I might add that anything I just posted about burning-sand hand and poison-hand is merely a regurgitation of something that I have read, and that I don't -actually- believe it. I can entertain that it's theoretically possible that someone with lots and lots of time spent with his hands wrist-deep in superheated sand might be able to cause some damage to the skin, etc. of a very small infant and perhaps even cause death. But- that this is likely, or that someone these days even practices something as inane as sticking one's hands in superheated sand until the skin turns to leather and nerve endings shrivel and die to the point that a person could not only find them (the practicioner), but coerce them into proving it, is a different matter altogether.
And to you, Kwai Chang, the question of whether or not Shaolin-Do is authentic is not the object of this discussion. Burning-sand hand is not part of the Shaolin-Do curriculum and to my knowlege, never has been. Thus authenticity doesn't come into play. The question here is what was said- burnt baby/ melted baby/ etc. versus the possible and the plausible. As far as -melting- an infant goes, I'm going to vote no... but, as I just posted, if you want something empirical you can buy Sin The's book and read what he and James Halladay have to say about The's experiences with the sandman. Although, even in the book I think that it says Sin The didn't personally witness the baby burning incident either...
I have a copy of the book. I will provide the quote this evening after practice.
I always like when outlandish claims are made. Why is it that the person that doubts has to prove his reasons? Samuel Browning isn't the one claiming to have seen a melting baby it is GM The'.
Here's some details on sand burning and other SD-related techniques. The article includes the baby story, but only says the baby died from burns.
The story is repeated here:
These quotes are from Shaolin-Do Secrets from the Temple by James Halladay and GM Sin The'.
One telling point is this "When Sin turned six, he began studying KARATE as one of two students of a Huo Sha Chang (SandBurn) teacher."(pg.11-12)
In the DVD he went on his own at 5 to find GM Ie. In the book he was introduced by "One of the customers of Sin's father took a very disappointed Sin The' to meet Shaolin GrandMaster Ie Chang Ming. (pg.12)
According to the book, "In 1965, Sin The' came to the United States to pursue a college education at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. He started teaching Shaolin-do that same year and used the term "Karate" since this was long before the era of the "kung fu" craze............By the end of the year, he had thirty students. His classes continued to grow as he organized the University of Kentucky Karate Club and Sin held several national tournaments between 1968- and 1971.(pg.12)
Then his education status: "Meanwhile, Sin recieved his Bachelors degree from the University of Kentucky in Lexington in 1970 in Mechanical Engineering and entered a graduate school in a by-pass program for a PH.D. in nuclear engineering. He performed his research work at Oak Ridge, Tenesse every other weekend."(pg.12)
Here is something interesting. There is a glaring contradicition between the story in the book and what is said on the dvd. In the book it is: "About six month into the training, Sin the's teacher stopped the lessons after (in the book it is spelled fter) ANOTHER Hou Sha Chang teacher in a NEARBY town removed his hands from the hot sand to pick up his infant GRANDCHILD, an act which resulted in the child's death from the burn's received."(pg.12)
At the feet of the Grandmaster DVD states it was Sin The's teacher's child.
Hey ...that's not right
:protest: :protest: :protest: :protest:
Apparently there is not wide enough consensus, yet, that no babies were harmed in the forming of Shaolin-Do.