still
Perhaps they never will..."


..........and do you blame them?