Origins of Chinese Martial Arts

[YiLiJingLei]

For a very good, well researched read regarding the origins of Chinese martial arts, which explains in detail several misconceptions and mistranslations, check out the following article, "Academia Encounters with the Chinese Martial Arts", Article by Stanley Henning...

http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/cri/6.2henning.pdf

The article is in Adobe format (not Microsoft Word), so you might have to download the Adobe software if you don't already have it set up on your pc. Enjoy!

[neptunesfall]

PRETTY COOL SO FAR...THANKS FOR THE LINK!

[The Willow Sword]

i Just printed it out.



you know we can go even further and trace the origins of chinese martial arts to ancient africa, especially in egypt where some of the oldest petroglyph writings of figures wrestling are found.

MRTWS

[The Willow Sword]

What an EYE OPENER:eek:

SO ,in effect, what this author is suggesting through his studies and reference knowledge, that the translations that we have all come to knwo and trust are basically incorrect.

we could all be living under misconcieved notions of the origins of certain styles such as SHAOLIN and taiji.

well i will say this. i am glad a am no longer a part of a kwoon.
i am by nature a skeptical person and try to think on practical terms. i have always had this question about Shaolin and other so called "styles". i also like the references in the writings that state that these arts were NOT FOR SPORT. as in this co-incides with what i have ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT, that these arts are for survival and self preservation. for me this article is a wonderful,,for i know now that i am not full of sh!t when it comes to this ideology. so to all the rest of you who frivolously use your arts for sport and the brutalization of others for you own egocentric ends,and who trounce on ME and think that i dont know anything,,you can kiss my perverbial A$$!

MRTWS

[Fu-Pow]

Wow...

I can't believe this thread only got 3 replies...the implications of this article are huge.

The author states that Chen Taiji wasn't called Taiji until 1844, it was simply called Chen Style Paochui and was a derivative of some other art put together by a General Qi. So doesn't this suggest that all this Taoist Taiji stuff is baloney?

The author also claims that the whole "internal" and "external" argument didn't come about until about 1600's when some author decided to make a political statement about Buddhism being "external" and Taoism being "internal."

[BSH]

While this seems to debunk the histories of many of the CMA's claiming authenticity today, I cannot determine his opinion of the Shaolin temples history and its relation to Martial Arts.

Any thoughts from "experts" on the early Shaolin temple history and the martial arts it may or may not have given birth to.

[Liokault]

could not open it


but i an already aware that most of what the chens say about their history is rubbish.

[Fu-Pow]

Liokault-

Actually the Chen Family history seems to be fairly consistent with this article. What the author attacks is the validity that Taiji Chuan sprang from Taoist excercises and that it is associated with the Taoist immortal Zhan Fan Sheng (sp?).

I think what the bottom line of this article is saying is that MA's were created in there own context and were only later put in the context of religious/spiritual activities.

For example, Chen Taiji may have existed for 100's of years as Chen Paochui, but someone noticed it's "Taoist" qualities and started calling it Taiji.

Actually, I just read a really interesting book by Eva Wong. It is a translation of one of the most famous/popular books on Taoist energy cultivation called the " Hui-ming ching" . This type of cultivation draws from Ch'an Buddhism as well as Taoist practices.
It's some trippy higher level meditation stuff but the terminology seems to be consistent with Taiji terminology.

It think that the Taiji that we know today borrowed it's theory from a lot of diffferent sources Ch'an Buddhism, Taoism, TCM, various martial arts and most likely Shaolin temple. I think it would be nieve to call it simply a "Taoist" art the history is much more rich than that.

[Braden]

It's an interesting article, but with respect to his main argument, it seems to rely on the premise that the physical knowledge of martial arts began in a formal military tradition and transmitted from there to other aspects of a culture. This, I think, is a concept which is utterly implausible, and not supported by history; chinese or otherwise.

With respect to the taijiquan issues; I don't know enough about taiji to comment reasonably on that specific issue. But, speaking in general, that a physical practice has antecedents in one heritage, and a mythic origin in a second heritage, does not mean it has no authentic tie to the second heritage. For example, scholars will tell you that Dong Hai Chuan is the founder of Baguazhang, and his claim of it being transmitted from taoist sages is mythic. They'll also tell you that, based on practices of his longest studying disciple, baguazhang has essential foundations in the non-taoist physical practices of lohanquan. Yet, they'll still be happy to admit that baguazhang is most essentially founded in taoist physical practice.

Fu-Pow - what's the english name of her 'Hui ming'? Did you like it? I've got her 'Cultivating Stillness' which is a translation of another classic, and a very interesting read. Her 'Taoism' is also a fabulous overview/history; very cursory, but readable and offers lots of advice for further reading in various areas.

[YiLiJingLei]

Hi, all,
for another excellent resource regarding the History of Chinese Martail Arts, I would highly recommend reading "The Spring & Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts --5,000 Years" by Professor Kang Gewu. It is not a very voluminous text, but is nevertheless an invaluable chronology, which also refutes some of the ludicrous myths regarding the origins of Chinese Martial Arts. Happy Reading! :D

[Fu-Pow]

Braden-

Would highly recommend it. It sheds a lot of light on Taoist physical practices including Taiji. I can see that many people like Yang Jwing Ming and Mantak Chia have borrowed heavily from this book in their theory. In the intro she states that a lot of the old Taoist masters (this document was published in 1794?) were upset when this document came to light because it clearly revealed many of the practices which had previously been hidden in flowery language.

[PaulLin]

I think I will print it out back home, it is too long to read for me on screen.

[RAF]

You can find many of Henning's articles in JAMA. He had a number in the old Journal of Chen Style taichi. At first, it was painful to read them because he destroyed some of my initial myths regarding taiji and the Chinese martial arts in general.

He isn't the final word but there isn't much else that rivals his scholarship and he backs up his assertions by relatively factual references.

I don't think he is saying that Chen's taiji doesn't have daoist influence or theory in it. He just says it didn't come out of the mystical mountains. Yin/Yang ideas are taiji and daoist in origin.

He is definitely raises some great issues.

[MonkeySlap Too]

you said:
i also like the references in the writings that state that these arts were NOT FOR SPORT. as in this co-incides with what i have ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT, that these arts are for survival and self preservation. for me this article is a wonderful,,for i know now that i am not full of sh!t when it comes to this ideology. so to all the rest of you who frivolously use your arts for sport and the brutalization of others for you own egocentric ends,and who trounce on ME and think that i dont know anything,,you can kiss my perverbial A$$!

Reply:
What I questioned you on before was the statement that the reason you did karate one step sparring was because what you did was 'for combat'. What I, and most other CMA guys said was that is not a good answer, nor a very accurate one. Karate techniques are karate - not 'combat' kung fu. The idea that kung fu is for real fighting is true - the question was always about the validity of the methodology at the SD group. You have moved on, so I'm not looking to open up that can of worms - I know how hard it is to walk away.

Another thing to consider is what you learned when started sparring. Sparring and competition are good tools to drill certain attributes. It only becomes bad when you train to win according to the rules.