PDA

View Full Version : What if Bodhidharma's Kungfu was fake?



GeneChing
06-28-2001, 08:20 PM
In Ferguson's new work, the now indispensible Zen's Chinese Heritage, he brings up the dubious connection of Ta Mo and Kungfu.
"...stories linking Bodhidharma to Chinese martial arts, or gongfu, have no historical basis. No evidence exists of any relationship between Bodhidharma and Chinese Martial arts beyond their common connection with Shaolin Temple. A millenium separates the time of Bodhidharm's residence a that temple with the first mention of his supposed link to the martial arts..." Other Buddhist text have made similar assertions, and it is porbably concurs with the general opinion of the American sangha.

Does this notion affect your practice of Kungfu?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Shaolindynasty
06-28-2001, 09:51 PM
I don't think so. What I practice now is real enough. I don't care what happened 1500 years ago. Even if Damo did create Shaolin Kungfu over the course of it's history it has been changed so much that some 1500 year old history really has no impact on my Kungfu now.

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

beiquan
06-28-2001, 10:18 PM
I agree, it's pretty much a moot point.
It's a fairly common practice throughout Chinese history to attempt to legitimize something by giving it an ancient, semi-mythical origin.

Radhnoti
06-28-2001, 11:31 PM
I find it humorous that folks are answering that it doesn't matter...especially anyone that might have attacked Shaolin-do's credibility and history previously. How ironic, if the base of shaolin history is fiction as most claim Shaolin-do's history to be. Makes the whole issue of "is this shaolin, or is that shaolin" seem even more pointless, in my opinion. Obviously, I agree that it doesn't matter. ;)

-Radhnoti

beiquan
06-28-2001, 11:50 PM
well, whether or not Da Mo taught gongfu at the shaolin monastery, we do know that from the Song dynasty onwards there were huge developments in Shaolin gongfu, and it is from this period that modern Shaolin gongfu traces its lineage, up until the burning of the temple, etc. so the criteria for "legitimate" shaolin gongfu is still the ability to trace the style or lineage back to the temple, whether or not Da Mo actually taught there.

I'm not trying to say anything about Shaolin-Do as I know nothing about it, so don't take this the wrong way.

Shaolindynasty
06-29-2001, 12:10 AM
Even if the Damo story is fake a style could have a few hundred years of experience behind it. My point was that history that old is bound to be exagerated or not true. That doesn't matter because the kungfu we practice now has been shaped by more recent history (past 200- 300 years) giving it a solid base. If it turns out that the Damo story is fake that doesn't mean it is ok for anyone to start claiming they are part of Shaolin and inherited hundreds of forms from the original fukien temple destoyed like 200 years ago but the forms were created in the 50's. Don't confuse legend and folk tales with lying. This is not going to be another Shaolin Do thread I am so **** sick of those :mad:

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

MonkeySlap Too
06-29-2001, 01:13 AM
Damo being involved in the development of Shaolin kung fu is propably apocryphal. This does not mean that there isn't legitimate Shaolin skills, just he did not invent it. And even if he did, it certainly evolved since then.

Saying that this somehow makes SD CMA is pretty sloppy logic. This is typical of the SD paralogical cult like arguments. "Ducks come from Canada, I am Canadian, therefore I am a duck."

Followed by the: I will not talk to anyone who might tell me I'm wrong or actually investigate the facts.

Fun question Gene.

I am a big beleiver in luck. The more I work, the more luck I have.

ngokfei
06-29-2001, 06:04 AM
He gene what's up? Remember me from last years Tai Chi Legacy? e-mail me, lets chat..

regarding Damo. I believe he's just the george washington of shaolin temple. Perhaps he did teach some health exercises (yoga) and perhaps some self defense skills too. Whatever it was it sure had an impact on his followers.

Here's a question. when did the Shaolin Temple convert to Damo's Chan method over there mahayanna method (most definitely botched the spelling)

eric Hargrove
ngokfei@juno.com

Iron arms
06-29-2001, 07:05 AM
I think Damo laid the foundation of kung fu by showing shoalin breathing and muscle control techniques. I think it became kung fu over time.

md1
06-30-2001, 04:06 AM
hi gene. my sifu always told us bodhidharma
had nothing to do with gungfu.
maybe because he trained at wudang.

"when you expect your oppoent to yield/you also should avoid hurting him"

Siu Lung
06-30-2001, 06:00 AM
From what I know, the sets/ movements "allegedly" conceived by Bodhidharma did not resemble the myriad external systems practiced today. From the demonstrations of YiJinJing, XiSuiJing, and LohanShiBaShou (the 3 "core" forms credited to DaMo's Shaolin meditation) that I've witnessed, I too would agree that they appear more like the Qigong or stationary Taiji routines people do today. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine the "DaMo core forms" as a rudimentary basis for the complex and dynamic forms we know now as gongfu. I have also learned that the popular Bodhidharma Sword and DaMo Staff forms (from the Songshan system) credit Bodhidharma only in name--they were not created by him 1500 years ago. Very interesting topic!

**Siu Lung

GeneChing
07-01-2001, 07:51 PM
It's an old koan (gungan for you Chinese dogmatists ;) ) Penetrate it, an it is the essence of Zen/Chan, or at least so I'm told...

To me, the Tamo/kungfu question is really the tip of the iceberg of faith. There is a leap of faith in Zen and, if I read Herrigal right, it has to do with the belief that there is something beyond these demanding disciplines, something almighty. Perhaps 'thing' is the wrong word entirely - it might be better just read Herrigal's Method of Zen. Personally, I don't agree with Herrigal, but nevertheless, faith is really a major underlying issue on this forum; whether it be shaolin-do, bjj or Bruce Lee, the core issue is one of faith.

So let's get to the root of faith through the alleged root of kungfu.

Now there is even some research that denies the very existence of Tamo. So a bigger question might be "What if Bodhidharma was fake and how does that affect your practice of Zen?" But of course, this assumes you are a zennist, so the kungfu question is more immediately relevant.

Evidence of both Buddhism and Kungfu predate Tamo. Remember Shaolin Temple was built for another earlier Buddhist monk, Batuo, who disciples were noted for their kungfu skills. Tamo came after them.

Before we go further, I should state that I'm taking a devil's advocate position on this (or maybe I should say Yamataka's advocate.) I honor Tamo with an altar in my home and here at work. I have great faith in Tamo, but not for his literality.

ngokfei: Hey Eric, we missed you this year. I think I still owe you a drink :cool: It should be a double for that george washington comment! As for your question of Chinese Chan, well, like anything in China, it's all mixed up. Examine the root of Amitabha/amitoufo, so frequently heard in the Shaolin circles, but (obviously) from Pure Land sect.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

dre_doggX
07-01-2001, 08:34 PM
Then where all doomed. (LOL)

I dont really think he is a fact he probably really did extist through I am sure people had made ficitous "tales" of him. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story similar to the story of Noah in the Bible. ofcourse only on is true. and the others are just exgagertions when talking about something that occured the the tale of the thing.

Andre Lashley

beiquan
07-02-2001, 01:18 AM
Gene - what is the work by Herrigal which you are citing? I disagree with the idea that Chan requires any "faith" on the part of the practitioner (at least, "faith" as I understand it in a Western[Judeo-Christian] sense).

WongFeHung
07-02-2001, 04:14 AM
Okay, I don't have my resources here so I'm going from memory, BUT...I believe that it was stated that martial arts were practiced at Shaolin long before the arrival of Boddhidarma, BUT...he brought the ch'i kung to shaolin, combined it with the martial arts, and that is when the level of martial arts began to develop to the degree that Shaolin was famous for. It's as if the engine was there, but Bodhidarma added the nitrous. If you study yoga,pranayama, and hei-gung. you will see the striking similarities. My two cents

GeneChing
07-02-2001, 06:52 PM
Sorry my last post crashed, so if it appears again later and this becomes weirdly redundant, I was trying to reiterate what was lost.

beiquan: I don't agree with Herrigal at all, but the book was his posthumous work Method of Zen. And I was paraphrasing him, I'm not sure that he was refering to Judeo-Christian 'faith.' I think his comment was more of the view that you had to had some faith to endure the discipline.

tentigers: Tamo as the nitrous of kungfu - that's even better than the washington comment!
I've heard the pranayama connection discussed in martial circles before and actually went to India to study it. While there is parallels between yoga/kungfu, meridians/nadis and pranayama/qigong, it's a misuse of the terms and an oversimplification, I think. Chan and Zen descend from the terms Chan Na and Zen Na, both translations of Dhyana. Dhyana is a different limb of yoga than pranayama. So by defination, it's not pranayama, it's dhyana. Actually I believe this is the key...

Any thoughts
Any one?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Royal Dragon
07-02-2001, 07:57 PM
Hey Gene,
Don't know if you remember me, but you and I had some REALLY long phone conversations when I was doing historical reseach and buying books from Wing Lam.

Basically, I have to agree with the Nitros comment. Martial arts are as old as man. they were ther LONg before Da Mo and grew and blossumeed LONG after his death. My guess, is his Chi Kung/Yoga methods are what really elevated Shaolin's Kung Fu to un precidented hights as far as skill and strength go. He may also be the one that taught us how to combine movements into a formal routine so as to develop considerably more effeciant(ly?)

On a closing note, I have to admit, I'm sitting here eating left over Italian and Chineses from the past few days for lunch.

I don't care WHICH one invented the noodle, I LOVE'EM!!!!

Royal Dragon

"Mmmmmmmmmmm, Yummmmmmmmmm"
The preceeding is a direct quote from my daughters Furbie

shaolin_knight
07-05-2001, 05:39 AM
What's the difference between asian martial arts and martial arts (empty hand) from places like Europe or the Americas? The methods of strength training I'd say. Damo probably introduced some Indian exercises and buddhism, and the monks there developed it over time. Incorporated it into their martial training, it left the temple, developed again in many different ways. It comes to us 1500 years later, probably nothing like Damo taught, but the same essence, same purpose (health). We sometimes emphasize fighting, but isn't self defence a way to maintain your well being? After all, you can't seek enlightenment in this world if your stay here is cut short. 1500 years of development, that is a long time. No wonder Shaolin arts and it's relatives are the best under the sun! Practice kung fu without force training and you achieve little. How will you stop someone trying to hurt you? You need force. Look here in the west, people lift weights to get stronger. Hey, a method of strength training! Only in Shaolin, the training is more advanced, but not always understood. It aims at more than just physical force. After all, getting attacked isn't the only way you can die. I believe it was later monks, and not just one, or even ones from the same time period, that developed Damo's exercises into what they represent today. There is so many variations, some maybe not even connected to Shaolin. One man never invents something, at least not in our history. Who invented speech? Different people from different places probably came up with the same things, at different periods in time. No one can "claim" anything. We lose it and find it again. We've lost it, but it's still there. It will be found again. It was never really lost. How human of us, to not see the big picture. Our perception of things is very narrow. I also think that Damo had a part in what is thought of as Zen today, but not the inventor of it. It makes a great story! That's why legends are emphasized over truth. It is the truth! Just not as we know it in our scientific minded views.

GeneChing
07-10-2001, 10:30 AM
royal dragon: Thanks for touching base. I apologize that I don't remember you, but if you refresh me on what we might have talked about, it might jog my poor memory.
Fighting is older than man certainly, but this makes the key question here When does it become "martial arts"?
Love the noodles allegory. China invented them...

shaolin knight: My small ventures into western martial arts trained strength, even stuff that borders on mysticism if you go back to before the industrial age. I would say the difference is poetry vs. science. Beyond that, I lost track of your point exactly (sorry, it's late and I've had a really hard week.)
I think legends are retold not for their truth but for their justice. The truth is unjust. So if we just accept this legend as legend, the question becomes Why Tamo? Why not Guan Gong? He precedes Ta Mo by a few centuries.

Why would the legend that Tamo the beginning be sustained?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Crimson Phoenix
07-10-2001, 01:28 PM
Boddhidarma was supposed to be Persian (his family name was Sardili and he had blue eyes: he wasn't strictly speaking Indian), but nevertheless we haven't recovered endemic and specific persian empty hand fighting arts other than these existing in the Greek world and those employed by fighters all over the worl at the time.
Furthermore, lots of persons including Adam Hsu and Kang Ge Wu even question the fact that genuine Shaolin gong fu existed back in the days...they claim that the only true endogenous technique in Shaolin was their staff fighting, the rest came from outside...
Anyway, we have to face it: it's very chinese to have legends transformed over time as historical facts and it's very chinese to try to root something to great persons...Xing Yi, for example, is believed to have been created by famous Marshall Yue Fei, whereas all the evidences point to Ji Ji Ke much later, who claimed to have retrieved a document written then lost by Yue Fei.
But in the end, that doesn''t matter: it doesn't make the styles less efficient or worthy, for example White Crane remains a good and deep style whoever the creator is and wether or not you can really trace it back to Shaolin (which a lot doubt).
Bagua was taught to Dong Hai Chuan by taoists or hee invented it? WHO CARES, bagua is deep and good and it's all that counts in the end.
So no, it doesn't really wake me up in the middle of the night wether or not Damo brought gong fu to China, or if Shaolin never really had a style of its own back then...
Just my two francs heheheheh

Phoenix

sean_stonehart
07-10-2001, 06:04 PM
Hatsumi sensei of the Bujinkan put a question to a group one time (don't remember particulars, so no crucifying!) but it was along the lines of "What if Takamatsu sensei & I sat down one day & made this all up? Would it matter to your taijutsu?" Now mind you that question has been posed by detractors of the Bujinkan since its inception, but would it matter? The combat skills are real, the higher level meditation skills are real, so what's the big deal where it came from except that it's survived long enough for me to get into it. Same with kungfu. Who cares if it's Bodhidharma to Da mo to Long Duck Dong?? Does it work in keeping you safe? Do you obtain benefit from it physically, mentally & for some, spiritually? Does it really, honestly matter?

That's my thoughts anyway. I was at Shaolin last month, saw the "monks", saw Tagou at Shaolin village & Master Liang's Shaolin wushu school in Dengfeng. I saw some really good martial arts that looked a lot like what I saw this old guy in Beijing doing (but slower) at the Temple of Heaven park that looked a lot like I saw a bunch of kids (but way faster)in Xi'an doing at Master Zhou's wushu school there. It's martial arts. Period. Who cares where it came from. It's here, let's enjoy it & benefit from it.

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

-- H.L. Mencken

Shaolindynasty
07-10-2001, 07:27 PM
Most of us don't really care that much about history as a way of somehow justifying what we study. Ther is a current trend (or maybe not so current) of gaugeing how good a practitioner is by their lineage. We hear it alot especially on the web I trained with xx master who learned from xxx master and he can trace the style all the way back to xxxx general in the Han dynasty. Tracing their styles back along ways may be good but beyond respecting their ansectors it does little else. I think alot of you would agree that alot of styles that are called Shaolin have questionable lineage but if you train hard are still great styles(my style for example). The fact that they may not be directly from Shaolin means little if nothing compared to the work and dedication you put to the style. Just because your style is decended from a famous master doesn't mean you'll gain his skill level from doing nothing. Anyway,I heard somwhere that Chinese have a different view of self than in the west because of confucious(sp?) and they tend to atribute their creation to famous or legendary figures. I guess alot of people would call it humble but I call it a lack of self worth but that's a hole new subject.

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

GeneChing
07-10-2001, 07:38 PM
That's a great lesson from Hatsumi. I guess some of that is what I'm trying to get at with my original post here.
With so many flame wars here about validity, lineage, reality, I find it really interesting that there is a certain level of acceptance to the notion of Tamo being fake. Indeed, who cares? But this can open a huge pandora's box because if we accept this, what if Hatsumi did make it all up? Do we accept that? And then, do we accept other controversial masters like Sinte, USSD or Frank Dux? Where do we draw that line? It gets at a fundamental question that everyone seems to like to fight about here - what is real?

And please, can we AVOID turning this into another Shaolin-Do flame war?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

origenx
07-10-2001, 07:59 PM
Crimson phoenix - damo was actually persian and had blue eyes??? Interesting - where'd u read that?

So, is this new author saying that Damo DIDN'T write the 2 classic qigong texts that are attributed to him? Or just that he didn't found kung-fu there?

I can believe the former, but am somewhat skeptical of the latter. Why? Because fighting and killing runs counter to Buddhism. So, I doubt that Damo would have engaged in these activities. The fact that the Shaolin monks did so later on only shows how they became corrupted (just like how there was a time when they also were allowed to drink booze and eat meat). I suspect that perhaps Damo's qigong techniques were incorporated into existing martial arts techniques. Perhaps in that sense, Damo could be considered somewhat of a founder.

sean_stonehart
07-10-2001, 08:32 PM
Doesn't sweat me any. I do study Shaolin-do ;) & I get the benefits I listed above & more. Everything, everybody else... whatever. I also studied taijutsu in the Bujinkan for several years. I'm used to flames & wear flame retardant boxers. :eek:

In the end, to me, it's all good as long as something good comes out of it for each person. :D

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

-- H.L. Mencken

GeneChing
07-11-2001, 09:57 AM
Qigong preceded Tamo in China. He did not bring it to China as some sort of version of pranayama yoga. General Guan Gong's doctor Hua Tuo had 5 Animal Frolics centuries before. Additionally, many scholars don't believe yoga asana is that old beyond a few poses. So it is unlikely that he brought breathing techniques or postures into already existing indigenous martial arts.

I'm playing devil's advocate here to try to penetrate a little deeper. Tamo means a lot to me, but if I met him on the road, well, you all probably know the zen response...

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Crimson Phoenix
07-11-2001, 12:09 PM
Origen, I heard that quite often...at that time, the range of indian influence was spreading from what is now Cambodia to what is now Iran...my most reliable sources are Henry Plée (he brought karate in Europe, and he's the only 10th dan out of japan) who has an incredible martial library in various languages and another very reliable martial historian and practicionner, Kenji Tokitsu. Both of these guys are very advanced practicionners of japanese arts and practice chinese arts too (both in Taiji, like Kanazawa did...funny how karate practicionners come to Taiji when they realize that the rigidity of karate cannot last too long when you age, but I don't want to start another controversy!). Anyway I also heard Kan Ge Wu mentionning that ancient texts about Damo's venue in Shaolin all stressed the incredible aura of spirituality he possessed and that "many monks were intrigued by his eyes" (I don't remember Kan Ge Wu precising the color, and I heard versions about them being "intrigued by his stares" but it is in accordance with the other sources).
Passionating, isn't it? I really love these kind of things...
Another thing: has someone here, like me, ever wondered why on the drawings in Shaolin you have monks with clear skins practicing with guys with dark skins and different hair looking like they are indians? Were indian martial artists regularily visiting, or is it a way to acknowledge the indian influence even if indian guys were not really there, or maybe it has nothing to do at all?
I'm curious, I just love these questions!

GeneChing
07-15-2001, 06:40 PM
The White Garment Hall Murals of Shaolin Temple aren't that old, perhaps a few centuries. I'd have to really dig for the actual date, but I do remember them not going back too far (although anything that survived the last century of China is pretty far...) So the image of dark skinned warriors training with Chinese monks is relatively contemporary, cohesive with the whole Tamo theory being contemporary fabrication.

However, there is plenty of evidence of trade between India, China, even Africa going back quite far. We tend to view history from a Eurocentric perspective, which acknowleges these countries when Europeans 'discovered' them, never mind they had been doing trade with each other without Europe for centuries prior. Certainly, the early pioneers were warriors. That just stands to reason.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

The Willow Sword
07-15-2001, 07:42 PM
The oldest forms of fighting recorded were discovered in Africa. the depictions were of men wrestling with one another in ritual combat. since we can all agree that the central origin of life and civilization starts in africa we can then expand out from there. as for india and the boddhiharma. it is my understanding that Ta Mo was fleeing india for his methods were unorthodox
and shuned by the old asetics. because the central theme of buddhism is nonviolence and peace, Ta mo did not shun fighting, so as the story goes he comes to shaolin temple finds the monks there weak and unable to meditate for long periods with out falling asleep. it is also my understanding that ta mo was ousted from the temple as well,he then retreated to the cave so famously known and meditated on the problem at hand. 9 years i think it was. during this time he wrote and composed the i chin ching muscletendon excersises. he dies and as the stroy goes a monk finds his book hidden below his altar opens it and then it goes from there. i know i am only telling part of this story and there are quite a few renditions of this story, but what i can figure out from this is that TA MO did not teach fighting at the temple, he taught the ways in which to increase internal strength to meditate PROPERLY. it was the monks who figured out that these techniques helped them martially. There is NO Bodhidarma
kung fu that i am aware of so to say that what if his kung fu was fake is in my opinion a moot topic.

India has its own fighting style i believe. mainly consisting of grappling and wrestling.
shaolin has always been a place where things come and get absorbed. what is unique to Shaolin?
5 animal fist? maybe maybe not. shaolin temple was buddhist right? no violence, no fighting. strange then that fighting is the central theme of study at the temple,, then and now. it is also interesting that the temples throughout history were dedicated to the emperors serving at the time. for it was an emporer who built the temple in the first place. but for what? to honor ba to right? and his buddhist principles. yet we see the history as military leaders going there disguising themselves as monks to escape the tyranny of new emperors and regimes. teaching fighting and defense to the monks and the monks accepting this violence? in a BUDDHIST temple?
here is the thing which i dont get. most temples other than shaolin are Taoist temples, with similar but very different ways of thinking.
here is my theory: the temple was once a buddhist place of worship but then over the years it became a military training center and the buddhist principles dwindled and it became a taoist order. still utilizing some of the harmonizing principles that buddhism has, obviously to sane oneself in combat or to justify the killing of another. disciplined warriors able to fight and kill effectively,,,like a navy seal training camp. a select group of warriors that are trained in the utmost forms of combat. with the animal flair that shaolin has. hey its just a theory. but not too far from the truth about what shaolin really is in my opinion. dont get me wrong i respect shaolin for what it is and i love to practice it and teach it. why do we go to shaolin kung fu anyway gentlemen. to learm to FIGHT. how many people do you know that go to shaolin to study buddhism? i know of noone here in this country who runs a shaolin school(including my school) that teaches the doctrines and buddhist principles. even over there in China were communism rules do you see people going there to study buddhism,,they go there to learn how to fight and discipline themselves to fight well and with a flair of animal prowess. sounds like a military training center to me.
interesting to think about huh?

many respects, willow sword

Whatever you think i am or want me to be,,, i am.
oh and,,,Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you are an a$.

Royal Dragon
07-15-2001, 08:18 PM
First, I want to touch on the whole Fake Kung Fu controversy. The reason many of theses masters are so contraversial is because they ovbiously LIE about thier historys. Simple and true. Now, if they had admitted to learning from books or piecing this stuff together over decades, then maybe we would all be worshiping them as the founders of new and great styles. But because they lie, and try to tie thier systems to Shaolin or otheres they are NOT tied to, they become controversial and even despised in some circles. Shaolin Do may very well be rooted in a Shaolin System that left Shaolin many centurys ago and just happened to survive and continue to grow, or maybe Sin The' made it all up, who knows. All we know is it's ovbious he's not being truthful. The same goes for Dux and others. That's why we say they are Fake.

Now the legand of Da Mo is different because many many centurys have passed, and it's pretty much accepted that any real truth will have been distorted over this great expansion of time. It's doughtfull Da Mo's kung Fu is fake (In my mind), but it is also doughtfull he created Shaolin Kung Fu. Especially since we all know that Shaolin absorbed and cataloged fighting systems throughout it's whole existance. Maybe the Louhan or Five Animal styles are thiers, and maybe some lost styles that have come and gone are thiers, but certianly MOST of Shaolin's material came from the outside. For example, during my reasearch into Tai Tzu Quan, I came across the theory that Sung Tai Tzu created Shaolin's Hong Quan style. I have several different versions of it's creation from different sources.

1. Sung Tai Tzu developed Tai Tzu Chang Quan and taught it to the Monks who expaned it into the Hong Quan style (thus creating a "sister" to the Tai Tzu Chang Quan style)

2. Sung Tai Tzu developed the Tai Tzu Hong Quan form and the Monks did the rest.

3. Sung Tai Tzu developed the 4 shorter forms and his descendants developed the 6 longer forms. The Shaolin were just taught the entire system sometime down the road because the Chao family had such close ties to the Temple.

Now, only ONE story can be true. Maybe it's not even one of the three I sighted. Who knows. The point I'm trying to make is that if Da Mo IS Fake, it happened SO LONG AGO, that it does not matter anymore. AND it still does not take away from all the accomplishments Shaolin made all the centurys since. Heck, the whole Hong Quan thing I wrote above hapened FIVE HUNDERD YEARS after Da Mo. and that was 1000 years PRIOR to today.

If Da Mo actually did exist, and I belive he did, he mostlikely taught the Shaolin how to train and develop thier bodys to maximum potential through the 3 Chi Kung Sets and maybe more exercises that are not credited to him due to lack of documentation or legand. It's the Monks themselves that applied those training exercises and PRINCIPALS to thier self defence systems.

Da Mo is the original Richard Simmons or Joe Weider of Kung Fu, what the Monks did with his teachings is what's important.

Royal Dragon


Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

Royaldragon.4dw.com

[This message was edited by Royal Dragon on 07-16-01 at 11:23 AM.]

mantis108
07-15-2001, 11:02 PM
Interesting discussion. Here are a few points I would like to make:

1) Scholars and historians may not have taken any martial art dicipline. They themselves might even be pacificists and therefore reject the idea that an accomplished buddhist is in fact capable of using lethal force.

2) Bodhidharma whom some people believe "was" the incarntion of Buddha. The historic Buddha was a prince and was an adept in martial affairs including hand-to-hand combat (some form of Indian westling) piror to his "enlightenment". There is certainly a big parallel there in the background of the two. If we understand that the Hindu way of thinking that they use parables in their "oral" transmittions, then we would not be confused by the them.

3) Gene has a very good point on Dhyana. Most people think that meditation is just to stay still and start breathing exercise. Yoga (Hindu tradition) promote mental focus through physical fitness. Sickness and stress are obsticales to enlightenment. Some people thought that it's faster to achieve enlightenment by cutting out the rest and just do the meditation. That is why there are some many Koan about medition alone will not bring about Buddha nature. It is in fact a serious misunderstanding of Prajna Paramita.

4) There were Indian monks in the Shaolin temple. They practice martial arts there alongside the Chinese counterpart. The murial of the temple is the physical proof of that. It would not be far fatch to link Kalaripuyattu (Indian martial arts which have extensive Staff fighting training) with the notable treasure of Staff fighting techniques of Shaolin.

5) There is a striking parallel between the training progress of Kung Fu and Kalaripuyattu including the idea of Marma Adi (secret death blows). Also the preservation of life in the presence of adveristy is high pirority in both systems.

It is easy to flat out deny the link same as Evolution has been denied as a legitimate theory for a long time. The SCHOLARS who opposed the theory outnumbered Darwin by hundreds if not thousands. So go figure. BTW, there is no proof if you don't go looking for it or looking in the wrong places. How much I love to be one of those scholars that people would just dig whatever I say.

Just a few thoughts

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

Lost_Disciple
07-15-2001, 11:27 PM
Just a thought....

I just have an idea that, to me, sits a little better than the shaolin idea of as a Chinese Navy Seals training camp.

We know from the records than an emperor created a temple to Buddha, as earlier evangelists (for lack of a better word) had spread the ideas of Buddha into China. Da-mo comes in to teach his own thing, maybe spread the word a little more than his forebearers, and he shows up at this temple with some out of shape monks. He teaches 'em more buddhism, and teaches them some physical activity to help them meditate better. The monks start teaching laymen both the buddhism and the exercises. In a nutshell, I think that the temple became the precurser to Ching Woo or a university. I read a similar theory on another website, I forget which.

I've always found that persuits of the mind go better when hand in hand with physical training. I think a bunch of people showed up to learn about buddha, a bunch of other people showed up later to learn about these new exercises (Ta-mo created or not). Eventually the academics gets stronger- libraries get built; and then the physical training becomes more inclusive, attracting folk martial arts from the surrounding regions.

It's commonly known that martial arts existed in China long before Shaolin, and Qigong too for that matter (I think someone on here mentioned it earlier). What if shaolin was just the first epicenter where exponents of all these styles could meet and pass on their arts to a large body of students? Of course some of these martial teachers would become interested in buddhism, others would teach the monks out of friendship. The end result being the monks carry down the tradition of the martial arts and keep records of the whole thing in a very academic manner.

Far fetched as it seems, we'll never know the truth so it's fun to theorize.
.

Royal Dragon
07-16-2001, 04:41 AM
Your Idea is not so far fetched. infact, it makes so much sens, that I doubt it hapened any other way. Besides, did'nt the Shaolin teach troops for various Emperors, some time during the Tang dynasty? Something about 13 Monks rescuing the Emperor or his son or something? I seem to recall this in my reasearch. Would'nt that make Shaolin the Chinese equivelent of West point?

I'm sure some styles came out of Shaolin that were all there own, but if they were a West point for China, then you can bet much of it was assymilated and blended with the physical discaplines already taught there.

Da Mo, probualy was real, but I bet it's his exercise system that was superior, NOT his Martial arts. That was the Monks blending current martial arts with Da Mo's exercises and probually inventing thier own stuff as well.


Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

Lost_Disciple
07-16-2001, 05:43 AM
Yep, there was an incident or 2 with some pirates where Shaolin monks saved the day; as well as the incident you quoted with the young emperor.

As far as Shaolin being West Point; like everything else with Shaolin, 50% of it was intentional, 50% of it just happened. You've got people intentionally trying to make it a center of academia and physical training; then you've probably got guys who are academics or martial artists who enter the temple and happen to pass on their knowledge.

If there wasn't so much in-fighting with the CMA scene, it'd be cool to see the great masters from all over the States get together and make some type of kung fu college. I'm talking an institute where the sum total of knowledge of all the different styles is kept and taught.Official branches could spring up all over the states, with instructors competant and qualified in the style they teach. If you wanna be a full-time instructor in a style, go to college for it. If you want to do it as a hobby join a local club headed by an instructor and practise at your own pace.

The only thing stopping us from reaching an ideal like Shaolin, Ching Wu, or those other Athletic Associations is ourselves. My friend tells me you can major in sports science/kung fu in taiwan. That would be killer to go to college for Hung Gar, Mantis, etc.

I'll stop rambling now, I promise. :)

The Willow Sword
07-16-2001, 08:43 AM
Sounds like what you are proposing is another creation of the great library at alexandria. in ancient times this library contained all the ancient knowlegde wisdom and records of the ancient time predating back who knows how long. but tyranny and fighting brought the library crumbling down and set afire with ALL of the material inside going up in smoke.
the reason i think that we glamorize and hollywoodize shaolin so much is because that is where we as americans first learned of shaolin,,ON TV. now in the past 30 yrs or so we have all this NEW AND LOST material surfacing out of the wood works. from my school at Shaolin do to others who have supposedly"the true shaolin lineage" China was even a mystery to the world until NIXON helped to open the doors in to the orient. all we have to go one is what they tell us is true,,but why are we as a culture so enamored at the shaolin ways? remember KUNG_FU with david carradine? who came up with that story?
some say bruce lee did,,others say it was his agent and producer. its funny that we see all these kung fu movies from china appear in the 60's and 70's. Who is to say wht IS fake and What IS not. even in my earlier posts about SD noone could really tell me anything other than what they have heard or "supposedly read" people tell me,,investigate the FACTS and YOU will see. well what are these facts about the SHaolin ways?
How do we as westerners know that what we are getting from these asian peoples ARE the shaolin ways?
Remember what china is now. i keep on stating this but with no apparent REALIZATION that this is a COMMUNIST country that we are dealing with.
and despite what american gove. propaganda tells us about communism we have it from the DALI LLAMA himself about what communism is all about. look what happened to his country and where it is now,with out him there. this is MAOs'work. What else has been done to capitolize on american money
by asia? martial arts? Bruce Lee seems to be the focal ASIAN who revealed something to us and was KILLED for doing so. GM Sin Kwang THe started at the same time bruce was starting and GM sin had the Karate name then...why? because that "name is what everybody knew back then. Everyone on this forum THINK about what YOU KNOW or what you think you know. I THINK ABOUT IT EVERYDAY. But what i have learned is what i have learned. AND I HAVE TO GO ON WHAT I HAVE LEARNED AS TRUE. legitamate masters to me are those who humble themselves before this great country of ours and live simply within its borders and imparts wisdom and good teaching to those of us whose culture is as shallow as a bird bath. AND MY TEACHER AND GRANSMASTER IS no different than yours GENTLEMEN.
As a teacher now i HAVE to stand up for what i have been taught and discount those who trash my school as well as other SCHOOLS,,,,,,,,,WHAT IS FAKE?
WHAT IS NOT FAKE? TO ME IT IS FAKE IF WHEN YOU ARE IN A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION YOUR SKILLS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT DO NOT WORK. ALL THIS POSTURING AND TRASHING AND BS WILL STOP RIGHT HERE AND NOW!!!!!
Many Respects, willow sword.

Whatever you think i am or want me to be,,, i am.
oh and,,,Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you are an a$.

Royal Dragon
07-16-2001, 05:39 PM
...on the Shaolin Do and why it's fake string?

In response to the Shaolin Do aspect:

Please refer to the Shaolin Do and why it's fake string.


Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

Lost_Disciple
07-16-2001, 06:35 PM
Yah just gotta make it hard on me huh? ;)

First off I think the thing that most targets Shaolin Do for attack is the way that it's presented. If you just said that all those different styles advertised on the pamphlet in addition to the Shaolin five animal forms (or Hua kung fu, whatever you guys call it now) merely influenced your art and that there are forms from your art that were influenced by said style, to make your system more complete, I don't think SD people would get targeted as much as they do. The unfortunate thing, is that the advertising or miscommunication leads people to assume that's where you're coming from.

Not all styles of martial arts have as big of holes in lineage as Shaolin does. The reason northern mantis is popular, for example, is because of the work of Fan Yuk Tong & Lo Kwan Yu from Seven Star, and various others from other lineages of other branches of northern mantis (you 8 step people may want to help me out here). Now if you guys could prove that Su Kong Tai Jin, Ie Man Ching, or Sin Kwan The was a disciple of any of these guys who made their system well known, maybe it would be acceptable that you guys were purporting to be teaching the northern mantis system. As it is, you cannot, and therefor would do better to present your style as having aspects influenced from another style to make it more complete. The same goes for every style that SD advertises that it teaches on its brochure, aside from the original Shaolin or Hua kung fu forms. Being influenced by a particular style is not a bad thing, presenting yourselves as inheritors of a system when you can not prove so is. Most of the systems listed on the pamphlet were never reported as part of the shaolin cirriculum though. I believe someone else pointed out that some of the arts are strictly Taoist (like Hsing Yi).

The university system I was talking about would have criteria a system would need to meet in order to be accepted as a style to be taught. I would hope that these criteria not depend too much on lineage and allow for effective systems that have been created by first generation masters. Obviously Sin The has spent a ton of time promoting SD, obviously a ton of people practise this style and find it useful. It would take a lot of pride & ego swallowing on the part of a ton of traditionalists, but as long as SD/HKF passes the other criteria for entry then there's no logical reason you guys couldn't be allowed a department in the college.

I'm serious about accepting various forms of CMA into a university type format. Of course, there will be other criteria each style would have to meet such as whether or not the techniques being taught are taught in a manner consistant with CMA, whether or not the techniques being taught are harmful to one's health, and possibly whether or not at least one person from the system has been able to effectively use the system in combat (though this one may be sketchy). Systems would be allowed in if they met the criteria. Instructors would be allowed to teach if they were recognized by the instructor/lineage they claimed. People & styles wouldn't be turned away because of personal bias or previous grievances.

I'm proposing an ideal right now. There's a lot of bickering that would have to stop, a lot of egos that would have to be put aside, a lot of planning & funding needed, and a lot of hard work would have to be put in before any sort of results came about. I know I'm talking pure fiction, but it's a pretty ideal if there was any way it could come about.
.

GeneChing
07-17-2001, 08:03 PM
Come on friends, I asked politely on page two, let's save the Shaolin-Do issues for the other threads and stay on subject with this one...

willow sword: Some trace fighting styles and weapon use much further than Africa - was it Book of the Sword by Burton (forgive me, my fencing research is a little dusty...) who made this big argument for how animals teach each other fighting skills - something about ostriches kicking rocks as weapon use. Sorry that's a sketchy citation and I should check my cites before posting them.
Not sure about that secret book story - first time I heard that version. The Huike story is certainly better established. But there is a huge body of research, yet untranslated from Chinese, that provides better sources than David Carradine - perhaps this is our secret book? I'm working on the translations - be patient...

royal dragon: Sung tai tzu in pinyin is Song Tai Zu (taizu refers to the first emperor of a dynasty.) The Song dynasties were from 960-1279 CE, after Tamo, but I suppose one could argue it refers to the previous southern Song 420-479 CE.
Tamo as Richard Simmons or Joe Weidner doesn't work for me... Maybe Joe, but definately not Richard.

mantis108: I consider myself a pacifist and Buddhist and that doesn't interfere with my martial arts at all. The key icon is Manjushri, the sword-wielding bodhisatva. If you understand the yin and yang of pacifism and Buddhism, there is no paradox here.
I actually went to India to research kalaripuyattu, as well as vajramukti, but didn't go far enough south (actually I was studying yoga and doing the Buddhist sites, so that kept me north.) I've always wanted to explore that more.

lost diciple: One of my shaolin brothers took your theory a little further. He proposed that it was the first Tang emperor lifting the ban on meat and liquor and begining the wuseng. The monks are still supposed to be chaste, so he proposed it as an intentional manipulation of Li Shinmen to funnel the libido of young men into kungfu and create his crack army. That was the emperor royal dragon mentioned, saved by the 13 monks...

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Royal Dragon
07-17-2001, 08:49 PM
I was just shamelessly promoting Tai Tzu by trying to use it in an example that ties into the conversastion.

Actually, I'm siteing historical stories and how they got changed, altered or plain forgotten and remade up later by siteing the Tai Tzu/Hong Quan debate. The idea was to point out that this kind of thing was going on with a system developed 1000 years ago, so it is probually worse for an even older style, system (or school) developed 1500 years ago (that And Shameless promotion of my style He, He, He)

RD

Oh, by the way, Why was I the only one to move the Shaolin Do comments to the Shaolin Do conversation. Gene specifically asked us NOT to polute this conversation with that topic. We have a perfectly good string for that, just transfer all you comments there, like I did.

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

Lost_Disciple
07-17-2001, 10:10 PM
Words of wisdom from good ole Gene.

The idea you mentioned about funneling the energies of the adolescent kids sounds effective. **** they must've been gooood. :)

Sorry if my post was construed as bashing against SD. I was trying to answer the guy's question and at the same time present the idea of a university of martial arts where the cirriculum would be decided by specific criteria rather than personal biases. I probably should've left out the advice on how SD could further accomodate this. I think the response in general showed me the difficulties of bringing something like that about.

6 more days til I find out what I'm doing with my life..

Radhnoti
07-17-2001, 11:25 PM
Lost Disciple, I think your idea (as an ideal) is a great one. Maybe with turns about every year being taken for the university "dean" or grandmaster. Since you'd NEVER get so many masters to acknowledge anyone else as a superior, they'd have to know that they would be in the top position at some point.
Sign me up, I'll donate...much better cause than the charities I support now. ;)

-Radhnoti

Valpurga
07-19-2001, 08:14 AM
I believe that Bodhidharma may not have been responsible for the founding of Shaolin Kung-fu, but I do believe that he created the Yi Jin Jing classic and the Xi Sui Jing classic which had a considerable impact on the health of the not so strong monks. This may have led the monks to using and incorporating these classics into thier martial training to make it more effective and powerful.
That would indirectly tie Ta mo with the foundation of the arts if that theory is true.
Then again, how will we ever really know the truth? :confused:

GeneChing
07-19-2001, 07:02 PM
So we all seem to agree that there's no way to be sure about Tamo's influence on kungfu, and for the most part, it doesn't really matter because of the length of time Shaolin Kungfu has been in existence. Perhaps we should rephrase the question. If we assume that Tamo is a myth, what does the myth mean to you? Why bother retelling it?
In essence, it is buddha of no buddha. What happens when there is no Tamo?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

sean_stonehart
07-19-2001, 07:37 PM
Gene... I think at some point it just becomes a matter of faith rather than a question to be debated since each of us will have a view or opinion, shared or not.

If you look at all of the other organized religions in the world, there's always figures in that religions hierarchy that you choose to or not to believe in, including the religion itself. But for those who do believe in it & hold those figures as important & viable, then there's no question. Their faith tells them what they want/need to fell about it. Same with Ta Mo.

If a Shaolin martial practioner chooses to believe it's Ta Mo or nothing, that's ok-fine for them. If another Shaolin practioner believe it originated with the Sung emperor, that's all good for them. If somebody wants to believe Elvis did it all his way eating a peanut butter & nanner sammich while teaching the monks from his pink Cadillac colored UFO... well, they need help. :D

But it's that bead of faith that we each hold on to that sets myth from fact. I can't tell somebody no that's fake or this is fact. I wasn't there. I am going by the histories & legends supplied to us by the winner. Remember, they're the ones who write the stuff. Folktales have their place in giving an idea of what happened but only a glimpse. We have to be able to determine what percentage of the folk tale is real & how much is just good story telling with the deeds getting bigger & braver with each generation.

My $.02 anyways...

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

-- H.L. Mencken

The Willow Sword
07-19-2001, 08:53 PM
i will apologize for those who brought up the "youknow what thread" here. i,however , was NOT bringing it up here....just relaying my studies.....sounds great what you are doing with respect to the translations. keep us all informed about that. as for the ostrich thing,,,well uhh maybe thats right. they do have big feet and i would run for my life if one was coming at me with a big rock. :eek: remember fantasia and the ostriches in there? man if they were that gracefull,,,we could develope the ostrich form,,it would be the ULTIMATE FORM. :D just joshing with ya.
many respects willow sword

Whatever you think i am or want me to be,,, i am.
oh and,,,Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you are an a$.

mantis108
07-19-2001, 09:10 PM
I hope you are not suggesting that there is nothing to learn from it since Bodhidharma is just a myth?

Myth or no myth, there are lots of lessons to draw from the life and times of Bodhidharma (even if it is a fictional character).

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

Valpurga
07-20-2001, 05:27 AM
It's a rather interesting question that you propose and I don't think it would directly effect my training if he were a myth, but why should I question whether or not he was real if masters before masters before masters all beleive that Bodhidharma was a real man that devloped the qigong that I practice. Who would I be as a student of Shaolin, to question that?
I do beleive that if he were a myth, the myth could stand for a symbol of strength, courage, hard work, and paiteince for all students of qigong and Shaolin to recognize and admire.

Crimson Phoenix
07-20-2001, 09:46 PM
Thanks Gene!
I have never thought about that stuff, it makes perfect sense...thanks for pointing that fact out...
By the way, sorry for the late reply but I've been away these past days since I'm on holiday in Panama...
Take care!

Phoenix

GeneChing
07-23-2001, 02:05 AM
Man, like I don't have enough threads to check already... Well, I'm sticking to this one, lest I get more scattered than I already am. :confused:

sean_stonehart: I hear what you saying and I think it echoes most people's feelings here, but I guess I looking at it from a Joseph Campellian perspective now - why is it meaningful? Why even bother to connect Tamo with Kungfu?
Please consider, I have my own opinions here. I'm just being devil's advocate (or should I say mara's advocate) for the philosophical pursuit.

the willow sword: Actually, some people translate Dapeng (from xingyi) as ostrich, because it's a big bird. I usually translate it as Roc, becuase in legend it was so big it could pick up a horse.

mantis108: Would you ask the same question of many of the 'fake' masters? Where do you draw the line? 100 years? 1000 years?

valpurga: As a student of shaolin, I think you have to question this, especially if you look at it from the Chan viewpoint.

crimson pheonix: Is Panama all David Lee Roth cranks it up to be?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

shaolin_knight
07-23-2001, 03:23 AM
What is Jesus to Christians? What they practice and believe now comes from the writings of others, who changed things around to suit their own beliefs. 2000 years of history there. Do you think Jesus cared if people went to church? They didn't even have "churches" then. Of course, many christians follow in his footsteps, but he could be a complete legend. Sure, he was written about, by people. Who were not famous in their time. The King James version of the Bible is crap. It is a bad translation of the many books of the bible that existed in languages such as Hebrew, Greek, and others. Even those were translations from even older books. Whoever compiles or teaches something changes it to fit their own beliefs. Look at the many christian sects today. I know very religious people who look down on certain branches of their own religion. Why? They are practicing what Jesus "really" taught? Yet Jesus remains important to them. The stories of his life remain important. With Damo, he was an underdog. Just like Jesus. His teachings were not popular, in India or China. Those of us that practice chan will continue the Damo legend/story. But why do Kung Fu practitioners talk of Damo? They heard it from their master who heard it from theirs, etc. So why do we, as Americans pass it on? I'm curious too. Maybe they use the Damo story to show why Kung Fu is so good (compared to other arts). There are many figures in the history of shaolin, some contributing more than Damo to the arts that we practice today. Why do we emphasize Damo? Well, many Chinese are/were buddhists, they knew of Damo as the bringer of chan. He was famous. Connect the shaolin arts with him, even if his contribution was small, and it gets peoples attention. Just like Hung Ga uses Wong Fei Hung. Of course they emphasize him, he is very famous in China as a folk hero. Stories, movies, tv shows. He's famous. It makes the style appealing. Just like many styles are now called Shaolin even though they have roots outside the temple. Shaolin is very famous now. Their buddhism might not be pure buddhism, it seems they absorbed some Daoism and other buddhist sects. This is common. In Japan, buddhism was mixed with the belief system that was already established. Still, Damo or not, Shaolin has much to offer to martial artists. Shaolin has seen many wars, dynasties, martial arts, and it kept some of them. Shaolin made changes of course. They spent many hours studying the arts. Something a lot of people don't do these days. Even the martial monks now, they don't do everything the same. It's the same, but different. Because they study the arts. They understand the arts inside themselves. They know Shaolin. Yeah they have Wushu and all, so what? They do what they have to do. They make it great. They could study skateboarding and probably make it their own and make it great. That is Shaolin. Are you Shaolin because somewhere in your lineage there is a master that was Shaolin? You live the arts. You experience the arts. Someone can't give them to you, they open the door and you walk the path. That is Shaolin.

Crimson Phoenix
07-23-2001, 07:13 AM
Dapeng is definitely not an Ostrich, it is a legendary bird of surnatural proportions...I heard of some very rare Emei qigong called Dapeng Gong...dunno much about it but Liang Shou Yu is said to have trained in that...
Anyway, Gene, well indeed Panama is very nice (when you're on the bright side, you should see these projects on the outskirts)...girls are hot and uhhhh...moist just like the weather...they really like to dress sexy and spend hours in beauty salons to be feminine...as long as they don't do it with my diñero hehhehehhe
Anyway I don't find it crazier and wilder than, let's say, Puerto Rico...and gawd, there's meringue and salsa everywhere (just like in PR except that the local songs say "suave" less often!), it's starting to kill my ears...spanish ragga is the worst LOL
Take care all!

Phoenix

mantis108
07-23-2001, 07:25 PM
Hi Gene,

I would ask the question, if the oppotunity presents itself. I hear you from the point of view that fakes will echo chorus lines and copy cat hollow materials. I am with Shaolinknight that Bodhidharma is a significant icon to Shaolin Kung Fu. It is like taking away Ali or Royce Gracie from their sports. The will be no magic, no higher plateau to search for.

Regards

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

GeneChing
07-25-2001, 07:24 PM
shaolin_knight: I don't know that I would call Tamo an underdog. If anything, he's the devil's (or mara's) advocate. Take his encounter with the Emperor.
Certainly we can expand the question to any origin myth, but what I think we are trying to penetrate is the relationship between Buddhism and CMA through examining the root. Personally, as a Buddhist and a CMA stylist, the relationship is clear to me, but not always easy to articulate. So I'm trying to get other's perspectives to better define this relationship.

crimson phoenix: I agree it is definately not an ostrich - just poor translation. Poor translations are a big part of CMA, especially with the last generation. The fascinating part is that some of these poor translations have had time to percolate and are sometimes repeated by the current generation as doctrine, irregardless of their misconception. This can either become what we are calling "fake" or something entirely new and transcendent.
This is the tricky thing about origins - everything has to starts somewhere and all of the origins start from breaks from the dominant paradigm, so what does that say about the new fusion or non-traditional styles now? Again, where is the cut off?

Moist and hot, he? Sounds like David Lee Roth was right....

mantis108: Not sure I'd compare Ali or Gracie to Tamo, and I suppose that's just a temporal thing because I was ok with some of the earlier analogies.
Taking out Tamo is almost exactly what he probably would have wanted. Again, reflect on his encouter with the emperor. It's Tamo of no Tamo. The ultimate Shaolin koan.

I suppose that's my whole point behind this thread. It's sort of a koan - a spin on the classic, why did Tamo come west? It's easy to just answer a koan lightly, like solving a riddle, but in doing that we miss the whole point of the koan. Koans are not riddles. Koans are tools for transformation. In asking and answering this question, do we make contact?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

LeiWulong
07-26-2001, 03:58 PM
He never actually made up gong fu. He came to China with a set of Yoga based mind and body excersizes that got the monks in better shape. He gave them Tendon Changing and Marrow Washing. The monks used these as platforms to develop fighting styles that we prctice today. He never made gong fu, he just inspired it.

mantis108
07-26-2001, 07:34 PM
Shouldn't we first crawl?

Hi Gene,

I hear you about the Koan and the riddle, which I think is pretty brilliant. If Void equals emptiness, where does the wisdom of Void came from? Most people could hear the clapping of one hand, but could they hear the clapping of no hand? Playing with fire is kinda fun, but we must first make sure that fire can be handled. So no one gets hurt.

Thanks for an interest thread.

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

GeneChing
07-26-2001, 07:38 PM
Qigong, by definition, is a form of Kungfu. But then by strictest definition, so is guitar playing. Perhaps we need to examine definitions of the terms like Kungfu, Qigong, Wushu and Yoga, since they are often used improperly here. Or at least, we should all come to an agreement about them...

If Tamo created Marrow Washing & Tendon Change qigong, that still doesn't account for earlier version of qigong. Take Hua Tou's 5 animal play, which some believe feeds into the many 5 animal kungfu practices we have now and precedes Tamo by about 3 centuries.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

prana
07-29-2001, 01:33 AM
Gene,

According to my grandmaster (whom is from the direct lineage of ShaoLin kungfu), "Dat Moh" moved to the tempoles and saw that monks were physically weak in meditation, and that they needed to "stretch their muscles" so to speak.

Dat-Moh hence taught the monks some basic movements of stretching that emphasized tendon health, apart from the vast knowledge of Cultivating energy yogas.

These techniques are brought all the way to the teachers of today. Emphasis is always on the recoiling of tendons and not brute muscular strength, at our school they call "Khin". Emphasis is also further place on the movement of Energy, they call "Yi". And of course that of power, they simply called "Kang". (Hokkien)

Just food for thought.....

prana
07-29-2001, 01:44 AM
o just realised this was discussed on another thread. Anyway, I might then add that monks did emphasises on non-violence. This is why they developed protective Qi-Gong.

It is also true to Buddhism, as mastery of the body will attain mastery of the mind.

Many other forms of KungFu started finding roots in Shao-Lin kungfu.

GeneChing
07-30-2001, 06:26 PM
The initial question was "What if...?" Many of the posts here are dwelling on the details of folklore, which while helpful, we all know the folklore, more or less. But my question was not really about that. It's more about philosophical/theological inquiry - akin to the Jesus question posted earlier.
I think mantis108 nailed it - "playing with fire." If you approach this prematurely, you could get burned pretty bad. It can rip away you preconceptions. But then, getting hurt is part of the martial way sometimes.... a lot of times... too many times for me ;)

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Kung Lek
07-30-2001, 07:56 PM
Hi-

When I punch correctly, I can feel that it is correct, when I breath correctly, I can feel that too.
When my posture feels right, it feels right.

To work out my poor physical habits through Kung Fu has been a guided tour to my body provided by my sifu and previous martial and meditative instructors. Now that I know how to drive my body, I recognize many things in it much the same way you notice when a car is running poorly.

My sifu learned from his, who in turn learned from a previous master and all the way back to...

Still, it is my body, and it shares aspects with anyone elses body. Correct form and function is essential to martial arts. Ta Mo propogated that which he was taught by his masters.

Or as Lao Tzu once said...

"We can not call it void, nor can we call it not void, but for the purpose of pointing it out, we shall call it void"

I do believe that Bodhidharma was no legend and was in fact a real person who gave the world some real understanding of Chan via his association with the Shaolin Temple on Song Shan. There were a half dozen or so other historically recorded patriarchs of Chan who followed him and from there thousands more have walked the earth.

Chan is a vital part of practice in Shaolin Kung fu IMHO, therefore Bodhidharma contributed a major piece to the systems of Martial Arts that came out of the temple and to all of those systems that adopted Shaolin practices inclusive to the martial arts that they already had, such as Chi Kung, Nei Kung and other Dhayana practices.

peace

Kung Lek

IndiaLegend
07-30-2001, 09:27 PM
Bodhidharma was well versed with "Kalarippayattu" - the ancient martial art from India. Here are few links if you want to know more about it:

http://members.tripod.com/~chi.kung/Miscellaneous/Other_Arts/kalaripayyattu.htm

http://people.we.mediaone.net/radhac/kdtkalarippayattuintro.html

http://www.richsoft.com/enskalari/

If he had taught the skills to the monks in Shaolin temple they must be based on his knowledge of "Kalarippayattu".


Regards,
IL.

Kung Lek
07-30-2001, 10:40 PM
Hi-

While KalariPayit is indeed a very old art from India, it is not a certainty that Ta Mo was even Indian.

It has been noted that he may very well have been Persian in a couple of different sources. Of course, he may have studied martial arts, but there were already fairly refined martial arts in China long before Ta Mo showed up.

He is not heavily noted as having developed martial arts so much as he is attributed with being the first patriarch of Chan as well as having contributed the Muscle/Tendon/Sinew change classic and the Bone Marrow washing classic, two seperate dhayana exercises or Yoga.

These three offerings contributed greatly to the later animals styles of martial arts that were developed at the temple by greatly enhancing the power and health of the monks.

Ta Mo was long gone when the martial arts really reached their pinacle at Shaolin temple and the infusion of Taoism with Buddhism was very much in place there. This was during the 1300's.

The Chi Kung exercises and Nei Kung exercises were being practiced there for 500 years.

The martial art practice as codified and systematic methodologies came long after Ta Mo's stay at the temple.

I have heard of the Kalaripayit reference before, but I'm pretty sure now that this is just a shot in the dark.

However, if one views kalaripayit in action it does have a good resemblance to Northern Shaolin Kung Fu. (But so does some of the aspects of Capoiera from africa and brazil) :)

peace

Kung Lek

GeneChing
07-31-2001, 08:13 PM
I agree with Kung Lek, the connection is very dubious (and it still begs the question.) Besides, if the whole thing is symbolic, then it shouldn't it be Vajramukti?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

IndiaLegend
07-31-2001, 08:52 PM
Thanks for your replies. I assume you have studied the history of Kung Fu and Kalarippayattu.

Kalarippayattu has been part of Indian martial arts centuries before Lord Buddha introduced his teachings. The following paper by Prof. Phillip B. Zarrilli provides good insight on Kalarippayattu:

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/tnd/kalari/power.html

A timeline of Buddhist history is provided in:

http://www.buddhanet.net/history/b_chron.htm

The point is whether Bodhidharma had any knowledge of martial arts or self defense. He developed the Shaolin Kung Fu is not the point. I agree Kung Fu developed a lot during the Shaolin days (and later too) but this is also out of the scope of our discussion.

Regards,
IL

GeneChing
08-01-2001, 06:42 PM
You know, I actually went to India to study Yoga and pilgrimage to some Buddhist sites. I was looking for KLPYT but I didn't go far enough south. All I found was TKD!
But I've read some on it, researching the Tamo connection. I'm not convinced there is enough evidence to state it as fact, but there is certainly a possibility.
What do you think of Vajramukti? I only have one book on it and it is modern.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

honorisc
08-02-2001, 06:38 PM
Bodhidharma's Kung-Fu was breathing and postures. And if these things were not brought on by someone called Bodhidharma they still laid a foundation of health that allowed for physical excellence. The philosophy brought by the supposed person is what made the stuff of legend possible. Because it was in how the monks percieved things and themselves that allowed them to sacrifice whatever-ish. They had a Kami Kazi spirt, not of pride but of Humility which made these men of Bring harm to no living thing~ perhaps as formidable as the Our lives are yours command us we will achieve it, I would die (the greatest sacrifice) at your command, of Japan. The Zen~ is an underlying factor--how they thought~.

The name gives structure. The legend gives structure. I could not know of these things and have practiced well my whole life~. But with out these things I would likely not have had anything to have evolved for me to practice.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

GeneChing
08-06-2001, 07:34 PM
The Buddhist/pacifist/do no harm philosophy is barely understood in the west and it seems almost never understood by martial artists. It causes a lot of misunderstanding. It is a simplification that usually overlooks its cause. Why does a disciple of Buddha refrain from killing?

If you've studied Tamo, you know he beleived in icchantikas which negates this whole little diversion, but since we are here, let's examine this a little...

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)

Turiyan
08-11-2001, 07:47 AM
Do people realise that a large part of the "inner" work of wudang were silent, contemplative sitting? (Principles of tang)

Here's a link for you. I guess I should get that damo webpage finished after I finish transliterating the brahmin constituition, the analects and several of the platonic dialouges....

Give me a few days....

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Lighter/bodhid.html

Turiyan gold, Brahmin caste, Ordos clan
"A Brahmin, who is the giver of spiritual birth, the teacher of prescribed duty, is by right the father of an old man, though himself be a child." --Verse 22 of inner text of Brahminism

GeneChing
08-19-2001, 07:58 PM
Last weekend I spent at Tassajara Zendo - the first USA Zen monastery for training monks - and who would be there but Andy Ferguson, author of Zen's Chinese Heritage (see my first post on this thread.) He presented an impressive slide show, and has been working with SF Asian Art Museum on their current Zen art display. We had a very pleasant discussion about Chan and Shaolin.
He leads Zen tours to China - if anyone's interested, contact me privately.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com (http://www.KUNGFUmagazine.com)