Wushu- original meaning, modern application

[delta1]

The Essence of Shaolin White Crane[/u]' (Introduction)"]The word for "martial" in Chinese is "Wu". This word is constructed from two Chinese words (characters) "Zhi" and "Ge". "Zhi" means "to stop", "to cease", or "to end" and "Ge" means "spear", "lance", or "javelin", and implies "general weapons." From this you can see that the original meaning of martial arts in China is"to stop or end the usage of weapons." "Wushu" means "martial techniques"; This means that Chinese martial arts were created to stop fighting instead of starting it.

 

Dr. Yang in subsequent chapters gives a brief history of Chinese martial arts. Most of us probably know that they were originally developed and used to defend monks from bandits. This implies a strong moral component to their usage. So now, the question: how do you use martial skills (physical/combative, mental and psychological) to stop fighting?

 

Fights, whether two individuals slugging it out or nations at war, end when one side looses the means or the will to keep fighting. This means fighting, and possibly hurting or destroying an opponent. But moraly, it would also mean showing mercy to a defeated enemy, and doing no more harm than is necessary. You show him you have the ability and the will to hurt him, but when he stops fighting or is too injured to go on you stop.

 

There are martial artists who will tell you that the only reason for studying is personal developement. Others say it is only fighting, and should be brutal and effective- simply destroy the enemy. I think it is both. Develope the ability to destroy, but also develope the morality to show restraint, and develope the common sense and judgement to know when to apply which action.

 

Just venting a little, this all seems self evident to me. But you hear it all the time- 'just run away', 'martial arts mean you don't fight', 'exercise and health', ' if he messes with me, he deserves to die', 'kill em all, let God sort em out'... . Where's the ballance?

 

I think the combinations of traditional martial arts and modern combatives are both effective and useful. But the tendency of some to focus only on the spiritual and others only on the fighting skills is, in my opinion, to destroy the art. These attitudes reduce us to the level of animals, a predator/prey relationship where there is no compassion, no restraint. One runs, and if caught he is treated mercilessly- he has all the 'higher consciousness' of a rabbit. The other reacts to any percieved threat and harms without thinking. The true martial artist can and does adjust the level of response to the threat. He avoids when possible, fights when adviseable, and harms when necessary.

 

There's my opinion, the result of too much down time. I start reading and thinking, which is a dangerouse thing, so I come here for a reality check.

[Red J]

IMO, balance is the key (remember yin/yang?). You make some good points. Hopefully, a martial artist will develop the higher consciousness to be a complete human being capable of restraint, compassion, empathy, etc. and can "take care of business" if necessary. Common sense and judgement are paramount in living on a day to day basis not only in MA but in every level of life.

 

Good post Delta1.

[Drunken Monkey]

i always think that in knowing the ways you can hurt or kill a person, you know how no to hurt or kill a person.

 

it's all about choices.

 

when you know that you have certain ability in techniques, you can choose to hurt or you can choose ot to hurt.

 

just because you know how to kill someone doesn't mean you have to use that knowledge all of the time.

[jeffrogers]

It comes down to the situation. If you have to hurt then hurt. But if you can avoid it don't.

 

but it also dependson teh scruples or lack there of of certain people who train also.

[Draven Chen Zhen]

I feel the same, a martial art should be tought both ways, not only the fighting skills but also the spiritual aspect should be given.

 

And like Jeff says it comes down to the situation, and like Drunken Monkey says, you will have to make a choice.

 

And then it's up to you to make the right one. My opion is if you don't have to then don't.

 

Greetzz ChenZy

[jeffrogers]

Every one on this thread has good points on this subject. basically should have moratity in your trianing or heart. My Shaolin Kempo instructor had a nact at some how getting rid of the people he felt who were to abusive. He eitherr worked iwth them to help instil some ideas and see how they are doing. or if he felt they were to abusive at heart. He would neglect them or do several tactics were they would just quit.

 

-Jeff

[delta1]

NEXT QUESTION

 

Good points, guys. But now for the real question:

 

When, if ever, do you have the right or responsibility to take a life?

 

Ed Parker said "You don't have the power to give life, therefore it is not yours to take." While I agree in principle, there are times when I think you may be morally obligated to take a life- though never lightly or if there are viable alternatives. What do you think?

[Draven Chen Zhen]

I also think you don't have the right to take someones life even in lifethreatning situations. But if I would happen that you take someones life in your act of self defence, then it's not a crime in my opion.

 

Greetzz ChenZy

[Drunken Monkey]

back to the first bit for a little while...

 

the idea is, before training, we have no knowldege of effective fighting.

 

it follows that because of this lack of knowledge, in a fight situation, we would not know how to best defend, control or hit.

 

this in turn results in a drawn out brawl taht results in greater injuries.

 

the point of training is taht we learn how to do things properly and in doing so, resolve situations quickly and with minimal injury.

 

as for when you have the right to kill.

 

i think you have to think about it as an option if you are certain that it means the prevention of death of others.

[daoshi]

Ed Parker said "You don't have the power to give life, therefore it is not yours to take." While I agree in principle, there are times when I think you may be morally obligated to take a life- though never lightly or if there are viable alternatives. What do you think?

 

We don't make Oxygen, but we seem to have a right to take it.

 

I don't think life per se is precious. If someone intends to harm others unjustly, then that persons life should be taken. A snake lving free, harming no one, beautifully moving through the grass, is a precious life. If it is about to kill an entire litter of rare, panther kittens, the a judgement must be made as to which life is more valuable. I would kill the snake.

 

I would kill a person based on the same evaluation.