Mtod1
Hi Mtod1, This link should shed some light in your direction. This is only one source, I understand, but it is relevant to your query:
http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/loewenhagen/myths.php
I hope this helps you in any way.
-Savi.
Jeremy wrote:
As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat.
VTM,
Two thumbs up!
Rene,
Hm…!!!
Geezer wrote:
So it’s considered Trolling to highlight things that are posted here,
If you want to call it Trolling then so be it, you are not the “Moderator” here and until I’m advised to do otherwise I will post freely!!!
Geezer,
Each of us, as we journey through life, has the opportunity to find and to give his or her unique gift.
TRene,
Yack!
I think it is pretty cut and dry!
Jeremy wrote: I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng’s recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.
–There is more information on the way! If you are want to know how the VTM does research go on the trip and find out first hand. “first hand” being the word of choice 
Rene,
I think you should reread Jeremys post. (Please allow me to paraphrase here. Jeremy please feel free to add to or correct me if I’m wrong or in complete.) Jeremy simply states that based on these findings (the Hung fa Ting at the shaolin temple) the shaolin connection has been confirmed and Future information will be presented. I don’t see why someone would feel this finding should be debated! Is the Hung Fa Ting at the site of the southern shaolin temple? Yes. Is the Hung fa ting mentioned in our kung fu’s history? yes!These facts still remain! this is not a book that someone else has written or an opinion of some one else. Sifu Meng was standing at the site himself. This is why Jeremy makes a mention of up coming works that go into depth about this trip in the name of research. You can draw your own conclusions about any oral legend you would like. But the facts still remain.
Terence wrote:I also know of a symposioum on Bigfoot later this year, but don’t plan to attend that. You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, to me) on something, I want at least some assurance it won’t be a waste of my time
I did not know you are interested in big foot! Do you also spend your time posting on a Big foot forum?
Since this thread has somehow once again been hijacked into “About the VTM” with associated trolling, anyone interested in further discussion with me on the topic is invited to email info@wingchunkuen.com. Other than that, I’m done.
Savi - Hopefully we can still have a civilized, individual discussion in the future.
Chango - Proctor Hoc Ergo Sempter Hoc is not a legitimate argument.
Geezer - Bollocks! 
RR
Rene,
Rene Wrote>
Geezer - Bollocks!
Rene, I’m not sure if you understand the meaning of “Bollocks”
but you talk about hijacking, and then you start insulting me:(
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t;)
Hi Savi,
Savi wrote:
Most certainly facts are a neccesity when presenting new information. However, in the medium that the VTM staff is presenting the information - through a worldwide network of magazines and the internet, even with detailed accounts of their research excursions around the world - still what you read fact or fiction, is only an “oral account?” S
Saying one took a trip to China and uncovered information doesn’t tell me anything specific – to be able to evaluate the “information” for myself, I need to know its source, something of the source, etc. including evidence to the contrary. Let’s consider the VTM’s pre-Red Boat “history”: where does it come from but for the oral traditions of Jee Shim and HFY? TN
Impossible to present the physical evidence through this manner of communication. The VTM recognize this fact, and have been consistently offerring invitations to the museum to share their findings in person. S
Please. This is nonsense. Physical evidence (or at least representations thereof) can be – and is in every other discipline – presented and positions communicated and explained via writing (as it is in every other discipline). One of my closest friends is a botanist at the Botanical Garden here and travels all over the globe collecting plant specimens. He publishes his researach. When he claims to have found a new species, he doesn’t say “it’s impossible to present the physical evidence of this new species through the print medium” and suggest that those persons who just don’t take his word for it travel to St. Louis so that he can “share his findings in person.” He’d be a laughing-stock in his academic circles. Complex physics and philosophy has been written about – what makes HFY so unique? As I said, if someone has proof of a claim, they’ll publish it; if they don’t, that in itself is revealing. TN
One concrete source of evidence they provided with the public was the discovery of the Hung Fa Ting, recognized by the government of China, and solidifies the ‘oral account’ that the Hung Fa Yi family originated there. S
There is no doubt that the Hung Mun, Hung Fa, etc. all existed, and many legends of many different MAs draw on that fact; nor is it news that the Hung Mun, etc. tried to associate themselves with the Shaolin Temple, including adopting some name associations, for their own reasons. But the fact it existed doesn’t in any way substantiate the claims of HFY (the Yip Man lineage claims lineage to Shaolin; does the fact that the Shaolin Temple actually exists prove YMWCK descends from there?). Or did, as I think is more likely, both HFY and YMWCK draw on pre-existing information to “fill out” their legends? The trouble is when we want to believe something, we can find all kinds of things that help us prove our convictions. TN
But I see that my initial question remains unanswered: in all of the VTM’s “research”, including the thousands of travel miles logged, trips to China, visits to all these people, did they ever visit their si-gung in HFY? Since it seems that the HFY oral tradition is being presented as factual, don’t you think it makes sense to visit him (after all, certainly he can provide a great deal of info)? They visited Yip Man’s grave to pay their respects but not their si-gung in HFY to pay their respects? That in and of itself IMHO is revealing. TN
And for Sheldon:
Sheldon writes:
Does taking tourist junks to China make one a “researcher”? TN
How did you come up with that, from what Passingthrough wrote, I didn’t find anything about tourist junks. S
What makes their trips not toursit junks? How about when they write about the menus of meals they ate? TN
Terence
“Is the Hung Fa Ting at the site of the southern shaolin temple? Yes. Is the Hung fa ting mentioned in our kung fu’s history?”
Thus , if someone says that what they do comes directly from the Northern Shaolin temple and here is such a temple- therefore
the style comes from there?.
QED?
Not so methinks- strange research logic.
BTW- I do think more than Rene that wing chun predates the Red Boat era- but lets face it- exact genealogies gets proportionately fuzzier each generation beyond leung jan for Yip man wing chun.
It seems to me that Rene is correct that the HFY folks seem to be interested in hijacking (and marketing).
We have no verfiable evidence of HFY lineage and practice with clear
linkages from now backward to even 4-5 generations, with the claim that it was all secret till now.
merely repeating something doesnt make it true.!!
From what little clear theoretical discussion on principles and structure we have had- I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun- though it may use the name and have some overlap in motions.
Geezer - It was a joke – remember we had a discussion on favorite “English” terms? I assume’d you’d have the quote handy 8). Cor blimey, at least you didn’t tell me to sod off! Now, once again, I leave this thread for the poncy little buggers what hijacked it…
Hello again!
Rene,
I am always open for any discussion I feel competent enough in discussing with anyone. I’m sorry you do not feel inclined to participate in further discussions here. I am uncertain as to what your definition of trolling is, whether it be an action or a person. I personally have been raised not to categorize people, rather, but to categorize their actions or behavior(s). So far on this thread I have not identified any comments as trolling. Certain comments borderline, yes, but not to the degree of trolling. Again, I am always open for discussion :).
Terence,
Has the link I provided to you clear anything up for you as to how the VTM conducts their research?
Also, WRT to your other questions - you did not understand my previous post, but more articles regarding your questions are in the works as stated before. Hopefully that ‘reveals’ more of the path to which you gaze.
On a serious note, non-related to this thread Terence, and I will only address this once: I request that you do not take any of the HFY family members hostage in your arguments. I find it extremely disrespectful, and down-right immature. Your conduct is crossing the line of diplomacy. Leave Sitaigung Gee’s Sifu, and any persons of the HFY family out of your arguments. Can you respect this request?
Sifu Chaudhuri,
I respect your skepticism based on how much interest you show in the HFY.
I look forward to your continued input :).
Thank you,
-Savi.
The facts!!
uhhemm!
Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan
Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins
Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin.
Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history.
Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered
Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting.
These facts stand! do with them what you want. If you choose not to acknowlege these facts that is your choice as well! But once again the facts still stand.
Yuan fen,
As far as claimes of marketing! I think it has been clear that this is not the goal of the VTM. It seems you have some sort of missunderstanding. This is your form of an attack on the VTM. But once again that misunderstand is yours. Once again the VTM has delivered information and great discoveries of historical value and some see it as a reason to attack. The truth is the truth rather you like it or not.
Chango sez:This is your form of an attack on the VTM.
Chango-I attack no one. A healthy skepticism on acceptance of new claims on history or science is fairly ingrained-in my perspective. This is not just in CMA matters. It applies accross the board.
Using the word “research” doesnt make it so. There are some fairly well known protocols for research even in the social sciences and humanities.
But Savi is correct- the discussions in this forum has not sparked an interest in HFY on my part.
When one sells a product and also claim research foundations-
tentative skepticism is not an unhealthy perspective to have..
Savi wrote:
Terence,
Has the link I provided to you clear anything up for you as to how the VTM conducts their research? S
Not at all. Saying how something is done “generally” (in a fluff piece) and what was done to reach specific conclusions is something entirely different. I don’t want to know how drugs are “routinely” tested by a drug company when a new drug is touted, I want to know specifically what tests were done, how they were designed, how they were done, what protocols were followed, etc. if I am to evaluate their claims. No such specificity is provided in VTM articles. TN
Also, WRT to your other questions - you did not understand my previous post, but more articles regarding your questions are in the works as stated before. Hopefully that ‘reveals’ more of the path to which you gaze. S
Savi, I don’t have any position or opinion about WCK prior to the Red Boats since I haven’t seen any substantive evidence that relates to that period. If someone has some, I’d love to hear/see it. Until then, I simply take it that WCK appears to have begun on the Red Boats. TN
On a serious note, non-related to this thread Terence, and I will only address this once: I request that you do not take any of the HFY family members hostage in your arguments. I find it extremely disrespectful, and down-right immature. Your conduct is crossing the line of diplomacy. Leave Sitaigung Gee’s Sifu, and any persons of the HFY family out of your arguments. Can you respect this request? S
I’m not sure I understand – I didn’t open this can of worms. You see, the VTM position seems to be that HFY oral tradition is historically accurate (if you or they want to claim it’s just oral tradition like everyone else’s then there’s no issue and I’ll leave it at that). However, once they make that claim (especially with the VTM concerning itself with “researching the roots of WCK”), then I’d think that being able to substantiate simply one generation removed from Garrett Gee is an essential first step to proving the “history.” (I can – and I’ll bet most everyone else can too – in contrast, give you my sifu’s and sigung’s, Hawkins Cheung’s, phone number; Hawkins teacher was Yip Man and I can provide photos of Hawkins and Yip together, other Yip Man students that rememer him, etc.; I even have videotapes of Robert, Hawkins, and Yip. Yip’s teacher, Chan Wah Shun, was renowned and there are many folks that can substantiate his existence and that he taught Yip, including Chan’s grandson (or physical evidence like the plackard in front of Chan Mui Yin’s kwoon where Yip is listed as a sidai). And we can find his teacher, Leung Jan, buried in Gu Lao. Lots of evidence going back 5 generations). Yet, no one – none of these “researchers” – seems to have taken the very simple first step w/r/t HFY. Am I accurate is this regard? And if that first step hasn’t even been reliably proven, how can you expect us to believe the second step (Garrett’s teachers sifu), and so on and so on all the way back to the Shaolin Temple is factually accurate? TN
Terence
Joy, it could be the other way round???
Hi Joy,
Joy wrote>
I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun
Have you ever thought that Yip Man WCK may not be WC, every family that’s studied under Yip Man, none of them look the same, where as from the guys at the VTM, they say that every motion in HFY WCK is precise and theirs no room for" I like to do it this way or I like to do it that way".
Sheldon
Chango wrote:
Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan - C
Many WCK systems don’t. And if it does have strong leanings toward Chan, how do we know these weren’t adopted in recent history? TN
Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins C
How do we know? Perhaps someone in the lineage who was a Chan devotee adopted the Shaolin origin as part of the legend (all legends had to be made up by someone) or the Shaolin legend existed and a practitioner of that lineage became later became a Chan devotee and now the two are meshed? TN
Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin. C
Lots of MAs claim Shaolin lineage – some that even look Shaolin – but haven’t adopted Chan; and there are many Chan practitioners that haven’t adopted MAs. Having a MA that says it comes from Shaolin and also purports a Chan philosophy doesn’t logically follow that it came from Shaolin. TN
Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history. C
See my discussion with Savi regarding the Hung Mun adoption of Shaolin, its terms, etc. TN
Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered C
Actually, I think there is still much academic dispute. TN
Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting. C
Was this the “Southern Shaolin Temple” or some temple or something else? Again, if we want to believe something, we can find evidence of it. TN
Terence
Sheldon- precision is an instrumental value- its meaning depends on what one is precise about.
Shotokan folks are pretty consistent- I will take the diversities in
Yip Man’s and leung Jan and related wing chun over it any day.
((Though not all wing chun is co equal))
Yuanfen wrote:
But Savi is correct- the discussions in this forum has not sparked an interest in HFY on my part.
Yuanfen,
Then, why are you here???
Why not go home and say hi to your Sifu Augustine Fong?
Something is missing?
Joy wrote>
quote:I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun
There are over a dozen of Augustine Fong’s students currently studying HFYWCK at Sifu Lowenhagen’s school.
Are you personally hurt by this just because HFY is not attracted to you???
evidence for ng mui
I still believe that ng mui created wing chun kuen. in the way we do wing chun at my school it seems probable that w.c.k was created by a woman.
choh ma (sitting horse, turning stance)- this techniques would let a woman use her whole body to generate power. and difuse power. the way the hip looks like it is sitting down looks like it would fit the curve of a woman’s body.
mobility- a woman couldn’t stand toe to toe with a man, for example a woman of the same level as a man in hung gar or karate would be at a great disadvantage if they tried to fight the same way a man would naturally (usings upper body strength)
Iron forarms- this would be a great equalizer against a man that did not train iron forarms, she could injure a man with the block and the strike.
bil jee- the focus on eye jabs is a very basic women’s self defence technique, it’s an equalizer against a man.
softness- not meeting force with force. our blocks forcus on deflecting and redirecting attacks, never absorbing them. many shaolin movents only absorb for in hope that your are stronger than the opponent. techniques from lohan, tiger, and tam tui for example are quite hard.
speed- wing chun is based on use of hand speed and not strength, women have naturally faster hand speed i think. i’ve seen it in those warp speed chi sau competition.
to compare, if one compared wing chun with for example hung gar, which would you think was developed by a woman?
I definately see the shaolin influence in wing chun. (three prayer to buddha). I don’t agree with the idea that wing chun is based on the movements of the human body. I definately see the snake and crain influence in wing chun. bong sau is definately not a natural movement for people.
on the issue of wing chun still having a chan influence- when ng mui taught yim wing chun, yim wing chun may not have been a chan buddhist, most lay people are not involved in dificult spiritual principles like chan. also the performers on the red junk may not have been buddhist. or if they were buddhist they may not have understood chan, but they did know wing chun.
what about other styles that have religious roots. there is shaolin tam tui, but tam tui was created by muslims, does that mean a tam tui stylist should learn islam or buddhism or both along with the martial side of the art from their sifu?
I mean no disrespect. the discovery of the southern shaolin temple, the hung fa ting, and the area around the souther shaolin temple is all very interesting. I very much enjoyed the recent article on the souther shaolin temple in the jan/feb issue of kung fu mag.
Thanx
Thanx goes out to those that replied to my questions.
Seeya
weak argument!
Terence’s logic
<snip> They visited Yip Man’s grave to pay their respects but not their si-gung in HFY to pay their respects?TN
–Terence did you read anything on HFY? I know you are more intelligent then this! Do you have any knowlege of what a secrete society is? Do you hear your self? come on So let’s go and find a secrete agent and ask him questions about all of his missions. Yeah and by the way who are your superiors?
Terence Your question was a pointed question showing your true intent. If this is not your intent then you hobviously lack knowlege of what is meant by secrete societies. Here read this it will help you understand what they have to do with kung fu.
http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/secret_societies.php
<snip> However, once they make that claim (especially with the VTM concerning itself with “researching the roots of WCK”), then I’d think that being able to substantiate simply one generation removed from Garrett Gee is an essential first step to proving the “history.” (I can – and I’ll bet most everyone else can too – in contrast, give you my sifu’s and sigung’s, Hawkins Cheung’s, phone number; Hawkins teacher was Yip Man and I can provide photos of Hawkins and Yip together, other Yip Man students that rememer him, etc.; I even have videotapes of Robert, Hawkins, and Yip. Yip’s teacher, Chan Wah Shun, was renowned and there are many folks that can substantiate his existence and that he taught Yip, including Chan’s grandson (or physical evidence like the plackard in front of Chan Mui Yin’s kwoon where Yip is listed as a sidai). And we can find his teacher, Leung Jan, buried in Gu Lao. TN
– once again you fail to realize what the term secrete society means. see url above.
–so by your logic Leung Jan invented WCK! there is no evidence of Wong wah bo or anyone else before Leung Jan! no grave sight or written word or picture for that matter!just oral legend as you call it! However Cheung Ng has been documented as a major player in the opera societies as a matter of fact even in a few writings (from opera historical documents) he was held in high regards for not only his intellect but also for his martial skills!
<snip>“it’s impossible to present the physical evidence of this new species through the print medium” and suggest that those persons who just don’t take his word for it travel to St. Louis so that he can “share his findings in person.” He’d be a laughing-stock in his academic circles.TN
–Man you are really showing your lack of information here. Terence we can only agree that you do not have enough information on this subject to be so aggressive. You have no understanding of HFY beyond one segment of a friendship siminar. Since you have dismissed HFY so quickly please entertain us with your written discription of HFY. I think we all can conclude that you do not have any idea of what you are talking about. please let’s not barrow from others to create your own. * I think you know what I mean by this* ( obi wan has taught you well young skywalker)
Now let us review your challenge to the facts
1.Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan - C
Many WCK systems don’t. And if it does have strong leanings toward Chan, how do we know these weren’t adopted in recent history? TN
— umm Terence those with shaolin origins have shaolin beginings and that tells us that it is chan. Shaolin is a form of Chan. Remember the little bald guys? I believe they call them monks. Refering to thier status in thier practice of Chan. So the goals and practice of shaolin monks are all based in or simply are a form of Chan practice.
- Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins C
How do we know? Perhaps someone in the lineage who was a Chan devotee adopted the Shaolin origin as part of the legend (all legends had to be made up by someone) or the Shaolin legend existed and a practitioner of that lineage became later became a Chan devotee and now the two are meshed? TN
— Well Terence I think from this answer it is clear that you do not have an understand of why someone would practice Chan. Here goes Terence logic at work again. Terence you are saying in order to eliminate illusion someone practicing Chan creates more illusion to identify with practices that soul purpose is to eliminate illusion? I mean do you read your own post?
3.Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin. C
Lots of MAs claim Shaolin lineage – some that even look Shaolin – but haven’t adopted Chan; and there are many Chan practitioners that haven’t adopted MAs. Having a MA that says it comes from Shaolin and also purports a Chan philosophy doesn’t logically follow that it came from Shaolin. TN
—psst Terence if you don’t tell anybody you said this I won’t say anything either. But to state the hobvious Shaolin cannot be be judged by a “shaolin look” and if you practice shaolin it would have to be Chan (remember the little bald guys?) So shaolin is a form of Chan practice. I in no way say that Chan is shaolin. (please reread) I said that Shaolin- (created by Chan monks) is a form of Chan practice. for the fiftith time. :rolleyes: can you hear me now?
4.Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history. C
See my discussion with Savi regarding the Hung Mun adoption of Shaolin, its terms, etc. TN
— please see notes above.
5.Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered C
Actually, I think there is still much academic dispute. TN
— please show it to me! I mean written and published. (as you say it) What grounds are these disputes based also how do you explain the artifacts already collected? or do you even know about these artifacts? later to be presented!
- Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting. C
Was this the “Southern Shaolin Temple” or some temple or something else? Again, if we want to believe something, we can find evidence of it. TN
— I see what you mean here you must have a mound of information that disproves this site as the shaolin temple! please entertain us all with your facts. I think we can also say if we choose not to face the truth we can come up with many reasons why we shouldn’t.
In Qi gung kung fu magazine ( the one with Leung Ting Sifu on the front) there is an article listing a mound of evidence 10 things if I remember. This does not even discuss what the VTM has to offer with the recent trip and future trip! Terence YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK and come from a even weaker platform lacking any shred of logic. I mean come on the Chan/ shaolin and the realtionship of the two was a bit much even for you.
WingChunAlex,
If your conclusions satisfy you about “Ng mui” and the connection of your experiences of WCK to a women’s logical method of combat. Then I don’t see a point in trying to change your mind. I can only say that I very much disagree. I also ask a few questions. How many Shaolin nuns were there at the male living quarters and practice in the early 1600’s? Also and why would Ng mui risk life and limb and even slow death torcher teaching such an illegal art to Yim Wing Chun giving away her nun status and illeagal status? I mean the legend says it was taught to her becuase of social issues! again I’m not trying to change your mind I’m just asking you the questions I had myself once I began to look further into history.
Wingchunalex wrote:
<snip>I don’t agree with the idea that wing chun is based on the movements of the human body. WA
– if not human movements how can it be more efficient?
Just some questions I have in regards to what you offered. I mean no disrespect to you. I’m just presenting a few of the many issues I have with the Ng Mui story.
Good day fellas!
Chango (saat geng sau)
