Chan is not a philophy.
It is a “boat” to cross over the river of life and death.
Hendrik
— I think if we are going to speak to martial artist we would remember this when reffering to Chan. I think this is the gap that Hendrik seems to face. Hendrik you seem to do alot of quoting but not making the connection to chan via the essence. You seem as if you know exactly what Chan is and isn’t. I don’t remember reading anywhere that you had became a monk.
Hendrik when did you become a shoulin expert!!! you say that shoulin kung fu does not have Tan sau. I think what you call tan sau is different then what I call Tan sau and what Rene calls tan sau etc… LOL! which tansau are you talking about? and what shoulin did you complete to say it does not have tan sau. To top it all off since you are a expert on Chan how do you know these things if you have not experienced Shoulin first hand? Hendrik things just aren’t matching up. please clear these issues up. what do you call tan sau? where do you get your so called shoulin experience from to make such a claim? why do you seem to only judge wing chun by what your family has or in this case does not have? nothing personal just honest questions. And last who are you in your family? who confirms your ability to speak for what your family has and in this case does not have?
I think if we are going to speak to martial artist we would remember this when reffering to Chan. I think this is the gap that Hendrik seems to face. Hendrik you seem to do alot of quoting but not making the connection to chan via the essence. You seem as if you know exactly what Chan is and isn’t. I don’t remember reading anywhere that you had became a monk.
Hendrik when did you become a shoulin expert!!! you say that shoulin kung fu does not have Tan sau. I think what you call tan sau is different then what I call Tan sau and what Rene calls tan sau etc… LOL! which tansau are you talking about? and what shoulin did you complete to say it does not have tan sau. To top it all off since you are a expert on Chan how do you know these things if you have not experienced Shoulin first hand? Hendrik things just aren’t matching up. please clear these issues up. what do you call tan sau? where do you get your so called shoulin experience from to make such a claim? why do you seem to only judge wing chun by what your family has or in this case does not have? nothing personal just honest questions. And last who are you in your family? who confirms your ability to speak for what your family has and in this case does not have?
Chango
Saat geng sau [/B]
We are here to discuss WCK right?
Certainly it turns into discuss about me.
Twisting words…
IF that makes you feel better that is fine.
understand Chan? LOL
Whatever the post, it is not going to change facts of the past.
Hendrik- without seeing even a snap shot of your family art-I cant comment on it. BTW when tou divided CMA into shaolin, emei and wudang- whatever the merits of that classification… yee ge kim yeung ma is not limited to wing chun, Hun Gar has it too—though again the devil is in the details.
Hendrik you seem to do alot of quoting but not making the connection to chan via the essence. You seem as if you know exactly what Chan is and isn’t. I don’t remember reading anywhere that you had became a monk.
Hendrik ia not always clear but Chango’s remarks are uncalled for.
While I know zilch about any unique features of Hendrik’s wing chun he certainly shows considerable understanding of Chan. I would phrase some things differently- I think I understand what he means when he says that Chan is not a philosophy. I use the term philosophy more broadly. You dont have to be a monk to understand Chan…and Chango— Chan does not have an
“intellectual” conception of “essence”.You just didnt get it.
Yuanfen—my remark was very much called for. When someone says this or that is not Chan. I would like to know exactly where they draw these conclusions and do they really understand Chan? I will however re-visit the point that “he is not a monk.” I don’t believe one would have to be a monk to understand Chan. But at the same time if you speak to me as a athourity on the subject.It is only logical that I ask “where do you get this athourity?”
I stand corrected I did not mean essence. I was just referring to the fact that I see alot of quotes but nothing that is his own. If he can explain I have no issues. I just raise this question. Again as I said it was nothing personal. If you make a bold statement such as “shaolin does not have tan sau” and “is not Chan” then it is only a logical question to ask “who are you?” and "why do you believe that you are an athourity? That is just my point. He must have felt threatened by this but that problem is not mine. I only feel sad for him that he has such issues. There was no ill intent meant by this.
BloodGod- your post on TWC and HFY only reflects your lack of understanding of both lineages. Any one that has had real experiences with both systems and understands them will see that these systems are very different. You really show your lack of tact and understanding by such childish post. Of course I don’t expect any thing better from you on this thread from this point on.
:o
Chango sez:Yuanfen—my remark was very much called for. When someone says this or that is not Chan. I would like to know exactly where they draw these conclusions and do they really understand Chan? I will however re-visit the point that “he is not a monk.” I don’t believe one would have to be a monk to understand Chan. But at the same time if you speak to me as a athourity on the subject.It is only logical that I ask “where do you get this athourity?”
I stand corrected I did not mean essence
Chango- Emptiness rather than essence is a characteristic of Chan. Chan is intertwined in different degrees in Chinese history. The world of Chan in China has gone through development of many different perspectives— northern, southern and divisions therein… but they all share the common view of ontologocal emptiness. You didnt ask for literature on Chan, so I wont bore you and the list with that. Authority? On anything? None claimed. Truth and the search for it- is its own authority.
yuanfen
Re: BloodGod you make yourself look really bad here!
Originally posted by Chango
[B]BloodGod- your post on TWC and HFY only reflects your lack of understanding of both lineages. Any one that has had real experiences with both systems and understands them will see that these systems are very different. You really show your lack of tact and understanding by such childish post. Of course I don’t expect any thing better from you on this thread from this point on.
:o
Chango (Saat geng sau) [/B]
Thanks Chango. I read his post and was literally at a loss of words!
planetTwc–The manner that you approach these questions comes across as brass and disrespectful. If you really seek information on my Sigungs background You should contact the appropriate sources. I will not play this game of people taking shots at my linage and it’s rich history. From your screen name you seem to know about TWC. If that is the case then I will extend a invitation to you to maybe meet in person to show you HFY first hand and explain the detail. please send me a message and we can work out the details. If your intentions are are real you will make a honest effort. If not then your actions will only speak for themselves.
Originally posted by HuangKaiVun
[B]All this TALK on who’s supposedly doing the “real” Ch’an is utterly useless.
Ch’an is about DOING.
Here’s an example of how one does Ch’an in trying to learn more about Hung Fa Yi:
Master Loewenhagen, I would love to meet you and Master Meng sometime.
I shall call you at your number some time during the week. [/B]
Huang Kai Vun:
Obviously, you and I share the same idea of Chan. I welcome your call and the opportunity to learn through sharing. We have a scarcity of good Kung Fu schools in the Phoenix metropolitan area. What treats are you bringing to our community?
No disrespect, they are merely questions. There has been a lot of discussion here about the old history of Hung Fa Yi in it’s founding and what not. I’m curious about the more current timeframe where there would theoretically be even more documentation about the system and it’s lineage.
I have no association with William Cheung’s lineage ie
Traditional Wing Chun or TWC. Perhaps you thought my login here is plane twc, it is actually Planet WC which is the abbreviation for Planet Wing Chun one of my earlier names for my Wing Chun website.
My lineage is Yip Man -> Leung Sheung -> Kenneth Chung & Ben Der. Ken is my current teacher, I am a todai of Ben Der however who opened my hands.
I’m not taking “shots” at your lineage. Perhaps this thread itself has developed into a firezone of some sort, I’m not sure. I had actually hoped to meet some of your kung fu brothers at our recent picnic when they were in the area, unfortunately that did not work out. I’ve actually had some email conversations albeit brief one’s with your Sifu, Benny Meng and others within the Moy Yat line.
And in fact I met a HFY si-hing of yours many many years ago at one of our own Wing Chun camps back in the late 90’s before Hung Fa Yi was very public. However at that time, HFY was not very public and other than knowing he was a student of Garrett Gee’s that is about as far as it went.
So, I’m not being overly brass, just straightforward in our normal Wing Chun way.
I’m curious how large the and well known the Hung Fa Yi system is within China itself, just as I was curious about Yuen Kay Shan when I first heard about it. I used to ask Rene a lot of questions about his system as well. From that I learned a bit about Sum Nung and his organization within China and further information revealed interactions between Yuen Kay Shan and Yip Man.
Just as I used to ask Mike Adams of Wing Tsun and Marty Goldberg of TWC, etc. etc.
I’m more than happy to meet you in person the next time you are in the SF Bay area to meet or train with your si-gung. Let me in turn extend an invitation to you (or any of your kung fu brothers and sisters) to visit our school when you are in the area. It is always a great experience to feel other hands and discuss and share approaches.
Originally posted by Chango
[B]planetTwc–The manner that you approach these questions comes across as brass and disrespectful. If you really seek information on my Sigungs background You should contact the appropriate sources. I will not play this game of people taking shots at my linage and it’s rich history. From your screen name you seem to know about TWC. If that is the case then I will extend a invitation to you to maybe meet in person to show you HFY first hand and explain the detail. please send me a message and we can work out the details. If your intentions are are real you will make a honest effort. If not then your actions will only speak for themselves.
I’m asking, not saying.
No hidden meaning in the questions.
How openly was HFY taught on the mainland, how well known was it outside of the circle of students, how did one gain entry into that group if it was a more closed door style, etc.
HFY is obviously blossoming here in the US under the guidance of Garrett Gee with help from Benny Meng and Richard L.
I’m curious if that was the case on the mainland and how well known his lineage was there. As a contrast, while I was not aware of Yuen Kay Shan style in the late 80’s there was reference to it in magazines and in fact interaction between Yuen Kay Shan himself and Yip Man on the mainland.
I’m curious about what kind of interactions there were with HFY.
Did it have a “gangster fist” reputation as the Foshan/HK style did? Were there rivalries with Choy Lay Fut as there was with Yip Man style in Hong Kong? Was it a more closed and underground system there? Was this due to it’s origins or to stay out of the light of the government?
FWIW- David of PlanetWC asked fairly direct questions about my line once up on a time. No offense was taken and an anwser was provided. There was no hidden agenda in the questions asked
or the answers given.
joy chaudhuri
