Is internal Kungfu knowledge deliberately hidden?

[RobB]

I suppose the answer is 'by some people'. I've been very lucky to have encountered a couple of people who have been very experienced and very open. So that does happen - even to terrible students, like myself. As others have said - it's all out there these days. As one of my teachers said - and he may have been quoting one of his teachers  - 'the secrets protect themselves'.  

[freeform]

22 hours ago, dwai said:

is it really as complex as you suggest? Once your ailment is identified, 8 times out of 10, the solution is simple and direct. One just needs to have the right knowledge  

I find it strange that you have these views on complexity. I have the polar opposite view - which suggests there’s something else going on. Maybe your personal definition of complexity is different from the norm?

 

Anywhere you put your awareness for a long enough time reveals an exquisite, unfathomable complexity... every expert in any human endeavour has vastly more nuances and distinctions than people looking at it from a distance.

 

I see golf as men hitting balls with sticks (simple)... but to a professional golfer there’s a lifetime of nuanced understanding - everything from the equipment to understanding all the hundreds of subtle distinction in weather, humidity, air pressure etc - all of which affects their performance... and that’s before even getting into anatomy, movement, tactics, mental focus etc etc etc.

 

Anyone with a simple understanding of golf who goes up against someone with a deeply nuanced understanding of golf is bound to lose immediately.

 

Anyone who has a simple understanding of software engineering (“it’s just typing instructions in a special language”) will not able to ship a product...

 

This seems so obvious to me - that I imagine you’ve got some unconventional understanding of what complexity and simplicity mean.

[Maddie]

5 minutes ago, freeform said:

I find it strange that you have these views on complexity. I have the polar opposite view - which suggests there’s something else going on. Maybe your personal definition of complexity is different from the norm?

 

Anywhere you put your awareness for a long enough time reveals an exquisite, unfathomable complexity... every expert in any human endeavour has vastly more nuances and distinctions than people looking at it from a distance.

 

I see golf as men hitting balls with sticks (simple)... but to a professional golfer there’s a lifetime of nuanced understanding - everything from the equipment to understanding all the hundreds of subtle distinction in weather, humidity, air pressure etc - all of which affects their performance... and that’s before even getting into anatomy, movement, tactics, mental focus etc etc etc.

 

Anyone with a simple understanding of golf who goes up against someone with a deeply nuanced understanding of golf is bound to lose immediately.

 

Anyone who has a simple understanding of software engineering (“it’s just typing instructions in a special language”) will not able to ship a product...

 

This seems so obvious to me - that I imagine you’ve got some unconventional understanding of what complexity and simplicity mean.

 

I appreciate people finding Tao in their craft. I've listened to professional golfers speak about the intricacies of what goes into hitting a ball with a stick and to me it sounds like Tao. I have listened to professional surfers speak about the same thing and come away with the same conclusion. Same goes for a grandmother that knits, a dance instructor, and a former baseball pitcher that is one of my patients. 

 

I find it interesting when people find Tao through what they do.

[Sketch]

My view is that learning any kind of skill gives a chance to learn something about Tao. If you can catch a fish you understand Tao - a little. 

If you make music, you understand Tao - a little.

 

Zhuangzi says a lot about this kind of thing. 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Sketch

[Sketch]

An example of gaining access to guarded or secret knowledge - or just knowledge that takes time and effort to acquire - is my approach to fishing.

 

I have, overall, mediocre fishing skills. I've fished in a lot of different places - never anywhere long enough in one place in my adult life to get to know a watershed, a method, a local fish well enough. Always at the mercy of making friends with the local fishing community, finding someone who'll show me their fishing hole, tip me to the local mojo, put me onto a fish.

 

Of course, after I make this speech a few times, I've always made a new friend, and they always put me on to some nice Trout or Salmon or whatever's biting.    

 

 

[freeform]

17 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

I appreciate people finding Tao in their craft. I've listened to professional golfers speak about the intricacies of what goes into hitting a ball with a stick and to me it sounds like Tao.

 

Indeed... in fact with absolutely anything - look deeply and patiently enough and a whole exquisite complexity arises. To me it's not the other way round...

 

Simple view of a cell:

 

A more accurate (and a bit more complex) look at a small part of a cell:

 

---

 

I'd be keen to understand why we have such polar opposite views on this (seemingly obvious and apparent) matter @dwai

[freeform]

26 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

I appreciate people finding Tao in their craft.

 

Skill is one of the major aspects of Daoism.

 

The belief is that we require the quality of 'mastery of skill' (gong) for any development.

 

That's one of the major reasons for using martial arts as a method of inner development - it's a great platform for the development of a highly coordinated level of skill in both body and mind.

[dwai]

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

I find it strange that you have these views on complexity. I have the polar opposite view - which suggests there’s something else going on. Maybe your personal definition of complexity is different from the norm?

actually it’s quite the opposite of what you suggest. Complexity,  is something that has elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc. I find after an initial barrier of learning has been crossed, a very fundamental set of principles govern most things in this world. Hence, not complex. Usually complexity only is in the mind of the novice or the curious bystander.  

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Anywhere you put your awareness for a long enough time reveals an exquisite, unfathomable complexity... every expert in any human endeavour has vastly more nuances and distinctions than people looking at it from a distance.

I find the exact opposite to be the case. 

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

I see golf as men hitting balls with sticks (simple)... but to a professional golfer there’s a lifetime of nuanced understanding - everything from the equipment to understanding all the hundreds of subtle distinction in weather, humidity, air pressure etc - all of which affects their performance... and that’s before even getting into anatomy, movement, tactics, mental focus etc etc etc.

A seasoned golfer will not even consider all those things you say, they will simply know — all of these are internalized into instinct. All those things you mention are intellectual processes that the mind uses. 

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Anyone with a simple understanding of golf who goes up against someone with a deeply nuanced understanding of golf is bound to lose immediately.

 

Anyone who has a simple understanding of software engineering (“it’s just typing instructions in a special language”) will not able to ship a product...

It is the same as that with a golfer. Programming is actually an art as well as a science. It is a way to express one’s creativity. 

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

This seems so obvious to me - that I imagine you’ve got some unconventional understanding of what complexity and simplicity mean.

Everyone looks at things through the lens of their own experiences. It very well might be the case  

[freeform]

11 minutes ago, Sketch said:

my approach to fishing

 

Great example - another one of those 'fishing is just dangling a lure in water'... but look deeper and you start to see how many distinctions and nuances experienced fishermen develop.

[freeform]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

fundamental set of principles govern most things in this world. Hence, not complex. Usually complexity only is in the mind

 

 

Again polar opposite views...

 

Show me some simple principles.

 

Imagine I'm an alien - I've heard about 'simple principles' and I want to see, hear, touch, smell one of these curious things...

 

Well you can't.

 

Principles are a mental creation.

 

Or an insight on the level of consciousness... they're not an apparent 'thing'. It's probably one of the most important things us humans can do (find principles) - but it's clearly in the mind.

 

Complexity on the other hand - it's everywhere... look at anything in nature (no thinking necessary) - and you'll slowly begin to see the exquisite complexity involved. In fact the less thinking - the more the complexity reveals itself.

 

It's thinking that breaks the complex down into the simple...

 

Simplicity in the way you're describing is precisely a mental abstraction.

 

13 minutes ago, dwai said:

A seasoned golfer will not even consider all those things you say, they will simply know — all of these are internalized into instinct. All those things you mention are intellectual processes that the mind uses.

 

The difference between a seasoned golfer and a novice golfer is exactly the fact that they've developed all of these nuanced distinctions that they then internalise... If they didn't consider any of those things then they would never be able to internalise them and would never become a seasoned golfer.

[silent thunder]

Yes complexity.

 

and yet always another layer, under all that complexity...

                                                                         yin/yang... tai qi... and under that... tao

 

the simplest of conditions give rise to complexity, which grows in patterns reflecting simplicity

and when done growing in patterns of complexity, always returns to the simplest.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

 

Again polar opposite views...

 

Show me some simple principles.

 

Imagine I'm an alien - I've heard about 'simple principles' and I want to see, hear, touch, smell one of these curious things...

 

Well you can't.

 

Principles are a mental creation.

you mean like yin-yang?  

Quote

 

Or an insight on the level of consciousness... they're not an apparent 'thing'. It's probably one of the most important things us humans can do (find principles) - but it's clearly in the mind.

everything is via the lens of the mind . How complex or how simple is a function of the intellect aspect of the mind. 

Quote

 

Complexity on the other hand - it's everywhere... look at anything in nature (no thinking necessary) - and you'll slowly begin to see the exquisite complexity involved. In fact the less thinking - the more the complexity reveals itself.

More/multiplicity is not complexity. Nature operates predominantly as fractals. What is a fractal? 
A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. Abstract fractals – such as the Mandelbrot Set – can be generated by a computer calculating a simple equation over and over.

https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-are-fractals/

 

Spoiler

Just chill and enjoy —

 

 

 

Quote

 

It's thinking that breaks the complex down into the simple...

 

Simplicity in the way you're describing is precisely a mental abstraction.

 

 

The difference between a seasoned golfer and a novice golfer is exactly the fact that they've developed all of these nuanced distinctions that they then internalise... If they didn't consider any of those things then they would never be able to internalise them and would never become a seasoned golfer.

The famous physicist David Bohm posited that even apparently random occurrences in nature are not chaos implicitly, as they are just enfolded order. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

 

Didn’t you know? It’s turtles all the way down  

Spoiler

 

Ha! and (un)strangely enough I run into this paper — 

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

Edited December 13, 2020 by dwai

[Cleansox]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Complexity,  is something that has elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc. I find after an initial barrier of learning has been crossed, a very fundamental set of principles govern most things in this world. 

Allowing complex things to be bunched together into principles is how the mind works. 

 

So, we can think "animal" instead of thinking of every species there is. 

[Gerard]

21 hours ago, RobB said:

I suppose the answer is 'by some people 

Then you have to question the validity of the method they teach.

 

Good methods don't have anything to hide. Only the laziness or lack of 'mental' ability of the student (how evolved they are as spiritual beings) are the major determinants of success.

 

Wax on wax off...there is no substitute to this proven you are learning a solid method.,.not some pop Taoist or communist approved Qigong form devoid of any substance. 
 

 

Note: in relation to my previous post honestly I have taught on the forum everything I know...so really I'm not selecting any students. Anyone can benefit from it and reach a very serious level of development. Most of it is on the official Ba Gua thread and bits abs pieces scattered here and there but mostly related to "Foundation" work according to He Jinghan's system.

 

1. No secrets on my behalf. 
 

2. Work hard and consistently amd you'll pick up the goods.

3. I'm not charging a dime either. Learn how to walk the circle from a real life teacher (because you'll need it) and if you want to go deeper to the Mind/Spirit level follow the advice I posted in the past in various threads.

 

4. Happy practice!

Edited December 13, 2020 by Gerard

[steve]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:01 PM, dwai said:

One western internal kungfu teacher claims, and I’ve heard/seen many claim that traditional senior masters have deliberately hidden  the secrets of internal martial arts from western/modern students for reasons such as —

• xenophobia (or borderline version of it thereof) 
• Greed (lead you on so you pay more money) 
• Testing the sincerity of the student

and the list goes on and on.

 

My experience has been the opposite. The “secret” is not a secret at all. Just that we as modern people have a tendency to overcomplicate things, expecting complexity and looking for it every where.  My teachers have all given me the straight scoop, but initially I couldn’t believe that things are as simple as they have described. Instead of looking for physics, biology, anatomy, etc etc in the internal arts, if students simply listen to what the teachers say, the knowledge is directly and experientially available.

 

what do you all think?

 

 

My teacher is from Taiwan and was very secretive and selective in his teaching of martial arts (internal and external), qigong, and meditation. He was a bit elitist and guarded some techniques and principles quite closely. By his account, this was the rule rather than the exception among the old masters. It makes sense they would be cautious when one's career and life depended on skill and knowledge in martial arts. Nowadays I think it is driven more by finances and ego. 

[Mithras]

I think the trend of mastery tends to go from complex to simple. Then simple to complex, and complex to simple again. There comes a point I believe, where all trends of mastery go towards the simplest, which is indescribable Tao. That’s just my cup of tea though.

 

Otherwise I agree with what Gerard said. Adding onto that, I think it’s often the person which decides how much they grow and not actually a system. Bad systems do exist, but good people either won’t interact with them naturally or outgrow them easily. Furthermore I think it’s a bit obtuse to explain mastery as something as simple as put in so many years, and listen to your master. This was kind of the attitude I was getting from this thread. Yes it works for some but it’s not for everyone. As true growth has nothing to do with circumstances but instead ones heart. So no one should feel ashamed if it doesn’t feel right for them or if they want to explore. Everyone has a respective path for themselves, which only they can illuminate. One can find good karma with a master or system, but nothing more.

 

In this matter, things like mastery/tao are an extremely personal endeavor that have actually very little to do with outside influences(master, circumstances, system, etc). Sadly, the personal aspect is what most westerners or unadvanced practitioners tend to ignore.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Mithras

[RobB]

Might also be worth mentioning that some things may not be openly explained because there is value in the individual discovering them for themselves. This can also prevent projection or imagination getting in the way.

Edited December 13, 2020 by RobB

[RobB]

1 hour ago, Gerard said:

Only the laziness or lack of 'mental' ability of the student (how evolved they are as spiritual beings) are the major determinants of success.

 

Oh well - that's me screwed then! 

[Gerard]

1 hour ago, RobB said:

Might also be worth mentioning that some things may not be openly explained because there is value in the individual discovering them for themselves.

Yes BUT even if you tell them EVERYTHING they won't understand it because they haven't *opened their minds well enough to be able to experience it by themselves or have a good understanding it like ah yes! I know what  the final goal is because I have experienced it but not FULLY because I still need to remove this (or these) **blockage(s).

*Open blocked meridians, Qi knots, excess dampness, clear heat, etc. These are all caused by the Mind anyway which cause yin-yang disharmony and ultimately blockages. 
 

**Mental hindrances like anger, jealousy, greed, impatience, lust, torpor, etc. 

 

I personally believe that the quality of the student is what matters the most at the end proven you aren't learning mac 'kung fu' or a system that doesn't do it for you. For example me and my experience with Tai Chi. Learnt and practiced for 3 years and experienced nothing. I thought this art is a total waste of time. This method doesn't do it for me, unfortunately.

 

On the other hand, my learning of Ba Gua Zhang was the opposite, after a year of practice I knew something deep and ever lasting was right in front of me. A lifelong journey of healing, complete transformation and realisation of what we really are: our ultimate nature. Coming across this realisation is a personal journey. I don't think you'll ever find a teacher that gives you this sort of information. When you read accounts of Buddhist arahants and their accomplishments you can clearly see these practitioners are loners, they don't have a teacher guiding them or holding any secrets in their formative years. We are taking here about people who have been practicing for 40+ years in solitude. That's hard work for sure!

 

[freeform]

21 hours ago, dwai said:

22 hours ago, freeform said:

Principles are a mental creation.

you mean like yin-yang?  

 

Exactly like yin-yang.

 

Yin-yang theory is clearly a mental abstraction. They're mental concepts approximating fundamental principles...

 

The reason it's only approximating is because 'The Dao that can be spoken about is not the eternal Dao".

 

On 13/12/2020 at 3:05 PM, dwai said:

Complexity,  is something that has elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc.

 

Direct experience of a star filled sky is intricately complex - no methods, no rules, no understanding, no memorisation... Calling it 'sky' - breaking it down into simple component parts - (there's the big dipper) - involves "elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc." Breaking the complex down into the simple is a mental process.
 

16 hours ago, Mithras said:

I think the trend of mastery tends to go from complex to simple. Then simple to complex, and complex to simple again.

 

Very close - but actually the inverse of what you say (known as the Dunning Kruger effect)

On 13/12/2020 at 3:05 PM, dwai said:

Quote

 

Anywhere you put your awareness for a long enough time reveals an exquisite, unfathomable complexity... every expert in any human endeavour has vastly more nuances and distinctions than people looking at it from a distance.

I find the exact opposite to be the case. 

 

So you find that the more expertise someone has, the less nuance and the fewer distinctions they have?? Why would Inuits have more words for snow then?

 

Or are you saying that because these distinctions become instinctive, it subjectively feels simpler?

 

(It's just such a contrarian point of view that I'm trying to understand it)

 

16 hours ago, steve said:

 

My teacher is from Taiwan and was very secretive and selective in his teaching of martial arts (internal and external), qigong, and meditation. He was a bit elitist and guarded some techniques and principles quite closely. By his account, this was the rule rather than the exception among the old masters. It makes sense they would be cautious when one's career and life depended on skill and knowledge in martial arts. Nowadays I think it is driven more by finances and ego. 

 

This is a very common attitude in Asia. I think it's a cultural thing more than a protection of one's career. Only 'disciples' ever receive the full tradition... it's just what's happened for many hundreds of years - and so persists.

 

On 12/12/2020 at 3:18 PM, dwai said:

I know the full scoop is there because I can do what they told me I can do, by doing what they say.

 

You know what you know... but you don't know what you don't know.

 

Meaning you might know what you've been shown - But you haven't necessarily been shown everything your teacher knows... and you have no way of knowing that unless your teacher has told you... Hence you don't know what you don't know.

 

 

Another very common attitude in the eastern arts...

[dwai]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

Exactly like yin-yang.

 

Yin-yang theory is clearly a mental abstraction. They're mental concepts approximating fundamental principles...

 

The reason it's only approximating is because 'The Dao that can be spoken about is not the eternal Dao".

 

 

Direct experience of a star filled sky is intricately complex - no methods, no rules, no understanding, no memorisation... Calling it 'sky' - breaking it down into simple component parts - (there's the big dipper) - involves "elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc." Breaking the complex down into the simple is a mental process.

 

I understand what you're trying to suggest here, but just because something has a lot of detail doesn't make it complicated, imho.  

 

When I say complex or not complex, I mean it in the context of learning -- is a function of how much time one has spent, and is a matter of acquisition of appropriate learning. Someone who hasn't learnt engineering mathematics might consider it to be complex, but once one has gone through the prerequisite steps to acquire the appropriate knowledge, it is no longer complex. 

 

Quote

 

 

Very close - but actually the inverse of what you say (known as the Dunning Kruger effect)

 

So you find that the more expertise someone has, the less nuance and the fewer distinctions they have?? Why would Inuits have more words for snow then?

The more expertise someone has in a field, the simpler the field becomes for them. While someone without the appropriate knowledge might have a nervous breakdown looking at the subject, the expert knows what is important to know and what is not important to know. They know how to separate the noise from the signal, so to speak.

 

When such an expert explains something (a teacher), they can elucidate the subject so the recipient (the student) of the information is not overwhelmed by the subject, and develops confidence in their knowledge as it grows. A good teacher will not scare the bejeezus out of their students by impressing upon them how complex the subject is. On the contrary, the teacher will encourage the students to be confident in their ability to learn, and their ability to explain. That "trust me it's complicated" is a trap --- for both the student and the teacher. 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, nothing in this world is complex once the knowledge has been acquired. And unless someone is woefully deficient in their intellectual abilities, the only gap is the knowledge gap -- which can be completed with appropriate knowledge. And it's not easy always, and will take hard work often -- but hard work is not complexity -- it's just time and effort.

 

This blog sort of covers what I'm alluding to (wrt thermodynamics) --

 

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762

 

 

Take away the following from the graph above in the context of knowledge and complexity   --

 

The greater the disorder (chaos)/randomness of variables etc, the higher the (apparent) complexity. Expertise entails increasing knowledge (minimizing chaos), and therefore increasing simplicity. 

 

One thing to understand is that, while it is true that one might be 'overconfident' due to lack of awareness of the unknown-unknowns, that is typically a function of experience. The more one gains experience, the more one realizes that there are things that are outside the boundary of one's field of knowledge. This is what one could call "wisdom".  

 

 

Quote

 

Or are you saying that because these distinctions become instinctive, it subjectively feels simpler?

 

(It's just such a contrarian point of view that I'm trying to understand it)

 

 

This is a very common attitude in Asia. I think it's a cultural thing more than a protection of one's career. Only 'disciples' ever receive the full tradition... it's just what's happened for many hundreds of years - and so persists.

 

 

You know what you know... but you don't know what you don't know.

 

Meaning you might know what you've been shown - But you haven't necessarily been shown everything your teacher knows... and you have no way of knowing that unless your teacher has told you... Hence you don't know what you don't know.

 

 

Another very common attitude in the eastern arts...

Yup...and only maturity and wisdom (usually develops with age and experience) will take us from "I know it all" to "I know there's a lot that I don't yet know".  But just because there are unknowns, again, doesn't connotate complexity -- it is only a matter of time and effort to transform them into knowns. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by dwai

[anshino23]

I love this discussion. Please keep going  

 

The whole simplicity debate also reminds me of the learning principle that is used by some high-achieving "accelerated learners" as they call themselves inspired by the work of Richard Feynman which they call, the Feyman Technique. The idea is to you try to explain it to a child, and if you're not able to explain it clearly and simply it means you haven't understood the principle deeply enough.  It's also sometimes just called things like 'teach it like I'm a fifth grader' and related things.

 

The funny thing about Feynman is that I found him to be the opposite of simplistic in his approach to learning. There's a famous video showing that here that is quite funny: 

 

 

 

[Miffymog]

God damn you guys!!!

 

You're both coming to the same thing but from different directions. Both full of truth but some how finding contradictions in each other. Neither of you is wrong,  but you some how manage to find errors in each other...

 

keep going though, because  'the fallout' of what you say is really good for us others

[Maddie]

43 minutes ago, anshino23 said:

I love this discussion. Please keep going  

 

The whole simplicity debate also reminds me of the learning principle that is used by some high-achieving "accelerated learners" as they call themselves inspired by the work of Richard Feynman which they call, the Feyman Technique. The idea is to you try to explain it to a child, and if you're not able to explain it clearly and simply it means you haven't understood the principle deeply enough.  It's also sometimes just called things like 'teach it like I'm a fifth grader' and related things.

 

 

I use the fewest words to explain the things I understand best.

[Mithras]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

Very close - but actually the inverse of what you say (known as the Dunning Kruger effect)

Shoot, my older brother talked about this all the time. I personally think it’s one of those things that tries to explain something that shouldn’t be explained. It’s like one of us has to be the Dunning Kruger(wrong) with that effect, and I just don’t think that’s true. No ones an idiot in my opinion and so they have perfectly valid reasons to see things through their perspective.

 

Otherwise, regardless of what I’m saying, the chart is mostly true I feel. I have personally experienced the “Oh this is very easy” when working on stuff like binary wiring for a computer systems class. Then on comes the more difficult assignments and it ramps into hell and beyond. Then my ego deflates a bit, but as I work a bit more I feel at least alright. It’s just that I feel this particular cycle doesn’t seem to fit for things that I actually learn, like the personal stuff/journeys.

 

with scriptures it was very complex and confusing for me at the start, just so different from the usual mindset. Over time as I read it again and again it becomes very simple and like second nature. Then new issues arise which give it a whole new complex perspective. Till it settles down again. Repeat again and again, till it gets a bit sublime and I find myself discarding both the simplicity and the complexity.

 

so maybe the complexity process is different between topics? (Material sciences/well developed systems vs spiritual/personal journeys)

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mithras