View Poll Results: What to do about the 'Is Shaolin-Do for real?' thread

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Merge all S-D threads together so it clears 1000 posts!

    22 38.60%
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Let all the S-D threads stand independently.

    13 22.81%
  • Keep IS-Dfr locked down. All IS-Dfr posters deserved to be punished.

    5 8.77%
  • Delete them all. Let Yama sort them out.

    17 29.82%
Page 353 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 253303343351352353354355363403453853 ... LastLast
Results 5,281 to 5,295 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #5281
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Evanston
    Posts
    218
    What it all boils down to, is what the individual is striving for in his martial art. If all he wants to do is fight and learn how to fight, then that is what he'll focus on, if he's looking for mysticism and philosophical clout well there's plenty of that too. The important thing, though, is that he takes his training seriously and strives to become a better person because of it. I feel this current debate is a very old one masked in the trappings of martial arts, but it's still the same thing: religious mysticism versus atheist banality.
    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.
    - Aristotle

    The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  2. #5282
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamassu View Post
    I feel this current debate is a very old one masked in the trappings of martial arts, but it's still the same thing: religious mysticism versus atheist banality.
    I don't think I'm talking about that at all. Yes there is such thing as Mo Duk/Wu De. Yes there are other benefits to martial arts besides fighting ability such as health, fun, etc. But I think when people get fortune cookie-ish about Kung Fu they remove themselves from reality. Not to mention it makes martial arts a laughing stock to the general public. I think that being a good Kung Fu person means training hard, right, and having Mo Duk/Wu De. I think that running around trying to be Kwai Chang Caine, and expecting others to do the same, is counterproductive to one's own martial growth. And the more people that do it, the more it effects the martial arts world. In my opinion, it’s a negative effect.

  3. #5283
    Quote Originally Posted by The Xia View Post
    I don't think I'm talking about that at all. Yes there is such thing as Mo Duk/Wu De. Yes there are other benefits to martial arts besides fighting ability such as health, fun, etc. But I think when people get fortune cookie-ish about Kung Fu they remove themselves from reality. Not to mention it makes martial arts a laughing stock to the general public. I think that being a good Kung Fu person means training hard, right, and having Mo Duk/Wu De. I think that running around trying to be Kwai Chang Caine, and expecting others to do the same, is counterproductive to one's own martial growth. And the more people that do it, the more it effects the martial arts world. In my opinion, it’s a negative effect.
    Western society has trouble accepting spirituality as a whole. Not just eastern practices look at how people react to those that practice Wicca (Nothing personal if you practice this). If we cannot see it, or measure it scientifically, then we have a hard time accepting that it can exist. But I will agree with you, when I see someone trying to emulate the stereotypical "mystic monk” my first reaction is, "what a flake". However, it has been my experience that those who pass themselves off as mystical are the least qualified to be speaking on the subject.

  4. #5284
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu Student View Post
    Western society has trouble accepting spirituality as a whole...If we cannot see it, or measure it scientifically, then we have a hard time accepting that it can exist.
    This is incorrect. Western society has just as many X-Tian nutjobs, who cannot see, hear, or touch God, yet still believe enough to try to force my kids to pray to their God in a publically-funded school and write his name all over my go dd amn money.
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

  5. #5285
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterKiller View Post
    This is incorrect. Western society has just as many X-Tian nutjobs, who cannot see, hear, or touch God, yet still believe enough to try to force my kids to pray to their God in a publically-funded school and write his name all over my go dd amn money.
    Calm down. I am not talking about faith in religion, and I am not going to disagree with what you stated. I should have stated practices that are more linked to M.A., like meditation, the movement of chi and so forth. I apologize for not being clearer.

  6. #5286
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Evanston
    Posts
    218

    Xia

    eh... I see your point, but not everyone who studys martial arts believes in chi (qi) and when they talk to another martial artist who does, they think he's a flake even though chi (qi) has an ancient and often vital role (mostly in the internal arts). I don't see anyone's belief in chi (qi), for example, necessarily having a negative impact on the martial art community any more than say, roman catholics believing their eurcharist becomes the actual body and blood of christ. We may think that's silly, but it's still an integral part of their system of beliefs, just as chi (qi) is with martial arts (some not all).

    Now, I agree there are some martial artists out there that hype up the whole david carradine fantasy "you must try harder grasshopper", but there are always going to be these types of people around, so what can you do?
    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.
    - Aristotle

    The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  7. #5287
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,379
    however, if we speak of qi through more modern western scientifical descriptions, its more fully excepted and understood

    you see this a lot, its just done on sectioned out small aspects of qi, such as when we speak of a constant increase in cardiovascular/arobic exercise to increase stamina, and get some more oxygen in your bloodstream during a work out to help burn calories. thats active use of qi that every one uses who works out. some people just dont want to see the bridge that closes the gaps between these two very different mindsets.

    same deal, its just all broken down into individual aspects in western science. and with different names for each aspect of qi.

    the chinese classically have used yinyang principle so its not seperated as such
    A man has only one death. That death may be as weighty as Mt. Tai, or it may be as light as a goose feather. It all depends upon the way he uses it....
    ~Sima Qian

    Master pain, or pain will master you.
    ~PangQuan

    "Just do your practice. Who cares if someone else's practice is not traditional, or even fake? What does that have to do with you?"
    ~Gene "The Crotch Master" Ching

    You know you want to click me!!

  8. #5288
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Evanston
    Posts
    218
    You bring up a good point Pangquan. Although, there are still western martial artists out there that prefer the eastern interpretation; doesn't mean it should negatively impact the community. Also keep in mind that just because someone doesn't believe in the validity of spirituality doesn't mean they're not idiots who simply don't know the science behind chi (qi) and assume people who do believe in chi (qi) are flakes anyway.
    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.
    - Aristotle

    The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  9. #5289
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    1,860

    Xia and Master Killer

    You both miss my point. Lets assume for a moment that you guys can fight ??? Thats all well and good. So lets say you get into a fight on the street and you get your butts kicked with out the philosophical aspect you wont get your butts kicked you are just dead. Period.
    If you think those who are (philosophical and strive as you say like Kwai Chang Caine) cant fight I am sorry you are wrong KC
    A Fool is Born every Day !

  10. #5290
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    1,860

    Hua Tuo

    History of Chinese Wushu

     

    Wushu (or Kung fu) appeared in ancient China as early as 2,500 years ago. During the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States Periods (770 - 221BC), a method called Daoyin was evolved to promote health.

    In a tomb of Western Han Dynasty (206BC - 24AD), discovered near Changsha in Hunan Province, a silk scroll was found on which figures were drawn in different postures -- sitting in meditation, bending, or squatting. At the end of Eastern Han Dynasty (25 - 220AD), a renowned medical doctor, Hua Tuo, created a set of exercises called Wuqinxi (Five Animals Play), mimicking the movements of animals. One of Hua's disciples, also a devotee of Wuqingxi, was said to have lived over 100 years. Wu Pu, another Hua's follower, was reputed to have sound teeth and acute hearing and sight at his late 80s. Hua Tuo's inventive work has a far-reaching influence on the history of Chinese Wushu.
    So then he did have something to do with Shaolin KC
    A Fool is Born every Day !

  11. #5291
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    You both miss my point. Lets assume for a moment that you guys can fight ??? Thats all well and good. So lets say you get into a fight on the street and you get your butts kicked with out the philosophical aspect you wont get your butts kicked you are just dead. Period.
    What are you talking about?
    If you are trying to say that someone who has the "philosophical aspect of martial arts" (which for many people seems to pretty much add up to acting like Bruce Leroy in varying degrees) will not die in a street fight where as someone who doesn't will, then that's just nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    If you think those who are (philosophical and strive as you say like Kwai Chang Caine) cant fight I am sorry you are wrong KC
    I don't think I have seen one respectable sifu that acts the way I’m talking about. I don't think I have seen one good fighter that acts that way either.

    I think it’s time to put down the koolaid folks!
    Last edited by The Xia; 03-08-2007 at 05:39 PM.

  12. #5292
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    You both miss my point. Lets assume for a moment that you guys can fight ??? Thats all well and good. So lets say you get into a fight on the street and you get your butts kicked with out the philosophical aspect you wont get your butts kicked you are just dead. Period.
    If you think those who are (philosophical and strive as you say like Kwai Chang Caine) cant fight I am sorry you are wrong KC
    So what you are saying is, even if you get your @ss kicked, you can at least take solace in the fact that you didn't completely waste your time because you got some half-baked philosophy to fall back on?
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

  13. #5293
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    1,860
    No I am saying that if the guy who kicks your a$$ does not follow a philosophical standard and apply it to his training then you are the two that will be dead. I am also saying that many great warriors apply philosophy to the MA btw the MA are supposed to be for self defense not self offense or werent you taught that. Also if you havent met someo9ne who applies a philosophical standard that can fight let me point out Bruce Lee Mushashi Jet Lee Jigoro Kano, Funikoshi Euishiba there are others in the annals of the history of MA KC
    A Fool is Born every Day !

  14. #5294
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    No I am saying that if the guy who kicks your a$$ does not follow a philosophical standard and apply it to his training then you are the two that will be dead.
    If you look into the past, more often then not, most martial philosophies seem to reflect the opposite. That being killing your opponent. Look at Bushido.
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    I am also saying that many great warriors apply philosophy to the MA btw the MA are supposed to be for self defense not self offense or werent you taught that.
    Martial arts were created for fighting. They were used for many different types of situations. It was used for both self defense and offense. You seem to have a skewed view of martial arts history. Here is an excerpt from this article http://www.hungkuen.net/article-tangledroots.htm
    It describes one of Kwong Wing Lam's sifus, Leung Wah Chew.
    Quote Originally Posted by Original HungGar:The tangled Roots
    Sifu Wing Lam was introduced to his Ha Say Fu hung gar teacher, Leung Wah Chew, through a mutual friend. Sigung Leung would make house calls on their tiny apartment, always arriving by a different route. Since open floor space is scarce, they would practice on the rooftops above Hong Kong's crowded urban sprawl. They had the minimal resources for a school-just a teacher, a few students and a meeting time. Often, they fashioned the unique weapons of Ha Say Fu hung gar out of whatever they could acquire, usually substituting wood pieces for metal, just so they could transmit the teachings. Wing Lam never learned his teacher's complete martial lineage. Leung's reputation and skill were enough that he felt privileged to train under him.
    Leung had connections with the "dark society" of Hong Kong, what we might call organized crime. He had a kung-fu school in Macao that he closed when he immigrated to Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, he was the boss of a major underground casino (gambling casinos are legal in Macao, but not in Hong Kong). His fighting skills were sharpened constantly by this business. Wing Lam remembers when Leung brought over a friend to assist coaching fighting skills. Although this fighter was impressive, the very next day he was ambushed in the streets of Hong Kong by a rival gang, who cut him to death with long Chinese watermelon knives. Wing Lam never again heard anything else about his teacher's notorious guest.
    Leung Wah Chew was a good friend of another great master, Um Yue Ming. Together these martial brothers answered the challenge of the first Asian public kung-fu tournament of this century, the famous Chinese Taiwan Kuoshu (national art) Association Invitational of 1957. Competitors from Macao, Taiwan and Hong Kong sparred against each other, comparing a wide range of styles such as shaolin, choy li fut, yau kung moon, snake, white crane, mantis, law hron moon and more. Leung represented Ha Say Fu hung gar and Um represented hop gar. They joined 30 other competitors from Hong Kong. Unfortunately, neither placed very well. Since neither had trained with sparring gloves or tournament rules, both were eliminated before the finals. This loss did little to affect their pride. Um Yue Ming's school used a black lion for two consecutive Chinese New Years to collect lucky money. The black lion symbolizes an open martial challenge to duel with any and all comers. In those days, this was no idle boast. Such challenges seldom went unanswered. Eventually, Um immigrated to San Francisco where he opened a school and clinic on Powell street. Some say he overstepped his boundaries. In the 1970s, he was gunned down at the door of his school.
    Wing Lam had heard that Leung recruited his students into dark society, however he never got the chance to find out the truth. After studying with Leung for five years, Wing Lam immigrated to the United States, possibly escaping a life of crime.
    Doesn’t fit into this neat little belief system about martial arts history that you seem to have huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    Also if you havent met someo9ne who applies a philosophical standard that can fight let me point out Bruce Lee Mushashi Jet Lee Jigoro Kano, Funikoshi Euishiba there are others in the annals of the history of MA KC
    Bruce Lee pretty much used bits of various Eastern philosophies during a time when many Westerners who had not been previously exposed to them were starting to take an interest. As a martial artist, I’m not saying he sucks. He clearly had skills. However, I have not seen any evidence of him being a great fighter. I’ve heard about him losing more then anything else. Musashi was a killer. I don’t think his code would fit into what you seem to define as proper martial arts philosophy. Jet Li is first and foremost an actor and wushu performer. Jigoro Kano, from what he wrote, seemed interested in creating a fun and healthy martial art that can be enjoyed in sport form. There’s nothing wrong with that but where’s this philosophy you speak of? You mention Gichin Funakoshi. I remember reading in a few places that he was part of the jingoist political machine that dominated Japan at that time. And by all accounts I’ve read, he was not a fighter. That in mind, who cares what he has to say? Morihei Ueshiba was always a bit peculiar to me as I’ve heard many different versions of what he was about.
    All that aside…
    I'm not saying that martial artists have not adopted philosophies over the years. I'm saying that the modern half-baked nonsense that many people call philosophy neither reflects anything historical nor, in my opinion, is something worth following anyway.
    Last edited by The Xia; 05-22-2007 at 01:16 PM.

  15. #5295
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    No I am saying that if the guy who kicks your a$$ does not follow a philosophical standard and apply it to his training then you are the two that will be dead.
    How the hell are you supposed to control the other guy's training? And who cares, anyway? You should be training to handle this guy regardless of his possible philosophical bent.
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •