Philosophy

[Sirus]

At the risk of making myself sound arrogant, I wish to doscuss with anyone willing, the concept of martial philosophy.

I have always thought of myself as a philosopher, from even before the time I knew the word "philosopher." It started when I was a kid, and continues to this day. I say this, mind, in full knowledge of the fact that modern philosophy has no place for a person like me...after all, no good phlosopher lies awake at night anymore, wondering about the destiny of mankind, and the nature of conciousness and so on.I do. And this is, like it or not, a direct result of spending over half of my life consumed by the Chinese Martial Arts. CMA is based on philosophy, a martial philosophy.

For many years I have struggled with how the CMA were supposed to be about non-violent behavior, and yet HG contains tactics which took a truly devious mind to come up with. Even the fluid, soft, and beautiful movements from the Crane sections, upon discovering the application of such, one cannot deny the fact, this is deadly stuff!! Now, modern-fashonly (is that a word?), we like the idea that this is brutal, and very destructive attack and defense. But we are all told, It is about protecting oneself, and never hurt anyone if you can avoid it. For a very long time, I thought there was something very queer about this. It was odd. The idea that we learn how to fight, but are not supposed to, it just did not set right.

So I put this out, in the hope of feedback -

Is this feeling caused by the improper term being applied to the situation? We do not want to be classified as "violent" people. So, we attempt to be the opposite, which would be, non-violent. But the non-violent resistants only led people to stand there and be beaten down. This cannot possible be from the Buddhist influence. In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is Sunyata, the trnacendental reality behind all "separate and individual" things, and in this doctrine, there are no opposites.

So the idea of non-violence, is out of whack. Please help me out with this, I am not Buddhist, and have only a passing knowledge on the subject, if I misrepresented something above, please correct at will with no hard feelings.

Is it more correct to say there is simply action, violent or not, aggressive or not, enjoyed or not? If we must, for the sake of clear communication, keep the idea of opposites, would that opposite of violence still be nonviolence if we call it by another name? Like antagonistic action? Or if we drop the opposites, would we be correct to say that the aggressor attempted to give us violence, and we rejected, or turned back the offer?

My main problem is in communicating what I am thinking here. If anyone understands what I am trying to say here, and can say it better, so that I may in turn pass this on to my students in a coherant manner, I would be in your debt.

[couch]

I guess you could say that I'm part of a Buddhist group here in Calgary.

As far as killing/hurting and Buddhism...I'll put it this way.

The first precept we have is Do Not Kill.

This means two things. I am not a allowed to kill. But I am not allowed to let something be killed. So if someone has come to hurt me or possibly kill me...I am to not let myself be killed or I've broken a precept.

Sincerely,
Kenton Sefcik

[jfboasen]

I believe that you are training to fight. I believe that fighting is the whole point of training kung fu.

However, the real opponent you are training for is a far better adversary than your common street attacker. This opponent is relentless, opressive and a master in his art. The opponent is your self.

The physical nature of kung fu is but a superficial facade, coating the surface of a deep and infinite chasm that leads to the heart of your own soul. Ultimately, self defense is just that, the defense and mastory over your self.

If you achieve this, you have won a far greater victory than anything measurable in physical terms. Mastery of self leads to the lack of need for self, which leads to spiritual enlightenment, which, for the Bhudist, can mean the path to Nirvana.

The bonus feature of kung fu is that the concepts are universal to humanity. Thus, not only can you learn to defeat others by throwing a punch, you can also learn to defeat them by not throwing one.

There are things more powerful than punches. You discover them the more you train.

This is my perspective on the matter anyway.

Regards,

Jared F. Boasen

[kj]

<snip>So I put this out, in the hope of feedback -

Is this feeling caused by the improper term being applied to the situation? We do not want to be classified as "violent" people. So, we attempt to be the opposite, which would be, non-violent. But the non-violent resistants only led people to stand there and be beaten down.

Philosophy, Buddhism, and martial arts aside momentarily, I think what you've described is simply part of the human conundrum. We have a savage, cruel, and brutish nature (anyone who thinks they don't is either in denial or just hasn't discovered it yet). Buddhist, Christians, Jews, atheists, anyone - no exceptions. Yet we also possess a unique yearning and limitless capacity for humaneness. Different balance in different people and at different times no doubt - and yes, external influences factor in - but it's all in there. Look at politics, business, sociology, history, current events, marriages, child rearing, the way we interact with our neighbors, our justice system, even good literature ... the evidence is everywhere. (The generic "you" of course.) Agreed it's all fun stuff to ruminate, but the fundamental driving factors aren't all that mysterious from my perspective. That and I value a good night's sleep a lot more than I used to, LOL.

This is also why I contend that one's approach to martial arts is not merely about fighting, neither is it merely about resisting fighting. It is more fundamentally about one's values, the compromises one is willing to make, and who we choose to be. Whatever the balance point within each of us, it never comes out more clearly than when we have a critically tough choice to make.

Regards,
- kj

[Hendrik]

IMHO

There are two ways of living


1, God/Buddha Nature/Dao consciousness living, where God/Buddha Nature/Dao is the center of one's living at every instant. As it said, one is God's breath. God is breathing one's breath.




Lord, make us instruments
of your peace.
Where there is hatred
let us sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is discord, union;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

Grant that we may not
so much seek
To be consoled as to console;
To be understood
as to understand;
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving
that we receive;
It is in pardoning
that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are
born to eternal life.







2, Projection /Ego consciousness living, where using one's emotion/idenity/thought/perception as the center of one's living. Where God/Buddha Nature/Dao is just accesory where one decides when to pull it out similar to a cell phone. And not pull it out when no needed



SHAO LIN MONK create ANTI-Qing best martial art --- Wing Chun!





Violance and Non Violance, Creation and Destruction,.... will be seen differently depend on which type of living one is center at.



Silva's dance is creation or destruction? One has to know which type of life one lives first.

[anerlich]

Silva's dance is creation or destruction?

If it's Vanderlei Silva you're talking about, his nom de guerre of "The Axe Murderer" might be a bit of a giveaway.

[Sirus]

I think I understand what you are refering to. One of the main reason why i developed an interest in MA is because of all the codes that surounded the subject. Budism, Taoist philosophy ect.. I remember that one of my friend could not understand that a bhudist based concept could literally kill someone, and to tell you the truth ....Nor could I.

But here is what I found out. probably not the complete thruth but it's my vision

1: MA where created by people to help save and protect yourself and your peers....ok and some would use the techniques to kill, rape and rob others.

2: Bhudism was and is a popular way of thinking in asia, so it's only natural that both MA and Bhudism got mixed together and that, irrelevant of Damo storie being thrue or fantasy.

3: Mixing Bhudism with MA is naturally complette, mixing Taichi with Toism is natural and complete, mixing good with evil is complete. you cant have one without the other. you cant show mercy to your opponent if you dont have the option to show mercy.

i think, I learn these techniques because, first, I enjoy the way I feel after practicing, 2. I feel the need to be able to protect my family and myself. no urge to kill anyone, but i have knowlege to do it. I have not faught since I practice Ma but I can walk in the street calmly and confidently.

So in all it is what you make of it. Do you understand what that you have great resposibility to yourself and your peers to behave wiselly ...do you accept that responsibility? if yes then you understand how budism or taoism or whatever works with your MA or anything that you will do in life.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Sirus,

A very thoughtful post!

Keep in mind that as true pacifists Buddhists would lose all the wealth, possessions, and learned texts they had acquired. A true pacifist would have to allow anyone at all to just walk in and take whatever they want and kill whomever they want! Or of course try to escape with whatever you could carry! You could spend your entire life running under those circumstances. Buddhims would never have grown in influence under these conditions. With this attitude Buddhism was unlikely to survive! Pacifism is more of an ideal rather then a practical means of living!

[Scott R. Brown]

Some further thoughts:

Let us see what we may learn from observing Tao. Not Taoism, Taoists, or Taoist writings, but Tao itself. The symbol of Tao is Yin-Yang. Yin-Yang represents Tao as a unified, rhythmically cycling, CO-existence of contrasting principles. These principles are CO-equal. That is Yin is equal in importance and influence with Yang. Each occurs in turn as a dominant principle, only to relinquish dominance according to natural timing. This cycling of dominance occurs in a rhythmic pattern. Each is defined by the other. Each shares characteristics with its contrasting principle. Neither is better nor worse than the other. One is not to be favored over the other, necessarily.

Some teach Yin is superior to Yang. This is nonsense and represents a divergence from the principles of Tao. Yin is not always the best or most beneficial principle to apply to any given circumstance. If Yin was intended to be dominant outside of its natural rhythmic occurrence the symbol of Tao would be Yin, not Yin-Yang. Neither is Yin-Yang ¾ Yin and ¼ Yang. It is equally proportioned. This example teaches us that each occurs (has dominance) at its proper time according to natural principles and shares in alternating eminence. Neither is to be necessarily embraced and neither is to be necessarily shunned!

Following the example of Yin-Yang; if we wish to follow the teachings and principles of Tao, we must embrace violence (Yang principles) as a natural and necessary principle of life. It is thus beneficial and necessary at its proper time.

The key then is to determine when it is appropriate and necessary to apply Yang principles and when to apply Yin principles. This is determined according to the context of each circumstance. The ability to determine which is appropriate according to the context is wisdom.

[PaulH]

Most men live a quiet and desperate life. Whenever I am burdened and full of cares, I cast them on the sea of life trusting on the mercy of God. I have no regrets so far. No, I did not find that rest in MA philosophy.

[PaulH]

Most men live a quiet and desperate life. I don't know about you, Sirus, but you sound very troubled and restless. Whenever I am burdened and full of cares, I cast them on the sea of life trusting on the mercy of God. I have no regrets so far. No, I did not find that rest in MA philosophy.

[kj]

Ditto that, Paul.

Regards,
- kj

[Sirus]

The Courage to Run Away
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of us are so conditioned by television and movies that we cannot conceive of simply turning tail and running for our lives as any sort of "honorable" fighting strategy. And yet I've studied under some brilliant, brave, honorable sensei -- every one of whom has stressed running from danger as a perfectly respectable fighting technique.

Now, in the movies we never see Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, Steven Segal, or ANY hero running away. No matter what the odds, even if they're outnumbered 30 to one, even if the bad guys have guns -- the hero stays, he fights, he wins. Problem is, that's the movies. Somebody WROTE a script which says the hero will win, and all those "bad guys" are professional stuntmen hired to MAKE SURE the hero wins.

Karate, and for that matter ALL martial arts, are basically a form of science -- science of the mechanics of the body, and science of the mind. They also all employ the science of strategy -- and invariably good old-fashioned common sense.

Almost from my first class, sensei have told me that there is NOTHING noble about getting the crap kicked out of you in order to show you're tough. That "tough guy, take it like a man" attitude in a dojo invariably results in much laughter, and comments to the effect that allowing yourself to get beat up only shows that you're stupid.

Right about now, I suspect that some of you are saying: "I could never do anything that cowardly." But courage and cowardice are very relative terms. Who would think you a coward? The gang of punks who've jumped you so they can have four-to-one odds in the fight? Are they acting brave? And quite frankly, what do you CARE what a punk, or a bunch of punks, thinks?

Street fighting isn't like in the movies. It's so vicious that you can WIN and still carry away permanent scars or injuries.

I guess the bottom line is this: Do you possess the courage to employ the strategy of running away? Or are you such a coward that you would stay and let yourself be murdered just so some punks who don't know the meaning of the word honor won't think you're a chicken?

And, if you want a Star Wars analogy, in the opening of Episode One, Qui-Gon and Obi-wan ran from the spaceship and escaped to the planet. Apparently to Jedi, running away and living to win the war is more important than a pointless death.

I asked Carl Henning, a man who readily talked not only of great victories but also of running like crazy to save his life, if there was ever a time when honor would require you to stay and fight to the death. He thought a moment, then said yes, if you were with your wife or children. Under that situation, Carl said you wouldn't want to save your life if the cost was something you couldn't bare to live with. Then, he said, fight honorably, and as hard and viciously as you can.
"A truly worthy sword never leaves its case."

[reneritchie]

Wing Chun is not religious. In the old-school Kuen Kuet, it does not talk about moral concepts but about the vicious destruction of enemies.

Now, a person can be moral and virtuous, and some WCK ancestors sound like pretty moral and virtuous people (perhaps because their skill level was high enough to allow them to be, or perhaps for the same reason that many great generals became great pacifists), but WCK is a weapon, it's a gun, and only the respect of the wielder tempers it.

Anything else is latter-day Shaw Bros. re-write hippie granola Mr. Myagi delusion.

[lawrenceofidaho]

in the movies we never see Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, Steven Segal, or ANY hero running away.

Jackie runs away all the time!!

Jackie (almost) always tries to avoid a fight, and he does not obsess on revenge fantasies, -unlike the characters played by the actors mentioned above.

He is the martial arts hero I would want my kids emulating......

(If I had kids, that is....... )