(Physiological) Alchemy and TCMA

[mixjourneyman]

Formosa Dave: I didn't really want to get too involved in this thread, since I don't see a whole lot positive coming from it, but here goes. We didn't ask my teacher to make that post. He saw what Miro wrote and was deeply offended by it. Why was he offended? Because Miro took the basic concept of CMA and twisted it to his own particular means. The response was very level headed and had some good information in it. No one is asking you to accept or not accept whatever he wrote.
If you have a problem with our school, thats your problem, but when you bring it out in the open like that, you also make it our problem too.
No one from our school thinks our teacher is Jesus. Thats just ridiculous. However, we do respect his opinion and if he wants to make a statement on here we are happy to accommodate him. Its really no different than lets say some prominent board members treating people like master He with reverence. Actually, it is a little different, because we aren't cock riding.
I know a few people have a problem with our school, but I know lots of other people like us and appreciate what our teacher has to say about subjects like this.

[Walter Joyce]

Miw,

I don't think Miro is the first person ever to advance the concepts he advanced. I have read more than once that fighting skills are considered a low level means to resolve conflict in Chinese philosophy, particularly in Lao Tzu if I remember correctly. I think the reason some people may have taken offense to Miro's post is because they are at a stage in their life where fighting, and their identity as a fighter is a central concept or premise of world view.

Personally I agree with Miro that there are many other aspects of people that are equally, if not more important, than fighting ability. I also believe this viewpoint is a strong component in Chinese philosophy. We are multidimensional beings. As much as I personally like to believe that I possess fighting skill, I also am at a place in my life where I am more interested in achieving a sense of harmony with my environment and with the universe and its principals than I am in entering into conflicts or kicking someones ass.

As for posts from your teacher and recations to it from board members, that is a delicate topic.

As I understand the protocol here discussions about lineage and who you train with and which style or method is better than others have been discouraged because of the inherent problems that arise from those discussions. If s teacher chooses to post his or her view on the board, either directly or through a third party then my understanding is that it is subject to the same treatment as ny other post. Forum members can choose to agree or disagree with their viewpoint as they see fit and shouldn't have to be concerned with the repercussions of their disagreement.

We probably all recall the debacle that resulted from trying to escalate disagreements over methods and lineage into real life confrontations, and as far as I'm concerned there is still egg on a few faces here and at the lesser incarnation of this board at another web site.

Simply put, calling Miro to task for a viewpoint that is valid within the cultural landscape of China is just attacking the messenger and really not addressing the substance of the argument. Even among those that disagree with Miro many have conceded the validity of the general substance of his argument and have argued mainly with the edges of and details of how he presented the argument. We all see things differently by nature and we are all entitled to our opinions.

As for deference to a particular poster because they may be a teacher, sorry, but I treat everyones posts here the same. I respect everyones right to post and will disagree with viewpoints regardless of the poster. I've spent over 25 years training in various arts and am comfortable enough with my own physical and theoretical foundations to call 'em as I see 'em. I still have an open mind, but I am not about to ignore my own inner voice.

I just want to add that this thread has reminded me of two things. First, despite my experience and training there are vast bodies of knowledge that I know basically nothing about. Second, the depth of knowledge and experience on this board is truly amazing, and it is from threads like this that I feel I have learned the most.

Finally, like Shawn said, if you aren't looking for something odds are you won't find it. For me given the choice between being the greatest fighter on the planet and being the most enlightened one, I'd choose the latter without hesitation. And as Kevin and Formosa (sorry I forgot your first name ) pointed out, if I ever got to the point where that choice was before me I'd realize that the two things are not mutually exclusive, unless I decide they are. In many ways (I'm not ready to say in all ways at this point) we do choose our own reality.

[mixjourneyman]

Walter: maybe I wasn't clear enough. Like I said, I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with what my teacher says. I said what I said because in this case, some people are shooting the messenger in regards to me and Juan. And about Miro's argument, he may be the messenger (probably getting his ideas from his teachers and maybe basing it a bit on religion or something), but in this case he made an inflamitory comment that likely offended a number of people who chose for one reason or another to stay silent on the issue. I don't even think of myself as a fighter per say. I have more important things to do than physically dominate other people, but this isn't and was not (after I erased my initial posts) about my opinion. The last time I checked, people are allowed to contest each others views and even choose to mount an argument against people whose views they strongly disagree with. This is the foundation of public discourse and IMO, it should be encouraged. So, I recognize that it goes both ways. If Miro wants to say something, then people can react to what he says. If someone wants to say something against the other persons argument, then thats fair game too. The only thing I'm trying to do is avoid getting in a flame war with Dave because he made a direct attack on my classmates and my teacher. I think this can all be resolved without pissing in each others breakfast cereal.

[Walter Joyce]

If you have a problem with our school, thats your problem, but when you bring it out in the open like that, you also make it our problem too.

No one from our school thinks our teacher is Jesus. Thats just ridiculous. However, we do respect his opinion and if he wants to make a statement on here we are happy to accommodate him. Its really no different than lets say some prominent board members treating people like master He with reverence. Actually, it is a little different, because we aren't cock riding.
I know a few people have a problem with our school, but I know lots of other people like us and appreciate what our teacher has to say about subjects like this.

The language of the first statement here is a bit troubling to me, and I'm not sure its there to encourage open public discourse.

Stating that its a problem begs the question: who has a "problem" with you school and what is that "problem"?

How exactly is it a problem when people express disagreement with the views and or practices of you school?

And how do you generally resolve these problems?

I may be assuming to much here, but if you think kicking someone's ass or denigrating them when you disagree with their viewpoint invalidates their opinion I'd hardly call that discourse or debate.

I'd call the former fascism and the latter is not debate, its personal attack, or an ad hominem argument.

The veiled reference to another board member and the statement that he is cock riding, exactly how does that encourage debate and discourse in a positive sense?

Baiting someone and debasing their views with inflammatory language isn't debate, nor does it encourage intelligent discourse.

Disagreeing with someone's viewpoint while still respecting them as a person and their right to hold their opinion is not an easy task, but it is essential to intelligent discourse.

If people want to disagree with me on that point, that's their right, but I confess I'd have a hard time respecting them as a person. Odd paradox, but it's true.

[Formosa Neijia]

The only thing I'm trying to do is avoid getting in a flame war with Dave because he made a direct attack on my classmates and my teacher.

I'm not making a direct attack on your teacher. I said nothing about him except to call him on the indignation. Go back and check my posts.

What I don't like is the attitude of his students when they post "public service announcements" as you put it, as if what he said should is the final word on the matter.

If he wants to post here, as he has at the Cheng style BGZ Yahoo group in the past, then let him sign up like everyone else. This posting from on-high that he does through his students is disrespectful IMO.

Its really no different than lets say some prominent board members treating people like master He with reverence. Actually, it is a little different, because we aren't cock riding.

See, He laoshi actually posts here. NOT through his students. THAT'S the difference. And that last little part you added shows how you guys conduct yourselves in public. It says a whole lot that you may not realize.

Dave C.

[Miro]

And here we go - my school, my teacher, I am offended, I feel this or that... Guys, do not give me just another proof that fighting mind (even of non-fighter) creates more problems than benefits. There were some great posts (thanks), I hope another good posts will come soon, do not spoil the discussion, please. Show some benevolence to opinions of others even if you are offended and discuss arguments of relations between alchemy and IMA/TCMA. Do not fight between yourself, attack the subject or attack directly me... Thanks.

Miro

[xingyijuan]

I agree with Miro. Yang Hai's statement was a response to his post, as a Chinese martial art master towards another. It was never meant to be as a statement of our school against all others, so please do not take it there. Formosa and Segler, if you have a problem with the way that Yang addresses people here, you're just going to have to live with it. As for the tone he uses, well I've seen worst around here so don't give me no crap. As far as I'm concerned, I agree with him and all I can say is that people so far have commented on his tone and the way the message was delivered and NOT on what he actually said. Please, let the conversation carry on!

Juan

[shawnsegler]

Juan. I already let it go if you'd read my post.

As to me just living with something...I'll live with and have a problem with whatever I want to, thanks very much. I have no problem with you guys or your teacher outside of the fact that when he gets pissed about something he comes in here (by proxy) and rages, and you know what....no matter who does that I'm gonna have a problem with it...so why don't you live with that...mmm-k?

Anyhoo, like I said earlier...none of this is furthering the conversation so lets drop it.

S

[gretel]

this has got to be the most high-level and content-filled internal/external thread ever!
all this ignorant beginner in tai chi can say is, thank you all. i plan to go back and study it in detail.

gretel

[Kevin_Wallbridge]

Juan, did you read my post? I meant to address some of his points directly. Did I not do that?

[Miro]

Yang Hai,

I like that article not because it gives people some insight understanding of internal practice, but shows how easy it is to make mistakes when we do not practice physically and mentally enough in certain art or just try to interpret something very deep in short words with limited researching. In China, we have a proverb: knowledge which gets from paper is superficial, and we will not be able to understand how difficult it is before we pass through the whole process.（纸上得来终觉浅，事非经过不知难）

I also like your post. Mainly because it shows very nicely how many Chinese people treat Westerners when discussing Chinese culture, and especially its practical aspects. It is almost automatically supposed that Westerner could not possibly read Zhuangzi in the original, and if he has any opinion, it is only for laugh or it is just some knowledge from the paper – the best is to ask some internal martial artist or teacher (as you wrote).
But before I will start, I would like to ask you a question: How do you want to discuss this subject? I can see only two ways:
1. to talk about one’s personal experience with practice
2. to discuss what the others already wrote about this subject.
The first method is not convenient to start with because as I said, many people simply do not have any clue about it - including some well-known teachers. So we can start only with the second method. You can say that this all is just bookworm knowledge (as you actually already said) but I do not think so: it is just making a collection of basic knowledge before we can go to discuss also practical things. If you would like to suggest any other method, please do so, thanks. Because I sincerely hope you did not come to EF just to show your opinion but actually discuss this subject.
I would like to start with 武 and 舞 because (in the strict sense) this does not belong to the subject of alchemy and IMA, so we can finish it quickly. You wrote:

Just point out some simple facts of understanding related to Chinese culture, first.

The character 武 means martial, it made by two other character or character roots: Stop and Weapon. It means stop fighting. Now you maybe say: “Yes, I am right, you see, it is the meaning”. But please keep reading a bit before being so quick happy. Actually that character means “stop others with weapon”. We do not have to put decorative philosophical interpret to something which originally have very obvious different meaning. Maybe it has relation with other words such as dancing （舞）and witchcraft（巫）, since they share similar pronunciation. But in Chinese character system, this kind phenomenon can be found at anywhere. You can not say the character 男 (means man) has relation with the character 难 (means difficult or tragedy in different tone). If you say this in China, people will laugh at you since it is the basic principle that we should not try to understand these words' meaning since they share similar pronunciation. Teachers will teach their students about that from elementary school, I think it is the same anywhere in the world if they learn Chinese, no matter mainland China or Taiwan and north America. So please stop making link between 武, which means martial to other words such as dancing or anything else, it is only give others a material to laugh about.

Actually, the interpretation of etymology of 武 as radical zhi (to stop) and phonetic part ge (weapon, namely halberd) is incorrect. Adam Hsu, I believe, was the first who introduced this interpretation to the Western martial arts circles, and he made the same mistake, although it is hardly his fault because this misinterpretation persists from the year 597 BC. Original meaning of wu (martial) written on Shang oracles bones was quite different: the character “shows a footstep and a halberd, perhaps standing for the kind of dance mentioned above to commemorate some military achievement.” – see James C. H. Hsu (couple of years ago he was professor at National Taiwan University), “The Written Word in Ancient China”, vol. 2, p. 704. The dance “mentioned above” in this passage is Da Wu 大武 , “a dance during which the exploits and prowess of the great King Wu 武王 , the founder of the Zhou dynasty, were narrated.” (p. 703). Hsu also wrote: [Character wu, military] “shows footprint and a halberd, indicating someone doing a victory dance waving a halberd, or possibly someone marching with a halberd, a soldier walking with a martial bearing. However, in 597 B.C., King Zhuang of Chu 楚莊王 mistakenly interpreted the characters zhi 止, “to stop” and ge 戈 “halberd” as the character wu...”. (pp. 843-844). The mistake has its root in the similarity of graphs for footprint (in original form of character wu from Shang era oracle bones) and zhi, to stop (a pictograph of the sole of a foot with three toes).
The connection between 武 and 舞 maybe seems to someone for laugh, but I am not interested to discuss it at all, sorry – this connection is obvious and belongs to the *elementary* knowledge of history of Chinese martial arts. Just buy any better book about history of CMA and read about it. Some references are for example here:
康戈武：中國武術實用大全 (Kang Gewu: Practical Encyclopedia of Chinese Wushu), pp. 34-35
林伯原：中國武術史 (Lin Boyuan: History of CMA), pp. 46-47
于志钧：中国传统武术史 (Yu Zhijun: History of Traditional CMA), pp. 14-18
王廣西：功夫－中國武術文化 (Wang Guangxi: Gongfu – Chinese Martial Culture), pp. 3-4 (and btw, there is also a chapter about jing – qi – shen –void transmutation in wushu training, pp. 175-196).
Etc. Just do not get confused that some authors say that dancing is not martial arts. Of course it is not, but this is beyond the point – the point is that dancing and martial arts were extremely close in the oldest time of China - and their written characters were interchangeable.
[Note for those who did not study Chinese history: Although character 舞 means dancing, do not imagine that this dancing is dancing as we know it today, a recreational activity. Dancing was a part of state ceremonies and sacrifices – and in ancient China, nothing was more important in the state than sacrifices and military activities. Dancing was especially used during praying for rain (as some authors say, among the divination questions on oracle bones which refer to dancing, nine out of ten times rain is also mentioned) and this praying for rain was obviously business of shamans, witches, and sorcerers.]
My interest (for the purpose of finding the connection between alchemy and martial arts) does not concern this obvious relationship between 武 and 舞, but their connection to 巫 (witchcraft). But we can discuss it later.

Miro

[josh]

[Note for those who did not study Chinese history: Although character 舞 means dancing, do not imagine that this dancing is dancing as we know it today, a recreational activity. Dancing was a part of state ceremonies and sacrifices – and in ancient China, nothing was more important in the state than sacrifices and military activities. Dancing was especially used during praying for rain (as some authors say, among the divination questions on oracle bones which refer to dancing, nine out of ten times rain is also mentioned) and this praying for rain was obviously business of shamans, witches, and sorcerers.]
My interest (for the purpose of finding the connection between alchemy and martial arts) does not concern this obvious relationship between 武 and 舞, but their connection to 巫 (witchcraft). But we can discuss it later.

Hi Miro, this is a topic that I am also very interested in. Actually, I wrote my dissertation on rainmaking ritual, so these issues are very closely related to my own research.

I would highly recommend that you check out the following article if you have not already, as well as the other book by Chen that I mentioned above (Yinxu buci zongshu 殷墟卜辭綜述).:

Chen Mengjia 陳夢家. 1936. "Shang dai de shenhua yu wushu.” 商代的神話與巫術 Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報, no. 20:485-576.

best,
josh

[DeusTrismegistus]

I think that was a great post by Yang Hai.

I can relate to Yang Hai feeling outraged at the idea that TCMA evolved from alchemy. As I said earlier that is something I completely disagree with. Fighting is part of the basic human condition, wherever there are humans there will be humans fighting. History shows that martial arts evolve almost universally in all cultures, the level of evolution of techniques may vary. A lot of adults have no real experience with martial arts per se but know how to fight and might be able to teach that. Alchemy, enlightenment, and spirituality only arise in cultures and individuals whose basic survival needs are met. Once you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from you can worry about living forever, or enlightenment, or math, or any higher pursuit.

Qigong in china defines how they understand/understood the body and how it relates to the world around them. Through my own practice I can say that through fighting and sparring I have come to a greater understanding of how the world works, how to read peoples intentions, and many other things. Yang Hai states the most important part of developing actual understanding, practice, doing. We can sit and read about MAs all day and we can feel like we have earned something, which we have, but without doing something we can't truly know it. Fighting is the focus of martial arts. It has to be. Without the martial we can have no martial art, we have an empty shell. The fighting is where we fill the shell and make it into something substantial and beautiful.

[johnwang]

However, I stand behind all what I said, including my opinion that fighting as solution of conflicts is low-level.

I can tell that we have different life experience. If you had been beaten up everyday since your were 1st grade, had someone who wanted to kill you next time you two meet, you may have different opinion on this. Sometime you don't want to fight. You just want to "live". If someone hire you to teach a anti-terriorist training camp, you may also change your opinion on this issue in no time. If you have never been starved, you may not understand how a hungry person feel.

I do agree that your argument should teach GWB a good lesson. Invasion can only produce hate and that will last from generation to generation. War as solution of conflicts is low-level.

[xingyijuan]

I'm sorry Kevin, I didn't want to downplay your response. I was just trying to steer the conversation back to the original subject an not on how people here perceive my teacher. And, as I can see, it's well back on track so thank you all, specially Miro. I will read the whole thing and come back to you when I can.