Sloppy Zhang

I feel like there are a lot of added meanings to terms we use, connotations, social perceptions, that shape our view of how we are changing. I was raised in the west. America, to be specific. You give a strong handshake, and look people in the eye when you talk to them. Yes, you talk to them. If someone gives you a problem, you let them know. You face your problems head on. Like a man. You treat women with respect. You have a certain amount of friends you hang out with. Doesn't have to be a lot, a few good close one are good enough. That's kind of the expected model. In many cases, I didn't conform to it growing up. Eventually I realized how to create an image of conforming. It's not really that hard. Once you learn the formula, you can do it. You can not really care, but have everyone think you do. Interesting stuff. But that's a side note. As the saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat". There are lots of different ways to interact. In high school I studied Japanese as my foreign language. I had an actual Japanese teacher from Japan, so I got a chance to learn Japanese culture. In some ways very different, in other ways the same. Got a scholarship to study abroad in Japan. Interesting stuff. Again, you see other ways of how problems are faced and how social interactions are done. So what you "should" be doing is very, VERY socially defined. "Being social" is, in and of itself, socially defined. Now, it's one thing if you do not like the way you are currently. If that's the case, do what you feel you need to do in order to change it. However, I HIGHLY suggest that each and every person examines WHY they feel uncomfortable with how they are- whether they feel they are not social, whether they feel they are turning into a wuss, whether they feel they are too introverted- is it because YOU feel you aren't doing what YOU should be doing, or is it because you don't feel you're doing what you've been TOLD you SHOULD be doing? Not wanting to interact socially does not make you anti-social. You may value the time and energy that goes into social interactions, and choose to put it specifically into social interactions you CHOOSE to, rather than the social interactions that are there by CONVENTION (ie we're at a dinner party, let's have some appetizers and talk to people we really don't care about just to be seen) Being more flexible and accepting of others actions does not make you a wuss. You may learn a lot about different types of people, observe how they behave, and learn how you can solve problems without just saying, "hey, I don't like the way you are acting, you need to change or I'll throw you out of here!" As the saying goes, the tree that bends does not break. However, in the process of bending, the trees structure is not compromised. The dominant view in the culture I was growing up in was that yielding meant you were compromised, that you were weak, that a weakness was exploited, and that you failed to hold your ground. However, there is a type of DELIBERATE yielding in which your structure is not compromised, yet you do not act antagonistically to an opposing force. Not being in mainstream society does not make you introverted. Some prefer to spend their time in more crowded places, others do not. It doesn't mean that there is a problem with you, or your social skills. That is a socially constructed implication from a society that values "outgoing" personalities, "popularity", etc etc.

Mewtwo, I understand your movement towards finding a teaching which is as close to the "source" as possible, but think of it this way- if it's in the form of some teaching, it MUST go through people somewhere along the way. Even if it is etched in stone by the gods, a human must read it and repeat it, humans must interpret it. Even if you physically go to the site of the stone carving, you have no way of knowing that it was actually written in stone by the gods. It could be fake. Now imagine some power left a message in stone right before your eyes, and it revealed to you the truth path and message of peace. You went to tell everyone, and guess what? Everyone says- you could be lying, we don't know you didn't write it yourself, or make it up, blah blah blah. Even if you were the first person to reveal the message, as long as it is being passed in the form of teaching, it allows the possibility to be corrupted by humans. So what can you do? In a general level, you can find the most trustworthy people. Those with perfect memory who recite and pass on teachings which are verified and corroborated by hundreds of others over dozens of years are fairly reliable in terms of consistency. Of course, one could argue that they could still all work together and create a prepackaged system that they just made up or corrupted. And guess what? Even if they DID transmit the original teachings of the buddha, how do you know the buddha was right? The buddha could have been lying! The buddha could have just been duping people! And he got people to follow him, and they also wanted to dupe people, so they passed on the stories of the buddha! You seem to be investigating possible sources of human corruption, but you, in this thread, are assuming the inherent legitimacy of the buddha's teachings, and that others could have corrupt it. Maybe his teachings were corrupt to begin with! So what can you do? PRACTICE it. Find out for yourself. Does it work for you? If so, DO IT. If it doesn't, guess what? DON'T! It's easy to weed out obvious fakes- people who do not have a legitimate lineage, whose stories do not match up or corroborate with other known facts, etc. More often than not, they can't even keep their OWN story straight. They don't have any successful or known students. But then you got the "big guys", major institutions- Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc etc. You can, with relative ease, trace their lineages and the evolution/preservation of any text they use. What you can't do through scholarly effort and background checking is determine the truth of their teachings. You can't determine through scholarly means if the words they have written down were really truth, were really the revealed message, or anything like that. The only way you are going to do that, is through your own practice and experience. Which is one of the things that Buddhism supports! (if I recall correctly)

I've been looking through the website of Jiulong bagua and... it seems kinda fishy... http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/navigate.htm http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/whatis.htm http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/donghai.htm (the historical note at bottom)

In general I agree that conversation in this type of area is going to be more free flowing, a bit more off the cuff, a bit more anecdotal, and overall more casual. But at the same time, serious subjects get discussed here. References are made to specific texts, specific people, and other very specific things which, if referenced, should easily be able to be verified by anyone. Though I can't really come up with any hard and fast rules, and tend to really just say, "it depends on the situation", there are some things that should be cited. Claims about something which may cause controversy. If you are saying that a specific person said something, or something particular was written in a specific text, you should try as hard as possible to cite it. This way others can ensure that what was said was not taken out of context, we can find out what the authors intentions were behind writing that, etc etc.

You have to look at the level of competition. Two kids racing each other to the ice cream truck are still "racing" in the same way that Olympic sprinters are "racing". But those two things are WORLDS apart. The point is that, like my example above, the competition is WORLDS apart. And in martial arts, at least, the level with which you do something plays a big difference. In training, what's better: sporadic, inconsistent practice, or regular, consistent practice? While one could argue that both are "practicing", another could respond with one is practicing more "correctly", and one may even go so far as to argue that the former is not even "practicing" at all, because in their definition, "practicing" may imply regularity and consistency! Push hands is neat as an exercise. But if it remains as some standard, rather than having the practitioner advance to training that involves more actual combat-like scenarios, then, well, it's not really preparing, is it? Sensitivity and other things like that are important, but training individual attributes, while a part of training, cannot alone be the extent of the training. So then, are they really a "good fighter"? If your style focusing on fighting while standing, you may be a very good "stand up fighter", if you focus on wrestling, you might be a very good "wrestler". But to what extent are they just all around "good fighters"? Even soldiers, who can branch off into many specialized fields, all go through the same basic training, they are all held to a certain standard of proficiency in a variety of basic skills. Even without specialized training, they can all be considered "good soldiers". Now I should probably say that I have the utmost respect for internal martial arts, their history, its teachers, and the contributions they have made in knowing the human body and developing it through highly specialized training. But there are some obvious failings for the most part (not the entirety, however) in many martial arts communities, though they tend to be more prevalent in internal martial arts, and some other arts which are considered more "traditional". That seems to be the common thread of acceptance without testing. Lack of training in situations that mimic as closely as possible real combat. Martial arts can be found in pretty much all cultures. Boxing and wrestling found in the west can be seen in ancient Greece (though perhaps in different forms than we see today). Yet they continue to grow and innovate and be shaped not theoretically, but PRACTICALLY. In the ring. On the street. Even in military combatives (when my dad was in the navy, he said he learned boxing and judo as part of his basic training) Where is bagua being developed? Tai chi? Where is it being used? Teachers like Novell Bell and Rudy Curry are doing a great job of introducing traditional arts in a modern context. Sifu Rudy had a great video a while back about tai chi heavy bag training. Very interesting stuff. Students and other teachers need to be taking that further, training students so that they can develop APPLICABLE skills, and hopefully, sometime, adapt those skills for usage in professional fighting venues (which would of course different from non-ring versions).

Assuming for the moment that you are creating a reality in which meridians, dantiens and other energy structures exist, and that you can manipulate them.... I'd say yes, certain forms have specific targets. For example, B.K. Frantzis' Dragon and Tiger Medical Qigong form targets specific pathways. Are there probably other forms of energizing the same pathways? Sure. Is there most likely a way you can energize these even without going through a routine? Sure. Can you spontaneously discover these pathways and energize them yourself? Most likely. But that doesn't necessarily put it in the realm of "bs", at least in my humble opinion.

Ah, I see. Well, I guess it depends. Ideally a direct quote, the source used, and where exactly in the source the selection came from should be given. But, you know, that can't always happen. Sometimes we don't have the book/website on hand, sometimes we can't even remember where we read it. Usually if that happens I say something like, "I can't remember where I read this, but...." and so on. For an obvious reference like, "it says in the Bible that...." well, that's helpful and unhelpful, because now we know what to look in, but we don't know where! In an academic or professional setting, a direct reference would be required. You can't really just say, "oh it says so in the Bible, really, go read it all for yourself!" But in an internet forum (which can run the gamut from very casual to very formal), I'm inclined to be a little less strict. However, if you are saying something that is a bit more extreme, like, "the Bible says that aliens don't exist!" then, uh, you should probably cite where you're getting that directly. I dunno if that helps. Just my thoughts on it. The more potentially inflammatory the reference, the more citation needed, I'd say.

Unless being barred from the path is part of the unbalancing process. (note: I do not agree with the statement I made just above this one, I'm just saying that if you adopt the view that unbalanced things eventually re-balance, well, maybe THIS is part of the re-balancing, not the unbalancing).

When it's too cold to do the things I do in warmer times of the year in the manner I normally do them

If you choose not to share, that's fine. It's your prerogative. But if you go around saying, "oh well this is not martial arts, I have the real martial arts, oh but no, I'm told I can't show you", well, hopefully you see how that behavior is suspect? No, I do not agree 100% that the average poster isn't the smartest or the most experience. I'd only disagree with you on the extent of the value (or lack thereof) of bullshido and the people who frequent it (some of whom are very experienced, very respectful, and very intelligent). Yet some how they catch all the heat for doing it. That's funny. No, it wouldn't. Do you know why? Because with them "calling all the shots", none of the fakes would have a job. There would be no question of what training methods were effective. New, experimental, and alternative methods would not go around (nor would they be allowed to) making claims about what it can do, how it can beat X number of people, how he can beat someone even if they have Y amount more muscle mass than you, etc etc, and instead would be subjected to rigorous testing and carefully analyzed results before making any claims. Even those new to martial arts would have less of a chance of being duped, because the standards would be so obvious and enforced. If bullshido "called all the shots" in the martial arts world, eventually bullshido would be out of a job. The few amount of newbies that slip through the cracks somehow and don't know the standards of training would not be numerous enough to make it a profitable (if it was even self sustaining) business venture. No one cares if they are lame. Bullshido has no problem with someone being the lamest dude on the planet. Their goal is not to eliminate lame-ness from the world. Their goal is to eliminate the people who are lame and LYING about it. Again, if you show up and say, "hi, I learned bagua (or any other art) from my teacher who is so and so, he said it came from such and such lineage, but I've never met someone else from the lineage, he said it can be used in combat, but I've never used it in a fight, he told me these are what the applications are, but I don't know because I've never used them, and to be honest I haven't really had to, however, bagua has really helped my coordination, circulation, and gives me good exercise. I'll teach you what I know" they'd be perfectly fine. The PROBLEM comes when someone like that says stuff like: "I learned bagua from my teacher, who said it's from a 100,000 year lineage, and unlike normal bagua, which can only fight 8 people at a time, this can fight 78 at a time, and I know, because I used to be a special forces soldier, but I can't tell you where I was deployed because they were all black ops missions, but once we were surrounded by insurgents armed with knives and machetes in south american jungles, and there were 80 of them, and we were out of bullets, and I beat them all and saved all my buddies, but they're dead now so you can't verify that. Also my teacher is well respected in an obscure part of China. If you learn this, you'll be able to fight people who train for "ring" "sports", you won't need to work out, and you'll be able to defend yourself against armed and unarmed attackers." See the difference? It's not about "cool" or "lame", it's about "truth" or "bullshit" (or should I say, "bullshido" ) I have no interest in support frauds, especially when the stuff they teach can get people killed. And I have very little respect for appealing to concepts such as "strength", "fortitude", "freedom" and the like when they are used to defend the reprehensible actions taken by deliberate frauds. Perhaps you should ask that in a new thread?

If you don't mind my asking, what thread had this brought up? If I see large blocks of text in a quote box, I assume it's a quote. If there isn't a direct link, they usually say where it is. In some cases, people might have read something in a book about a certain subject, and are just writing from memory what they remember the book saying. Stuff that I remember from books I usually do that, make a brief reference from where I read what it is, then just say it, but I don't always give a link. Any examples that you have?

For me meditation and qigong have made me more attuned to the energy I have, the energy other people are giving off, and how I am spending my energy. Sometimes chit-chat is a waste of time. Sometimes it just doesn't matter. Doing it, not doing it, no difference in outcome. So don't do it. You feel like you have something better to do, so go do it. Sometimes, though, chit-chat is great. You build a relationship with someone one small step at a time. Talk about this, talk about that, get to know each other, feel more comfortable around each other. Have fun. It's nice. The energy feels good. You feel energized. You enjoy your time. You know there are other things you could be doing, but doing them at the time just doesn't feel right. You feel right in the conversation. When the conversation stagnates, when you feel like it's run its course, and you start to feel like you need to move on, do so. That's what I've gotten, and so far it's worked out nicely. Times that I'm too social I don't get any work done. Times that I try to be workworkworkworkwork are times when I miss out on some very good opportunities. Feel it out. Know yourself. Know how much time you feel good about doing what. As far as interacting with people, yeah, there's a lot of shit in the world. Sometimes you don't sound like you're all "with it". In that case, either try to remove yourself from the situation (which you can't always do), and if you can't, try to find something simple to enjoy. If you're talking with a person, talk simple subjects. If you're enthusiastic about nothing, talk about nothing! Or, what I've started to do, is ask people about what they think about such-and-such subject. Could be seriously spiritual, could be frivolous. Not everyone takes time out of their day to think about certain kinds of things. If you bring it up nicely enough, they might enjoy the change of pace. Don't force them to do something they don't want to do, don't try to lead them. Just observe them going through their process. It's quite interesting, fun, and simple who knows you might get them started on something themselves

Well look, it depends on your perspective. Some people look at boxing and say, "training in boxing will hurt you when you get old." Some people look at karate and say, "karate training hurts you when you get old", but then say, "look at this old guy doing bagua, he's so healthy, this art doesn't hurt you when you get old!" And it's like.... well, what are the standards you are using? Conditioning your body to be able to do the techniques you are learning is part of martial arts. Some arts focus on muscle building. So for boxing you gotta work out the muscles you are going to use. There are correct ways of working out, and incorrect ways of working out. Working out incorrectly will hurt you. Working out correctly will not. Look at Billy Blanks (of Tae Bo fame), he's 55 and still going! He's fit even when compared to other people who frequently exercise. Chuck Liddell is 41, and he's still a beast. So to say that "working out" and "muscle building" and stuff will damage your body in the long term, based on what you see of boxers and other athletes (like football players, wrestlers, etc) isn't really correct. Now the people working out building muscle and then learning how to use this for fighting are going the extra step and having a martial art that they are putting on the line. They compete, they train others who compete using the same art and same techniques, and win some and lose some. Hopefully they win more than they lose, and their art becomes pretty reliable. Now you've got arts like many of the internal ones, and they don't compete because of various reasons which I'm sure we're all familiar with, whether we agree or disagree. So not only are we left with kind of a vague set of standards for what "doesn't hurt the practitioner doing it", but we're also left with a vague standard of what a martial art that "works" actually looks like, because we never see it when it's working (we only really see it when it isn't because of practitioners who "aren't doing it right" are getting their asses kicked and having it pasted all over youtube). Meanwhile you got lots of examples of arts that DO work (meaning it has a training method that actually prepares a student to be able to fight using the techniques they learn, actually teach applications which are feasible, and that actually practice and carry out the applications against a live, resisting, determined opponent), coupled with fighters who are quite healthy well into their 40's and 50's. I agree with this insofar as your own personal training. You do what you do, and don't care about what other people are doing or saying. But at the same time, you also have to be aware. Aware of what you are doing and aware of what others are doing. Is what you are doing effective? Are you getting results that you think you should be getting? Is there a general timeline (keeping in mind that everyone is unique and progresses differently) that you can measure your progress by? Are you seeing the signs of progress? And stretching further (for the people who like to keep other peoples' best interests in mind), are other people doing what they say they are doing? Are they teaching others a method which is effective? It's good to get outside of yourself in order to observe yourself. In the "best kung fu master" thread, there was some talk of going into "la la land" or something like that. If you exclusively focus on the way you are doing things, and not thinking of others, you can allow HUGE blind spots. Other people can capitalize on this. BJJ and wrestling did this prior to, and subsequently during, the formation of the UFC. BJJ and wrestling were the styles that got furthest in the competition, surpassing karate, boxing, wing chun, and the like. Why? Because so far everyone had neglected the ground aspect. "Why would you want to fight on the ground? A smart fighter would never take someone to the ground. Holy shit, I'm on the ground, oh fuck, my arm is breaking and I'm being choked out!" In subsequent years, even if you want to be a stand up fighter, having a good defense against ground maneuvers, and being a competent ground fighter yourself, are the best ways to stay standing up. We wouldn't have seen this if we just ignored what everyone else was doing.

Since you brought up youtube, mind showing some clips of what would you call "ordinary kungfu skill", "extraordinary skill", and "no skill"? Just so we have a frame of reference? On reading the links you posted, you talk about bullshido a bit. How much time have you actually spent on bullshido? How much time did you spend getting to know people there, or at least observing what ACTUALLY happens? I agree that bullshido is a magnet for internet bullies. They want to hate on someone, and bullshido gives them an excuse to do that. However, there is a core in bullshido of people who actually train martial arts (some of them train traditional arts like bajiquan) and who actively visit schools all over the country and organize tournaments where people can get together and test their skills in as real an environment as possible. Yes, there are "rules". Yes, they try to avoid "killing", "eye gouging", and "electrocuting people with chi." But they provide an environment where skilled (or potentially unskilled) fighters can get together and test their techniques against other skilled (or potentially unskilled), determined, resisting opponents. It's important to note that it is the anonymous bullshido user who has made it "cool" to random insult martial arts. Just as it has become cool in other circles to use bullshido as an example of ignorant haters. The core of people at bullshido have put their names and reputation on the line time and time again. They are mature enough to admit when they are wrong. When they meet a teacher who has a training method that actually prepares a student to be able to fight using the techniques they learn, actually teach applications which are feasible, and that actually practice the applications against a live, resisting, determined opponent, they say, "this guy has the goods, respect him, learn from him, if you don't, that's fine, but don't insult him, because if you do, we will run you out of here." Legitimate martial artists have NOTHING to fear from bullshido. They are rough around the edges, and pick up a lot of random internet haters, but they are honest. Even with themselves! If they find a guy teaching BJJ in a poor manner, they try to shut the guy down. Bullshido is no holds barred when it comes to martial arts investigation. They don't pull punches, and they don't care who it is they are hitting. The only way you are "safe" is if you are "legitimate." And if you are up front and honest about what you can and can't do, guess what? THEY DON'T CARE! If you say, "I've never been in real combat, I've never entered a tournament, I've learned this from a teacher but I've never used it in a fight, so just keep that in mind when I teach you combat applications", THEY DON'T CARE! Why? Because you are being HONEST! It's about setting a standard of honesty and then holding everyone to it. Youtube comments in general are not a good group to sample. Though I've come across some really intelligent youtube users and made good friends through the comment sections, there's a lot of shit that goes on in them. Because not only do you have someone with an opinion, you've got someone who's willing to log in, leave a comment, then come back and respond. So they're already pretty well into whatever it is they are into. Bull. Shit. Wow. Exaggerating a bit? Free market does not mean you are allowed to lie to people about your credentials, about what you can do, about what your art can do, etc etc. That is false advertising. That is illegal. The problem with the martial arts community (and also in the spiritual community, but that's a whole new can of worms) is that there is no set standard. And part of that comes from the community. The consumers. When someone comes in saying, "I can project energy to make the opponent freeze up just long enough for me to apply a technique," or, "this art can beat 8 opponents at once", how do we respond? With "awesome" or "that doesn't sound very probable, let's see it in action". To a certain extent, you can't distrust everything. To a certain extent, you have to rely on the words of other people. However, rely on those words within reason. 8 opponents is a lot of people. There are a lot of very strong, well conditioned people out there (even who aren't trained fighters), are you going to rely on your energy to stop them? Are you not going to pressure test your skills and just say, "well in a real fight it'll work out"? That is dangerous. And fraudulent martial arts teachers telling people this, by virtue of the fact that they are in this position, get away with it. Why? Because there is no standard to judge people by. People new to martial arts go, "well if he's a teacher, and he has his own school, and he has a black belt, he must be real!" Why? Because most other schools and teachers have credentials that they must adhere to! Little do people know that no one is holding martial artists accountable for anything.

Very good points have been made. Styles like boxing, judo, BJJ, karate, even stuff like Tae Kwon Do, have people who train in their styles represent the style in competitive matches. Other styles, such as Krav Maga, are currently in use by some of the best military organizations in the world. They have routinely put their skills, and reputation, on the line, and have come out the victor. Conversely, what have most internal arts and their teachers done? Well, not much. I don't know how many people saw video, but, well, it's very representative of the state of many things today. Though most of the BGZ guy's stuff wasn't too hot, there are a few times where you can tell he tried to attempt some bagua techniques, and what happens? He runs into a wall of muscle and gets the crap beat out of him (there was a point where he tried to spin, and all he did was give up his back). Now how do most people respond to this? "Well it WAS a fight in the ring after all." Wow. Seriously. The rhetoric around most IMA, and lots of other traditional martial arts (TMA), who either don't fight competitively, or don't have aspects of training which are rooted in sparring/fighting a resisting opponent have lots of carefully crafted reasons excuses for why their arts either 1) won't work in the ring, or 2) will work in a live encounter despite the lack of live training. The people saying stuff about this fight are saying, "well the muay thai guy was better conditioned", "well I'm old and haven't fought for a long time", "well I train for real encounters" and so on, despite stuff you hear from internal styles saying, "it doesn't matter if they are stronger than you," "you get stronger with age because your body gets more supple," and other considerations like that. Furthermore, what kind of "real" encounters are your preparing for if you can't fight a guy with a little muscle? It seems the trend today to work out just to get a hot body. Even if they aren't particularly trained, a lot of people have some serious muscle on their bodies, and brute force HURTS, especially if you're only moderately trained in martial arts and don't know how to handle that kind of opponent (because previously you've only trained against people who know your style and who aren't really trying to hurt you). I look at people who teach traditional martial arts and internal arts and look at what it is they are teaching and how. Lots of those arts do not train in a way that I'd consider live or in a manner that would adequately prepare you for a serious non-friendly encounter. I've heard rumors that B.K. Frantzis, in particular, took part in serious martial competitions with his bagua, and came out on top. But those are rumors I can't confirm. So I don't have any opinion on the martial skill of his person, nor do I comment on the martial skill of his students. Most of what he teaches, and most of his students, seem a lot more focused on the healing aspects, and theoretical competitions. Now it might be that I just haven't heard, but most don't seem to be putting in the training that develops actual combat skills (which is different than just learning combat applications). As for other arts, until I see evidence that they are training in a realistic way, well.... I take most of their "combat" teachings with a giant lump of salt. For energy people talking about combat.... well, look, I personally hold the crazy believe that it's possible. Does that mean I believe the people teaching it can do it? Does it mean I believe that the method they are teaching is the one that will make it work? Not necessarily. I can say that nobody has ever tested it under 1) controlled conditions (science experiments) or 2) hostile conditions (recorded fight) in any real conclusive manner. So, well, it doesn't have a good track record. In fact, it doesn't have ANY track record. For the people saying it's not for the ring, it's not for competitions, well, look at your martial arts history, a lot of bagua, xingyi, and tai chi people stepped up onto the lei tai and fought challengers. Lei tai had (and has) a bit of a different dynamic, because you could push people off, so for the non-violent types it was a great way to showcase skills. It's actually illegal in UFC to throw people out of the ring. So the non-violent types are going to have to use a different skill set to establish their dominance. But look, even at bullshido, a rough place in general, they have respect for tai chi- REAL tai chi. They look at videos of sanshou and lei tai fights (full contact fights) and those who know what they are looking at can see tai chi applications used in fights. Last time I was there (which admittedly hasn't been for a while now), they didn't take kindly to people bashing tai chi as a martial art, because they had seen evidence to the contrary (assuming proper training). I advocate people being up front and honest about what they can do, and part of that is demonstrating skills they claim to possess. No one HAS to step out into the public. No one HAS to demonstrate or share what it is they practice. Everyone has the right to privacy. HOWEVER, if someone steps forward and starts making claims, then those claims need to be substantiated if they want those claims to be treated seriously. Failing to substantiate those claims is suspicious at best. It's not about saying, "who's right" or "who's wrong", it's about everyone holding each other to a standard of accountability, to keep each other grounded in reality, and making sure that the techniques being taught to others are GENUINE techniques that actually WORK, DO what they SAY they can do, do not hurt people doing them, and that leave no room for frauds to take advantage of new students. So, long story short, sykkelpump has a point.

Great topic! I too am interested in hearing what others have to say about winter time practice. Practicing outside and barefoot is great during warm weather time, but what to do in winter? Practice concerns, etc.

Yeah, it's neat that we get an interview about this but.... yeah, some of the actions of the people involved seem kind of sketchy. Obviously there's a lot to be said for being there and knowing the people involved, but just hearing the description of the actions..... it kinda sounds like John Chang didn't want the guy to be there and the guy in the interview was being avoided? So he just shows up, "so no one can make any excuses"? Seems a bit awkward. If a teacher is willing to teach, you'd know it. If they aren't talking to you, then maybe there is something you still need to work on, and you have all the tools to do it yourself, so the teacher doesn't want you to be around, but rather working on it on your own, or they just aren't interested in having you around any more. Though you don't always know what's going through someone's mind, their actions can clue you in. Again, hard to say from just this interview, buuuut IMHO it doesn't sound promising for this guy... But I bet in the west this guy gets a lot of clout for being a "western student of THE John Chang." And the way the interviewer kept referring to "Chang" and asking questions, it was like some tabloid media outlet. I'm all for masters being open, I'm all for legitimate practices being made open, but seriously, try to refer to people with a bit more respect! Again, it's cool that there are people interacting with teachers and students of Mo Pai, but I dunno, it doesn't seem like there is as much enthusiasm on their end for teaching as it is on our end for learning.

So there's a LOT of material out by Mantak Chia (and also Michael Winn) that teaches a lot of stuff. I'm interested in looking at some of what they have to offer, but I have no idea where to begin. What's the general order, from beginner to advanced, that one is supposed to practice?

I'm interested! I'm not in a position right now where I can go meet people, I'm trying to see what material I can get together through book (and possibly DVD format). But he's put so much out there that I don't know where to begin, and like I said, I'd like to do it in proper progression.

To give me all of your money! Because money just distracts you from the real good things in life!

You say that tao te ching has not been altered according to your definition. What is your definition?

I'm saying "traditional" and "modern" arts in terms of dates and the types of techniques you'd most likely see in a random encounter off the street, or in an amateur or professional fight. Many arts that are in practice today have been in existence for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Some training philosophies of historical arts have the same philosophy that modern combatives taught in the military have. So to that extent, you can say they are the same. But I'm loosely categorizing them in terms of their time periods. You can say "2,000 years old isn't really old by any stretch", and that's fair in the grand scheme of things. But that drifts into a semantical argument. I'm not trying to come up with a cut and dried labeling system of martial arts, because depending on what you want to look at, you can arrange them any which way. My point is that people get mired in how their teachers trained, how their teacher's teachers trained, and so on and so forth. So they see people using heavy bags and boxing gloves and say, "that's not how we train, instead we wrap our hands in bandages and hit wooden dummies." Yeah, you can say, "well both involve hitting shit!" but not everyone does that. And seeing as how not everyone has access to wooden dummies, a lot of people just don't practice that part. Then that aspect of training gets lost, so now you've got a group of people who aren't even training their art in a proper or effective way- you've got people who train to hit stuff who've never even hit anything before! [/rant] Point is, don't get hung up on my off the cuff classifications

I don't have any of his CD's, so I can't comment on them.

Skip ahead to about 1:19, is this what you're talking about:

EXCELLENT breathing method. Ever since I started it, I've only had good experiences with that. On top of that, whenever I study other disciplines (such as singing), you know what method I come across? Full breathing that is almost exactly the same as the taoist breathing that BKF teaches (which I think he has called "longevity breathing"). Basically, it is a great way to start learning to breathe in a natural way that also allows you to breathe to your fullest capacity WITHOUT over stressing the system (that's assuming you stick to things like the 70% rule, and pay attention to what your body tells you!) That said, I think that any issues or difficulties you, or anyone else, will come across will be individual in nature, and will only be fixed through consistent practice, as well as consistent awareness of what you are doing, as well as, if you are practicing on your own from a book, consistent re-reading of the material. You pick out different things when you read it. Sometimes you will find yourself focusing on different aspects and ignoring others, only to find that something you glossed over is the key to solving your problem. So I'd say read the material every day for a good two to three days, practice for about a week, then revisit the material for a couple of days, in which you re-read the material, while adjusting your practice. I don't really have any unique stories or tips to give. There's a lot of stuff that came up over the course of practice, but it was resolved by more practice, more awareness, and a deeper study and reflection on the material. As far as other material, I'd stick with "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body". He describes a breathing method in "Relaxing into Your Being", but it's basically a less detailed version of the longevity breathing as laid out in "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body". He also mentions some standing alignments, as well as mentions stuff about breathing and alignments in the Dragon and Tiger Medical Qigong book, but that too was taken from Energy Gates. If you just stick with the energy gates book, and really make an effort to KNOW the material and truly be able to DO it before moving onto the next step, you WILL make progress. Just make sure you don't fool yourself, keep the integrity of your practice, and try to look critically at what you are doing. You have to be a student AND a teacher, and sometimes that's hard, but it's the only way to succeed if you're practicing on your own.