Popular Posts

Please select any type of font and size that you like

Poll

Pages

Statistik

About

The origin of Shaolin Kung Fu

Specially research and edited by TAMILPANDIYAN (Jan 2010)



The origin of Shaolin Kung Fu


The origin of Shaolin Kung Fu is generally credited to an Indian monk named Tat Moh, who is also sometimes known as Boddhidharma. He began life as a prince in Southern India, but became a devoted Buddhist, renouncing his royal heritage to take up the simple lifestyle of a monk. He traveled widely, spreading the teachings of Buddhism. Eventually he rose to become the 28th patriarch of India.

In those days, it was common for Indian monks to travel to China where their Buddhist teachings were eagerly received. In the year 520 A.D. Tat Moh made just such a journey, right through India and China, finally settling at the monastery called Shao Lin - which means 'little forest'. He was disappointed, however, to find the monks very weak and unable to withstand the austere ways of Buddhism - a life which often consisted of long fasts and frugal living.

Tat Moh therefore retired into a cave and meditated in isolation in order to find a solution to the problem. When he emerged after nine years of hard study, he had devised a set of exercises for the monks. These were similar to some Indian exercises such as yoga and were intended to regulate and strengthen the monks' chi flow. Their intention was to strengthen the monks and increase their health and vitality; and this they did, so successfully that Tat Moh's Chi Kung exercises are still practiced to this day. They form the basis of the Shaolin Arts.

It seems that in China there was more than one temple named 'Shaolin'. In this history we will discuss only the Shaolin temple in Fukien Province, since ours is a Fukienese art.

In the history of China there was much lawlessness. Bandits and villains were widespread. Temples were vulnerable to attack, as were monks who traveled the country teaching the ways of Buddhism. So as to protect themselves, the monks developed a system of fighting based on the exercises taught by the founder master - Tat Moh.

Buddhist monks are very gentle and good natured. Their fighting system was developed only to defend themselves against harm. This system was called the 'Lohon' style after the monks in the temple (Lohons) who developed it. The Lohon style is a very basic form of Kung Fu which emphasizes low stances and strong body posture. It proved very successful.

The monks of the Shaolin temple practiced diligently to increase their martial arts skills and were constantly striving to improve their art. A great step forward came with the evolution of the third Shaolin style, called the Tiger style - Tai Chor in Chinese. This was developed by a Chinese emperor, who had relinquished his royal position to adopt the austere ways of Buddhism. He finally settled at the Shaolin temple where he studied deeply in the martial arts, eventually developing the Tai Chor style. For this reason, Tai Chor is sometimes also known as the emperor's style. Tai Chor uses the strong but mobile stance which we use in the Tiger-Crane combination, and which we call the 'walking stance'. It also emphasizes a very strong twisting punch. In fact, the straight punch which ends with a twist of the fist has become a hallmark of Shaolin Kung Fu. The Tai Chor style develops great power and was, therefore, able to defeat the Lohon style which it superseded.

No style is unbeatable. Every move has a counter. Inevitably, another style was later developed which could counter the Tiger style. This was the monkey style, known in Chinese as Tai Sheng. Monkey is a very fast, deceptive style. The monkey tends to close in on his opponent, strike and retreat all in one rapid sequence. Hence, the powerful Tiger may be unable to hit his tricky, constantly moving opponent. If the monkey misses with a strike, he will still move away from his opponent so as not to allow them the chance to counter him. The monkey's strikes are accurate, more than powerful and are delivered with fingers or the open palm. Grabbing is also a favorite monkey technique. The monkey likes to crouch and often attacks the lower body. He especially favours targeting the groin. For male opponents this can result in serious loss!

Because the monkey style consists of much crouching and rolling, it is best suited to people who are short. It is often considered one of the most entertaining styles to watch.

How can the techniques of the monkey possibly be countered? The answer is by the techniques of the white crane! The white crane style was the last and most technically advanced style to be developed in the Fukien Shaolin Temple. Even to this day, the crane style is regarded with great respect and is shrouded in secrecy by its masters. Hence it has been one of the last Kung Fu styles which the Chinese have 'let go' to westerners.

What is this devastating secret possessed by the white crane? The crane sticks. As soon as the crane is attacked it establishes touch contact. If its opponent tries to land the attack, the crane deflects it: if the opponent withdraws, the crane follows; never releasing its touch until it finds a certain opportunity to strike - which it does with no mercy. What use the tricky techniques of the monkey? As he tries to dart away the crane will follow, sticking to him until the chance presents itself to strike. The white crane style represents the pinnacle of the Shaolin martial arts.
< >

HIDDEN LANDSCAPE




HIDDEN LANDSCAPE


We have walked on the moon, sent rovers to Mars, and discovered planets light-years away. But the farthest we have ventured inside our own planet--the 7.6-mile-deep Kola Superdeep Borehole in the Russian Arctic--got us only 0.4 percent of the way to the core. The inner earth has been terra incognita, until now.

Using technologies analogous to medical CAT scans, geologists are virtually peeling back our planet's outer layers and exposing its internal life in exquisite, three-dimensional detail. To create this big-picture view, University of Southern California geophysicist Thorsten Becker used seismic tomography, which tracks waves produced by earthquakes as they travel around and through the earth. The model reveals the structure of the mantle--the thick shell of hot, compressed rock that lies between the crust and the core. The mantle, which makes up more than four-fifths of the earth's volume, is energized by radioactive heating within it and by the molten iron outer core below it. "As the core gives off heat," Becker says, "the mantle convects, moving sluggishly, like a pot of boiling honey." That slow churning, in turn, drags the crust with it.

Seismic waves move through relatively hot regions (red) more slowly and cold regions (blue) more quickly than through the rest of the mantle. By measuring the motions of those waves, Becker was able to create this thermal map, with the sphere in the middle showing the temperature at the deepest point of the mantle. (Lumps delineate the temperature anomalies; gold arrows denote how quickly different regions of the mantle and crust are moving, with the longest indicating four inches a year.) "Mantle convections drive plate tectonics," Becker says. "So if we want to understand anything that happens on the surface geologically, from mountain-building to earthquakes, we need to understand the deep movements of the mantle."
< >

Can You Compare Different Health Systems?


Can You Compare Different Health Systems?

The effectiveness of different approaches to funding and running health systems is often hotly debated, with every viewpoint seemingly able to marshal facts in support of their case. In effect, health statistics have become every bit as politicized as criminal justice. With the current political focus on the limited reforms introduced into the US system by the Obama administration, accurate information is critical and in short supply.
So lets start with some comparative data courtesy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
In 2007, US health expenditure was estimated to be $7,290 per head leading to an average life expectancy of 78.05 and an infant mortality rate of 6.7 per 1000 live births. In comparison, Sweden spent $3,323 per capita, leading to life expectancy of 80.95 and infant mortality rates of 2.5 per 1000.
Life expectancy and infant mortality are used by the OECD as outcome measures as they are held to reflect the effectiveness of the overall public health system for the complete population.
If correct, the largely privatized US system dependent on individual insurance payments is more expensive (by a factor of 2) and far less effective than a system funded by taxation with access relatively free for the actual user. If true (and the figures are correct and available) then the clear implication is that the US system is both expensive and ineffective (at least for the population as a whole).
However, a more fundamental question is to ask if the methodology and the comparative usage is correct? For example, an early attempt by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 1990s to prepare such comparisons was withdrawn after US complaints specifically about the methodology adopted.
So, what are the underlying problems in trying to compare different approaches to public health?
In effect, there are three related to the underlying data and an overarching issue about presentation. In terms of data gathering:
1) Measuring expenditure on health is not simple. Even those systems that rely mainly on state provision also raise money directly from users (such as prescription charges) and usually have a parallel private provision (and of course individuals can take out their own health insurance). In a system such as the US, actually identifying all the various strands of health expenditure is particularly complex. Furthermore health expenditure is not just spending on primary and secondary health care it can include public health initiatives around disease prevention and wider health advice (obesity, alcohol, diet). In effect, deciding just how much a given state is spending on health care is never easy;
2) If measuring expenditure is complex, measuring outcomes is even more so. The variety of perfectly valid indicators is overwhelming and each give different information. The data above cites two, based around infant mortality and longevity as these are often used as proxies for the overall health of the population. The World Health Organization, after its initial battering by the US administration, has started to rely on the concept ‘years of healthy life’ for such comparisons. Even without looking at the indicator in any detail that immediately raises the question how something as judgmental as ‘healthy life’ can be consistently measured;
3) The final problem is that each country has a different demographic profile and, in consequence, different health needs. The simplest example is that the elderly and the very young need the most health care. However, even this is not a sufficient adjustment to allow for comparisons (i.e. to start to answer the question does this country spend enough, as well to ask questions about efficiency of expenditure). For example, the health demands of a given population aged between 60-70 will vary due to differences in diet, consumption of alcohol, use of tobacco and level of physical activity undertaken in earlier years. On the other hand, a state with a large immigrant population (typically in their 20s-30s) will appear to do well on outcome measures regardless of actual expenditure, as this group are usually the healthiest sub-section of any human population.
All this leads to one final problem in comparing health outcomes. If all these figures are aggregated to give a simple single figure, as the WHO tried to do in the late 1990s, then that process of aggregation can be flawed. How can different measures, collected on different bases be combined? On the other hand, presenting users and policy makers with a sea of unaggregated numbers will invariably lead to a focus on those that most closely support their existing beliefs.
Given the importance of the current US debate on methods of health funding, these issues are not abstract. If a debate as to the merits of individual funded healthcare in comparison to socially funded models is to be conducted properly, a key element has to be to compare both levels of expenditure and health outcomes.


References

Becker, Gary S, Thomas J Philpson, and Rodrigo R Soares. The Quantity and Quality of Life and the Evolution of World Inequality. Chicago, 2003.
Buckley, John E., and Robert W. Van Giezen. Federal Statistics on Healthcare Benefits and Cost Trends: An Overview. Monthly Labor Review, 2004.
Holahan, John, and Linda J. Blumberg. An Analysis of the Obama Health Care Proposal. The Urban Institute Health Policy Center, 2008.
Castelli, A., Dawson, D., Gravelle, H., & Street, A. (2007). Improving the measurement of health system output growth Health Economics, 16 (10), 1091-1107 DOI: 10.1002/hec.1211
Navarro, V. (2000). Assessment of the World Health Report 2000 The Lancet, 356 (9241), 1598-1601 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03139-1
OECD. Health at a Glance. 2009. OECD Publishing. 3 August 2010.
Veillard, J. (2005). A performance assessment framework for hospitals: the WHO regional office for Europe PATH project International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 17 (6), 487-496 DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzi072
< >