Shaolin and Wing Chun informative...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Part 1, a lot of reading on this thread!

Jim, the following is quite a bit lengthy, but is quite short in comparison to the whole article! I have posted here only the 1st stage (1 of 3 according to the article) of Wing Chun history according to VTM research, where in the article it also addresses the paradigm shift…http://www.mengsofaz.com/currentarticles/realwingchun.htm

[i] Ving Tsun Museum research to-date supports a hypothesis that Wing Chun history unfolded in three principle stages: Concept Design / Field Testing, Modification / Public Awareness, and Commercialization…..

The Concept Design and Field Testing stage began at the Southern Shaolin Temple in 1670 A.D. during a time of war and revolution in Southern China. A martial art oriented to modular training of hand-to-hand combat troops was required. Highly trained tacticians and teachers needed a single system that could be called upon to address the numerous threats of the myriad of fighting styles employed throughout China. A cutting-edge combat system was needed. The challenge to create such a system was picked up by the warrior monks of the Southern Temple and fugitive General Officers of the remnant Ming Dynasty (mìhng chìuh) army. The Weng Chun Tong (wehng cheùn tòhng) in the Southern Shaolin Temple was dedicated to these goals. The characters used in the name of this hall translate directly to “Everlasting Spring,” the original name given the system. The name itself represents the essence of Shaolin Kung Fu Zen. It represented a secret code used by the designers calling for the rebirth of the Ming Dynasty.

As with all complex system design efforts in time of war, several models were developed and field-tested. The earliest design efforts were heavily influenced by the monk’s Zen Buddhist beliefs. Jee Sim Weng Chun (ji sihn wehng cheùn) (modern day name meaning ‘Extreme Compassion’), as one of the arts, points to the earliest phase in Wing Chun history. It is a complete system of combat training and one of the original expressions of Wing Chun Kung Fu. Its primary purpose was to retain an identity that presented the treasures of Shaolin Kung Fu – Health, Fighting Skills, and Zen. Even at this early stage of development, Wing Chun contained the tools needed to engage in all ranges of combat, from close-quarter to long range with weapons as its foundation. Today’s descendants call themselves Jee Sim Weng Chun practitioners and, like their Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun (hùhng fà yih wihng cheùn) counterparts discussed below, trace their roots directly to the Weng Chun Tong in the Southern Shaolin Temple. A modern day representative of this system, Sifu Andreas Hoffmann, resides and promotes this lineage in Germany. [/i]

What I have gathered in the above quote, is what sparked the idea of the necessity for a more efficient fighting system to counter all the other styles, was their survival. Plain and simple. Current fighting systems took far too long to train their troops, so they needed something more efficient in training time with faster results. 3-5 years as opposed to 10-20 years training time. The following post then begins to address the paradigm shift and its effect.

-Savi.

22

Part 2, paradigm shift

[i] Along with the already combat effective Jee Sim Weng Chun, Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun was developed along a true paradigm shift in hand-to-hand combat thinking. Prior to this point in time, styles of combat were based on art and self-expression. Hung Fa Yi was created in an environment based strictly on human physiology and the physics of time and space. Personal artistic expression became irrelevant. Absolute control of time and space, with predictable and repeatable results in combat, represented the center of all focus. Science replaced art in the structure and evaluation of the entire style.

At the same time, the military logistic imperative for training warriors in a feasible time-frame became a paramount concern and was given overarching consideration. The ten years intensive training required to master classical Shaolin postures was not logistically viable. This version of Wing Chun may have been created by a different group within the same Weng Chun Tong or the same group heavily influenced by military thinking from Ming Dynasty officers; either way, members of the Chu royal family, the former leaders of the Ming Dynasty, supported this group. This is the first time in the development of Shaolin fighting systems that time and space themselves became the focal point of design consideration. They provided the “idea” in the first level of Siu Nim Tao (Little Beginning Idea) training. The military implications of this decision are far too extensive for review here. Suffice it to say the physical science expertise of the monks, resulting from their relentless pursuit of the laws of nature and universal harmony, pared with the tactical and logistical training necessities confronting the professional soldiers, yielded the ultimate fighting system in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. [/i]

The paradigm shift Jim, sparked the basis of tailoring centuries of experience and knowledge to the human body (as you mentioned in your posts!) as opposed to animal postures. This gave rise to the 3-tier platform of SNT, CK, and BJ. It gave rise to many more things such as (referenced in the VTM article ‘Understanding the Wing Chun Punch’) the HFY Five-Line theory for example. The human form became the consideration to map out precise positions in space relative to the body (inside and out) to address any and all attacks with minimal use of Time, Space, and Energy as the driving factor. Symmetry and balance of all things considered were of utmost importance. From I understand of your postings about the Mantis, it lends you a strong basis to understand HFY structure. Some of the maxims you mention also parallel some things my Sitaigung always says.

Going back to the article, it immediately flows back into historical/foundational information about Jee Sim and Hung Fa Yi.

[i] Both Jee Sim and Hung Fa Yi lineages focus on the strong Zen Buddhist view of existence in terms of time, space, and energy. This same focus remains at their cores in the 21st Century. However, in Hung Fa Yi the major components of the Wing Chun fighting system’s modern day identity take on its key structures and form. This is where the Síu Nihm Tàuh (little idea in the beginning), Chàhm Kìuh (search bridge), and Bìu Jí (thrusting finger) forms of Wing Chun Kung Fu were first seen. Jee Sim does not reflect these forms and employs traditional Shaolin structures.

The inheritor of the Hung Fa Yi system, Sifu Garret Gee, lives and promotes this lineage in San Francisco, California. The name ‘Hung Fa Yi’ literally translates to “Red Flower Righteousness’ with its origins in the secret societies surrounding the Southern Temple during this period of continuous resistance fighting with the Manchu armies. The phrase “Hung Fa” came from Hung Fa Wui (hùhng fà wúih), a Shaolin secret society counterpart to the Hung Muhn (hùhng mùhn) revolutionary society. The word ‘Righteousness’ emphasizes practitioners’ strict adherence to the highest moral standards in conduct and battle in the fight for their country’s honor and preservation of their Han heritage. By this time the characters used to depict ‘Wing Chun’ have changed to mean ‘Praising Spring.’ The secret code had by this time evolved to encourage practitioners to continue talking about and soliciting support for the rebirth of the Ming Dynasty. [/i]

I hope to continue this pleasant atmosphere. Sharing information is quite enjoyable to those with good intentions.

-Savi.

23

hey Hendrik

Originally posted by Phenix
Here is a picture of copy of writing in the tomb of Dao Jong.

I appreciate the pictures, but unfortunately I can’t read chinese. I’m sure the others who can read it, and haven’t seen this information will take it into consideration. Hopefully then they can put their information here as well.

-Savi.

24

Savi,

Thanks for great article.

However, it is still a speculation and an opinion. not a research IMHO.

one needs to show, evidents, platform, and legacy…

since Jee Sim comes with Ng Mui in legend… one cannot abandon Ng Mui and only take Jee Sim.

Since as we have evident of Hung Fa Ting, the myth is clear.

The question remains, why is white crane of fujian’s center line theory get into WCK.

Why is JeeSim’s Sam Pai fut set closer similar to Long Fist of Shao Lin. For me, imho, LOng Fist of Shao Lin DNA is not White Crane fujian DNA. and WCK used White Crane DNA not long Fist DNA

25

Hi Jim,

I don’t think its mind reading. I think when you get enough information, lay it all out, and take a big step back, certain patterns emerge.

This goes beyond WCK. How do deeply orthodox Judeochristians feel about the dinosaur/fosil record? For a half-a-century or more, since the Republic era and the migration of the first really public generation of MA teachers from China, we (Western Public) have been fed legends and creation myths, and while most of us don’t accept them in Western history (how many fencing teachers try to claim they have Sir Lancelot’s sword lineage? How many wrestlers claim descent from Heracles?), we still love their romance in martial arts circles.

But it will change, slowly, but persistently, as the next generation learns more and grows more.

26

Hi Hendrik,

Agreed, its not consistent to work with the Jee Shim legend but not the Ng Mui legend, as the two are completely intertwined (would be like trying to historically prove Thor but disprove Loki).

As you know, Lee Man-Mao, leader of the Red Junk participation in the Red Turban Rebellion, was a Fujian White Crane boxer. Likewise, there are stories that Fung Siu-Ching’s art came from Fujian Weng Chun Kuen, and that some of his students kept up the reverance of the White Crane ancestors.

I think Andreas has already explained Saam Pai Fut. Weng Chun Sup Yaat Sao, IMHO, would be the more useful set to examine. I remember seeing Vincent Tso (did you meet him?) do some of his Jong Kuen, and the core movements and body mechanics were very intriguing.

27

C/L and Hung Fa Ting.

Originally posted by Phenix
As for the relationship of White Crane from Fujian with WCK. now one has to explain… As I said, the center line theory is from White Crane. so where is the paradigm shift? White Crane is preceed Hung Fa Ting…

From what I understand of centerline theory (I do not know White Crane’s C/L theory, in mechanical or technical aspects), it comes from the Tien Yan Dei (heaven, man, earth) concept. As what I’ve seen of Jee Sim’s physical expression of C/L theory, it is not as continuously expressed in vertical posture, but took the ‘upright posture’ after the paradigm shift of ‘minimal use of time, space, and energy’ became realized.

Also from what I am understanding now , yes the White Crane predates the Hung Fa Ting, as I already corrected myself in a previous post quoting an article. Refer back to it again if you need to.

I do have to go to the kwoon as testing is today and tomorrow. I will check back over the weekend…
-Savi.

28

Centerline theory probably comes from martial development towards efficiency, though certainly cultural references like Tien Dei Yan could be used by some to express them. Jim, did the Hakka fist you’re familiar with use centerline concepts? Anything similar to WCK?

29

Tien Tee Yan is from Iching.
how is that buddhist?

Center line theory with the combination of Sun hand has cast the DNA in stone for WCK.

back to the question again. So what is the uniqueness of SLT ?

Where is the small and post structure comes from? as Jim also ask?

my answer, imho, is you all see the small letter zhuang pictures a few days ago.

30

Hi Every one,

Wow, what a discussion. I have to spend some time reading Jim’s excellent posts. I have a couple questions.

I have seen a physical connection between the hakka arts for quite a while now. It is evident that much of the structure is similar, though there are distinct differences. I beleive they all have a similar flavor as do the shaolin arts. Mantis, bak mei, and wing chun each are similar as is Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar, and Bak Soiu Lam are to eachother. The ear marks of each group are not found in the other ones. Though there are some overlaping between the groups. But I think if we look hard enough we would see this in boxing, karate and other arts too.

One of my questions is where do the hakka arts claim they come from? Where do mantis, Leung Ying, and White Crane claim as their roots? Do they consider themselves shaolin? I think Bak Mei does.

Jim, I have heard of the southern form you mention, but I am not so sure that it is as common as you suggested in southern arts, atleast not in the shaolin based arts. Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar don’t have it. I don’t think other arts like Mok Gar and Lau gar had them either. but I might be wrong on those. I don’t recall them in Leung Ying or Bak Mei either. Correct me if I am wrong. However, I do think it is a common set and quite popular. I have not actually seen the chinese version, only some Okanawan versions.

As an interesting note, which people seem to ignore as we are all talking about records, Yip Man relates that Yimm Wing Chun was from Szechuan, or atleast living there. That is a quite a long way form Shaolin, north or south. Also,Ng Mui took refuge in the white crane temple (Omei). I think this part of the story is unique to Yip Man, but it is interesting and does support some apparent evidence and explains some difference. I am not to knowledgable on these topics, but how open was travel from around Honan (Shaolin) to Szechuan and finally back to Futsan? Thats a lot of traveling for average folks. And why did Yip Man say this?

Just some thoughts
Tom

Bdsm punishment

31

Hey Tom,

We discussed this in another thread. Due to the economic condition that followed Qing dynastic succession, many people, especially disenfranchised young males, migrated from Fujian, through the Liangguang (Guangdong & Guangxi), into Sichuan, and back. In fact, the Tiandihui itself is said to have emerged following Ti Xi following this migration pattern.

MA have different origin story. Usually at least 1 Shaolin version, 1 heroic version, and sometimes more. You can find Shaolin origins for Lung Ying (Ng Mui teaching another monk, Tai something), Bak Mei (Bak Mei the Taoist becoming one of the Five Elders of Shaoling and passing on his art to another temple), Southern Mantis (Ng Mui teaching the Chu sisters), White Crane (Ng Mui founding it), etc. etc.

32

Thanks Rene,

So, if I understand it right, Fujian could be thought of as a hub of sorts. Hunan to Fujian would make the shaolin connection possible and link white crane. A fujian to Szechaun would make the Omei or taoist connection. Maybe this relates to Bak Mei and Ng Mui residing in the temples. Was it common for a taoist to be in a buddhist temple and vice versa? Then I would assume that Futsan would be a way point and in wing chun’s case, the home base.

I know the common stories, but I have not seen a Leung Ying centric discussion about comming from Ng Mui. Bak Mei comes from a particular monk, but I am not so sure there was really a Shaolin connection. Apparently there are several versions of Bak mei, some of which may bear absolutly NO relation to each other. Eddie Chong’s Bak Mei, though is similar to CLC, doesn’t claim him in their lineage. What I read on White Crane suggested Fong(?) Wing Chun learned some Shaolin Kung Fu from a father or something. But is it really from Shaolin. not sure about Mantis. It’s connection seems to be in other temples. But it is interesting that there are stories about a shaolin connection.

What aboyut Leung Ting’s research in his “Wing Tsun Kuen” book that states that Hung Moon list different surviors from the temple?

I love this stuff and wish there was more info availible.

Tom

PUBLIC BRITISH

33

Key article to address some questions.

Everyone, before I head off…

The VTM article in the link provided here:
http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/jeung_ngh.php

goes into discussion of HFY’s Si Jou, Cheung Ng, and 4 elements of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Formula. The paradigm shift we have been discussing laid the groundwork of the formation of the HFYWC Formula. It is with this formula where Hendrik’s question of “Where did Tan Sau come from being that White Crane has 5 of them?” (not verbatim) in his Hung Mun Tai Tzu thread, will be addressed. It should also bring some light into WCK’s unique structure, from HFY’s traditions.

Jim, I hope this information will add to your ‘pelvis’ questions.

And just one note… it seems apparent that we are all agreeing WC came from Shaolin, whether it be from Crane, Mantis, Dragon, or whatever. These arts (aside from Hakka, which I don’t know about) we are referencing comes from a Shaolin heritage. (as far as I know…)

Hung Fa Yi and Jee Sim are claiming to be flowers of the Shaolin Temple Arts as a whole, and not just from another singular martial art. It sounds like we are beginning to sing from the same page then.

Please read the article, I’ll be back on Saturday or Sunday…
-Savi.

34

Hey Rene,

Mantis Centerline theory was similar but a pinch different from WC. WC stresses aligning the wrists on the center where as South Mantis uses the Hut Yee Sao open door policy. They are inviting you in and then they will close the door on you.

Some of the aspects are very similar tho! Attacking the center and defending their center with slight deflections, hooks, slicing actions. Once the structure has been joined they continue to press the opponent until he is down.

They split the body into four corners (up/low left and right). Hand against hand and foot against foot.

They do not use the Yum Yeung effect of the turning horse like WC. Very straight forward military style boxing.

I dont have too much time today or I would write more.

:eek:

Regards,

35

Hello Tom,

Wow, what a discussion. I have to spend some time reading Jim’s excellent posts. I have a couple questions.

Its good to have an educated discussion once in a while! Unfortunately its not often! hehehe JR

I have seen a physical connection between the hakka arts for quite a while now. It is evident that much of the structure is similar, though there are distinct differences. I beleive they all have a similar flavor as do the shaolin arts. Mantis, bak mei, and wing chun each are similar as is Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar, and Bak Soiu Lam are to eachother. The ear marks of each group are not found in the other ones. Though there are some overlaping between the groups. But I think if we look hard enough we would see this in boxing, karate and other arts too.

Exactly. Core structure, forms pattern, numerology, principles etc. have to be examined. JR

One of my questions is where do the hakka arts claim they come from? Where do mantis, Leung Ying, and White Crane claim as their roots? Do they consider themselves shaolin? I think Bak Mei does.

They consider themselves Northern Guest of which brought the Kung Fu down to the south. Atleast the Mantis people do! Yet! They all link back to some Shaolin story but nothing is proven. Although! The Jook Lum temples are still in China but the funny thing is they make no mention of Kung Fu! Below you can see a write up of where Jook Lum was suppsed to originate. JR

““Southern Praying Mantis Kungfu originated in the bamboo forest of Mt. Dragon-Tiger, Kiangsi province. The scenic mountain range resembles a dragon and tiger bowing to each other. The first Taoist Pope of China, Chang Tao Ling, established his religious authority there which continued until 1949 as sixty three unbroken generations. Today, the palaces of Chang Tao Ling are located in Kwei Hsi district of Kiangsi. They are divided into two compounds, the Hsiang Ching Palace, and the Heavenly Master Mansion. The former is the temple proper and accomodated hundreds of Taoist priests. The later is the official residence of the Taoist Pope. Mt. Dragon-Tiger is a tourist attraction in China today.””

Jim, I have heard of the southern form you mention, but I am not so sure that it is as common as you suggested in southern arts, atleast not in the shaolin based arts.

They are more common among the more traditional South arts that are “supposed” to be Shaolin and even the Okinawan arts. Not a lot of the family arts that are numerous. JR

Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar don’t have it. I don’t think other arts like Mok Gar and Lau gar had them either. but I might be wrong on those.

These are all part of the 5 family arts and not the so-called south Shaolin arts like Mantis, Crane, etc.. JR

I don’t recall them in Leung Ying or Bak Mei either. Correct me if I am wrong.

Lung Ying and Bak Mei (I believe Bak Mei is an off-shoot of LY or vise versa) seem to be more eclectic versions of the main systems. Lam Yu Gwai ??? was rumored to have visited and studied under Chung Yel Chong of the South Mantis clan. So, I kind of list them in the eclectic grouping. JR

However, I do think it is a common set and quite popular. I have not actually seen the chinese version, only some Okanawan versions.

Its an amazing form. Check out the Vibration form of White Crane. You will see the similarities. E-mail me and I will tape some stuff for you! The Okinwan version just looks like some corrupt version of it also. Yet! The okinwans claim to get their skill from Pang Gai Noon or something like that. Memory is going at an early age. Basically some form of White Crane. JR

Just some thoughts

Good speaking with you. Check out the attachment to get a good idea of the area around Fukien!

Regards,

36

Hey Savi,

FWIW - I don’t think anyone’s agreeing on Shaolin origins, just that many systems use the Shaolin myth. It was common practice at one time in China to just add “Shaolin” to the name of your art, since it was famous and everyone knew it, as a way to attract students and gain credibility (instead of fighting on the Loi Toi, for example).

White Eyebrow, Dragon Shape, Southern Mantis, etc. probably have nothing to do with Shaolin, aside from that.

37

Hendrik wrote:

Why is JeeSim’s Sam Pai fut set closer similar to Long Fist of Shao Lin. For me, imho, LOng Fist of Shao Lin DNA is not White Crane fujian DNA. and WCK used White Crane DNA not long Fist DNA

Hendrik,
Here is the shaolin Chi Sim(Jee Sim) WCK history, not Hendrik’s history…

The Philosophy – Principle of Effectiveness
For the Shaolin monks, it was paramount to experience reality directly. Their philosophy of Chan-Buddhism meant a return to the natural and the simple. This often stood in contrast to the philosophies of fighting styles taught outside the temple. These often referred to magic, faith or obedience to older generations. This is why the Weng Chun temple incorporated only those fighting concepts, which really worked simply and directly.

Shaolin Abbot Chi Sin Sim Si – Guardian of the Art
Treachery led to the Shaolin temple being destroyed in the 18th century by the ruling powers. The Shaolin abbot Chi Sin Sim Si was able to flee with some other monks and got himself hired as a cook on the “Red Boat” under a false name. The “Red Boat” was a ship of a Chinese opera troupe, which travelled from town to town to entertain the people.

The vital Secret
The members of the “Red Boat” were delighted and wanted to learn Kung Fu from their cook at once. Abbot Chi Sin Sim Si revealed his true identity and was ready to teach the opera troupe. However, as he was one of the most persecuted men of his time, his pupils had to promise never to use or reveal his real name. That is why it came about, that many legends concerning Weng Chun were invented around this time, so as to protect Master Chi Sin Sim Si.

Only the Weng Chun masters, who had learned the entire system from their Master were told the truth.

The Flowering of Weng Chun Kuen in the 19th Century
At that time Master Fung Siu Ching taught pupils from the whole of China, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia (even today there are still many Asian Weng Chun schools, who trace their lineage to Master Fung Siu Ching or the “Red Boat”). He was one of the first full-time Weng Chun masters. He supervised teaching groups during the day as well as at night and had many private pupils.

Fung Siu Ching’s master pupils in Fatshan were: his son Fung Tin, the brothers Lo, Tang Suen, Dung Jik and the “Chemist” Ma Chung Yi

Security in Fatshan
During the Ching dynasty (1644 – 1911) only the larger cities were protected by the “state police” of the day. Smaller cities and villages were protected by renown Kung Fu masters.

Master Fung Siu Ching’s master pupils guarded many villages in Fatshan and the surrounding area. The Lo brothers, for example, drove off entire bands of robbers armed only with butterfly knives and sabres. On one occasion, the two Lo brothers are said to have even chased off twenty armed robbers without injuring them. The Lo brothers just took the clothes and weapons away from the robbers, so that these fled. Their Weng Chun Kuen “brother” Master Tang Suen received the honorary title “King of the Long Pole” from the people of the villages, that he protected, because he kept them safe from the greatest dangers using a long pole.

The Initiator WAI YAN
Wai Yan was born at the beginning of our century as the son of a rich Chinese family in Hong Kong.

Via his older friend Lo Chiu Woon, the young Wai Yan often came into contact with the martial art Weng Chun Kuen. However, Wai Yan did not really want to know anything about “Kung Fu”, because he had often experienced Kung Fu practitioners as violent and uneducated. Had his friend Lo Chiu Woon (a descendant of the Lo brothers) not been a Weng Chun master and a Chinese academic at the same time, then Wai Yan would certainly not have had any contact with him.

GM Wai Yan passes on his inheritance to GM Andreas Hoffmann

Sources of the historical background of Weng Chun Kuen

38

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
[B]Hendrik wrote:

Why is JeeSim’s Sam Pai fut set closer similar to Long Fist of Shao Lin. For me, imho, LOng Fist of Shao Lin DNA is not White Crane fujian DNA. and WCK used White Crane DNA not long Fist DNA

Here is the shaolin Chi Sim(Jee Sim) WCK history, not Hendrik’s history…

Only the Weng Chun masters, who had learned the entire system from their Master were told the truth.

[/B]

If I think Sam Pai Fut i saw Andreas did is closer to the Shao Lin Long Fist. is that a sin? how do you explain Andreas Kuen Kuit on “San Chaan Tang Nor”? which can be found in Shao Lin book?
Belive it or not I have also send the Long Fist type of picture to Andreas, Robert Chu, Rene… years ago. What’s wrong with discussion?

Otherwise, if you think Sam PAi Fut is from Fujian Engchun, Then how do Fujian Engchun related to Shao Lin or Hung Fa Ting as the above article and evidents suggest?
So it is not Shao LIn? it is White Crane ? Are you changing the story again?

B, Who is the Weng Chun masters who had learned the entire system from their Master were told the truth as you suggest?

Is that you?

Sorry, in this scientific era we talk with evidents.
and you need to show your evidents.
Instead of attacking me, it is about reasoning not about attacking others.

You can’t use nothing to beat something. It doesn’t work. Rolling Hand. sorry to tell you Hung Fa Ting is in my home town county. wake up, discuss without attack. show evidents..
and don’t try to group things which is not related into one.
or else people will ask you what is your agenda? See, you stilll didn’t explain how SLT comes from with your own evidents…I belive JIm and I are waiting for your DNA… relax. this is a discussion forum. :smiley:

39

Hi Rolling Hand,

First off, thanks for draging HFY into the discussion and possibly derailing the topic. LOL. I think we should take into account Gee Shim and all other evidence as we should not distort information to suit our biases.

I would ask, has any of the info you cut and pasted been independantly verified, or is it just a story Gee Shim Weng Chun passes down? If it is just their version and no independent verification has been done, then their version is no more reliable than Pan Nam’s or Yip Man’s, or Yik Kam’s, or Yuen Kay San’s, or any other version.

I am wondering however as I am having a debate about wing chun and hung gar else were, why does wing chun on the whole acknowledge Gee Shim as the source of the pole. The pole tends to retain the shaolin aspects of the wide horses and other training methods. However, the rest of the system is radically modified as is the history. None of the core concepts and principles in Gee Shim’s teachings seem to be in Wing Chun, though they are in Hung Gar, or vise versa? If any art is said to be from Gee Shim, it is hung gar. How similar is Gee Shim Weng Chun and Hung Gar in theory, principles, etc? How does what is written account for and apply to Hung Gar?

Tom

Easy Vape V2 Review

40

Roger,

Good to see you contributing some info..

Now, back to the discussion.

With all do respect, the problem with this history is that once you get past Fung Siu Ching and Dai Fa Min you lose credibility. The same old 5 elder story/fable starts coming into the picture and to most Chinese you can basically consider the 5 Elders to be no different from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

But! If they did exist they sure were busy people.

Ng Mui can be credited for numerous arts (Bak Hok, Wu Mei, Wing Chun, etc. etc.). I am sure each believe she was the founder of their respected art but logic says fat chance.

Jee Shim was also quite busy. Seeing how he was the founder of Hung Gar and Weng Chun etc… I wonder if Hung Hei Gwun would agree that his teacher new two arts or developed another art later??? Also, Hung Hei Gwun states that Jee Shim’s real sir name was Hung. Hence the reason for calling the art Hung Kuen.

If the Manchu’s invaded around 1644 and the temples were supposed to be destroyed in the early 1700’s then how would Jee Shim be around long enough to cook/teach on the red boats during the early to mid 1800’s? Also, since Jee Shim’s so-called student (Hung Hei Gwun) (who was supposed to learn from the older monk) lived between 1745-1825 it would make it very difficult for his older teacher to live into the 1800’s to teach and live as a cook on the Red Boats!

Read below what a Hung Gar school writes about Chinese History! I feel it applies to the WC, Weng Chun, Bak Mei etc. etc.

The history of Hung Ga is a very controversial one because it’s full of legends and contradictions. First of all, the Chinese historiography is quite unreliable; it’s very mythological and not very factual - no exact dates, places, etc. The stories have been blown up and changed/twisted throughout times. Many have just been made up because people had no idea about their lineage and the origin of their style and it was necessary to give their students a story.
The same also applies for Hung Ga. The real interest in the history of Hung Ga originated in the first quarter of the twentieth century with the books written by Lam Saiwing. The Hong Kong movie industry can also be credited with the popularity of Hung Ga. The interest rose to it’s peak, however, when Western people started learning Hung Ga. These students were much more curious about the origin and asked a lot of questions to their sifus.

        This sudden popularity led to the need for stories about the origin of Hung Ga. For example, there were great stories about Hung Heigun learning crane style from his wife, creating the Fu Hok Seung Ying Kyun, fighting against treacherous Baak Mei etc.  These stories were thickened by the Hong Kong movie industry further because they needed good storylines. Today it’s clear though that it was really Wong Feihung who created today’s known Fu Hok Seung Ying Kyun, and that there’s actually little factual knowledge about Hung Heigun and the other masters before Wong Feihung.

        The dates of peoples’ existence are not very strict.  In China there wasn’t kept a “Central Registration of Population”, so the Chinese often did not know when they were born.  Also it is a Buddhist habit to add two years to somebody’s life: one for being born and one for passing away (journey to heaven). The Taoists even added many more years if somebody was very respected.   For example, it is argued that Wong Feihung died in 1924 instead of 1933.  This leads to false dates and it’s often impossible to track the original dates by Western calendars. Therefore it’s best to read the dates as “circa”.

        Often different stories are told in different lineages. This even happens today. Though, indeed, some people lie about their lineage, most can be explained as a difference in perspective. For example it’s very common that people trained under several teachers and only mention one as their teacher (the one where they trained longest, the most respected teacher, the one with the best lineage,  etc.). However, all the teachers will in turn say “he’s my student”. Also it was very common in the old days that the assistant was the one teaching and the sifu just sat, watched and gave some oral instructions. Who was the actual teacher then?

Since it’s mostly a difference in perspective, it’s hard to say one is lying and the other tells the truth. It’s a fact that in the different lineages different historical stories are told and it should not get into the way of the promotion and spreading of Hung Ga through the world.

In conclusion: The things written at this website are by no means the absolute truth. Some parts are just based on legends and some things might be seen very different in your own lineage.