Hendrik,
Putting together quite a few thoughts here in light of your recent posts on this thread and others. I’ve put this here at it seemed the simplest - assuming you’re still following this thread…
Chan has everything to do with fighting. Chan also has nothing to do with fighting. As a methodology, fighting gives us a chance to see of what we are really made. In a fight there is no “could have/would have/should have”, there is only “is”. So long as your teacher is guiding you towards the goal of seeing what is real and what it true, anything can be a Chan modality – even sex. You state no sex, what about eating meat? What about thinking? What about seeing? Removing temptation and distractions is not the way. You have to live in the world to get past the world. Removing the risk of attachment doesn’t help you get past the desire. It’s easy to be pure when there’s nothing around. Being pure when the world is trying to pull you in 10 different directions at the same time – that’s an accomplishment. I found this after I wrote the preceding text” Everyday Challenges
Now, talking to martial artists, who may or may not have an interest in understanding their Buddha nature, should I talk to them only of spiritual matters? Should I talk to them from my level, in my language – or should I try to be a bridge, speak a language we both understand and then help them to see a larger world? It is clear to me that you would rather relate to people on your own level and in your own language. If they don’t understand, you rail against them. So if I write about Chan and fighting – remember that I am talking to martial artists, not priests, not Buddhists. “When it’s time to be a general, be a general. When it’s time to be a monk, be a monk.”
Chan is not a philosophy.
Chan is a path of cultivation to return to one’s Buddha original.
It is a “boat” to cross over the river of life and death.
What did you say before? Oh, yeah: [I]One is out of one’s mind. Hey apple is not banana[/I]. Don’t be stupid. A boat is a boat. A belief is a belief. For the sake of argument, a philosophy (from webster online) is:
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy>
(3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE
(2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom
b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts
b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
So Chan is none of these things? Not on any level? Not depending on to whom you are speaking and their level? The only way to communicate is to talk to yourself and wait for the other person to catch on and “screw ‘em” if they don’t? That doesn’t seem to be very compassionate. Maybe that’s just a cultural expression of the old masters - a blind tradition still clung to like a piece of flotsam.
Chan is a philosophy when that is what people are seeking. It can also be more. Hui Neng stated that there were many different paths in Buddhism because there are many different people. Each of us is the universe. If you start thinking for me and telling me what things really are – maybe you could eat and digest my food for me too? If Chan is a path of cultivation, can you cultivate without seeking? Or do you (and more importantly, your teacher) have to be aware of the path you tread?
[I]My belive is - Education is the best way to share.
We are here to discuss WCK right?
Certainly it turns into discuss about me.
Sorry, just not interested to waste energy.
Here I sign off. Bye everyone[/I]
You’re actions educate me plenty. You forgot to say “Screw you guys, I’m taking my ball and going home.” I remember you doing this a lot on the WCML as well - popping into a discussion from out of nowhere, stating something, not checking to see if you were understood, and then going on vacation so no one could ask you questions publicly. Not everyone is going to like what you say. When someone says “your poop stinks, too” the Chan way is to get huffy and leave? Wow, 10-year-old are enlightened!
[I]What does Bai Fut have to do with Chan? [/I] Maybe you should ask Sifu Hoffmann rather than tell him what you know.
[I]How Can one be called Chan master when one doesn’t have a clue what Chan is.? [/I] Maybe you had best get to know people before you start passing judgments on them (and maybe not then, either - everybody eats, everybody poops, and everybody sins).
[I]What is Iron body Iron palm got to do with Siu Lien Tau? [/I] Do you mean Cho Ga Wing Chun doesn’t train iron body or iron palm? You make veiled references to how deep your system trains – do you have no external hei gung training or only internal? Is your path to Buddha-self only a mental activity with no training for hei (qi) – or only partial training for internal without external conditioning?
[I]What Does Tan Sau Ng got to do with Siu Lien Tau?[/I] Without more information on your system I have no idea at this time. So far as I’m concerned, until I know more about Cho Ga, your Wing Chun is at best a modern derivative at least as valid as any other from the time of the Red Boat. Are you qualified to represent your lineage in public? You present yourself as an expert – would your Sifu agree? I ask because I want to know with whom I am dealing. If you are not qualified to speak for your lineage, I would like to communicate/visit with one who is. With new information, I reassess my current views. With the incredible lack of information you’ve shared, in addition to your veiled insults and egotistical actions, I personally have no desire to learn much of anything from you. This doesn’t mean I don’t read your posts looking for valid information – it just means that everything you post is taken with a grain of salt.
Finally, from the gist of your posts, you have been implicitly stating that you have the original Wing Chun for quite a while – and now seem to be moving towards explicit statements. Sifu Robert Chu agrees with you, at least according to his most recent article.
Presuming that you do, indeed, have the original, surely you can explain Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun and how those two arts relate to Cho Ga as well as how all other versions of Wing Chun relate the CS/HFY and Cho Ga. Having seen only the barest of information on your lineage there are a lot of gaps to fill in – especially in the logic flow for the development of Chi Sau and strategy/tactical thought as a beginning.
Oh, wait, you call Chi Sim Weng Chun “hung ga”. Of course, you must know more than Sifu Hoffmann, the successor of his lineage. Since you’re so well versed in Wing Chun, maybe you’d like to explain this conclusion for the less educated masses? You discount HFY and Chi Sim – yet these two families share quite a few similarities… how do you explain the similarities between them while discounting their connections? Why do both of these systems share a Chan paradigm of 3 relationships to understanding reality - Saam Mo Kiu in HFY and Tien Dei Yun in Chi Sim? Why do both arts have dummy, single pole, and double knife training? Why do they share the Luk Dim Bun Kwan term in relation to the pole? Why are they viewed as complete systems in the successor’s eyes? Why do they both make use of single and double rolling arm exercises? You’ve made plenty of bold statements with little to no support so I’m asking for information to support your claims.
[I]They have nothing to do with Yik Kam or Cho Family line of WCK. We in the Yik Kam lineage have details evidents for our art and the related mother arts. Yik Kam WCK was /is transmitting directly within the Cho family for past 100 of years . We are certain with who we are.[/I]
The past 100 years only takes you to the about the time of the Red Boat. What came before? Will you be putting all your cards on the table, discussing history and Wing Chun? The VTM has a book in the works for publication next year – when should we expect yours to be printed?
[I]Even If Tan Sau Ng master Shao Lin MA, Shao Lin Tai Tzu DNA doesn’t fit the DNA of SLT. But White Crane’s fit. [/I]
Your’re saying that Shaolin Tai Tzu doesn’t fit your family’s SLT. First, you need to explain tai tzu completely and note your sources. Currently VTM efforts are directing in other directions but your information will not be ignored. Whatever you might think, the reality is that Sifu Meng, et. al. are constantly re-evaluating working theories in light of new information.
[I]Bai Fut is a code name of attacking Fut San city not related to Buddhism or Chan or Shao LIn. [/I]
True but only in your experience. Have you honestly discussed martial arts with Sifu Hoffmann or simply stood in judgment of what he demonstrated one time? Without giving Sifu Hoffmann a chance to discuss his lineage completely, you are doing a disservice to him, Wing Chun, and yourself.
You are also guilty of putting out information without documentation.
Jeremy R.
Are you saying that Sifu Gee is his own Sifu? If not then I can’t see how you answered planetwc’s questions at all. Maybe I’m missing something.