bruce lee on formlessness

[sixdays]

it's a bit off topic, but i think what bruce lee says here regarding simplicity can really shed a lot of light on you peeps who like formless arts (taichi, DG91, ironsword, etc)

bruce says:

Simplicity

When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself.

Truth has no path. Truth is living and, therefore, changing. Awareness is without choice, without demand, without anxiety; in that state of mind, there is perception. To know oneself is to study oneself in action with another person. Awareness has no frontier; it is giving of your whole being, without exclusion.

The tools are at an undifferentiated center of a circle that has no circumference, moving and yet not moving, in tension and yet relaxed, seeing everything happening and yet not at all anxious about its outcome, with nothing purposely designed, nothing consciously calculated, no anticipation, no expectation - in short, standing innocently like a baby and yet, with all the cunning, subterfuge and keen intelligence of a fully mature mind.

feel free to post your thoughts on how JY relates with the Dragon.

[Moinllieon]

Bruce Lee's comments have little to do with JY's martial arts. Because Bruce Lee is talking about real life, while JY's martial arts are clearly based in the fantasitical and it follows nobody's rules except for JY's. That is a clear distinction that one has to observe.

[Du Gu seeking a win]

Originally posted by Moinllieon
Bruce Lee's comments have little to do with JY's martial arts. Because Bruce Lee is talking about real life, while JY's martial arts are clearly based in the fantasitical and it follows nobody's rules except for JY's. That is a clear distinction that one has to observe.

¶

Moin, since you are a native speaker of Chinese, I want to ask you about the Wu Gong / Kung Fu distinction below. Has that term differentiation generally been accepted by the Chinese speaking community or is that only a 'Taiwanese opinion'?



http://edu.ocac.gov.tw/culture/chine...u/e/1-2-14.htm



There is a clear division between wugong and kung fu. Although there are a few wusia books copying material from martial arts textbooks, the rigid martial arts drills can damage the literary appreciation. In addition the majority of the wusia novelists do not know much about the martial arts, but they can still create unbelievable wugong in their stories. So this clearly shows the importance of literary imagination.
Literary imagination frames the stories. Speaking about the wusia novels, the author begins with the pictures in his mind which exceed human abilities, then he starts creating scenes. The invented wugong are able to overcome the natural limitations. Among the limitations space and time are the most important elements, so cinggong, a kind flying or jumping, comes onto the scene, because wugong masters who use cinggong can easily break the limitations of time and space.

The imagination comes from the power of the mind, so emotions, mentalities, and ethics can all be exaggerated. Thus the elements which can stimulate spiritual powers, such as conceptions, philosophies, religious beliefs all become the greatest resources of preparation for the wusia novelists. From these resources the novelists produce wugong, such as the wugong Anran Siaohun Jhang from emotions by Jin Yong, Dugu Jiujian from Taoist philosophy also by Jin Yong and various Shengong from Buddhist and Taoist ideas by Huanjhu Loujhu; they all can successfully catch the readers attention. So the iteraturized?wushu becomes a unique experience to the readers.

[Moinllieon]

To tell you the truth, I'm having difficulty understanding the point of the passage. It says it is trying to differentiate between Wu Gong and Gong Fu, but doesn't seem to address what they are. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

In Chinese, the term "Gong Fu" could be applied to numerous things. Like you can compliment some guy by saying his "Gong Fu" is quite powerful but not be referring to his fighting prowess. At least, I have encountered situations where people are referred to about their "Gong Fu" and it had nothing to do with martial arts.

[philip]

personal opinion...i think the martial arts in novels are a large exaggeration of real life martial arts...therefore less practical and more fantasy-like, causing different theories

[Battosai]

1. Bruce is full of BS. He's like Asian Frank Dux, but better looking and slightly better skilled.

2. Bruce's martial philosophy is hardly unique to himself; before his time and during his time, several Japanese and some Chinese theorists were coming up with the same idea. More importantly, there are very effective martial arts that think Bruce's philosophy is bunk.

3. The article's confusing, not ot mention misleading. The real division should be between wugong and wushu, not wugong and gong fu. Besides, it doesn't seem to be doing any differentiating at all, nor explaining very well what wugong is.

4. I think JY was influenced by Bruce-like theories at the time, but I wonder to what degree. He's inconsistent between books.

[Zhang San Feng]

the term gong fu is very complex...

fu is the movement, grace, style and posture, however chinese martial arts is about both gong and fu. gong is work, effort, developing of skills.
whilst wu gong is the gong of martial related stuff...so technically any style that can let u win in a fight is wu gong, but chinese martial arts which involves both grace and style as well as effort and strength is gong fu

no...i think jinyong wrote his novels way before bruce. jin yong is like in his 80s now...

of course bruce's theory is not unique, but ppl dont think of bruce as a great martial artist in his own right but as a bridge linking the western world to the eastern world

[TaiHan]

Originally posted by Battosai
2. Bruce's martial philosophy is hardly unique to himself; before his time and during his time, several Japanese and some Chinese theorists were coming up with the same idea. More importantly, there are very effective martial arts that think Bruce's philosophy is bunk.

I agree that Bruce Lee isn't the first to create the theory about formless. I have readed some articles of Yang TaiChi, that also have the formless theory in them just that they are not emphasized as Bruce Lee did. Also that these theory are only taught to advance student who are ready, so there are only few who learned this theory.

[Zakyn]

Not to sound offensive or get into a flaming war

But please give credit when credit was due.

Bruce Lee biggest contribution was the following if you ask me

1) Revolutionized the martial arts film industry (before him, all martial arts were fantasy based with flashy jumps, impossible kicks and such. He literally brought this genre back to life with his movies. Hollywood took notice

2) First co-production between Hollywood and HK film industry, which raised the standards of HK film industry which was still pretty much in its infancy

3) Became an icon for millions of Chinese during an era whereby the Chinese race as a whole was still disilliusioned (WW2, humbled by the Japs, Civil War, Communism etc)
Bruce Lee cockiness (he was damn cocky) and self belief + pride in being Chinese was an example to Chinese.

*Of course it was ironic that such a "proud chinese" stood up for gwai loh in Seattle to have the right to teach them Chinese Kung Fu.

4) He brought martial arts training and interest to a whole new level, after him, tons of movies dojos and such were springing up all over the world.

5) His philisophy and what not despite being not original is still very different from what was being preached in his day.

He preaches no style and absorb whatever was deemed good in other styles and discard what is useless. A typical Jeet Kune Do fighter can switch from Muai Thai to Karate to Tai Chi to Wing chun to Judo to Grappling and back.
No style was absolute, use what is neccessary and applicable in that particular situation aka Use what works best for you.


* Of course you can mar him for his supposedly "dubious character" and "drug problems" or "womanizing" (all to date unproven nor proven) but give him credit when credit is due.

Originally posted by Battosai
1. Bruce is full of BS. He's like Asian Frank Dux, but better looking and slightly better skilled.

2. Bruce's martial philosophy is hardly unique to himself; before his time and during his time, several Japanese and some Chinese theorists were coming up with the same idea. More importantly, there are very effective martial arts that think Bruce's philosophy is bunk.

3. The article's confusing, not ot mention misleading. The real division should be between wugong and wushu, not wugong and gong fu. Besides, it doesn't seem to be doing any differentiating at all, nor explaining very well what wugong is.

4. I think JY was influenced by Bruce-like theories at the time, but I wonder to what degree. He's inconsistent between books.