Blocking?

[Daifong]

I can just hear that Demon now, venomously cursing his entrapment and subsequent defeat...in the "Bardo Zone"!

Seriously though, when it comes to gathering, focusing, and projecting the human spirit, there's nothing like a nice, profound, and awe-inspiring set of archetypes to draw from, and ones such as Indrafist has just presented represents a key that can unlock doors...



Best,

Michael

[indrafist]

Hi Ironpalm,

Well yes, isn't that relativity theory?

[indrafist]

Hi Michael,

Myths and symbols have huge bandwidth when it comes to information transmission. The Indian roots of (some) TCMA - roots or even just influences through religion such as Buddhism - which is itself rooted in Hinduism as much as Christianity is in Judaism, are often overlooked in searching out concepts and meaning in our martial arts.

Just as many things in TCMA can't really be understood without a knowledge of the Chinese language, so too with these Indian 'genes' that are still present in many Sino-Tibetan and even 'pure' Chinese arts. Surprisingly (at least for me) some Sanskrit words turn out to have strong phonetic correlates in Chinese - two examples being Chuynn (Chinese:weave, pierce, penetrate, bore-through) with (Sanskrit: 'Chinn') and Tahn (Chinese: to spring) with 'Tanna' (Sanskrit: sudden release).

There's a lot of comment on other forums about rejecting religion as a causal or development variable in martial arts e.g. Shaolin isn't 'really' Buddhist (Indian Buddhism - from Dat Mo/Bodhidharma) - because this would admit to the possibilty that Indian martial arts actually influenced TCMA - and a lot of people simply won't countenance this. Also they claim that Buddhism and Martial Arts are wholly incompatible.

You also get a lot of frank denials that the 'Tibetan' styles i.e. the Lion's Roar traditions are in fact Tibetan. Instead they're Western Chinese, and have nothing to do with (Tibetan) Buddhism. The argument about Western China and Tibet having an indefinite and fluid border over historical time periods is a valid one. However, a martial art called 'Lama-Pai' by the Chinese (some try to sugest that this is 'Chinese' and not 'Tibetan' Lama Pai - i.e. that the Lama's were Chinese Lama monks) which was originally called 'Lion's Roar' must have a Tibetan Buddhist origin. The usual explanations for this quote relatively obscure Chinese Buddhist sutras such as the 'Lantern Passing Thread' (ignoring the obvious point that Buddhism came to China via both India and Tibet at different times bringing with them firstly Mahayana Buddhism and then Vajrayana Buddhism). The actual Lion's Roar Sutra's are Indian in origin, and the term itself refers both to the Buddha Dharma, the proclamation of achieving enlightenment by an Arhat, and, to a given name to Padmasambhava (the patriarch of Tibetan Tantric-Vajrayana Buddhism) as 'Guru Lion's Roar'.

In Tibetan Buddhism there is the Siddi or 'Crazy Wisdom' tradition that utilises any path or upaya 'Skilfull Means' to reach enlightenment. Sexual Tantra is a example of Crazy Wisdom - so is Tantric Martial Arts. If someone has an 'inclination' towards martial arts - then Crazy Wisdom says 'let that be your Yana!' - your vehicle.

Lion's Rioar is a Tibetan Tantric Crazy Wisdom transmission that has its recent origins in Tibetan Tantra, but in common with all schools of Buddhism it is replete with Hindusim too.

In Chinese circles, and still today, Lion's Roar is called 'Indra's Fist'. To deny the relevance of Hinduism and Tibetan Tantra, is therefore ignorant to say the least, but sadly a lot of Sino-centric folks do just that.

The deities, and 'mythic' accounts - many of them surviving directly from India and the Hindu faith are as you say 'archetypes' (in a Jungian sense) and at core are universal and trans-cultural. That said, the specific archetypal image encapsulated by a culture (in this case Narasima - the half-man half-lion avatar of Vishnu - master of the 'intervals in time and space) is clearly applicable to the Chinese principle of 'Sim' and its character describing a man in adoorway illuminated by a flash of lightning.

The fact that Mahayana Buddhism (which seeded many Chinese variants on Buddhism: including The Pure Land sect) was itself seeded by the Indo-Greeks and 'Hellenism' is probably too politically incorrect for some people to even want to hear, but the fact remains and is well attested. Mahayana was shaped in many respects by Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy and ideas. Now, this is not to day that Pankration influenced Chinese martial arts via Indian systems, but it is to state that formative influences come from unexpected sources, and in an ancestor worshiping culture (like TCMA culture) those who came before even the Chinese should be acknowledged and remembered even if that influence is only 'religious' as religion was the paradigm of meaning in the times that these arts were created and developed.

Respect,

Indra.

[laukarfei]

indrafist- very interesting post thank you. im curious though, many of the concepts of "sim" conflict with one another. to go from avoidance and use of timing and spacing ie "rotational forces" and exploiting holes in an opponents structure and use of deception and creating holes, using angles and controlling the spacing and timing to merely saying "sim" is to utilize illusion and deceptive tactics regardless of the contact points

i see how it all correlates but i dont understand this statement;

"Sim 'evades' the opponents concepts too, so contact or non-contact are un-necessary considerations. It is only necessary to utilize the Bardo thru deception and illusion, NOT to avoid contact (including ‘blocking’) to do that is perhaps to misunderstand the root principles of the art"

now to say the use of the bardo (the interval either physically or mentally) is an exercise in deception and illusion kind of negates some of the earlier points you stated. i understand they are seperate ideas by different practitioners but how can it be 2 seperate things?

it doesnt seem to make sense that the concept itself is to manipulate the timing and spacing by means of action but also by evading the opponents conception and strategy when the conflict between lets say 2 people can lead to any number of outcomes from any action and how does the role of "sim" relate to fighting when it seems to be merely taking the path or creating the path of least resistance and exploiting this in however the practitoner feels best but not neccesarily as it was noted above as say to "hit and run" that would make more sense then to say "oh we can hit and move, stick, grapple etc) because then its more or less a conflicting idea?

i understand you noted "in some lineages" or "by some practitioners" etc whatever but its different then saying to "leak" in cma then to say "sim" in tibetan lions roar is to do all of these things but at the same time doing exactly the opposite.

i also understand what your saying about the disdain for sticking or extended contact etc but you negate that by saying your role of non compliance with the opponents strategy and rather introduce your own method and execute, the reality is fighting never works like that, and if it does your very lucky because the opponent reaction is unknown unless your talking about sport and even then it doesnt work out in high percentages

if you dont understand basically what im saying is the approach to entering is great and is just about what is known as highest level but to say that the concept of "sim" is all of what is stated is conflicting with itself, the opponent will react no matter how big the gap of speed and power is between you and him, and on top of that to say that "sim" is all of these things can lead you into a conflicting state once you have executed your technique(or attempted to)

i just dont see how it can be both ways while being the same idea, thatd be like me saying i had a great day at the beach but a shark bit my leg off.

sorry if this all over the place its 1 am and im a little sick atm

[indrafist]

Hi laukarfei,

Many thanks for the detailed question - and especially so for taking the trouble as you're unwell at the moment.

You're right to point out the paradox, as there is one.

My point is that the conflict comes about from how the concept in itself is understood -and this derives from firstly an emphasis made by lineages (all of whom are valid and in themselves 'correct') and secondly by a difference in culture (indo-Tibetan compared to Chinese). It's quite usual for westerners to be told that something is lost in translation between Chinese and say English, but rarely is that applied say in the context of Indian to Chinese. My point, without prejudice, is to point out that an overlooked aspect of 'Sim' is to be revealed in the Chinese character for it, as a reflection of an earlier (Indian) concept.

I have no wish to say that lineages who 'do not block' or 'stick' are wrong - they're not, they're just right in a specific way, as in: Sim can be interpreted that way, but not 'exclusively so'.

We all know that in practice the first thing that fails is an integrated structure - two individuals fighting find it very hard to stay in-style structurally - under pressure it frequently degrades into a poor reflection of kick-boxing. Same with bridging or 'blocking' many wetern fighters have no concept of the 'bridge' and neither offer no accpet one. Similarly, blocking is simple, infrequent and either passive parrying or covering up (as in western boxing for example). This seems to justify the 'no blocking' interpretation of Sim in 'Tibetan stylists', but that is an interpretation, and if practitioners are not careful they'll perhaps fall into the trap of justifying that interpretation by a one-sided, even incomplete expression of the theory.

To really get to grips with Sim, practitioners would benefit from looking att he 'archetypal' background (as Michael correctly identified it as being) which can seem esoteric and unrelated to fighting, but it isn't, it gives exact guidance on how to apply sim with either no contact/blocking or with it.

My point was to develop Sim so that you can engage the bridge, including to stick or block, and use Sim in ever more refined ways. The additional paradox here being that although structure and form do degrade under pressure, its precisely becauise of that fact that structure and form should be entrained. The degradation against resistance then is less, i.e. there's less of a fall-off than if your starting point is already set low.

This isn't easy because other things have to come into play to do with form (in its widest sense) and of course I don't mean an abstract attempt at transposing fixed or transitional structures onto real fighting - rather how to apply form against resistance by using the concept of Sim - and thereby 'avoiding' your structuure being 'deconstructed'.

This is something that probably all of us have either had to deal with and/or are working on in some way at the moment. It's one of those core issues that separate us from freestyle or mixed-up martial arts.

To me, mastery of Sim (in a Tibetan style context) is a key to 'being' as well as becoming, your style.

Respect,

Indra.

[Daifong]

The whole question of "blocking/ No blocking" is usually brought up by the same people who interpret Lin Siu Daai Da in terms of, "simultaneous block and counter" (rather than "block and then counter"), making it strictly an "economy of motion" concept, when the actual meaning is, "to set up with one half of polarity, then 'counter' with the other", no more, no less...

Without the understanding to develop this approach, fighting just digresses into so much luck and guesswork, complicated, and always half a step or so behind...

("Neo, unplug me quick...he trapped me by manipulating Bardo Zones!")



Best,

Michael

[laukarfei]

hey indra, i like your videos, interesting, i like how you take the guys balance, ill have to watch more of those

[indrafist]

Thanks Michael

Thanks too Laukarfei. Stance ramming and jamming - an active root.

Respect,

Indra.

[Daifong]

[indrafist]

[Daifong]