Some answers to SD critics - Part 1
This is my take on some of the more common criticisms of SD. Just my (somewhat reasoned) opinion, can never be proved or disproved, and is not an infallible theory. And it requires some practical consideration of the reality at the time. I've thought about writing a book, but it would put people to sleep. Here is a too-long summary.
GGM ICM came from China, and other places. He learned from others. As far as I can tell and see, almost everyone who trains that long, that hard, that much, puts their own spin on the material, and rightfully so. I suspect if it were possible to go back to see what the first tai chi form, or pa kua, or any other material, looked like, and compare it to what it looked like after it passes through X hands to get to now, no one would recognize it. So no one can complain or assign any weight to the lack of resemblance of GGM ICM's material to any other ancient Temple material or that taught by others today, who learned it on a different path. ICM's and GMT's came through a different path to today than the current Temple material did, as did others who are on a different path.
GGM Su Kong. Names, faces, unexplained photos and clothing. How many stories of Western legends and figures have tall tales attached? When people used to criticize Hong Kong kung fu movies as "unbelievable" that people can do that stuff, I reminded them, those movies are sometimes about legends, and their tradional heroes. How is pulling a sword and killing a dozen armed soldiers, different than Clint Eastwood pulling his six-shooter and fanning to death six armed gunfighters before they can even draw? OK, that is fantasy, to some extent. How many stories have we been told about the old West figures, who were real people, the truth of which is unknowable? Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, outlaws, heroes, etc. How many historical photos are there of persons whose details are not known? But to say he did not exist because his name is not amongst millions of Chinese, hundreds or more non-documented martial artists, during a time of nearly non-existent record keeping, or because of undatable photos or a style of clothing or other people in other places in other times that look like him -- that is incredible.
When GMT was training, he was in Indonesia. There was at least SOME dislike for things Chinese, which is not disputed anywhere, although the degree of it is. If I were going to teach something where most other people don't like it and might bother me or my family about it, I would probably also alter it at least some, even after my own personal spin was put on it.
Why not teach it only in secret, and stay with exactly and purely the way it was taught to him? See below, but lets face it: most accomplished experts who teach, and are worth being taught by, do it for a living. Keeping it a secret is not exactly conducive to making a living by teaching. So a balance of openness, but not offending, must be struck.
As for including other elements into it, including Japanese words, or "ippon kumite" methods, if I take my martial arts seriously, and see something someone else does that is good, and say, "I'm not going to do that, that is not traditional [whatever I am doing]," that stubborn refusal to learn and adapt would be stupid. So, unless "what I was taught is perfect and has no room for improvement or consideration of any adjustment ever for any reason," failure to evolve is dumb. Anyone with a history like ICM or GMT would be smart enough to know that, and if he sees a training method, like one step sparring, that is good, he would be dumb to disregard it just because it is not what he was taught or the way he was taught it, or even more archaic, not the way HIS teacher was taught it. Is not the history of even the Temples, evolving, adapting, changing, and improving, from Damo or whatever, to the end?
And is there not a history of two-man fighting sets in almost all TCMA's systems? What do you think "ippon kumite" is, other than one step at a time, instead of a series of steps. Its just a simplified, "elementary" start for a more complex concept. Call me naive, but I think it is a good thing that I was able to do "one step" sparring, one step at a time, before I did a long form two-man set, that might run 30+ steps in sequence. If that is bad because it is not TCMA, so what.
I can't think of any accomplished martial arts student or teacher I know, or who posts here for that matter, that has not at one time branched off and experienced more than one style, something else, read someone else's texts, etc., and incorporated what he/she liked and benefitted from, into his/her own practice, when it is good to do so. Why then is so much criticism of SD because its progenitors have done so and made it part of what they pass on to their own students? If I can be taught by someone who learns and adapts, or by one who knows nothing other than one way and cannot learn or adapt, that choice is easy -- unless all I want is the historical lessons.
TO BE CONTINUED
Just One Student
"I seek, not to know all the answers, but to understand the questions." --- Kwai Chang Caine
(I'd really like to know all the answers, too, but understanding the questions, like most of my martial arts practice, is a more realistically attainable goal)