It is a well known, established fact that the above statement is actually a continuation of a tradition of Chinese Martial Arts. It was only at the turn of the 20th century that we find public documents making reference to Chinese WuShu in any detail. Previous to this, the documents that exist go back a few hundred years and the MSS are not publicly prepared documents, but of other sort with authorship being an ongoing issue of scholarship to this day. We are fortunate that many brilliant minds are working on such material, but we must also be cautious about accepting scholarly viewpoints that are designed to support the political or social agenda of a few.

I admit there are great and sometimes insurmountable obstacles and we are indebted to individuals who choose to travel and live at monastaries and so forth to listen to the stories and legends of the old men and monks that reside in these places. As wonderful as the stories may be, they are often filled with superstition, fictional accounts, exaggerations and so forth. I enjoy these stories as much as the next person and find them inspiring. However, although the romantic view is nice, it does not and should not replace the reality of sweaty bodies training in austere surroundings enduring the pain and suffering of changing and molding their bodies through hard work and energy, Kung Fu.

Take for example the history of Taiji Quan, Tang Hao states:
"Historical records and investigations in the field prove that Taiji Quan was created during the late Ming and early Ching or appoximately 300 years ago." Now this is a far cry from the legend of Chang San-feng that as a story and a lengend I prefer over actual historical account. The history is boring and the legend is beautiful and magical.

I am reminded of a quote by Douglas Wile in his translation of the Yang Family Secret Transmissions

"Abandon all hope ye who search for certainty. The few existing written documents, however charming, are grossly contradictory and there is not a single detail of record or recollection, which is not the subject of bitter scholarly debate. No two genealogies are congruent and there are at least three completely different definitions of even such basic terms as Nei Chia. Even the dates and activities of twentieth century figures are insconsistant in various sources.

Second, the bitterness and slant of scholarly debate in this area should alert us that this is yet another battlefield for partisan political axe grinding. Traditionalist''s presumption of historicity and omission of critical research does no more to preserve the art than the failure of skeptics to extract what is precious in myth does by sanitizing it."

Now with regard to the comparative antiquity of Wuji Quan as against Shuai Jiao, I want to say that my understanding is incomplete and that I believe Wuji Quan is likely more ancient in that Wu Yi (Wuji Quan) was the martial arts of Ancient China in the smame way that we understand today that martial arts from China are called Wu Shu. Of this there is no disagreement with any authority at the University of Beijing to my knowledge. It is well accepted that Wu Yi is the martial arts of the ancient world of China. I generally have not used the pronunciation commonly used in Beijing primarily because I am an English speaking American and my Chinese is not expert.

Shuai Jiao is a very old practice of empty hand fighting that historically can be placed as far back as the Qin Chiao if we are going on the fact that a drawing (without commentary) can be interpreted as proof of Shuai Jiao''s existence. I would say that striking and throwing arts have probably existed in every country and organized society in the world including China since the dawn of civilization as could be said that for every military there has always been a kind of military code inclusive of training methods, discipline, code of conduct, philosophy, arts of war craft based on the technology of the day since the dawn of civilization.

It could also be surmised that in every successful nation-entity-unit organized for the common defense and the promotion of their agreed upon culture this would be true. As to if we could say that some art form without independent archaeological and written confirmation existed two thousand or three thousand years ago, I personally would tend to exercise caution rather that have a dogmatic viewpoint. Wu Yi is known. It is in historical records and it is referred to in official histories and documents repeatedly and relatively often. As to the scope of Wu Yi, I will discuss this in the most general terms in part III of this article.

In Part III I will try to address further some general guidelines and principles that may help form the basis of the understanding of the military theory of Wu Yi and expand the discussion for some who are new to this thought process and of course, will reveal more of the basis of my own theory in general and is the opinion merely of one person and should not be viewed dogmatically. Persons should develop their own understanding. I also encourage the many people now submitting ideas and questions to continue to do so. If in answering a question I am able to further the purpose of this conceptual framework, I will try to find a way to incorporate the ideas or answer the questions I am receiving.