Who did CMA in Olde China? And why?

[Chris Fleming]

I think you're going waaaaay beyond what is actually there. Too much focus on demon possession.

[bailewen]

He just gets excited.

It's not like demon possession didn't exist as part of many martial arts schools.

I feel like his blog is sort of reflective of the news on TV. "If it bleeds it leads". The fact that the spectacular disaster gets front page coverage gives readers the impression it's more common than it is. Most people think we live in a more dangerous society today than ever before but the crime stats don't agree. Far safer today than in, say, the late 19'th century.

[Chris Fleming]

"He just gets excited."

That's what I mean. At some point you have to get your bubble burst and see that, no, there is no flying across roof tops like in the movies or the 72 shaolin arts books, foot binding was just that, a cruel practice and didn't lead to gong fu skill, and as much as you want there to be some enlightenment and mystical connection to your martial arts practice, it isn't there and isn't going to be there. Or I should say, if you are looking for "possession", it isn't quite what you think it will be.

[bailewen]

I'm somewhere in between.

I certain degree of that stuff certainly did and probably does exist. It was a major factor in the Boxer rebellion(s). It's one of the main reasons why Falungong has been dealt with so severely, because China has a history with these sorts of things.

Depending on where you go, there absolutely is a mystical connection and "some kind of enlightenment" potential. Here I do not refer to the wacko fringe element but simply to people of culture and education, including fighters. As Shifu says, all wu and no wen, always a soldier and never a general. His Taijiquan teachings draw deeply from Daoist and Buddist traditions alike.

To deny the existence of these existential elements is just as misguided as seeing them everywhere.

[josh]

Although...I don't think that the 汉语大词典 is a dictionary of classical Chinese is it?

It's the dictionary that I rely upon the most for working with classical texts, although it gives modern definitions as well... as you can see, the usage examples given in the above entry range from Han to modern. I would consider it the Chinese equivalent of OED in the extent of its entries. There are more specialized reference works for specific genres but HYDCD is probably the best overall.

It certainly is reasonable for you to do that. If Schipper didn't have such credentials. I don't think Josh would bother digging out a citation and I certainly wouldn't bother looking into it. OTOH, as both Josh and I are literate in Chinese, it's reasonable for us to question at the very least the context of his quote. Neither of us are native speakers but we both have spent long periods in China and both have degrees that are related to the topic. I forget Josh's but I seem to remember it was something east asiany. My BA is in Chinese Language and Literature. I'm no emeritus Professor of Oriental Studies but I'm deep enough in to know better than to take his statements at face value.

I'm a huge fan of Schipper, as I do research in Daoist studies myself. As far as credentials, I am certainly not at Schipper's level, but I do have a doctorate (of the "east asiany" type ). My admiration for Schipper notwithstanding, I still disagree with his definition of gongfu as "meritorious action" as a broad, general one. In the context of Daoist ritual performance? Sure. In the context of martial arts practiced within a temple group that assists in Daoist ritual performances? OK. In a traditional opera school? Maybe. In a military training camp? Doubtful. And what about the usage of "gongfu" to describe skill in, say, calligraphy, or carpentry, or noodle-making? If we are talking about some kind of base definition for the term, it seems that it should be general enough to extend to all possible usages.

The question then is; if you were performing a martial event dedicated to, in the name of, or possessed by, a god--How was that perceived in Olde China?
I included Schipper's definition to try and answer that question.
Whether theater or gongfu is more for the individual, the audience, or the gods, is a matter of who you ask and when you ask them. All three are true.

Sure, I agree with your last point, meaning is contextual. However, I believe that the following examples of different types of "martial events" that could have conceivably occurred in pre-modern China all require very different types of gongfu; it seems to me that the only definition broad enough to cover them all would be something like "skill" or "training." I also think that they would be perceived very differently, as their contents and contexts are all quite different, so there is no need to come up with some type of rubric to account for all of them at once, which it seems to me is where you are heading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5WjRcG7IU
http://v.blog.sohu.com/u/vw/1040342
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLNjLChehLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfLbV6vAec

[bailewen]

... as you can see, the usage examples given in the above entry range from Han to modern. I would consider it the Chinese equivalent of OED in the extent of its entries. There are more specialized reference works for specific genres but HYDCD is probably the best overall.

Good to know. I have a classical Chinese dictionary on my shelf but I ended up finding it of little use as my plain vanilla 新华字典 seems to cover enough classical uses for me and when it doesn't, like say I am reading Dao De Jing, I can almost always find the appropriate classical usage in the footnotes. It would be nice to have a big solid "go to" dictionary on the shelf though. I always got a kick out of big ass English dictionaries, especially when they include the etymology, latin/greek/old German roots etc.

I did see that references to 3 Kingdoms and some old poems but just wasn't sure about the dates on those things. There's old and then there's OLD. I'm really foggy on the dates for a lot of those things. For something like 唐诗 or 宋词 it's kind of obvious but when there's just the name of the poem or a less famous collection, I'm lost.

[Chris Fleming]

"To deny the existence of these existential elements is just as misguided as seeing them everywhere."

And I get that. I wasn't as clear as I ought to have been, and I'm sure people would certainly disagree, but the "enlightenment" and "spiritual" and "mystical" things are what they are, but it is the practitioner who thinks they are something else. As far along as someone can attempt to progress in them, they are ultimately of no eternal value, so it is better to not get all goofy.

[bailewen]

I can see that.

I may or may not agree with your assessment to their ultimate value but I think that that is a subjective value judgment and therefore not really arguable.

[taiwandeutscher]

Also having a doctorate in sinology, but never reached Schipper's level, either, I would suggest to use the Zhongwen da cidian (20 vols) for classical meanings and references, the Shuowen for ethymological questions, and maybe Mathews' for a handy on the table source.

Concerning the topic here, I'm also somewhere in the middle.
Having lived in SEA, esp. Taiwan for nearly 20 years, I stumbled on many gongfu-ish stuff in the moves of mediums, temples and their performance groups. Here in southern Taiwan, we have the Song Jiang Chen, the so called battle array, some groups performing good gongfu, some are purely for show, but all come out of temples and many practice religious rites besides.

But in my training places, and I have seen quite a few over the years, there has never been any direct reference to such a shamanistic side. There was only pure gongfu, and the modern performance stuff doesn't show any connection to the religious side. I even did never encounter anything in a western sense of enlightenment. Training to have a different perseption of one's surroundings, yes, but nothing like Kaiqiao or the like.

[edededed]

Yes, I have heard of very little shamanistic influences in CMA so far, although of course there is much qigong and such... All I have heard of is:

1. Shenda (ritual for self-possession by spirit (like monkey king) who then performs martial arts) - seems that a very few styles have something called Shenda today, too, but the word may refer to something else.
2. Magic spells - I hear Choy Lee Fut has 5 or 6 of these, only taught to the holder of the style.
3. Finally, there was some shamanism-like aspects talked about by people like Indonesia's "John Chang" (you know who I mean...) and James McNeil?

On a lighter side, about what percentage of sinologists practice CMA? I don't remember any from my alma mater who did it (well... there was one assistant professor or new professor who just came from China and did some wushu), but it seems that there are quite a few here...

[josh]

Good to know. I have a classical Chinese dictionary on my shelf but I ended up finding it of little use as my plain vanilla 新华字典 seems to cover enough classical uses for me and when it doesn't, like say I am reading Dao De Jing, I can almost always find the appropriate classical usage in the footnotes. It would be nice to have a big solid "go to" dictionary on the shelf though. I always got a kick out of big ass English dictionaries, especially when they include the etymology, latin/greek/old German roots etc.

I did see that references to 3 Kingdoms and some old poems but just wasn't sure about the dates on those things. There's old and then there's OLD. I'm really foggy on the dates for a lot of those things. For something like 唐诗 or 宋词 it's kind of obvious but when there's just the name of the poem or a less famous collection, I'm lost.

There is also an electronic version of this dictionary, which I think you can find on VeryCD or similar sites... unfortunately the smallest print version is still 3 giant volumes with print so small that you need a magnifying glass. The application makes it much simpler

[Scott P. Phillips]

Okay, so what I'm hearing hear is that in a general way we've come to some agreement--I'm sort of right but I've gotten ahead of the evidence curve.

Some say that----many different types of Opera/theater, Daoist Ritual, Various Fangshi rituals, Sparring, Forms, push hands, shuijiao, mongolian wrestling, trance fighting, Qigong, Daoyin, Song Jiang Chen, Group fighting performance rituals where everyone swallows and wears talisman, Daoist ritual theater exorcism, Bajiajiang, sword dance, writing talisman standing up with vertical hanging paper, writing poetry with jade maidens whispering in your ear, spirit writing, writing calligraphy while doing neidan, armies that perform magical dances and use women's undergarments to defeat the enemy, street performance-------they are all different species.
However, one might argue: If they can mate, and their off spring are viable, then they are the same species--even if they look different because they eat a different diet.
Or we can go on a quest for the "missing links." They don't look at all hard to find. I don't need a rubric. And I don't need them all to be considered forms of skillful merit...because they already are.
We don't need a single common ancestor for all of these in order to see that they are part of a shared, multi-layered world view.

The reason I've gotten out ahead of the evidence curve is because I spent years studying Indian Classical dance, Congolese Dance, Haitian Dance, [all three are martial arts] and religious Daoism--in addition to all that gongfu. My first teacher's teacher, Kuo Lienying studied and performed the roll of monkey in Opera as a teen-ager, and competed in Leitai fights, he could still sing the parts 70 years later, he was still doing drunken monkey gongfu too. And he was part of the pure martial arts movement, and guoshu, and an early student of Wang Xiangzhai. He worked as a bodyguard too. And he could tie a rope dart around his chest under his coat and shake in such a way that the dart would fly out and stick into a tree. And he could tie up any of his actively resisting students with the same technique. Show or gongfu? I say both.
None of his students learned the rope dart. And the one student who learned drunken monkey became a heroin addict. I think we owe it to the last generation, who brought these fantastic arts to us, to try an recover as much of the full picture as we can. To me that means I need to get out ahead of the evidence curve...what does it mean to you?

[Andy_S]

Chris:

Why am I intersested? I am a historian by training, if not by profession. I don't know if this thread will throw any light on current practices, though it is certainly spinning off in some interesting directions.

One point that nobody has yet vocalised that does stand out for me, is this....(bear with me):

As Scott insists, CMA has always had a strong performance element.
CMA today has a MASSIVE forms element - more than any other MA that I know of. European MAs don't really have solo-forms, it is all functional fighting-based material. TJMA forms were generally of the two-man, armed variety. TKMA (Taekkyun) had no forms, just freestyle. Some SEAsian MAs, such as silat are heavily into forms; some (PMA0 barely; some (Muah Thai) not at all. (But bear in mind here, that silat also had/has a strong performance element; you are much more likely to see silat performed as a dance at a Malay or Indonesian wedding than as a form of combat.)

Point being, the more combatively functional MA - boxing, MT, the various grappling formats (from western freestyle to judo and BJJ), PMA, etc - do little or no forms training.

Now, it has been commonly stated that the forms in CMA are:
(1) Actually designed to train gongfu (this is a common belief among Taiji peeps); or
(2) Are not for training per se, but are 'dictionaries' of techniques that can be passed along form master to student, with the advantage that the master can teach function whenever he feels like it, as so many students are happy just to learn the form.

So here is the big revelation*:
CMA forms are not designed with any combative purpose but are PURELY designed for performance....?

*Or not.

I will now take cover.

[Andy_S]

Scott:

RE:
...that the Ching government was, like all Chinese governments, in the business of controlling cults--when they found a cult that practiced martial arts they had a habit of killing everyone--if your whole village practiced martial arts "secretly" it probably wasn't a great idea to put that information on your tombs. There was a lot of sensitivity to the idea that dead ancestors could become martyrs for future rebellions. After all, that's what nearly all the Martial Gods are, right?

Good point, and one I had not considered.

[BruceP]

now your gettin it

was wanting to +1 that quote but that's just cheezy