What is WCK?

[Phenix]

Originally posted by PaulH
[B]Hendrik,

Do you ever feel like Winnie the pooh trying to explain to the swarm of angry bees that you are harmless really when you touch their honey? Some of your stuffs are just too close for comfort! Hope you don’t take me seriously. Go, Arnold!

Regards, [/B]

Go Arnold! hahaha. Life is a movie.

Read these from Sun tzu

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance
   to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either
   to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry
   which can on no account be neglected.

3. Now the general who wins a battle makes many
   calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.
   The general who loses a battle makes but few
   calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations
   lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat:
   how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention
   to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

4. Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may
   be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all;
   amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head
   or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat.

5. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline,
   simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness
   postulates strength.

The ancient sage said : ¬°¤Ñ¤U¥ß¤ß, ¬°ÉE¥@¶}¤Ó¤f
have you see anything without ¤ß or heart which stay long?

May be it is the time that we all have to work to ¬°¤Ñ¤U¥ß¤ß.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by yylee
[B]

the conspiracy lies between the contact point and the elbow, it is called a “lever” - hardcore physics right? [/B]

Sure, but it is said, ¤â±q¤ßµo. hand issue from heart (mind)

So, is it only hand or it is from Heart (mind) and with awareness?

[Phenix]

Re: ch-ch-ch-changes

[i]to you, thus retaining the essence of the system.

Extremely effective self-defense is, in a manner of thinking, a by-product of correct training. It is not the goal. True Wing Chun is the journey, not the destination.
[/B]

Good point!

[Phenix]

WCK represents the perfect harmony (balance/union) of:

• Combat: self defense,
• Health: Hei Gung/Faat Ging, and
• Philosophy: Chan Buddhism (Taoism, Confucianism, & Buddhism)…
  …where each of the three areas are consistently reflected in each other. WCK is a path where we are taught to better understand oneself through an objective approach to reality - ultimately leading oneself to a true identity. As far as I know, there are only two systems in the world that hold to these three areas. -----S

great.

and please elaborate the philosophy into precise and concise if possible? and also the two only systems in the world, we all like to know about it, right?

Similar to TaijiChuan’s philoshophy is TaiJi. Concise and precise.

If Taiji people starts with I-Ching Taoism, Lao Tzu, TCM… that is a way too messy, not focus, and gray . Don’t you think so?

All of the how’s and why’s and what’s to this answer I do not think are tolerable by the creator of this thread, so I’ll leave it at that. Thumbs up Duende and Woseung!—S

I don’t think anyone care about what the creator of this thread tolerable or not. If you have a reason, reason it out and show the factual evidents for the defence, so everyone can see, don’t you think that is a good way?

[Phenix]

Originally posted by yuanfen
[B]
Wing chun began in a Chinese setting. In differring proportions -
buddhism, daoism, military theory, theories of the body(TCM)
are interwoven in that setting and legacy.

Technology transfer can vary with understanding of that setting and teaching, learning and practice.. [/B]

Joy,

Great.
and once we build up and clear up the basic terms, the source ,and protocall . we can have a high speed transfer.

[ntc]

Phenix,

I can see where the other people are coming from. If you re-read your postings in your answers to questions addressed or information given, your style of answering, especially in its cryptic and generic, questioning manner, does tend to give one an impression that you consider yourself above all others, regardless whether it was your intent or not. And the more vocal people will come out and comment like they have, and it is not the case that they are trying to attack you or something like that, but they feel like they are trying to answer the question posed on this thread yet don’t feel you are quite doing the same. I think that if everyone stuck to specifics and really tried to share their own knowledge and wisdom WITHOUT forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others, that would help.

This is just an observation of mine, and not written as an intent to attack you or anyone else. I am Chinese, too, born and raised in China, have studied Lao Tzu and other Chinese philosophers like so many of you in this thread, and I believe a lot of good information is being shared here. Let’s not let our egos or communication styles get in the way.

By the way, I don’t recognize some of the usernames here, so in all likelihood, they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background and then flow back into your thougts of WCK.

[yylee]

Originally posted by Phenix
[B]

Sure, but it is said, ¤â±q¤ßµo. hand issue from heart (mind)

So, is it only hand or it is from Heart (mind) and with awareness? [/B]

that is called “conspiracies behind conspiracies”

shhhhhhh… don’t blow the cover!

[Phenix]

[NTC,

I can see where the other people are coming from.
If you re-read your postings in your answers to questions addressed or information given, your style of answering, especially in its cryptic and generic, questioning manner, does tend to give one an impression that you consider yourself above all others, regardless whether it was your intent or not. --NTC

Your observation can be true may be that is also your feeling which is perfectly valid.

Since I am not perfect, thus, certainly there is lots can be improve.

However, Cryptic of one person is plain and simple for others.
we all different.

with the Sun Tzu quoting I post here in details do you think that is Cryptic and generic?

As for above all others or not, it is people’s impression.

Say, if you are defending your thesis in front of your major professors and other students.
will you have confident ?
So, other students might see one as acting as above all others but in the reality it is about confident not about above others right?

And the more vocal people will come out and comment like they have, and it is not the case that they are trying to attack you
or something like that, but they feel like they are trying to answer the question posed on this thread yet don’t feel you are quite doing the same. —NTC

the more voice is the better.
Obviously, some will like what I say and some will not. I don’t get bother by it.

However,

As for it is a personal attack or not, if you re read the post and see who starts to make personal accusation and attacking?

As in Chinese it say, whoever is clean is clean.

I think that if everyone stuck to specifics and really tried to share their own knowledge and wisdom WITHOUT forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others, that would help.—NTC

Sure, agree.

however, as I bring up to you before.

not all Information is FACTS. and,
within FACTS is relevant or irrelevant.

Thus, presenting Relevant FACTS sure will be seem as forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others. Because in reality, subsconciously, we reject reality to protect our fantasy. And the best way to fight this is attacking the messenger instead of looking into the topic.

By the way, a collective of unrelated imformation is not Wisdom. Wisdom is the capability to see the whole and differentiate the information from the relevent facts. Sorry if this definition bother you.

This is just an observation of mine, and not written as an intent to attack you or anyone else. I am Chinese, too, born and raised in China, have studied Lao Tzu and other Chinese philosophers like so many of you in this thread, and I believe a lot of good information is being shared here. Let’s not let our egos or communication styles get in the way. —NTC

I certainly appreciate your opinion.
HOwever, since you are chinese, do you like to follow the some old Chinese attitude of Yes Man — everyone is great. and accept claim making without the support of facts?

It is easy to smooth everyone’s ego by agree with everything everyone making claim about to be budy budy.
But, does any one willing to talk about facts?

By the way, I don’t recognize some of the usernames here, so in all likelihood, they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background and then flow back into your thougts of WCK. —NTC

Thanks for you advise. However,

This post Started as What is WCK? and I post what is my view for the topic. NOT the truth of universe.

The rest everyone can elaborate. Thus, I don’t see what is my background matters. It is an open discussion.

Remember the wingchun saying? – learning has no senior or junior. He who masters the art is the teacher.

So, there might be new commer or new bee who is wise and presnet a great view.

Everyone can speak up what they feel, what they think, what they believe about the topic.

See, I don’t believe in people who set themself up to be the oldest , or sifu say’s , or the elder son with the secret teaching, and request the whole world to follow thier words, as it happen in old Chinese Culture where there is a Tribal structure.
We all see this type of structure doesn’t work from the history.
It prevents one to have free thinking, to explore and model reality better. the tribal type of structure only forcing people to say yes to any information given by the sifu —Sifu Says, we are the oldest. Sifu Says, our line is the best. Sifu Says… but then who can guarentee sifu is not lying or making up stories and sifu himself has no abilities to differentiate between facts and just imformation. I appology for being straigh here. But, do you think this type of system will grow?

What is your believe?

So, again, let’s not off topic
What is WCK philosophy for you? care to share?

[_Censored]

Casting pearls or throwing rocks? Sure, it’s all the same…to swine.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by [Censored]
Casting pearls or throwing rocks? Sure, it’s all the same…to swine.

if pearls are not throwing out in tons. when will one be able to differentiate between rock and pearls?

Things always has to start somewhere.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by yylee
[B]

that is called “conspiracies behind conspiracies”

shhhhhhh… don’t blow the cover! [/B]

See, in reality an elephant is just an elephant. That simple.
So, going through the different components of an elephant and showing the full picture of elephant is important.

Then, after had seen the elephant inside out. it is that simple. elephant is an elephant.

certainly, some will deny to see elephant because they love to study one single component of the elephant and call themself expert. and that is valid.

[ntc]

Originally posted by Phenix

OK… here are my responses to your post addressed to me:

[B]

Say, if you are defending your thesis in front of your major professors and other students.
will you have confident ?
So, other students might see one as acting as above all others but in the reality it is about confident not about above others right?

[/B]

–> There is a difference between confidence and humulity/respect for other’s opinions… the two should not be confused.

[B]

Thus, presenting Relevant FACTS sure will be seem as forcing or appear to be forcing their personal beliefs on others. Because in reality, subsconciously, we reject reality to protect our fantasy. And the best way to fight this is attacking the messenger instead of looking into the topic.
[/B]

–> What you have shared, you are saying that it is factual. You cannot disregard what others are saying as potentially non-factual unless they indicate that it was their own personal opinion. Quoting Lao Tzu is factual only as far as what Lao and the other philosophers have written… the interpretation will likely differ between individual, and therefore is only a fact that a certain individual interpreted it a certain way. ONLY the original author can really say what was originally intended to be meant at the time of writing.

By the way, a collective of unrelated imformation is not Wisdom. Wisdom is the capability to see the whole and differentiate the information from the relevent facts. Sorry if this definition bother you.

–> What makes you think this bothers me? Cause it does not, not the least bit. You have the right to define wisdom based on your blief, and I can respect that, just as much as I have the right to define wisdom based on my belief.

[B]

I certainly appreciate your opinion.
HOwever, since you are chinese, do you like to follow the some old Chinese attitude of Yes Man — everyone is great. and accept claim making without the support of facts?

[/B]

–> First of all, I find that statement somewhat condescending and disrespectful to Chinese in general, so I don’t really appreciate the remark. And that is not just for myself. I don’t know which China you are referring to by stating that “old Chinese attitude of Yes Man”, cause that is defnitely NOT an attitude found in the China I was born in !!! Yes, you do respect your elders and try not to argue with them as much, but that is out of respect for them as elders and NOT a MUST. In fact, I have found much more disagreements and confrontations amongst Chinese people than I have seen here in the US. Why do you think there was so much warring going on in China over the centuries… one of the key reasons was that there were points to prove and people were NOT yes-man. If they had been yes-man, everyone would have been slaves to the current emperor at the time, and events like the Tiannamen massacre would not have existed! Maybe the Chinese that you have encountered were Yes-man type, which is unfortunate for you because that is soooooo not true for Chinese in general.

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have “an old attitude of being yes-man”, that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience.

[B]

It is easy to smooth everyone’s ego by agree with everything everyone making claim about to be budy budy.
But, does any one willing to talk about facts?

[/B]

–> I don’t think everyone is trying to be “budy budy”… just more civil and respectful of each other’s opinions, and making these discussion beneficial to everyone. Most people (and correct me whoever thinks I am wrong) are interested in and open to discussing facts. You don’t have to go further than follow the discussion threads on the true history of WC. But is is when real facts mixed with perceived facts and pushed as the real stuff that will create controversies.

[B]

This post Started as What is WCK? and I post what is my view for the topic. NOT the truth of universe.

[/B]

–> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins… what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions… just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion.

[B]

The rest everyone can elaborate. Thus, I don’t see what is my background matters. It is an open discussion.

[/B]

–> Like you said, it is an open discussion. Perhaps people might want to know your background because you are apparently sharing a lot of information and people are genuinely interested in following in your footsteps. Maybe people think you are an idiot and want to avoid where you came from. Maybe people feel some common bond with you and your thoughts and wanted to validate this via your background. Who knows? Maybe people are wondering if you are a Taoist priest? Maybe people are wondering if you are a professional philosopher? a professional fighter? All this will stem as people become interested in what you are saying. After all, didn’t you first read the philosopher’s writings because they were well-known teachers of philosophy of their time and that caught your attention in the first place? There are soooo many books on philosophy out there… why did you not pick any of the others? (again, I am not looking for your answer… just trying to make a point)

[B]

See, I don’t believe in people who set themself up to be the oldest , or sifu say’s , or the elder son with the secret teaching, and request the whole world to follow thier words, as it happen in old Chinese Culture where there is a Tribal structure.
We all see this type of structure doesn’t work from the history.
It prevents one to have free thinking.

[/B]

–> Again, I don’t agree with you on this. Tribal communities do exist, I admit, and it is nowhere more obvious than in Chinatown communities. However, that does not imply that there are no free thinking… it merely indicates that there are certain families of thought that are used as a basis of reasoning. A good example is republican versus democratic versus communist (etc.). They are everywhere… do they prevent free thinking? Not necessarily, but they do provide the guidelines based on which reasoning and actions are taken. This is practiced by everyone from all walks of like in everyday life.

I have one more comment to make. Please don’t underestimate the knowledge that people who come to these threads have about Chinese (and Asian) culture in general. Some of them, though not Asian, have spent a lifetime’s worth or close to them being very involved with our culture, and know much about it. And, just because we were born over there and not here in the US, that does not make us all-knowing either. By openly discussing with folks, we can all learn a great deal from all. And again, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE “Buddy Buddy” with everyone… I am just very interested in sharing thoughts and ideas, which is why I came here in the first place. I did not come here to confront anyone… there is enough of that in the street, and I can look there if I ever want to pick a fight with someone.

[Phenix]

NTC

–> What you have shared, you are saying that it is factual.

You cannot disregard what others are saying as potentially non-factual unless they indicate that it was their own personal opinion. --NTC

Sun Tzu is a factual of Chinese art or War philosophy for more then 2000 years old. disregards of personal opinion right?

And, it is beyong anyone’s opinion that the Sun Tzu exist and within it does record philosophy used in WCK right?

Quoting Lao Tzu is factual only as far as what Lao and the other philosophers have written… the interpretation will likely differ between individual, and therefore is only a fact that a certain individual interpreted it a certain way. ONLY the original author can really say what was originally intended to be meant at the time of writing. —NTC

Factual and original are different things.

–> First of all, I find that statement somewhat condescending and disrespectful to Chinese in general, so I don’t really appreciate the remark. And that is not just for myself. I don’t know which China you are referring to by stating that “old Chinese attitude of Yes Man”, cause that is defnitely NOT an attitude found in the China I was born in !!!

please re read my post. you must be reading too fast.

" SOME OLD Chinese attitude of Yes Man " not ALL.

If you read the Chinese histories, be it in Soong Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty … the Royal generals or officials always executed by the emperors. and the YEs man and sweet talker always in high position. Why?

Yes, you do respect your elders and try not to argue with them as much, but that is out of respect for them as elders and NOT a MUST. —NTC

To be fillia and respect elderly is great characteristic of Chinese.
Without the root, or the source of the water. there is no tree or water.

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have “an old attitude of being yes-man”, that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. —NTC

Again, it is record in the history we can see what happen there.

I just bring up the case, and you focus on " It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. " which is not nessary right?

–> I don’t think everyone is trying to be “budy budy”… just more civil and respectful of each other’s opinions, and making these discussion beneficial to everyone.

Most people (and correct me whoever thinks I am wrong) are interested in and open to discussing facts.

You don’t have to go further than follow the discussion threads on the true history of WC.

But is is when real facts mixed with perceived facts and pushed as the real stuff that will create controversies.— NTC

I agree with you.

–> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins… what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions… just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion. --NTC

If you re read my post, instead of those side track post, I think you will have a good idea of what and how things are. Needs some thoughts and see if you agree with me.

–> Like you said, it is an open discussion. Perhaps people might want to know your background because you are apparently sharing a lot of information and people are genuinely interested in following in your footsteps.

Maybe people think you are an idiot and want to avoid where you came from.

Maybe people feel some common bond with you and your thoughts and wanted to validate this via your background. Who knows?

Maybe people are wondering if you are a Taoist priest? Maybe people are wondering if you are a professional philosopher? a professional fighter? All this will stem as people become interested in what you are saying.

After all, didn’t you first read the philosopher’s writings because they were well-known teachers of philosophy of their time and that caught your attention in the first place? There are soooo many books on philosophy out there… why did you not pick any of the others? (again, I am not looking for your answer… just trying to make a point) -NTC

Honestly, I careless about who am I. If the idea I post sound interesting to anyone dig in, if not just leave it out.

I post this topic up so that everyone can present from different wide angle is the bottom line.

I have one more comment to make. —NTC

Sure all comment are welcome.

Please don’t underestimate the knowledge that people who come to these threads have about Chinese (and Asian) culture in general. Some of them, though not Asian, have spent a lifetime’s worth or close to them being very involved with our culture, and know much about it. And, just because we were born over there and not here in the US, that does not make us all-knowing either. By openly discussing with folks, we can all learn a great deal from all. And again, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE “Buddy Buddy” with everyone… I am just very interested in sharing thoughts and ideas, which is why I came here in the first place. I did not come here to confront anyone… there is enough of that in the street, and I can look there if I ever want to pick a fight with someone. --NTC

Good point. Understood and thanks.

Certainly,
It will be great for the experts to steps in because rising the bar is a great things.

BUt, you still own me on

What is WCK philosophy for you? care to share?

[taltos]

Thank You NTC

NTC,

Well done! Your points were non-confrontational, timely, and appropriate for everyone here. Very commendable. You set a good baseline for us all.

FWIW, I am a Caucasian American Born and Raised. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Anthropology, with a minor in Religous Studies and History. I specialized my course work in Asian Studies. I have been studying the Yip Man Lineage of Wing Chun through the Ving Tsun Museum’s Curriculum since 1997, and I have been studying the Hung Fa Yi Lineage of Wing Chun since 2000. I am also a practicing Buddhist.

Not that any of that gives me any credibility or authority whatsoever, but as you said, “they may not know your martial arts, philosophy, Wing Chun background. It might help if you refreshed everyone on your own background.” Although that wasn’t specifically directed at me, it is certainly appropriate to all.

So, I believe the original question was “What is WCK?” Well, to me Wing Chun Kuen is the collection of principles and concepts that facilitates maximum fighting efficiency for the human form. I could go on and on with the internal aspects, the philosophy, et al, but that’s the end product to me, so that’s the heart of the matter to me.

Thank you again for a grounding post.

-Levi

[Phenix]

Levi,

Great, since you have a great back ground.

So care to share

What is WCK philosophy for you?

say , in the form as Taiji for Taijichuan?

[PaulH]

I have a distinct impression that this thread is a moving testimony of that famous poetic line: “How do I love thee, let me show you a few things…”

Touching on WC philosophy, I am impressed again by that marvelous Lebanese genius, K. Gilbran who independently arrive at the core of the whole WC matter, i.e., individual freedom.

"On Freedom

And an orator said, “Speak to us of Freedom.”

And he answered:

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,

Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.

Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.

And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.

You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,

But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?

In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.

And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?

If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.

You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.

And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.

For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?

And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.

And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.

Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.

These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.

And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.

And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom. "

Change or Freedom. Take your pick. I’m easy going. Ha! Ha!

[taltos]

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking in terms of “say , in the form as Taiji for Taijichuan?”, but how about this:

TO ME, the core philosophy of Wing Chun is to perceive and acknowledge reality. In manifestation, this has two facets:

In application, Wing Chun is designed to address what is REAL and what is EFFICIENT.

In training, the methodologies of Wing Chun are designed to expose and eliminate what is ILLUSION and what is UNNECCESSARY.

Combat is no place to discover what works and what doesn’t, and training is no place to fight until the fatal, bitter end. The progenitors of Wing Chun realized this, and managed to create a system that allowed both facets if the art to be expressed and realized without one contradicting the other, or without the need of multiple philosophies. That, in and of itself, is a magnificent accomplishment. However, the only way those two facets can function in tandem is when the student has the proper mindset, and is aware of WHAT they are doing, and WHY, at all times. Without this proper mind set, the system and the methodologies can be corrupted and perverted, with the effect ranging from a simple personal expression of a minor difference, to entirely new forms and lineages.

From where I stand right now in my Kung Fu Journey, that’s how things look to me.

-Levi

[ntc]

Taltos: thank you, and it is really great to hear that you are into Buddhism. I think that there is a lot to be said about how the Buddhists approach life in general, and the resulting harmony and tranquility that comes from the approach.

[ntc]

Phenix: thanks for the reply and I appreciate the feedback. Here are my comments:

Originally posted by Phenix
[B]

And, it is beyong anyone’s opinion that the Sun Tzu exist and within it does record philosophy used in WCK right?

[/B]

–> in general, I will agree with you on this, because the discussed philosophy of war is definitely used by martial artists who have a good solid foundation of the art of war, like most of us here. However, there will be some people who are not into/ignore the philosophical aspects of this and who focus ONLY/MAINLY on how defeat/maim/hurt the opponent. Regarding these people, I will disagree with you that it is beyond ANYONE’S opinion, because this group of people will have the opinion that Sun Tzu does not exist. Period. Regarding Sun Tzu in WCK, since his works pertain to martial arts in general, and WCK being one of the arts, it would definitely have a belonging there.

[B]

Factual and original are different things.

[/B]

–> Agree only to a certain extent, because the origin of something cannot be denied and are part of factuals. Other factuals may result over time (such as… did Yip Man really learn WCK and teach WCK? the answer is of course “yes”, but this has no correlation to how/when Wing Chun was born. Both are facts, and one is both a fact and original)

[B]

If you read the Chinese histories, be it in Soong Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty … the Royal generals or officials always executed by the emperors. and the YEs man and sweet talker always in high position. Why?

[/B]

–> Remember that NOT everyone in China was in the military or belonged to the government. For those in the government, the way how the emperors rules was via intimidation and fear… if you obey, you will be ok, if not, then beware. Pretty much the same that happened in Iraq. However, there were also a lot of people who were not in the government. I am sure most everyone in this thread have read about uprising against the emperors and governors in olden days China… these are definitely NOT yes-man.

[B]

Again, here is a good example of fact versus fiction. Just because you have the impression (maybe based on your own experience) that Chinese have “an old attitude of being yes-man”, that does not make it a fact because it IS NOT. It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. —NTC

Again, it is record in the history we can see what happen there.

I just bring up the case, and you focus on " It is merely your interpretation of something of a perceived fact based on your own experience. " which is not nessary right?

[/B]

–> My point was raised not out of confrontation purposes, but to indicate that unless it is clear whether a point you made is your own interpretation or an actual fact supported by evidence, you will very likely stir up a possible controversy and challenges by others in a negative way.

[B]

–> Good that you are sharing YOUR point of view. But here is where the confusion begins… what part of what you have been saying is YOUR own interpretation, what part is YOUR claim of it to be factual with easily accessible evidence, and what part is YOUR claim that it is LIKELY factual? I AM NOT LOOKING for your answers to these questions… just trying to point out how some of the information you are posting seem to be getting lost or misconstrued. In any case, it does not hurt to clarify at all times your own personal take on things, whether it is a fact (and like you said, what/where the evidence source is), or whether it is mererly your own opinion. --NTC

If you re read my post, instead of those side track post, I think you will have a good idea of what and how things are. Needs some thoughts and see if you agree with me.

[/B]

–> I agree and disagree with you. However one thing is clear, there are people on this thread and elsewhere who are somewhat uncomfortable with some of your posts, and maybe all it takes is some clarification and everything will be ok. Good communication is not easy, and it does not take much to mis-communicate. Some form of clarification is always never too many and is oftentimes welcome to promote clear, precise communication.

[B]

Honestly, I careless about who am I. If the idea I post sound interesting to anyone dig in, if not just leave it out.

[/B]

Well, the same should hold true for everyone, including yourself and myself. Like you said as well, everyone has his/her own opinion, and we should respect that. If there is something you don’t buy into, you can always leave it out. If you have something worth discussing, table it. However, things are different when you try to (or appear to try to) make a point that is THE correct point. That is when things get stirred up. I personally don’t take an interest in your background at all… I like reading some of your posts. But I can definitely see how some of the posts can come across to you trying to show that you are the one with the correct answers. And based on our discussion, it seems like this is far from the truth, in which case, it won’t hurt to just add some form of clarification.

[passing_through]

Hendrik,

For me the core philosophy of WCK is Sun TZu the art of War. The back ground of Sun Tzu is I-Ching. and the implementation is WCK.

Your statement is unnecessarily vague. There are (at least) two possible readings:

1. The core philosophy of WCK is Sun Tzu’s Art of War (the background of Sun Tzu is I-Ching) and the implementation (of Sun Tzu’s Art of War) is WCK.

2. The core philosophy of WCK is Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The background of Sun Tzu is the I-Ching. The implementation (of The I-Ching) is WCK.

Statement 1 can be reduced to Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu Art of War
Statement 2 can be reduced to Wing Chun = Implementation of I-Ching

Now, for the sake of argument, suppose my take on Sun Tzu is not as Philosophy but as simple, practical military thinking of a strategic nature. As such, I can find correlation between Sun Tzu and quite a variety of topics, even when the author is wholly ignorant of the Art of War. By way of analogy, there is such a book as “The Tao of Pooh” discussing the nature of Taoism through the medium of a storybook bear’s actions - but this does not mean that A.A. Milne was thinking of Taoism when he wrote the original stories.

But, regardless of all that above, and your follow-up posts you haven’t answered your own question. The best you’ve come is to state: WCK is an implementation of methodology based on Philoshophy.

Wow! What, in life and the real world, is NOT an implementation of methodology based on Philosophy?

You then went further stating, “Buddhism’s mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM is just a part of the unique implementation named WCK.” Is the I-Ching and Sun Tzu part of Buddhism? You’ve tried to argue that Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu Art of War and now you’re adding something else into the mix. If your addition is true, then you left out the % of WCK that is Buddhist based and the % is I-Ching based from your initial argument.

Also, if your addition is true, then your initial position (Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu ) is false. You’ve stated numerous times that Buddhism espouses non-killing as a virtue (not in those words, but words to that effect). Therefore, the study of war and Buddhism are antithesis of each other. As an aside, Sun Tzu is I-Ching based not Buddhist based (you’re conjecture). Therefore, you can’t hold Wing Chun = Implementation of Sun Tzu + Buddhism’s mind cultivation/white crane/ TCM as valid because the logic contradicts itself.

Should your initial position have been, Wing Chun = unique implementation of Sun Tzu’s Art of War WITH Buddhism’s mind cultivation/white crane/TCM)? If so, that begs a question: Can there be other arts that are differently unique implementations of the same? Or… ah well, these questions are just Hell, aren’t they?

As for it is a personal attack or not, if you re read the post and see who starts to make personal accusation and attacking?

Um.. re-reading this whole thread, in school yard parlance “you started it.” And we’ve been down that road before. Rather than simply state what you have to state, you try to get in some crack at others. Very mature.

“no new paradigm shift at the end of Ming dynasty, if yes, one can brought that phylosophy up”

Yes (Saam Mo Kiu) - which has been discussed to death on this form and gone nowhere. You refuse to accept any proofs except those you deem worthy – which means there is no discussion possible. You’re right, all else are wrong because you have different standards of evidence. When something is posted from someone with which you disagree, you challenge the credibility of the source. When the same action is turned to you, you cry out that you’re being attacked personally.

As for being Cryptic… you’re certainly not clean. But I’m not Chinese. And your constant mention of being Chinese is ultimately an ad Hominem attack. By asking if people are Chinese you’re questioning the capability of the person, not their argument. Odd that you do what you complain others are doing to you. Seems to me that if something is wrong, it’s wrong. Asking their level of training/familiarity with Chinese classics also can become an ad Hominem attack very easily (How much have you studied “classic X” because anyone with any knowledge would know you’re saying something stupid.") - it becomes an appeal to authority, which is also a fallacy.

And finally,

if so certainly method will have to be UPDATE every era since environment Changes.

In regards to environment: f=ma is correct unless we have to factor in gravity or moving at relativistic speeds. However, factoring in gravity or moving at relativistic speeds does not “change the environment” in regards to f=ma - it includes factors that were always part of the environment, but which are usually safe to ignore. When Einstein came up with relativity and special relativity he didn’t change the Universe. He only changed the human understanding of the Universe by adding more variables. However, this new understanding only becomes relevant when moving at relativistic speeds or caught in an extreme gravitation force like when “skimming” black holes (which may or may not exist).

if you want the relativistic version of F=ma, it’s F= d/dt (mv), or it can also be written as F=dp/dt, where p=mv. If you want to understand it, the acceleration a in the original form can also be written as dv/dt, the derivative of velocity over time. The Newtonian version assumes that the mass m is constant; the relativistic version simply moves the mass into the derivative so that the mass can also vary over time (if the mass remains constant, the equation reduces to the Newtonian version). You can convert from invariant mass to relativistic mass with the equation: mr = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Put more generally, you made as assertion about the Taiji… can the TAIJI change? Not the human understanding of the manifestations of the TAIJI, but the TAIJI itself. If “all is change” - can “all is change” be changed? Your assertion is false.

No formular works all the time and forever in real life.

In regards to formula: Quadratic formula works all the time for the purpose for which it exists. Your assertion is false.

Before attacking a concept, you should make sure you understand it in the first place rather than attacking a straw man. And as been touched on before, the formula has been discussed to the point that more words are meaningless. To understand the formula, take a trip and experience it for yourself. There’s a HFY workshop this weekend in Phoenix - gonna talk about HFY, history and Chan… might make for an interesting weekend for some of the KFO members.

Jeremy R.