Modern history of shaolin

[bungle]

Hi
I've been reading some contradictory things about shaolin. LIke how the kung fu taught at the temple is not one passed down but re learnt from folk masters. Could any of you guys point me to some sources of modern shaolin history. Surely of all the history of shaolin, this is the best documented and has the least controversity. Thanks for any help.

[GeneChing]

In fact, we are all sorting it out ourselves. But you can check out our remaining Shaolin specials and cover stories. I think we've covered the saga of the modern Shaolin Temple better than anyone. Most of our shaolin specials have sold out already, but here's what we have left.
2002 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmagjanisk.html)
2001 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf200008.html)
SEP 1999 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf-909.html)
DEC 1999 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf-912.html)
1997 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf-705.html)

[bungle]

thanks for the pointers

[Radhnoti]

bungle,

From what I've been able to gather from this forum...and I'm no expert...there's mainly 2 schools of thought.

1. The guys in the temple are "the real deal" and many others...especially those who don't link buddhist study to the training... are attempting to capitalize on the name. In short, if you're not at the temple or directly authorized by the temple to teach...it's not REALLY shaolin.

2. The guys in the temple are "wushu dancers" who moved in to capitalize on the name with the blessing of the People's Republic of China...the idea being to water down the actual martial content to avoid the historic role shaolin had in fermenting rebellion. In short, if you're from the current temple or authorized by the temple...it's not REALLY shaolin.

These are the two most extreme opinions that I've noticed, many folks fall somewhere in-between with their opinion. For example, the current monks teach the wushu routines AND know the traditional stuff...which they pass along to the deserving. OR, they know the traditional stuff, but it's tainted by their "pointlessly flowery" wushu and they'll teach it wrong because wushu is their focus.

What do both sides seem to agree on? The temple burned, at least some things were lost. People came back to fill the void with the PRC's blessings/oversight, and it's rebuilt now and is a great tourist attraction with physically gifted and knowledgeable people living there.

I hope I didn't murder that...I just wanted to offer him a bit online besides Gene's ever-present sales pitch. DO order the back issues though, it's a great magazine and I'm sure you'll learn a lot from the articles...plus it supports this excellent forum.


:cool:

[GeneChing]

I'd add that there are thousands, and I do mean thousands, of Shaolin practitioners currently in the area of Shaolin Temple. That dwarfs the 200 or so monks in the temple. Taguo alone had over 13,000 students last year. These students practice 6 days out of 7, 4-8 hours a day, so they get pretty good. As the old saying goes, "I'm not afraid of your 1000 kicks, I'm afriad of the one kick you've practiced 1000 times." At that rate of study, over a 1000 kicks a day is par. Furthermore, each student's practice, and each teacher's practice, is an individual case. I know coaches who come from a long lineage of traditional shaolin. I also know coaches who are straight up colege wushu boys. So when it comes to Shaolin being Radhnoti's school of thought 1 or 2, well, it's both and more.

If your're really interested in shaolin temple, you need to check out this ever-present sales pitch (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/shaolinimports.html) (hey man, gotta pay the bills you know...)

[norther practitioner]

Well put Radhnoti....

Is it the essence, is it the forms, is it the training, is it the chan, is it everything or (or being that guy) is it nothing.....:D