If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to the Shaolin Wahnam Institute Virtual Kwoon and Discussion Forum.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
When considering joining our community, please read our Forum Rules and FAQ. Please also note that this forum, although open to the public, is actually a virtual extension of the Shaolin Wahnam Kwoon (Martial Arts School). Upon "entering" the school, we do expect our guests and members to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner at all times.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Please follow this link to find out what a Virtual Kwoon is.
Originally posted by subclock
I think a better example of the passing on of Kung Fu would be to look at copying Digital Data .
If we were talking about machines, I could believe the argument. But we are talking about people. Imperfect creatures with imperfect methods of communication and imperfect methods of understanding each other.
Also, even machines don't do things the same way each and every time. As proof, I offer any computer running Windows
I'll push this analogy, mostly to get you to stop talking about moot comparisons to Karate.
Also, even machines don't do things the same way each and every time. As proof, I offer any computer running Windows
If the transmission is good, they can be identical. Using a disk imaging system, an image can be captured from one machine and pushed to the other, or to several machines simultaneously. If the machines share identical hardware, then they will be identical in every way. Even machines with different hardware configurations can run virtually identical versions of Windows if configured correctly.
The transmissions you are referring to with Karate are different that what we are talking about. Yours can be equated to a manual installation of Windows trying to copy another machine's installation. Something will always be forgotten and the installations will not be identical. Using this method, the "essence" of the original will be lost within a few generations.
The transmissions we are referring to maintain the essence of the original, even if it is not identical. After 100 consecutive transmissions to machines with different hardware, the 100th will differ from the original, but only slightly. The difference between the 100th and the original machine will be less than the difference between the 1st and 2nd machines using a less efficient transmission method.
The point is this: there are other forms of transmission that you have not experienced. The method you know is imperfect, but that does not mean that every method is imperfect. Some methods allow for a clean transmission of the "essence" of Kungfu through the generations.
Of course, not all styles of Kungfu use the clean method of transmission, but some do.
The best way to tell if you are fighting the same way as someone else is to look at pictures and compare them to yourself.
I disagree. Pictures are not the only way, nor are they necessarily the best. Pictures are static and two-dimensional. Words are not.
Now we are talking about written descriptions in languages that have undergone many changes thru the years and are then translated into another language.
None of this is accurate. I never mentioned anything about translations. Frankly, I'm amazed that you persist in talking about things you admit you don't understand. Do you know what changes the Chinese language has undergone over the past 2000 years? Do you know the difference between modern Traditional Chinese and ancient Classical Chinese? Do you have any idea what these texts are about?
Its a pretty safe bet that the translation in the 20th century reads a little different that the original.
Your safe bets haven’t been too safe. Perhaps you should stop gambling.
So, what do they say? Have there been multiple translations by people trained in ancient Chinese?
There have been very few translations of some texts, and as far as I know, none of others. If you want to read them, you'll have to learn classical Chinese and read them for yourself. Or you can wait for my translations. I should be finished in 20-30 years.
What does this have to do with the question of what is genuine Kungfu? Does this mean you need axes, spears and swords made according to a 6000 year old design to do genuine Kungfu?
It has everything to do with the question.
If there is solid evidence dating back 6000 years, imagine the evidence dating back 300 years. The point is that there is a plethora of evidence, some of it dating back 6000 years, which helps us to determine what is or is not genuine Kungfu.
Much can be learned about the history of Kungfu from the weapons and artifacts that have survived. For example, looking at the way the Jian (straight sword) was forged over the years confirms other evidence about the changes in the styles of fighting, and vice versa. As the styles changed and started to rely more on sophisticated techniques rather than hacking and slashing, so did the swords.
We have the swords, documents, testimonies, poetry, books describing techniques, and various drawings. We also have weapons forms passed down through generations. This is a massive amount of evidence. Much of the world history that we take as "fact" was written based on far less evidence.
Even so, you still have the problems involved with translation AND you also automatically assume the original author (now dead for thousands of years) really knew what he was talking about and really was who he said he was
I'll say it again: I never said anything about translation.
These kinds of questions about authorship are moot. How can you question the authenticity of texts and documents you have never heard of, texts written in a language you don't know the first thing about? How can you possibly be qualified to make such statements?
They made alot of mistakes, but were not complete idiots. I only hope they can learn from their experience.
I don't remember anyone calling them idiots.
Regardless, this is not a situation where they can simply learn from their mistakes and suddenly start doing genuine Kungfu. It's not a matter of accidentally breaking a few principles. It's a matter of training in a way that has no connection to genuine Kungfu or its principles.
Yes and you have no idea if they look the same.
Speak for yourself. I have a good idea. I can read Chinese. I also happen to practice genuine Kungfu from an unbroken lineage.
You assume that we need videos or photographs in order to know what something looked like in the past. This assumption is, quite frankly, naive. This is like saying that we have no idea what a Bach Violin Sonata sounded like because we don’t have recordings.
In fact, we have a very accurate idea what it sounded like. We know because we have the manuscripts and historical documents and testimonies. We also have the instruments, as well as the instruments from hundreds of years before. We also have living, unbroken traditions of violin playing tracing directly to the time of Bach.
We have a good idea what Bach sounded like. But more importantly, we know what Bach did NOT sound like. It did not sound like Jazz. It did not sound like R&B.
Similarly, we know that someone playing Jazz on an electric keyboard is not playing Bach. The case in question is one of someone playing Jazz (Kickboxing) and calling it Bach (Kungfu).
Add thousands of years and thousands (if not more) people and you can easily see my point about the problems with calling something genuine.
I see your point, but it is irrelevant. We are talking about a transmission (heart-to-heart ) that captures the essence, not one that just mimics the external form.
Furthermore, I never said that Kungfu has remained static and unchanged over the years. Styles change, often intentionally. New styles are invented. Techniques are perfected and improved. What I practice now is not exactly the same as what Shaolin monks practiced 600 years ago, but it is closely related.
And yet, despite the changes, it is still clear what is genuine. It is even clearer what is NOT genuine.
Changes in form or technique do not equate to changes in principles. Taijiquan form has changed over the years and branched into many styles, but it is still rooted firmly in Taijiquan principles. It is obvious -- obvious to anyone who is well educated about Taijiquan, that is -- what is not genuine Taijiquan. If an exponent uses brute strength, or bounces around, or uses high kicks, then it is clear that he/she is not doing genuine Taijiquan.
Even if I didn't know what genuine Taijiquan looked like in the past (which I do), I still know the principles that it was founded on. Some of these principles are connected to form. For example, you can do "peng" many different ways, but you cannot do it properly if you are bouncing around and floating your qi.
Anyone who claims to be doing Taijiquan but bounces around like a boxer obviously does not understand (or know) the principles behind the art. As such, this person is not doing genuine Taijiquan.
The so-called Kungfu in that video is not genuine because it claims to be Fujian White Crane and yet looks nothing like Fujian White Crane forms and shows none of the characteristics and/or principles of that style, like solid stances, agile (Kungfu, not boxing) footwork, power generated from the waist, an emphasis on spine and chest movement, and low kicking,
Originally posted by Antonius
I'll push this analogy, mostly to get you to stop talking about moot comparisons to Karate.
My comments have nothing to do with karate. I see I have used it as an example way too much.
My comments have everything to do with how the communication is done between people. People are imperfect, therefore any method we come up with to communicate ideas is imperfect. These imperfections are compounded by the passage of time and changes in language.
If the transmission is good, they can be identical.
And there is the "fatal" flaw. Since people use methods of transmission that are subject to error, the transmissions are good enough to get most of the information across, but some is altered or lost.
The transmissions we are referring to maintain the essence of the original, even if it is not identical.
If the information isn't transmitted the same way each time, can't the essence change slowly over time?
The point is this: there are other forms of transmission that you have not experienced. The method you know is imperfect, but that does not mean that every method is imperfect.
How can an imperfect human being create something perfect?
Some methods allow for a clean transmission of the "essence" of Kungfu through the generations.
Is the the Heart to Heart transmission that has been mentioned. Can you please explain what it is and how its done?
Of course, not all styles of Kungfu use the clean method of transmission, but some do.
And which ones are those? Also, since I assume this is pretty important to the practitioners of those styles, what methods do they have in place to assure transmission is being done correctly?
The whole idea that an idea can be communicated from its originator thru thousands of years and countless translations seems to fly too much in the face of common sense and what is known about people and how our minds work. If it is a leap of faith, that's fine, but it sure wasn't presented as such.
Originally posted by Antonius
I disagree. Pictures are not the only way, nor are they necessarily the best. Pictures are static and two-dimensional. Words are not.
Words are inexact, subject to connotation and denotation.
None of this is accurate. I never mentioned anything about translations. Frankly, I'm amazed that you persist in talking about things you admit you don't understand.
I am a pretty amazing guy, aren't I
(note to self, inflate ego to 200psi)
Do you know what changes the Chinese language has undergone over the past 2000 years?
Nope, I don't. But you can tell me. Is the language written by the Chinese 2000 years ago the same as that which is written today? Are the words the same? Are the way they are put together the same? Are the analogies, metaphors and similes the same?
Do you know the difference between modern Traditional Chinese and ancient Classical Chinese?
Nope, I don't. But I assume there are differences because other languages have been shown to change.
Do you have any idea what these texts are about?
Nope, I don't. You are using them as proof that modern day practitioners are doing Kungfu exactly as their style's originators intended. Something I think is impossible.
There have been very few translations of some texts, and as far as I know, none of others. If you want to read them, you'll have to learn classical Chinese and read them for yourself. Or you can wait for my translations. I should be finished in 20-30 years.
I'll have to wait. Given the amount of time I could devote to studying Chinese, you'll get your translations done first
If there is solid evidence dating back 6000 years, imagine the evidence dating back 300 years. The point is that there is a plethora of evidence, some of it dating back 6000 years, which helps us to determine what is or is not genuine Kungfu.
Tell me about the evidence from 300 years ago. What does it say?
Much can be learned about the history of Kungfu from the weapons and artifacts that have survived. For example, looking at the way the Jian (straight sword) was forged over the years confirms other evidence about the changes in the styles of fighting, and vice versa.
How does the way a sword was forged relate to the way someone punches, kicks and throws?
We have the swords, documents, testimonies, poetry, books describing techniques, and various drawings. We also have weapons forms passed down through generations. This is a massive amount of evidence.
IMO, swords have little to do with empty handed fighting. Poetry and books can be misread. Pictures show individual movements but not how they flowed together dynamically.
The surviving forms may be more reliable. I doubt that they are, but I'll won't decide until someone explains heart to heart transmission.
Much of the world history that we take as "fact" was written based on far less evidence.
Exactly my point. I believe Kungfu history is subject to the same problems that plague any historical research.
These kinds of questions about authorship are moot. How can you question the authenticity of texts and documents you have never heard of, texts written in a language you don't know the first thing about? How can you possibly be qualified to make such statements?
You say you have material, produced thousands of years ago, proving me wrong. If it was written someone who practiced Kungfu, then it has one level of credibility. If it was written by the cook in the emperor's kitchen, it has a different level of credibility. All I want to know is who wrote these things and how were they connected to MA that you can rely on them.
I don't remember anyone calling them idiots.
No one did, it was my poor choice of words.
Speak for yourself. I have a good idea. I can read Chinese. I also happen to practice genuine Kungfu from an unbroken lineage.
You also have such a strong belief you are right that you seem unwilling to consider any other possibility.
You assume that we need videos or photographs in order to know what something looked like in the past. This assumption is, quite frankly, naive. This is like saying that we have no idea what a Bach Violin Sonata sounded like because we don’t have recordings.
We don't have any recordings of Bach himself playing anything. The technology did not exist. Therefore, we don't know how Bach played his music.
Also, even if we did, would any artist want his works performed the same way each and every time. Wouldn't this lead to stagnation? Isn't the fact that an artist can interpret something different from you, me and everyone else the thing that makes art, well, artistic?
We have a good idea what Bach sounded like. But more importantly, we know what Bach did NOT sound like. It did not sound like Jazz. It did not sound like R&B.
Similarly, we know that someone playing Jazz on an electric keyboard is not playing Bach. The case in question is one of someone playing Jazz (Kickboxing) and calling it Bach (Kungfu).
Agreed. My only point is any records of something hundreds or thousands of years old need may not give an accurate representation of what that thing was.
We are talking about a transmission (heart-to-heart ) that captures the essence
Until someone explains what this is and how its done, I can't give an opinion.
Furthermore, I never said that Kungfu has remained static and unchanged over the years. Styles change, often intentionally. New styles are invented. Techniques are perfected and improved. What I practice now is not exactly the same as what Shaolin monks practiced 600 years ago, but it is closely related.
So what makes what you are doing "genuine"? For that matter, what is "genuine" in this case? Your Kungfu? Kungfu from 600 years ago?
Changes in form or technique do not equate to changes in principles.
True. That's why I think there is a finite set of principles, but a nearly infinite way to use them, teach them and explain them.
The so-called Kungfu in that video is not genuine because it claims to be Fujian White Crane and yet looks nothing like Fujian White Crane forms and shows none of the characteristics and/or principles of that style,
True. Even though I know nothing of White Crane, its pretty obvious their application has picked up some non White Crane influences somewhere along the line.
Its also obvious these folks are sparring with more of the later influences. Why? Because I recognize alot of what they are doing - and, to a large degree, I've been trained in the Western fashion.
Its also obvious some of them need more practice. Why? Because some of them are using principles that are contrary to any tradition, style or common sense.
What I have a hard time believing is when anyone says they are doing a MA that is closer to the original form than anyone else. I simply do not believe any of us can make such a statement becuase of the lack of evidence and the danger of misinterpreting the little evidence we've received.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to be proved wrong. That is, after all, how I learn stuff.
Also, I get the feeling I'm stepping on some toes here. I'm not trying to belittle anything anyone is doing. I'm just trying to understand and have to do so based on my own experiences. Hence, all the questions.
" a weapon is used as an extenison of the body.Not as a seprate item "
Agreed . In my Taijiquan sword form there are some patterns that are very similar to patterns in the unarmed forms . Sometimes ,I have noticed that after performing the sword form , people in my class find that they suddenly understand a move which they found confusing before from the unarmed form .
Sometimes we also perform the Sword form without a sword ( two sword fingers ) . This is more for first timers , who are often overwhelmed at having a weapon to wield plus , getting the physical forms right ( although it sometimes helps when I have to practise in a small room where there is not enough space for a sword ).
Personally , although I really enjoy the sword form a lot , I find that after I perform the sword form , my unarmed forms seem to flow better than before . hmmm...
In reponse to my saying swords have little to do with empty hand fighting.
Originally posted by hakfudisciple How do you figure?
a weapon is used as an extenison of the body.Not as a seprate item.
jeff
The comment was in response to Anthony's drawing a parallel between archaeologists finding well made swords with ancient kung fu being well recorded.
Yes, the sword is an extension of the body. A 2-3 foot extension. I imagine you want to keep your opponent at this range so you can bring the point and edge into play.
Empty handed however, the ranges are completely different.
Also, sword training has little applicable value to modern self defense. But, it has the benefit of forcing you to contemplate different ranges and probably is fun for the swashbuckling types among us.
Originally posted by juszczec Also, sword training has little applicable value to modern self defense.
here's what Sifu Wong Kiew Kit says about weapon training in his book, 'The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu':
"Nowadays you do not lash a sword behind your back or grasp a spear in your hands and walk about the streets, as many Kung Fu exponents did in the past. But in a fight, even under ordinary circumstances and in ordinary places, you can often find a piece of wood or a sharpened pole that can be used, even if only clumsily, as a rod or spear. Moreover, if other people use such improvised weapons against you, you will be able to deal with them more competently if you have learned the principles and properties of their classical counterparts in weapon sets."
Rory
"The holistic training of Shaolin Kungfu with Chi Kung makes one physically fit, emotionally stable and mentally fresh: if one is not physically fit, one can hardly fight; if one is not emotionally stable, one cannot apply one's combat skills; if one is not mentally fresh, one cannot make split-second decisions." Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit (Sigung) - The Art of Shaolin Kungfu
Sorry that I haven't reply sooner. I am in NV right now and the phone just started working.
PS: This is from your post in the Sparring thread, but I reply it here since this thread is more appropriate place to do it.
Nope. I disagree with this one. The average public has had their ideas of what Eastern MA should look like shaped by MA movies.
In that 4th one, it should say "Onlookers that has some background in MA." For example, I never take TKD before, but I know a TKD exponent by his/her sparring startegies and method. The same thing goes when I spar with karate, boxer and kickboxer exponents. The only thing I can't seem to differentiate is betwen BJJ and shootfighting. For some reason, they all look the same in my eyes...
And no, I don't spar like Crounching tiger, matrix etc. If I do that, I don't need to study kungfu at all
"Franciskus, Open Your Chest" Sifu Wong (Intensive Kungfu Course 11/23 -11/29/04)
don't think there is anything "genuine" in MA. I mean genuine in the sense that we are doing what the sytle's originator wanted.
I am going to clarify this statement: is this means that we are not supposed to change anything in the form???
For example: I learn Hsing-I. The basic posture is called trinity where one arm is held chest high while the other is on the dantian area (In karate I think this is called hara (?), not too sure about this though...).
In the orginal posture, the high arm is held in a spear palm form. However, another person change it to a regular palm formation and this modification is used till today. Is this mean that Hsing-I is no longer genuine by your definition???
"Franciskus, Open Your Chest" Sifu Wong (Intensive Kungfu Course 11/23 -11/29/04)
Originally posted by Quatro Bajina
I am going to clarify this statement: is this means that we are not supposed to change anything in the form???
Yes and no. It depends on what you change, why, whether these changes end up being used by anyone but you and if they result in you being able to defend yourself better.
I feel forms are the classroom model or textbook reference of the principles in a style. Forms serve to record these principles and provide the student a way of practicing them without a partner.
In many (most? all?) cases we don't know what the form's creator would think of any changes introduced by us or those that came before us. We don't know what, if any, changes have been made to the original form between the time of the creator's death and when we learned it.
In short, we have no idea if someone fooled with the original and passed it down as the original. Personally, I think there's a good chance it did happen.
Does it matter?
I don't think so. As long as the form still contains principles that are simple and easily applied then you should be able to use the principles to protect yourself.
Is this mean that Hsing-I is no longer genuine by your definition???
I wouldn't know. I have no idea what the founder of Hsing-I would think. I also have no idea what other changes were introduced to the form. And, even if the founder disapproved, it doesn't matter. If it allows you to defend yourself better, then use it.
In this case the needs of the living to defend themselves are more important than the unknown desires of the dead.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment