When someone attacks you it is not technique number one (or is it technique number two, stance two, section four?) that you are doing, but the moment you are “aware” of his attack you simply move in like sound and echo without deliberation. It is as though when I call you, you answer me, or when I throw something to you, you catch it. That’s all.
Source: A typed essay of Bruce Lee’s entitled “My View on Gung Fu” that Bruce Lee handed out to members of the Oakland and Los Angeles chapters of his Jun Fan Gung Fu Institutes, circa 1967.
Part 2
PHILOSOPHY
It may surprise those who think of Bruce Lee primarily as a martial artist that his true passion was philosophy. Even more surprising is the extent of his knowledge of both Eastern and Western philosophy.
These essays were largely composed during the years that Lee attended the University of Washington, where he majored in philosophy. This period of his life contributed immensely to broadening his intellect and his exposure to Western theoretical thought. He read Plato, David Hume, Rene Descartes, Thomas Aquinas (a church father whom Lee had also probably absorbed through osmosis during his Catholic school upbringing in Hong Kong during the 1950s).
Moreover, these essays reveal Lee’s thought processes with regard to his worldview or metaphysics. His earlier research and beliefs regarding Taoism, for example, particularly its metaphysic of monism, are not only left intact after being subjected to the barrage of the best of Western theoretical thought, but in fact they are strengthened by the exposure.
Of even more interest, however, is the fact that these essays reveal themes that Lee would come to understand and express even more succinctly as he grew older, serving to sow the seeds of independent inquiry and the need for rational justification. They remain among his most eloquent and thought-provoking writings.
2-A
WHY I TOOK TO PHILOSOPHY
When I returned from Thailand with the work crew of Golden Harvest Ltd. after the completion of The Big Boss, many people started asking me this: What was it that made me give up my career in the States and return to Hong Kong to shoot Chinese films?
Perhaps the general feeling was that it was all hell to have to work on Chinese films since the Chinese film industry was still so underdeveloped. To the above question I find no easy explanation except that I am Chinese and I have to fulfill my duty as a Chinese. The truth is, I am an American-born Chinese. That I should become an American-born Chinese was accidental, or it might have been my father’s arrangement. At that time, the Chinese inhabitants in the States, mostly from the province of Kwangtung, were very much homesick: nostalgia was held towards everything that was associated with their homeland.
In this context, Chinese opera, with its unmistakably unique Chinese characteristics, won the day. My old man was a famous artist of the Chinese opera and was popularly accepted by the people. Hence he spent a lot of time performing in the States. I was born when he brought my mother along during one of his performance trips.
My old man was a famous artist of the Chinese opera and was popularly accepted by the people. Hence he spent a lot of time performing in the States. I was born when he brought my mother along during one of his performance trips.
Yet my father did not want me to receive an American education. When I reached my school age, he sent me back to Hong Kong—his second homeland—to live with his kinsmen. It could have been a matter of heredity or environment; I came to be greatly interested in the making of films when I was studying in Hong Kong. My father was then well acquainted with lots of movie stars and directors. Among whom there was the late Mr. Chin Kam. They brought me into the studio and gave me some roles to play. I started off as a bit player and gradually became the star of the show.
That was a very crucial experience in my life. For the first time I was confronted with genuine Chinese culture. The sense of being part of it was so strongly felt that I was enchanted. I didn’t realize it then, nor did I see how great an influence environment can have on the molding of one’s character and personality. Nevertheless, the notion of “being Chinese” was then duly conceived.
I thought that victory meant beating down others, but I failed to realize that victory gained by way of force was not real victory. When I enrolled in the University of Washington and was enlightened by philosophy, I regretted all my previous immature assumptions.
From boyhood to adolescence, I presented myself as a troublemaker and was greatly disapproved of by my elders. I was extremely mischievous, aggressive, hot-tempered, and fierce. Not only my “opponents” of more or less my age stayed out of my way, but even the adults sometimes gave in to my temper. I never knew what it was that made me so pugnacious. The first thought that came into my mind whenever I met somebody I disliked was, “Challenge him!” Challenge him with what? The only concrete thing that I could think of was my fists. I thought that victory meant beating down others, but I failed to realize that victory gained by way of force was not real victory. When I enrolled in the University of Washington and was enlightened by philosophy, I regretted all my previous immature assumptions.
My majoring in philosophy was closely related to the pugnacity of my childhood. I often ask myself these questions:
• What comes after victory?
• Why do people value victory so much?
• What is “glory”?
• What kind of “victory” is “glorious”?
When my tutor assisted me in choosing my courses, he advised me to take up philosophy because of my inquisitiveness. He said, “Philosophy will tell you what man lives for.” When I told my friends and relatives that I had picked up philosophy, they were all amazed. Everybody thought I had better go into physical education since the only extra-curricular activity that I was interested in, from my childhood until I graduated from my secondary school, was Chinese martial arts. As a matter of fact, martial arts and philosophy seem to be antithetical to each other. But I think that the theoretical part of Chinese martial arts seems to be getting indistinct.
Every action should have its why and wherefore; and there ought to be a complete and proficient theory to back up the whole concept of Chinese martial arts. I wish to infuse the spirit of philosophy into martial arts; therefore I insisted on studying philosophy.
I have never discontinued studying and practicing martial arts. While I am tracing the source and history of Chinese martial arts, this doubt always comes up: Now that every branch of Chinese gung fu has its own form, its own established style, are these the original intentions of their founders? I don’t think so. Formality could be a hindrance to progress; this is applicable to everything, including philosophy. Philosophy brings my jeet kune do into a new realm in the sphere of martial arts, and jeet kune do brings my acting career to a new horizon.
Source: A Taiwan newspaper article written by Bruce Lee, entitled “Me and Jeet Kune Do,” dated 1972, reprinted in the magazine Bruce Lee: Studies On Jeet Kune Do, (c) 1976, Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do Club, Hong Kong, and reprinted in its entirety in Volume 1 of the Bruce Lee Library Series:Words of the Dragon.
2-B
REGARDING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
With regard to human understanding there are simple impressions and simple ideas. A simple impression has a stronger and more vivid picture than a simple idea and is also the cause of a simple idea.
In other words, simple ideas are copies of the simple impressions. For example, I see something exciting, and that certain something moves me, and because of this impression I can later on have an idea of it. Therefore simple ideas are direct copies of simple impressions and cannot be broken into parts but are a unified whole.
Although complex impressions and complex ideas are in general a copy of the other (complex ideas are