Dispelling Ignorance and Untruths - A Case Study of Baguamonk1's Posts

[Baguamonk1]

Thanks for a humble reply.

i understand, I have said much of what I wanted to talk about anyways. I have clarified most of my posts, I don't think there is a need. Good luck with the training everyone.

Both inexperienced and the general public alike are "fickle" I can see why my posts might be a "danger." But I think you guys, the more experienced crowd can see that I am not trying to destroy or discredit anything. But every business, and organization needs to maintain the integrity of its teachings in some way or another, and I realize that this forum is more for those who fit within the context of the organizations teachings, and its own discussion. For outsiders, to comment and disagree, can have a great effect on the "fickle" denomination, not because the outsiders are correct or hold the answers, but rather because of the lack of experience of the "fickle" viewer. Especially if the "outsiders" can convey thoughts, and reply to attacks in an efficient manner. Although I think some were too aggressive in their "corrections."

I see the intention and purpose for this thread, but I do not agree with the representation of my posts.In many cases it is outright false, and completely misleading of what I was trying to convey. And I realize alot of that is my fault, which is why I have apologized and tried to form different ways of expressing my opinion.

But there is no need anymore. O

[Jordan]

Baguamonk1, I do not think you or the posts you have made are malicious, or that you are trying to destroy our work or cause arguments.

My concern, as already explained by Darryl, is that forum members who persist to post untruths may wrongly educate the younger members of the family.

Also, it is helpful to say what you mean to say, and not muddle your thoughts. This is having mental clarity and helps to reduce confusion.

When I quote you, you may find that you meant something very different than what you actually wrote. But due to your lack of clarity at that time, we are left to make the best of your posts as we can.

[Antonius]

I see the intention and purpose for this thread, but I do not agree with the representation of my posts.In many cases it is outright false, and completely misleading of what I was trying to convey.

Okay. So then please help us to clarify things. What I think perhaps you are missing in all of this, Baguamonk, is a objective view of your own posts. As Jordan said, they often lack clarity.

That would be fine if it were just a few posts, but as Darryl said, you post a lot. While you've been posting here, we've tried to clarify and discuss things with you. But it doesn't seem to work. You start with a post that says one thing; we try to discuss and clarify things; then you respond with a post that doesn't really clear things up. Can you be objective enough to recognize this pattern?

You keep complaining about the forum, and about how we are ganging up on you, how we are insecure, etc. -- and yet you are still here typing, which is a sign that, underneath it all, you must see some value in our forum. When push comes to shove, we may have strong opinions, but we are extremely reasonable folks, and we respond well to reason. Keep that in mind.

I'm all about clarity. So lets make some efforts to clarify some of the things you've said. If it turns out that some of your statements didn't mean what you intended them to mean, then we can clarify them now.

[Nick Jones]

Dear Baguamonk1,

I don't think anything I have posted disagrees with Wahnam principles, maybe in your eyes, but not in mine

I think this maybe the crux of the issue. Now if you were to state something that in our eyes was in opposition to our principles we are duty bound to correct it. Which is what has happened in this thread.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with NLP, however I think one or two of its principles can help us understand why the communication breakdown is occuring here.

One important premise of NLP is that:

The meaning of your communication is the response you get

From your posts, I would guess that the responses you receive are not what you are expecting from your intended meaning. So, obviously something is awry in the delivery of your intended meaning.

In regards to this thread (which I sincerely believe my Sifu started to help you and others and not as an attack) we can look at another principle:

There is no failure, only feedback

Please consider this. This suggests that this thread is not an indication that you have failed in whatever objective(s) you have on this forum. Rather it is a tool by which you can more effectively realise that objective(s).

This thread is an opportunity for you to clarify your posts and thus allow the meaning that you intended to the be meaning that is inferred by the readers.

I understand that this has been said previously and that I risk sounding as if I am parroting my seniors. However, another principle is that:

Multiple descriptions are better than one

I believe that another method of delivering the message can only give you more chance of benefitting from it and that writing this post is also an exercise in developing my own mental clarity.

Nick.

[Molly]

Hey Baguamonk1,

Whereas I get your defensive reaction to this thread, since almost no one wants to have their words called out as false for all the public to see, I'd like to offer you a chengyu which seems to fit your case. I'm not sure how fit the actual characters into this post, but it goes 'liang yao ku kou', which means, good medicine tastes bitter (but it helps). I feel no need to deconstruct any of your posts. But I must admit from our discussions that I don't agree with many of the opinions you have presented here. Clearly, my seniors don't either. As they have stated, this is primarily a forum for Wahnam students, and it's the seniors' job to ensure no false information is being spread here that might potentially harm the juniors. They've taken an oath to do this (as we all have) and are merely fufulling it. Regardless of whether you perceive it in a negative of positive light, they are trying to help you with this thread to see beyond some of your own misconceptions of Shaolinquan and IMA. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. There's plenty of students in this organization who have misconceptions about things, myself included. I count on my seniors to point out my fallicies in these areas so I can correct my mistakes and expand my knowledge, and thereby deepen my training. This thread was begun in regards to you for those exact reasons. You may not like how it's being phrased, but it is what you need to hear. I'm not saying you're a huge egoist, but I'd suggest you put your ego aside for a moment, and read the instructors replies with a more open heart. You may find something about yourself in their words that you weren't aware of. If you can do that, you can start to move past your own misconceptions and expand your knowledge and training too. Regards, Molly

[Jordan]

Calling a Spade a Spade

This thread is a continuation of Sifu Ronan’s thread “Dispelling Ignorance and Restoring the Glory of Kungfu” and Sifu Anthony’s thread “Revealing False Statements”, as part of our on-going effort to dispel ignorance and untruths among many kungfu practitioners today. As instructors of Shaolin Wahnam, we regard this as a sacred duty to our students in particular and to the public in general.

As Sifu Anthony has said, we want to call a spade a spade. If it is ignorance, we say it is ignorance; we do not want to sugar-coat it and may therefore give a wrong connotation by saying something like “a statement of fact or opinion, depending on how you look at it, which may be proven wrong and therefore be harmful to other people, and which is due to the speaker's or writer's inadequate or incomplete information or education”.

Interestingly, there are more statements showing ignorance and untruths in Baguamonk1’s recent posts. But as I have prepared much material to show Baguamonk1’s ignorance and untruths in the post quoted at the beginning of this thread, I shall continue with my set purpose. Hopefully other people may highlight these statements of ignorance and untruths in his recent posts.

I would also like to mention that the evidence I present here is not gathered in bits from various places. It is gathered from every bit in just one random post! You can imagine how many more bits there will be if we make a thorough search.

Baguamonk1 mentioned that he could also gather bits to show ignorance and untruths, presumably from my posts or the posts of other instructors. I would be very glad that he does so, so that I can learn from my mistakes if any. I do not speak for the other instructors, but I believe they also share my feelings. But if Baguamonk1 cannot do so, I would have to conclude that this is another of his untrue, and in this case irresponsible, statements.

Dispelling of ignorance and untruths follows in the next post.

[Jordan]

Baguamonk's ignorance concerning internal force and combat application

Again, when I first started getting heavily into Shaolin (or CMA in general) I thought it was the answer to most questions, I was amazed at how "deep" and awesome it all was.

This statement was untrue. If Baguamonk1 truly got “deep” into genuine Shaolin Kung fu or any genuine Chinese martial art, he would not be saying the things he is saying now. He would not say chi is an exotic term for body movement, or one could not use “picture-perfect” kung fu patterns in combat.

The truth is that Baguamonk1, like may other kung fu practitioners today, practice greatly debased forms of kung fu but thought they were genuine. Hence when genuine kung fu features like internal force and combat efficiency are mentioned, due to his lack of exposure to these genuine kung fu features, he mistakenly think they were myths. Due to his ignorance and arrogance, he ridicules genuine kung fu practitioners, including genuine masters, implying that they are liars.

I thought Bruce was wrong, not because of my own analyzations necessarily, but because of my teachers opinions on martial arts.

This untrue statement shows Baguamonk1’s ignorance as well as lack of respect for his teachers. For example, when genuine teachers say that stances are essential in kung fu combat, Baguamonk1 mistook this fact for an opinion, and thought it was wrong because he himself could not apply stances in combat.

He did not respect the teachers’ wisdom and straight-away concluded that this was wrong, and that Bruce Lee was right in discarding stances.

As I read more of his essays, books, interviews etc. I realized that I misinterpreted what he was saying, and what ALOT of other people were saying. He never criticized tradtional martial artists for being "traditional" he criticized them for specific ridiculous attitudes. Which grew out of the times of modern china and its culture.

Baguamonk1 based his understanding on his reading and intellectualization, not on direct experience. He did not, for example, bother to learn from those who said stances were important, and find out from direct experience whether this was valid.

Baguamonk1 was also wrong to say that Bruce Lee never criticized traditional martial artists for being traditional. In fact, Bruce Lee’s well known disregard of traditional kung fu forms is a direct result of this criticism.

I do not really know what Baguamonk1 meant by saying Bruce Lee criticized traditional martial artists for specific ridiculous attitudes. From his posts in the forum here, I reckon that saying chi is real and kung fu patterns can be used for combat would be ridiculous attitudes according to Baguamonk1.

It is untrue that the ridiculous attitudes, like saying chi is real and kung fu can be used for combat, grew out of the times of modern China and its culture. In fact the reverse is true. All along for centuries, the reality of chi and the effectiveness of kung fu for combat are established facts in Chinese culture as well as in kung fu culture. To tell a traditional Chinese that chi is unreal or to tell a genuine kung fu practitioner that internal force is unreal, is like telling a Westerner than air is unreal or to tell a weight-lifter that muscular strength is unreal.

Such as (his word) ornamentation of "Techniques" and forms (like old wushu).

Again I am not sure what Baguamonk1 wanted to say. Obviously he lacks mental clarity, despite his practicing three internal arts, to think clearly and to say things clearly.

I guess he meant that one of the ridiculous attitudes of traditional martial artists was to make their techniques and forms flowery to please spectators. This untrue statement again shows Baguamonk1’s ignorance.

All the kung fu techniques and forms are what they are for the purpose of combat efficiency and not for pleasing spectators. If they are beautiful to watch – and they are – it is an incidental bonus. Kung fu masters did not invent techniques and forms to be beautiful to watch, the techniques and forms were evolved from actual fighting experiences.

Relying on stylistic boundries as if it were seperate religions. Hard Chi gong tricks (Not methods). In fact I too am ashamed by this.

I don’t know what Baguamonk1 wanted to say. Does anybody know? I doubt Baguamonk1 knows what he himself said. In many cases he seemed to use words without actually knowing their meanings or significance.

I don’t know what religions have to do with the topic here, or with stylistic boundaries

If what Baguamonk1 meant was that Bruce Lee criticized traditional martial artists for beautifying their techniques as if they were separate religions, then Baguamonk1 contradicted his own earlier statement that Bruce Lee did not criticize traditional martial artists for being traditional, because any concern with religions was traditional.

I don’t know what Baguamonk1 was ashamed of, but I know he should be ashamed of himself if he thought that traditional masters used chi kung tricks. He was insulting all genuine chi kung and kung fu masters, past and present. The chi kung feats of genuine masters are genuine. They do not use tricks. It is due to his ignorance that Baguamonk1 thinks these feats were untrue.

I used to think hard chi gong tricks were incredible, evidence of near-supernatural power. It is sad to know that most of it are simply "physics" tricks.Of course real martial artists don't use hard chi gong for "tricks.

Again these untrue statements show Baguamonk1’s ignorance. Chi kung feats, like Sifu Andrew’s unbendable arm and Sifu Ronan’s breaking a bottom brick with breaking the one on top, can be explained by laws governing internal force, which are natural, not supernatural. But Baguamonk1 is too dogmatic and close to listen.

These chi kung feats are not simply “physics” tricks as Baguamonk1 arrogantly and ignorantly claimed. If they were simply physics, they could be explained by many people using physical laws.

Wasting time when near supernatural abilities.

Yet again Baguamonk1 demonstrated his ignorance and lack of mental clarity. If Baguamonk1 meant that one would waste time when approached the attainment of supernatural abilities, Baguamonk1 was again wrong.


More dispelling of ignorance follows.

[Zhang Wuji]

I'd like to offer you a chengyu which seems to fit your case. I'm not sure how fit the actual characters into this post, but it goes 'liang yao ku kou', which means, good medicine tastes bitter (but it helps).

Hi Molly

I thought I would follow up with the Chinese characters as well as the full saying. Gotta run now. You stay cool, yah?

良药苦于口而利于病，忠言逆于耳而利于行

[Michael Durkin]

I have clarified most of my posts, I don't think there is a need.

In the thread on 'The benefits of Internal Force are not only for combat', Baguamonk1 made a hasty post about the biological difference between rocks and grass. Vanessa kindly stepped in and pointed out the ignorances. She was kind enough to describe Baguamonk1's writings as "your words are unclear and could be considered untrue", which is really a nicer way of saying your words are ignorant. Besides that, a spade is still a spade. Vanessa, like many other members of this forum, have taken time and effort in providing clear explanations to back up their claims in light of information that they have seen as unclear, untrue, confused etc. This is all in effort to dispel ignorance, not to pick on anyone.

Many of Baguamonk1's other posts are still unclear. I think in light of Baguamonk1s own admittance else where on this forum that he started acting like an ass, I think it would be wise for him to listen to others who may help him not act like an ass. This thread provides an opportunity for Baguamonk1 to do that, but please take a moment to listen to other opinions, that are worth something if you give them a chance instead of a knee-jerk reaction post.

Mollie for example, made an excellent post in this thread which I think many readers can benefit a lot from. Being ignorant of something isn't a bad thing, were all ignorant of something. But, if we act like an ass we are only denying ourselves the opportunity to learn about our ignorance. This would be making the problem worse, not better.

[Molly]

良药苦于口而利于病，忠言逆于耳而利于行

Ah thanks Wuji,
(Arg, my simplified isn't nearly as good as my traditional ) I didn't realize there was more to it than the first part. Actually, the second part gets my point across in a far more practical, albeit less poetic way i.e. 'good advice isn't always pleasing to the ear'. Some of the best advice I've ever received in my life came packaged in words that I was not happy to hear. But by choosing to put my ego aside and take the advice to heart, that advice could then help me tremendously. Thanks again Wuji, you stay cool too, eh?
Molly

[Baguamonk1]

This statement was untrue. If Baguamonk1 truly got “deep” into genuine Shaolin Kung fu or any genuine Chinese martial art, he would not be saying the things he is saying now. He would not say chi is an exotic term for body movement, or one could not use “picture-perfect” kung fu patterns in combat.

The truth is that Baguamonk1, like may other kung fu practitioners today, practice greatly debased forms of kung fu but thought they were genuine. Hence when genuine kung fu features like internal force and combat efficiency are mentioned, due to his lack of exposure to these genuine kung fu features, he mistakenly think they were myths. Due to his ignorance and arrogance, he ridicules genuine kung fu practitioners, including genuine masters, implying that they are liars.



This untrue statement shows Baguamonk1’s ignorance as well as lack of respect for his teachers. For example, when genuine teachers say that stances are essential in kung fu combat, Baguamonk1 mistook this fact for an opinion, and thought it was wrong because he himself could not apply stances in combat.

He did not respect the teachers’ wisdom and straight-away concluded that this was wrong, and that Bruce Lee was right in discarding stances.




Baguamonk1 based his understanding on his reading and intellectualization, not on direct experience. He did not, for example, bother to learn from those who said stances were important, and find out from direct experience whether this was valid.

Baguamonk1 was also wrong to say that Bruce Lee never criticized traditional martial artists for being traditional. In fact, Bruce Lee’s well known disregard of traditional kung fu forms is a direct result of this criticism.

I do not really know what Baguamonk1 meant by saying Bruce Lee criticized traditional martial artists for specific ridiculous attitudes. From his posts in the forum here, I reckon that saying chi is real and kung fu patterns can be used for combat would be ridiculous attitudes according to Baguamonk1.

It is untrue that the ridiculous attitudes, like saying chi is real and kung fu can be used for combat, grew out of the times of modern China and its culture. In fact the reverse is true. All along for centuries, the reality of chi and the effectiveness of kung fu for combat are established facts in Chinese culture as well as in kung fu culture. To tell a traditional Chinese that chi is unreal or to tell a genuine kung fu practitioner that internal force is unreal, is like telling a Westerner than air is unreal or to tell a weight-lifter that muscular strength is unreal.



Again I am not sure what Baguamonk1 wanted to say. Obviously he lacks mental clarity, despite his practicing three internal arts, to think clearly and to say things clearly.

I guess he meant that one of the ridiculous attitudes of traditional martial artists was to make their techniques and forms flowery to please spectators. This untrue statement again shows Baguamonk1’s ignorance.

All the kung fu techniques and forms are what they are for the purpose of combat efficiency and not for pleasing spectators. If they are beautiful to watch – and they are – it is an incidental bonus. Kung fu masters did not invent techniques and forms to be beautiful to watch, the techniques and forms were evolved from actual fighting experiences.



I don’t know what Baguamonk1 wanted to say. Does anybody know? I doubt Baguamonk1 knows what he himself said. In many cases he seemed to use words without actually knowing their meanings or significance.

I don’t know what religions have to do with the topic here, or with stylistic boundaries

If what Baguamonk1 meant was that Bruce Lee criticized traditional martial artists for beautifying their techniques as if they were separate religions, then Baguamonk1 contradicted his own earlier statement that Bruce Lee did not criticize traditional martial artists for being traditional, because any concern with religions was traditional.

I don’t know what Baguamonk1 was ashamed of, but I know he should be ashamed of himself if he thought that traditional masters used chi kung tricks. He was insulting all genuine chi kung and kung fu masters, past and present. The chi kung feats of genuine masters are genuine. They do not use tricks. It is due to his ignorance that Baguamonk1 thinks these feats were untrue.



Again these untrue statements show Baguamonk1’s ignorance. Chi kung feats, like Sifu Andrew’s unbendable arm and Sifu Ronan’s breaking a bottom brick with breaking the one on top, can be explained by laws governing internal force, which are natural, not supernatural. But Baguamonk1 is too dogmatic and close to listen.

These chi kung feats are not simply “physics” tricks as Baguamonk1 arrogantly and ignorantly claimed. If they were simply physics, they could be explained by many people using physical laws.



Yet again Baguamonk1 demonstrated his ignorance and lack of mental clarity. If Baguamonk1 meant that one would waste time when approached the attainment of supernatural abilities, Baguamonk1 was again wrong.


More dispelling of ignorance follows.

I cannot believe what I'm hearing. Again, what I have said taken out of context filled in with your own commentary to further support your statements. It really not only looks desperate, but pathetic. You should probably find a more creative way of discrediting me because you are making yourself look even worse.

I never said Chi was an exotic term for body movement, body mechanics is only one aspect of any martial art. I said Chi was an outdated term and it was used to generalize various processes in the body, because there was alot more than simply one. I also mentioned that for actually TRAINING these methods, it was ok because one should not confound the mind with too many thoughts, in methods that require you to "feel" and be "thoughtless" I never said it didn't exist, again, you are "spinning" things in your favor, taking bits and pieces of my posts completely out of context, when the rest of my explanation is describe in that very same post, or in another one.

Thinking they are myths? I have never said that, and I have never "implied" that they were liars. Read again. (wow that comment is just sad).

I never said that my a teacher's opinions were wrong, or that I did not show him respect, the point of that post was to show that everyone has their own path and values when it comes to martial arts. You also say "could not apply stances in combat himsef..." Right where is the proof. Why don't you show me proof of you fighting a guy, no gear, no rules, and show me some classical patterns in action. Not the slow, 1-2-3 step stuff you show in your instructional videos. I have also stated in that thread just how valuble stances are. It was a way of simply pointing out that not evevery situation is going to call for using a picture perfect stance, especially against someone who is not a gong fu exponent. If their skill is below yours, you don't need to. For example, when doing push hands, when someone pushes you, you only use Lu and Peng as much as you are pushed. If you Lu (or move your waist too much) too much, or overextend yourself, then it will be taken advantage of.

I straight away discarded stances, and said bruce lee did too? What the hell are you talking about!? I never said that. I said Bruce Lee's understanding of stances was incomplete because Wing Chung stances and patterns are way different than most shaolin stances out there! Wing Chung uses alot of its stances as "Ready" postures, while Shaolin uses them more as transitional stances.

Everything you have said is a spin, or a lie of my commentaries. I never said stances, or chi, nor any of that was useless. I merely provided other points of view on describing the same things!

And I was talking about the "Street" tricks that are common in Chi gong tricks!! I was not talking about any of your precious students or teachers, I also said that real practicioners of Hard Chi gong do NOT NEED tricks! They have the real deal! A VAST majority of tricks out there, especially by wushumonks ARE tricks. Look at DooWai with his "fingerrub chi manifestation" everyone knows he is using a solution and keeping it in his fingers. I am talking about charlatans, NOT the real deal. And yet you use my words out of context AGAIN and fill it in with your own commentary.

Everything you have quoted and filled in with a rebuttal is ridiculous. Putting words in my mouth, from just flat out misrepresenting my words.There is not even need for a rebuttal on half the things you misquoted....Because you just fill it in with your own words and commentary."This is what he means!! See he is wrong!!!"

Good job man, at this "Case study," "not attacking.." Right....Maybe if 90% of your quotes weren't completely taken out of context when you put in your own words and interpretation of what I meant, I would bother more. But to anyone with a remote bit of experience or intelligence, who can go back and read my posts, and then look at your commentaries on them, will know the hypocrisy in all of these "attacks."

If supernatural abilities were possible and easily done they would not be considered "supernatural" would they? Everything that is done in chi gong is not supernatural, at all. I was clearly speaking about outrageous claims from outrageous charlatans. Good job man. Why don't you actually go to the respective threads and make a worthwile reply or argument? This is cheap. So far all I have seen is accusations and attacks, seemed to be design so that you can pat yourself in the back, and sleep at night. It shouldn't bother you so much of my ignorance and obvious lack of knowledge or experience was evident..should it? I don't think anyone would even pay attention to me. Maybe if you represented my posts in a less biased and fair manner, I would actually try and this more seriously. But you have shown me nothing but innacurate representations of my posts.

Keep saying "lack of clarity," it really helps justify the true intentions of your posts. More like "lack of following our beliefs." When I say something you don't agree with, the excuse is "lack of clarity" and "ignorance." Ignorance according to who? You? Are you really that afraid that the pedestals you have built will come crumbling down? That was never my purpose here, all I did was provide opinions and insight. But apparently you have to keep people in "check?" or something, like your students are something to manipulate and ensure their "growth" and "development.." Interesting choice of words too. I think most of them have the intelligence and experience to know the difference from "ignorance" and "opinion." There are plenty of people who would say that your view, or your outlook on these things is "ignorant." Clearly you don't care, why should I care then?? Especially if your ways of showing this "ignorance" is completely misleading. You are fighting things you don't agree with, by using the very instruments that you claim to be fighting. Misleading, manipulation of words. Maybe I should dedicate a thread to Jordan's lack of "clarity" on my posts, because clearly he is manipulating them and spinning them in his favor.

[Andrew]

Again, what I have said taken out of context filled in with your own commentary to further support your statements.

It is very clear that Jordan is using your own words within the context they were written. By adding his commentary, he is helping others with less clarity to understand the connotations of your words. It is very easy for you to pop up and say --- "I may have said that but it wasn't meant that way -- you just don't get it". However, if that were the case and you indeed do have a high level of mental clarity, how can it be that your own words can be so far from what you mean to say?

I never said Chi was an exotic term for body movement, body mechanics is only one aspect of any martial art. I said Chi was an outdated term and it was used to generalize various processes in the body, because there was alot more than simply one.

Chi is an outdated term, you say. That, in itself, is a joke and quite ignorant (whoops -- that word again). Just because you do not understand what Chi is and what it can achieve, isn't it foolish to then just push it to one side saying that it is an outdated way of generalisaing various body processes. You are also making some very big assumptions about how the concept of Chi actually came about.

I also mentioned that for actually TRAINING these methods, it was ok because one should not confound the mind with too many thoughts, in methods that require you to "feel" and be "thoughtless"

I'm sorry, but this is a clear statement that you do not speak from experience of training Chi (or at least not effectively).

You also say "could not apply stances in combat himsef..." Right where is the proof. Why don't you show me proof of you fighting a guy, no gear, no rules, and show me some classical patterns in action. Not the slow, 1-2-3 step stuff you show in your instructional videos.

LOL. You have watched so much of our material yet you cannot see. Our video material is not, and was never intended to be, instructional. We have offered many explanations of why we do what we do, yet you just skip over them. You have provided no proof (using your words) that you can even form a fist let alone peform any Kung Fu (whether patterns, forms, fighting or whatever) whilst we have published so much. Personally, I think it's your turn to offer supportive evidence.

I have also stated in that thread just how valuble stances are.

Maybe you said that. But from your remaining comments, you obviously don't believe it to be true.

It was a way of simply pointing out that not evevery situation is going to call for using a picture perfect stance, especially against someone who is not a gong fu exponent. If their skill is below yours, you don't need to.

As I said in my previous sentence, you negate the importance of stances with your own next sentence. Why on earth would you throw away the advantages of stances just because you perceive your opponent to be less skilfull. This is a classic case of under-estimating your opponent and again shows your lack of practical experience.

I said Bruce Lee's understanding of stances was incomplete because Wing Chung stances and patterns are way different than most shaolin stances out there! Wing Chung uses alot of its stances as "Ready" postures, while Shaolin uses them more as transitional stances.

The form of some of the stances in Wing Chun and some other Shaolin styles may be different but this does not make them different per sé. Stances are used for ready postures and transition in both styles. But this is a minute portion of their use. This is, again, ignorance --- i.e. you do not know.

I was not talking about any of your precious students or teachers, ...... Look at DooWai with his "fingerrub chi manifestation" everyone knows he is using a solution and keeping it in his fingers. I am talking about charlatans, NOT the real deal.

At least you realise that Shaolin Wahnam considers both its instructors and students percious. This is the main reason we spend so much time helping them to understand what is real and what is false.

I wonder how many people noticed your strategy in the above. By attempting to redirect attention to Grandmaster Doo Wai, you attempted to relieve the attention you feel you are receiving. I will let Grandmaster Doo Wai respond to your comments if he feels them worthy of commenting. I am quite sure he will do so, if he sees fit, in another thread though.

Good job man, at this "Case study," "not attacking.." Right....Maybe if 90% of your quotes weren't completely taken out of context when you put in your own words and interpretation of what I meant, I would bother more. But to anyone with a remote bit of experience or intelligence, who can go back and read my posts, and then look at your commentaries on them, will know the hypocrisy in all of these "attacks."

Ah, the old trick. Nice try.

If supernatural abilities were possible and easily done they would not be considered "supernatural" would they? Everything that is done in chi gong is not supernatural, at all.

Excellent. Something we agree upon.

Why don't you actually go to the respective threads and make a worthwile reply or argument?

Redirection again. That would dilute the usefullness of Jordan's posts. By bringing it all under one roof (so to speak), he is making it so much easier for others to follow what is going on. If you like, you can add some links to other posts to show where Jordan is so wrong.

It shouldn't bother you so much of my ignorance and obvious lack of knowledge or experience was evident..should it? I don't think anyone would even pay attention to me.

As has been said before, you post so much, people do pay attention to you. And as instructors for Shaolin Wahnam it is our duty to show our students and visitors where they are being misinformed.

Keep saying "lack of clarity," it really helps justify the true intentions of your posts. More like "lack of following our beliefs." When I say something you don't agree with, the excuse is "lack of clarity" and "ignorance."

Another nice strategy attempt. Ignorance is being used to mean "lack of knowledge". Lack of clarity is being used to mean "lack of clarity" as your last posts have shown. Again --- calling a spade a spade.

There are plenty of people who would say that your view, or your outlook on these things is "ignorant." Clearly you don't care, why should I care then??

Yes, there are many who disagree with us. We do care. We care that misinformation is being spread as our declared aim is to disseminate information onf true Shaolin Arts as we know them. Why you care? Maybe you should answer that question.

Maybe I should dedicate a thread to Jordan's lack of "clarity" on my posts, because clearly he is manipulating them and spinning them in his favor.

That would be most entertaining I'm sure. By the way, for those that didn't notice, this is another attempt at redirection.

Andrew

[Bong Sau]

My humble observation

I am an outsider whom the providers of this forum has graciously allowed to observe and participate. I am also a late comer to martial arts and Chinese medicine, still very much in training. However I have a lot of other training, significant professional experience, and perhaps more important, real life experience.

As always I offer my observations with the utmost respect.

There are many paths to enlightenment. No human being has ever or will ever travel anywhere near the full spectrum of those paths. Even together our energy is no more than a minute fraction of the energy of the universe.

I am greatly impressed by most of what I read on this board.

I am greatly troubled by the apparent need to disrespect BaguaMonk. Again, I am an outsider which may offer me an advantage in terms of perspective.

If BaguaMonk has been disrespectful, I have missed that disrespect completely. Quite the contrary, BaguaMonk has offered us, free and without charge, his time and energy and life experience. What could he give to anyone that is of more value?

Even the most strident criticism here concedes that BaguaMonk has intended no harm or disrespect.

Consider this: if the Shaolin Wahnam Institute and its principals are so powerful, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then it and its principals have no need to bootstrap their message on the alleged foibles of BaguaMonk or anyone else.

I have seen this act before, singling someone out this way and then telling that person it is being done for their own good. Please, let me tell you, you are not keeping company with the enlightened on this one.

I enjoy your board. Thank you for allowing me to be here.

[Antonius]

Dear Bong Sau,

I appreciate your input, and particularly the presentation. Here is my response.

If BaguaMonk has been disrespectful, I have missed that disrespect completely.

If I had the time, I would compile a list of the things that Baguamonk has said about us on other forums. Suffice it to say that he was less that polite. Some of the firm responses he's getting here are due not only to what he's said on this forum, but what he has said on other forums.

I have seen this act before, singling someone out this way and then telling that person it is being done for their own good. Please, let me tell you, you are not keeping company with the enlightened on this one.

We are not doing it for him, although he may also benefit. We are doing it for our students.

[Quite the contrary, BaguaMonk has offered us, free and without charge, his time and energy and life experience. What could he give to anyone that is of more value?

Personally, I think that offering a base amount of respect is more valuable.

If I remember correctly, you're an experience martial artist, Bong Sau. Allow me to offer you an analogy. During sparring, I typically respond with the same amount of force that is being directed at me. If my partner comes on strong, I respond strong. If my partner goes slowly, I go slowly. What we're doing here is no different. You might think that this is an "eye for an eye" mentality, but it's not. No one is getting hurt here, or in real life sparring. It's just a way of giving your partner feedback.

If Baguamonk thinks that we're coming on strong, then I would suggest that he look more closely at his own actions (here and elsewhere) for an explantion.

Respectfully,

[Bong Sau]

Dear Bong Sau,

I appreciate your input, and particularly the presentation. Here is my response.

If I had the time, I would compile a list of the things that Baguamonk has said about us on other forums. Suffice it to say that he was less that polite.

That was certainly a gracious reply. Thank you Sifu Anthony.

I am not an experienced martial artist. As I said, only one who has come to this relatively late in life.

No need to compile any list for my sake. I do very much appreciate your reply.