# Martial Arts and their Religious Philosphies



## ThuNder_FoOt (Jan 26, 2004)

Some Martial Arts have religious philosophies of which the techniques were based upon. For example, some Gung Fu systems are based on Buddhist and Taoist principles. What is your opinion if say, The religion (i.e. the principles) of a given art were swapped? Can one truly understand the full meaning of what is practiced? Let's have a friendly discussion .


----------



## markulous (Feb 8, 2004)

If a particular (I don't like using this word but,) "style" suits me I don't care where it came from.  I am here now and it works for me.  I am not a buddhist of 200 BC.  If it was swapped and say came from hinduism or whatever in 200 BC.  Either way it doesn't change the way that "style" is and how it applys to me.  Because this is the 21st century, I am a tall white guy, I live in the USA, what applys to me is going to be different no matter what.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by markulous _
> *If a particular (I don't like using this word but,) "style" suits me I don't care where it came from.  I am here now and it works for me.  I am not a buddhist of 200 BC.  If it was swapped and say came from hinduism or whatever in 200 BC.  Either way it doesn't change the way that "style" is and how it applys to me.  Because this is the 21st century, I am a tall white guy, I live in the USA, what applys to me is going to be different no matter what. *



This is true, but what of the principles of a said Martial Art?  For example, Shaolin Long Fist (along with alot of others) is based of the principles of Chi. The vital points struck, and power gained is based on this principle. If one were to change the spirituality of the art, don't you change the art itself? How can... say a "Christian or Catholic " know of said principles? I don't believe the art would be as effective in that sense.


----------



## markulous (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ThuNder_FoOt _
> *This is true, but what of the principles of a said Martial Art?  For example, Shaolin Long Fist (along with alot of others) is based of the principles of Chi. The vital points struck, and power gained is based on this principle. If one were to change the spirituality of the art, don't you change the art itself? How can... say a "Christian or Catholic " know of said principles? I don't believe the art would be as effective in that sense. *



Quite possibly it does change it.  I think it makes it more effective by changing it.  If our art doesn't evolve and we don't base it off of the principle of the person using it then I think you are restricting yourself.

Jiu-Jitsu example was based off of a warrior that was unarmed fight against samurai that had swords.  I think if you still trained by this, you would find a big surprise waiting for you when you get attacked at an ATM machine.

The Christian and Catholic example is a pretty good one.  To me, I think people, whether they are christian, catholic, morman, whatever, should go around and learn what they can from each religion then venture out on there own.  Form their own thoughts and beliefs, then go venture out and create their own spiritual path.  Again I think it's more effective.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 11, 2004)

And, what if they choose the wrong path?


----------



## markulous (Feb 11, 2004)

Well I am not sure.  But to me, if you are open minded and truely express yourself then you are on the right path already.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 13, 2004)

_But to me, if you are open minded and truely express yourself then you are on the right path already._

What is it about the qualities of "open mindedness" and "true expression" that indicate one is on the right path?


----------



## markulous (Feb 13, 2004)

Dennis_Mahon said:
			
		

> _But to me, if you are open minded and truely express yourself then you are on the right path already._
> 
> What is it about the qualities of "open mindedness" and "true expression" that indicate one is on the right path?



What it says in my quote is a start.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Feb 14, 2004)

markulous said:
			
		

> What it says in my quote is a start.



I can definately understand your points, as I am currently learning JKDC under Dan Inosanto's system. But when talking about non-conforming... there are a few guildlines that are pretty straight forward across the board. For example, we all have the same skeletal structure (save deformities), we all have the same circtory systems, and so on... everything that defines us as human beings.

Bruce Lee's philosophy acknowledges the belief in chi and its existance as well. If you change the religious philosophies, I believe one  may miss the entire point. Take the Chi Sao exercise example for instance... a Christian, Jew, Catholic, etc. may not be able to understand this principle without first partially excepting the existance of Chi which is orginated in Eastern pihlosophies and religious beliefs.  Which in turn, equals an acceptance or belief in that said religion. So if you remove that particular aspect of the art, how can you truly understand the principles? the foundations the art is built upon?

It just leaves me guessing. Everyone has the right to express their freedom of religion, but it would seem that conflict would ocur when it comes to the Martial Arts.

THuNdeR_FoOT


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 17, 2004)

markulous said:
			
		

> What it says in my quote is a start.



You mean this?



> _No style, no technique. Be free. Be ready to apply truth. The mind must be emancipated of old habits, prejudices, and restrictions. Thus conflict will come to rest. --- Bruce Lee_



How does the above tell me whether or not a given action is right or wrong?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2004)

I like what my instructor said that Ed Parker said. Ed Parker did not deny that some of these religious philosophies had value, or that through meditation you could reach levels of martial art proficiancy; however, he felt that you were more likely to reach your goals by good old fasion hard work and practice. I think that his feelings had a lot to do with the fact that Mr. Parker was already deeply religious and felt no need to extract spirituality through various methods of combat training. I only know this second hand, but I think this outlook had a lot to do with the development and success of AK as we know it.
Sean


----------



## markulous (Feb 17, 2004)

Dennis_Mahon said:
			
		

> You mean this?
> 
> How does the above tell me whether or not a given action is right or wrong?



You asked the qualities of open-mindedness and true expression.  If you follow what my quote says it will help you be that way.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 20, 2004)

> You asked the qualities of open-mindedness and true expression. If you follow what my quote says it will help you be that way.



Actually, what I asked was:_What is it about the qualities of "open mindedness" and "true expression" *that indicate one is on the right path?*_ 
I see nothing in your quote that suggest that "open-mindedness" and "true expression" are any more conducive to determining whether any given action is right or wrong than "close-mindedness" and "false pretenses" are.


----------



## markulous (Feb 20, 2004)

Well that's what works for me.  I try to be as open minded as I can about things and just do what I feel is right.  If I am truely expressing myself and following my morals I know I am doing right for me because I feel I am doing right.  So again that's what works for me.


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Feb 21, 2004)

Traditional kendo schools (like the one I practiced in while in Japan) usually bow to a Shinto or a Buddhist deity to protect them and give them power. In a more secular school, this is excluded, but there is nonetheless a bow respecting the spirits of all those who came before and their teachings that allowed kendo to exist. The korean version of kendo, kumdo, is very similar (almost identical) in form and technique, but excludes this bow acknowledging a higher existence. I believe that this is one of kumdo's failings. The fact that practitioners of it aren't expected to realize that there are things better than them hinders their own spiritual and mental growth essential in sword arts) and makes it simply a sport practiced to do the sport. Its like taking the chi out of gung fu - you lose part of the art without it.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 21, 2004)

markulous said:
			
		

> Well that's what works for me.  I try to be as open minded as I can about things and just do what I feel is right.  If I am truely expressing myself and following my morals I know I am doing right for me because I feel I am doing right.  So again that's what works for me.



You haven't given this much thought, have you?  "I know I am doing right for me because I feel I am doing right" isn't a reason, it's an excuse.  You could use that to justify the worst human behavior.


----------



## markulous (Feb 21, 2004)

No I haven't given it much "thought".  Thinking is for trying to do an equation or to remember a phone number.  To me, "feeling" is what someone should be doing.  That first little instinct that you feel is 99% of the time right.

And I'm not using that to justify anything.  If someone is doing what they feel is right and are examples "of the worst human behavior" then so be it.  If they are doing what they feel is right and helping out old people and teaching kids to be better people then so be it.  It's yin and yang.  They oppose each other but without both there would be no balance.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon (Feb 22, 2004)

markulous said:
			
		

> No I haven't given it much "thought".  Thinking is for trying to do an equation or to remember a phone number.



And, apparently, telling Christians, Mormons, _et al_ how they should practice their religion:
_To me, I think people, whether they are christian, catholic, morman, whatever, should go around and learn what they can from each religion then venture out on there own. Form their own thoughts and beliefs, then go venture out and create their own spiritual path. Again I think it's more effective._



			
				marklous said:
			
		

> To me, "feeling" is what someone should be doing.  That first little instinct that you feel is 99% of the time right.



How long have you been studying the martial arts?



			
				markulous said:
			
		

> And I'm not using that to justify anything.



Of course you are; you're using it to justify your innability to explain why the qualities of"open-mindedness" and "true expression" are any more inciative that anyone is on the right path than the qualities of"close-mindedness" and "false pretenses" are.



			
				markulous said:
			
		

> If someone is doing what they feel is right and are examples "of the worst human behavior" then so be it.  If they are doing what they feel is right and helping out old people and teaching kids to be better people then so be it.



And, using your logic, if someone is doing what they feel is right and are flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up buses full of children, so be it.



			
				markulous said:
			
		

> It's yin and yang.  They oppose each other but without both there would be no balance.



It's intellectual laziness, a refusal to even try to understand the world around you.  It's going through the motions of living life without living it at all.


----------



## markulous (Feb 22, 2004)

Dennis_Mahon said:
			
		

> It's intellectual laziness, a refusal to even try to understand the world around you.  It's going through the motions of living life without living it at all.



Read some buddhism then you might understand.



> And, apparently, telling Christians, Mormons, et al how they should practice their religion



I never told anyone how they have to do anything.  This is about ME.  If you noticed I put "To Me".  If didn't made that clear enough I apologise.



> Originally Posted by marklous
> To me, "feeling" is what someone should be doing. That first little instinct that you feel is 99% of the time right.



You asked how long I have been studying marial arts from this statement.  Obviously if you stop and think when your fighting your going get your butt kicked.  And I have been studying about 3 years.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 23, 2004)

I agree. If you look at the Japanese arts and how tightly integrated Zen became with them it show's you the incredible lead they have over the "Americanized" versions. And Zen is not even spiritual or philosophical. It was used to let the practitioner look deeply within themselves and learn to teach themselves discipline.

Whether it makes a good matial art technique is something different. You could still be disciplined at practicing something useless.(Hey, at least you'll have character.) I think that it is good that this type of training can still be found but it is not for everyone. We do not live like they did 100's of years ago. This is why you have "self-defense classes" and "sport karate." Totally different reasons for practicing the arts.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2004)

This idea of "Americanized" MA is what was one issue that I was discussing in the Marine Corps Martial arts thread in Gen Talk.

For some, the eastern philosophy is going to be the draw.  Kind of a living metaphor of the thought.  The better you do the art, the better your grasp of the mental and back and forth...

For some the "Americanization" of MA where the moves will be the same as eastern arts, or taken from other sources, but the moral structure will be neo military/character values could be a draw for those who want to, for themselves and their kids, get back to some basic personal values that they can recognize easily and clearly.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2004)

I find it ironic that Americans/Westerners can tune into 'eastern philosophy' and ignore a value structure that they only think they know because they 'grew up with it.'  If they had spent as much time studying Judeo/Christian values and theology as they do exploring/studying Eastern philosophy - and with as open a mind - they would realize the "DOROTHY SYNDROME" applies here too.  If you can't find it in your own backyard, it wasn't there to begin with.

Zen, Taoism, Buddhism all say basically the same thing about the discoveries being from within as well as without.  Most of us form opinions about home values/Religions based on what we learn through folkish levels of learning more than formal learning.  Not a bad way to go, but not the most thorough either.

Paul M


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I find it ironic that Americans/Westerners can tune into 'eastern philosophy' and ignore a value structure that they only think they know because they 'grew up with it.' If they had spent as much time studying Judeo/Christian values and theology as they do exploring/studying Eastern philosophy - and with as open a mind - they would realize the "DOROTHY SYNDROME" applies here too. If you can't find it in your own backyard, it wasn't there to begin with.
> 
> Zen, Taoism, Buddhism all say basically the same thing about the discoveries being from within as well as without. Most of us form opinions about home values/Religions based on what we learn through folkish levels of learning more than formal learning. Not a bad way to go, but not the most thorough either.
> 
> Paul M


Paul,

First I agree with you about most religions and or philosophies have teh same or similiar insights coming from within.

As to the eastern approach, it could be the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

It could also, be as simple as the do not know the negative history of the Eastern approaches and therefore can be open minded. As opposed to the Euro and MidEAST -centric approach, where many people and their families have lived the history.

There is no place like home.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 25, 2004)

If you want to look at the most 'Christian' of the Martial arts as far as I am concerned, look at Aikido.  I am not talking about the 'Personal savior' issue with this, but the goal of peace and harmony with yourself and blending with your opponent.  He/she will fall victim to his/her own momentum and intent.  The artists movements and philosophy is to only do enough to avoid danger.... and it was developed by an old salty Japanese artist who, to the best of my knowledge, was not Christian.

Paul M


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Apr 5, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If you want to look at the most 'Christian' of the Martial arts as far as I am concerned, look at Aikido.  I am not talking about the 'Personal savior' issue with this, but the goal of peace and harmony with yourself and blending with your opponent.  He/she will fall victim to his/her own momentum and intent.  The artists movements and philosophy is to only do enough to avoid danger.... and it was developed by an old salty Japanese artist who, to the best of my knowledge, was not Christian.
> 
> Paul M



I understand your point, but I don't believe it ties into my original question. How does this relate to the Martial Arts, and the religions they were based upon? :asian:


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 6, 2004)

A good book on the roots of the martial arts is "Bodhisattva Warriors."

It looks at how the Martial Arts came from India, which was Buddhist! Yea, so throw out those ideas of peace and harmony when you think of that religion.

All those hand gestures you see in your forms/kata - yup - they go wayyyy back to the hand mudras of certain Buddhist sects. (So much for Christian Kenpo)

Here's a good place to get it:

The Bodhisattva Warriors: The Origin, Inner Philosophy, History and Symbolism of the Buddhist Martial Art Within India and China

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/104-9068741-3245568?v=glance&s=books


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 6, 2004)

Thats a great book. A little heavy at times in the history but it cover some good materal. some might consider it heavy reading.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 7, 2004)

ThuNder_FoOt said:
			
		

> I understand your point, but I don't believe it ties into my original question. How does this relate to the Martial Arts, and the religions they were based upon? :asian:



It does in a way because, conscious of it or not, the Judeo/Christian values at the root of the basic American culture will influence how those individual practitioners present their art, themselves and their techniques.  

Their conceptual understandings of 'harmony' and 'peace' will be a synthesis of Western values/beliefs and Eastern.  

The basic beliefs in what a 'fit' person looks/moves like will shift the center of gravity slightly.  The dietary likes/dislikes, which are living expressions of the values of a persons lifestyle, will influence their physiological strengths and weaknesses.

The culturally created value of 'manly' movement and behavior will influence what is acceptable 'gracefulness' and therefore influence the ability/fluidity of students to perform the basic artistic movements.

All that said, I think that an art/techniques have to be modified in teaching approach and movement to a degree when it meets a new culture, on a small or large scale.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Apr 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It does in a way because, conscious of it or not, the Judeo/Christian values at the root of the basic American culture will influence how those individual practitioners present their art, themselves and their techniques.
> 
> Their conceptual understandings of 'harmony' and 'peace' will be a synthesis of Western values/beliefs and Eastern.
> 
> ...



Ok, now i see the point of view you presented. I can understand that religion may effect the way one trains and gathers knowledge, but how would one go about "modifying" the techniques, and priciples those techniques are based on, without completely changing the art? I've often sat and thought about this many times, but I always seem to come to the same conclusion... that it can't be done. I hope to get a better understanding from someone whom has a different opinion than my own. I will use the principle of Chi as an example once again. Some Gung Fu systems are based upon the principle of striking the vital points in the Chi vascular system, known as Meridians. If one doesn't believe in the Buddhist (other religions may share the Chi principle as well) theology of Chi, then what would be the point of using such techniques? And how could one truly understand a given technique without first accepting the Buddhist Faith (as an example) either partially or completely?

 :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

ThuNder_FoOt said:
			
		

> Ok, now i see the point of view you presented. I can understand that religion may effect the way one trains and gathers knowledge, but how would one go about "modifying" the techniques, and priciples those techniques are based on, without completely changing the art? I've often sat and thought about this many times, but I always seem to come to the same conclusion... that it can't be done. I hope to get a better understanding from someone whom has a different opinion than my own. I will use the principle of Chi as an example once again. Some Gung Fu systems are based upon the principle of striking the vital points in the Chi vascular system, known as Meridians. If one doesn't believe in the Buddhist (other religions may share the Chi principle as well) theology of Chi, then what would be the point of using such techniques? And how could one truly understand a given technique without first accepting the Buddhist Faith (as an example) either partially or completely?
> 
> :asian:



I agree that there can not be a 'pure' or 'universal' art that remains so regardless of the practitioner.  That is reality.  Even within an artistic practice there is in varying degrees personalization of definitions, stances, movements, intentions..... so it isn't possible for there to be 'one true art' that will remain intact exactly.

And according to Buddhist Philosophy, that impermanence is part of the process, so I don't think that any art based on that over ruling idea would even strive for that goal.  We always leave our fingerprints on things culturally, individually...

Now as far as attacking meridians, I think that there are evidencial and scientific explanations that will satisfy practitioners who don't believe in the original ideology that 'this **** works' that will make the practice worthwhile.  It might even act as 'wonders' or 'miracles' to win converts, if that is the intention, to the over ruling ideas because if this little thing can work what else in this stuff could be true as well?


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jul 12, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Part of your martial art training experience should be the cultivation of wisdom, and, unfortunately, wisdom does come with age.

Yet, as the years go by and you find yourself suddenly becoming very proficient in your style, then you have to make serious decisions; such as: do I kill this guy or not in a very dangerous fight for your life?

Remember that the Buddhist Shaolin monks or the Taoist Wudang priests were men of the cloth first, warriors last, so they're decision has already been made up for them - never take a life.

Yet, as a layman who might potentially defend the life of your wife or children or even yourself, the decision not to kill the enemy during a brawl might not be so cut & dried.

So wisdom is relative to any situation, especially to the martial artist who is trained to kill, hurt, maim, and generally manhandle another human being. That's why it is important for the responsible martial artist to study philosophy and literature, to enable them to make 'wise' and informed decisions, and to justify - not rationalize - their actions. By studying the martial arts you put yourself in a worldly position where you have to reflect on you behavior.

I just keep all my martial arts enthusiasm strictly in a self-defense mode, thereby retaining the moral highground if I ever need to apply my training. But the martial arts have caused me to reflect on life, the universe, and everything on more than one occasion, and this is a good thing - though you might be considered as a moody person by others. They just probably don't know a wise individual when they see one.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 15, 2004)

ThuNder_FoOt said:
			
		

> This is true, but what of the principles of a said Martial Art?  For example, Shaolin Long Fist (along with alot of others) is based of the principles of Chi. The vital points struck, and power gained is based on this principle. If one were to change the spirituality of the art, don't you change the art itself? How can... say a "Christian or Catholic " know of said principles? I don't believe the art would be as effective in that sense.



I as a Christian would have to do one of two things either
1) Rationalize it someway to where it wouldn't come in conflict of my religious beliefs.  Now in the the USA this might not be to big of a problem because I don't know if your going to really get that much into the spiritual aspect of the system.  However this might be different if I was studying this in China.

2) Find another system.

Number one seems to be the thing that most people do, they rationalize the conflict away.  I once went to a pressure point seminar and the instructor stated he was a deacon in his church (Southern Baptist I believe).  Being a Christian I asked him if this conflicted with his religious views (I did this after the seminar of course), he told me no and then he explained to me his fatih and et.c etc.  and in due corse told me what books to buy to continue my research and study with the pressure point material.

I did this and consequently bought the books he suggested on the meridians, these were full of eastern thought on chi, the concepts of the elements etc. etc. and I was rationizing myself away thinking this is OK the baptist deacon recommended it.  Till a close Christian friend took a look at what I was studying and we discussed it in light of the bible and such and I was convicted to put it away.

And so I choose option #2.

Which coming from a Christian point of view I think a person must do, if it conflicts with your belief about God, than how can you not put it away without making it your god? 

Mark


----------



## Denton Hines (Aug 16, 2004)

[. I will use the principle of Chi as an example once again. Some Gung Fu systems are based upon the principle of striking the vital points in the Chi vascular system, known as Meridians. If one doesn't believe in the Buddhist (other religions may share the Chi principle as well) theology of Chi, then what would be the point of using such techniques? And how could one truly understand a given technique without first accepting the Buddhist Faith (as an example) either partially or completely?


I'll try to answer this with what little understanding I have. Okay on a spiritual note, If you believe in Chi/Ki it is a powerful force that abides within each of us. It can only be truly realized through deep meditation and training. Let's say you're a Christian (which I am) and don't believe in eastern religion but you do believe in Ki because you experience it in your training. I don't believe you have to practice zen Buddhism to understand your internal force. I was created by God therefore I believe that my Ki/Chi (whatever) was placed there by him for me to discover by meditating on HIS word and principles through physical as well as devotional training. 

Okay, let's say it's not a spiritual force but a truly physical one. It is believed to be located somewhere about 2 inches below your navel in the center of your body. Which just so happens to be exactly where your center of gravity is when your in a balanced stance. When you move, it gets moved around inside and outside of your body. Let's take Aikido for example: spiritually you absorb your opponent's Ki combine it with yours and then let it loose back through your opponent to send him on his merry way. On a physical note: using the same example you strike your training partner while pulling them off balance placing ther center somewhere outside of there body.
you absorb that energy and either send them away or apply equal yet opposite force to stop part of there body while the rest continues in motion.
That's pure physics.

But however you believe, whether spiritual or physical, you can apply your on religious beliefs to any form or style. Although I do believe that the human body is capable of a lot more than science has realized thus far.


----------



## Denton Hines (Aug 16, 2004)

In the first paragraph of my last reply, I was trying to quote Thunder_foot. That was pulled directly out of one of his replies. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Sep 15, 2004)

Denton,

I see. That is a unique way to apply your belief system to various arts. I do have one question though. Even though you would be modifying the Chi principle to your Christian beliefs, per your example, would that not be accepting the Eastern religious principles partially? Despite the fact that the belief is customized to agree with that of your own, the principle itself wasn't part of the Christian belief system. And this is what I'm addressing. It seems as though most all Martial Artists whom have a religion different than that their Martial Art was based upon, must conform partially or completely to that of the said Art.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 16, 2004)

Studying an art which was practiced by people of a different faith/philosophy does not mean you have to conform or practice it yourself. I may read books on Buddhism, but am not a Buddhist.

As for arts that emphasize Chi or Ki, practitioners who do not follow or believe in these principles may not fully understand their art's applications. They may stay at a more physical/self-defense level of understanding of the art.

So I think a) you do not have to change your beliefs or rationalize if b) you do not practice it that way or internalize the meanings of the practice the same way as the early practitioners did.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Sep 23, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Studying an art which was practiced by people of a different faith/philosophy does not mean you have to conform or practice it yourself. I may read books on Buddhism, but am not a Buddhist.
> 
> As for arts that emphasize Chi or Ki, practitioners who do not follow or believe in these principles may not fully understand their art's applications. They may stay at a more physical/self-defense level of understanding of the art.
> 
> So I think a) you do not have to change your beliefs or rationalize if b) you do not practice it that way or internalize the meanings of the practice the same way as the early practitioners did.



Very good points you bring forth. Can you give an example of how one can "internalize the meanings of the practice the same way as the early practitioners did", as you put it?

As far as the Buddhism, I would say that it depends on your personal defnition.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

Dennis_Mahon said:
			
		

> You haven't given this much thought, have you?  "I know I am doing right for me because I feel I am doing right" isn't a reason, it's an excuse.  You could use that to justify the worst human behavior.



Given that the discussion is supposed to revolve around whether or not a philosophy empowers, disempowers or is neutral in the learning and application a given fighting technique, is this tangent supposed to be relevant at all?

You are talking about morality in general, which doesn't automatically come attached with learning, training or applying a MA. So questioning someone's training just for saying that they approach their learning of a MA with an open mind regarding technique (which is what Lee meant, and shouldn't be difficult to figure out given the context of the thread regardless) is boorish in the extreme. 

Back on topic, I think that in a lot of cases, the teachings or beliefs were used as analogies to help transfer the principles of the system quicker. If better analogies exist within the modern culture that don't hinge upon these teachings, then there's no real loss to the technique's effectiveness or to the information transfer required to impart knowledge of the given technique. Does calling Qi something like, biomechanics really change the underlying principles? Not really IMO. In a lot of cases the argument could be made that people better understand and trust the scientifically derived explanations and that by demystifying the technique and the underlying principle, it becomes easier for the student to learn and in turn apply and transmit the technique.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt (Oct 3, 2004)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Back on topic, I think that in a lot of cases, the teachings or beliefs were used as analogies to help transfer the principles of the system quicker. If better analogies exist within the modern culture that don't hinge upon these teachings, then there's no real loss to the technique's effectiveness or to the information transfer required to impart knowledge of the given technique. Does calling Qi something like, biomechanics really change the underlying principles? Not really IMO. In a lot of cases the argument could be made that people better understand and trust the scientifically derived explanations and that by demystifying the technique and the underlying principle, it becomes easier for the student to learn and in turn apply and transmit the technique.



Very good point Marginal. I have personally pondered on that aspect of the Martial teachings myself. However, I found that the religion of the Artist comes into play when this question is asked. The analogy that you put forth works in the case that the practioner is either a Scientologist or an Athiest, but let us not forget other religions that exists. Even though the Chi/Ki (lets just use this example once again) can be explained in Scientific terms, would it still not have its religious properties? Would that not be just another way of explaining the same religious principles? IMO, despite what the principles are referred as, they will still be apparent and needed in the understanding of techniques based upon them. Whether partially or whole, I personally have not seen an example where a student is able to learn a said technique without some level of conformation. And it is this that I am trying to understand.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2004)

ThuNder_FoOt said:
			
		

> Very good point Marginal. I have personally pondered on that aspect of the Martial teachings myself. However, I found that the religion of the Artist comes into play when this question is asked. The analogy that you put forth works in the case that the practioner is either a Scientologist or an Athiest, but let us not forget other religions that exists. Even though the Chi/Ki (lets just use this example once again) can be explained in Scientific terms, would it still not have its religious properties? Would that not be just another way of explaining the same religious principles? IMO, despite what the principles are referred as, they will still be apparent and needed in the understanding of techniques based upon them.



I would say no. If you're taught principles that operate the same as chi but you're taught through neutral labels, I don't see how that could conflict with a religion or impact one's beliefs. Take the focus point below the navel. Boxing employs a similar principle when a trainer mentions Center of Mass/using the hips/not throwing an "arm punch". Is there automatic Sinofication built into any technique that employs a similar concept? Are all boxers subtly Bhuddist?

No. It's merely a biomechanical fact. You generate more power by taking advantage of your center of mass. It's not a religious principle at all on its core. No technique works with its physical component removed. Cloud it with mysticism, use it as proof of God's brilliant design, whatever, there's nothing there that requires a change of attitude in the student provided they're capable of looking at what they're learning objectively, and not apporaching in fear of being changed or losing their faith by moving from their center, or something equally mechanically neutral like moving their hands in a circle to break a hold. (Otherwise, you'd also have to shun geometry lest it corrupt your faith, as it subtly bends you towards the beliefs of the ancient Greeks etc, and Pythagoras was a religious nutter so that can't possibly be desierable.) Ki,chi,qui, God's Love enabling a muscleman to break handcuffs (actually saw an infomercial featuring that stunt. Dude also ripped a phone book in half due to "the power of Christian prayer", which is an iffy conclusion since there's a simple mechanical trick that'll allow anyone of sufficient strength to rip a phonebook in half.)  

Regardless, religion is itself amorphous. It cannot encounter an outside influence without having to react to it either by incorperating elements or attacking them. The only way to avoid alteration in this way would be to set yourself up in a closested community with no further contact from the outside world--Ever. Things changed to keep the religion relevant to the population it caters to. The Bible tossed out God's wife, added the concept of angels, heaven and hell, messianic figures, the apocalypse etc all from running into other religions. If we were to be true to the root religion, we'd be engaged in a form of goofy ancestor worship.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 9, 2004)

-bodhisattvas lack peace and what was that statement??? Being a ch'an buddhist myself excuse me while I wipe my milk I just sprayed all over my screen . Quite clearly, someone needs to google and find out what exactly they're talking about. try www.russbo.com or www.houstonshaolin.com 



Firstly, if you don't understand the multi-diminensional aspects of the system you are studying, how in crimineys do you except to have full understanding and be able to express that in your art??? You are comprimising and it's the same old tma vs mma argument, come sport vs traditional perpetuation , and even in mma ( for all their anti - tma fighting words ) there are traditional aspects relating directly back to the philosphical root belief system even in each demi aspect of the style it came from , expressed in our ma via different structure, and strike direction, power generation, jing alignment and balance distribution etc etc.

chan and shaolin buddhism practices kungfu to facilitate their meditation and don't even spar in practice, but could no doubt use it effectively in defence if necc......mma often has focus on ring fighting and even alot of traditional arts that DO spar have more focus on street defence or combat as sport , which is nothing like what it was in conception, therefore base principal application and interpretation must adapt.

IMO, philosophy in ma is in crux in relation to meditation, form performance and continuation/ affectionado style ( except wushu also a performance art but less spiritually based) ; mma ( including your mantis and karate/ MT etc) is about gearing for the ring and more sport orientated and other traditional styles like WC and crossover adaptions from the sport sector above, are geared to todays street defence. Not to say the others aren't effective in various aspects on the street, but as a whole style, there I believe is the crux.

Ima is a whole new kettle of fish, and differs greatly to external arts in that by understanding merdians and points and concepts of tcma and qi used in martial application, a whole new realm of options external practitioners don't know they're meant to be defending against , opens up . From there, you have various ways of movement and thought tangents , breathing techs and chi cultivation methods that also vary from style to style / philosphical system to system.

It IS an aspect , but to say it's necc for your own maing objective is dogmatic at best..... but if you DO that comprimise, know your reason and ( whether or not you have any desire to ) understand that you missed the point 

Cheers 

BL

btw : buddhism has no god in their "religion" and neither does daoism. For most of us these are just a philosphical ideal to strive to and use to achieve our goals peacefully :0  

Quote
"Find peace in your practice"
Gene Ching


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 9, 2004)

first of all.......confusing the theories of TCM and those of the religions of taoism and buddhism are wrong. i dont mean any disrespect to anyone out there.....but this usually comes from people that take a cursory approach to gaining their knowledge of a given subject. whether you believe in god, satan, taoism, buddhism, hinduism, et al...
doesnt make a hill of beans difference in the understanding of "chi", "ki", "prajna", ad nauseum.......thats like saying penicillin doesnt work because you dont believe in it (some do). 
for my second point......and i know i am going to catch a lot of flack for this,
in 99% of martial arts......the fighting theory was developed before any sort of philosophical or religious values or morals were put in place in the art, so to speak.
the idea of having "moral values" as a part of the learning is to temper the bujin or practitioner, to know when the right time to use it is.......or as a means of justification of using said art. 
thirdly.......there are a lot of practitioners out there that dont believe in "chi", "ki"....but that doesnt make them any less of a practitioner or martial artist. But it does change the focus of how their particular might be taught.

shawn


----------



## The Kai (Nov 10, 2004)

TCM, (accupuncture, herbology) is a attempt to restore the balanace of the forces of Yin/yang with in the individuals body, Taoism is the philosophy that 1st outlines the theory of Yin/yang.  I can see where someone might think there would a connection between the two!

t-


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 10, 2004)

actually......if you are a real follower of TCM, most people would say it pre-dates taoism by about 2000 years. the book "yellow emperor's classic of internal medicine" is based on word of mouth stories between the yellow emperor(huang ti) and his physician(chi po). lao tzu, who is often referred to as the father of taoism was around between 600 and 300 BCE, although he is just considered a legend by many.
huang ti nei ching, and tao te ching were written around the same period though, between 3rd and 1st centuryBCE.

shawn


----------



## Colin_Linz (Dec 28, 2004)

I practice an art that is a religion, Shorinji Kempo. Shorinji Kempo philosophy is based on Kongo Zen Buddhism. I consider myself Buddhist, but it is not necessary to be Buddhist to train in Shorinji Kempo, you are only asked to learn and understand the philosophy, and the philosophy would be compatible with most belief systems I think.

So how would the art change without this philosophical component? I dont think that its understanding of pressure points and ki would change as these are purely mechanical, not some magic belief system. What could change is the focus on the way we train and the end result of techniques. Shorinji Kempo has at its core a belief in using its techniques for self-defence only, and then in the least violent way. We use atemi strikes and a number of joint locks, throws, and pins to try to end the conflict quickly with the aim of controlling the attacker. Our throws and pins are designed to create pain without permanently damaging the joint. Someone using these techniques without the proper control or motivation in using them could cause severe damage. So by bypassing the philosophy you can be creating problems within the society you live and possibly change the art into something more brutal.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2005)

http://www.bridgeport.edu/pages/3872.asp



> A 15-day tour of the celebrated sites frequented by the great Chinese philosophers including their places of origin, academies and natural surroundings that inspired them. We will furthermore visit two renowned Daoist sites of interest: the *White Cloud Temple* in Beijing and A *Daoist hermitage *at the peak of Mount Tai, as well as key places of cultural interest including *The Great Wall*, *Forbidden City *and the *Summer Palace* in Beijing.


----------



## hwarang (May 26, 2005)

honestly martial arts has proved to me there is a god without it id be a freakin crackhead and probably dead.. not only that i think that if a 130 lb shaolin monk can do a handstand on his fingers then there has to be a god lol


----------

