Green Dragon Studios

[Ironman]

cjurakpt wrote:
...if you really understand what qi "is", you realize it's not an objectifiable "thing" - it is a descriptive metaphor for a set of functional interelationships in the body as it relates to itself and to the outside world; it is a functional model that, when followed with appropriate internal consistency in context of Chinese body view / medicine, yields a reasonably predictive degree of diagnositic, therapeutic and prognostic information


And this definition is based on what? What is your source? You say this as if it is a proven fact. Can you provide evidence?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. But since you act as if you are speaking with authority, I wonder where that authority and certainty comes from.
Since your profile doesn't tell us anything about you and you do not give your real name, we do not know if you have the background to make this judgement for us. Are you a scientist, a master of qigong, or a doctor of TCM?
No offense intended, but when you make a statement like "if you really understand what qi is" you set yourself up as an expert on the subject. So we would like to know the basis of your expertise.
Thanks in advance!
Richard A. Tolson

Great questions, MonkeyKingUSA. It is pretty evident that he knows very little about chi or chi cultivation. Yes we all have chi. It is the life force. Chi Kung is a means to cultivate chi. It is a mystery to most especially to those who have not been exposed.

[iron tiger]

If you only trained with Allen, how can you state these things as 'fact', when what you are really doing is repeating what you have been told by Allen. If this is the case, you should preface these statements with; "J. Allen told me....".

I didn't take his word for it alone. I would think that that would be clear from some of my other posts, if not, oh well.

I did the work on the programs alluded to in a coupla threads. They work, if you do.

Also I must respectfully disagree with AkronViper on several points...Or has he actually trained under Allen, on GD's material, in the past; rather than just going by word-of-mouth?

The bulk of Allen's material did *not* come from Ong.

[MonkeyKingUSA]

Ironman wrote:
Great questions, MonkeyKingUSA. It is pretty evident that he knows very little about chi or chi cultivation. Yes we all have chi. It is the life force. Chi Kung is a means to cultivate chi. It is a mystery to most especially to those who have not been exposed.


As I stated above, I am not necessarily disagreeing with cjurakpt. However, that is one interpretation of qi. Qi is many things to many people. Whether a matter of fact, faith, or fiction I believe it is still "up in the air" enough to be open to various opinions on the matter. After 33 years of experience in CMA I still am wary of being too opinionated on the matter.
Richard A. Tolson

[cjurakpt]

And this definition is based on what? What is your source? You say this as if it is a proven fact. Can you provide evidence?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. But since you act as if you are speaking with authority, I wonder where that authority and certainty comes from.
Since your profile doesn't tell us anything about you and you do not give your real name, we do not know if you have the background to make this judgement for us. Are you a scientist, a master of qigong, or a doctor of TCM?
No offense intended, but when you make a statement like "if you really understand what qi is" you set yourself up as an expert on the subject. So we would like to know the basis of your expertise.
Thanks in advance!
Richard A. Tolson

no offense taken; it's an opinion, one that is based on a personal investigation / experience; the "authority" is that as I have seen a lot of very sloppy use of the term qi in my life, often as a fall back / default / back door way of describbing things when people run out of terms from a western perspective, I have spent time reading, practicing etc. to try to come up with something more appropriate, a way to "translate" the concept from a Chinese paradigm to a western one; take it as authority or not, that's up to you; as for "evidence", it is sort of backwards: since there is no extant, well-designed study that has ever definitively shown "qi" as some sort of independent, separate "thing", and if we are willing to buy into the whole concept, then I would suggest (there, better?) that looking at it from a functional perspective might yield a bit more fruit than looking for some sort of "other" force that you can measure with a machine; to call it "bio-electricity" doesn't quite do it justice, it's the reducing the phenommenon to something quantifiable; and I think this is not contradictory to Chinese thought, which is based on metaphor and ambiguity to a certain extent: e.g. - one character, multiple shades of meaning that are CONTEXT driven - same with moves in forms: one move, multiple applications; so if you take that and apply it to "qi", then the notion that it is one "thing" doesn't really jive - of course, TCM texts describe many types of "qi", which is why the functional description makes sense...

[cjurakpt]

Great questions, MonkeyKingUSA. It is pretty evident that he knows very little about chi or chi cultivation.

and how exactly is that evident?

Yes we all have chi. It is the life force.

please - that's the typical, sloppy, non-specific type of "reasoning" that all you part-time amateur "healers" fall back on - no attempt at intellectual rigor, it's all warm and fuzzy to you guys;

Chi Kung is a means to cultivate chi. It is a mystery to most especially to those who have not been exposed.

or maybe it's not as mysterious as all that, but then again, admitting that kinda takes away from your special status...

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Iron Tiger, you make many claims as if you have seen these things first hand; whom did you train with? Did you train with Chang or Ong? What knowledge of other styles/sifu do you have, to say these things?

If you only trained with Allen, how can you state these things as 'fact', when what you are really doing is repeating what you have been told by Allen. If this is the case, you should preface these statements with; "J. Allen told me....".

And even if you only saw either of these men demo something...what is your experience or frame of reference to make such bold statements??

Not hating...just asking legit questions.

IRON TIGER,

I see that you mentioned my post, but did not address the questions - you moved onto something else. Please read it again and, if you don't mind, share the answers with us. Most specifically, whom did you train with?

[cjurakpt]

Since your profile doesn't tell us anything about you and you do not give your real name, we do not know if you have the background to make this judgement for us. Are you a scientist, a master of qigong, or a doctor of TCM?

sorry, I missed this part - never let it be said that I hide behind anonymity
a) I do give my real name: cjurakpt = Chris Jurak, PT;
b) my qualifications are that I am a NYS licensed physical therapist with 12 years experience (http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc...&plicno=015172)
and am an affiliated Dan Tao teacher / certified qigong therapist under Master Sat Hon (http://users.erols.com/dantao/ - scroll down the home page, I am the guy in the picture sitting to the left of Master Hon - my name's not there, but you could e-mail him and ask, he'd verify it for you)
c) I would not qualify myself as a master of anything, but I have over 20 years experience in the field of CMA, including tai chi and qigong; my other area of experience is in a variety of hands on therapies, including TCM (tui na, dim yuht, jing gwat), and osteopathic (cranial, visceral, strutural, etc.);

so those are my credentials - whether that qualifies me to say anything is up to you, but at least it's verifiable - unlike certain NAMELESS, UNLICENSED individuals who have no notion of professional ethics, conduct or accountability...

[cjurakpt]

to put a finer point on it, let's ask Ironman some reasonable questions:

in regards to your "healing" knowledge:

1) with whom did you train? are they certified / qualified to teach by any licensing authority? did you have any internships of supervised practice?

2) are you licensed? if so, by whom? if not, by what authority do you practice medicine? are you aware of the laws in your state that limit certain types of practice to licensed individuals? are you insured? what happens if a patient is dissatisfied with your treatment or has a negative response?

3) how many patients / clients do you see per day / week on a regular basis? how do you advertise?

4) what sort of diagnostic criteria do you use? tongue? pulse? history? are you able to incorporate things such as bloodwork, radiographs etc. into your practice if someone brings them with him?

5) what sort of continuing education do you do to stay curent in the field?

6) when you prescribe herbs, how do you reference current information such as the known interractions between herbs and prescription meds?

7) what do you advise patients to do if they have a bad reaction to anything you do / give to them? what did you do the last time a person had a negative response to your treatment?

8) under what circumstances would you refer someone out to a more qualified professional because the problem they cam to you with was outside your scope of "pactice"?

9) let's try a simple hypothetical question: a patient with dx. of rheumatoid arthritis comes to you after failing to get any lasting relief with "conventional" therapies; during your evaluation, they report having recently had intermittent yet recurring symptoms of nausea, tingling of the lips / tongue and tunel vision when they look down, such as when trying to put on their shoes;
a) what would you ask them to do actively to assess this? what would you do passively to assess this?
b) if the two tests were positive, what do you suspect would be happening based on this?
c) what treatment might you give based upon a positive result?

these are all basic, standard questions that anyone in the legitamate healthcare field would easily be able to answer, because that's what happens when you are trained and supervised by competant individuals who practice under the notion of accountability and transparancy;

and before you go bashing the "establishment" and decrying the licensing procedure, let me ask you, would you have the temerity to practice law, engeneering, architecture or any other profession without a license? why then is it suddenly ok to do so with medicine?

[Akronviper]

Also I must respectfully disagree with AkronViper on several points...Or has he actually trained under Allen, on GD's material, in the past; rather than just going by word-of-mouth?

The bulk of Allen's material did *not* come from Ong.

I have done some G.D. material in the past (2 semesters in college through their Kung Fu Club at Akron U). I have an uncle and cousin who both have studied under Allen. My father and other uncle have both trained under Ong and were around in the Hop Sing days. I have also trained shortly under Kreuger (one of Ongs students like Allen) and I have a couple freinds who study under Waisel currently.

None of these people can say who Allen has definatly studied under besides Ong except for Chang which I know is wrong. I have yet to have a GD student clear this up.

I'm not saying that Allen is a bad martial artist (he would woop my a**), but he does not personanly know much of the material they sell, which is evident from the responses in this thread and common sense will tell you that know one can be proficeint enough in that many arts that they sell as teaching materials.

Generally speaking to understand an art enough that you could teach it you would at least spend 10 or so grueling years learning it. There isnt that much time from when Allen left Ong in 76 to 78 to learn that much stuff by the mid 80's when they began seling tapes.

Allen is a smart man when it comes CMA and he is thirsty for knowledge and credit is due to him for creating the vast library they have. Just dont pass them as being the best performance ever. They show the art, but if you learn from a tape of that quality you will get hurt in the streets. Heck I own probablly 10 GD vids but I take them at face value


And please no one take what i'm saying as attack on anyone, just giving my info, oppion and looking for answers.

[Golden Arms]

In this day and age, with youtube and other easy information just a click away, I am always amazed at how people can argue things like this so blindly. Yes you can learn a bunch of martial arts on the surface level and do them by rote (the forms), but that has nothing to do with mastery over said arts, each could take a lifetime, including boxing, wrestling, etc. They all also have their own unique postural requirements, mindsets, etc that need to be developed, and these are just as much the arts the "moves" are.

And the Qi/Chi stuff spouted here was pretty typical nebulous stuff so far...Except for Cjurakpt, he said it pretty well. There is a pdf any one of you can download that has a great discourse on Chi and the chinese views on what it is, I would recommend anyone serious about furthering their knowledge of what it is, take a quick read, it will help you out a lot if you dont speak/read the native chinese languages.

it can be found here:

http://www.hkhunggar.com/chi.htm

Some good Bak Mei for example, can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Gr5ae2EEI

And here: (This one is worth the wait)
http://www.6rooms.com/watch/105606.html

Contrast those body mechanics with what you see in the GD videos, and maybe you can see why people are saying its poorly done Chinese martial art.

[MonkeyKingUSA]

Cjurakpt,
Thank you for your very up front and clear answers!
As I said my post was not meant to offend, just to ask where you got your authority to speak so definitively on the subject. Looking at the background that you offer I think that you do have the authority to offer your opinion with authority.
Thank you again for your polite responce!
Richard A. Tolson

[cjurakpt]

MK
You are welcome; again, you asked very appropriate questions in a straightforward manner and there was no offense perceived or taken in the least

[kal]

Hi cjurakpt

I quite like your definition of qi as a "descriptive metaphor for a set of functional interelationships in the body."

Makes a lot of sense and cuts through a lot of the mysticism.

But I was wondering, if qi is not actually an independent energy or "substance" for lack of a better word, what does that mean about qi cultivation methods? Is there then actually such a thing? How do you cultivate something wihich is just a metaphor?

[ChuangkTzu]

Iron Tiger:
Would you happen to know if Sifu Allen trained with Willem Reeders? Reeders was raised in Indonesia (Java) and was Dutch/Chinese. Reeders was trained by his great Uncle Liu Siong who taught both Kung-Fu and Kuntao. I've been told Reeder's often referred to his uncle's art as Southern Shaolin, an older version of Hung Gar. There are two main reasons I feel Allen most likely trained with Reeders.
1. I know he trained with Ting Fong Wong in Buffalo N.Y. He would no doubt have heard of Reeders during his time in Western N.Y. Both masters were legendary in that area. (Reeders taught in Dunkirk N.Y.) Both Reeders and Allen shared a love for weapons. I know Reeders' favorite weapons were the Chinese Iron Rulers or Sai-type weapon. GD teaches two master's level sai-type weapon sets (Double Iron Rulers Seek the Tiger, and Double Iron Rulers Seek the Dragon). In the GD brochure, their description states the sets come from the little known Wanderer's style which is a Southern Shaolin derivative. A friend of mine witnessed Master Reeders demonstrate more than one sai form and said his performce was phenomenal. Most likely the two forms mentioned above were passed down to Reeders from his great uncle.
2. I became good friends with two people who trained in Reeders' system. One trained with Reeders himself for over three years (1969-1972) until Reeders moved to Albuquerque, N.M. The other trained with Jerry Bradigan who was an advanced student of Willem Reeders. Back in the late 80's and early 90's nobody I knew except for the two guys I later befriended was aware of the 3 cardinal priciples of Chinese fighting: Crossing your opponents centerline at the earliest opportunity, using the "three-count minimum" in both attack and defense and using the principle of constant penetration. They not only understood it, but described it very close to the way I learned it on the Fundamentals of Empty Hand Fighting Video Tape. Both had never even heard of Green Dragon. Later after having trained at Chung Sing and after talking to numerous others who trained in the Kwan Ying Do system, nobody really understood the significance of these three principles. They went on to say it was never taught.

I have enjoyed your posts and look forward to your take on the above question.

Thank you,
Chuang Tzu

[ChuangkTzu]

I've gotten to meet and in some cases know, many of the people mentioned in this thread. As a result, this has been a fun read. I'm finally going to take some time to give my own two cents.

I first became aware of Green Dragon and Sifu Allen from his ads in IKF magazine and his subsequent articles. I found it refreshing to actually read a well-written article in a martial arts magazine. I enjoyed his articles so much, I placed my first order in the late 1980's. I still remember the first time I watched the Fundamentals of Empty Hand fighting video. After all these years, I still think it is one of the best videos on the market for the principles it contains. I really don't think GD has gotten the credit they deserve for raising the bar on martial arts instructional videos. They were really the first to show multiple views, including by segments, in addition to a complete program of combat applications. I also always enjoyed the narration Sifu Allen provided on all his videos. So even if you don't like GD or agree with their form, body alignment, combat applications, etc., I think they forced their competitors to increase the instructional quality of their videos.

After having purchased many of their videos, I actually started in their Kung-Fu club at Kent State University. I think there were approximately 80 people who started, and only 6-7 of us made it through the almost 3 month probationary period, and into the main studio. I felt a great deal of satisfaction being invited into the main studio. A few others made it through the physical demands of the club, but were not invited into the main studio because of their attitude. I really don't have anything negative to say about my experience there. In fact, if Sifu Allen hadn't moved to Edinburg, I might still be there. One observation I would make however, is that in my opinion, the reason their "women make monkeys out of the men" as Sifu Allen has often said, is because over the long haul, most men aren't going to put up with his organizational pyramid bull****. A new or intermediate student could never go up to Sifu Allen and initiate a conversation. You had to go through the senior students first. They would ask Allen if they thought your question was "worthy". They would then come back and give you his answer. Very military-like and after awhile, that has got to get old. In any event, they definitely train hard and run a very organized and structured school.