Lin Kong Jing (Powerful Empty Force) MPGS available at our homepage:
Quark
>
>The files are about 1/2 meg each and were filmed this past October in
Houston
>at the Dragon Society International Southern Convention.
>http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/7202/page4.html
>enjoy!
>Rich Mooney
>Senior Student of Master Paul Dong
If Paul Dong is a "Master", why is he pushing something Wang Xiangzhai
disowned and also a subject not bothered with by yiquan students outside the
U.S.?
Just a small point...
Regards,
Q.
dontpanic
> Q.
The ever witty and formidable Q of RMA?! Glad you finally stopped by this
little NG.
regards,
dp
dontpanic
I realize that you energy is getting more powerful every year. According to
my observations not everyone will react to this kind of energy, although
there are always people with very strong reaction. It is a subject of
interest for me to figure out what makes some people more sensitive to qi
then others. Do you have any ideas? Also, do you come across many people
who are "immune" to this sort of treatment?
regards,
dp
Quark
Hmmm, are we being accurate here?
You should have said, "he didn't teach it to anyone".
Someone asked him one time about this kong jing business, and he reportedly smiled and
commented something like this, "Is that right? I don't have that kind of kungfu".
If you read between the lines here, you'll probably discover a typical Chinese politeness
to avoid embarrassing a questioner asking a silly question :-).
>#2, My teacher LEARNED the method from the person who housed GM Wang from the time fo the
>cultural revolutions beginnings until his dying day. That being Yu Yong Nian.
Trouble is, this sounds like Yu was one of Wang's top disciples, and it just ain't so.
The successor of WXZ, recognized in both China and Hong Kong, is Yao Zongxun. Yao had
two twin sons who are primarily responsible for carrying on the art today: Yao Chengguang
and Y. Chengrong. There were many others who studied under Wang (curiously, the guy most
English-speaking folks associate with yiquan/dachengquan (Wang Xuanjie) had little or no
actual contact with WXZ himself). Many of these other guys went off on a tangent of their own
to some degree, so we're already talking personal deviations.
Which is okay, as long as they come clean about adding their own personal elements to the
program. Some of them don't, and claim to teach the "original" stuff :-).
Say, YYN wouldn't be in this boat, would he??
Interested readers can check out the lineages and top disciples of the founder on Andrzej
Kalisz's fine yiquan page on the web. Seeing as how Chinese are pretty darn picky about
their lineages, I'd suggest a better look at who's who :-).
>#3, many of those who do know about it, do not talk about it openly.
Many of those who know about it also don't discuss it because they don't
take it seriously as a fighting skill. I personally don't, although I'm certainly not a
yiquan expert, but I'm willing to put it to the test. Please tell me when you'll be in the
Colorado area and I'll make it a point to visit and see if, say, you can stop me from
punching you without touch. Nothing antagonistic here, just clinical interest. Hey, if
you indeed have a skill I feel is unusual, I'll broadcast it to the internet. Fair enough?
>#4, Lin Kong Jing is not a part of Yiquan, it is a specific practice method all its own, just as
>yiquan is.
Yiquan is a recognized system in internal martial arts, "kong jing" is merely a label for
a specific (and debatable) skill. Not sure why you're trying to link them together here as
"practice methods". Heck, Gracie JJ and ventriloquism are "practice methods" in a broad sense,
but they don't have anything to do with each other.
>#5, there is another method, called "Shi Jing Zhan Zhuang" which means solid force standing
>meditation, that is also not
>much talked about by yiquan people, because it too is a separate practice, yet this method was
>also passed to my teacher
>through his teacher, and traught to him by GM Wang. See what you can find out about it:)
>just a few small points.
Nice try at a comeback, but we won't allow you to list these "separate practices" as something
Wang approved of. Orthodox yiquan breaks zhan zhuang down into two categories: health standing
(jianshen zhuang) and martial standing (jiji zhuang). There's no funny business going on
in either of these two categories. Certainly nothing that would justify a leap into this
kong jing business. Let's face it, your stuff is an add-on.
I personally have nothing against add-ons, it's everyone's right to experiement and customize
a system, but at least come clean about it. I never see P. Dong and the "kong jing" crowd in
California doing this, and it just ain't kosher. Simply put, kong jing has little to do with
yiquan proper.
Q. "where's a rabbi when I need one?"
Eyal K
i am from israel i started practice qigong a mounth ago falun gong style
i ordered paul dong Empty force book...
what is solid force and whats the difrent between solid force and empty
force?
Eyal
Rich Mooney wrote in message <37335ca2...@news.earthlink.net>...
Andrzej Kalisz
<373b56f4...@news.earthlink.net>...
>#2, My teacher LEARNED the method from the person who housed GM Wang from
the time fo the cultural revolutions
>beginnings until his dying day. That being Yu Yong Nian.
Wang Xiangzhai died before Cultural Revolution started. In 1963, while
Cultural Revolution started in 1966. Moreover, last years of his life Wang
Xiangzhai spent in Baoding, while Yu Yongnian was in Beijing. Quite
different places, you know. It's all very similiar to Wang Xuanjie's story,
who also claimed to learn from Wang Xiangzhai in Beijing in time when Wang
Xiangzhai actually was in Baoding (Eventually Wang Xuanjie had to admit that
he never was Wang Xiangzhai's direct student - in 1991 in interview for
"Jingwu" magazine). Yu Yongnian never learned complete system, not saying
some "special stuff".
As for Yu Yongnian teaching ling kong jin. I just checked the book "Zhan
zhuang yangshengfa" written by Yu Yongnian himself and published in 1989.
Well, Yu Yongnian mentions it there, rather denying it's worth, explaining
it as only effect of suggestion or kind of hipnosis. Clearly stating that it
happens more often when there are more people present and they become
"infected" by mental suggestion, strongly believing in it. (pages 147,148).
Actually Yu Yongnian has in China opinion of doing and explaining the zhan
zhuang stuff too much "physically". So it's not easy to believe that Paul
Dong could learn something like ling kong jing from Yu Yongnian.
Wang Xiangzhai dosn't mention lin kong jin in any of his works, not because
it was something that he taught only chosen students, but something he
thought wasn't worth teaching. All main students of Wang Xiangzhai agree
about this. Because Wang Xiangzhai told this to them many times. So Yao
Zongxun, main Wang's successor wrote in his book that it is useless in
combat. In another very good lineage - Han Xingqiao's (Han Xingqiao is elder
brother of Han Xingyuan, who is somewhat known in US, but unlike Han Xingyua
n, who knew only early yiquan, Han Xingqiao acompanied Wang Xiangzhai for
much longer time and achieved the mature teachings) they say that those
people who do lin kong jing are just cheating people and... actually,
cheating themselves. Well, even Wang Xuanjie completly agrees with this
opinion.
Andrzej Kalisz
Andrzej Kalisz
>Wang said to do away with the Master/Student relationship, that it was
>an antiquated system.
Yes, it is Wang Xiangzhai's opinion expressed in "The Central Axis of The
Way of Fist". But the fact is that he presented a few best students with
honorary names, so that people could know, whom he designed as his main
successors. And of those Yao Zongxun received very special name, meaning
that he was Wang's successor. And in caligraphy on a fan presented to Yao
Wang explained that he gave Yao that name, because he was sure that Yao was
able to develop yiquan even better than he would himself.
Yu Yongnian being one of about 90 main, generally recognized students of
Wang Xiangzhai was member of the "health class".
Andrzej Kalisz
Mike Sigman
<374815f...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Sun, 23 May 1999 00:30:58 +0200, "Andrzej Kalisz"
><dac...@polbox.com> wrote:
>
[[snip]]
>
>You have your opinion, I have my facts.
>
Wow. Excuse me, but he just posted facts and sources. The version of
"facts" that you presented, using Wang Xiang Zhai's name in a totally
reverse mode to support your own assertions, is in fact the unusual and
not-seen-before version. I'd like to know, since you publicly published
those facts, what YOUR references were. If you're saying you got them from
Paul Dong, I'd like to know what HIS references were.
>
>You are entitled to your position. It has worked well for me, and
>those I have taught, and that is good enough.
>
No. Your teaching something that you consider effective and others have
varying opinions about.... that's one thing. In this case though, you
publicly posted something using Wang Xiang Zhai's name to support your own
views, so "it has worked well for me" is not really acceptable in this case.
You are using a man's name, claiming you have a right to do so, but you're
claiming things that are against what his family and accepted students are
claiming. The proof lies in your court in that case.
Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney wrote in message
<37491e82...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>Please scan and email me the pages where that is said. I will send
>them to my teacher, and ask what his comment is.
>
Er..... why not just forward the references to your teacher? This is
really (admittedly) none of my business, but it is not Andrzej's
responsibility to supply you with publicly available material, unless you
happen to have some sort of friendly relationship.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Andrzej Kalisz
<37491e82...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Please scan and email me the pages where that is said. I will send
>them to my teacher, and ask what his comment is.
Now, Mike Sigman is quite right. Anyway, I have nothing against having
friendly relationship with Rich Mooney. I don't need unfriendly relationship
:)
As I'm usually quite busy, looking through all the Chinese materials I have
and scanning the texts would be quite a big task. Some of the facts I gave
come not from printed materials, but from my contact with people from
different yiquan lineages in China. Not just one man. Funny thing is that
most have very similiar opinions. So I trust them a bit more than "facts"
presented by one man only. Especially when the "facts" contradict what Yu
Yongnian wrote himself.
Now what I would suggest:
As Paul Dong is Yu Yongnian's student, I assume he has Yu's books (does
someone imagine serious student of some master, who doesn't know his
master's works?), so I think there will be no problem for him to check pages
147,148 in "Zhan zhuang yangshengfa". What I didn't wrote previously is that
on page 147 Yu Yongnian wrote also about using 'wai qi' for healing, and
what is his opinion about it? According to him it is effect of suggestion,
amplified by gestures and mimicks. According to Yu Yongnian, this kind of
"energy healing" doesn't work when the patient doesn't believe it, so there
is no kind of "healing energy", only sugestion, like there is no kind of
energy that moves people, only sugestion. Now, the issue is not if it's
correct opinions. I only say that those are opinions expressed by Yu
Yongnian. And this is a fact that makes me doubt in the story of "powerful
empty force" taught by Wang Xiangzhai to Yu Yongnian to Paul Dong. So ask
your teacher about this book. Maybe he has satisfactory explanation.
Andrzej Kalisz
.
Quark
>>On Sun, 23 May 1999 00:30:58 +0200, "Andrzej Kalisz"
>><dac...@polbox.com> wrote:
>>>As for Yu Yongnian teaching ling kong jin. I just checked the book "Zhan
>>>zhuang yangshengfa" written by Yu Yongnian himself and published in 1989.
>>>Well, Yu Yongnian mentions it there, rather denying it's worth, explaining
>>>it as only effect of suggestion or kind of hipnosis.
>
>Please scan and email me the pages where that is said. I will send
>them to my teacher, and ask what his comment is.
>> Clearly stating that it
>>>happens more often when there are more people present and they become
>>>"infected" by mental suggestion, strongly believing in it. (pages 147,148).
>
>Please scan and email me the pages where that is said. I will send
>them to my teacher, and ask what his comment is.
Just a few comments.
I've noticed that the kind of folks who seem to get drawn into the "kong jing" area are
the wonna-believers in anything esoteric. It's the same crowd who seems to subscribe
to the whole bag of "oriental medicine", hook, line, and sinker. It's a personal decision
to do so, but one thing I never seem to see along with this decision to accept without
reservation is a highly developed critical faculty. In other words, everything goes.
But everything doesn't "go" in any culture! It's a person's own responsibility to try to
shift out some of the wheat from the chaff. Those who only see "wheat" aren't very
realistic. *Or* open-minded.
In more specific terms, why should "empty force" work? It requires some type of force-
at-a-distance that is completely unknown in science. This in itself is not completely damning,
because one could always say, "well, science doesn't know about it yet". The burden of
demonstration for such a fantastic claim, however, lies with the person making the claim.
Appealing to one's teacher, as here, isn't adequate; the teacher himself needs to support
the fantastic claim. I'm always amused when folks with little respect for the rational side
of life try to come back with nonsensical comments such as these.
>> Because Wang Xiangzhai told this to them many times. So Yao
>>>Zongxun, main Wang's successor wrote in his book that it is useless in
>>>combat. In another very good lineage - Han Xingqiao's (Han Xingqiao is elder
>>>brother of Han Xingyuan, who is somewhat known in US, but unlike Han Xingyua
>>>n, who knew only early yiquan, Han Xingqiao acompanied Wang Xiangzhai for
>>>much longer time and achieved the mature teachings) they say that those
>>>people who do lin kong jing are just cheating people and... actually,
>>>cheating themselves.
>
>
>Please scan and email me the pages where that is said. I will send
>them to my teacher, and ask what his comment is.
Shucks, Rich, we don't even need to appeal to your teacher. Most of us already realize
something depending on "wonna-believe" suggestion isn't likely to be of much value in
siuations where the other guy isn't buying. That's why we look at "demos" of kong jing
involving only "disciples" with some amusement. See my previous statement why obvious things like
this aren't seen by a particular mind-set...
You need to engage some folks in actual sparring and try to use this stuff. I've already
extended an invitation to mix it up should you be in the Colorado area. Again, nothing personal,
I just want to see if your claims can stand up under a realistic situation.
For my own edification. Heck, I could be totally wrong!
Appealing to "health" benefits won't make it here either. I'm not particularly interested in
how many folks claim "healing" from your applications; we're talking martial applications
of empty force at this point. While we're on the subject, how many folks has Paul Dong knocked
down with this stuff? Has he exchanged skills with somebody well-known as a fighter, that we
could see as an example of his martial skills? If you can't come up with any opponents, why are
you referring to him as a martial arts "master"?
Another, broader question: why is it of value to you to maintain a seemingly
paper-thin ability to sort reason from flim-flammery ? I've seen your posts ridiculing religious
folks for believing nonsense, but you yourself seem to have swallowed another set of assumptions
which amount to the same suseptibility toward naive beliefs. Why is that?
Cheers,
Q.
Mike Sigman
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <374984e...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>I doubt that, since I have been doing keeping a journal of the waiqi I have
treated over 700
>people for a wide range of things, and also I have worked on the pets of
friends with the same positive results.
But waiqi is not lin kong jin, as has been pointed out before. Basically
what you practice is wai qi... but I said that a couple of years ago.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Tye W. Botting
put forth:
% I doubt that, since I have been doing keeping a journal of the waiqi I have
% treated over 700
% people for a wide range of things, and also I have worked on the pets of
% friends with the same positive results. animals
% dont have a belief system, nor do they respond to hypnotism.
This part is new, though I admit I haven't kept up with what all
you've experimented with.
% I already have enough empiric evidence to prove that it
% works. when I do a healing I use no gestures or mimicks (whatever that may
% be). I silently hold my hand near or on the
% area of pain, and let the energy flow to that painful place. Out of 700+
% treatments I have only had 3 negative results:
% one from a panicked pregnant friend, one from a skeptic who refused to be
% healed,
Hey now, Rich, while I freely admit to being a skeptic, I certainly
did not 'refuse' to be healed. ;-) In fact, it would have been nice,
since my arm had been hurting me for some time. (I'm assuming this
2nd one is me, since I certainly don't fit into the other two...)
From what I experienced and saw, I'm surprised you don't have a
much hight number of negative results. Then again, the sampling
may be biased towards those that are hopeful since they are the most
likely to ask for your help, so who knows?
The only thing I really got out of that was the feeling that you
genuinely believe in what you're doing, and that many people are
equally genuinely happy with the results. Both of those are much
better than some alternatives. (And, of course, I enjoyed the
bit of hands-crossing we did, too - to me, your qinna was the best
part of what you had to offer.) So I'm a pragmatist. ;-)
% and one from a religiously inclined
% person who thought what I was doing was something they called "witchcraft".
;-) In a way, they're right, IMNSHO, since I am just as skeptical
about that subject as well.
--
Tye Botting Northern Shaolin / Northern Praying Mantis
t...@kungfuFOIL.cc Remy Presas' Modern Arnis
http://www.kungfu.cc/tye/ Yang Style Taijiquan
**[Remove the FOIL from my addresses to respond via e-mail. DIE spam DIE!]
Julian M. Frost
> one from a panicked pregnant friend, one from a skeptic who refused to
> be healed, and one from a religiously inclined person who thought what I
> was doing was something they called "witchcraft". I dont go into a
> trance, or mumble incantations, or wildy wave my hands around like some
> cheap sideshow magician.
The videos of you performing lin kong jing do show you waving your hands,
however, as if "pushing" or "pulling" your subjects. This is probably what
was meant.
Julian
Mike Sigman
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <374984e...@news.earthlink.net>...
>I doubt that, since I have been doing keeping a journal of the waiqi I have
treated over 700
>people for a wide range of things, and also I have worked on the pets of
friends with the same positive results. animals
>dont have a belief system, nor do they respond to hypnotism. I already
have enough empiric evidence to prove that it
>works. when I do a healing I use no gestures or mimicks (whatever that may
be). I silently hold my hand near or on the
>area of pain, and let the energy flow to that painful place. Out of 700+
treatments I have only had 3 negative results:
>one from a panicked pregnant friend, one from a skeptic who refused to be
healed, and one from a religiously inclined
>person who thought what I was doing was something they called "witchcraft".
I dont go into a trance, or mumble
>incantations, or wildy wave my hands around like some cheap sideshow
magician.
>
I'm not going to be comfortable until I say something about this, since it
leaves an impression of "healing". I know some people that have let
otherwise treatable disorders get out of control because they opted for this
kind of "healing"... one person had fatal results from this approach when
she might easily have been treated by other means.
I feel that the external qi stuff is indeed interesting and worth seeing,
but in the years that I experimented with it, I saw little use for it except
for its demonstration value. The fact that it is held in such low regard
by so many well-accredited and bona fide Chinese martial artists should
signal that there is a caution to be observed in terms of believing. I
used to teach a Shaolin Neijing Gung that evoked the response in most people
(i.e., anyone can do this stuff; the more practiced you get the stronger the
effect). However, I'm still not 100% decided on how much of the
phenomenon is truly different and interesting and how much represents more
of a keyhole peek into the outer limits of human sensation and
suggestibility.
Regardless, I have to say that the sensation can be unusual and pronounced
in some cases (depends on how much the practitioner works at it) and he can
indeed induce some sensation, regardless of the amount of suggestion or
other effect (I personally think that the human nervous system is subject to
a field-effect phenomenon to some degree). In fact, I think that some
practitioners can effect a change in the field effect in a local region,
particularly one that has pain. However, I think it is a short-lived
effect on local pain and that's about it. It fixes no mechanical
dysfunctions and certainly wouldn't affect tumors, etc.
In short, the term "heal" is certainly very questionable and therefore
inappropriate. "Affect sensation" might be more accurate. Personally,
if I thought there were longterm great benefits to this pursuit, I would
still be looking into it. I don't and I'm not. My opinion.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
dontpanic
Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7j39tg$dpc$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> a field-effect phenomenon to some degree). In fact, I think that some
> practitioners can effect a change in the field effect in a local region,
> particularly one that has pain. However, I think it is a short-lived
> effect on local pain and that's about it. It fixes no mechanical
> dysfunctions and certainly wouldn't affect tumors, etc.
What do you think of the claim that practitioners who practice martial
qigong are not able to use their energy for healing because their energy
lacks the healing element, or is harmful, or too harsh, or something like
that?
dp
Mike Sigman
dontpanic wrote in message <7j45nl$57i$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>What do you think of the claim that practitioners who practice martial
>qigong are not able to use their energy for healing because their energy
>lacks the healing element, or is harmful, or too harsh, or something like
>that?
Hmmmmm. Since I know some good martial artists who do both, I'm not sure
that the saying is valid.
Mike Sigman
Christopher Williams
Mike Sigman wrote in message <7j39tg$dpc$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>I'm not going to be comfortable until I say something about this, since it
>leaves an impression of "healing". I know some people that have let
>otherwise treatable disorders get out of control because they opted for
this
>kind of "healing"... one person had fatal results from this approach when
>she might easily have been treated by other means.
One of the problems that the popularity of qigong healing has done is that
folks will try to heal things that might best be left alone or be made
better by surgery, etc. It takes training and restraint to be able to tell
what a person's situation is. Training in just martial arts alone will not
do it, and you can make a person worse if you are not careful.
>
>I feel that the external qi stuff is indeed interesting and worth seeing,
>but in the years that I experimented with it, I saw little use for it
except
>for its demonstration value. The fact that it is held in such low regard
>by so many well-accredited and bona fide Chinese martial artists should
>signal that there is a caution to be observed in terms of believing. I
>used to teach a Shaolin Neijing Gung that evoked the response in most
people
>(i.e., anyone can do this stuff; the more practiced you get the stronger
the
>effect). However, I'm still not 100% decided on how much of the
>phenomenon is truly different and interesting and how much represents more
>of a keyhole peek into the outer limits of human sensation and
>suggestibility.
You go with what you know best. Many martail artists get into the healing
aspects when they notice that they can affect the energetic states of
others. In order to hurt someone you also have to know how to help them heal
from their injuries. If you spend 30 years developing martial art, and 10
years on the flip side, you have more confidence in what you've spent most
of your time on...
Also, the medical qigong stuff is really still being developed, as most
practitioners died out, and they are trying to piece things back together.
There are no concise textbooks like there are in acupuncture and herbology.
Many don't really trust anything officially backed by the Communist govt...
>
>Regardless, I have to say that the sensation can be unusual and pronounced
>in some cases (depends on how much the practitioner works at it) and he can
>indeed induce some sensation, regardless of the amount of suggestion or
>other effect (I personally think that the human nervous system is subject
to
>a field-effect phenomenon to some degree). In fact, I think that some
>practitioners can effect a change in the field effect in a local region,
>particularly one that has pain. However, I think it is a short-lived
>effect on local pain and that's about it. It fixes no mechanical
>dysfunctions and certainly wouldn't affect tumors, etc.
The field effect is the most typical way to describe it. There are others if
you borrow terminology from quantum physics, or the flow of turbulent
streams.... Your old friend Jerry Johnson tells of going to China and
dissolving a tumor, had it verified by either x-ray or sonogram, I think.
>
>In short, the term "heal" is certainly very questionable and therefore
>inappropriate. "Affect sensation" might be more accurate. Personally,
>if I thought there were longterm great benefits to this pursuit, I would
>still be looking into it. I don't and I'm not. My opinion.
Healing is a very subjective term, and I like your definition. Helper might
be more to the point, as all we can ever do for anyone else is help them a
little, nudge them a bit in the right direction. If it puts them in the
right path to heal themselves, then we've " healed. "
Also, my opinion
cw
Upaya
Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney <qima...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3755f753...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> you should stick to what you think you know (like taiji, and from what
> I hear you still have some more to learn, at least according to Vince
> Black and others.)
>
> I will keep on healing aches, pains, sprains, and other ailments, and
> you just go on ahead and keep up your juvenile bitching about whatever
> subject you fancy.
>
> Through the years of my training and practice of both martial arts
> (almost 30 years) and qigong (over 12), I have always run across loud
> mouthed asses such as yourself, who talk about shit they don't know as
> if they were the be all and end all source of information for just
> about anything.
>
> You do not know me, have never met me, and have no idea what I am
> capable of, so far be for you to say whatever I do is real or not. I
> do not give a shit what you or any other nameless or faceless keyboard
> commandos have to say about my practice or abilities, because you are
> in the dark as much as Helen Keller was at home.
>
> I will keep on healing people, and keep on doing my Lin Kong Jing and
> using the name of my Great Grandmaster, Wang Xiang Zhai, and my
> Grandmaster Yu Yong Nian, and my Teacher, Paul Dong. If you or anyone
>
> else objects to it, too fucking bad, come and stop me.
>
> here is the address of my school, you can find me there any monday or
> thursday night from 6 pm til 8 pm. I am also there every tuesday and
> thursday morning teaching police defensive tactics from 10 til 11 a.m.
>
> 405 Galveston, Wichita Falls, TX., 76309.
>
> I will be out teaching seminars from 16 thru 27 june. I will be in
> New Jersey on June 19th, if you or anyone else wants to raise some
> shit, here is the info:
>
> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:52:29 -0400
> From: "RKA Family Karate" <rkak...@erols.com>
> Subject: Fw: Master's Series North East
>
> TIME IS RUNNING OUT AND SPACE IS LIMITED!!! THERE IS LESS THAN 1
> MONTH TO
> GO UNTIL THE NEXT MASTER'S SERIES IN NEW JERSEY!!!
>
> We are preparing for the upcoming Master's Series with Grandmaster
> Rick
> Moneymaker.
>
> Scheduled to be on hand:
>
> Grandmaster Moneymaker
> Rich Mooney
> Wayne Adams
> Michael Davis
> Ruben Crews
> We are still waiting to hear if Grandmaster Tom Muncy will be
> attending.
>
> The subject of this master's series will be the Pericardium Meridian.
>
> Rich Mooney is scheduled to demonstrate the amazing powers of Lin Kong
> Jing
> or Powerful empty force. If his work is 1/2 as good as it was the
> last time
> he was here he will blow your mind!!!
>
> Date: Saturday June 19, 1999
>
> Time: 12 - 5 pm
>
> Location:
> RKA Family Karate Institute
> 29 Union Avenue
> Somerville, NJ 08876
>
> Cost: $50 in advance $60 at the door.
>
> To register:
> Phone: 908-685-9080
> e-mail: rkak...@erols.com
> Snail Mail: see above address.
>
> Please register early as space is limited.
>
> Do not miss out on this valuable training opportunity. Register today
> and
> be ready to learn.
>
> Marc Pollak
>
>
>
>
> then I will be teaching a seminar in Knoxville,Tennessee on June 26 at
> Wheeler's Isshinryu, starting at 10am.
>
> until then the rest of you know it alls can fall back into the depths
> of cyberspace.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Richard M. Mooney
> Senior Student of Master Paul Dong
>
Well, I'll be un-subscribing from this waste-of-time n/g after reading
this adolescent tantrum. I'm sure anyone who reads this screed will be real
anxious to meet all your so-called 'grandmasters'. I hope each of you meets
a janitor someday who can teach you something. You obviously haven't
learned anything from whoever it is you're hanging around with now. What
would I learn at your seminar? How to defend myself against obscene
insults? The path lies somewhere *between* the gutters, I hope you find it
someday.
Mike Sigman
Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney wrote in message
<3755f753...@news.earthlink.net>...
>you should stick to what you think you know (like taiji, and from what
>I hear you still have some more to learn, at least according to Vince
>Black and others.)
>
>I will keep on healing aches, pains, sprains, and other ailments, and
>you just go on ahead and keep up your juvenile bitching about whatever
>subject you fancy.
>
>Through the years of my training and practice of both martial arts
>(almost 30 years) and qigong (over 12), I have always run across loud
>mouthed asses such as yourself, who talk about shit they don't know as
>if they were the be all and end all source of information for just
>about anything.
>
>You do not know me, have never met me, and have no idea what I am
>capable of, so far be for you to say whatever I do is real or not. I
>do not give a shit what you or any other nameless or faceless keyboard
>commandos have to say about my practice or abilities, because you are
>in the dark as much as Helen Keller was at home.
>
>I will keep on healing people, and keep on doing my Lin Kong Jing and
>using the name of my Great Grandmaster, Wang Xiang Zhai, and my
>Grandmaster Yu Yong Nian, and my Teacher, Paul Dong. If you or anyone
>
>else objects to it, too fucking bad, come and stop me.
Well, Mooney, I think you've just said it all for us. You're a class act.
With your obvious brilliance, I'm sure you've seen deep into things that are
beyond the rest of us.
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Christopher Williams wrote in message <7j4u06$3ni$1...@news.sasquatch.com>...
>
>
>You go with what you know best. Many martail artists get into the healing
>aspects when they notice that they can affect the energetic states of
>others. In order to hurt someone you also have to know how to help them
heal
>from their injuries. If you spend 30 years developing martial art, and 10
>years on the flip side, you have more confidence in what you've spent most
>of your time on...
Well, do you have any supportive evidence about the actual "healing"
aspects? I think that you need to be aware, as does Mooney, and a number
of others, that when you publicly begin using the terms "healing" and "cure"
you've just made medical claims that can come back to haunt you in a court
of law.
>The field effect is the most typical way to describe it. There are others
if
>you borrow terminology from quantum physics, or the flow of turbulent
>streams....
Actually, I've never seen anyone else describe it in terms of a field effect
but me. Where is there some documentation using the term?
> Your old friend Jerry Johnson tells of going to China and
>dissolving a tumor, had it verified by either x-ray or sonogram, I think.
Jerry "tells" of dissolving a tumor and had it verified "you think"?
Sorry, but I'm out of this one. I'd have to see the evidence. I'm not
sure you understand the desparation and readiness to believe that dying
people have. They read this stuff and some few of them start looking for
what they think is a real deal. Before you proffer and publicly post these
sorts of claims, don't you think that you owe it to others to indicate
caution with your assertions?
>Healing is a very subjective term, and I like your definition.
I think you'll find that in a court of law the term "heal" is going to have
a bit more precise definition than you might wish for. And when people
start publicly using the word "heal" and consider other peoples' illnesses
as a playground for their own egos then talk of law and repercussions is
something to consider.... although really, the first consideration should
always be some contemplation of other peoples' lives and wellbeing.
> Helper might
>be more to the point, as all we can ever do for anyone else is help them a
>little, nudge them a bit in the right direction. If it puts them in the
>right path to heal themselves, then we've " healed. "
>
>Also, my opinion
Well, it is your opinion. But you need to realize that your opinion and
what you *meant* by the word "heal" are not necessarily what the dictionary
says:
1. to make sound, well, or healthy again; restore to health [heal the sick]
2. a) to cure or get rid of (a disease) b) to cause (a wound, sore, etc.)
to become closed or scarred so as to restore a healthy condition.
So don't you think it behooves us to use a little more caution when we use
the word "heal"? As it stands, we're on the brink of having some claims
tested in court by "qigong masters" who are claiming to "heal" or offer
"medical relief". When you start making medical claims in public, you
open a pandora's box. And whatever real benefits there *may* be to qigong
are almost undoubtedly going to be lost because of some self-absorbed
attention-seeking wannabe publicly dragging the whole idea of "qigong" right
down the drain.
Mike Sigman
dontpanic
of rec.martial-arts does not quite fit well into the alt.meditation.qigong
newsgroup. But thanks to the added traffic this newsgroup has finally
achieved the threaded status on Dejanews, it was a real pain trying to
follow discussions before.
dp
"Oh, yeah?! I bet my dad can beat up your dad!"
- alleged counter-flame by Brandon Lee
Upaya <wt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7j52al$s57$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney <qima...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3755f753...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 23:34:05 GMT, "Mike Sigman"
> > <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dontpanic wrote in message <7j45nl$57i$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > >>
> > >>What do you think of the claim that practitioners who practice martial
> > >>qigong are not able to use their energy for healing because their
energy
> > >>lacks the healing element, or is harmful, or too harsh, or something
> like
> > >>that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hmmmmm. Since I know some good martial artists who do both, I'm not
> sure
> > >that the saying is valid.
> > >
> > >Mike Sigman
> >
> >
> > Mike;
> >
> > you should stick to what you think you know (like taiji, and from what
> > I hear you still have some more to learn, at least according to Vince
> > Black and others.)
> >
> > I will keep on healing aches, pains, sprains, and other ailments, and
> > you just go on ahead and keep up your juvenile bitching about whatever
> > subject you fancy.
> >
> > Through the years of my training and practice of both martial arts
> > (almost 30 years) and qigong (over 12), I have always run across loud
> > mouthed asses such as yourself, who talk about shit they don't know as
> > if they were the be all and end all source of information for just
> > about anything.
> >
> > You do not know me, have never met me, and have no idea what I am
> > capable of, so far be for you to say whatever I do is real or not. I
> > do not give a shit what you or any other nameless or faceless keyboard
> > commandos have to say about my practice or abilities, because you are
> > in the dark as much as Helen Keller was at home.
> >
> > I will keep on healing people, and keep on doing my Lin Kong Jing and
> > using the name of my Great Grandmaster, Wang Xiang Zhai, and my
> > Grandmaster Yu Yong Nian, and my Teacher, Paul Dong. If you or anyone
> >
> > else objects to it, too fucking bad, come and stop me.
> >
Mike Sigman
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <3757901...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>What
>>would I learn at your seminar? How to defend myself against obscene
>>insults? The path lies somewhere *between* the gutters, I hope you find
it
>>someday.
>>
>
>who asked ya?
>
Actually, this is a microcosm of what happens in the martial arts world all
the time. Mooney has discovered something that is fairly interesting and
he dabbles in it, showing others this neat thing. What he doesn't seem to
understand clearly is that this "neat thing" is actually very commonly known
and seen in Chinese martial arts. In fact, I can think of 2 tournaments I
was at in the last 5 years where there were some experts in this sort of
thing performing, moving people, etc., etc. I'm actually glad that
someone like Mooney is out there spending his time showing people this
thing. However, it's a lot like brick-breaking or getting answers from a
pendulum... once people have gotten over the novelty and see the
limitations, the interest will die off. But first we have to go through
the "let's look" stage.
In the meantime, Mooney irritates a few people with his posting style,
continues to translate "Lin Kong Jing" as "Powerful Empty Force" (which is
wrong, but he's been told that before), makes claims about Wang Xiang Zhai
that he simply cannot support, etc. This is similar to a lot of other
stuff that goes on in the martial arts world. A little information and
skills. A lot of wrong jargon and mis-placed quotes. A very strong
defensive reaction to guard "status". Etc. (Incidentally, I've heard some
people get anonymous phone calls... I don't want any and I'm REALLY serious
about that statement)
Interestingly enough, I did not say that there was nothing to what Mooney
does... I simply tried to bring the proportions down to an acceptable level
and that seems to have brought anger and a vitriolic reaction. Rich is
enjoying his status as a guru and teacher and doesn't want anything to take
away from it, so he tells some half-truths and attributes things to a famous
Chinese master who actually said the reverse of what Rich is saying.
Basically, I think everyone should get a glimpse of what external qi is,
explore it, see its limitations, etc. It's part of the general knowledge.
I even think it should be looked into by qualified western analysts. I
suspect that there is a bit of something interesting in there and an awful
lot of suggestion involved. That's the way it's viewed in China, too.
As a "healing art".... I'm game... let's see some verifiable testing
results. Failing that, let's hear a lot less positive assertion about
"healing" and a little more "In my opinion...." sort of stuff from the
"experts".
Mike Sigman
Chris L. Kuszmaul
>
<snip>
>
>Interestingly enough, I did not say that there was nothing to what Mooney
>does... I simply tried to bring the proportions down to an acceptable level
>and that seems to have brought anger and a vitriolic reaction. Rich is
>enjoying his status as a guru and teacher and doesn't want anything to take
>away from it, so he tells some half-truths and attributes things to a famous
>Chinese master who actually said the reverse of what Rich is saying.
Mike, considering the degree of condemnation you bring to bear on
*some* people for similar levels of ethics, I find your response to be
almost fawningly servile.
>... let's hear a lot less positive assertion ...
>" and a little more "In my opinion...." sort of stuff
What a nice thing to say. How civilized, how mild,
how refined.
CLK
Christopher Williams
Mike Sigman wrote in message ...
Well, do you have any supportive evidence about the actual "healing"
>aspects? I think that you need to be aware, as does Mooney, and a
"cure"you've just made medical claims that can come back to haunt you in a
courtof law.
Yes, this is true, and why medical malpractice insurance is skyhigh ;)
It's the main reason why medical qigong probably won't be recognized as
valid like TCM is. Then, a few years ago, TCM was considered myth. With more
knowledge, paradigms change.
Anytime anyone claims to be a healer, it can bring ego and bogus claims, but
this is true in any field of human endeavor. Healing and cures are
subjective, the person with the problem is the only one who can do any
healing, with their own immune system.
I can only give myself as an example. A few years ago my girlfriend was
walking on my back, slipped and stepped on my neck causing my head to slam
down onto the floor, a 110 lbs of torque - force. Within a year I had also
slipped and fallen onto my tailbone and backwards onto some stairs,
fracturing the coccyx and freezing my left shoulder blade. Basically my
left side froze, the muscles hardened up like cement, my left forearm was
I/2 again the size of my right. Medical doctors said it was all muscular and
there wasn't much they could do, massage therapists gave up, physical
therapists were having problems making a dent, and I was in constant pain. I
developed a severe case of TMJ.
The past 3 years of continuing my practice of tai chi, zhan zhuang standing,
plus the added qigong practice I've learned, and some exercises for my neck
that I've developed based on my spotty understanding of internal principals
( yes, I even took a couple seminars from some guy named Mike Sigman... )
has helped me make some serious progress while working as a busdriver 45
hours per week ( all that turning of the friggin neck, it's one step
forward, two steps back. ) . I cured the myofascial pain and the TMJ...
But yes, a lot of self work, a little bit every day. I don't believe in the
laying on of hands to make things miraculously better, that is a myth. What
qigong can do for people is purge the stagnant energy out of their system,
while they work at regulating and their own healing.
In China, most documentation and experimentation is done at the Wazhan
Zhineng Chigong Clinic in Qinghuadao.
>
>>The field effect is the most typical way to describe it. There are others
>if
>>you borrow terminology from quantum physics, or the flow of turbulent
>>streams....
>
>Actually, I've never seen anyone else describe it in terms of a field
effect
>but me. Where is there some documentation using the term?
Harnessing the Power of the Universe by Daniel Reid, page 112-113, 188-189
>Jerry "tells" of dissolving a tumor and had it verified "you think"?
>Sorry, but I'm out of this one. I'd have to see the evidence. I'm not
>sure you understand the desparation and readiness to believe that dying
people have.They read this stuff and some few of them start looking for what
they think is a real deal. Before you proffer and publicly post these sorts
of claims, don't you think that you owe it to others to indicate caution
with your assertions?
Yes, I should get the correct version of the story from Jerry before
posting. Most of the documentation on tumors come from the Guo Lin Research
Society in China. Not much has officially been done here in the US.
I'm not getting mad and cursing nor making any miraculous claims. I'm in the
process of switching my focus in life on practicing for energy cultivation
instead of martial application. I don't practice empty force, nor do I
believe much in it, and I've been exposed to it and the training methods.
Having a tumor is not necessarily having cancer. When we die, our body has
all kinds of small tumors, cysts, fatty pockets, etc, just as our spine is
twisted, knotted, and kinked. Pretty only happens in textbooks. If
something becomes cancerous, then it poses a life threat, and medical
treatment is always advised. I hadn't realized we were talking about dying
here...
>I think you'll find that in a court of law the term "heal" is going to have
>a bit more precise definition than you might wish for. And when people
start publicly using the word "heal" and consider other peoples' illnesses
as a playground for their own egos then talk of law and repercussions is
something to consider.... although really, the first consideration should
always be some contemplation of other peoples' lives and wellbeing.
In a court of law the word " the " is going to have a more precise
definition; half of law arguement is definition of terms. You will always
have egotistical people in all fields, it's a byproduct of becoming
proficient in a skill. The danger is becoming arrogant and listening more to
yourself than to others, repercussions will follow, legal, social,
spiritual, etc.
As it stands, we're on the brink of having some claims
>tested in court by "qigong masters" who are claiming to "heal" or offer
"medical relief". When you start making medical claims in public, you
open a pandora's box. And whatever real benefits there *may* be to qigong
are almost undoubtedly going to be lost because of some self-absorbed
attention-seeking wannabe publicly dragging the whole idea of "qigong" right
down the drain.
Hmm, and whom were we thinking of when we wrote this? Care to mention any
names?
Yeah, this whole qigong shit is hitting the fan, and the next few years
there will be quite a shakeout. I think that it's a good thing, to bring it
out and create policy in the open, with input from all levels : medical,
legal, legislative. etc. This way, any benefit will survive those attention
seeking wannabees and if there's merit to the system it will become
included, while the charlatans are tossed out of the house... It's how all
paradigms shift, enjoy the show...
cw
Mike Sigman
Christopher Williams wrote in message <7j6ofg$ouk$1...@news.sasquatch.com>...
>Yeah, this whole qigong shit is hitting the fan, and the next few years
>there will be quite a shakeout. I think that it's a good thing, to bring it
>out and create policy in the open, with input from all levels : medical,
>legal, legislative. etc. This way, any benefit will survive those attention
>seeking wannabees and if there's merit to the system it will become
>included, while the charlatans are tossed out of the house... It's how all
>paradigms shift, enjoy the show...
Well, these discussions are part of the process.
MS
Kath12
I was reading this post when it made me think of some experience of
mine. I don't "heal" anyone, I have no great energetic experience but there
happened something I can't explain. Maybe, this is just a coincidence, I
don't know; that is why I write here to have an opinion.
There happens times when my mother feels her neck stiff. Once I tried to
put my hands on it thinking I was sending qi to the painful place. On the
moment there was no result but on the following day she found herself
better. But, she is a skeptic. Then, whenever she found her neck stiff I
used to resume the same thing again. Is it or no a coincidence : she felt
each time better on the following day.
Also, I must confess, this did work only for her neck or muscle
problems.
What do you think of it ??
Answer to me at ka...@nordnet.fr or on the group to make everybody profit
of it.
Thanks
Kisses
Kath
Mike Sigman a écrit dans le message
<7j39tg$dpc$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <374984e...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
Mike Sigman
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <3758f476...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>I have my lineage, my skills, and my abilities. Those who have trained
with me, and those I have trained know this.
>you do not know me, so all your opinions concerning me are baseless. Until
you meet with me and train with me
>you should with hold any judgement.
Are you saying that I don't know what it is you do? Because I don't talk a
lot about what I know about what you do... is that why you have decided that
you're the expert? Maybe I just don't talk as much.
I am a very good healer, and have a lot of happy people as a result of it.
>you have merely dabbled in it, and think you have all the information.
Where have I said I have all the information? Do YOU have all the
information, then?
> Healed means to be free of a certain ailment or
>pain. I have healed migraines in a matter of minutes, eliminated toothache
pain in a matter of minutes, removed pain
>from a [[snip]]
Do you know the meaning of "analgesia"? Compare it with the meaning of the
word "heal" sometime.
> I can email you a copy of the invoice if you feel the need to see it. I
have also helped to heal the pain
I don't need the "invoice" for anything. I see now that when you affect
pain, something I already mentioned, you say "heal the pain". Go look up
"analgesia" and "heal".... they are two different things.
>I could say your
>tai chi is bullshit, and that your teacher learned it from reading a bruce
tegner book.
Why would you say that? Is it a sort of "get even" thing? I'm talking
about the sensation effects of wai qi and you're turning around trying to
attack me in a "get even" mode. The fact that you may be overhyping things
doesn't even seem to enter your mind does it? Why don't you start a
separate thread on Taiji, if you'd like? You can tell us what you know
about it.
>I have never met with or
>trained you. how would you feel if someone you never met decided to say you
are a woman beater and a closet alcoholic?
>It would not make you feel too well, and you would defend your reputation.
Like I said earlier, you get defensive if the various wai qi phenomena are
looked at in perspective. I'm hardly interested in you as a practitioner,
although I do question you own use of terms. In terms of getting into a
pissing contest with you, I'm simply not interested.
>
>
>were you there? were you with him in private when he said anything?
>hell no. My teacher trained with the man that housed him until the end of
his days.
>you have no idea what he said, when he said it, or to whom he said it.
>
>My link to Grandmaster Wang Xiang Zhai is legitimate. You dont like that,
tough shit.
Well, you seem to ignore the whole set of legitimate questions that Andreszj
(however it's spelled) pointed out to you. You go on like facts shouldn't
interfere with what you want to say about Wang Xiang Zhai, what Lin Kong
Jing really means, etc. Up to you, of course. It's something you'll
become known for in your claims on WXZ's lineage. If you want to be known
for simply ignoring or glossing over valid facts then it can do nothing but
reflect on all that you know.
Richard A Shandross
+> I will keep on healing aches, pains, sprains, and other ailments, and
+> you just go on ahead and keep up your juvenile bitching about whatever
+> subject you fancy.
I can show someone how to alleviate these ailments, using touch, without ever
resorting to the concept of qi... so what does the ability to do such mean
about the nature of qi?
Rich Shandross
--
Rich Shandross
r...@mit.edu
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/ras/home.html
dontpanic
ever
> resorting to the concept of qi... so what does the ability to do such mean
> about the nature of qi?
Tye W. Botting
Mike, Rich...
I'm sitting here reading some of this and have met and trained with you
both (though people know how I feel about Rich's LKJ stuff, but his qinna and
such seemed quite good) and can't help thinking that in another time, another
place, in other circumstances that you two would get along quite well. I'm
actually serious for once, too. Either that or you would be even more at each
others' throats. There are some qualities you two share that you might be
surprised at. I actually think you *should* meet - in real life Mike is much
as he is here though not as confrontational since things can be seen and
examined, and is quite gracious. Rich, too, is personable and not so
defensive in person, probably for the same reasons. Seriously, consider
meeting somewhere private where there is no 'face' to conserve and have a good
chat and exchange of techniques, arm-crossings, ideas, whatever.
And if this is way too serious and rational for you, well poop on you
both. ;-)
- Tye
Mike Sigman
Tye W. Botting wrote in message ...
> I'm sitting here reading some of this and have met and trained with you
>both (though people know how I feel about Rich's LKJ stuff, but his qinna
and
>such seemed quite good) and can't help thinking that in another time,
another
>place, in other circumstances that you two would get along quite well. I'm
>actually serious for once, too. Either that or you would be even more at
each
>others' throats. There are some qualities you two share that you might be
>surprised at. I actually think you *should* meet - in real life Mike is
much
>as he is here though not as confrontational since things can be seen and
>examined, and is quite gracious. Rich, too, is personable and not so
>defensive in person, probably for the same reasons. Seriously, consider
>meeting somewhere private where there is no 'face' to conserve and have a
good
>chat and exchange of techniques, arm-crossings, ideas, whatever.
>
> And if this is way too serious and rational for you, well poop on you
>both. ;-)
I understand what you're saying, Tye, but I can't stray in any discussion to
the point where I feel that logic and truth is compromised in order to be
"friends". Already diplomacy has gotten me into more than one awkward
position where I can't really speak the blunt truth in regard to some people
because I committed too much to "friendly". :^))))
Consider the two points of contention that have been at issue with Rich
Mooney: 1. His quoting of Wang Xiang Zhai as supporting Lin Kong Jin.
It's been pointed out by me and others that this is not true. Should I be
"friendly" and say nothing, or should I continue to press for truth? You
tell me. As far as I am concerned, once it has been pointed out publicly
that Rich is stating/asserting something for which he has little support,
then my part is over.
2. The issue of "healing" with wai qi. Problem is that I know people that
I wish I had spoken to more bluntly about the questions of "healing" with
that sort of thing. At the time, I didn't say anything. Here I'm not
saying much. I have an open mind, but it is not open to just accepting
things because someone says so. I already know about the "affect
sensation" aspects and analgesic aspects of wai qi... it should be pointed
out that affecting sensation does not necessarily effect a "healing".
Is that logical enough? Do you think that because someone states something
publicly about their abilities then no one should be allowed to comment.
Heck, if Mooney has anything counter to what I offered, let him state it.
So far he's simply arguing by assertion and ignoring facts. Written facts
and statements in the case of what he says that Wang Xiang Zhai supported.
Clinically accepted study and documentation of the "healing" abilities of
wai qi. I don't honest think I am starting a pissing contest by
questioning those issues. If I were the one in Rich's place, I would in
fact be looking for substantive proof about those sorts of questions rather
than cursing at the person who asked.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Andrzej Kalisz
>Rich Mooney napisał(a) w wiadomo ci:
><373b56f4...@news.earthlink.net>...
>As for Yu Yongnian teaching ling kong jin. I just checked the book "Zhan
>zhuang yangshengfa" written by Yu Yongnian himself and published in 1989.
>Well, Yu Yongnian mentions it there, rather denying it's worth, explaining
>it as only effect of suggestion or kind of hipnosis. Clearly stating that
it
>happens more often when there are more people present and they become
>"infected" by mental suggestion, strongly believing in it. (pages 147,148).
If someone would like to check: ISBN 7-5028-0245-2/G.5, published in 1989 in
Beijing.
What's more on 5th June I received mail from Timo Heikkila, a friend from
Finland, who is presently studying in Guangzhou, and going every weekend to
Zhuhai to learn yiquan from Han Jingyu (son of Han Xingqiao, who was one of
the best of Wang Xiangzhai's students, elder and more skilled brother of Han
Xingyuan). Timo purchased another (newer) book by Yu Yongnian, and checked
the contents. Well, old good professor Yu is still maintaining his opinion,
denying existence of "empty force" and 'wai qi'!
So, what can be said? If it's not Rich, who made up that funny story of his
'lin kong jing' lineage, it must be his teacher. Simple logic.
Andrzej Kalisz
Mike Sigman
Andrzej Kalisz wrote in message <7jek3v$q6m$2...@sunsite.icm.edu.pl>...
>>As for Yu Yongnian teaching ling kong jin. I just checked the book "Zhan
>>zhuang yangshengfa" written by Yu Yongnian himself and published in 1989.
>>Well, Yu Yongnian mentions it there, rather denying it's worth, explaining
>>it as only effect of suggestion or kind of hipnosis. Clearly stating that
>it
>>happens more often when there are more people present and they become
>>"infected" by mental suggestion, strongly believing in it. (pages
147,148).
>
>
>If someone would like to check: ISBN 7-5028-0245-2/G.5, published in 1989
in
>Beijing.
>
>What's more on 5th June I received mail from Timo Heikkila, a friend from
>Finland, who is presently studying in Guangzhou, and going every weekend
to
>Zhuhai to learn yiquan from Han Jingyu (son of Han Xingqiao, who was one of
>the best of Wang Xiangzhai's students, elder and more skilled brother of
Han
>Xingyuan). Timo purchased another (newer) book by Yu Yongnian, and checked
>the contents. Well, old good professor Yu is still maintaining his opinion,
>denying existence of "empty force" and 'wai qi'!
>So, what can be said? If it's not Rich, who made up that funny story of his
>'lin kong jing' lineage, it must be his teacher. Simple logic.
Well, I expect that Rich will reply in his usual scholarly manner, but that
seems to clinch it in black and white about what Wang Xiang Zhai actually
said... the exact reverse of what Rich was saying Wang said. That was a
disservice to Wang Xiang Zhai and a mis-use of his name. This is an
important point in martial arts and you can't have it both ways.
I would also like to suggest that Rich get in touch with Li Jin Heng in
Tucson and offer to come do a demo for the assembled audience and officials
at the tournament on September 5. Maybe a lot of karate types haven't seen
wai qi, but I assure you that there are many people from mainland China that
that tournament to whom the "lin kong jing" stuff is pretty old hat. It
might be an eye-opener for Rich to see what happens. Failing that,
Anthony Goh is putting on another USAWSKF tournament this year, also... many
experienced mainland Chinese martial artists and qigong people will be
there, also. Either way, it might help Rich to get some different
perspectives about what he does.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Bob G
Min Ou-Yang Min, fit into all this. As I understand it, Dr. Yu was the
head of the dermatology division of Shanghai's People's Hospital as well as
professor at Shanghai's foremost medical College. He studied under Wang
Xiang Zhai. A devout Buddhist, Dr. Yu combined the standing meditative
postures and physical exercises of yi quan with the chi-channel opeing
methods of Tibetan lamas he befriended. According to Dr. Yu's nephew,
Shurin Ma, "the resulting achievement was the formation of a highly
successful system for teaching chi cultivation, which yielded one of the
most elevated forms of chi kung ability: Empty Force (Kong Jing)."
I've seen Mr. Ma demonstrate "empty force" with a student and must admit
that I could see no particular value in what I saw. But my experience with
his other qigong exercises has been more convincing. I'd be grateful for
any more info on Dr. Yu Peng Si and Madam Min Ou-Yang Min.
Thanks,
Bob G.
Mike Sigman
Bob G wrote in message <7jh0t6$ffo$1...@remarQ.com>...
As I understand it, the mainland Chinese contingent of Wang Xiang Zhai
students followed Wang's teaching more or less the same (despite
factionalisms, but that's to be expected). Only in the southern areas
where belief in "Lin Kong Jing" is so strong, did there arise this adding-on
of "empty force" to Yiquan. As a political move, Wang's daughter
acknowledged some of the southern contingent with a diplomatic and
noncommital statement indicating that Yiquan was an add-on to the original
yiquan and that Wang Xiang Zhai did not have that as part of Yiquan.
So Yu Peng Si's "empty force" and yiquan is really not from the original
yiquan. If you want to see the results, go watch some of the San
Francisco contingents practice. Watch what they do for "empty force". Go
watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly and "adopted daughter" of Min
Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Chas
> watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly and "adopted daughter" of Min
> Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
Isn't she the one that did the books with Gia-Fu Feng? They had a 'tai
chi' center in Manitou Springs called Stillpoint?
What's the story on him? Is he still around? How's his taiji as regarded
by Sigman?
no political point, just wondering-
Chas
Mike Sigman
Chas wrote in message <375C37FB...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Mike Sigman wrote:Go
>> watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly and "adopted daughter" of Min
>> Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
>
>Isn't she the one that did the books with Gia-Fu Feng? They had a 'tai
>chi' center in Manitou Springs called Stillpoint?
Hmmmm. I don't think so. Jane Hallander is one of the prolific writers
that has supplied "expert" articles on various and sundry martial arts for
Inside Kung Fu over the years. She has a parrot or something that she's
in telepathic communication with.
>What's the story on him? Is he still around? How's his taiji as regarded
>by Sigman?
I have no idea about Feng Gia-Fu, who he is or how good he is. Sorry. My
lapse, I'm sure.
A few years ago when I was always getting asked for recommendations for
teachers in Colorado, I sat down and called/contacted all the "teachers" I
could find. There's a passal of them when you really start looking. I
had compiled a list with phone numbers and addresses, but in trying to do so
I found out how suspicious and defensive a lot of them are. It was pretty
funny. There's some good ones, but there's some that know damn' well
they're carrying on a scam. :^))))
Mike Sigman
Bob G
Mike Sigman wrote in message ...
>
>watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly and "adopted daughter" of Min
>Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
>
>
>Mike Sigman
>
Mike,
Thanks for your response. Since I'm unlikely to hit the West Coast soon,
how about a hint? What does one see for "empty force" there? I've seen
Jane Hollander's web site, and she's quite honest, even funny, about the
value of "empty force" as a martial art. She says something like, "At best
you could make your opponent sick--the next day!" What I've seen in D.C. is
the teacher "throwing qi" at the volunteer student while the student jumps
up and then lands repeatedly. (It's very silly looking.) I asked about the
value of this and they said it's basically a training endeavor but of no
particular martial value. I skip that class and just go to qigong sessions.
It seems though, that Dr. Yu and his wife were quite highly regarded in
China and Dr. Yu was allegedly brought to Standford University so that his
qigong powers could be observed. More than that I don't know, but I'm
certainly interested.
Bob G.
Mike Sigman
Bob G wrote in message <92879496...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>
>Thanks for your response. Since I'm unlikely to hit the West Coast soon,
>how about a hint? What does one see for "empty force" there? I've seen
>Jane Hollander's web site, and she's quite honest, even funny, about the
>value of "empty force" as a martial art. She says something like, "At best
>you could make your opponent sick--the next day!" What I've seen in D.C.
is
>the teacher "throwing qi" at the volunteer student while the student jumps
>up and then lands repeatedly. (It's very silly looking.) I asked about
the
>value of this and they said it's basically a training endeavor but of no
>particular martial value. I skip that class and just go to qigong
sessions.
Well, what I've seen is not very impressive, but then again I'm not sure
that I'm seeing the best representatives so I tend to hold my opinion in
check until I have more data.
>
>It seems though, that Dr. Yu and his wife were quite highly regarded in
>China and Dr. Yu was allegedly brought to Standford University so that his
>qigong powers could be observed. More than that I don't know, but I'm
>certainly interested.
Well, that's the story from the loyalist side and I don't know that it's not
the gospel truth. However, if I were looking into it personally, I'd
probably want to dig deeper just to be sure.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <375e577...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>as far as the denial of empty force, how is this reconciled with the
statement of Colonel Kenichi Sawai
>in his book Taikiken, wherein he tells of his encounter with GM Wang, and
being tossed without being
>touched?
>
This is a good question. I have read several accounts of their meeting
(and I have a couple of them on my bookshelves), but I haven't seen one
where there was a "being tossed without being touched". Where did you read
that?
>how does this reconcile with the ability of Li Neng Ran (Li Luo Neng), the
Grandmaster of Wang in Hsing-I,
>who was able to wound opponents at a distance without physical contact.
this is reported in Douglas Hsieh's book on
>Hsing-I.
Douglas Hsieh wrote it? Heh. And Li Neng Ran was the "Grandmaster of
Wang"? What are you saying? What do you mean, "Grandmaster of Wang"?
Wang Xiang Zhai was a student of Guo Yun Shen wasn't he?
>Wang Xiang Zhai taught many people many different things. If anyone reading
this thread has a problem with
>what my teacher has taught me, that being Paul Dong, and what his teacher
has taught him, that being Yu Yong Nian,
>and what his teacher taught him, that being Wang Xiang Zhai; go ahead and
write a letter in english or chinese and send
>it to my teacher, Paul Dong, BX 2011, Oakland California, 94604, or call
him at 510-834-1227 and ask him why he is
>teaching something that his teacher has publically denied.
I think none of us is making the claims. It is up to you to support what
you say and converse with your teacher.
>
>here is his (Paul's) explanation to me:
>
>Yu says what he says in his books because otherwise he would be accused of
superstition, and no one would buy his books,
>
>and probably not get them published either. Wang Xiang Zhai did not
publically acknowledge Lin Kong Jing for the same
>reason, and also because not everyone is equally affected by the lin kong
jing. does that mean that LKJ is invalid, no.
>It means that LKJ is like everything else: imperfect. Ask an olympic
weightlifter to reproduce his best lift on
>coammnd, on any given day, and they will not be able to do it. ask any
world class sprinter to do their best run on any
>given day, and they will not be able to do it either. ask any famous full
contact fighter to place first the night of a
>fight, even though they have done so before, and that is also a chancy
thing. On any given day the best punch or kick
>or throw of any martial artist will fail on any number of people. does
that mean their martial art is a myth, no, it
>means they all have flaws, and all have limitations.
>
>Lin Kong Jing works the same way. some people are very sensitive to the
Jing, and are severely affected by it. some
>need to be exposed to it for a few seconds, and then they too are affected
but not as severely, and then there are those
>who can absorb all you can put out. just the way it is. there is no
hypnotism as is suggested by the polish man who
>frequents this group. I am not a hypnotist. the ability works through
walls, doors and curtains, with no talk about
>what the ability can do before hand. it works just as well against one
person as it does ten people standing in a row.
>
>anyone who has doubts can contact Shi-han Evan Pantazi at Kyu...@erols.com
. the people he hangs with did not think I
>was being truthful. Evan took a chance and had me up to his school in
massachusetts. I never met any of these people
>before or since, and it worked with them. so, no matter what is being said
(allegedly) and written (allegedly) for
>whatever reasons, does not bear out since I have been able to continually
and consistently replicate the skills that
>come from the practice no matter where I have been to teach the method out:
Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey,
>Illinois, Texas, Tennessee and Nebraska, as well as Belgium.
Well, this might be a good, but separate thread. I'll try to get back to
it. Here it would just go off on a tangent.
>
>>>So Yu Peng Si's "empty force" and yiquan is really not from the original
>>>yiquan. If you want to see the results, go watch some of the San
>>>Francisco contingents practice. Watch what they do for "empty force".
>>Go
>>>watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly an "adopted daughter" of Min
>>>Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
>>>
>
>their empty force is medical kong jing, a healing qigong. what I have done,
and practice still, is LIN KONG JING,
>a martial qigong. Kong jing is useless for martial arts, LIN KONG JING is
VERY useful for martial arts, but none of you
>seem to understand or know this because none of you have done the training,
or have met anyone who has gained any
>ability from the training. What you all seem to think, and wrongly so, is
that Kong Jing and Lin Kong Jing are one and
>the same. They are not.
Do you speak Chinese? I notice that you tranlate "Lin Kong Jing" as
"powerful empty force". Do you think it's a possibility that you might
not understand what you are saying in regard to these translations?
>all I have seen in this thread is pretty much "You are wrong, and I have
read this or heard that".
>None of you has ever done any of the training for the method you says
doesn't work or exist.
I have, and I've posted such already. Did you forget?
>confucius had a neat aphorism for this kind of situation "He who does not
occupy the office, does not discuss it's
>policies" Not one of you can explain why I cannot do what I have done as a
result of my training. I have tons of proof
>that I can do what the method promises, and the rest of you have no proof
why I cannot do what is promised by the
>training. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and none of you have
even bothered to come into the room where the
>pudding is. so, go ahead and speculate, postulate and pontificate, it
still does nothing to prove that what I have been
>taught is invalid.
Well, I've done *some* work with what you do and I've certainly looked into
what someone can do that is an acknowledged expert in these kinds of
qigongs... an expert in China. Are you saying that none of us can know
what the real stuff is, it's limitations, etc., unless we see what you can
do?
I'm serious. Why don't you get in touch with Li Jin Heng and go
demonstrate your Lin Kong Jin at his tournament in Tucson on Septemeber 5?
I think you might be a little surprised.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Christopher Williams
>
as far as the denial of empty force, how is this reconciled with the
statement of Colonel Kenichi Sawai
>in his book Taikiken, wherein he tells of his encounter with GM Wang, and
being tossed without being
>touched?
I have a copy of Kenichi Sawai's book and he doesn't say this. He says that
he was effortlessly beaten and he was so impressed that he wanted to learn
from Wang Xiang- Zhai
>
>how does this reconcile with the ability of Li Neng Ran (Li Luo Neng), the
Grandmaster of Wang in Hsing-I,
>who was able to wound opponents at a distance without physical contact.
this is reported in Douglas Hsieh's book on
>Hsing-I
Douglas' book does not say this. On page 7 it just says that Sawai
challenged Wang to a swordfight, and that Wang used a log to fight against
the sword. " No sooner has the competition started, the Japenese was seen a
long distance away. " Wang explained that he used the log as an extension of
his hand to defeat him.
cw
Mike Sigman
Christopher Williams wrote in message <7jkpt3$42t$1...@news.sasquatch.com>...
>
>
>I have a copy of Kenichi Sawai's book and he doesn't say this. He says that
>he was effortlessly beaten and he was so impressed that he wanted to learn
>from Wang Xiang- Zhai
>>
>>how does this reconcile with the ability of Li Neng Ran (Li Luo Neng), the
>Grandmaster of Wang in Hsing-I,
>>who was able to wound opponents at a distance without physical contact.
>this is reported in Douglas Hsieh's book on
>>Hsing-I
>
>Douglas' book does not say this. On page 7 it just says that Sawai
>challenged Wang to a swordfight, and that Wang used a log to fight against
>the sword. " No sooner has the competition started, the Japenese was seen a
>long distance away. " Wang explained that he used the log as an extension
of
>his hand to defeat him.
Richard Mooney writes:
>arrogant, no. I dont suffer fools lightly, I didn't in my military career,
and >I won't with lame ass civilians
>either.
OK, so you don't think you're arrogant and you don't suffer fools lightly.
Here is another post with facts in direct rebuttal to assertions you're
making. Bearing in mind your comment about "fools", I'd like to see a
scholarly response.
Mike Sigman
Bob G
Easy, big fella! Sounds like it's time for a meditation break. I don't
recall questioning the value of what you do. I'm only looking for
information on it. You seem to be associating me with some contingent of
Lin Kong Jing doubters or Rich Mooney bashers. I assure you, I'm not a
member! I value the info you've provided and would welcome more, sans the
the defensiveness, which seems unwarranted and unnecessary.
Regards,
Bob G.
Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <375e577...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:38:14 -0400, "Bob G" <b...@fenix2.dol-esa.gov> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mike Sigman wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Bob G wrote in message <7jh0t6$ffo$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>>I wonder if any of you can tell me where Dr. Yu Peng Si and his wife,
>>Madam
>>>>Min Ou-Yang Min, fit into all this. As I understand it, Dr. Yu was the
>>>>head of the dermatology division of Shanghai's People's Hospital as well
>>as
>>>>professor at Shanghai's foremost medical College. He studied under Wang
>>>>Xiang Zhai. A devout Buddhist, Dr. Yu combined the standing meditative
>>>>postures and physical exercises of yi quan with the chi-channel opeing
>>>>methods of Tibetan lamas he befriended. According to Dr. Yu's nephew,
>>>>Shurin Ma, "the resulting achievement was the formation of a highly
>>>>successful system for teaching chi cultivation, which yielded one of the
>>>>most elevated forms of chi kung ability: Empty Force (Kong Jing)."
>>>>
>>>>I've seen Mr. Ma demonstrate "empty force" with a student and must admit
>>>>that I could see no particular value in what I saw. But my experience
>>with
>>>>his other qigong exercises has been more convincing. I'd be grateful
for
>>>>any more info on Dr. Yu Peng Si and Madam Min Ou-Yang Min.
>
>
>Also must be taken into consideration that Kong Jing and Lin Kong Jing are
N O T
>the same practice. The stances are different, the exercises are different,
and the
>results are different. Kong Jing students are taught to jump away. it is a
pavlovian response.
>Kong Jing, as hallendar points out, will not affect anyone who has not
trained in it.
>Lin Kong Jing will affect anyone who is sensitive to the energy, whether of
not they have trained
>in martial arts or qigong.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>As I understand it, the mainland Chinese contingent of Wang Xiang Zhai
>>>students followed Wang's teaching more or less the same (despite
>>>factionalisms, but that's to be expected). Only in the southern areas
>>>where belief in "Lin Kong Jing" is so strong, did there arise this
>>adding-on
>>>of "empty force" to Yiquan. As a political move, Wang's daughter
>>>acknowledged some of the southern contingent with a diplomatic and
>>>noncommital statement indicating that Yiquan was an add-on to the
original
>>>yiquan and that Wang Xiang Zhai did not have that as part of Yiquan.
>>>
>
>
>as far as the denial of empty force, how is this reconciled with the
statement of Colonel Kenichi Sawai
>in his book Taikiken, wherein he tells of his encounter with GM Wang, and
being tossed without being
>touched?
>
>how does this reconcile with the ability of Li Neng Ran (Li Luo Neng), the
Grandmaster of Wang in Hsing-I,
>who was able to wound opponents at a distance without physical contact.
this is reported in Douglas Hsieh's book on
>Hsing-I. Wang Xiang Zhai taught many people many different things. If
anyone reading this thread has a problem with
>what my teacher has taught me, that being Paul Dong, and what his teacher
has taught him, that being Yu Yong Nian,
>and what his teacher taught him, that being Wang Xiang Zhai; go ahead and
write a letter in english or chinese and send
>it to my teacher, Paul Dong, BX 2011, Oakland California, 94604, or call
him at 510-834-1227 and ask him why he is
>teaching something that his teacher has publically denied.
>
.. the people he hangs with did not think I
>was being truthful. Evan took a chance and had me up to his school in
massachusetts. I never met any of these people
>before or since, and it worked with them. so, no matter what is being said
(allegedly) and written (allegedly) for
>whatever reasons, does not bear out since I have been able to continually
and consistently replicate the skills that
>come from the practice no matter where I have been to teach the method out:
Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey,
>Illinois, Texas, Tennessee and Nebraska, as well as Belgium.
>
>>>So Yu Peng Si's "empty force" and yiquan is really not from the original
>>>yiquan. If you want to see the results, go watch some of the San
>>>Francisco contingents practice. Watch what they do for "empty force".
>>Go
>>>watch Jane Hallander... she is supposedly an "adopted daughter" of Min
>>>Ou-Yang Min. Decide for yourself.
>>>
>
>their empty force is medical kong jing, a healing qigong. what I have done,
and practice still, is LIN KONG JING,
>a martial qigong. Kong jing is useless for martial arts, LIN KONG JING is
VERY useful for martial arts, but none of you
>seem to understand or know this because none of you have done the training,
or have met anyone who has gained any
>ability from the training. What you all seem to think, and wrongly so, is
that Kong Jing and Lin Kong Jing are one and
>the same. They are not.
>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Mike Sigman
>>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>Thanks for your response. Since I'm unlikely to hit the West Coast soon,
>>how about a hint? What does one see for "empty force" there? I've seen
>>Jane Hollander's web site, and she's quite honest, even funny, about the
>>value of "empty force" as a martial art.
>
>it is, in and of itself, not a "martial art" it IS an adjunctive method
that is used with your martial arts.
>Like Bagua Zhang forms, you dont crystalize the moves and say this move is
just for this or that situation,
>one move in the form can be used many different ways. Lin Kong Jing can be
used in many different ways
>also in a martial arts context.
>
>
>> She says something like, "At best
>>you could make your opponent sick--the next day!" What I've seen in D.C.
is
>>the teacher "throwing qi" at the volunteer student while the student jumps
>>up and then lands repeatedly. (It's very silly looking.) I asked about
the
>>value of this and they said it's basically a training endeavor but of no
>>particular martial value. I skip that class and just go to qigong
sessions.
>>
>see comments made above regarding this practice.
>
>>It seems though, that Dr. Yu and his wife were quite highly regarded in
>>China and Dr. Yu was allegedly brought to Standford University so that his
>>qigong powers could be observed. More than that I don't know, but I'm
>>certainly interested.
>>
>>Bob G.
>>
>
>
>all I have seen in this thread is pretty much "You are wrong, and I have
read this or heard that".
>None of you has ever done any of the training for the method you says
doesn't work or exist.
>confucius had a neat aphorism for this kind of situation "He who does not
occupy the office, does not discuss it's
>policies" Not one of you can explain why I cannot do what I have done as a
result of my training. I have tons of proof
>that I can do what the method promises, and the rest of you have no proof
why I cannot do what is promised by the
>training. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and none of you have
even bothered to come into the room where the
>pudding is. so, go ahead and speculate, postulate and pontificate, it
still does nothing to prove that what I have been
>taught is invalid.
>
>rich mooney
>Senior Student of Paul Dong
>Student of Yu Yong Nian
>in the lineage and
>tradtion of Grandmaster Wang Xiang Zhai
>
Tom Roberts
seek out more information about Wang Xiang Zhai. Of course, I have
heard of him because I have a copy of The Way of Energy by Master
Lam Kam Chuen and I have found some web sites that talk about him
in some detail.
These sources of information give the clear impression that
Wang Xiang Zhai was unique and special in many ways. One that makes
him very unique is that he advocated abolishing the traditional
Master-disciple system because it discouraged students from asking
questions. I get the feeling that he must have been a very open and
candid man who made his knowledge available to any sincere student.
I know that in traditional martial arts, as in many other areas of
life, some information is considered secret and is only passed on in
secret to those who are considered worthy of it.
So, my question is this: If we were to look just to Wang Xiang Zhai,
his character, ways and methods, how open could we expect him to be on
any specific point? Which would be more true to his spirit: reserving
some information to a select student or openly sharing all his
knowledge with his students?
Tom Roberts
Mike Sigman
Tom Roberts wrote in message <375EC2...@gte.net>...
>Wang Xiang Zhai was unique and special in many ways. One that makes
>him very unique is that he advocated abolishing the traditional
>Master-disciple system because it discouraged students from asking
>questions. I get the feeling that he must have been a very open and
>candid man who made his knowledge available to any sincere student.
>
>I know that in traditional martial arts, as in many other areas of
>life, some information is considered secret and is only passed on in
>secret to those who are considered worthy of it.
>
>So, my question is this: If we were to look just to Wang Xiang Zhai,
>his character, ways and methods, how open could we expect him to be on
>any specific point? Which would be more true to his spirit: reserving
>some information to a select student or openly sharing all his
>knowledge with his students?
I think the main point in the discussion of Wang Xiang Zhai, at least in
this particular thread, is that he openly spoke *against* "lin kong jin",
etc. He was known to be forthright and used terms like "vectior",
"leverage", etc., and eschewed Trigrams, Lo River Diagrams, etc. It is
a disservice to his reputation to imply that he actually meant and did
exactly the reverse and the his public persona was a sham. :^)
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Nancy Tyler
Bob G wrote:
> I wonder if any of you can tell me where Dr. Yu Peng Si and his wife, Madam
> Min Ou-Yang Min, fit into all this. As I understand it, Dr. Yu was the
> head of the dermatology division of Shanghai's People's Hospital as well as
> professor at Shanghai's foremost medical College. He studied under Wang
> Xiang Zhai. A devout Buddhist, Dr. Yu combined the standing meditative
> postures and physical exercises of yi quan with the chi-channel opeing
> methods of Tibetan lamas he befriended.
Professor Yu was a mizong Buddhist, the Chinese equivalent of Tibetan. He
learned qi-channel opening from his Buddhist teacher, a mizong monk. He
discovered kong jing one day when training with a friend in Shanghai - a taiji
master. Kong jing did not come from Wang Xian Zhai's teachings. Wang did live
with Professor Yu for a period of time in Shanghai, but Wang's daquan didn't
contain kong jing or qi channel opening.
The taiji master and Professor Yu didn't stay friends. There's a well known
story about the taiji master trying to use kong jing against Professor Yu and a
banquet, using hand motions from a Chinese drinking game to direct the kong
jing at Professor Yu. Apparently Professor Yu's qi was stronger because he
lived to come to the US.
Nancy
>
RGordon
Thank you! Where can I read more about this?
Bob
Nancy Tyler wrote in message <375F17C8...@ix.netcom.com>...
Tom Roberts
Thats exactly the piont I think should be made, that if it is true
Wang Xiang Zhai did and said one thing in public and the opposite
in private it brings his reputation into question.
But it is not I who is implying this. In a message dated June 3rd.
Rich responded to the comment that he is "attributing things to a
famous Chinese master who actually said the reverse" by saying
"were you there? were you with him in private when he said anything?
hell no. My teacher trained with the man that housed him until the
end of his days. you have no idea what he said, when he said it, or
to whom he said it."
Now Rich is correct, none of us can know what another does or says in
private. So if there is no hard proof one way or the other of what
was done or said in private, it becomes logical and necessary to ask
if what is being claimed is "in character" for Wang Xiang Zhai.
I ask this not just to stir the pot. I have "The Way of Energy" by
Lam Kam Chuen and have been experiencing some amazing benefits and
results. So it is natural for me to want to know as much as I can
about the person and character of Wang Xiang Zhai.
If you could suggest some reliable sources of information I would
greatly appreciate it.
Higest Regards,
Tom Roberts
Mike Sigman
Tom Roberts wrote in message <375FDF...@gte.net>...
>Mike
>
>Thats exactly the piont I think should be made, that if it is true
>Wang Xiang Zhai did and said one thing in public and the opposite
>in private it brings his reputation into question.
>
>But it is not I who is implying this. In a message dated June 3rd.
>Rich responded to the comment that he is "attributing things to a
>famous Chinese master who actually said the reverse" by saying
>"were you there? were you with him in private when he said anything?
>hell no. My teacher trained with the man that housed him until the
>end of his days. you have no idea what he said, when he said it, or
>to whom he said it."
>
>Now Rich is correct, none of us can know what another does or says in
>private. So if there is no hard proof one way or the other of what
>was done or said in private, it becomes logical and necessary to ask
>if what is being claimed is "in character" for Wang Xiang Zhai.
I don't think it's a matter of logic in respect to "no hard proof" in this
case, since it would be asking to prove a negative. Since Wang publicly
indicated (to the public and to his students) that he was against the idea
of "lin kong jin" and his students reported and carried forward with the
same stuff (they don't do it either, except for the Shanghai branch, which
Wang's daughter diplimatically says "discovered" in order to indicate that
Wang didn't teach this)... then the "hard proof" area is more in Mooney's
ballpark. He is essentially saying "prove that Wang Xiang Zhai *didn't*
say it", which as you know is that old saw about trying to make the other
guy prove a negative. Uh unh. That's like me saying "prove that
Martians didn't plant the first colony of man on the planet earth"... it's
really in my court to prove that, if that's what I was asserting. I return
the question of logic to you.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
HHH
M. Mooney) wrote:
>>I have a copy of Kenichi Sawai's book and he doesn't say this. He says that
>>he was effortlessly beaten and he was so impressed that he wanted to learn
>>from Wang Xiang- Zhai
>
>go to page 10 of taikiken, from the 3rd paragraph on down to the end
>of the page to wit:
>
>..."since at that time I was a fifth dan in judo, I had a degree of
>confidence in my abilities in combat techniques. when I had my first
>opportunity to try myself in a match with wang, I gripped his right
>hand, and tried to use a technique. But I at once found myself hurled
>through the air "
<<snip>>
>do some more research Chris, and read the material correctly.
How does this possibly contradict what Chris said? It proves his
statement!
You put forth this passage as a documented example of Wang using kong
jing, stating that Kenichi Sawai was "tossed without being touched".
Chris pointed out that this is not what the book says. Now, you
provide a quote which explicitly says that Sawai grabbed Wang's hand
as proof that they weren't in contact!?! Then to top it all off, you
claim that Chris is distorting the material? That's a good one. :)
>in douglas Hsieh's hsing i book, go to page 5, it says:
>
>" Li was able to wound his opponents at a distance of several meters
>away, and the opponent collapsed to the ground without knowing the
>reason why"
>
>Li was Li Neng Ran (aka Li Luo Neng, he was the grandmaster of Wang,
>and the teacher of Kuo Yun Shen (Kuo taught Wang)
You could make a case for this one, though Hsieh is not regarded as a
reputable source and the passage could be interpreted to mean many
other things. Also, it is not referring to Wang, whom after all, is
the topic of the current discussion. A loose argument could be made
from this however based on Wang's lineage, but it is not strong enough
( coming from Hsieh especially), to counterbalance all the sources
that say otherwise.
>next go to my teacher's book:
>
>chi gong, ancient chinese way to health, page 104
>
>"in 1939, upon hearing about the superior skills of wang, a japanese
>colonel named sawai made a special trip..... immediately at the start
>of their engagement sawai was tossed up into the air, sword and all,
>and then fell to the ground"
Well, since the argument is that your teacher is misrepresenting Wang,
you can't honestly expect to use his writings as proof to the
contrary. Perhaps if he at least provided a specific source to support
them. :)
I don't see anything describing kong jing there anyway. It just says
that Wang made short work of him by immediately tossing him in the
air. It doesn't say that he 'telekinetically lifted him." there. :)
So that leaves us with the lone and unattributed passage by Hsieh
regarding Li Luo Neng which *could* be interpreted as referring to
kong jing, or to more mundane things. And nothing about Wang except
for what your teacher has written. That's not a heck of a lot, is
it...
Take care,
Mark Kerr
Christopher Williams
Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney wrote in message
<3763dd27...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:15:38 -0000, in rec.martial-arts you wrote:
>
>>
>>Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <375e577...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:38:14 -0400, "Bob G" <b...@fenix2.dol-
>>>
>>statement of Colonel Kenichi Sawai
>>>in his book Taikiken, wherein he tells of his encounter with GM Wang, and
>>being tossed without being
>>>touched?
>>
that
>>he was effortlessly beaten and he was so impressed that he wanted to learn
>>from Wang Xiang- Zhai
>
>
>go to page 10 of taikiken, from the 3rd paragraph on down to the end
>of the page to wit:
>
>
>..."since at that time I was a fifth dan in judo, I had a degree of
>confidence in my abilities in combat techniques. when I had my first
>opportunity to try myself in a match with wang, I gripped his right
>hand, and tried to use a technique. But I at once found myself hurled
>through the air "
>
>correctly, it was a featherduster. using a featherduster against a
>razor sharp samurai sword is not a smart thing, yet wang defeated him
>thoroughly. wnag hit sawai one time in the chest, a light tap on the
>chest it was, and this also freaked sawai out.
Good, so we're sending you back to the books. Yes, there is a discrepency
between what Sawai wrote and what everyone else wrote about their encounter,
and I've read some very rascist accounts... No offense, but you seem to be
backtracking here, first saying that a story was attributed to Wang Xiang
Zhai, then no, I was really talking about Li Lao Nan, after finding a
statement that might back up what I tried to say.
" So Li started to learn Hsing Yi at the age of 37 and continued to do so
for 10 years. He showed much improvement in Hsing Yi. Then Li was able to
wound his opponent at a distance of several meters away and the opponent
collapsed to the ground without knowing the reason why. Besides, he could
climb the wall very quickly by leaning on the wall with his back like a
picture hung on the wall... "
Perhaps Rich, you could show me how to do the wall climbing trick? Or even
how to knock me down from several meters away? Hsing Yi teaches how to do
pinpoint accuracy when emiting fa jing, and saying that he could do so from
several meters is a polite way of saying he was very skillful. It's like
saying that so and so lived to be 120 years; the person may really have
lived to be 80, but he was said to be full of wisdom that he seemed to be
Immortal. Chinese culture is full of indirect compliments, the old style
never comes out and says anything directly. To take things literally is a
bit naive.
And Doug writes for Wang Xiang Zhai " During the war with Japan, a Japanese
with a sixth belt degree in Judo and a seventh belt degree in swordsmanship
challenged him to a sword dual. On account of the insistent request of the
Japanese, Wang accepted the challenge on the spot of the meeting. Instead of
using a sword, Wang was using a wooden log. No sooner had the competition
started, the Japanese was seen a long distance away. The Japanese asked Wang
why he had been beaten so easily. ' The weapon of the sword is nothing but
the extension of the hand fighting. In case I can defeat by hand, my weapon
can do also,' Wang replied. "
No mention of a feather duster. Maybe next time you recall, it will be a
feather? Also, Paul Dong refers to Sawai, in his book Empty Force
which contains a cute picture of Rich, nice tatoos, bud ) as a five -dan
judo master and four-dan kendo master. Already the facts become blurred...
Everytime someone writes about Wang, and it's happening a lot these days as
more and more people are beginning to practice the standing forms, this
story is changed. I think it tells more about the writer's skills than what
may actualy have happened...
I've often thought that there are some interesting things going on in this
story that are not mentioned. During the war with Japan, all Chinese thought
to be a threat were put in jail. Perhaps Sawai was Wang's jailer? I've often
thought so, and have had it confirmed by one person and denied by others.
Oh, well. Martial art history is not really fact- filled, but there are some
cool stories.
As for what you practice, I've had the demonstrations and shown how to do
them. I've also practiced zhan zhuang standing and the I-Chuan stances and
exercises for 15 years ( saved my life, literally ), as part of my regular
tai chi practice. Yes, you can generate a lot of energy from standing, it
should be a regular part of everyone's practice just like it used to be in
China before 1949. The martial cultivation is not that useful for healing
energy, as it's mostly too Yang, and often people first need to be purged
and regulated instead of getting a jolt. If you don't know what you are
doing you can make matters worse.
cw
Andrzej Kalisz
>
>Yu says what he says in his books because otherwise he would be accused of
superstition, and no one would buy his books,
>
>and probably not get them published either.
This is kind of explanation which could be accepted only by someone who
doesn't know China and Chinese language. Yu denies in his books not only
moving people without touching them, but is also denying healing with 'wai
qi'. Because he would be accused of superstition? A lot of books advocating
'fa fang wai qi' are being published in China, many written by people with
scientific degrees. It is reasearched in many scientific institutes, there
is a lot articles and discussions in chinese qigong magazines (as there are
also many people who don't believe in it). No one fears being accused of
superstition, and those who practice 'wai qi' get rich, famous, with many
books published. If Yu believed in 'wai qi', he would have no reason to deny
it in his books. So why does he deny it? The logic says: because he doesn't
believe it. Not believing even in 'wai qi', would he believe in 'lin kong
jing', not saying passing it to anyone?
> . there is no hypnotism as is suggested by the polish man who
>frequents this group. I am not a hypnotist>
It is Yu Yongnian's opinion expressed in his book.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
>>It seems though, that Dr. Yu and his wife were quite highly regarded in
>>China and Dr. Yu was allegedly brought to Standford University so that his
>>qigong powers could be observed. More than that I don't know, but I'm
>>certainly interested.
You Pengxi (please note that Yu Yongnian and You Pengxi - sometimes spelled
as Yu Pengsi, are not the same person, as some people seem to think) was one
of the best of Wang Xiangzhai's students of early period (Shanghai period),
but later he modified his art in a way which was contrary to further yiquan
development by Wang Xiangzhai himself. Now, I don't know all about bringing
You Pengxi to US, but I can give you a fact which is quite important. To my
knowledge it was thanks to Han Xingyuan. When Han Xingyuan's students asked
him of some great master of yiquan in China, Han said about You Pengxi, and
that's why You Pengxi was brought to US as representative of yiquan, and
this caused that what presently is known in US as yiquan is very different
from the mainstream yiquan, as taught by Wang Xiangzhai in later years. The
fact I'm talking about is explanation why Han Xingyuan pointed out to You
Pengxi, and not someone else. Let's start from the early point of yiquan
history. Some of best of Wang's students then where Zhao Daoxin and You
Pengxi. Then comes some man named Han (don't remember his first name just
now) with his two sons: Han Qiao (Han Xingqiao) and Han Yuan (Han Xingyuan).
At that time Wang Xiangzhai was still quite traditionally minded, and was
very strict about the relation student-master. Actually he and his students
were regarded as being inside the Guo Yunshen's xingyiquan lineage. The
father Han was originally student of some xingyi master (I don't recollect
the name just now, but if it's important for anyone I'm able to find it in
book by Wang Yufang - Wang Xiangzhai's daughter. BTW Yu Yongnian is
co-author of the part about Wang Xiangzhai's life story), who was on the
same level in xingyi lineage as Wang Xiangzhai. So that Han man started
learning from his shishu (teacher-uncle) Wang Xiangzhai. But the problem was
with his sons. It was not acceptable that they would be in the same
generation of xingyiquan lineage as their father. So although Wang Xiangzhai
taught them personally, they were assigned to Wang's students and had
undergone officiall ceremony of bai shi (bowing to master), Han Xingqiao
became disciple (tudi) of Zhao Daoxin and Han Xingyuan of You Pengxi. So You
Pengxi was Han Xingyuan's shifu (teacher-father), and Han Xingyuan being
asked about great yiquan master was just obliged to point out to his shifu.
Andrzej Kalisz
Mike Sigman
Si-Fu Richard M. Mooney wrote in message
>I stand corrected, he did touch (grabbed wang's wrist), and was then
>tossed in the air. Lemme ask you mark, if someone grabs your wrist
>can you toss them in the air straight from the grabbed wrist position,
>without moving? If wang did this, and kenichi was a good source for
>this since he was the one tossed (but sadly sawai has been dead for a
>few years) how did he do it. sawai was a fifth dan in judo, he surely
>could have called the method by a japanese name since he was a high
>ranking judoka. He did not name a technique. Wang did
>use Lin Kong Jing (NOT Kong jing, since the two are NOT the same).
:^)))))))))
Heh. You're using Wang Xiang Zhai's name and you don't know about the
famous short power of I-Chuan? I have a tape of some of Sawai's students
even practicing to learn short power. I have tapes of Wang Xuan Jie
practicing short power. No the Japanese didn't have a name for it, but
they sure wanted to learn it. It has nothing to do with Lin Kong Jin.
This is incredible.
Mike Sigman
HHH
M. Mooney) wrote:
>>>..."since at that time I was a fifth dan in judo, I had a degree of
>>>confidence in my abilities in combat techniques. when I had my first
>>>opportunity to try myself in a match with wang, I gripped his right
>>>hand, and tried to use a technique. But I at once found myself hurled
>>>through the air "
>>
>I stand corrected, he did touch (grabbed wang's wrist), and was then
>tossed in the air. Lemme ask you mark, if someone grabs your wrist
>can you toss them in the air straight from the grabbed wrist position,
>without moving?
The problem is that it doesn't say that Wang didn't move. :)
But to answer your question despite this minor detail, no, I cannot.
On a good day, I can push someone a few feet back though..
There are, however, enough high-level people out there today who can
do so, without requiring lin kong jing, so I don't think it matters
what I can do as I am not the icon of neijia. :)
To put it in a nutshell, the Sawai account is a classic example of fa
jin. There are many identical stories featuring other people, as this
is how it perceived by the person flying through the air. You can
barely open a book or magazine on the internal arts without someone
describing this as having happened to them.
>Wang did
>use Lin Kong Jing (NOT Kong jing, since the two are NOT the same).
Hey, I am willing to call it lin kong jing. See above. :)
As I have already pointed out that there are much more common ways to
accomplish Wang's feat, there is no point in pursuing the lin kong
jing as the only solution path.
>>You could make a case for this one, though Hsieh is not regarded as a
>>reputable source
>
>according to who?
According to me. His books are not exactly well-researched tomes of
scholarship, if you know what I mean. I thought that much was obvious.
He simply provides an unattributed story without citation, and has no
direct knowledge of the events or people involved.
>I am validating Wang's training, and his teaching of Lin Kong Jing to
>select people. Wang's Grandmaster had Lin Kong Jing ability, and wang
>also developed the ability. whether or not there is any evidence of
>Guo Yun Shen having the ability to pass down to Wang is unknown.
But do you see the problem with this? Even if you are given all of the
above presumptions, even ave to ultimately admit that there is no
known evidence of this in relation to Wang.
>If you all out there in cyberspace, from behind your keyboards do
>not believe what I have been told by my teacher, too bad. I do not
>have to convince anyone of his validity - it shows every time I do a
>demonstration.
I know you get a lot of 'cyber-attacks', so I don't blame you for not
keep track of everyone's separate views. I just want to point out that
a number of people, myself included as well as some of your more vocal
detractors, are not saying that 'lin kong jing' does not exist or that
there is nothing to it. In fact, a number of them have specifically
said the opposite. What is being contested is how whether Wang
portrayed it in the same light as you, not whether it exists or not.
>I stand by my teacher because I have the ability from the
>training as he promised. My students who diligently train in the
>method are gaining the ability as promised. My teacher taught me as
>he was taught, I teach my people the way I was taught. His method is
>valid, and works, and his teaching is valid and works. He did not
>invent the method, and wang did not invent the method. he systematized
>it from what he was taught and passed it down to select students.
Ok, though this is a separate issue. What abilities does your training
promise?
>>I don't see anything describing kong jing there anyway.
>
>That is because it is not Kong Jing, it is Lin Kong Jing.
Ok, I don't see anything describing Lin Kong Jing there anyway. :)
>>t just says
>>that Wang made short work of him by immediately tossing him in the
>>air. It doesn't say that he 'telekinetically lifted him." there. :)
>
>Lin Kong Jing is not telekinesis. If you learned the method, you would
>know this.
Ok, I will give you that, though I was just kidding around and know it
is not telekinesis. I do not train in your method though. That still
doesn't make the passage say that no contact was involved.
>>So that leaves us with the lone and unattributed passage by Hsieh
>>regarding Li Luo Neng which *could* be interpreted as referring to
>>kong jing, or to more mundane things.
>
>In your opinion anything can be interpreted to fit any situation.
No, I said that because similar hyperbole are used in many martial
arts to describe someone who is highly skilled. Anyway, I said that
you have a case for your interpretation as well, so you should be
happy for this perceived liberality of meaning on my part. :)
>works for me, and those I have taught, and those who have been to my
>classes and demonstrations and seminars. that is a heck of a lot:)
Again, my argument is not whether 'lin kong jing' exists, but in
determining what view may be historically attributed to Wang regarding
it.
Take care,
Mark
Mark Kerr
M. Mooney) wrote:
>>According to me. His books are not exactly well-researched tomes of
>>scholarship, if you know what I mean.
>
>many fine translations of Chinese Bagua Manuals. He recommended to me
>Hsieh's book on Bagua to study the Old Style Fu Palm. If Hsieh was not
>worth reading, I doubt he would have recommended the volume to me.
I didn't say it wasn't worth reading. I said it is not a good source
for proving an historical argument with. My next sentence explained
why.
>The practice of the Zhan Zhuang method promises the ability to move
>people without physical contact, and depending on the sensitivity of
>the person projected to certain effects can be manifested, ranging
>from taking their balance to causing them extreme harm. I have covered
>the specifics of sensitivity, and results from projection of the Jing
>in earlier parts of this, and other threads. It accomplishes those
>goals quite well.
Can you toss someone in the air with it, and, if so, how high?
>Regarding the term Fa Jing, which just means the issuing, or
>projection of force, could also be applied to lin kong jing, since
>that is also the issuing of force but on another level.
Are you saying that I shouldn't use fa jing in the normative sense as
it is reserved for lin kong jing? I don't see your point.
>In another area, and as an aside, there is another side to the Lin
>Kong Jing. It's called Shi Jing, or solid force. Solid Force is to be
>used when in contact with an opponent, and will affect anybody, Lin
>Kong Jing can be used with contact or without contact, and not
>everybody is affected the same way.
These neologisms are getting pretty hard to keep track of. C'mon, this
isn't Yiquan at all, is it? "Fess up. :)
At any rate, the only one of the three sources you are still
supporting here is the passage by Hsieh. That's not very compelling
evidence for Wang's beliefs in the face of everything that was brought
up to support the other side.
I know, I know... Evidence, schmevidence... All that matters is that
it works for you and your students so obivously Wang must have
endorsed it too... ;^)
Take care,
Mark Kerr
Christopher Williams
>>statement!
>>
>>You put forth this passage as a documented example of Wang using kong
>>jing, stating that Kenichi Sawai was "tossed without being touched".
>
>tossed in the air. Lemme ask you mark, if someone grabs your wrist
>can you toss them in the air straight from the grabbed wrist position,
>this since he was the one tossed (but sadly sawai has been dead for a
>few years) how did he do it. sawai was a fifth dan in judo, he surely
>could have called the method by a japanese name since he was a high
>use Lin Kong Jing (NOT Kong jing, since the two are NOT the same).
>
>>provide a quote which explicitly says that Sawai grabbed Wang's hand
>>as proof that they weren't in contact!?! Then to top it all off, you
>>claim that Chris is distorting the material? That's a good one. :)
>
How could I distort the material when I was quoting from it? Hmmm. I merely
looked up what you referred to, then you said that you were referring to
another page and a diferent story. Nice try.
We all tend to embellish and want to impress others when we tell stories or
brag about our abilities, which is why God invented the Internet, for all of
us liars... If you get stuck, try conceding with a little grace and humor
instead of insisting that you were right. It's an obstinate behavior pattern
small boys go through, one that you should learn to grow out of now that you
are an adult.
My favorite story of being knocked away through the air, happened when the
instructor sat in a low beach chair, so that his butt was barely off the
ground, and he had no standing root.
He stuck his index fingers out, and indicated that we were to grasp them
with our fists. From the awkward sitting position he then " threw" us
backwards up into the air and several feet away. I weighed about 230 lbs
then ( was into the gym thing ) and was lifted and thrown three feet away.
How was this done Rich?
cw
Mark Kerr
I tried to find your previous posts on the abilities developed through
training lin kong jing, as you suggested. For some reason, they are
not available on Deja News. :)
So could you please elaborate on your description below? The
impression I have is that you can cause people to slowly fall forward
or backward, but nothing that would cause them "extreme harm". What
more can it do?
Specifically, can you toss someone in the air with it, and, if so, how
high? Can you defeat an expereinced martial artist with it from
several meters away?
>The practice of the Zhan Zhuang method promises the ability to move
>people without physical contact, and depending on the sensitivity of
>the person projected to certain effects can be manifested, ranging
>from taking their balance to causing them extreme harm. I have covered
>the specifics of sensitivity, and results from projection of the Jing
>in earlier parts of this, and other threads. It accomplishes those
>goals quite well.
Take care,
Mark
Mark Kerr
Sorry, I just read your message where you responded to one of my
questions. Still, I wouldn't mind more clarification on this subject.
Take care,
Mark
Trevor
MPGs.
Thank you
Trevor
Christopher Williams wrote:
> Richard M. Mooney wrote in message <375e577...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:38:14 -0400, "Bob G" <b...@fenix2.dol-
> >
> as far as the denial of empty force, how is this reconciled with the
> statement of Colonel Kenichi Sawai
> >in his book Taikiken, wherein he tells of his encounter with GM Wang, and
> being tossed without being
> >touched?
>
> I have a copy of Kenichi Sawai's book and he doesn't say this. He says that
> he was effortlessly beaten and he was so impressed that he wanted to learn
> from Wang Xiang- Zhai
> >
> >how does this reconcile with the ability of Li Neng Ran (Li Luo Neng), the
> Grandmaster of Wang in Hsing-I,
> >who was able to wound opponents at a distance without physical contact.
> this is reported in Douglas Hsieh's book on
> >Hsing-I
>
> Douglas' book does not say this. On page 7 it just says that Sawai
> challenged Wang to a swordfight, and that Wang used a log to fight against
> the sword. " No sooner has the competition started, the Japenese was seen a
> long distance away. " Wang explained that he used the log as an extension of
> his hand to defeat him.
>
> cw
Mark Kerr
That is fairly clear, though very few specific observable effects are
listed, i.e. other than having an attack, collapsing, or experiencing
pain. I thought it was also supposed to be capable of pushing and
pulling an opponent a small distance. In general, however, it seems
that you are instead describing it as making the target feel ill. Is
this correct?
In either case, I still don't see how the lin kong jing effects you
describe below relate to the historical instances of its use which you
cited.
Sawai didn't simply lose his sense of balance or become ill, he
grabbed Wang's wrist and was tossed in the air.
"Li was able to wound his opponents at a distance of several meters
away," yet it doesn't sound like you are claiming that lin kong jing
is capable of inflicting a wound.
Take care,
Mark
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:28:13 GMT, qig...@poboxes.com (Richard M.
Mooney) wrote:
> LKJ is like everything else: imperfect. Ask an olympic weightlifter to reproduce his best lift on
>coammnd, on any given day, and they will not be able to do it. ask any world class sprinter to do their best run on any
>given day, and they will not be able to do it either. ask any famous full contact fighter to place first the night of a
>fight, even though they have done so before, and that is also a chancy thing. On any given day the best punch or kick
>or throw of any martial artist will fail on any number of people. does that mean their martial art is a myth, no, it
>means they all have flaws, and all have limitations.
>
>Lin Kong Jing works the same way. some people are very sensitive to the Jing, and are severely affected by it. some
>need to be exposed to it for a few seconds, and then they too are affected but not as severely, and then there are those
>who can absorb all you can put out. just the way it is. the ability works through walls, doors and curtains, with no
>talk about what the ability can do before hand. it works just as well against one person as it does ten people standing
>in a row. If they have a physical deficiency/illness like asthma, it will bring on an attack, if they have a
>neurological disorder, like MS, they will pass out, if they have angina, it will cause painful palpitations, if they
>have an intestinal weakness, it will cause pain there. where ever there is a weakness in the physical body, there is a
>like weakness in the energetic body. the Jing seeks it out and exploits the weakness. it is a fantastic ADJUNCTIVE
>skill to have. when a person sensitive to the Jing is projected to, the effect is immediate and substantial. I would
>not rely on it as a be all end all technique, and have never said so. That is why it is good to have other skills to
>rely upon. a boxer would do well to learn grappling and kicking and ground fighting, a wrestler would do well learning
>how to box and kick, and any martial artist would do well to learn the lin kong jing method as another tool to add to
>their arsenal. It does not matter if your opponent is a white belt or a 10th dan, if they are sensitive to the jing,
>they will be affected.
>
>for example: contact Shi-han Evan Pantazi at Kyu...@erols.com . the people he hangs with did not think I
>was being truthful. Evan took a chance and had me up to his school in massachusetts. I never met any of these people
>before or since, and it worked with them. (Nov. 1998)
>
>If any of you reading this are in Ontario, contact Glenn Kwan of Kwan's Kempo, he has also felt the Jing.
>Kwan was technical director and bodyguard for a time for David Carradine in the early 90's when Kung Fu the Legend
>Continues was in production. (Orlando Florida, 1996)
>
>If you are in London, ask Leon Jay about what he thinks of Lin Kong Jing. (Martial Arts University, Radford, VA 1995)
>
>If you are in NY ask Ron Van Clief, as he has also experienced it. (Martial Arts University, Radford, VA 1995)
>
>rm
>
>
>
>PGPKey:
>
>http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2EDDAB09
>Key fingerprint = A0912A A27B5D 18AF05 49F515 C79A18 14
>http://www.bubishi.com/yamamizu/affiliations.shtml
>http://www.zanshinproductions.com/mooney.htm
>http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/7202/
>http://www.dragonsociety.com/mreview.htm
>ftp://ftp.uechi-ryu.com/pub/uechi-ryu/pantazi/ download DAZZLE mpgs.
>ICQ UIN #5218134
Trevor
slipped off my news-feed. The URL for is the T'AI CHI KUNG FU CLUB in Wichita, TX:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/7202/
It contains demonstrations of Ling Kong Jing, from the Dragon Society
International Seminar in 1998.
Kind regards
Trevor