Kiu Sao and Chi Sao

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
101

Rolling Hand,

1, The subject of discussion is about KIU SAU and CHI SAU, then get migrate into CHAN. Since you always act wise please return to the focus CHAN.

2, You like it or not like it there are Chan Patriach’s Teaching documentations, Sutras and Sastras one can checked into.

3, if you belive you are right, it is no need to accuse or blame or set up others to others. Just shows the evident of connection to Chan.

Bottom line it is a techincal discussion. That simple.–Hendrik

Hendrik,

How can a troubled mind understand Ch’an?

If a man is disturbed

He will never be filled with knowledge.

If you don’t negate your habitual patterns,

You can never understand Ch’an.

Humm…

102

Rene I just asked you to take a look at yourself. I could be wrong!! or maybe not!

Rene,
I should have known that you would not be willing to look in your own back yard.

<snip> And Chango, you especially are a disappointment. Despite Andreas’ very express request, you keep lumping his system into your discussions. While I know you have no respect for me or my views, I thought, at least, you’d respect his wishes.

<snip>RollingHand - Please do not welcome t_niehoff to the forum by stalking him. And please don’t try to discredit the HFY/VTM folks by pretending to be associated with them. We all know they wouldn’t tolerate your stalking, trolling, and anti-WCK badmouthing behavior here or on the former VTAA forum for a minute.

– It is clear that my intentions are not to drag Chi Sim into this. I have a very good relationship with Sifu Hoffman and I hold hi regard for the Chi Sim leneage and system. I have nothing but respect for this lineage. I show the same respect for Chi Sim as I do my own lineage. I only state the fact that you (and a few others) feel the need to but in every time these two lineages are mentioned. I’m just calling you and a few others on it. Rene stop hiding behind other people! speak for yourself. This is not the WCML inspite of what you seem to think you are not the Internet WCK police! (ROFLOL!) I clearly said that “I could be wrong” in my post to you. I was only asking you to take a look at yourself. But your response only reflects the fact that you do have such issues and refuse to deal with them. You sir have been a disappointment not only to me but many others for quite some time now. But this is not the time nor the place to go down that road. So let’s just agree to disagree and leave the personal things out of this.

Hendrik,
I think the problem that you are having with seeing the conection of WCK to Chan is the fact that you are blinded by your own lineage. You seem to not have the ability to think outside of your own system. I cannot speak for your lineage so it may not have any connection. But I can say with out question that HFY is. It also seems that you want your Chan served to you only a certain way and if not delivered to you “your way” You then refuse to see what is clearly Chan. You may not see the connection. however I don’t think it is from the lack of information being presented. you just may not be ready yet. That is not something we can do for you. I find it quite odd how you are comfortable at saying “this is not Chan”. It may not fit into your perseption of Chan. But that might change in the future. But then again maybe not.

Chango (SGS)
:smiley:

103

Rene Wrote>
quote:I’m very nice to the VTM/HFY members on this board, and I’m very respectful of their claims. However, many of them (Savi, Levi, Matt Kwan, and a few others are noteable exceptions) are quite rude and disrespectful towards me and mine. It goes both ways.–RR

Geezer Wrote>
When you say your very nice, do you mean “you” don’t openly attack them but on a certain mailing list you wouldn’t shut down the people that do attack them–Geezer

How does a glimpse of goodness relate with Rene Ritchie’s ongoing experience in here?

104

Chango – While there are many different sects of Buddhism, I seem to find a lot of underlying themes in all the web pages and articles I have read about the topic. If your art is so involved in Chan, couldn’t you and Hendrick find some common language and points of discussion? Also what besides SMK is Buddhist, what kuen kuit do you have or traditions do you practice that other Buddhists practice? Have you really explored it?

I am not taking a shot at you or your family. I really only want to explore this with you and all our kung fu brothers but so many times on this list it seems like you or some other posters might not have the firmest grasp on understanding everything you are talking about.

I often see things go on about how yours is different but when we inquire about more detail it is often indescribable or must be seen in person. Yet after the HFY seminar, many of that family suddenly became able to describe certain parts of stances, Kiu Sau, etc that they had not been able to before.

If I understand I can explain in the clearest language possible. I can only do my best and if I do not know I say so.

While it helped me greatly to see and meet many of you I came away from the seminar with the language and understanding enough to explain it how I saw, felt and interrupted it. While it may not have been verbatim what Sifu Gee was trying to get across, I could still do it.

Hendrick says it is not Chan.

You say it is Chan just not his Chan. You say it is Shao Lin Chan.

What is your Chan then, do you know?

What are the ideas, concepts and exercises you train everyday in class.

Help me understand, lift the veil of secrecy so we can see that you are honest about your art.

105

Where are Hung Fa Yi’s facts regarding Chan coming from?

Chango, Savi, Rolling_hand et al,

Hendrik is a practicing Chan Buddhist. He is a personal disciple of a senior Chan master. He has quoted you chapter and verse from the 1000 year history of Chan, according to the leaders of that religion namely it’s patriarchs. All of this information is quite publically available.

Yet still you offer nothing to state where your sources are in terms of Chan other than that Hendrik has a closed mind.

Where are your FACTS with regards to Chan Buddhism?

Who is the authority from which you quote and state your facts on Chan Buddhism? Is it Garrett Gee? Is he now ALSO a Chan Patriarch? Who recognizes him as such?

How much Chan literature have you read? How long have you been studying the Chan religion and been a praticing member of that faith?

Have you read ANY of the sutras?

Hendrik has been kind enough to post you quite specific sutras and quotes from VERY famous patriarchs within the Chan religion yet you seem quite willing to IGNORE those quotes as if hopefully they will go away. Until you do so, they won’t go away. Perhaps Hendrik will, which is our collective loss on this matter, since he has the deepest training and background of anyone you’ve encountered so far.

Frankly until you address the quotes and basic philosophy of Chan, I can’t see how you can possibly expect anyone to consider you having ANY credibility with regards to Chan doctrine and philosophy.

For the sake of argument name 6 patriarchs who have influenced Hung Fa Yi, and from each one post a sutra or a story from them which ties into Hung Fa Yi’s relationship to Chan.

If you can’t why not?

The reason you are getting such grief from me and others is because you are making very bold statements here and are unwilling to back them up with cold hard FACTS. It went that way with the claims of Hung Fa Yi “Science” and it has already gone that way with Hung Fa Yi “Chan Buddhism”.

Perhaps what you now want to say is that Hung Fa Yi is the one true Chan and that 1000 years of mainstream Chan history is wrong and that you have a secret true Chan. :rolleyes:

That may “cut it” within your organization, but I don’t think it is going to fly one bit here on the public stage.

My advice is leave out the bold claims regarding Chan, science, and being the proto-Wing Chun, etc.

No one begrudges you wanting to study what you study. More power to you, your sifus and Sijo. Train well, enjoy what you do, and do so in health and happiness.

However, when you attempt to foist off poorly researched opinions in public without enough rigor–expect yourselves to be called on it.

Rene is being an nice guy about this stuff and has far more patience than most in dealing with the lack of facts eminating from the VTM and branch schools of HFY. But then, he’s a polite guy.

At this rate, you may find yourselves with no more credibility than say OE Simon and his Temple Kung Fu

And that would be sad indeed.

106

honey bees…

----I am not taking a shot at you or your family. I really only want to explore this with you and all our kung fu brothers but so many times on this list it seems like you or some other posters might not have the firmest grasp on understanding everything you are talking about.–Mckind

You and your friends have done enough running after other party. Why trouble yourself? You don’t want to stroke resentment. Consider if your critcisms are meant to haraangue or bolster before sharing. Developing tenderness towords yourself allows you to see your problems. The kind of gentleness towards yourself and appreciation of yourself is very necessary. It provides the ground for helping yourself and others.

107

–Hendrik has been kind enough to post you quite specific sutras and quotes from VERY famous patriarchs within the Chan religion yet you seem quite willing to IGNORE those quotes as if hopefully they will go away. Until you do so, they won’t go away. Perhaps Hendrik will, which is our collective loss on this matter, since he has the deepest training and background of anyone you’ve encountered so far.–Plantwc

The Tao is a silent flower which blooms through the night,

But the night through which it blooms is the flower itself.

For these honey bees like Hendrik, Mckind, Rene Ritchie and Plantwc.

No Tao, no flower, no Ch’an.

Just noises!

108

ch’an and WCK

Can someone explain to me how using Ch’an Buddhism benefits their individual development and practice of WCK (as opposed to its “more traditional” role as a vehicle for enlightenment)? And how this differs from “the normal” road of WCK development and practice. This is not an attempt to flame, but a serious inquiry.

Thanks,

Terence

109

Chango is incorrect, and once again is the pot stuck on hold with a barely used kettle.

Trolling_Hand is incorrect, and should stop stalking me and filling this board with his anti-WCK spamming.

PlanetWC pak sao’s the taste out of the mouth of correctness.

reneritchie is still being very nice.

110

Cups getting dirty!

Hi all,
I have been busy for the past two days enjoying the holiday, I hope everyone did the same.

This morning I read post after post of ‘finger-pointing’ in every direction. In some cases, the finger was pointed to those not pointing a finger. Has this discussion become the “I’m right and you’re wrong” atmosphere? Or is it people trying to ask open questions from their point of view, and perceived as ‘finger-pointing’ from the other side? Not neccesary. There are many questions people are asking that I’d like to answer, but the quantity is too great for me to do in one sitting.

Hendrik (if you’re still following the thread), I’m going to be straight forward with you without asking any questions that may be misinterpreted, and I’m not being hostile here. I have stated to you in a previous thread that I am not a scholar nor teacher in Chan Buddhism, but that I have begun studying it. I have not been shown by my Sifu, or any generation before him, forms of documentation that state they are certified Chan teachers, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t AND it doesn’t mean that they are. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have any, but it doens’t mean that they do either.

My Sifu and family are focused on Wing Chun training. That is where the majority of training time is spent. We do train in a publicly accessible facility categorized by the state as a recreational/fitness facility. Not a place they would categorize as a church or places of that nature. Hence the primary focus on Wing Chun. It is left to the individuals to further their study into philosophy/religion.

My studies of Chan/Zen (so far) come from the author Ming Zhen Shakya in the book The Seventh World of Chan Buddhism, Part II. In particular, the relevant section I am reading is ‘Zen and the Martial Arts.’ I will not go into detail about it (not the right place), but you can find it at: www.hsuyun.org - This, along with my kung fu teachers, is where my understanding [thus far] is coming from.

I have never stated that you are wrong in what you believe in to be right. Let’s make sure we understand that. But I invite you to read the information I am currently reading about so you can see where I am coming from (link is above). My picture is not complete with regards to Chan. I am in the process of building it. However, as I stated before, I interpret some of your posts as ‘shots’ at my personal understanding, BASED on how you WORD your comments. That’s all. I didn’t say that you, as a person, are insinuous or wrong. I said your words are. Also, I was not trying to put words in your mouth, only your eye balls. j/k (humor, laugh, nevermind… )

This turned into a Chan discussion. BUT keep in mind this is a kung fu forum. What I am currently reading (referenced above) is about Chan AND the martial arts… I think the information from Ming Zhen Shakya would be more accurate [to the nature of this forum] to discuss here. (I’m not done reading it though…) Again look for the section entitled ‘Zen and the Martial Arts.’ Terence, I think this might bring some light to your question also.

I guess we forgot about Kiu Sao/Chi Sao unless there is no more to discuss? Thanks to everyone sharing their knowledge.

Rolling Hand, I am one of those flowers when it gets too noisy:). I do have something I’d like to share regarding what you posted, and this isn’t a shot at anybody. I’d just like to mention it.

When truth is not recognized, the time is not right. Silence is my only reaction…

-Savi.

111

Savi is a flower (though the part on truth can easily cut several ways), hopefully there will be more. I for one enjoy the application threads, and wish they could stay lineage/politcs free.

(BTW, doesn’t anyone from the HFY/VTM family find Rolling_Hand’s behavior on this forum inappropriate? Several of you seem almost supportive of him. Hopefully you don’t mean this to be mistaken for agreement with his personal attacks towards other sifu (such as Augustine Fong who is listed as a VTM Advisor on the VTM website) and other practitioners? Silence often is used as form of tacit approval, after all).

RR

112

–(BTW, doesn’t anyone from the HFY/VTM family find Rolling_Hand’s behavior on this forum inappropriate? Several of you seem almost supportive of him. Hopefully you don’t mean this to be mistaken for agreement with his personal attacks towards other sifu (such as Augustine Fong who is listed as a VTM Advisor on the VTM website) and other practitioners? Silence often is used as form of tacit approval, after all).–RR

Rene Ritchie,

Stop trolling and stop hiding behind HFY, VTM, Jee Sim, Andreas Hoffmann, Augustine Fong, Geezer and Rolling Hand. Please speak for yourself ONLY.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your thoughts, your words.

In a small notebook, keep a list of moments of happiness your experience. The wise harm no one.

Humm…

113

Rolling_Hand - Please stop harming yourself.

114

Gee, thanks!

Just about everyone needs Rene Ritchie’s personal attention.

Humm…

115

If there was a mirror, I would tell you to look deeply into it. Since there is no mirror, I can only ask that you look as deeply into yourself and hope you have the strength not to recoil.

Do not embrace emptiness. Do not cling to dust. Taste the full freshness of life and rejoyce a little from time to time. Your trolling and stalking will wait for you!