His-Story and Attachment

[t_niehoff]

I don't believe the myth either (in fact I recommend your book to my sidai whenever they ask about all the different versions of our history, and prefer your conclusions).

But true or not, I think somewhere in the past, at least one of our ancestors thought it was important to teach us that a nun founded the system rather than a monk, and that a it was named after a woman.

There may be someone bigger and stronger than us, that's what the story teaches us. If you encountered an opponent who was a good foot or more taller than you, and 100 pounds heavier, (considering my stature, that's a very real possibility) could your kung fu handle that? I believe that's the question that the story is meant to put in our head.

It's very hard for students to "fight like a woman". Even the female students get on the floor and want to "fight like a man".

Yes, you're right. I too think many of these stories are allegories (and not literally true).

[sandman]

Now, what is the relevance to all of us? In the eyes of Wu Mei guy, we're doing a partial offshoot of Wu Mei. Do you feel small? Do you want to prove he is wrong? Do you accept that story? Does this invalidate your practice? Do you want to protect your lineage now?

I should say that my point above was really to answer these questions. The discussions of whether a particular history is true or not doesn't affect my life. To each their own. I'm not really trying to convince anyone that my version is right, just trying to share what I've learned from it.

[chusauli]

I don't believe the myth either (in fact I recommend your book to my sidai whenever they ask about all the different versions of our history, and prefer your conclusions).

But true or not, I think somewhere in the past, at least one of our ancestors thought it was important to teach us that a nun founded the system rather than a monk, and that a it was named after a woman.

There may be someone bigger and stronger than us, that's what the story teaches us. If you encountered an opponent who was a good foot or more taller than you, and 100 pounds heavier, (considering my stature, that's a very real possibility) could your kung fu handle that? I believe that's the question that the story is meant to put in our head.

It's very hard for students to "fight like a woman". Even the female students get on the floor and want to "fight like a man".

Many thanks!

Yes, agree! A small man or a woman could defend herself. And the good thing is that we can use that image to empower us.

[chusauli]

I should say that my point above was really to answer these questions. The discussions of whether a particular history is true or not doesn't affect my life. To each their own. I'm not really trying to convince anyone that my version is right, just trying to share what I've learned from it.

Absolutely! An important lesson to learn!

There are too many conflicting stories and we should not identify with them personally, merely take out those elements of the story which can be useful.

You also show what a rational person does, as opposed to what someone who's identity is wrapped up in their "truth".

Thank you for your contribution!

[sihing]

You also show what a rational person does, as opposed to what someone who's identity is wrapped up in their "truth".

Thank you for your contribution!

I like this last part. When people identify with something, they will defend it like it is something personal. Your lineage, history, bla bla bla is not personal. Your skills and your ability to use what you are training in is what is personal. And none of that can be proven by what you write about here on a internet forum. Meet ups are the only way to express that.

For me, I love what I am training in. Is it the best out there? Yes, no, maybe so, but regardless it is what is good for me at this moment, and the need to compare it with other methods is not there.

What I see here on this forum is allot of identification and attachment. Once these things are present, one is not expressing themselves from a reality viewpoint.

James

[chusauli]

Continuing....

When I moved to Los Angeles in 1988, I met a Vietnamese Chinese monk at a martial arts performance. He sat next to me and asked if I learned martial arts. I told him yes, "WCK.."

He was delighted, as he was also learned in WCK. "Our lineage came from China, from a Yuen Chai Wan..."

I recognized the lineage, it was Yuen Kay Shan's brother who went to Cambodia and later Vietnam, teaching the local Wah Kiu (Overseas Chinese) there.

He asked me if I learned the Gim set?

"Gim? What Gim?"

Then he asked if I learned the Ng Ying Hei Gung (Five Animal Qigong set)?

I told him that in our lineage does not have such a thing. I explained we have Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu and Biu Jee. He stopped to correct me, "Siu Lien Tao?" No, our first set was "Siu Nim Tao", but I clarified that "Siu Lien Tao was the old name..."

The monk was puzzled, and asked me the origins of my WCK. I told him about grandmaster Yip Man and his branch in HK. He did not know of Yip Man, as he was from Vietnam.

Finally, he asked me, "Are you sure you learned WCK?!"

I smiled, and clasped my hands in the the Buddhist salutation and said "Amitoufo!", the performance was beginning...and thus ended our conversation...

------------------------------------------------
So, I ask you, should I have thrashed the monk? Should I have insisted mine was better without the 5 animal qi gong? That we didn't learn any stupid gim set? And that he should get an ass kicking because my lineage didn't have any of his items? What would you have done?

[sihing]

Continuing....

------------------------------------------------
So, I ask you, should I have thrashed the monk? Should I have insisted mine was better without the 5 animal qi gong? That we didn't learn any stupid gim set? And that he should get an ass kicking because my lineage didn't have any of his items? What would you have done?

I believe you did the right thing Robert. When you try to convince someone of something, you are basically saying "Your wrong, I am right". This type of thinking is of the ego, which stems from the need to be superior or different/seperate from everyone else. The scenerio you described, I've had the same as well. Basically I keep my mouth shut and let them do the talking, eventually the person's true knowledge or skills will be revealed as they continue to express themselves. If they say things that are contrary to what I beleive I still keep my mouth shut, only when there is some common ground do I start to express my feelings about something. Agruments get us know where, as can be demonstrated by 99% of the posts on this forum.

James

[t_niehoff]

I believe you did the right thing Robert. When you try to convince someone of something, you are basically saying "Your wrong, I am right". This type of thinking is of the ego, which stems from the need to be superior or different/seperate from everyone else.

Critical discussions will involve a dialogue where the participants are interested in what is true or not. Just because one or more person believe that their views are correct doesn't mean they are being egocentric or that by engaging in discussions they are ego-driven. Critical discussion involve examing evidence, critiquing reasoning, etc. to test everyone's views -- including your own. It's like competing in a sport -- it is the competition that forces you to do your best and thereby increases your performance levels but it also shows you where you are lacking, weak, etc. Through critical discussion, you can learn, refine, rethink, etc.

What Robert is getting at IMO is that when we are "attached" (and I don't particularly care for the buddhist nomenclature) to a dogma or person or whatever, then we stop ourselves from engaging in critical discussion, i.e., we stop ourselves from learning, refining, rethinking, etc.

[Hendrik]

Those who is rich and can effort a private Jet hold on or Attach to thier Jet.

and those attach to their Sport cars.

and those attach to thier bank account.

and those attach to thier family

and those attach to thier rigtheousness.

and those attach to thier fame...

and those attach to thier... who knows what?


all are just trying to keep the EGO to continous on Alive.



There is no an absolute set of Time, Space, energy but EGO makes it as we likes it.

Dont believe me? Think something you hate. Think Something you love. are the Time, space, energy the same? hahaha. Everything Changes based on your ego likes it or hate it.

Thus, the Buddhist doesnt talk about Time, Space, energy because Zen do away the EGO and the rest fall into the right place.

So, what History? What His-story? just illusion and the alabi your ego use to keep it alive.

Let go the Ego and let it die, then, what is the problem? none!
everything is perfectly in peace. but who is going to do it to drop the EGO?



hahaha . Well, keep discuss and argue that is how we keep our ego alive. and we all enjoy it isnt it?

[sihing]

Critical discussions will involve a dialogue where the participants are interested in what is true or not. Just because one or more person believe that their views are correct doesn't mean they are being egocentric or that by engaging in discussions they are ego-driven. Critical discussion involve examing evidence, critiquing reasoning, etc. to test everyone's views -- including your own. It's like competing in a sport -- it is the competition that forces you to do your best and thereby increases your performance levels but it also shows you where you are lacking, weak, etc. Through critical discussion, you can learn, refine, rethink, etc.

What Robert is getting at IMO is that when we are "attached" (and I don't particularly care for the buddhist nomenclature) to a dogma or person or whatever, then we stop ourselves from engaging in critical discussion, i.e., we stop ourselves from learning, refining, rethinking, etc.

Terence,

It's not about people stating their beliefs and then other's disagreeing with it. This is going to happen whenever discussions are present, it's a given. It's when people become so attached to what they are saying that it feels personal too them, this can be seen in how people react when others bring forth differing opinions or idea/viewpoints. Some of your posts make me feel that you are attached to what you say, simply for the fact that you constantly repeat yourself, and do so with emotion attached to it. For me there are plenty of things that you and I agree on (that is why I don't have you on ignore, but appreciate the things you have to say), but in some instances you seem to argue for the sake of arguement. I've seen you put down people and label them (sort of like an emotional outburst, labelling people or calling them names) as this or that, when they are essentially saying the samething that you are. To me that represents someone that may be attached to what they believe.

I agree, that when people are attached to this or that, and become identified with it, they fail to see other's POV, and become closed minded. This is a natural, I've gone thru this myself and hopefully have learned to recognize the signs when and if it happens upon me again. Experiences are never good or bad, they just are. Mistakes, or negative experiences in life can teach us more than are victories, if you our aware enough to learn from them.

James

[Wayfaring]

So I'm not a Buddhist, but I think there's a Buddhist concept we're dancing around in this thread, and that is that all suffering comes from attachment. To free one's self from suffering one has to free themselves from attachment.

Do I have that right, you Buddhist dudes?

[chusauli]

LOL! Buddhist dudes!

Yeah, you got it! LOL!

[t_niehoff]

What I find is that the great majority of people are not accustomed to and don't like having their views challenged or criticized. When that happens, they get defensive, emotional, and withdraw. Criticism and being challenged is standard operating procedure in some disciplines, like law, philosophy, science, etc. and people in those areas, like me, get very used to it. But I sometimes forget that most people aren't used to it and don't like it. Then when we take those people and put them in the TMAs, which fosters a don't-question-the-authority mindset, it only exacerbates their feelings about having their views challenged.

[chusauli]

Yes, Terence, that is a big problem. If people can maintain an open, neutral, "higher" level of mind to listen, without bringing in emotional baggage, ego, "old" patterns, etc. a lot could be more constructive and actually help.

All criticism has a bit of truth in it, but the emotion is overbearing and gets people to react defensively or turn off to it.

As I get older, and now being a parent, I find I have to be a better example, and have to be more sensitive using proper language. It takes more brainpower to choose more appropriate words, and also, if discussing on a message board, we do not know the character of the person getting the message, so perhaps it is better that we conduct our words more carefully.

Many people who aren't aware of your straightforward style and can have a problem with it. TMA, does put things like "courtesy" and "respect" first, probably with the wisdom that if not, things will get out of hand.

Law, science, philosophy, history, politics, and medicine all do use Socratic methods to arrive at truth. Arguments can be a norm, and people in those fields take it with a grain of salt. But others outside that field and worldview can get upset and emotional.

[sihing]

What I find is that the great majority of people are not accustomed to and don't like having their views challenged or criticized. When that happens, they get defensive, emotional, and withdraw. Criticism and being challenged is standard operating procedure in some disciplines, like law, philosophy, science, etc. and people in those areas, like me, get very used to it. But I sometimes forget that most people aren't used to it and don't like it. Then when we take those people and put them in the TMAs, which fosters a don't-question-the-authority mindset, it only exacerbates their feelings about having their views challenged.

Good post

I agree that most people are not comfortable hearing someone challenge their view points. This is the awareness telling you that you are attached or identified with whatever the viewpoint is, but most, instead of reflecting upon that feeling, attack the attacker with mindless arguements and acusations, it's so prevelant here that I have choosen not to post very much. I've seen it many times T where you have challenged someone's views, only for them to come back with personal attacks and name calling. Right there is the proof of their attachment and identification. If you know something as truth for yourself, nothing outside of yourself can effect that truth. The problem is most of us never go that far to find out what is truth for ourselves.

I've actually thought at times that you may be using this forum as a way to fine tune your agrumentative abilities for your profession. I will say that your have very strong forum fu


James