SNT and SLT
Sil Lien Tao is what is taught to you when you first start the learning process of wing chun. SIL Nim Tao is what you will know after a long period of study of wing chun. They are the same form but with greater understanding of the form.
Canglong wrote:
quote:
originally posted by Terence
If anyone believes their training methods are “superior” then they should be able to show the “superior” results (fighting skills) produced. If they can, then their view should be taken seriously; if they can’t, they are just blowing smoke.
Terence feel free to show off your superior methods and knowledge in a K-1 any time.
**You seem confused – I’m not the one making any claims of “lineage” superiority or to having “superior” training methods (unique to my lineage). One doesn’t need any skill or knowledge of WCK to point out that all fighters regardless of style or lineage or method basically follow the same training model. Nor to point out that no one following a different model has ever stepped forward and proved their training made them a good fighter (oh, but we have stories!). It doesn’t take a “master of gung fu” to realize that the usefulness of any drill or “concept” or “theory” is in the results it produces. If it produces results that matter, i.e., increasing our performance level in fighting, then we should be able to see those results. Fighters regardless of lineage or style or method focus on results, on increasing their fighting performance; theoreticians and dogmatists regardless of lineage or style or method focus on strictly adhering to theory and dogma.
Regards,
Terence
Hendrik wrote:
1, bring up technical questions,
2, allow everyone to express thier view/reason on the topic,
3 searching and finding out what happen in every Localization Evolution.
**Technical questions are fine and dandy but any “technical question” can only be evaluated in terms of the results it produces. “View and reasons” are empty and meaningless without reference to results. We can all discuss how we think or believe our various dry-land exercises or theories will help us be better swimmers but the only way to really evaluate those exercises is by getting in the pool and seeing the results. That’s the only way to “find out what happen.”
Regards,
Terence
originally posted by Terence
**You seem confused – I’m not the one making any claims of “lineage” superiority or to having “superior” training methods (unique to my lineage).
Terence you advocate K-1 for everyone but yourself, oh ok. It is your focus that is misguided and off track your concerns regarding the practice and claims of others leaves little time for self reflection choose one or the other but not both.
–hendrik
1, bring up technical questions,
What does lineage means?
Actually you just keep going in circles.
canglong wrote:
Terence you advocate K-1 for everyone but yourself, oh ok. It is your focus that is misguided and off track your concerns regarding the practice and claims of others leaves little time for self reflection choose one or the other but not both.
**Focusing on results (we’re not doing exercises for the sake of the exercise after all but what we can get from the exercise) and competing in K-1 events is not the same thing (not all boxers turn pro, not all BJJers compete in tournaments, etc., but they all focus on performance). As I’m interested in obtaining results (increasing my fighting performance level), I’m open to the training methods of others if they produce results. However, theories on how this or that should produce results, stories about how this or that has produced results in our ancestors, etc. are not convincing – all I’m suggesting is that if folks want to discuss training methods we start from the standpoint of “has this method produced proven (so we can see for ourselves) results?” If not, then to label the training method as “superior” or even “effective” is meaningless.
Regards,
Terence
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]
**Technical questions are fine and dandy but any “technical question” can only be evaluated in terms of the results it produces.
“View and reasons” are empty and meaningless without reference to results.
We can all discuss how we think or believe our various dry-land exercises or theories will help us be better swimmers but the only way to really evaluate those exercises is by getting in the pool and seeing the results. That’s the only way to “find out what happen.”
Regards,
Terence [/B]
Result orientated certainly has some truth in it, But this is a modern thinking for the Chinese.
The old Chinese who is related/influence by Buddhism /Daoist are very process orientated. This is where the —mindfullness, the concentration and insight, stay in the trajectory (instead of fix goal but trajectory direction)..ect-- comes in. One can see such thing today even from the Japanese Tea ceremony or the Chinese ritual.
According to the ancient Chinese, SLT or SNT is a tool to investigate or to discover the essence of the truth.
They are NOT the truth itself.
Thus, the discussion about SLT or SNT is about the discussion of the Tool.
Being able to use a hammer skillfully to take down a wall for remodeling the home is one thing.
Being able to differentiate between a hammer and a saw and what is thier characteristics and capability is another thing.
Being able to know, Mcdonarld Burger and Burger King’s Burger are the similar type of fast food with some variation and different brand is another thing.
If Wing Chun Kuen was designed and created in the Result orientated (atleast every one loves to claim Result orientated these days) then examine it based on result orientated is a great way.
However, tons of people in the Valley buy the PDA or Cellphone which might be influence by the advertisement of “you will get more things done” on the Bill Board beside the high way 880 doesnt seem to be deliver the result of get more things done.
That is because the PDA or CELLphone are just tool. The person who is using it is a big factor of whether it produces the result – getting more things done. Advertisment is just an oversimplified not telling the full story slogan.
This topic on SLT and SNT is analogus to
PDA1 and PDA2,
or PDA and Cellphone
or PDA and notebook…
Originally posted by canglong
[B]quote:
1, bring up technical questions,
quote:
What does lineage means?
Actually you just keep going in circles. [/B]
Mcdonarld and buger king both sell Burger.
They use some similar and some different technics to produce thier Burger.
One needs to know is it Mcdonald or Burger King — Lineage
One needs to know what kind of burger making technics similarity or different ----- technical.
Are they going in circles?
On the other hand,
if one carrying a 3com and a Sony PDA for thier TO DO LIST in the same time then that can be very very very likely to be duplicating.
Because disregards of brand name different, they use the same Operating System.
But then, of corse people still can argue that they carry two PDA around is that the Sony CLie has a capability to take picture. Where 3com doesnt have the build in picture taken function.
and same with Cell phone. some carry two cellphones in the sametime.
So? fasion, Localized Evolution,… style… anything is valid.
Hendrik wrote:
Result orientated certainly has some truth in it, But this is a modern thinking for the Chinese.
**There are different modes or ways of “thinking”, just as there are different modes or ways of problem solving – not all are appropriate or even effective for all things. When our concern is enhancing performance, being result-oriented is the most effective approach. If our concern is preserving a folk dance, then being result-oriented in not the most effective approach.
The old Chinese who is related/influence by Buddhism /Daoist are very process orientated. This is where the —mindfullness, the concentration and insight, stay in the trajectory (instead of fix goal but trajectory direction)..ect-- comes in. One can see such thing today even from the Japanese Tea ceremony or the Chinese ritual.
**Exactly – this is a fine approach for ceremony or rituals not for enhancing performance.
According to the ancient Chinese, SLT or SNT is a tool to investigate or to discover the essence of the truth.
They are NOT the truth itself.
**“According to ancient Chinese” leads us nowhere (they were wrong about a great many things!) unless we can verify for ourselves those conclusions. The “truth” of fighting is found in fighting not in linked sets.
Thus, the discussion about SLT or SNT is about the discussion of the Tool.
**The tool is only useful if it helps us to do a job; the merits of a tool is in how well (efficient and effective) it is in doing (performing) its job. You can’t separate the tool from the job.
Being able to use a hammer skillfully to take down a wall for remodeling the home is one thing. Being able to differentiate between a hammer and a saw and what is thier characteristics and capability is another thing.
**Agreed. But understanding the “characteristics and capability” doesn’t come from theory or dogma – it comes from using the tools, seeing for yourself how they work, etc.
Regards,
Terence
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]
1, **There are different modes or ways of “thinking”, just as there are different modes or ways of problem solving – not all are appropriate or even effective for all things. When our concern is enhancing performance, being result-oriented is the most effective approach. If our concern is preserving a folk dance, then being result-oriented in not the most effective approach.
2, **Exactly – this is a fine approach for ceremony or rituals not for enhancing performance.
3, **“According to ancient Chinese” leads us nowhere (they were wrong about a great many things!) unless we can verify for ourselves those conclusions. The “truth” of fighting is found in fighting not in linked sets.
4,**Agreed. But understanding the “characteristics and capability” doesn’t come from theory or dogma – it comes from using the tools, seeing for yourself how they work, etc.
[/B]
1, there are thinkings, and there are beyond thinking. Thinking is not all of the story.
- there are thinking, intending, and volition. and there is practiced to living in NOW which is beyond thinking, intending, and volition. To be living in Now is to be clear with every instant of the process.
3, Everyone is Free to Give up SNT or SLT and Wing Chun Kuen at any time and any place. if one believe the ancient Chinese leads one no where. And, since it is not up to one to define SNT and SLT or Wing Chun Kuen, because they are very Chinese and ancient.
4, not be able to open up, embracing different faces of reality; and having the capability to differentiate what is Thinking, what is living in awareness in every instant in a process; but speculating and deriving the reality based on one’s thinking and believing /result then enforce that is the only correct path is the biggest theory and Dogma.
how can one know about SNT or SLT if one doesnt know about what the Chinese teaching system is all about? How can one knows how things work, if one doesnt have the capability to living in every instant with awareness instead of thinking?
How can one knows all of the above, if one think the Ancient Chinese is wrong and not worthed to even take an open mind look?
Anyway, this topic is simply about is it a need of a SLT and SNT set. The rest is off topic.
But, different view is embraced because embracing itself is living in Now without resisting what exist in the reality.
BTW, lots of today’s depression or stress or anger or agression…
comes from RESULT Orientated Productivity pattern.
Human is not machine. Result doesnt not means it is meaningfull for everyone. highly Productivity can be a sign of greed where human is not alow to live in every instant but pushing to the edge to produce where the lifeforce/creativity of human is rape and force to act like a machine.
And, when the human doesnt have the fulfillment of accomplishment but OBEY the TRUTH to product RESULT faster and faster. Then, some turn depress because their body/mind is tired. Some turn into anger and agression because it reflexed dis-satisfaction on the way how they were threat to be machine.
How sad is a world like this? and ofcorse this is off topic.
But, instead of focusing in result but process might be able to help. one to live a fuller live and perform better.
if SLT is the path to produce Result, productivity, fighting to win will all cost. Then, I am the first to quit.
As I have heard, Siu Niem Tau means cut down the amount of ideas to very few to be able to aware to live in NOW and let the magic of liveforce “baptised” one’s body and mind with the wisdom of the nature.
result vesus meaning full.
productivity vesus creativity.
Machine like vesus art.
free choice in a free world. and I alway aware of I live and work in the silicon valley where RESULT Orientated and Productivity are the Tradition. Nothing wrong with it .
Hendrik wrote:
1, there are thinkings, and there are beyond thinking. Thinking is not all of the story.
- there are thinking, intending, and volition. and there is practiced to living in NOW which is beyond thinking, intending, and volition. To be living in Now is to be clear with every instant of the process.
**I don’t know about “living in the Now” – for me, WCK isn’t a metaphysical discipline, it is a kuen faat (fighting method). As a fighting method, its objective is to help us become better fighters, i.e., increase our performance level in fighting. So it seems to me that any examination or discussion of training methods should begin with results, not with whether or not they comport to Taoist or Buddhist teachings. If those teachings produce results, then we should be able to see them. If they don’t produce results, why are we doing them?
3, Everyone is Free to Give up SNT or SLT and Wing Chun Kuen at any time and any place. if one believe the ancient Chinese leads one no where. And, since it is not up to one to define SNT and SLT or Wing Chun Kuen, because they are very Chinese and ancient.
**It’s not a case of giving up WCK but of not adhering to tradition for traditions sake – if the tradition is useful (productive) we keep it as it produces results; if it is not useful, we discard it. This is how any martial art continues to grow, evolve, and be viable; that’s what makes an art alive. To retain nonproductive practices for the sake of tradition if one’s concern is enhancing performance is counterproductive.
4, not be able to open up, embracing different faces of reality; and having the capability to differentiate what is Thinking, what is living in awareness in every instant in a process; but speculating and deriving the reality based on one’s thinking and believing /result then enforce that is the only correct path is the biggest theory and Dogma.
**I’ll be happy to “embrace different faces of reality” if you can demonstrate the reality of it! I don’t want to embrace different faces of theory or dogma; that’s a waste of time. Fighting is the reality. Increasing your performance is the reality. You can see abd measure the reality of these. Talking about these things without being able to show that they can and will produce results is not focusing on reality, it is all speculation, theory, dogma.
how can one know about SNT or SLT if one doesnt know about what the Chinese teaching system is all about? How can one knows how things work, if one doesnt have the capability to living in every instant with awareness instead of thinking?
How can one knows all of the above, if one think the Ancient Chinese is wrong and not worthed to even take an open mind look?
**Does it work? Does it produce results I can see, can evalute, can test? It’s very simple.
Anyway, this topic is simply about is it a need of a SLT and SNT set. The rest is off topic.
**No, it’s not off topic – it’s directly on topic. The answer to your question is: does it produce results? And that’s the answer to most of your “technical” questions. To say “let’s not talk about results or whether or not these things make you a better fighter, let’s talk about how we should do X according to how my lineage or my ancestor or my Taoist view says we should do it” gets us nowhere as someone else will point out that his ancestor or lineage or “philosophy” is different. There are numerous theoretical POVs. How do we evaluate whether or not any of them have a basis in reality? By results. When we throw out the focus on results, we’re left with a dogmatic quagmire.
But, instead of focusing in result but process might be able to help. one to live a fuller live and perform better. if SLT is the path to produce Result, productivity, fighting to win will all cost. Then, I am the first to quit.
**No problem with focusing on the process – if the process produces result (why focus on a process that doesn’t produce results?).
As I have heard, Siu Niem Tau means cut down the amount of ideas to very few to be able to aware to live in NOW and let the magic of liveforce “baptised” one’s body and mind with the wisdom of the nature.
**Many people hear a great many things . . . and I’m not going to argue that you’re wrong. But as they say, theory is great but can you do it?
result vesus meaning full.
productivity vesus creativity.
Machine like vesus art.
**You will not ponder those questions when someone is trying to whack your head off, or when you come back to consciousness after having your head whacked off. 
Then you’ll be concerned with whether or not your training worked.
free choice in a free world. and I alway aware of I live and work in the silicon valley where RESULT Orientated and Productivity are the Tradition. Nothing wrong with it .
**If results are what you are after, you must focus on results and productivity. If they are not what you are after, then you can focus on all kinds of things.
Regards,
Terence
From a historical perspective, It seems that old WC had a lot of metaphysical layers in their terminology and training methods. Modern man on the other hand prefers to do without. It’s a wonderful life. “Mary, you want the moon. I’ll give you the moon…” =)
PaulH wrote:
From a historical perspective, It seems that old WC had a lot of metaphysical layers in their terminology and training methods. Modern man on the other hand prefers to do without. It’s a wonderful life. “Mary, you want the moon. I’ll give you the moon…” =)
**Sure, throughout history men have fashioned all kinds of “mysterious theories” – metaphysical, divine, naturalistic, animalistic, etc. – to explain things that they either didn’t understand (fully) or that they had difficulty explaining. For some today, the allure of the “mystery” (ancient chinese secret) remains. But those that are interested in results will focus on results; those that aren’t, won’t.
Regards,
Terence
As metaphysical study deals chiefly with meaning or truth, Terence, I think, you too ironically are one of its modern prophets… What is truth? So far I see you pointing the fingers to alive combat. =)
I’ve heard it said that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. 
Regards,
- kj
Originally posted by yellowpikachu
how can one know about SNT or SLT if one doesnt know about what the Chinese teaching system is all about?
Maybe if you tell us how you define “what the Chinese teaching system is all about?”
Then that may clear things up a bit instead of talking in circles.
Matt Thornton has a good little video talk about realistic training on the link about new videos on the Danish site www.martialarts.dk.
In Physics we have the same kinds of talks that have gone around in circles for the past few decades namely experimentalists who go out and do experiments and claim they are responsible for the production of new theories and then there are the theoreticians who claim they drive the experiments are responsible for the discoveries. The theoretician’s say that the experimentalists merely verify or falsify the theories. The Experimentalists say they are the one’s to discover stuff and whatever they discover, the theoretician’s can concoct a quick theory to explain it.
An experimentalist shows a graph to a theorist, and the theorist says ‘Ah, yes this is because…, and I have the math to prove it.
The experimentalist says 'Wait a minute, I had the graph upside down. Then the Theorist says 'Yah, OK, that makes sense, my theory shows…, and I have the math to prove it.
In fighting both the theoretician and the experimentalist can come up with the same theories. The experimentalist knows how to fight and the theoretical guy can’t actually fight but may be able to train someone to fight. The theoretician argues that if you stop a roundhouse kick with a Gan sau then your arms will be broken. The reality experimentalist agrees because he had his arms broken when applying a Gan sau to a roundhouse kick.
To: native southern chinese speakers— aren’t their variations in pronounciatins of the same word in foshanese, toishanese, hakka etc.
Tom may know- didnt Moy Yat speak more witha Toishanese accent? Different from Ip Man etc?
No hidden agenda- a real query!
Though he was just a “country bumpkin from ToiSan”, Moy Yat’s accent was Hong Kong because he made a conscious decision that was the way he would train to speak when he moved there. He didn’t want his speaking manner to be an impediment to employment. As stories go, even though Yip Man was from the large city FatSan - which had a lot of trade with Hong Kong - he had more of an “accent” in Hong Kong than Moy Yat.
The argument over n/l (and the like) is kind of amusing. A native speaker of any language doesn’t hear the distinctions in their own language when there is no distinction to make. Ultimately, for a Cantonese speaker to hear a different word in SLT/SNT is no different than anyone trying to understand a drunk. The context might change the meaning a word, but rarely does the pronouniciation. A lot of times it’s just used to poke fun at someone because they “talk funny.”
CFT is, in my humble opinion, 100% correct regarding Cantonese.
[i]“Pahk the cah in Havid Yahd” - Boston
“Fugeduhboudit” - New York
“A li’le bi’ of breab wiv a bi’ of bu’er on i’.” - C@ckney
“You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto;
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let’s call the whole thing off!” – Cole Porter
[/i]
I’ve heard it said that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t.
I’ve heard there are three; those who can count and those that can’t.
And I’ve heard that there are two: those that think there are two kinds of people and those who don’t.
Three kinds of people:
-
where there are questions, there are answers
-
where there are questions, there are no answers
-
keep on talking in circles