# Chin Na????



## karatekid1975 (Aug 4, 2002)

Hiya all. 

I have a quick question. My school does, Chin Na on top of TKD (plus tai chi in a seperate class). I was wondering if anyone knows a good site on Chin Na? My school does it, but (to me) not enough. If you know a site with movies/videos/mpegs, that would be awsome, too. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## theneuhauser (Aug 4, 2002)

so far i havent seen a good website on chin na. books are still the best resource, hunt some down on amazon maybe?

the books written by yang jwing ming will give most folks more information than you hope for.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Aug 4, 2002)

Hi Karatekid1975, I don't know of any web sites but Century has some books and video's on Chin Na. You May also find these books at Barns and Noble also.
Bob


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 4, 2002)

Seems odd, but whatever...   :shrug: 

First, though I have seen it advertised as such, chin na is _not_, as far as I know, a separate art...  It is a subset of skills with its own variations and stylistic differences, but it is included within all well-rounded and non-specialized arts.

If you are interested in chin na, I really recommend training in a good, traditional kung fu school, not a mini-mall shopping store front that happens to provide martial babysitting for the soccer mom's during the off season...

I have seen your posts elsewhere regarding your current training, and perhaps it is time to think about expanding your horizons in other directions...?  

I don't mean to be assuming, but with the questions you are asking, it seems to me that your training is lacking somehow - if it weren't, you wouldn't be looking to bolster it elsewhere with other things...

Just a thought, for what little it is worth...

Gambarimasu.

:samurai: :tank: :samurai:


----------



## fissure (Aug 4, 2002)

That's a little rough! I recently when over board in another forum myself, so I'll leave it at that . 
I have read and answered KK1975 posts on may issues myself.I think she is thirsty for knowledge , and will find her true MA interests with more experience and time. I don't get the impression she is a mom, soccer or otherwise!:EG:


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 4, 2002)

I didn't mean to imply that she was a soccer mom...

What I meant to imply was that delving into quality martial arts is rarely benefitted by attending a school found in a mini-mall whose student body is populated primarily by children in between seasons of intramural sports.

She seems to be _very_ hungry for information, but given her post elsewhere regarding her instructor's reluctance to facilitate her growth, I thought that perhaps she should begin to seriously consider looking elsewhere.

That's all.  Harsh truths, sure, but not meant with a harsh attitude...  I'm just a big, fat pussycat personally - ask anyone...  :argue: :cuss: :uhoh: :armed: :angry:



Gambarimasu.

:samurai: :tank: :samurai:


----------



## fissure (Aug 4, 2002)

Yes, her current "teacher" does'nt seem to inclined to do much teaching!


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 4, 2002)

Hence the suggestion...

When a teacher becomes the focus, and the teaching is lost in the shadows, it is time to move on...

My students here in Japan continually insist on calling me "sensei."  I continually resist and tell them that titles are unimportant, as am I.

While I hate Bruce Lee and the damage he has done to modern martial arts (don't flame me, I'm entitled to my opinions! ), the quote he used once stands out in my mind whenever I start teaching a class:



> The teacher is like a finger pointing at the moon.  Don't look at the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory.



I know it isn't his original saying, but I liked the way he presented it - nicely dramatic without being over the top.

It seems her teacher has become the finger...


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 4, 2002)

> While I hate Bruce Lee and the damage he has done to modern martial arts



Was wondering if you could elaborate? Given the gregarious nature of some of your previous posts, i'm sure you won't mind.  

Don't know if this is the thread for it, but i'd like to hear your thoughts. 

In response to main issue of thread, you might try

"The Secrets of Eagle Claw Kung Fu: Ying Jow Pai" by Leung Shum
It only details 30-some of the 108 (?) lock sets, but its fascinating stuff.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 4, 2002)

What has Bruce Lee done for martial arts?  His positive contributions include exposing martial arts to Hollywood and the visual media in the West, assisting in the creation of a larger publishing industry for martial arts oriented books, and the endless sales of Bruce Lee memorabilia and merchandise around the world.

Beyond that, no matter what the JKD folks say (with the exception of Dan Inosanto alone), I think Bruce's JKD theories have done more damage than they have helped "the cause."

Forms have always been a standard part of training in Asian martial arts.  Indonesian martial arts have them, too, though the argument could be made that they aren't indiginous but imported from China - I don't know enough about Indonesian arts to say (though I am hoping to do some training in Silat when I get to Seattle).  Filipino martial arts do not have _kata_, but they do have numerous drills that could amount to mini-forms of a sort (to that extent, any drill repeated in a set pattern, taught in that same set pattern, and passed on in that same set pattern could from a particular standpoint be termed a form).

But according to Bruce, all the martial arts, empty hand and weapons alike, that have practiced forms for hundreds and thousands (okay, maybe not thousands ) of years were wrong, and he was the first person to say so...

Or not.  :shrug:

Bruce really didn't say anything that others did not say previously.  His views on forms, though misunderstood by most today (I feel), are not held singularly by JKD practitioners.  In fact, his views on forms practice are actually the same views held by styles that _do_ practice forms!

But, over the years, his words and intentions have undoubtedly been misunderstood, misrepresented, and misinstructed to a large number of well-meaning people by a large number of well-meaning instructors.

The damage is done, and traditional arts whose theories and training are similar to what Lee espoused as his brilliantly unique insights have to go on fighting a battle that need never have been fought in the first place.  We are now working to be treated legitimately, because so many people have become jaded by the upstart super-sokes that crop up left and right after every new martial arts flick.

I have a well read copy of the Tao of JKD at home on my book shelf.  I have seen many tapes of JKD stuff (mostly Vunak).  I admit I have yet to train in JKD myself, but my teacher was a JKD chapter leader once upon a time.  It is my belief that nothing in JKD is so incredibly new and devastatingly awesome that it is any great contribution to MA as a whole.

Just my opinion.  I didn't say JKD was worthless or ineffective.  I said that Bruce's teachings have been misinterpreted and misconstrued, and that has done extensive damage to MA in general, and legitimate traditional arts specifically.  He didn't come up with anything that was not already known (after 5000 years or more of martial experience, it would be hard to invent something amazingly new), nor that was not already present in a good many systems.  He repackaged MA and sold it as a different product, nothing more.

Just my 2 yen.  Flame at will, but I am just responding to a request for clarification, not trying to start a fight.

Gambarimasu.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2002)

See also:
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1739

I have the book and find it most interesting!


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> 
> *Forms have always been a standard part of training in Asian martial arts.  Indonesian martial arts have them, too, though the argument could be made that they aren't indiginous but imported from China - I don't know enough about Indonesian arts to say (though I am hoping to do some training in Silat when I get to Seattle).  Filipino martial arts do not have kata, but they do have numerous drills that could amount to mini-forms of a sort (to that extent, any drill repeated in a set pattern, taught in that same set pattern, and passed on in that same set pattern could from a particular standpoint be termed a form).
> *



Some FMA use _anyo_s which are indeed kata. As you say, there are also plenty of short drills. Similarly for many Indonesian arts: kata or short pre-arranged fighting exercises (_djurus_, for example: "The Djurus, when performed resemble the katas of kung fu and karate, but have a unique flavor of movement that is all its own."). In Kuntaw they may be Chinese but in Silat, even if the idea came from China, the current practice is clearly Indonesian in flavor.

I added JKD earlier this year but I still like a good form and feel that I get much from them, including a stance/foundation and transitions between them that nothing else seems to give.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 5, 2002)

Been trying to learn the _anyos_ recently...  John has been out of town, and I borrowed his CD of Tim demo'ing the forms...

Picked up anyo isa pretty quickly, but dalawa hasn't quite hit home...  Due primarily, I suspect, to the lack of practice I am putting into it...  I am working more on my Naihanchi Shodan and Yiliquan forms, and less on the anyos.

But the whole point is, as it relates to Bruce, that forms are a means to an end, no less so than boxing's heavy bag and speed bag work, Muay Thai's drills on bags, sinawali from Arnis, etc.  The old saying:



> Enter by form, exit from form



is appropriate here.  Forms teach concepts, distance, timing, combinations, footwork, foundation, etc.  They are catalogs of technical information assembled to pass on said information to posterity.  The common JKD myth that Bruce hated forms is directly contradicted by his practice of both Taiji and Wing Chun forms!  What he hated was (I believe, based on things my teacher told/taught me) the practice of preset responses ("If the attacker does A, you do B") and so on.  What did Bruce say repeatedly?  REACT, don't think.  But if you do an If A Then B kind of art, then you will have to limit your creative, intuitive response to what you have programmed your body to do...

"But doesn't forms training do just that?"

No.  That is why there is so much variation within one form, so many different forms within each style.  It isn't so much so that you fight with the exact same routine of combined techniques as taught in a form, but a form provides a handy pocket manual for the practice of those techniques!  Forms are, in a certain perverted and twisted way, an early form of PDA with inbuilt software for specific training needs!  You want to reference a particular set of techniques and responses for training?  Look in the form...

Now, if Bruce were to pop out of the grave right this instant, look everyone in the eye and qualify what I just said, then I would say he was perhaps the biggest boon MA could have because of his notoriety, popularity and presence.

Somehow, I don't think it's gonna happen, though...


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 5, 2002)

Yiliquan1,

right off the bat:



> Just my 2 yen. Flame at will, but I am just responding to a request for clarification, not trying to start a fight.



i have no intention of such. After all, i asked....

Correct me if i'm wrong, but your contention with Bruce Lee seems to centre around his contention that forms/kata are stagnant, and that real combat is fluid, and in constant motion; specifically:

.





> But according to Bruce, all the martial arts, empty hand and weapons alike, that have practiced forms for hundreds and thousands (okay, maybe not thousands ) of years were wrong, and he was the first person to say so...



OKay, well, you dont agree. Did he personally remove all knowledge of forms from the earth, or to the best of anyone's knowledge *prevent* anyone from practicing forms? Nope. Nor did he burn any books, or carry out a witchhunt of traditional MA's (hyperbole, i know, and tongue in cheek i assure you, but i think it demonstrates my point).



> I said that Bruce's teachings have been misinterpreted and misconstrued, and that has done extensive damage to MA in general, and legitimate traditional arts specifically.



I fail to see how Sigung Lee has cuased any "damage"... He had a view on Martial Arts. He expressed it...eloquently. If you don't agree...well, okay. Don't practice in the tradition of his philosophy. The other "legitimate" MA's still exist, and are still widely practiced. 

And as for "legitimate traditional arts", well, they had to be new once, and when new were probably "repackaged MA, resold as a new product", too.


I understand your disagreement with Lee on the matter of forms and traditional MA's but....those martial arts are stil alive and kicking..literally. Lee just provided another avenue of entry to the game we're all playing.





> Just my 2 yen.



The Tao of JKD was Bruce Lee's. His expression of thoughts on martial arts are less legitimate than anyone else's?

Thamks for posting..

Cheers

Baoquan.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> 
> * Forms teach concepts, distance, timing, combinations, footwork, foundation, etc.  They are catalogs of technical information assembled to pass on said information to posterity.  The common JKD myth that Bruce hated forms is directly contradicted by his practice of both Taiji and Wing Chun forms!  What he hated was (I believe, based on things my teacher told/taught me) the practice of preset responses ("If the attacker does A, you do B") and so on.  What did Bruce say repeatedly?  REACT, don't think.  But if you do an If A Then B kind of art, then you will have to limit your creative, intuitive response to what you have programmed your body to do...*



This is very similar to what my teacher try to pound into are heads.
You can't have a set textbook technique for every attack because the attack will rarely if ever be textbook itself.
You can also never learn all the defense for all the different kinds of attacks.
Better to have a reaction to a situation with proper covering then you can do what the situation calls for..........not what you have "planned" to do.
People basically punch, kick or grab.................best to keep the responses to those attacks simple and to the point.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 5, 2002)

Amazing.  An intelligent and eloquent response to a potentially flame-ridden post...    Such a refreshing change for internet conversation!



> Correct me if i'm wrong, but your contention with Bruce Lee seems to centre around his contention that forms/kata are stagnant, and that real combat is fluid, and in constant motion



That is one contention.  The thing of it is, very simply, that kata are reference books, manuals for training, documents written in motion and explained through movement instead of words on paper.  They are drills, quite similar to any other drill, though with more going on "behind the scenes" than some drills (though admittedly there are some drills that get much more done than forms training).

Real combat *is* fluid - there is no argument there.  Real combat is an ugly, sticky, messy affair and techniques are usually much less pretty or perfect in a fight than they are in the dojo.  However, we still practice to perfect those techniques to they will be performed closer to perfection than to crap.  But the point of this contention is that Bruce was not original on this thought.  Traditional arts, at least the ones that are still "alive" (and there are plenty of "dead" arts out there), pass this info on to their students.  I agree that there are plenty of arts that need(ed) a wake up call from Brucie Boy, but there are equally as many that have arisen due to his influence that are just as deluded as the ones Bruce railed against (there is a JKD practitioner here in Japan that I have come in contact with that said a particular method of technique was "not allowed" by his instructor...  is that in keeping with Bruce's guidance?  JKD is what they claim to do, yet they limit their responses...  Another example of someone falling victim to the "classical mess" of stagnant training, and it is within his own system!).



> OKay, well, you dont agree. Did he personally remove all knowledge of forms from the earth, or to the best of anyone's knowledge prevent anyone from practicing forms? Nope. Nor did he burn any books, or carry out a witchhunt of traditional MA's (hyperbole, i know, and tongue in cheek i assure you, but i think it demonstrates my point).



Point taken.  Perhaps I am too hard on Bruce.  But I guess the thing that chaps my backside is the fact that his misinterpreted information has such strong influence.  So many well-meaning martial artists and instructors read the Tao of JKD, see the words, but fail to get the meaning behind them.  Then they quote and quote and quote, but never really get a handle on what they are talking about.  Then they teach students their brand of thinking, and it continues to replicate like a virus.  Pretty soon, there are tons and tons of half-a$$ schools teaching ka-ka to wide-eyed, awe-struck Jet Li wannabes, and the crap schools outnumber the good schools (both traditional and non-traditional - don't want to convey the impression that I think all non-traditional stuff sucks, because it doesn't) 150 to 1.  That is what gnaws at my nether regions.

End Rant.  :soapbox:



> I fail to see how Sigung Lee has cuased any "damage"...



Again, see above rant.  Maybe I am too hard on ol' B.L.  It wasn't his actions directly that lopped off the right arm of MA.  It was the actions of the generations of booger heads that thought they were following in his footsteps of liberation but were really just contributing to the morass of MA in the US.

My apologies to B.L., wherever he may be (if he is reading this...).  :asian:



> He had a view on Martial Arts. He expressed it...eloquently.



Well, I don't know if "eloquent" is a word I would use...  I think his Philosophy degree did more damage to his thinking than a good English degree would have done...  He does appear to be very intelligent, but having a few philosophy classes behind me, I can see where some of the debating and rhetorical language seeps in...  I found a lot of what he wrote to be initially confusing, and couched in excessively verbose style.  He could have said the same things, but in much simpler language.

Anyway.



> If you don't agree...well, okay. Don't practice in the tradition of his philosophy.



I don't, though I will admit I often wonder just how much of JKD thinking ended up in what I was taught by my teacher...



> The other "legitimate" MA's still exist, and are still widely practiced.



This is also a good point, one that bears remembering (when I get my panties in a wad over the "eclectic" and "neo-classical" upstarts).  It also speaks to the quality of some of the classical arts that Bruce fought against (and to the staying power of the questionable arts that are sold to the ignorant).



> And as for "legitimate traditional arts", well, they had to be new once, and when new were probably "repackaged MA, resold as a new product", too.



I couldn't agree more.  All the so-called traditional arts that are commonly practiced now, are really only a few decades to a few hundred years old...  Only a few lifetimes, really.  Shotokan is only about 80 - 90 years old, Kyokushin is just coming up on 60.  The art I study has just gone legal (turns 21 this year), and even JKD is beginning to be considered as a traditional style (I am sure that Bruce would roll in his grave if he heard that!).  All Shotokan was was repackaged arts combined by Funakoshi, Kyokushin was a reorganization of Shotokan and some other stuff picked up by Oyama.  The art I study is Baixingquan, Xingyiquan, Taijiquan and Baguazhang lumped into a blender, set on puree and voila!  Bruce did how many arts?  Wing Chun, Taiji, Savate, Arnis, Boxing...  So your comment is dead on the money.



> The Tao of JKD was Bruce Lee's. His expression of thoughts on martial arts are less legitimate than anyone else's?



Yes.  They are less legitimate than mine.    I am the ruler of time, space and dimension, and I say so.  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 

No, his views are no less legitimate than anyone else's.  My (somewhat modified, now) point has only ever been that those who thought he was a revolutionary thinker were either walking in the dark to begin with, or complete simpletons.  He just smacked everyone in the face with information that had been around all along, just apparently not being practiced by most.

Thanks for the comments, and for opening my eyes on my own views.

Gambarimasu.


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 5, 2002)

Whoa.....

We better end this thread now....mutual respect and frank, open-minded discussion may catch on. Its' already rife on certain parts of this forum. I'd hate to be responsible for the destruction of the Internet.



> So many well-meaning martial artists and instructors read the Tao of JKD, see the words, but fail to get the meaning behind them. Then they quote and quote and quote, but never really get a handle on what they are talking about.



All to true...but is it the responsibility of an author to hold the hand of his audience?? 

There is a quote from Hoyce Gracie (i think..it was one of the Gracie brothers..it's in someone's sig on this forum) to the effect that "A belt only covers two inches of your ***. The rest is up to you." 

So too a book like the Tao of JKD....mindless, verbatim repetition of anyone's teachings will only get you so far...and pretty soon, students will realise that there is more to "it"...maybe.  

Cheers

Baoquan.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Baoquan _
> 
> *Whoa.....
> 
> We better end this thread now....mutual respect and frank, open-minded discussion may catch on. Its' already rife on certain parts of this forum. I'd hate to be responsible for the destruction of the Internet.*



You do know the Internet will shut down if respect, honesty and politeness are shown enough on it.





> _Originally posted by Baoquan _
> 
> *"A belt only covers two inches of your ***. The rest is up to you."
> 
> *



I like that!


----------



## chufeng (Aug 5, 2002)

I will keep my points brief...

Bruce Lee arrived at certain conclusions about martial arts that, in fact, are right on the mark...

Unfortunately, his declaration that classical martial arts are a real mess and tie one down fell on an audience that had not matured to HEAR the real message.

Do I see Bruce as a master? NO...he was a teacher, period...

That was probably what riled the old Masters...he arrived at an understsnding before his time...and rather than tell the WHOLE story...he only told the last chapter (or something like it)...

I agree on many of Bruce's points...but I do think to get there one must GO THROUGH classical training...

The many claims that he was undefeated are ludicrous...
Of course he got his *** whooped...plenty...and that is what made him better. (it's what makes each of us better)

To absorb what is useful and discard the rest is a notion that is responsible for the many systems that have developed over the last thirty years...unfortunately, those who have created the majority of systems, haven't looked deeply enough into the "classical mess" and have thrown away a tremendous amount of GOOD STUFF...before you take the route of "absorbing what is useful and discarding the rest" you had better have taken the time to REALLY LOOK DEEPLY into your system...

That takes no less than 20 years...unless you're Bruce Lee...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Kirk (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *I agree on many of Bruce's points...but I do think to get there one must GO THROUGH classical training...
> *



I'm just a beginner, but from a theoretical standpoint, I agree.
Establish a base art, and add what's useful to  YOU.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 5, 2002)

I am just wondering if we should clarify what "Classical" is.
The art that I train is is considered a Classical art, however it is far from being a "museum" art. 
By museum I mean one that has room for thinking outside the box or asking questions.
We are encouraged to ask questions in fact it is in our "Dojo Principles". 

The statement "use what is useful and forget the rest" I think was taken out of context.

For instance how the hell would a beginner know what is useful?


----------



## chufeng (Aug 5, 2002)

My point exactly...

At what point does one know enough to start discarding things?

Hell if I know, but I'm not there yet.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Kirk (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> 
> *I am just wondering if we should clarify what "Classical" is.
> The art that I train is is considered a Classical art, however it is far from being a "museum" art.
> ...



I agree .. but tell me this ... Is there any art that you know of that
has a definite begining and end?  Like "learn all of THIS and you're
rank after that comes from how long you've been in the art".  My
personal feeling is that EPAK does, and some of the seniors in 
that art feel the same way, even though there's an infinite 
amount of "fine tuning" one can learn. But there's a specific 
amount of techs to learn, and some say that after b.b. it's all
about overkill ... running the point into the ground.  So in THIS
aspect, I'm not going to look to cross train and look for things
that can be added to my base art, until I'm an experienced b.b.

As for the Classical art thing .. MAYBE it's because of Bruce Lee's
statement that the "classical" arts started to think outside the
box?  I dunno, and wouldn't have any idea, but it's just something
to think about.  I mean he was HUGE in Hong Kong, China, and 
the states, was he not?  Maybe he put that bug into a lot of
martial artist's minds?  

I can't help but laugh at so many 25 yr olds that have 20 yellow
belts and have started their own style LOL.


----------



## chufeng (Aug 5, 2002)

Kirk,

Without trying to sound confrontational...your comment about "everything after black belt is just overkill" bothers me.

In most systems, mine included, real learning doesn't even begin until black belt level...Shoot, in Shotokan (JKA) they don't even teach correct breathing until Sandan...

But the rest of your post was good...

Lots of BS created by the blind who were taught by the unknowing....

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## karatekid1975 (Aug 6, 2002)

Ok, how did this turn into a Bruce Lee thing? 

Anyway, Thanks Kempo Bob for book suggestion  

And thanks, fissure, for defending me. It's not that my teacher doesn't do much teaching, it's the way he teaches sometimes, that I don't agree with. And I am very thirsty for knowledge. Anything to do with MA hehehehehehe.

And I'll leave the Bruce Lee thing alone :barf:    I'll go back to the Korean arts forum where I belong.


----------



## Kirk (Aug 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *Kirk,
> 
> ...




Okay, I wasn't saying it empatically, I've only been studying for
a year, so I wouldn't know.  I'm just repeating an opinion that
I've been told.  But that's not to say that there's nothing more
to learn at that point, cause no one knows it all, but in essence,
the curriculum is done at 1st black.  The rest is all extensions of
what you've already been taught.  I guess I could compare it
to addition.  Once you learn HOW to add, then 21 + 43, is no
different than 21 + 43+ 54.  Again, not all kenpoists share this
opinion, and I'm not even qualified to have one  yet   ... but it
is a common opinion.


----------



## Dronak (Aug 6, 2002)

I don't know enough about martial arts to have a real opinion on the matter either, Kirk, but I think I can see where that idea comes from.  Once you learn all the important basic stuff, things do tend to become a variation on the theme.  It's not really new, it's just a twist on what you've already learned.  I've seen that sort of thing in a lot of my physics related exams.  You learn rules and methods for solving certain types of problems.  That's usually homework.  Then the exam gives you something a little different than what you've done already, asking you to consider one extra factor this time around let's say.  It's not really anything new, you've done it all before, you just need to put the different pieces together to solve this problem.  So yeah, in a sense you can reach a point where you know all the main themes and everything else becomes variations on them.  Just a thought.


----------



## chufeng (Aug 6, 2002)

Variations on a theme...yes and no.

Certainly one can look at angles of attack and see variety with the same technique, but, there is so much more to it. It is like an onion...every layer you peel back exposes another layer...

At some point a block is NOT a block and a punch is NOT a punch.

...and you keep peeling the layers and you eventually arrive at the middle to find...NOTHING.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Curriculum done at black belt?????? Must be a short curriculum.
I can remember my teacher saying after about 50 years of training that he felt he was only half way of where he thought he could go.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *Variations on a theme...yes and no.
> 
> ...




Interesting..........
Reminds me of a Zen story when the student was told to think of NO-THING.


Maybe the layers of the onion and the onion itself are like another Zen story about a Zen master when asked which came first the Chicken or the egg to which he replied "the Chicken is the egg"


----------



## chufeng (Aug 7, 2002)

Allan Watts once said that the chicken is the vehicle whereby eggs are able to reproduce more eggs...it is not the chicken wanting more chickens...

It makes one step back and look at every situation a little differently when you apply that kind of perspective to it.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Aug 7, 2002)

Alan Watts' book called "The Way of Zen" was one of my first books on Zen, a good read.  He was way ahead of his time.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *Allan Watts once said that the chicken is the vehicle whereby eggs are able to reproduce more eggs...it is not the chicken wanting more chickens...*



This is biologist Richard Dawkins' view too ("The Gene Machine" theory that we're just shells for our selfish genes to propagate themselves).


----------

