IMHO, while I do not agree with everything in the article quoted and referenced below, I find nothing wrong or disrespectful about challenging the idea of Ng Mui, or referring to it as a myth.
Nor do I see anything wrong or disrespectful about challenging the idea of a Shaolin-WCK connection, or referring to it as a myth.
Hopefully there is no double standard and everyone will encourage the open discussion of both these, and other, important issues without hypocracy and with productivity.
"The Secret History of Wing Chun: The Truth Revealed
(also appeared as “Wing Chun Controversy: Is this the truth about Wing Chun’s History”)
By Benny Meng and Alfredo Delbrocco
“The first casualty when war comes is truth.”
– Hiram Johnson
…
"Put simply, the harsh truth is this: the myth of the Buddhist nun, Ng Mui and her disciple Yim Wing Chun, the supposed founders of the Wing Chun system, is just that - a myth. As the internet has brought information more readily to us, it has come to light that the story of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun was merely a way to conceal the truth about the system’s origins and the identities of the political rebels who truly developed it…"
…
Recent findings uncovered by historians and martial arts teachers feeding continuous streams of information and documentation to the Ving Tsun Museum in Dayton, Ohio – and verified through extensive travel by the Museum Curator and staff to substantiate sources and documentation – reveal that Ng Mui played no role in the creation or development of Wing Chun Kung Fu, if she ever existed at all…
I do not think it is disrespectful at all. I mean it’s what they believe and the VTM did travel and provided us info on their research. Who else is willing to spend the time and money to do something like that.
Not disrespectful but no respect is expected. Research?
promotion? Depends on viewpoint.
Siddharta? Bodhidharma? Christ? Eve?Bodies found? Birth certificates? DNA?
Methods? Falsifiable assumptions? Sifting opinions?(How)
Methodology? How to avoid affirming the pre-determined conclusion? Definitions?(nature of myths)
Good points. Personally, I just think there shouldn’t be a double standard. If they’re okay with Benny talking that way about Ng Mui, they should be okay with others talking that way about the Shaolin->Wing Chun connection.
I think the best way to avoid bias and vested self-interest is to do like the Foshan WCK association did–have equal representation from among the established branches, but with a neutral party as the chair. That way, many different and divergent opinions, views, theories, etc. can enjoy discussion.
I think the best way to avoid bias and vested self-interest is to do like the Foshan WCK association did–have equal representation from among the established branches, but with a neutral party as the chair. That way, many different and divergent opinions, views, theories, etc. can enjoy discussion. [/B]
Rene,
I certainly agree with the idea.
Called me when the panel were form: I suggest within the panel also the expert of White Crane from Fujian, Emei from Emei, Shao Lin from Song Shan, all from main land China.
(I dont mind raising money to pay the travel for all of the experts, I think 10,000 USD might be enough for 3 Masters. )
Get A real Chinese Chan patriach class monk also.
Then, I will bring all my data to join and let them make the decision.
Let’s take a part and analized SLT to dead, in term of Spritual, Mind, Body.
But, I bet you IP Man, YKS, Fung Family… will be right in the conclusion.
White Crane based!
Want to Bet?
Make that day happen, set up the panel.
I will wiat for your Called RENE! Anytime any place!
you just have to rotate your body 45degrees to your left or right without changing your YJKYM and see what stance is that become ?and how the grounding is firm, your body is link naturally.
Try it.
JIM, Try it
Rene, Try it
WCK’s YJKYM is so elegant and transformation ready similar to water. It is alive.
Switching back and forth from Emei and White Crane is eaaaasyyyy.
IT is natural isnt it?
We practice with facing forward, we use it with 45degree offset.
Why do you thing CK do those side turn to left and right? hahahahah. See it now? It cover your groin area great too. :d
I left the fun for your all to night in your Kwon while practicing!
I heard somewhere that there was a birth certificate for Yim Wing Chun during that time period???
Anyone know if this is correct?
As for Ng Mui, I have heard theories that Ng Mui was a monk disguised as a nun. This was because monks were kill on sight at some places and he disguised himself as Ng Mui for safety. Also, most people (men) do not see women as a threat, so it would make it easier to travel I suppose???
However, I don’t know how much of all of this can or can’t be proven.
Nice idea about the Foshan association. If you would like, I can see if the Museum would be interested in participating in such an event. It seems like something that would be most beneficial to all of us here, especially with a neutral party chair to keep the order. Where/where would you suggest such an event take place? The Museum already plans to introduce & compare Chi Sim, Hung Fa Yi and Yip Man in a workshop this year. Anyone is welcome to attend if they like.
I’d like to see such an event (referring to the Foshan Association) take place. Writing about it is one thing, let’s see some action though as well.
Actually, I heard that it wasn’t “exactly” a cross dresser…it was Michael Jackson.
But look…everyone…Rene makes a good point. If we can question Ng Mui or Wing Chun’s existence - we can also question the Shaolin/Wing Chun connection.
But what Wing Chun lineage doesn’t try to make the claim that their art derives it’s roots from the Shaolin temple ?
It’s all CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence…at best. No one can really prove anything definitively.
THEREFORE…making outlandish claims about being the “true wing chun”…or the “original, pure wing chun”…or the “superior form of wing chun”…because somehow you “know” that your particular version of the art came “directly” from Shaolin…and can be “traced” somehow right to YOUR door (or the door of your sifu…or the door of your sigung)…
Let’s put it this way: It’s okay to believe these things and to even say them out loud occasionally…
But when it’s done on a virtual daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis…AND YOU CAN’T PROVE ANY OF IT…
You’re asking for trouble. And you’ll get it. And you will deserve it. Because, in effect…what you are really doing is attempting to STEAL what’s not yours to have.
You’re attempting to steal that portion of the sunlight that belongs to others…unless you can PROVE otherwise…
The Museum already plans to introduce & compare Chi Sim, Hung Fa Yi and Yip Man in a workshop this year.
WHICH Yip Man? There are quite a few, and some very different from each other. Putting them all together would be to do them a disservice. You certainly wouldn’t want to tell William Cheung that he and Leung Ting do the same thing, or vice versa.
Of course that’s already been done by the museum principals in “Mastering Kung Fu”, where they lumped the various Yip Man lineages in with everything else other than HFY and CS under “Popular Wing Chun” and then proceeded to denigrate it.
With such an attitude, how can the Museum REALLY expect anyone to believe such a presentation to give due respect to Yip Man lineages, to which its principals have already been dismissive and condescending, if not insulting, in black and white? Why is this not hypocritical, and why should we believe that the workshop will be objective?
Your fellow students accuse us of pushing political agenda … when in fact your seniors have published the worst political diatribe to hit WC so far this century.
Ultimatewingchun,
Da_Moose asked “Where would you like to see such an event take place?”
Than you diplomatically requested that he “Don’t try to stack the deck.”
I think there was a misunderstanding in there somewhere.
