Pa Kua Rules

[yilisifu]

Actually, there is a great deal of substantiated history regarding the Shao-lin Monastery. Much of it has been uncovered in recent years.

I understand that you want to remain faithful to what you have been taught and that's admirable, but I must say that I've not met anyone, particularly inside China, who believes that Xingyi and Bagua were ever a part of the training regimen of Shao-lin.

If I'm not mistaken, Bagua was not developed until shortly before or sometime after the destruction of the Shao-lin Monastery.

 

[zen_hydra]

Yilisifu,
As I pointed out in my previous post, the historical records are far from complete, and several different sources give contradictory information. I would also point out that Shaolin-Do is far from the only Shaolin arts school to teach these internal arts. I would go so far as to say that most schools teaching Shaolin arts also teach internal forms (at least that has been my observation). I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. You have not provided anything more than your opinion, and that is fine, but really that is all it is. I am sure that you believe that you are more knowledgeable than most people on these topics, but you really only come across as a troll. In fact many of the threads that I have seen you on end up in a flame war. I think that perhaps you are lacking in proper respect for others. You (and several of your supposed students) spend a great deal of time spreading negativity on these forums. I think that it is clear to most that anyone as close minded and disrespectful as that should probably refrain from participating in these discussions. I for one, am not impressed by someone that asserts his opinion as gospel. I find it very amusing that someone, who just made up their own style, has been questioning the legitimacy of any martial art, let alone one that is as well rooted in the past as the one I practice. I have tried to keep this a polite discussion. I have proposed that we agree to disagree, but you have been unwilling.

 

[Erkki]

Zen,

I'm sorry, I don't see where YiliSifu insulted you. He merely disagreed with your point of view, using the historical evidence that he knows about, which you say is not accurate due to your having sources that know better. I'm sure no one will disagree if you could cite your sources and/or give us a synopsis of what really went on at the Shaolin Temple (specifically pointing out where the history books got it wrong).
In any case, just because someone disagreed with you does not justify your rude response, which included a personal attack. No one attacked your character so I'm curious as to why to responded the way you did.

As far as Yili people coming across as being negative, I can see where a lot of people would think that. We are very passionate about martial arts and our views are often different from the mainstream. That doesn't make us bad people, does it?
Also, please keep in mind that we ARE discussing topics through a website, therefore it is very difficult to convey the true meaning of what we say. There is A LOT of misinterpretation and we all need to chill out and try to communicate, rather than bicker.

 

[zen_hydra]

Erkki,

Are you literate in the English language? If so, perhaps you should actually read my post before going off half-cocked. I told Yilisifu that his opinions are not historical fact, and that he should not speak as if they were, and here you come like a rabid hamster, claiming that I am starting a personal war on this guy. I can't respect someone (Yilisifu) who feels the need to "debunk" other peoples martial arts with what amounts to unsubstantiated o-p-i-n-i-o-n. If he, and you were anything more than trolls then you all would be doing a lot less bashing, and lot more citing of sources.

by Erkki
" As far as Yili people coming across as being negative, I can see where a lot of people would think that. We are very passionate about martial arts and our views are often different from the mainstream. That doesn't make us bad people, does it?"

You are trying to justify your negativity by calling it enthusiasm? There is no logic in that. I am passionate about the martial arts, but I don't go around claiming that your school is wrong, and foolish, and that your art is crap. If I did, how would that make me look? How would that make my school look? The negativity, and downright hostility that you Yili people have shown on these boards is all the proof that anyone needs to see that your school does not teach proper respect. All this is compounded by the fact that the founder of your style (Yilisifu) is trolling right along with the rest of you.

Don't take my word for it people, look up some of the threads these "passionate" martial artists have posted on, and they will damn themselves as trolls.

 

[chufeng]

Erkki,
Are you literate in the English language?

and here you come like a rabid hamster

I see no evidence in Erkki's post of this alleged behavior.

If he, and you were anything more than trolls

You deny posting pesonal insults...but the above two statements would indicate otherwise.

I for one, am not impressed by someone that asserts his opinion as gospel.

Like you did?
For instance:

also I believe it was the Shaolin temple at Wudong mountain that adopted Taiji as one of it's primary styles. They taught Taiji (an internal style) to their students as one of the first styles they would learn.

You stated:

The negativity, and downright hostility that you Yili people have shown on these boards

In response to Errki's

There is A LOT of misinterpretation and we all need to chill out and try to communicate, rather than bicker.

I don't want to see this thread go down in flames...so, I suggest everyone step back for a moment and think before posting. I find much of this thread ironic...

IMHO
:asian:
chufeng

 

[Erkki]

Originally posted by zen_hydra
Erkki,

Are you literate in the English language? If so, perhaps you should actually read my post before going off half-cocked.

Apparently not. Could you please explain what you mean by half-cocked and how you came to your assessment that I went off that way? I felt I was being rather polite. I apologize if it didn't come across that way.

I told Yilisifu that his opinions are not historical fact, and that he should not speak as if they were

Yes, you did tell him that. But you offered no evidence to back it up, other than that you claim to have spoken to people in the know. Until you can produce historical evidence yourself then you should follow your own advice and not speak as if your opinions are historical fact.

and here you come like a rabid hamster, claiming that I am starting a personal war on this guy.

I made that 'claim' based on the insults you flung towards Yilisifu, which you are now flinging at me. I don't recall likening you to a small mammal, so why do you insult me in that way?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you. I was merely trying to head off a flame war that you have now started in full effect. Again, I apologize if my comments are insulting to you. They are not meant to be. Please, read the last part of my initial response to you. It is too easy to misconstrue what someone's intent is over the internet and because of that opportunities to learn from each other are lost.

 

[ECYili]

Actually, from what I see on the forum, the yili guys seem to be fairly respected by most. And are more then willing to give the respect back to those who deserve it.

Just becaue someone doesn't take history at face value and decides to research it to come up with the real answers and then decides to share it with others, even if what is said contradicts popular theory doesn't make them an opinionated troll.

Please lets keep everything civil. Calm discussions will yield better results.

 

[zen_hydra]

Erkki,

...All too true. I guess I did misconstrue your intent. If I have spoken falsely of anyone, I humbly apologize (I concede that the hamster remark might have been a bit insulting). I will readily admit that everything I have stated on this thread so far is my opinion, based on my readings, observations, and experiences. As far as I am concerted, my part of any argument here is finished. I will happily post citations of historical texts to back up my claims when I get the opportunity, and I encourage Yilisifu to do the same. However, please don't make the assumption that the burden of proof lies solely upon my shoulders. It was after all the Yili folks that challenged the validity of the teaching of Taoist arts at a Ch'an Buddhist temple (two ideologies that are not mutually exclusive.

My biggest frustration on this thread (like many others) is that the original topic was trolled away by the likes of Yiliquan1 (and company). Twisted, if you will, far off topic.

Regardless of what historical record can prove, the fact is, that the internal Chinese arts play a very integral role in the advanced teachings of the Shaolin-Do System. It is really pointless to argue at what point they became integrated into the teachings. Would it make the school less viable if at some point the exiled Shaolin monks saw the value of learning the Taoist arts? Grandmaster Su Kong Tai Djin was reportedly a martial arts genius, is it unbelievable that he incorporated these internal arts into his own teachings? He lived at the right time to have learned all of them (Xinyi, Bagua, and Taiji)?

Here are a few quick citations from sources unconnected to Shaolin-Do:

"Yu Fei’s martial arts came from the Shaolin tradition and thus credit Da Mo as the original Xinyi ancestor" Master Liang Shou-Yu & Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming, Hsing Yi Chuan - Theory & Applications (1990).

"Master Su Yu-Chang suggests that Yu Fei combined the aspects of the Shaolin and Baji Chuan styles to create Xinyi" Website of Master Su Yu-Chang of the Pachi Tanglang International Martial Arts Association, Venezuelan branch, see www.catalogoweb.com/pachi/hsingi_e.htm.

"Bagua Zhang is an ancient internal martial art generally characterized by a preference for open-hand fighting, circular movements, and evasive footwork. Its foundation is built upon the yin and yang circle. Its complexity is to control your opponent while doing circles around them. Not knowing which angle and direction the person is coming in. The founder Dong Hai Chuan, who gave birth to Bagua, is the father on paper but nobody really knows who started the art. It has been passed down from Master to student and is here in the Shaolin Temple School. The art took off when Grandmaster Dong Hai Chuan competed and not just one but made a change in the Martial Art world. The idea not of linear fighting and forms was a big change to the world." Gin Yee Baguazhang, see http://www.shaolinlomita.com/bagua.htm

...More to follow.

 

[chufeng]

Zen_hydra,

Thank you for keeping a level head.

I have several points to make...

#1) YiLiSifu has NOT been involved in flame wars on this WebSite.

#2) YiLiQuan1 has been involved in flame wars...but usually to point out inaccuracies in someone's post...he is usually more than willing to admit being wrong when he has been shown to be wrong. (That said, he does have HIS opinion...and he is entitled to it...and unless he brings shame on our school, I will not attempt to quiet him...this is America, after all.)

#3) I have been in ONE flame war...I apologized...

#4) I post to correct, when necessary...I post to answer questions...I post to offer a different perspective...

#5) No one has all of the answers...even the ones with the most experience in a particular art may be mistaken on points related to history (since Chinese history has been rewritten many times).

#6) To state that us YiLi folks are always BASHING others is patently WRONG...and, although you probably did not want to come across as insulting, you did...that is why I asked everyone here to think before they post...I've been guilty of "reacting" to a post, without stopping long enough to think about it before responding...I usually eat foot, on those occasions.

Good training to you sir...
:asian:
chufeng

 

[Erkki]

Thanks for the follow up post Zen.

And thanks for citing your resources. It really helps to see where you're coming from, which can lead to a much more profitable discussion.

 

[yilisifu]

I must say that I am rather surprised that I would come across in the way it seems that I was taken. I was careful to point out that I understand zen hydra's wish to remain true to his system, and in regards to Wudong and Shao-lin, I started with, "If I'm not mistaken...."

That said, I certainly concede that a good number of schools which teach Shao-lin in one form or another often offer training in the so-called "internal" systems such as Xingyi, Taiji, or Bagua as well.

I have never claimed to be the ultimate authority on anything, but martial arts history is one of my few passions...

There is a legend that states that Yao Fei founded Xingyi. However, numerous other martial arts schools name him as their founder as well (i.e., eagle claw). Naming certain "favorite" and highly-regarded Chinese historical figures as founders (of various systems) was felt to lend the system some measure of credibility and was not an uncommon practice. However, even Robert Smith acknowledges that there is no solid evidence to support this claim.
I don't believe that anyone is certain where Yao-Fei's martial training was derived.

Legend states that one Chi Lungfeng chanced upon a Daoist hermit somewhere in the Chung-nan Mountain between 1637 and 1661. He was the first known practicioner of Xingyi and claimed to have learned the art from the mysterious hermit.

I must say that using enigmatic hermits who live in remote mountain ranges has also been a favorite source for many Chinese schools of martial arts...rather than admit that "I made this style up all by myself," they attribute it to some unknown hermit...

Taiji traditionally credits it's formation to Chang Sanfeng, but recent research in the PRC has shown this claim to be inconclusive as almost no evidence has been found regarding this person. There were many arts similar to Taiji which were developed during his lifetime.
The original form of Taiji (now known as the Chen style) was founded by Wang Tsungyueh who subsequently taught Chen Wangting (who had been an officer in the Ming Army under the command of the legendary Chi Jiguang who trained his commanders and troops in various martial techniques which he gathered from various sources).
Chen returned home to Chen Village (Chen Jiakou) in 1644 when the Ming Dynasty collapsed and the Ching Dynasty was established. It was then that he began to train under Wang. The art was not very well-developed until the late 1600's.

Like Xingyi and Taiji, Bagua traces it's lineage back to a mysterious hermit who Dong Haichuan claimed was his teacher (during the early Ching Dynasty).
Recent research in the PRC indicates that Dong studied at the Shao-lin Temple in Honan and was very fond of their palm strikes. He later departed the temple and found a group of Daoists whose main form of chigong was done whilst walking around the rim of a large circle. Putting the two together and using his genius, he created the new art himself. But again, rather than admit to that, he gave credit to an unknown sage who existance has never been proven.

The Honan and Fukien Shao-lin Temples were destroyed during the reign of Emperor Kang-Xi, sometime in the late 1600's (Kang-Xi was the first Ching Emperor and that dynasty was established in 1644).

Now, the point I am trying to make is that it is very highly unlikely that Xingyi, Taiji, or Bagua ever became a standard part of the training regimen at either temple. I believe this because the two temples were destroyed and most of the monks butchered shortly after these styles became established.

Taiji remained a closely-guarded secret in Chen Village until it was taken into Beijing and outside of the Chen clan by Yang Luchan. This occured in the early 1800's which would be long after the destruction of the Shao-lin Temples.

Bagua was taught only in and around Beijing for many years which again would mean that the remote Temples would probably not have been exposed to it at all.

Xingyi's problem is even greater. The founder's best students were Tsao Chiwu and Ma Xuehli. Tsao became a commander of the imperial Ching forces stationed in Shansi Province and under the direction of Emperor Kang-Xi (who was responsible for the destruction of the Shao-lin Temples). It is more than a little unlikely that anyone from Shao-lin would even want to talk to him.
Ma Xuehli died at a young age although he taught a few students.

Now, if these arts are taught within Shao-lin Do, that's fine. I have no problem with that and I have never indicated otherwise. I simply felt that you might have some errors in your histories and wished to point them out to you. If you find this abrasive, I'm sorry. I certainly don't mean to come across in that fashion.

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by zen_hydra

My biggest frustration on this thread (like many others) is that the original topic was trolled away by the likes of Yiliquan1 (and company). Twisted, if you will, far off topic.

Whatever.

I commented on the spurious connection alleged to Shaolin by nearly every CMA tradition. Everyone, in China and abroad, wants to jump on the Shaolin bandwagon to somehow further legitimize their art's lineage.

I'd say that at least half of the folks claiming Shaolin ancestry are full of crap. The other half are probably only half right...

To call me a troll is nuts. If I wanted to act like a troll, I would have called into question all sorts of things about your art. As it is, I know precious little about Shaolin-Do other than what is common public knowledge, and none of that is favorable. I admitted that much, and invited you to substantiate your comments so I could better understand your perspective.

Some folks just seem to have some kind of problem backing up what they say... I'm really getting tired of having to defend myself for asking simple questions of people who make public comments that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs. Personally, I don't believe Shaolin is the hotbed of martial arts training that so many others do. Pacifist Buddhist monks don't go around smacking the hell out of each other and passers by. Nor do pacifist Buddhist monks tend to look outside their religious traditions to study the traditions of other religions that advocate smacking the hell out of people.

Whatever. Think what you want. Keep your opinions and ideas to yourself and continue to be offended by requests for clarification. That way nobody will benefit from anybody else's information and we can all remain blissfully ignorant in our own little caves...

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:

 

[zen_hydra]

Yilisifu,

Thank you. That was a much more articulate series of points that you made. That is much more in line with the kind of discussion that I hoped to have here on these forums.

I have no source to cite at the moment, but my studies show various rebuilding and subsequent destructions of the Shaolin Temples from about 1800 thru the early 20th century.

 

[chufeng]

Zen-hydra,

Not that YiLiSifu gives a darn about such things...but, you never apologized for calling him a troll...

Quite frankly, I don't care what you think of me...but you called MY teacher a troll with no reason, no evidence, and then insulted my school to boot...

I do not advocate BASHING other systems...I do think that there is a lot of trash being taught...and when someone makes grandiose claims with little to support it...I will pipe in...and I would expect any teacher to do the same...but...

...as MY teacher made no comment against your school and only questioned the particular history you posted about Shaolin, I do think you owe him an apology...

and since you admit the following:

I have no source to cite at the moment

...my previous comments still stand.

Good training to you...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[zen_hydra]

chufeng,

....so close..... Your previous post came off so close to being civil that I thought that you might actually be trying to be considerate to others. Why, oh, why, did you feel the need to start up with this again??????

zen_hydra states
"If I have spoken falsely of anyone, I humbly apologize," that is as close as it is going to get.

chufeng states
"...my previous comments still stand."

Which comments are those?

I have stated already that I am no longer participating in any hostilities

zen_hydra states
"As far as I am concerted, my part of any argument here is finished."

If you feel the need to continue stirring up trouble you can do so all by yourself.

 

[arnisador]

Everyone, please, keep the discussion polite, respectful, and on-topic.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[Jotaro Joestar]

Actually, I started the thread wanting to know how many people knew of the 64 rules to Pa Kua and how many practiced them on a regular basis. (At least the schools that had a similar 64-rule history).

I had no intention of this thread to turn out just like every other thread turns out when people find out that there is another damn Shaolin-Do student.

I personally find it insulting that a person cannot state there school here on this forum without being harassed about their history. If I wanted to discuss such items then the topic of the thread would not be "PA KUA RULES," and would be "I study the highly flamed art known as Shaolin-Do, please let us argue as much as we can and never get anywhere!"

I expect people to have respect for themselves, their art, and martial arts in general. But obviously that is not going to happen here. I had heard that Martialtalk.com was not prone to same flaming that most of the other martial arts message boards where full of, but there are always people who have to make others feel unwelcome.



I felt that it was an attack when Yiliquan1 stated...

"And I think we return to the crux of why folks have trouble with Shaolin-Do...
The arts of Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua are extremely complex. I have been working on them (and a very small number of forms in comparison to SD's curriculum) for over 16 years, and I still have quite a way to go...
So how is it you are practicing Bagua within Shaolin-Do? What is the nature of your training? You spoke of 64 rules, but what, specifically do you do to train your Bagua?
Just curious. I could care less whether you were doing Shaolin-Do's Bagua or Shotokan Bagua... I'm just curious how you identify it as being apart from the rest of the 500+ forms you have in your style."


I personally do not care if you have had trouble with my art and I am glad that you have spent 16+ years with the forms that you have studied. No one will argue that a person can spend a lifetime on mastering one or a few forms.

If you had read any of the posts by the Shaolin-Do students in the Shaolin-Do? thread you would have learned that there are not 500+ forms taught out in the curriculum. The fact that you intentionally ignore that is insulting. Our Grandmaster may be a martial arts genius the kind that no one has ever seen before in this generation. It does not matter to you. You and several others seem to have you minds made up that he cannot possibly be what he claims to be, so what does it matter to you.

I intentionally had refrained from posting, because I knew where this thread was leading with such a response. I have no intentions of arguing with you. You can believe what you want to, and I can believe what I want to. Let us just leave it at that. Perhaps some day we can have a civil discussion about Pa Kau Rules.

If you have nothing to say about Pa Kua Rules then do not comment on this thread. Start a new thread please.

I just would like to be able to ask questions and post comments without harassment. I would not do the same to you. Please have respect for yourselves, your school, and your teacher.

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
I personally find it insulting that a person cannot state there school here on this forum without being harassed about their history.

I didn't harass you or any other SD student about your style's history... What I did ask was how, with such a large curriculum, did the Three Classics get specifically sorted out. If a person is studying a much larger degree of external or combination forms, and the actual percentage of internal forms is considerably smaller, I was wondering how the training compensated for the disparity.

I expect people to have respect for themselves, their art, and martial arts in general. But obviously that is not going to happen here.

Only if you persist in your attitude toward answering questions that those of us who know very little about your art pose. If you remain abrasive and resistant to answering questions because your sensitivity and defensiveness preclude you from simply providing information, then no, there will be little in the way of civility.

I had heard that Martialtalk.com was not prone to same flaming that most of the other martial arts message boards where full of, but there are always people who have to make others feel unwelcome.

Oh, you haven't been flamed yet, believe me...

I felt that it was an attack when Yiliquan1 stated...

"And I think we return to the crux of why folks have trouble with Shaolin-Do...
The arts of Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua are extremely complex. I have been working on them (and a very small number of forms in comparison to SD's curriculum) for over 16 years, and I still have quite a way to go...
So how is it you are practicing Bagua within Shaolin-Do? What is the nature of your training? You spoke of 64 rules, but what, specifically do you do to train your Bagua?
Just curious. I could care less whether you were doing Shaolin-Do's Bagua or Shotokan Bagua... I'm just curious how you identify it as being apart from the rest of the 500+ forms you have in your style."

Sorry you felt that way. You took what I wrote in completely the wrong context. I attribute that to your defensive nature regarding critiques of your art. It is understandable that you would be that way, what with the treatment SD gets on the internet, but it doesn't justify your or others' oversensitive replies to questions.

I personally do not care if you have had trouble with my art and I am glad that you have spent 16+ years with the forms that you have studied. No one will argue that a person can spend a lifetime on mastering one or a few forms.

Never said a single, solitary, negative thing about Shaolin-Do. Would you like me to so you can tell the difference?

If you had read any of the posts by the Shaolin-Do students in the Shaolin-Do? thread you would have learned that there are not 500+ forms taught out in the curriculum. The fact that you intentionally ignore that is insulting.

My one and only encounter with Shaolin-Do was a visit I made to the Soards' school in Colorado Springs back in '91. And on a board above the main training floor was a list of all the forms taught... I didn't count them, but there had to be at least 100+. I understand what has been said by SD students on MT before - not all of the forms are mandatory, and at advanced levels students are allowed to specialize. Fine. But all of those forms are included in your curriculum, mandatory or not, based on what was displayed in that school. If I'm wrong, please tell me in what way.

Our Grandmaster may be a martial arts genius the kind that no one has ever seen before in this generation. It does not matter to you. You and several others seem to have you minds made up that he cannot possibly be what he claims to be, so what does it matter to you.

I think the key is that it doesn't matter to me. Not one whit. If he is the genius he is proposed to be, fine. I really don't care. I think it is more an issue of those who believe him to be a genius having a problem with those that don't care...

[]BI just would like to be able to ask questions and post comments without harassment. I would not do the same to you. Please have respect for yourselves, your school, and your teacher. [/B]

First, if you equate posting without questions (and without tough questions at that) being asked, I guess you would be hard pressed to find an internet forum where you wouldn't be "harassed." I don't remember harassing you, or any of the Yili folks for that matter. We posted questions and contradicting information, that is all. It has been the tone of the SD folks' posts that sounds very much to me like people who are already set in their worldview and are implying that those who don't believe similarly are incorrect from the outset...

Secondly, our comments have been just as equally "harassed" in reply. So saying you wouldn't do the same is incorrect, since you already have. Good for you. Keep it up. It keeps us all honest.

Lastly, having respect for myself, my school or my teacher doesn't really enter into this. I am my own man, and I can speak for myself. If I were speaking in such a manner as to bring discredit to my school, then you are generalizing my comments as representing something other than my own opinion. You have yours, and I'm not assuming that all SD folks are of like minds necessarily. So don't admonish me to behave in any particular manner. We are not in Asia, we are not bound by extracultural mores. We are all able to voice our singular, individual opinions, and if folks don't like that, they will either pipe up or learn to live with it.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:

 

[yilisifu]

The reason I spoke on the matter is because I felt that the history was off kilter. I am a teacher and have studied both Bagua and a form of Shao-lin for a very, very long time and I know that there is a lot of misinformation out there. Some people have been misinformed by others while some have simply made errors in their own research. I do what I can to help get things sorted out. This may cause tempers to flare, but my interest is in getting to the truth of the matter.

In the case of the Shao-lin Temple(s), I know of no evidence to indicate that they were rebuilt following their destruction during the reign of Kang-Xi, the first Ching emperor. This is not to say that they weren't rebuilt; but in my years of research, I have found no indication of it.
In fact, the destruction (during the Ching Dynasty) left only five surviving monks (who has been present during the battle; others would have been away from the temple at the time) who became known as the Five Former Ancestors. These monks went to different parts of China in an effort to teach the populace and ultimately overthrow the Ching government.
Their actions were in vain. Although they helped found numerous underground societies, none were ever successful in overthrowing the government. The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 put an end to the Ching Dynasty and the rest is pretty well known insofar as history goes.
If these five survivors split up (as the traditional history states), they would not have been around to rebuild the temples or re-open them to teach a new generation. The results of their teaching (the public) led to the development of numerous styles with which we are very familiar today; Mok-Ga, Fut-Ga, Lau-Ga, Choy Li Fut, Hung-Ga, and so on.

The "Bagua Rules" question still has me confused as I've never heard of 64 seperate rules although I have studied Bagua (lineage from Chang Chaodong) for several decades. Some schools teach 64 postures or even 64 "forms", but I've not heard of 64 rules.

I don't believe that this can be taken as harassment in any way and I don't feel that Yiliquan 1's reply was harassing, either.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
The main problem with that, though, is that Bagua and Taiji are both Taoist arts, not Buddhist, and Shaolin was a Buddhist temple... Xingyi was primarily (according to the Yueh Fei legend) the art of soldiers, not monks and priests. Whatever.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:

Not to mention White Crane was invented by a woman named Fan Qiang Liang.