Jiao Men / Sect Boxing / Chinese Muslim Boxing

Hi Justaguy,

From my point of view you do not seem to be argumentative. Your comments appear to be well thought out as well as thought provoking. On this section of the BB we generally have mature discussions even when we disagree. At times we do have heated debates and on rare occasions it can get seemingly childish. However, for the most part we try to keep it open and friendly even when we disagree. From what I have read you will fit in well here.

Your comments have been very thought provoking for me and motivated me to write down some of those thoughts. These comments are just random thoughts I have had inspired by your own comments and are not necessarily a response you or beiquan, although please feel free to respond if you feel they are worthy of comment.
_____

It seems to me that when a scholar discusses his field of study, or writes a treatise, he must define his basic terms. By necessity and the standards of scholarship this could restrict his flexibility and thereby his comprehensive understanding of a topic. While I am not claiming beiquan is doing this, scholars may unknowingly limit their understanding and acceptance of definitions or views that occur outside of their basic definition or the definitions of colleagues whose authority they accept.

While beiquan has not defined what he considers Taoism to be for us, it is likely many would not agree with his definition. However, for the purposes of his doctoral thesis he must provide a clear definition for the benefit of his readers.

I consider myself a student of Tao; I have a philosophical interest in the principles of Tao. I have studied Tao, its principles and its manifestations for over 30 years. I seek to bring myself into accord with the principles of Tao. In my younger days I relied somewhat on what are considered Taoist texts for direction and guidance, however I no longer do so. Not that I no longer read Taoist texts, but I do not allow the texts to confine or define my experiences for me. I rely on direct experience which is a truer guide than the words of others. While I consider life from a somewhat Taoist perspective to label myself a Taoist would tend limit my experience and understanding. This is because definitions are inherently confining and by accepting a strict definition we bind ourselves to that limit and this will tend to interfere with our overall progress. I choose to attempt to avoid the limits of strict definition because I would perhaps feel the need to confine my experience and expressions by the limits of that accepted definition.

Therefore, I consider myself a student of Tao and not a Taoist.

Neither do I consider Chinese authorities the final word on Tao and its manifestations. Tao is a universal concept that has been studied and written about primarily in China, but the concepts are not unique to China. Truth belongs to all people if it is indeed truth. If the principles of Tao are Truth then they are true for all people at all times. Just as water makes everyone equally wet and the sun shines on all equally the truths of Tao are available to understand and experience by all people at all times equally. There is no need to consider Tao a strictly Chinese concept even if the considered primary texts and studies are of Chinese origin.

In my opinion it is inappropriate for anyone to say to another, “That is NOT Taoist.” We may say “THAT” does not “APPEAR” to be Taoist according to my understanding of the principles of Tao, but to impose the limits of our definition on another may actually demonstrate our own limited understanding rather than a lack of understanding of the one we presume to criticize.

Some time in the last year or so we had a discussion on this BB wherein a man who considered himself a true Taoist participated in a discussion with some of us. He wanted a Taoist to be HIS definition and because some of us did not accept his definition he felt we were being oppressive of his view. All that many of us were attempting to communicate to him was that his definition was his and while we respected it as his definition we found it limiting and presumptuous to dictate to others how Taoism should be defined.

There may be a gross separation between various definitions, but who is to say anyone is the final arbiter of any definition. If we accept the truth of what the Tao Te Ching teaches concerning Tao: “The Tao that can be defined is not the True or Complete Tao”, then who has the right to impose their own definition of what constitutes a Taoist onto others?

Wow!


I hope that Mickey and others will find this, amid all the various and sundry postings.

I will try to keep this short. In my travels and study throughout China, I was impressed with the generous nature of the Hui people. They were some of the most kind and non-judgemental folks, I ever had the pleasure of meeting. Their martial arts practices ranged the entire gamut. Some practiced Tai Chi, others Wushu. Others practiced family arts loosely based on various other styles or combinations thereof. Baji/Pigua, Xingyi, Bagua, Tongbei, Cha Quan and Tan Tui. Just because a Moslem does Tai Chi, doesn't make Tai Chi a "Moslem" art! However, when you make changes or alterations to an art and teach it exclusively or semi-exclusively among your own ethnic or religious group, that might qualify as an "ethnic" art. Last time I checked, anybody could do Karate, not just Okinawans. But they brought "te" to Japan and the rest was history. Does it really matter who invented what? Not really! Is it interesting or enlightening to politely discuss the subject? I thought so, until recently! Ethnic or religious origin has no bearing on effectiveness in combat. But we are on the Net, this VIRTUAL! We can not "DO" gung fu! We can only discuss the subject. Beiquan wanted documentation regarding a comment re: PRC and Moslem Tan Tui in Wushu, as more "pure". I normally don't have a secretary, tape recorder or notery public, with me when I am speaking with someone. Sorry! I do know for a fact, that I and others, paid a ransom to get someone out of a PRC prison. I will say no more about this, due to the safety and privacy of people still living in the PRC. This was a person with some martial arts connection and no criminal record.

My point has always been this. We all know the stories about the wandering Taoist (Daoist, for the nitpickers!) teaching some fantastic skill, art, technique or style that lead to the creation/formation of --------------(fill in the blank) style. And, of course we all know that [B]ALL[B]martial arts in China, came from the Shaolin Temple, right? I was giving the Hui people a little credit for preserving and creating some diversity in the Chinese Martial Arts. If you can't handle, don't believe or will not accept that some varieties of Baji, Xingyi (Liu He, in particular) or Bagua, are or may be Moslem in origin, too bad! What I don't mean is that these arts were a "religious" invention. My conjecture regarding the Sufi(not Islam, Sufi!)connection regarding walking the circle as a meditative exercise and the Bagua practice, was an interesting observation. Have any of you so called "experts" ever seen a real Dervish Meditation from the Mevlevi School? Not a "performance" for the tourists, but the real thing? OH! I never said Moslems "invented" the Kuas or palm changes. But they have come up with their "own take" on Bagua. Just like a few other things. Did it ever occur to anyone out there, that making an art "Taoist" was probably more paletable that having the art be "Hui". Just a thought! People don't want to even accept the idea that Cha Quan and Tan Tui were created by some guy named Cha, who was Moslem. But, the idea the Yueh Fei created Hsing-I in the Sung Era, or Chang San Feng dreamed up Tai Chi is just fine. There is documentation from the Ming/Ching era, earlier than that, is sometimes problematic to find "proof" for your "pet theory". Second generation students in both Hsing-I and Bagua, who were Moslem, is undeniable. Did they "invent" it? Did they change it? Did they pass it on? The Wu family of Cangzhou, are Moslem and have a family style of Baji. The Ma,Xu,Li and Sha families all have, among their vast repetoires of martial knowledge, family and synthetic styles of Xingyi, Xingyi Liu He and Bagua, Baji/Pigua and Tongbei, that are different enough from the orthodox to be called "styles" of their own.(not all families have all the styles listed.). As far as, "bringing it" or trying to capitalize on this commercially, all I can say is; how sad are you? If I wanted to make money on this, maybe writing books or a Website would be more effective that this! So I leave you now to muddle your way though all this, because it's no longer of any point or purpose. Bye! Bye! Best Wishes and Good Luck!

P.S.

I never commented on the Uigher connection or the odd friendship/association that I personally witnessed between Taoists(real, not the funny robe guys) and Sufi/Muslims in China. Oh well!

And remember, Mickey lives in Disneyland. So does the Shaolin Temple run by the PRC. (Don't even bother with Wudan, they left no forwarding address!):) :eek: :eek: :eek:

Bak Sing, it seems like you need to bring along that tape recorder next time.

Because basically what you're saying is that you think a whole lot of martial arts are Hui martial arts, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever except hearsay, but you want everybody to please accept what you're saying as the truth or at least for a discussion.

??????

Honestly I have no evidence of the Hui and you're not providing any. Therefore ... ???

Daoism has at least 3 "forms" in Chinese society.

1) Scholastic Daoism (philosophy)
2) Religious Daoism (organization)
3) Folk Daoism (Shamanism)

Most of the time Chinese don't particularly discern them. It's like many in Christianity would not understand thoroughly the theology behind it. When Chinese talk about Daoism, it is all inclusive. This is why it is quite confusing trying to discuss Daoism. In general, it is understood that scholastic Daoism is known as Dao Jia (Daoist school); whereas, Dao Jiao (Daoist religion) is the the organized religious branch of Daoism. Lao Zi is accredited as the "sole" progenitor of the scholastic Daoism because of his treaties Dao De Jing but it is believed that Daoist school of thoughts existed even before Lao Zi. Most people don't realized that Lao Zi's work is consistent with acient knowledge that is found in the so called 6 Classics (Liu Jing) which includes the Yijing (Classic of Change). These classics are considered important cultivations for a person to become a true human being. They are "the way" as in a path of living and passage of life as human being. Lao Zi did not created his work out of "nothing" (pun intended).

A lot of the concepts in the Dao De Jing echo those found in the Yijing as well. BTW, many Kung Fu systems made use of these concepts. Dao De Jing is more like a "political" thesis IHMO; while, Yijing is more a theoretical model of nature. The opening line of Dao De jing is not just theoretical in nature. It is also a statement, a central theme if you will, to reproach the ways (hyprocracy) of the political environment and high society at time. He warned of the increasingly "military-industral complex" and capitalism that feudal China was experiencing during his time and its impact on the country as a whole. He offered the kings and rulers his 3 treasures - compassion, modesty, and humility as the remedy to save the country. Anyway, IMHO to fully understand Daoism (all forms) one must consider its historical and social contexts as well.

As for Dao Jiao, it a totally different story. He who follows Daoist philosophy does not have to be involved in Daoist religion. Spiritual inclination has nothing to do with organized religion and/or politic IMHO. Just as Church and State should be seperate in a democracy (sorry couldn't help due to the latest criticism that the Catholic Pontiff has given to Canada.) So...

Just some thoughts

Mantis108

The best article that I've found on the confusion surrounding the meaning of Daoist is:

On the Word "Taoist" as a Source of Perplexity. by Nathan Sivin
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/perp.html

I've never come across any Ching or pre-Ching dynasty text from China from anybody who actually referred to themselves as a Taoist.

Does such a thing exist?

While I am generally disinterested in these types of scholastic questions it seems important to remember that definitions are created to distinguish, THIS from THAT, US from THEM. Definitions are inherently arbitrary. They divide phenomena that do not inherently occur as separate entities. Therefore, definitions should never be considered as establishing the absolute parameters of any phenomenon. A definition is a tool used to assist us in the communication of ideas. The definition (tool) is not the thing itself and all tools have limits to their usefulness. We must remember that the objective is for a definition (tool) to serve us, not for us to serve it. When a tool is no longer adequate for our purpose we may discard it for a more useful tool!

While it is interesting to considered ideas for the purpose of expanding our knowledge and perspective, we must consider whether a specific view is worth becoming emotionally attached too when it is inherently unknowable in an absolute sense.

Sometimes we place way too much importance on who created this or that. Ideas and concepts are not created they are apprehended. Anyone who is seriously considering any science, art or phenomena will observe certain characteristics that occur inherently in relation to that subject of study. A cup has inherently the same properties no matter which culture or time of history in which it was made. Walking is inherently the same for all people and all cultures. We all have two arms and two legs that bend the same way. Strategic concepts from different cultures will have similar principles at their lowest common denominator. So if two people on separate sides of the planet apply themselves to the study of the same topic they are likely to apprehend the same principles even if they are expressed differently according to their specific needs and culture. Circle walking, whether for meditative purposes or MA purposes, will eventually be seen to have value by individuals who seriously study those subjects. It is not necessary to have only ONE person apprehend its value and all others learn from that ONE individual.

This is not to suggest that considering possible connections between phenomena has no value in and of itself. It is just important not to allow ourselves to become too offended when a view we hold dear is not appreciated as much by others.

Maybe I've been around the Chinese too much but it seems like people there say whatever will suit them when it comes to martial arts lineage.

For example, some teacher will claim something is 'Taoist' because they think it will sell. If the person isn't interested in 'taoist' but rather 'Shaolin', then they'll say that what they're teaching very close to 'Shaolin' or that 'Shaolin' has things in common with 'Taoist', or that what they are teaching is better than 'Shaolin', etc. Whatever it takes to get the person's money.

So when somebody comes to me now and tells me they figured out this great thing that these martial arts are actually Moslem, it is probably naturally to ask ... what are you selling?

???

What are you selling? By saying these are Moslem you're setting yourself apart in the marketplace, so what are you selling? That Moslems are the source of CMA? That you're a great teacher?

What are you selling?

Hi,

If you listened even half as much as you talked, you might learn something. I never said the "Moslems" invented all or most of the martial arts of China. The fact that you're debating the whole "taoist" issue is laughable. What any of you know about Taoist Arts, would comfortably fit in the eye of a gnat. Are you a little phobic about Islam? Or simply narrow minded and ignorant. As far as Wudan or Taoist practices go, not Tai Chi, Hsing-I or Bagua. They maybe based on principles, theories and symbolism from Taoism, but they are not Taoist. Nor are the guys in funny outfits selling "authentic Wudang arts" videos. Always trying to find the short cut, will lead to just that, a short cut. People always use Wudan or Taoist, much like Shaolin, to market or validate their teaching or arts. Rarely, does it have anything to do with the real thing.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

Nothing! My question; What are you buying?:) :confused: :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

If you listened even half as much as you talked, you might learn something.

---

You haven't really posted anything to learn from. Where is the proof of your assertion? Where is video? Where is any evidence? There is none you have given except hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bak Sing

I never said the "Moslems" invented all or most of the martial arts of China. The fact that you're debating the whole "taoist" issue is laughable. What any of you know about Taoist Arts, would comfortably fit in the eye of a gnat. Are you a little phobic about Islam? Or simply narrow minded and ignorant. As far as Wudan or Taoist practices go, not Tai Chi, Hsing-I or Bagua. They maybe based on principles, theories and symbolism from Taoism, but they are not Taoist. Nor are the guys in funny outfits selling "authentic Wudang arts" videos. Always trying to find the short cut, will lead to just that, a short cut. People always use Wudan or Taoist, much like Shaolin, to market or validate their teaching or arts. Rarely, does it have anything to do with the real thing.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

---

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make, I guess, is that stuff about 'Shaolin' or 'Wudang' or 'Taoist' is all marketing gimmick, right?

So why are you trying to argue the Moslem connection? What is your agenda?

Hi Bak Sing,

I spent twelve years in Asia studying Chinese Internal Boxing, Qigong and Taoist Arts. One of the most profound experiences I had, was being welcomed into and receiving teaching from a variety of masters and families in the Hui/Muslim or Jiao Men arts. Not just Cha Quan or long fist, but Xingyi Li He, family styles, Baji/Pigua, Tongbei and Fanzi. Shuai Chiao and Tam Tui, and synthetic varieties of Hsing-I and Bagua in the Hui milieu.

You want us to accept your expertise on Muslim arts, Sufism, Taoism, or gnats because you claim 12 years of training in China?

I am sorry to inform you of this, but you are baby in martial arts training. 12 years is nothing and length of training has no necessary connection to learning, ability, understanding, wisdom or maturity. You may claim anything you want, but acceptance of your “dubious” authority is foolish! So please excuse us for not bowing down to your claimed expertise! You have provided nothing but weak support for your assertions and derogatory remarks for those who disagree with you. Derogatory comments reduce respect for your character which contributes to nullifying your authority on the subject. People will have a tendency to not accept the authority of those whose character is in question.

It might have been time better spent to use some of your 12 years learning how to provide rational arguments to demonstrate your assertions and learning how not to derogate those who clearly see the flaws in your weak argument. There is no reason to be derogatory when others want more than “there is a commonality of circle walking”.

It is interesting that you think there may be a connection between Sufism and Bagua. Your proof of this is that both perform circle walking. WOW!!! Let me change everything I have ever learned based upon this demonstration of proof! Who is the greater fool then, the one who cannot demonstrate any cohesive argument for his assertion or the one who chooses not to believe him?

You stated: My point is simple. I believe that Bagua may be a Muslim art, rather than a Taoist one. Or at least, an opportunistic hybrid of the two.

Then later you contradict your SIMPLE POINT by saying: I am not saying that Bagua as a martial art, was "invented" by Muslims. The hand formations or palms, exist in Taoist arts of Qigong and martial styles as well. But the principle of walking the circle as meditation or training, exists in both Taoist and Sufi traditions.

Well is it a Muslim art or not? How can it be a Muslim art and not a Muslim art at the same time? If the hand forms are Taoist and the circle walking is Muslim then perhaps it may be a hybrid, but hybrid is not Muslim.

There are a few problems here. One is that you were not clear about what you meant “in your own mind” from the start. Another is the off hand connection you make between “similar” movements. Similarity of movement or form does NOT demonstrate a historical connection between the movements or forms. The way Chinese walk and the way everyone else walks is similar. Did the act of walking originate in China and the transfer to everyone else on the planet? The most basic hand positions are OPEN and CLOSED. Did someone devise these two basic hand forms and then everyone else on the planet learned from this ONE origin?

You must provide more evidence than your “12 years of experience” and similarity of movement and form to prove your point! As I have previously stated, anyone who studies a subject will eventually discern inherent forms and principles that are applicable to that subject. These forms and principles are universal. That means that they may be apprehended by anyone who studies the subject, at any time, at any place, within any culture! It is just as likely then that the hand forms and circle walking were independently devised by the two traditions under discussion. But don’t consider my point at all because I am narrow-minded and all I know wouldn’t fill the eye of a gnat!!

BUT WAIT!!! We are not done with you yet! First you claim the connection of Bagua is Muslim through the Sufi tradition, then later we learn from your “12 years of wisdom” that Sufism in fact NOT Islamic: Sufi is not Islam or, in fact Moslem! To be in the world, but not of it. It is the way of presence, without dogma. Sufi lives within the "shell" of Islam. But it is at home in many places and times. The only "way" that has presented this training without dogma or religious taint, is Sufi.

No wonder no one accepts your assertions, you make statements and then contradict them later! But apparently WE are the ignorant ones here!! (… Are you a little phobic about Islam? Or simply narrow minded and ignorant.

You claim “12 years of study” in China with various arts and we do not accept your statements out of hand and because of this you have become derogatory in your language.

The fact that you're debating the whole "taoist" issue is laughable. What any of you know about Taoist Arts, would comfortably fit in the eye of a gnat. Are you a little phobic about Islam? Or simply narrow minded and ignorant.

If you make a claim then support it with a cohesive argument if you wish to be taken seriously. If you can't do so then don’t derogate those who observe the weakness of your proofs. By turning to derogatory statements you demonstrate the weakness of your argument, the weakness of your character, or both. Your assertions are fascinating, your proof is similarity of movement and form, your 12 years training in China with various arts, some of them Muslim, and discussions with some people considered Muslim masters. How does this demonstrate proof of your assertions? When others reasonably question your assertions you claim the problem lies with them. Well, the problem lies with you Bak Sing not everyone else. You made an interesting assertion. But so far that is all it is!

Hi,

Are you guys from the NW, paranoid and arrogant? I spent 12 years in China/Asia, I never said how long I have been training/studying. I have no agenda, no hidden rationale or motives. I am so glad that you turned your powerful intellect to discovering a paradox. GOOD FOR YOU! Keep your vast intellect busy, someday you may actually learn something more than nitpicking and minor league debating skills. Why would I possibly want to share anything with people like you and with your attitutes? A paradox is a teaching tool used in both Sufi (no such thing as "Sufism") and Tao. Reread everything I wrote, when you are capable of asking an intelligent question, I will respond. Until then, good luck! Thank You for "baby", at my age I take that as a compliment!

P.S. I really don't want anything from you!!!!!!:D : :D :D :D :D :eek: :eek: :eek: NOT MONEY, RESPECT or even your friendship! Thank You Again! Sorry I forgot the proof again, it's in my other pair of pants!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bak Sing

Hi,

Are you guys from the NW, paranoid and arrogant?

---

No, even worse, from the NW via Manhattan. LOL

Whatever. Honestly I don't think there is anything you could possibly offer that would be of interest.

The only semi-interesting reference on this topic so far has been the reference to the "Black Dragon Bagua" by mickey.

Hi Bak Sing,

You are wasting your time continuing to make derisive comments. Your time would be better spent practicing forming cohesive arguments for your assertions! Why waste your time here if you intend to make an assertion without demonstrating it using articulate reason and then belittle your audience when they disagree with you? Your insults reveal to the reader your belief in your own superiority, but only prove your inability to make a reasonable point.

In short your comments imply: “You guys are all dumb and I am smart because I thought of something clever and you are too idiotic to realize how wonderful I am for thinking of it.” Well, your idea was interesting, but your inability to support it with anything of substance and your insistence on insulting your detractors makes your case more unsuccessful with each passing day!

If you trained in China for 12 years, but have trained in the MA for longer, then please correct my opinion by providing further information. That is what a discussion is for, to share points of view and clear up confusion.

You either have not learned much in the MA which resulted in a poorly supported assertion, or you need to practice sharing your thoughts more effectively, as revealed by your reduction of the conversation to insults and inability to provide valid reasons to support your assertion.

You are the one who referred to your “12 years” experience concerning the topic of discussion. That means you intended to use it as an authority for your assertion. Within the context of your statements it is reasonable to presume that is the limit of your experience. It is your responsibility to demonstrate your authority for your assertions, not the reader’s responsibility to ascertain them. If your statements are insufficient to make your point or demonstrate adequate authority it is your responsibility to clear up confusion and misunderstanding NOT the reader’s to read your mind. So far all you are doing is demonstrating your sense of superior insight by insulting those who disagree with you and making excuses for your flaws of reasoning by pretending you did it intentionally. Referencing the use of paradox to demonstrate a point is useful when communicating some specific religio-philosophical concepts, but useless when attempting to draw historical connections between phenomena. Nice try though! The attempt to keep from facing your errors is noted.

If you want to have blind followers then go start your own MA cult. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with others who share as much or more diversity of experience as you, then learn to accept disagreement with your point of view and practice sharing your ideas using more effective argument. Use reason instead of flights of fancy and stop insulting those who reveal the weakness or your argument. Its not the readers fault you cannot reason or express your thoughts effectively. Just as in the MA it should be viewed as a gift to have flaws revealed. It will provide you with the opportunity to improve your ability. On the other hand, insulting those who disagree with you by imagining superior wisdom and knowledge only makes you look foolish, especially when you misapply philosophical principles in a futile attempt to protect your bruised ego.

BTW I don't live in the NW. But once again, nice try attempting to avoid recognition of your own errors by resorting to insults!