|
Post by TenTigers on Mar 1, 2005 9:26:08 GMT -5
Good point Patrick. To draw a comparison, I am personally pretty eclectic in my spiritual beliefs-kind of Taoist/Jewish (Taoish?) My wife is Taoist as well. Not to compare religious beliefs, but I recall my mother telling me that one of the things that separates Jews from many other sects is the fact that they do not anthropomorphocise (sp?) God. In believing in something that is totally infinite, which is inconceivable to the human mind, Jews rely totally on faith. If we draw a comparison to martial arts, and ch'i-gung, without total faith, would it be at all possible to acheive higher levels?
|
|
|
Post by essence on Mar 1, 2005 10:54:16 GMT -5
Good day people.
That is a very good point raised by Patrick. There is a difference between knowledge and belief, for knowing something does not necessarily mean you believe in it.
TenTigers has a very good point too, and I believe that as Christians, we too are told to have, for lack of a better phrase, blind faith. To just believe.
To me, I find that with the knowledge, I am able to better comprehend the bigger picture. And from this, I am able to accept what the system is in its entirety and therefore, although I myself do not practise the religious aspect of the art, I know what the Yin is to the Yang and I try to apply it from my own understanding, as the basis of Buddhism and Christianity is selfless sacrifice to leave the world behind. The Buddhists practise meditation, in my own form, I go to the Lord in prayer. Thus, I hope to be able to achieve the religious aspect of the art in my own terms.
Another very real aspect to this is, to those who believe, it exists, to those who don't believe, it doesn't. This was always told to me by elders, with both martial and religious implications. If you don't believe that there is such a thing as Chi, how can you try to cultivate it? If you do not believe in yourself, how can you hope to achieve success in martial arts?
Warmest regards, Tze Hou
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 1, 2005 12:11:50 GMT -5
Hello. I am very glad you mentioned the specific case of chi. I was just having a discussion earlier this evening with a fellow student here about chi – and how much of a factor belief was in tapping into its potential. One line of thought was that if someone was instructed in the proper techniques and methods, then cultivating chi would be the end product, irrespective of whether someone explicitly believed in it; the other was that belief was fundamental in realizing its power (debate ongoing). Within this we discussed definitions of chi, in particular how we could conceptualize it in a manner which makes sense to us within our logic of how the world and human body work (we are both from western backgrounds). But I see ultimate failure in attempts to rationalize something like chi. I must admit that my experience is very limited, but it seems to me that chi is an important aspect of many traditional Chinese arts, and that it is not readily translatable into different cultural, scientific, or other paradigms – like many other concepts in traditional Chinese martial arts. Therefore attempts to ‘understand it’ are futile if they are based upon fitting it within other established conceptions that some of us are perhaps more familiar and/or comfortable with, such as western physiology, or physics. It is not part of those fields of study, as it straddles a line between physical and spiritual (and perhaps cosmological and intellectual?) – a division which seems to be much more fluid in some cultures than in others. Point being how we understand something resonates within systems of belief, and what we believe equally affects understanding. One can feel they understand something, and base belief upon that understanding – and yet be no where close to the truth. To steer this back to the topic of this tread, I imagine that there are many things that derive from the accumulated wisdom of Shaolin monastic traditions – things that were/are most likely taken for granted by Shaolin monks - that many modern day practitioners, including some who are firmly ‘traditional,’ either don’t know about, or don’t believe fully. We all begin the journey from different starting points and different backgrounds, some further from Shaolin and its core of beliefs than others. In the absence of actually going through the monastic experience, and sharing fully in those beliefs, it strikes me that it is inevitable that we all must strive to, as Tze Hou said, achieve aspects of the arts in our own terms. However, that brings up the questions: how much of ourselves do we bring into the art through this process, and what is the inevitable impact of this? From reading posts on this forum it is clear that respecting and preserving traditional arts is on many of the contributors minds...it would be most interesting to hear how such things can be reconciled. Sorry if I have rambled on for too long.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Patrick
|
|
|
Post by essence on Mar 2, 2005 4:20:54 GMT -5
Good day Patrick.
IMHO, if the practitioner does not believe in the existence of something like Chi, I do not believe that Chi will be cultivated. The manipulation of Chi comes straight to mind, if one does not believe that one is able to do so and does fails to visualise the Chi travelling, how can one possibly cultivate it?
As many people say, to make the Chi travel to your hands for example, you may utilise "Yi" or intention. How will this be possible if in the first place, one does not believe that such a thing exists?
Also, if the practitioner refuses to accept the fact that Chi is cultivated via the Dan Tian and/or refuses to accept that such a thing as the Dan Tian exists, the cultivation of Chi will not be possible.
In response to your final question, how much of ourselves do we bring into the art, I will quote Sifu Ling who quotes Bruce Lee, "My truth cannot be your truth". Whatever and wherever the art leads you to be, it is your own personal journey and achievement. There was and only will be on Tit Kiu Sam, just the same as there was and only will be one Fang Chi Niang. No 2 players will have the same end result.
Warmest regards, Tze Hou
|
|
|
Post by Suhana LIM on Mar 2, 2005 4:54:19 GMT -5
Hello, Furthermore, there seems to be a growing separation within Chinese society, in which many of the younger generations are no longer as interested in retaining what they have inherited from the past. At its root, I am interested in just how holistic traditional Chinese martial arts are, and what the implications are of 1) selecting certain parts while neglecting others, and 2) viewing Kung Fu as a system of fighting rather than as a complete all-encompassing lifestyle. Any thoughts on the subject would be most welcome. All the best, Patrick Patrick ni hao In regards to the younger generations, yes it's something natural and common, and I am sure happened not only in the Chinese community. The younger people tend to adopt, try something more "modern", something different. But usually when they grow older (and wiser), they will have different idea and opinion. Been there myself. In an era when everything done instantly, training martial art also similar. People don't have the passion to go through the proper way like it used to be. Let alone learning the other aspect of the culture. It is understandable. But if one take the Chinese martial art as a seperate lesson (without learn or at least understand the other aspects), it will take longer and harder to grasp the esssence of the art. Not to mention he will miss the big picture. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Suhana LIM on Mar 2, 2005 5:02:53 GMT -5
Good day people. There is a difference between knowledge and belief, for knowing something does not necessarily mean you believe in it. TenTigers has a very good point too, and I believe that as Christians, we too are told to have, for lack of a better phrase, blind faith. To just believe. Warmest regards, Tze Hou Tze Hou ni hao Pardon me for saying this. But IMHO, it is not easy to explain everything using the scientific / knowledge terms . In reality, we have to accept that not everything has to have "proof" in order to be valid. Especially if we talk about religion or belief matter. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by essence on Mar 2, 2005 9:14:05 GMT -5
Good day Suhana.
That is my point exactly, that not everything can be proven with science. There is much more to this world than science can explain.
A very good point was taught to me recently. If we all live within the confines of the laws of physics, how can we experience everything that physics does not encompass?
Warmest regards, Tze Hou
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 2, 2005 12:04:02 GMT -5
Hello Tze Hou and Suhana. Many thanks for your replies. Just wanted to send a quick follow-up. I have heard the same quote from Sifu Ling, most likely in response to a similar question! I certainly agree with you Suhana that younger generations the world over seem to share the same inclination to search for something new and different - often for the sake of being new and different. I did not mean to imply that it was restricted to the Chinese community. I too sense that there is a falling interest (world over) in things that do not provide some measure of immediate reward, tangible success, or quick gratification. It is a true shame as many of the cultural traditions that are most worth continuing require dedication and sustained effort. It is heartening to see so many people in places like this forum who value and put in considerable efforts to preserve and celebrate traditional arts.
On a different note, I find it hard to separate monastic traditions and associated monastic lifestyles. I was wondering if people out there have any thoughts/comments/ideas about the relationship between traditional lifestyles that might have been associated with kung fu players in the past, and the abilities of those players to develop themselves in the arts? In the absence of assuming a ‘traditional’ lifestyle – fully embedded within the cultural traditions, actions, values, etc. of the ancestors TCMA, what can be done to better understand the essence of the art – or is that an impossibility?
Good night! Patrick
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 2, 2005 18:48:15 GMT -5
Good Day Gentlemen,
This discussion will be "tolerated" for as long as nobody suggest that I got to be a monk or a Crane to fully attain Shaolin or White Crane..hehehe ;D ;D ;D
Find the monk or the Crane in your "reality". Didn't the Buddha said this; it's easy to stay "pristine and proper" behind monastic walls but the real world is where the truth is.
And if I don't go thru hell, who would ?
Errh Buddha said that, not me.
Me?
If I don't prove that Carlsberg and Kung Fu are okay, who would?? hehehe
I'll drink to that - Kang Pei!!
|
|
Leon
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by Leon on Mar 2, 2005 21:49:58 GMT -5
Besides Shaolin, are there any other temples which practise martial arts?
I am not sure about Shaolin, but in any religion, there will always be physical and spiritual connection.
For example, in Christianity, why is it normal for to hold one's hands in a 'cup' posture when praying? Whereas in Muslim religion, prayer is done with open palms.
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 2, 2005 22:45:56 GMT -5
Besides Shaolin, are there any other temples which practise martial arts? Many many my dear friend. I will post some of these later. Apparently, mountains and temples are kind of like hubs of CKF - at least according to kung Fu novels I read growing up. And I am not just talking Shaolin,Wudang,Emei,KunLun etc........
|
|
|
Post by Suhana LIM on Mar 3, 2005 4:46:14 GMT -5
Hello Tze Hou and Suhana. Many thanks for your replies. Just wanted to send a quick follow-up. I have heard the same quote from Sifu Ling, most likely in response to a similar question! I certainly agree with you Suhana that younger generations the world over seem to share the same inclination to search for something new and different - often for the sake of being new and different. I did not mean to imply that it was restricted to the Chinese community. I too sense that there is a falling interest (world over) in things that do not provide some measure of immediate reward, tangible success, or quick gratification. It is a true shame as many of the cultural traditions that are most worth continuing require dedication and sustained effort. It is heartening to see so many people in places like this forum who value and put in considerable efforts to preserve and celebrate traditional arts. On a different note, I find it hard to separate monastic traditions and associated monastic lifestyles. I was wondering if people out there have any thoughts/comments/ideas about the relationship between traditional lifestyles that might have been associated with kung fu players in the past, and the abilities of those players to develop themselves in the arts? In the absence of assuming a ‘traditional’ lifestyle – fully embedded within the cultural traditions, actions, values, etc. of the ancestors TCMA, what can be done to better understand the essence of the art – or is that an impossibility? Good night! Patrick Patrick ni hao I will try to give you one simple example regarding the relation between Chinese martial art and other aspects of Chinese culture. In the past, a sifu do not teach only martial techniques, he also teach a way of life. A sifu will not only teach his student how to do ma bu / horse stance, punch and kick, but also he will guide in character building of the student. Honesty, loyalty, humility, to name a few. In Chinese value, being humble is very important. We almost never meet a genuine master will thump his chest and proclaim himself master, number one, and other self-praised title. Being down to earth is essential . NO REAL QUALIFIED MASTER WILL BOAST TO EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. Humility is one of the "trademarks" of qualified sifu. By only learning martial art itself, and neglecting the other aspect of Chinese tradition, culture, values, etc, no wonder these days we find so many instant "masters" thumping their chests boasting about their portfolio ;D Gone is the honor of paying tribute to your sifu rather taking the credit for yourself. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 3, 2005 12:11:47 GMT -5
Hello Suhana,
Excellent points about character. Learning the arts without consideration of those aspects would seem very superficial and hollow.
All the best,
Patrick
|
|
|
Post by TenTigers on Mar 3, 2005 14:28:25 GMT -5
Eric, I would love to see a thread regarding Temples that teach CMA. I had a student who went to Mo-Dong for a month. He learned a gim set, and some type of tai-chi form, but I am wondering if this temple has not turned into a tourist trap, filling it with "monks" who are in actuality, only contemporary wu-shu performers, such as in Shaolin, and the "authentic wu-dang sword form" is something that was put together from wu-shu competition sets. Ever since 'Crouching Tiger hidden Dragon", wu-dang sword is becoming a catch-phrase, and I am sure now there will be Wu-Dang "Masters" coming out of the woodwork. I suspect the same thing is happening, or will happen with Ngor-Mei, Hua-san,etc. -Rik
|
|
|
Post by ambisinister on Mar 3, 2005 16:21:27 GMT -5
Hello All, Nice discussion in regards to faith, the question that arises to me from such an idea is faith in what? I have a nice sifu story that touches on this, A new student turns to his teacher and asks ‘why so much suffering, why does <god of your choice> not practice miracles and help the people of this world’ The teacher smiles and responds ‘In your thinking it is a miracle if god does man’s bidding, in mine it is a miracle when man does gods bidding’<br> this statement leads onto the other point you discussed that of ‘acceptance’. IMHO practitioners of marshal arts can gain a lot from giving themselves to their chosen art in terms of development, skill and most importantly self observation. If we do not do this we might well find ourselves bouncing of our ego reducing our opportunity for self observation and all that draws from that. - [IMHO] - On the additional topic of ‘Chi’ I have found that most conversations around this topic draw to the more esoteric levels of chi manifestation and less regard is given to the basic aspects. Chi is often talked about as an abstract idea, those amongst you that have some TCM training will know that chi is not at all abstract. One interesting definition is that of Chi and Blood, it is said that where there is blood there is chi, that they are one and the same thing (this has some really interesting implications in regards the chi-gong aspects of our training). It can readily be said from a TCM position that our existence/survival is based from our ability to process chi from breath and when mixed with chi from food create the chi to drive our organs and thus the manifestation of chi in different forms (organs, bone, etc) to balance the chi energy system known as the body in all to support the driver of the body (shen). (all these different forms of chi have specific names). I find this a hugely holistic approach that also touches on another point mentioned in this thread i.e. the Jewish believe of god as totally infinite, (this is a view shared by other groups and in my case a Christian belief) with this thought in mind one could extrapolate that if our existence is based on the different manifestations of Chi to hold shen then why not other animals and other compounds until we see that the whole universe is Chi (energy) manifested in different ways or a more scientific way as energy at different levels of vibration encompassing the divine <god of your choice>, a stretch to far perhaps but it is an interesting idea ) Touching on Patrick’s other point
|
|