I have read many wuxia novels and noticed that the relationship depicted in the novels between the master and the disciple is a very strong one, like family. They usually live together, dine together, and travel together. The disciple would address his teacher as shifu, roughly translated as teaching father, and other disciples as brothers and sisters and their relationship will stay that way for life even when the disciple become a master himself. The disciples don't pay their master anything (except maybe doing chores and fetching food for him). Is this kind of depiction accurate historically? Also, the masters often stop training people after 3 or 4 of their disciples become "mature" and retire from teaching altogether, but wouldn't it make much more sense to continue to expand the retinue of people proficient in your art?

A second question I would like to ask is that is it taboo to have more than 1 master? More precisely, can a disciple of one art take up another without the master's consent? If so, is there any record of mixed chinese martial artists?

Hi Duncan

I'm afraid I can only answer your first question.

The Chinese saying "一日為師﹑終生為父" means: "It takes only one day to become a disciple, but your master becomes your father for life".

One's sifu/master becomes one's second father (or mother as the case may be) and the bond is often considered to be as strong as blood ties. You would accord your sifu the same respect and honour as you would to a parent. Hence, other disciples of your sifu are considered your "martial siblings" and the peers of your sifu are considered your "martial aunts/uncles".

The relationships are defined by familial terms.

So in answer to your question, yes, it is historically accurate. In fact this tradition still carries on till today!

I never learned CMA, but I think there's a lot of common sense involved here.

There is no taboo against learning from more than 1 master. Many CMA practicioneer in folklore and real life do that.

As for getting the incumbent master's consent, well, there's 2 aspects which one ought to consider.

First, as Mok said that the master is like a father, most CMA masters would only accept a disciple who had obtained permission from the actual father to begin with. It is only courtesy, and this courtesy applies to when a disciple wants to learn from another master.

It is not so much possessiveness.
If the prospective student deliberately tries to hide this fact, something is very wrong somewhere.


Second, learning CMA requires wholistic approach.
As I mentioned in the thread Character cultivation in martial arts training, How seriously is it taken today?, 浇花要浇根, 教拳要教人 ("in watering the plants, one must water the roots. In instructing the fist, one must instruct the person (cultivating character)".

A student is not just supposed to learn fighting skills or a form of exercise, he is supposed to learn how to conduct himself as a person.

The current master is supposed to know his disciple's state best -
Has the student mature enough and developed sufficient mastery over one form before attempting to learn another?
Has the student developed enough self-discipline?
Has the student learned the significance of correct code of conduct and ethics of CMA?
How is the student's moral development?

Different forms of CMA might require a very different approach to the training.

CMA training involves body, mind and spirit, it's not like you want to learn to drive a car and you also want to learn to ride a bike.

Then of course, there's also the compatibility and incompatibility of philosophical aspects.

Some forms of CMA might call for the use of aggressive spirits, while others demand gentleness of spirit.
Some advocated no-holds-barred in where one attacks, others forbid hitting potentially fatal parts of the body.

These are some considerations for a master to weigh before granting permission for his student to learn from another master.

While no master can actually prevent his student from learning from another, it is important to know and be up front when outlooks diverge.

This is actually a cultural question and can often be exemplified with the difference in culture between the north and south. But on the whole, the question of 'availiability' of the teacher is the determinant factor.

In the north, the Quancang culture means that a teacher normally doesn't teach a student for a very long time. Teachers travel around, teaching whereever they happen to be and stay there as long as he is provided for. Although respected, he is effectively an 'employee' of the local community to teach. Within a few years, the teacher will generally quits and move on. If there are one or two students who are exceptional and have no ties to hold him down, then an 'apprenticeship' will occur where he will acutally travel with the teacher, acting as both student and assistant (as well as serving the teacher like a son)/ Because of this culture, it is very common for a single person who have learn several different systems of martial arts in their lifetimes.

In the south, the Wuguan culture means that the teacher are not really 'employee' but a 'suppliers.' Teachers generally have a stable location where they teach and accept students. As far as they are concerned, once you step foot into the school, he own your soul. True, they are treated in more or less the same manner as teachers from the north, but the student's likelihood of being expelled is far greater here (not that it doesn't happen in the north). And an expelled student are generally 'spoiled mercendice' in which it is a convention that no other teacher will take him in unless he wants or already have a grudge at the original teacher. In addition, because the teacher's students normally live in close proximity to the school, they ain't getting rid of the teacher any time soon no matter how horrible the guy is. There are no 'apprenticeship' but 'inner students' does exist although they are both more or less the same thing. Inner students serves the teacher jsut like a father except they normally have a home to go to afterwards.

Anyway, in both cases, one of the big taboos are not just to have two teachers, but to have two teachers at the same time. Even in the south, where the teacher-student relationship is more stable, it is not that rare for someone to have learnt different systems. But these generally occur if the teacher died or for some reason the two had to separate. In fact, it is a common practice for one teacher to introduce one of their own students who have completed their system to another teacher to train under. A method to further develop skills the first teacher doesn't have. But you never have two teachers at the same time. Even today, it is frowned upon. The reason for this is that a teacher needs to have absolute power over the student inorder to 'mold' them correctly. Training schedules, emphasis and everything related needs to go in accordance to the experience of the teacher. Which is really why that in both north and south, the teaching method is never 'interactive' but rather 'I say, you do". And that power only comes if their only obedience is directed towards one person. Having two teachers gives the student a legitimate ground to challenge the teacher by saying things like 'but my other master says thats not how you do it....". This pits teacher A into having justify their teaching in which might go against teacher B and from this, friction starts to occur.

In today's world, the students has it best. Wuguan is everywhere, no more wondering warriors who might just leave the next day without teaching you everything. Yet at the same time, most masters have much less power over the students than before. And if you leave the school, there are a thousand other schools willing to take you in.

Wujiang is right - I had the southern Wuguan culture in mind.

Certainly that one master needs to complete training the disciple in one form of skills is important before the student is to be allowed to learn something new.

However, I don't think that the master necessarily "run out of things" to teach when he allows his student to learn from another. Some masters are skilled in more than one form of skill, but they might choose not to teach the particular student at that particular point in time.

One more thing - in today's world, people do move about.
You leave home for college in another city/country.
If you're lucky, you find a school teaching the same form of MA you learned before, at least in name.
In practice, you might find that what they practice there might be very different from what you learned before.
Happened to me in real life.

But I do not suppose you're expected to seek permission from your original mentor before signing up with the new one.

Actually, one of my theories (which could not be proven unfortunately) is that the level of diversity in the north within a single men is because that most teachers at the time never really finishing teaching what they know before they move one. Because of this, the students are left to improvise with what they have which of course will look similar but not identical to the teacher's next batch of students. This level of diversity is not common in the south which could be explained as teachers could take their time and teach until they die to the same batch of students.



I can't say I agree here. Most systems of the ancient times actually are pretty small. For example. there are only 10 hand taolus for Chaquan, 12 for Paochui, 3 for Shandong Pigua, 7 for Gonglimen, etc. Unless you really milk the time, you can run out of things to teach in 3-10 years. You are right though, most masters always let the student go without teaching everything to them. Common mentality in CMA is the idea of holding secrets even from your own students. When I was young, I hated people who does this. But as I grow older, I am starting to understand why they do it.

Why do you think they do it?

My own reasoning is if they are doing it for altruistic reasons, it is because some things are better learned (领悟) on their own instead of being instructed.

Other reasons could be the master might assess it was premature for the students to be taught certain stuff - preferring they gain some experience first.

These reasons only apply to intermediate level students. Although more often then we like, those are more like convinient excuses to milk the time.

At an advanced level which by definition are those who for all intents and purposes have completed the whole system, the only reasons to hide anything are mostly political. Just observe the changes of the martial arts market for 5-10 years and you will find alot of backstabbing going on behind the scene. I find that situations today are far worse then they were 30 years ago.

Mind you though, 'advance' here means elite students (1 in 10,000) who have been training for 5-10 years while your average person like you and me taking up to 20 years to reach if we ever reach it. While I never tell this to any of the people I teach, I know for a fact that some of them simply will never reach advance level. They just don't have the potential or the commitment

Wow, I didn't know the forum is this active. Thanks everyone for the replies. Now I know that the relationship is indeed strong. However, I think that the tradition doesn't carry on very well today. I may be limited in my experience but from what my friends, who goes to train in the "wuguans", told me, the teaching of martial arts today runs like an interest class. There is no bai shi . As long as the student has money, the teacher will accept him. There are weekly classes and the teacher doesn't look into what you do the other 6 days of the week. In the course, you will probably have 30 to 40 "martial siblings". When the student moves on, he will probably never contact his teacher again. What do you guys think?

Wujiang said there are differences between the northern quancang and the southern wuguan culture, but which do you think is better in terms of preserving the art? In a quancang setting, although the teacher does move from place to place, if he takes on a student to travel with him, he can devote much of his time to this single student. On the other hand, in a wuguan, you have many students, but I don't think the master can devote as much time to train so many. So, IMHO, the quancang culture produces students that are true to the master's art whereas the wuguan culture helps the art to become widespread. (I am not saying that the wuguan culture doesn't produce qualified martial artist. I am just saying that it is more prone to deviate from the original teacher's art.)

Wujiang also mentions that masters will hide something from the students. I actually find that quite contradictory for the masters to do that. The reason why the master wants a disciple is to pass on his art to the disciple. Is there any legitimate reason why he would do that? Snowybeagle say something is better learned on his own. Can you give some example? Thanks.

Wujiang,

Why did the north and south produce different cultures? When did these cultures become fully established?

Apart from the obvious that different places are different, but why did the Wuguan not emerge in the north or the Quancang in the south?

China being such a vast place, could there have been itinerant masters in the south as well as permanently based masters in the north?


Duncan, with regards to your question, I don't have any examples in relation to MA because my own level of training is quite inferior.

However, I have learned a variety of other skills in life, and I believe they all share a common principle.

There comes a time when the instructor must let the student venture on his own in order to realise true mastery of the art.

If a disciple depends on the master to teach him everything, then it is difficult for him to stand on his own 2 feet, much less rise above the master.

Like I said, it is political. Very ugly side of the martial arts community which I will not go into.


It is hard to say. The earliest source I could find that the quancang system has already been around since the northern song and we quite prevalent during the southern song times but I can't seem to find anything before Ming for the Wuguan establishment. Yet I think it is just common sense that the wuguan has been around forever. Even back in the Zhou dynasty, every common scholar school would have had swordplay practice in their education.


Obviously I was generalizing when I made the first statement. The two system exists in both north and south but what I mean was the likelihood you find each of them. The Shaolin temple itself for example, with its later open-door policy of teaching martial arts to commoners can be considered as a wuguan. In the south, there are still wandering martial artists and they occasionally take on students. But for what I can see, the Quancang system never really took root as there ain't any 'training halls' specially for these people. Rather it is just a matter of coincidence that these wanderers find talented people who they could pass their stuff to. The closest thing are wealthy families hirely teachers to teach in their own homes.

Is this info from your own research or did it come from a certain book? I would be interested in reading it. I once read a book on archery that mentioned a generalized teacher-student relationship very similar to the northern culture-style. The teacher showed up every once in a while to check on their student's progress and never really taught them anything. The student actually learned from trial and error or from his teacher's senior students that might be in the area. Being accepted as the teacher's disciple was actually the best part of the deal. The right to say they studied under such and such master was like padding on a resume: "Oh, he studied under that guy, so he must be good! Let's hire him!"