djcaldwell
02-12-2007, 06:31 PM
In another thread it was mentioned that now a days people are more concernced with money versus the caliber of student in which they choose to teach. That most will teach anyone for a buck (as if this is something new). But in reading the implication was that an instructor should be screening "each student" to ensure their integrity and/or virture and that this is the "old way". Are we to believe that the old way (which few if any of us were around for) was to question the integrity of each student to whom knowledge was passed in order to ensure that we don't "...absorb the karma for that person's transgresions." If so, how exactly do you do this - is there training to look into their soul or get inside their head?
Lately we have had several discussions with regard to the "purists" who lay claim to holding the "real kung fu" because they believe that they adhere to some antiquated unwritten laws governing conduct and to whom knowledge is passed. Seriously...
The question this raies in my mind is now in the 21st century how many of us truly believe this to be the case? Are we so ignorant that in a world governed by capitalism that we would question the integrity and quality of instructors who have managed to make a living doing what they love to do? By doing so are they automatically moral Kung Fu degenrates because they teach those who want to learn and yes...pay for it?
Personally until last year I too was caught up in the "fantasy" of Kung Fu as are many of us who grew up watching KF movies on Saturday mornings and based my entire Kung Fu belief system on the basis that all Kung Fu was based on virtue and the highest moral integrity. The truth is this is not nor never was the case. Kung Fu legend and "old ways" in Hong Kong are just that legends and tools used to create the vision of what we wanted it to be. Not saying that the respect and many of the customs are not valid - but this "only teach the virtuous" and thank heaven for those who discriminate to weed out the losers is just not the way it is. This "old way" and rules we so desire to cling to are nonsense.
Who are we to say how one persons teachings are less because he teaches to the masses? We weren't even around to lay claim to the "old ways" and besides it's 2007 not 1707 - teachings, reasons for teaching and who is learning and why have all changed over the last 300 years.
The fact that someone runs a larger school or finds that he/she is able to make a living in doing so doesn't mean they don't have "real kung fu" as the guardians of purity claim. As was discussed in the thread similarly named - those guardians tend to be the ones who are not confident in their own skills or feel they at some point have been taken by a questionable lineage or need to associate themselves with some secret code to authenticate their own skills.
Look, there certainly are many schools out there that teach crap, we all know this. There are BS lineages (which who really cares) and made up nonsense. But on the same token, there are thse that have the goods and share it. They also have the ABILITY and business sense to capitalize on doing something they love. Plus, big schools throw people out too. I've been witness to the expelling of students based on behavior in larger schools just as would be done in a smaller more discriminate setting.
Basically, as a martial artist and someone who may be venturing into the world of KF business I'm tired of instructors clinging to the "old ways" to make themselves feel special and/or eliete. That because they are UNABLE to run a business or formulate a curriculum capable of offering quality instruction to a large group and actually maintain a profit, they lay claim to a "Higher Integrity of Knowledge", "Morality" and "Virtue".
Yet there are many quality schools who I will not go through the naming of but offer quality instruction and maintain their integrity as well. I'm sure that they would beg to differ with comments to the contrary.
Not understanding incentives, marketing, curriculum and program breakdowns doesn't make one morally superior, just a bad business man. As for the taking of disciples. Well that's an entirely different story. There is a differnce between "students" and "disciples". If we're talking about screening disciples then yes there is some validity in wanting to make sure the person is up to the Sifu's standards. Not every student is disciple material but in todays day and age not every student has to be a disciple. it'ss time we all welcome in the 21st century and realize that someone can have "real kung fu" and actually teach while, all though they may never be the Kung Fu Martyr but living in poverty but do they deserve to have their Kung Fu or integrity questioned because they were able to make a living from it.
To all you Sifu's and school owners giving it all you go - good luck.
Lately we have had several discussions with regard to the "purists" who lay claim to holding the "real kung fu" because they believe that they adhere to some antiquated unwritten laws governing conduct and to whom knowledge is passed. Seriously...
The question this raies in my mind is now in the 21st century how many of us truly believe this to be the case? Are we so ignorant that in a world governed by capitalism that we would question the integrity and quality of instructors who have managed to make a living doing what they love to do? By doing so are they automatically moral Kung Fu degenrates because they teach those who want to learn and yes...pay for it?
Personally until last year I too was caught up in the "fantasy" of Kung Fu as are many of us who grew up watching KF movies on Saturday mornings and based my entire Kung Fu belief system on the basis that all Kung Fu was based on virtue and the highest moral integrity. The truth is this is not nor never was the case. Kung Fu legend and "old ways" in Hong Kong are just that legends and tools used to create the vision of what we wanted it to be. Not saying that the respect and many of the customs are not valid - but this "only teach the virtuous" and thank heaven for those who discriminate to weed out the losers is just not the way it is. This "old way" and rules we so desire to cling to are nonsense.
Who are we to say how one persons teachings are less because he teaches to the masses? We weren't even around to lay claim to the "old ways" and besides it's 2007 not 1707 - teachings, reasons for teaching and who is learning and why have all changed over the last 300 years.
The fact that someone runs a larger school or finds that he/she is able to make a living in doing so doesn't mean they don't have "real kung fu" as the guardians of purity claim. As was discussed in the thread similarly named - those guardians tend to be the ones who are not confident in their own skills or feel they at some point have been taken by a questionable lineage or need to associate themselves with some secret code to authenticate their own skills.
Look, there certainly are many schools out there that teach crap, we all know this. There are BS lineages (which who really cares) and made up nonsense. But on the same token, there are thse that have the goods and share it. They also have the ABILITY and business sense to capitalize on doing something they love. Plus, big schools throw people out too. I've been witness to the expelling of students based on behavior in larger schools just as would be done in a smaller more discriminate setting.
Basically, as a martial artist and someone who may be venturing into the world of KF business I'm tired of instructors clinging to the "old ways" to make themselves feel special and/or eliete. That because they are UNABLE to run a business or formulate a curriculum capable of offering quality instruction to a large group and actually maintain a profit, they lay claim to a "Higher Integrity of Knowledge", "Morality" and "Virtue".
Yet there are many quality schools who I will not go through the naming of but offer quality instruction and maintain their integrity as well. I'm sure that they would beg to differ with comments to the contrary.
Not understanding incentives, marketing, curriculum and program breakdowns doesn't make one morally superior, just a bad business man. As for the taking of disciples. Well that's an entirely different story. There is a differnce between "students" and "disciples". If we're talking about screening disciples then yes there is some validity in wanting to make sure the person is up to the Sifu's standards. Not every student is disciple material but in todays day and age not every student has to be a disciple. it'ss time we all welcome in the 21st century and realize that someone can have "real kung fu" and actually teach while, all though they may never be the Kung Fu Martyr but living in poverty but do they deserve to have their Kung Fu or integrity questioned because they were able to make a living from it.
To all you Sifu's and school owners giving it all you go - good luck.