Heart to Heart transmission

[Chiahua]

This continues some important questions that Ovidius raised in the "that was Zen this is Tao" thread which, frankly got a tad bit out of hand.
So before I go on, let me offer a favorite quote from the Zhuangzi:

You and I having been made to argue over alternatives, if it is you not I that wins, is it really you who are on to it, I who am not? If it is I not you that wins, is it really I who am on to it, you who are not? Is one of us on to it and the other of us not? Or are both of us on to it and both of us not? If you and I are unable to know where we stand, others will surely be in the dark because of us. Whom shall I call in to decide it? If I get someone of your party to decide it, being already of your party how can he decide it? If I get someone of my party to decide it, being already of my party how can he decide it? If I get someone of a different party as both of us to decide it, being already of a party different from either of us how can he decide it? If I get someone of the same party as both of us to decide it, being already of the same party as both of us how can he decide it? Consequently you and I and he are all unable to know where we stand, and shall we find someone elese to depend on?
It makes no difference whether the voices in their transformations have each other to depend on or not. Smooth them out on the whetstone of Heaven, use them to go by and let the stream find its own channels; this is the way to live out your years. Forget the years, forget duty, be shaken into motion by the limitless, and so find things their lodging-places in the limitless.
What is meant by 'Smooth them out on the whetstone of Heaven'? Treat as 'it' even what is not, treat as 'so' even what is not. If the 'it' is really it, there is no longer a difference for the disputation from what is not it; if the 'so' is really so, there is no longer a difference for disputaiton from what is not so.
Zhuazi, tras. Graham, AC (2001). Chuang-Tzu: The inner chapters. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, p 60.

Now that I got that off my chest,

What kind of "direct experience" would suffice since Master Liu is not alive and Sifu Frantzis' words are not counted as evidence -- probably even if he would personally explain it here. The point is, that the window of opportunity has closed a long time ago. There is no other way to study or know what the original Chan or Zen masters actually did (you know this is true, for example 18 Lohan Hands, Sifu Wong had to "reconstruct" them since the original ones are really not known by people today -> we don't directly know what and how Bodhidharma taught, and where did he learn those things), that to study the narrations of other people.

In some scholarly circles there is debate whether these famous figures (Laozi, Zhuangzi, Bodhidharma, Hui-Neng) actually ever existed, historically. All we have to rely on is archaeological evidence. Even if said evidence is found, it takes decades to sift through what is found to make sense of it. The question you ask is really really important, the question of reconstruction. It's like a story that is passed through many story tellers, before the advent of writing systems-- each person who hears and retells the story will hear it differently and tell it differently. Over time, if one could hear the original story and the "current" one, it could be quite different. People in different parts of a country might have their own version. But even if you hear a different variation of the old story, you can recognize the original in the new version. As another example, I like to eat. One of my favorite foods is curry. I don't know where it came from, but I think it's India. From India it went to soooo many different countries: Thailand, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, even Japan. They all have a different kind of curry, and they are all very different; yet there is something about them that makes them a tasty dish that I would like to eat. I think that's true of qigong. The 18 lohan hands has passed through many masters. They may perform it differently, but that's only on the surface. What really matters is the "spirit" in how it's done. A curry is a curry if it has that certain kind of spice base. The difference between the curry example and qigong is that there is I think a "right spirit" with which to approach the exercise. What constitutes the "right spirit" is something I trust my seniors and elders to provide.
Things may be lost along the way, but other things may be added to it. I think it relates to the thread on "Sifu Wong's teaching method".
Sorry for the long post.
Happy training,
Chia-Hua

[Jeffrey Segal]

keeping this lovely thread alive

Hi Chia (I'm chasing you around the forum this morning),

I'm posting here becaue I think it's a shame to see your thread being neglected in favour of all the action going on in the Zen/Tao thread.

For me, the case of the authenticity of the essence of the 18 Lohan hands doesn't even arise for the following reason.

Sifu Wong teaches me using heart to heart transmission. I achieve the expected results of my Qigong training and Sifu himself walks his talk like few others I have met.

Sifu Wong was taught by Sigung Ho in similar fashion and from what I have heard from Sifu Wong, Sigung Ho's attainment was nothing short of remarkable.

Sigung Ho was also taught heart to heart by Sitaigung Yang who in turn was taught by the venerable Jiang Nan, one of the patriachs of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. The venerable Jiang Nan was a monk at the southern Shaolin Temple and my heart tells me that he was also taught heart to heart, though probably at a level we cannot even imagine. Thus the story continues backwards in time from disciple to master, perhaps (thought not definitely) with small changes in form or execution but certainly retaining the essence of the art.

From the Heart

[Sifu Stier]

Indoor Students!

Gentlemen:

I enjoyed both of your posts. Some good thinking by everyone! I believe that the 'heart to heart transmission' is typical of 'Master to Disciple' relationships in all of the Chinese styles, particularly and oftentimes only with formally Initiated Disciples, or Indoor Students, usually few in number, rather than the larger population of 'public students' attending group classes at the kwoon or outdoors in the park. Anyone fortunate enough to find an opportunity to train with a competent Master in this more private and personal way should count themselves very lucky! Great Masters, of course,
will openly transmit their art 'straight from the heart' even to those in the more public instruction venues.

[Chiahua]

Difference between "Park transmission" and "indoor transmission"?

I think one of the big differences (me pointing out the obvious?) between teaching in a park and the indoor disciple situation is that in the latter the student is already receptive to what the teacher is trying to transmit, which is not always the case in a large setting. It is indeed a rare treat to have training sessions where the teacher will reveal that one point that makes everything clear.

[Darryl]

Method, Master, Student

It is indeed a rare treat to have training sessions where the teacher will reveal that one point that makes everything clear.

It is a rare treat to have training sessions where the student will finally hear that one point that makes everything clear.

I have had several examples recently of where my students can intellectually understand and recite explanations of specific techniques, yet all that they thought they knew melts away when they actually gain the understanding through direct experience.

Different times call for different methods - sometimes it's enough to plant a seed, other times to gently prune a bush and other times to mercilessly hack away at the undergrowth.

Purely a personal opinion, but 'transmission of skill' is a poor translation of what is actually happenning. 'Heart to heart' is a great description, but merely hints at the great depth and scope of what is happenning. At the moment, I think I am teaching skills and while they may be coming from the heart, I don't think that it's the same thing.

So my question for the thread is - what is 'Heart to Heart transmission?'

[Ovidius]

The question you ask is really really important, the question of reconstruction. It's like a story that is passed through many story tellers, before the advent of writing systems-- each person who hears and retells the story will hear it differently and tell it differently. Over time, if one could hear the original story and the "current" one, it could be quite different.

We did one experiment on high school where a chain of about 10-20 people was contructed and a small story was told to first person and that person told it to next person in chain and so on. It was amazing how the information changed

[Charles David]

The Second Patriarch

So my question for the thread is - what is 'Heart to Heart transmission?'

From my limited understanding, and subject to further investigation:

[Chiahua]

So my question for the thread is - what is 'Heart to Heart transmission?'

It'd be easy to get caught up in the vagaries of what is meant by "heart". It's a literal translation of the chinese term "xin", which is commonly translated as "mind" depending on the context. "Mind to mind" transmission I feel misses the elements of teaching that fall outside of conscious awareness. Sometimes when you receive a good teaching you surprise yourself.