Emei Crane

[Shaolin Wookie]

Does anyone know a good resource for Omei Crane? Vids? Books?

Many sources (including KFM Online articles) cite Emei Shan as a center for crane studies, and my three brown belt crane forms in Shaolin Do supposedly come from the Omei crane......but I can't find any other tangible sources for Emei crane outside of our information. All those outside sources don't point to anything tangible. I can't seem to find much about Emei Crane at all....

So, for all you kungfu scholars, please point the way.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Maybe those brown belt forms didn't come from Omei Mountain. Have you considered that?

From watching Shaolin Do clips online, I don't think you'l find any of them outside of your organization. Not hating, just saying that I think all your forms are unique to your school and your school alone.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Maybe those brown belt forms didn't come from Omei Mountain. Have you considered that?

From watching Shaolin Do clips online, I don't think you'l find any of them outside of your organization. Not hating, just saying that I think all your forms are unique to your school and your school alone.

Of course it's crossed my mind, dude, that's why I'm asking for outside sources. BTW, there are many sites and schools and books (non-Shaolin-Do) that cite Emei Shan as a center for crane studies, but I find it strange I never find any actual Emei Crane forms or info anywhere. Just looking to find what these other schools and books are talking about.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

The only crane forms you'll probably find are NOT from Omei mountain. What does that tell you?

You'll find;

Tibetan White Crane
Fukien White Crane
Yong Chun White Crane

and a few more.

Are you looking for expert advice to validate the forms that you have learned at Shaolin-Do?

Have you seen ANY forms of Shaolin Do OUTSIDE of the organization? Again..not saying that SD is good or bad. I do think however, that their material has all been developed from within the org.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The only crane forms you'll probably find are NOT from Omei mountain. What does that tell you?

You'll find;

Tibetan White Crane
Fukien White Crane
Yong Chun White Crane

and a few more.

Are you looking for expert advice to validate the forms that you have learned at Shaolin-Do?

Have you seen ANY forms of Shaolin Do OUTSIDE of the organization? Again..not saying that SD is good or bad. I do think however, that their material has all been developed from within the org.

OMG......plants head into hands........

Emei Crane, yes or no. No, not trying to validate.....LOL.......

If you have thoughts on SD, you know where to go. I'm just looking for more info.....

Oh, the inanity of it all....

[Lama Pai Sifu]

You can take your head out of your hands now.

Uh, no. No Omei Crane. Do you know why?
Because there is none?? You learned forms from a style that does not exist?

Go ahead and put your head back in.

[lkfmdc]

It's too bad there isn't a really long thread about Shaolin-Do, I mean, that certainly would be interesting and I'm sure it would be several pages

(/sarcasm)

[Shaolin Wookie]

You can take your head out of your hands now.

Uh, no. No Omei Crane. Do you know why?
Because there is none?? You learned forms from a style that does not exist?

Go ahead and put your head back in.

Okay, so I've just had a spat with a complete dip**** on this subject. You do Tibetan Crane, not Emei. If I have questions about your style, I'll make sure to contact you. Do you hear that silence? Yeah, that's what it means. Anyone else care to pop in?

LOL, I've found numerous references to Emei Crane in old documentaries, from Emei Kung-fu masters from China, and in KFM's online archives.

So, I'll pull my head out of my hands and say, pull your head out of your arse. I'm doing research into the style--not just Shaolin-Do--that's not hte issue, despite the fact you want to make it the issue. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing.

You have nothing to say relevant to the issue. So take the cue.

[Mano Mano]

The only place I’ve found referring to emei crane is on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.at/Taoist-Kung-Fu-6-magic-Power-Crane-Routine-2-VCD-DVD_W0QQitemZ250073384168QQihZ015QQcategoryZ73992Q QcmdZViewItem

[Mano Mano]

& here
http://schenkermartialarts.com/syst.htm

[Shaolin Wookie]

Look a little harder and you'll find more.

[Mano Mano]

Personally I don’t want to, just thought I was being helpful.
If you’ve found more information why bother asking here.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Personally I don’t want to, just thought I was being helpful.
If you’ve found more information why bother asking here.


LOL, b/c all the info I have doesn't lead to actual forms you can see. I want to see some, if it indeed exists. If it doesn't, I wonder why so many people associate Emei with crane.

[Mano Mano]

try using the search facility to look through old treads on the wing chun board to see why people associate Emei with crane.

[ittokaos]

Are you referring to The Shaolin Grandmasters Text(start bashing...now)?

I do know that they state that those from Emei are masters of Crane and Mantis. Is that what you are referring to?

If it is then I am not too sure that you are going to be able to find much info about it.

If not then I am sure that Emei has some type of Crane considering the fact that they are famous for their animal styles. I don't know if this would help but try You tube. Everyone knows that only true masters post on youtube(sarcasm.)

[Shaolin Wookie]

Are you referring to The Shaolin Grandmasters Text(start bashing...now)?

I do know that they state that those from Emei are masters of Crane and Mantis. Is that what you are referring to?

If it is then I am not too sure that you are going to be able to find much info about it.

If not then I am sure that Emei has some type of Crane considering the fact that they are famous for their animal styles. I don't know if this would help but try You tube. Everyone knows that only true masters post on youtube(sarcasm.)

Nope. Not that text, not those guys. Youtube....LOL......I love the sarcasm....:D

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Are you referring to The Shaolin Grandmasters Text(start bashing...now)?

I do know that they state that those from Emei are masters of Crane and Mantis. Is that what you are referring to?

If it is then I am not too sure that you are going to be able to find much info about it.

If not then I am sure that Emei has some type of Crane considering the fact that they are famous for their animal styles. I don't know if this would help but try You tube. Everyone knows that only true masters post on youtube(sarcasm.)

I will seriously venture a guess in saying that any crane techniques that you do see from Omei styles, are not going to look like the crane you see in Southern styles of KF, i.e., the Crane hand (beak). I think you'll probably see something that's more similiar to the Fukien style.

Are your Shaolin Do Omei Crane forms posted on youtube?

[MasterKiller]

Nope. Not that text, not those guys. Youtube....LOL......I love the sarcasm....:D

Why not list your sources?

[SouthernTiger]

Are you referring to The Shaolin Grandmasters Text(start bashing...now)?

I do know that they state that those from Emei are masters of Crane and Mantis. Is that what you are referring to?

If it is then I am not too sure that you are going to be able to find much info about it.

If not then I am sure that Emei has some type of Crane considering the fact that they are famous for their animal styles. I don't know if this would help but try You tube. Everyone knows that only true masters post on youtube(sarcasm.)

Although I really dont care what your take is on the book ("The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text") as it is usually the ignorant are the quickest to judge, I would like to clarify a bit.

According to the oral history that I received ( so take this for whatever it is worth to you) there was more of a preponderance of Crane and Mantis masters at Omei. This does not necessarily mean that there was a Mantis and Crane style unique to Omei.

Shaolin Wookie, If you would like, you could post a video of of the 3 crane forms that you learned and I could comment on similarity/difference based on the limited Crane material that I know. However, Tiger is my style of emphasis so my Crane material is quite limited.

-Blake

[Shaolin Wookie]

Why not list your sources?

They're at home buried under the countless piles of grad school research notes I've accumulated this year. Sifting through them to appease your curiosity is not very high on my list of things to do. It's right there above "Lick clean the litter boxes, to prove to yourself that you're truly a man." It'll be a while before I get there. Ironically, it's right below "Kiss a man, to prove to yourself that you're a heterosexual, and then kill the person you kiss so he doesn't tell anyone, and bury him somewhere where nobody will find him--maybe in the litter boxes" on that same list.

I just don't have the time right now.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Although I really dont care what your take is on the book ("The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text") as it is usually the ignorant are the quickest to judge, I would like to clarify a bit.

According to the oral history that I received ( so take this for whatever it is worth to you) there was more of a preponderance of Crane and Mantis masters at Omei. This does not necessarily mean that there was a Mantis and Crane style unique to Omei.

Shaolin Wookie, If you would like, you could post a video of of the 3 crane forms that you learned and I could comment on similarity/difference based on the limited Crane material that I know. However, Tiger is my style of emphasis so my Crane material is quite limited.

-Blake


I don't have the technology...I have a tape-based camcorder, and no video card on my computer. I tried that once upon a time, but gave up because it wasn't worth the effort or the money.

[MasterKiller]

Although I really dont care what your take is on the book ("The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text") as it is usually the ignorant are the quickest to judge, I would like to clarify a bit.-Blake

Shaolin Grandmasters Text is from the quacks at Shaolin.com. Here is Gene Ching's review...


I hope Mr. Henning didn't read the whole book for his own good. Pretty early on, any Shaolin researcher can see how poor the work is - citing Star Wars - come on, really. That could have worked, and may work on the uneducated, but its such a simplistic model and a fantasy at that. I did read the whole work. I'm happy to criticize it point by point, but it would be such a laborious task since there are so many incorrect points. I think Henning just got overwhelmed with the ridiculousness of it, as did I. But I did finish it so if you really want to go, point by point, we can do that. That would be unwise on your part. I would much prefer going point by point with the still anonymous and cowardly OSC.


Hopefully Wookie isn't relying on their website for his research.

[SouthernTiger]

Shaolin Grandmasters Text is from the quacks at Shaolin.com. Here is Gene Ching's review...




Hopefully Wookie isn't relying on their website for his research.

Actually, Shaolin.com is operated independently from the Order of Shaolin Chan. The webmaster used notes that led to the book's inception but the site isn't to be considered "official" (and I use this term loosely).

Thanks for reposting Mr. Ching's "review". I was quite disappointed in his view on the book but everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I would caution people against taking his word as gospel truth. Better that a person be convinced in his own mind, not simply relying on another's PoV.

Regardless, I have no quarrel with anyone who chooses to believe that the Shaolin Grandmasters' Text is not genuine, but I would sincerely hope that they do their own research and avoid the "Sheep-eople" syndrome.

Shaolin Wookie, if you are interested I would be open to comparing notes, per se, on crane techniques. However, the caveat is that none of my crane material is labeled "Omei Crane", only Shaolin Crane.

Good luck in your research.

-Blake

[MasterKiller]

I didn't even post the good part.


I finally slogged through this piece of crap what a horrid waste of time that was. I must concur with Henning's review in JAMA. What can you expect from 'vanity' publishing?

This book sucks. It is packed with misinformation. It attempts to appear well researched by citing previous publications, but even the most cursory review of the bibliography reveals that it focuses only on recent titles and only in English. In fact, there are some obvious gaffs in here that clearly indicate that the researchers lack even the most fundamental understanding of Chinese language, much less Chinese culture. It's more of a manifesto - some one obviously put a lot of work into this solely to perpetuate their agenda within their strange belt system school. I get sent a lot of manifestos - this has to be the best presentation so far, but it still lacked content.

There's two kickers to this - two outstanding things the just sent sent it over the top. One is that it comes with this little apology blow-in card. What kind of book does that? It's out of fear. Second, and this is why I call them 'cowards,' is that they refuse to identify themselves. They give all sorts of excuses for anonymity, but it's it's really ridiculous when you think about it. After all, this is the martial arts. If you can't lay your name and reputation down on the line with something that you publish, you have no right to stand amongst other martial artists that do.

I feel bad for any newbies who begin their Shaolin journey with this book. They will be so deluded. I can only hope that they can find the truth, in the end.

You can read for yourself where the community tore the book a new one when it came out:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...ad.php?t=32279


Wookie, do yourself a favor and steer clear of these guys...

[GeneChing]

I almost never give reviews that are that negative anymore. There's so much negativity in the martial arts already (present thread included) that I generally try to remain positive. However, that book was such a disappointment. It was a set back to Shaolin research in the west.

But back OT, Emei has a lot of different styles because many masters have taken refuge there over the centuries. Like Shaolin, it absorbed a lot; there are many non-indigenous lineages that are very strong in Emei today - xingyi is a classic example. For animal styles, Emei is most renowned for eagle, dragon, snake and monkey. There may be crane and mantis there too, but it's not one of their specialties, to my knowledge. A good resource on Emei would be our 2000 September issue, the Emei Special (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=124).

[SouthernTiger]

I almost never give reviews that are that negative anymore. There's so much negativity in the martial arts already (present thread included) that I generally try to remain positive. However, that book was such a disappointment. It was a set back to Shaolin research in the west.

But back OT, Emei has a lot of different styles because many masters have taken refuge there over the centuries. Like Shaolin, it absorbed a lot; there are many non-indigenous lineages that are very strong in Emei today - xingyi is a classic example. For animal styles, Emei is most renowned for eagle, dragon, snake and monkey. There may be crane and mantis there too, but it's not one of their specialties, to my knowledge. A good resource on Emei would be our 2000 September issue, the Emei Special (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=124).

Hello Mr. Ching,

I must say that your "review" was a disappointment. Your main issues were directed not at the content but at the fact that there was not an author listed, only an organization. You seemed to throw a tantram at this fact and couldnt look past it.

I would love to actually get some constructive criticism from you (feel free to email me or pm me) but I doubt you really care. I wonder if the reason you were so scathing in your "review" was the fact that the book states that there is no authentic Shaolin at the Shaolin temple. Are you not a disciple of a "Shaolin" monk?

Unfortunetly, most people seem to forget than you are in the business of selling magazines. I wonder how many magazines you would sell if people realized that the "Shaolin temple" is only significant as a tourism destination with fancy wushu, not significant from a martial standpoint.

Regardless, I apolagize to Shaolin Wookie for somewhat hijacking this thread. I wish you luck in your research.

-Blake

[lkfmdc]

Gene, sounds like you need to re-review the book, piece by piece

[cjurakpt]

the only Er Mei White Crane I have ever recalled seening was back at NYU in the late '80's, when there was some tall blond Northern European-looking guy named Olaf or Sven or something (Dave, memory assist here?) teaching a qigong system by that name - no martial usage per se, but the system was eveidently fairly widespread - maybe that is where the SD forms were derived from?

[ittokaos]

I am not here to bash anyone. Much less the OSC. I was simply referring to the bashing that the OSC gets on this forum. I have said it once and I'll say it again(maybe not on this forum) . Just because someone can't prove their lineage doesn't mean they aren't for real. That is a lesson that I have been taught by several Sifus and as I understand more I find it to be true.

My only real problems with the book (in my opinion, which was based on my limited knowledge)were the "GI" that was worn and the fact that the Bak Mei in that book was horribly represented(Chu Gar/Chuka too). It seems as though it was taken directly from HB Un's book(CHu GAr/Chuka was taken from Draeger's)(which was very stingy in it's sharing of Bak Mei knowledge in my opinion). Other than that it was really more about the OSC itself which isn't bad but I think a more indepth representation of the styles would be better.

Also, when one reads the bibliography it really makes it seem as though someone read through all these books and then pieced together their understanding of what Shaolin is/was and then wrote a book about it. That alone would lead to bashing.

I don't know what Gene's reasons for bashing were but anyone with an ok knowledge of Shaolin would be left with mixed feelings. But you are right that Gene is basically a modern Shaolin (and KFTC) ***** but it is really about his skill and not about the politics of his pimps(jk...kinda).

Anyway, I don't really know what your(southern Tiger) relationship is with the OSC but if you could, I would appreciate an actual picture of the brands (dragon/tiger mantis/crane for omei). I am fascinated by them.

Thanks,

WF

[golden arhat]

Hello Mr. Ching,

I must say that your "review" was a disappointment. Your main issues were directed not at the content but at the fact that there was not an author listed, only an organization. You seemed to throw a tantram at this fact and couldnt look past it.

I would love to actually get some constructive criticism from you (feel free to email me or pm me) but I doubt you really care. I wonder if the reason you were so scathing in your "review" was the fact that the book states that there is no authentic Shaolin at the Shaolin temple. Are you not a disciple of a "Shaolin" monk?

Unfortunetly, most people seem to forget than you are in the business of selling magazines. I wonder how many magazines you would sell if people realized that the "Shaolin temple" is only significant as a tourism destination with fancy wushu, not significant from a martial standpoint.

Regardless, I apolagize to Shaolin Wookie for somewhat hijacking this thread. I wish you luck in your research.

-Blake

oh yes because shaolin do is worth so much more martially :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

oh yes because shaolin do is worth so much more martially :rolleyes:

This guy isn't even Shaolin-Do. It's a super-secret squirrel society based in Portland.

http://www.shaolintemple.org/


The OSC was brought to the United States and (briefly) Canada beginning in 1902, as the most senior echelon of Shaolin monks fled the chaos and destruction of the Boxer Rebellion, the end of the Chinese Empire, the Warlord Period, and the purges of communism. From the late 1920's through 1974, the OSC was headquartered in and operated from New York's Chinatown. Today, the Order continues to preserve and perpetuate Shaolin teachings from its headquarters near Portland, Oregon. In order to better function within the laws of its adopted country, the OSC incorporated as a religious 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2003.

[Jingwu Man]

Southern tigerI wonder how many magazines you would sell if people realized that the "Shaolin temple" is only significant as a tourism destination with fancy wushu, not significant from a martial standpoint.

Uh, have you actually been to the Songshan temple? Not just the wushuguan show, but in the temple, training with the masters? You have to look past the show stuff that is there to get peoples attention, and find the true hardcore, and frankly frightening skills of the real practitioners of Shaolin. It's there, you just have to look beyond just books. Try doing some research yourself.

[GeneChing]

My research on Shaolin, both the modern temple and traditional descendants such as Bak Sil Lum, are a matter of public record. The reason I wrote such a scathing review was the same as Henning and the same as any of the critics of the book. It's well written, but poorly researched. There are plenty of us doing real research on Shaolin. OSC is clearly not among us.

[SouthernTiger]

My research on Shaolin, both the modern temple and traditional descendants such as Bak Sil Lum, are a matter of public record. The reason I wrote such a scathing review was the same as Henning and the same as any of the critics of the book. It's well written, but poorly researched. There are plenty of us doing real research on Shaolin. OSC is clearly not among us.

Mr. Ching,

Point taken. However you assume that the purpose of the book was to "further your research" into Shaolin. The purpose of the book was to introduce to the public what has been passed down in THIS Shaolin lineage. As such, most of the info was passed down orally, as in many traditional teacher-student relationships.

So, I think you beef with it not being properly researched is misplaced. It was not meant to be a research project. Regardless, research into history can be quite subjective. Ultimately, you choose want you want to believe. Good luck in your "research".

And what is with all this Shaolin-do talk. I have no idea what they are about. Is that Steve Demasco "International Shaolin Ambassador" their spokesman or what? To anyone that c ares, I have nothing to do with Shaolin-do. And actually I have very little to do with the OSC. I train under my instructor in which our lineage is from the current SiTaigung of the OSC. But my instructor is loosely associated with them these days...

Once again, my apologies to Wookie for hijacking his thread.

-Blake

[MasterKiller]

Once again, my apologies to Wookie for hijacking his thread.

-Blake
It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

[SouthernTiger]

It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

Tainted? Hmm...thats cute. I can only imagine what you mean since you didnt clarify anything, but whatever...

I imagine Wookie's research has more to do with magazine articles in which practitioners claim they learned a crane style purportedly from omeishan. Perhaps, Wookie could expand somewhat on what articles piqued his interest in this topic. Otherwise, no one else on this board seems to be offering anything substantial.

Wookie?

-Blake

[GeneChing]

Alright, I'll bite, SouthernTiger. Research means that there's some sort of systematic effort to present facts. Sure, there are plenty of oral histories surrounding Shaolin. I've always made an effort to externally validate any story I've heard. Are you saying that there was no such effort made in the publication of this book?

[SouthernTiger]

Alright, I'll bite, SouthernTiger. Research means that there's some sort of systematic effort to present facts. Sure, there are plenty of oral histories surrounding Shaolin. I've always made an effort to externally validate any story I've heard. Are you saying that there was no such effort made in the publication of this book?

Mr. Ching,

You still assume that this book's purpose was to "prove" in some manner what oral tradition has passed down. This is simply not the point. Endnotes and sources were provided where the OSC felt necessary to either corrobrate our oral tradition or explain differences.

You, sir, seem to fancy yourself an historian. The OSC is made up of Buddhist monks not particularly concerned with anything more than a cursory survey of Shaolin history as it is not directly condusive to attaining enlightenment. Therefore these minor, possibly incorrect, details (which you have not specified) are hardly all-important to the reason why the book was published. That is : to present our oral tradition-based lineage and what has been passed down in regards to Shaolin Chan, martial arts, and yes, history to the public for the first time.

This was, of course, explained in the book but I guess you missed that when you were checking dates and names... Either way, your manner in which you treated the book was confounding and frankly poor journalism. If you actually do "review" books, it would behoove you to undertake each project without assumptions and view the work as a whole and perhaps, judge it as to wheather it accomplished what it was published for.

Now, all that being said, I could care less if you dont believe that it is true. In fact, I only hope you are convinced in your own mind that what YOU believe is true. I think Buddha said something along those lines....better your truth than the truth of another or something. :)

So, in aswer to your question, yes, the OSC did try to validate oral history by referencing other books (or external sources, as you put it) but to the OSC this was a minor issue and not directly related to the purpose of the book. I understand that this may not be up to your standards, but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. You are far too influential a person to make such rash judgements.

-Blake

[GeneChing]

...the book presents an oral history of your tradition, it did the fact checking, there were some "minor, possibly incorrect, details" but those were inconsequential. Cross validation was a "minor issue".

As for my credentials reviewing books, you'll find my name on many major Shaolin works, often in the acknowledgments section and occasionally on the back cover blurb. I've taught martial history seminars across the country, even assisted on the graduate level at Stanford University. I'm cited in numerous works. What were the credentials of the authors of this book again? Oh right, they remain anonymous. :rolleyes:

I don't consider my web comments as an 'official review'. Web comments are unedited, self-published opinions. They are not subject to the rigors of formal standards. While it's true, my position does make me a person of influence, and the nature of my comments here, and in other informal places on the web, gives my posts some more credibility, I assure you my review was anything but rash. Keep in mind, I'm exposed to a ton of books and articles on a daily basis. That means I see a ton of garbage too. For the most part, I don't comment on that. But this book was just too much to let pass. I'm far from being alone in my criticisms.

[SouthernTiger]

...the book presents an oral history of your tradition, it did the fact checking, there were some "minor, possibly incorrect, details" but those were inconsequential. Cross validation was a "minor issue".

As for my credentials reviewing books, you'll find my name on many major Shaolin works, often in the acknowledgments section and occasionally on the back cover blurb. I've taught martial history seminars across the country, even assisted on the graduate level at Stanford University. I'm cited in numerous works. What were the credentials of the authors of this book again? Oh right, they remain anonymous. :rolleyes:

I don't consider my web comments as an 'official review'. Web comments are unedited, self-published opinions. They are not subject to the rigors of formal standards. While it's true, my position does make me a person of influence, and the nature of my comments here, and in other informal places on the web, gives my posts some more credibility, I assure you my review was anything but rash. Keep in mind, I'm exposed to a ton of books and articles on a daily basis. That means I see a ton of garbage too. For the most part, I don't comment on that. But this book was just too much to let pass. I'm far from being alone in my criticisms.

Mr. Ching,

I still dont think you are quite getting what I am saying. This may be my fault in poorly presenting my side of the discussion. But, methinks you are incredibly obstinant to boot! :p

As such I see no advantage to either of us by discussing this much further. All I can say is this: If you want to read a book exclusively on Shaolin history which dissects oral tradition in an inacessible and scholarly way: this is not the book for you. However, if you want to learn more about Shaolin from a rare lineage purportedly coming from many of the senior monks of the Shaolin temple: this is the book for you. THIS BOOK IS NOT AN HISTORY TEXTBOOK! (maybe caps will help get this point across)

Mr. Ching, to view this book with the assumption that it must be a history textbook to have any utility is in error. This is comparable to buying a book on cooking looking only for nutrition facts of foods. That is not the purpose of the book therefore it could not fulfill this criteria satisfactorily.

To conclude, I would like to address your last two paragraphs briefly. First, your credentials are impeccable indeed. You are a consummate scholar. However, I dont see what the point of this was? Are you attempting to exalt yourself beyond reproach? If your argument is flawed, your credentials mean nothing. As a buddhist, I would think that you would stress that the message is of prime importantance, not the messenger. Buddha's words are meaningful because there is wisdom contained within, not because it is Buddha saying them.

Secondly, you allude to being in a bandwagon with other critics. However I dont see this as the case. Almost all the reviews that have been given ("professional" or otherwise) have been favorable. Also, the book is selling quite well but of course, I dont mean to imply that if it sells well, it is a great book. I still think you were a bit rash in your judgement, but that is neither here nor there...

To finish, let me say that I enjoyed our discussion and hope that our disagreement does not engender any feelings of bad will. Also, for the record, I throughly enjoy your "Kungfu/Taichi" magazine. Dr. Craig Reid's column is by far worth the price of the magazine.

Thanks and take care!

-Blake

[godzillakungfu]

You, sir, seem to fancy yourself an historian. You realize you actually called his credentials into question with this remark right?

[GeneChing]

I am incredibly obstinate. And I'm a bad Buddhist too. Getting worse by the moment. Good Buddhists have to give up stuff like garlic and onions and I'm just not that committed to it. I appreciate your support of the magazine.

[SaintSage]

I am incredibly obstinate. And I'm a bad Buddhist too. Getting worse by the moment. Good Buddhists have to give up stuff like garlic and onions and I'm just not that committed to it. I appreciate your support of the magazine.

Recently in one of my theology classes we were talking about how realizing you're a bad Christian is one of the requirements of being a good Christian. Until you realize you're being a good Chrisitian in which case you're being a bad Christian... Any similar ideas in your flavor of Buddhism?

[Shaolin Wookie]

oh yes because shaolin do is worth so much more martially :rolleyes:

LOL from the sixteen year old MMAist in Britain with all the access in the world to SD, who's nursing a busted arm from improper technique.

See, we can all take cheap shots at people and styles we know nothing about, talking out of our arses.;) Did you notice how I used "arse" instead of *****? That's for you, buddy.:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

Could be the case. I don't know. But I swear I had some stuff that came from the KFM archives. Can't find it now, so maybe I'm wrong.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Recently in one of my theology classes we were talking about how realizing you're a bad Christian is one of the requirements of being a good Christian. Until you realize you're being a good Chrisitian in which case you're being a bad Christian... Any similar ideas in your flavor of Buddhism?

Hegemony. They're keeping you down, man. Can't you see this is the morality of a decadent autocracy? They're playing with morality and self-knowlege, but there's no value to what they're saying. All they're saying is that you're neve good. Even if you realize you're a bad christian, you're doing this in order to be a good christian, and if you have the knowledge that realizing you're a bad christian is in fact a marker that you're a good one, you're still a bad one because you have the knowlege of this system, and you can never be good.

The point is, why try in a self-defeating system?

The only way to achieve goodness is to be a naive, blind idiot, with no motivation, no loyalty, and an unhealthy predilection for self-loathing--you know, kind of why the Romans hated the new religion.

If we're going to derail my thread, let's at least have an atheist vs. theist discussion, as I'm much more inclined to participate in that one.:D

[SaintSage]

Hegemony. They're keeping you down, man. Can't you see this is the morality of a decadent autocracy? They're playing with morality and self-knowlege, but there's no value to what they're saying. All they're saying is that you're neve good. Even if you realize you're a bad christian, you're doing this in order to be a good christian, and if you have the knowledge that realizing you're a bad christian is in fact a marker that you're a good one, you're still a bad one because you have the knowlege of this system, and you can never be good.

The point is, why try in a self-defeating system?

The only way to achieve goodness is to be a naive, blind idiot, with no motivation, no loyalty, and an unhealthy predilection for self-loathing--you know, kind of why the Romans hated the new religion.

If we're going to derail my thread, let's at least have an atheist vs. theist discussion, as I'm much more inclined to participate in that one.:D


:D:p

Derail your thread? I figured you wouldn't mind if someone changed the subject away from "SD $ucks and so do you." There really isn't a debate here. You look at something one way I look at it another; I can never know your experience and you can never really know mine. When it comes to something as basic (and complex) as our life's guiding philosophies only experience can really shake things up. I can argue that realizing our brokeness is actualy a liberating experience because from there you can work to solve the problem, but no doubt you've heard the argument and already have a counter- which I will have already heard etc. etc. I think the theist/atheist debate is rediculous the majority of the time. Both the theists and atheists seem to miss the other persons point most of the time.

Hmm... I have a distinct feeling you may counter with an experience vs. reason debate...;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

Ah...yes...the old you can't know my perspective theorem. Well, I knew that perspective well enough for 20 some years........I'm afriad I know them both intimately.

Anyways, I was just joking about re-derailing the thread.

But how about that global warming, huh? What a ***** that thing is........:(

[SaintSage]

Ah...yes...the old you can't know my perspective theorem. Well, I knew that perspective well enough for 20 some years........I'm afriad I know them both intimately.

Anyways, I was just joking about re-derailing the thread.

But how about that global warming, huh? What a ***** that thing is........:(

I figured you where joking, sorry if I came off defensive, it was meant to be kidding around. (One reason I hate internet communication...)

Perspective for me is a big thing. In fact, I appreciate what you have to say because you have lived both sides of that coin. I hate to sound like a relativist, but really, you've gotta do your thing and I've gotta do mine.

Oh, and don't even get me started on global warming. It's how people act and react to the very idea that just rubs me the wrong way. It's like listening to children bickering with a college vocabulary.

[Shaolin Wookie]

LOL....that's a great description, man.......:D