Of late, at least in some circles, there has been a renewed focus on “Mo Duk” or Martial Morality. The attention paid by sifus in former times to ensuring their successors were adequately competent and would pass down their art accurately whilst displaying good character is contrasted with the situation today.

One famous sifu of my acquaintance, for example, makes much of only teaching worthwhile people yet has endorsed a “disciple” of whom the local Chinese and martial arts communities hold a very discrepant view, seeing him as avaricious and scheming. Other examples areafforded to martial arts practitioners on the international scene with some real scoundrels, thanks to the lack of professional journalistic integrity of martial arts journalists and editors, becoming famous.

The truth today is that, , as well as the many fine martial arts teachers, there are some few well known teachers who unfortunately exhibit what I and any other worthwhile psychologist would diagnose as serious personality disorders. Of course the plain egotistical, avaricious and power-hungry are sadly going to always be with us.

Some teachers, regrettably, have not undergone adequate character training and have a propensity to brag, to exaggerate their experience, to falsely claim they are “sole inheritors” of a “secret”, “traditional” or “original” system once taught by their deceased sifu or sigung whom, in some cases, no-one can locate or has ever hear of (who then obviously cannot refute their claims), and to denigrate other arts and other sifus. The stories of some of these people often sound quite convincing to those not in possession of all the background facts. The unusual thing is that, in some of these cases, the stories constantly change as they are caught out or illogicalities raised. They perform like naughty Kindergarten children constantly rephrasing their lies as the teacher out-logics them. Of course, their excuse is something along the lines of more information coming suddenly to light!

A true gung fu sifu not only needs to understand the principles, theory, concepts, techniques and application of their art and be true to them but also to understand human nature and not only what, but how, their students need to learn. He also needs to develop and demonstrate good character. Traditionally, this character was revealed through the expression of “Mo Duk” or, martial morality. Many, however, have bent “Mo Duk” to fit their own needs.

Robert Chu notes some people bend the definition of Mo Duk. He defines it as martial morality, chivalry, which encompasses brotherhood and respect for other martial artists and carrying oneself like Confucius’ concept of a “Jun Zi” - a “superior or noble man, not necessarily by birth or status, but one who carries himself well in all circumstances. Several virtues traditionally comprised “Mo Duk”. These were: courage; endurance; humility; loyalty; patience; respect; righteousness; trustworthiness; and, willpower. These are all very well and good but morality exists on a continuum as moral theorist Lawrence Kohlberg long ago posited. At one extreme we have those who will get away with whatever they can and whose only morality is defined by not getting caught and denying wrongdoing when they are and at the other extreme by those who exemplify universal moral principles in the way they live.

Arts which have incorporated a Buddhist moral basis would teach students to avoid the non-virtuous actions. Three of these are of the body: killing (avoid dangerous people and dangerous people to avoid fighting; if fighting is the only option: stun rather than maim; maim rather than kill; for all life is precious and none can be replaced); stealing (a student’s time as well as money!); sexual misconduct. Four of these are of speech: lying (in its many forms: telling untruth; not telling the whole truth; remaining silent and allowing a lie to be told); divisive speech; abuse; idle gossip. Finally, three of these are of the mind: craving/coveting; ill-will; and, wrong views.

Let us look more closely at each of these in relation to teaching gung fu. Killing is obvious but extends to doing hurt to others physically. Today it can also refer to attempting to kill the opponent’s reputation; legitimacy; ideas; and, to render their school inoperative. Killing in self defence may at times be thrust upon us. Although in the modern First World the chances of this are remote, a true sifu will know when there is an option and will have the honest motivation that killing was totally unavoidable. Of course, morality is very much constrained by legality in this respect, as any killing - even in self defence - will be very closely scrutinised by the legal authorities. One’s intention, of course, is the key factor in all this. The Devil, it is said by Christians, can quote scripture in his own defence!

Stealing refers to taking anything which is not given. Today we even have laws with respect to “intellectual property” indicating one can actually act illegally by stealing the ideas of another. Hence, stealing is not simply taking a physical object or money but also stealing ideas which are not given freely. A student who visits other Wing Chun schools and steals their ideas without acknowledgement is also stealing as well as lying. Whilst this is not illegal, illegality does not inform morality. Being moral is more than simply not breaking the law! A teacher who makes false claims to be an inheritor of a system which cannot be endorsed by a dead sifu who cannot refute the lie is stealing - the respect he owes his sifu and/or the trust of those he fools into believing him; and, the reputation of the art.

Some “morality” is not as simple and straightforward as it might seem. Sometimes it’s great to see how others teach their art and adopt principles and add your own creativity. Is that really stealing? No. But misrepresenting an art is. Claiming your material is original and not giving credit when it is due is stealing. For example, a Wing Chun teacher who breaks away from his teacher and sets up a rival school without permission could conservatively be considered to be stealing. However, if his sifu was a scoundrel and the student intends to teach honestly, in an affordable fashion, in a realistic time-span, and without mind games disempowering his students then has he acted incorrectly? Not by any reasonable definition of decency.

In one case I recall a now highly ranked (as opposed to skilled! he bought the rank!) Australian martial arts figure took his early students to the park to teach them a form. Then he proceeded to do so from a book! He was (and still is) obviously deluding himself and simply stealing knowledge which he was neither given, nor mastered, nor given the endorsement to pass on by legitimate teachers. There is also the well-known case of the Wing Chun Kuen medical books being stolen from Yip Man’s private chambers, obviously by a trusted - but untrustworthy - student of exceptionally poor character.

Sexual misconduct is an obvious non-virtuous action. The teacher who uses his power and status to sexually exploit his students or those of other teachers is acting immorally and unethically. For example, the same instructor I referred to above teaching in the park had a long-standing extra-marital relationship with one of his glamorous female students. As well as abusing his wife’s trust, he stole the time she might otherwise have had to develop a legitimate relationship of benefit to her and stole her reputation. Yet he still adorns the odd martial arts rag or two! A master in his own mind! Another example is afforded by a famous Wing Chun Kuen instructor who beds his female students abusing his undue power of his influence as an instructor and “famous” personality. One can hardly respect some-one like this no matter how wealthy or well known they become!

Lying takes many forms. Telling untruths is most obvious. In some cases this might be selling a view of folklore or the oral history of a system cloaked as “research” but in actuality based on unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable tales - or lies. An example: a high level student of a famous (infamous?) Wing Chun sifu swears a newly found master of a heretofore unrevealed secret (was it not ever thus?) Wing Chun style learned his Wing Chun, now slightly adapted by his not inconsiderable experience in other martial arts, from the famous Wing Chun sifu. Further, the student says he was given the “new master’s” address as a contact point years ago when his sifu visited him. Yet, lo and behold! The “new master” claims never to have even met our famous master! It is in both their interests to have an aura of secrecy covering their arts.

In other cases lying will be claiming status and level of achievement never legitimately earnt. In some cases it will be not telling the whole truth by with-holding vital information. An example is a Chinese instructor I recently knew. He claimed to have been privately taught by a well known Chinese sifu during his adolescence. This was despite my possession of a video showing him as a rank beginner many years later, and the testimony of the local instructor who actually *did* teach him all he knew! When I finally coincidentally contacted the well known Chinese sifu much later and mentioned this chap he laughed and said he had given him a few private lessons on a visit to our city - but not for all the years as an adolescent the chap had claimed and that his skill level was very poor. This chap later literally bought discipleship from another famous instructor after a few weelks lessons! These are also examples of remaining silent and allowing a lie to be told had some-one who knows the facts not spoken up. If they do not attempt to correct the deliberate misinformation given out by people then they would be complicit in the lie!

Divisive speech is the intention to split a cohesive group for negative reasons. It is to be distinguished from attempts to right lies or stop attempts to “con” people. An example is a student who, unsuccessful at a grading, bad mouths the successful students and/or the sifu. The student may later leave that school and, joining another, continue to denigrate his former school, embellishing on his experience to make the former school look bad. He may then try to convince students of his former school to defect to his new school. Another example: one recently prominent US Wing Chun Kuen figure at one stage tried to implicate one of his former sifus as trying to start a war between two large lineages and of forming a “secret society”. Laughably, this new guy on the block himself now leads a very high profile cultish organisation!

Abuse, idle gossip, craving, and ill-will are self-explanatory. Abuse can be face-to-face or behind the back. Often those who sense they are losing a debate or discussion will lose control of their anger and engage in abuse. Idle gossip is spreading unsubstantiated tales without any positive reason for doing so (such as preventing exploitation or harm or revealing the truth). Craving/coveting covers all those actions stemming from envy of another. ill-will is being angry with or about another related to their success, luck, status, respect etc. We can see an example of these vices in those who criticise the revolutionary thinkers and/or the trail-blazers in the evolution of an art.

“Wrong views” is a very Buddhist term. It is also very universal! It implies any idea which is held in ignorance, anger or with greed as the motivation. Stubbornly clinging to a notion because it was one’s own or one’s teacher’s, despite evidence and/or logic to the contrary would constitute a wrong view. So would elitist, exclusivist thinking. For example if one thinks on spurious grounds such as race or socio-economic status: “This person/group are not worthy of learning the true art so I shall exclude him/them from doing so”. Or another example: “Unless this person pays me extortionate sums of money, kow-tows to me and becomes my thought-slave, I will not teach him”. This is different to refusing to teach a student/group on the basis of an honestly well-reasoned notion that they are a por character and will likely abuse the knowledge given them.

In conclusion, focusing on the morality of the sifu: A good sifu does not enslave his students financially or intellectually. He respects them and empowers them. He teaches the whole art openly and honestly with no “secrets”. He encourages students to question the art from top to bottom. He supports them through hardship. He is understanding. He is firm but fair. He fosters learning from peers as well as from him. He models and develops an understanding of the principles of his art in his students. He develops student self responsibility for learning. He reframes error as learning experience. He engages his students in ongoing reflection. He gives constructive feedback and meaningful praise appropriate to his student’s individuality. He facilitates realistic goal-setting and high expectations. He shares his experience and power with his students. He is a keen for his students to master the art as they are. He does not spitefully prevent others learning the art by putting stumbling blocks in their path. A good sifu puts his ego in a drawer!