PDA

View Full Version : How do you explain the Japanese Influence on Shaolin-Do??



illusionfist
07-08-2000, 02:18 PM
My question lies in the fact that some of the forms or patterns are called katas. Sparring is referred to as kumite, staff is called a Bo... What's the meaning behind the name Shaolin-Do? Did The' train under a japanese teacher at one time or train in some japanese martial art?

I also have other questions but i will address them later after we have some posts (insightful hopefully).

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

qy
07-08-2000, 04:03 PM
well we all know the story about concealing Shaolin from the Indonesian gov., and holding onto that tradition today to honor the strife that I Chin Ming went through.

Illusion the ONLY ones who can tell you how Sin The put this together is Sin The and his brother. All the students you run into are just gonna chant that story about I Chin Ming. Then say something like, "why does it matter what language we use to describe things?"

I'v gotta ask CSC and SLD folks what does matter? What about 15 years from now, what will you have? Many pieces of a puzzle that dont fit together? A "Master" title? I know, "everlasting life" from all the new moves you continuously see, but never have the time to become part of?

But we will see "true" shaolin when the movie comes out, folks will run to your schools in droves, paying their $$ to learn from you, the holders of all Shaolin material right? The Shaolin at the temple in China is false compared to your undesputed lineage. (thats why they keep supporting and buying tablots there) Just hold out a little longer the movie will be here soon.........and you all will be the envy of the world. Heming will come to Kentucky to learn from you right?
http://216.219.234.88/forum/roundtable/rolleyes.gif

I am in no way picking on those folks currently under these people. I'v been there.


[This message has been edited by qy (edited 07-09-2000).]

Kung Lek
07-08-2000, 09:03 PM
Hi-

Her is an intersting sidenote.

Karate was first developed in Okinawa and was originally named "Te". Te, means hand and kara te means empty hand.

Te was taught to the Okinawans by Chinese migrants who came to the island when China officially recognized it in the 1700's.

Te was born of CMA, Karate was born of okinawan te and went to mainland japan and so on. This is true of many asian arts. They for the most part were disemminated from china over a period of centuries and understood according to what the teachers knew and brought with them and then further develoed by the practitioners.

If you are practicing "Shotkan" karate, then many of the foundations of this art come from Chinese martial arts. If you tarce back you will find a lot of Hsing I roots in Shotokan. This goes back to the China/Okinawa/japan connection.

CMA were also brought to and developed in isolation in countries such as korea, indonesia,thailand,burma, cambodia, vietnam and all over southeast asia.

Shaolin Kempo is born of Shaolin Chuan Fa, this Shaolin Do is another iteration of it.
It works like making a copy of a copy in many senses. The more you make a copy from a copy, the more the original image is lost. But ultimately, you still see the original image contained in the copy and are able to grasp what that image is.

Many systems can be considered incomplete. In fact most systems are "incomplete". Many teachers do not have complete knowledge of the system they teach and in fact many shaolin monks were specialists and never had complete knowledge of what was at the temple.

This is the natural way of things and how most martial arts have developed. This does not mean that the arts in question are ineffective, they are and this is also what gives the martial arts their differences and their underlying connectivity to each other.

If you study an art, it is usual that you will at the end of study seek out another to build upon what you have.If you are studying a large amount of knowledge then you may not need to seek out another art because of the timeline involved in understanding what you originally undertook.

Some arts are full and some arts are not so full, either way, the path of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
It is unwise to discount anything without having a personal experience of it. Of course this is not applicable in the area of obvious truths, but I don't think that there are many "obvious" truths in the study of martial art. Much is revealed through the revelatory process in the student.
Otherwise, we would all be masters before we ever entered a school wouldn't we?

everything that captivates your interest deserves a truthful and unbiased look.

Choosing to study a martial art and stepping on that path is more important than the first system chosen. You will grow and learn and will by nature cast off that which is not useful to you and keep that which is, regardless of the system you practice.

Peace

------------------
Kung Lek

MoQ
07-09-2000, 12:51 AM
I read qy's post and it sounds as if there IS some personal experience behind it... On the other hand, your post seems lifted from any middle of the road kung fu book.

There is a difference between roots/lineage and BS and some folks' wild claims do in fact bring up some serious questions of authenticity.

illusionfist
07-09-2000, 01:39 AM
Any Shaolin-Do students want to take a stab at this?

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chameleon
07-09-2000, 02:41 AM
Illusionfist -

They've addressed this issue over and over, and as Qy said, they point to Sin The's master in Indonesia who allegedly masked the art in Japanese uniforms and terminology because of anti-Chinese sentiment.

They also address this on their websites.

Here is a link (http://www.shaolincenter.com/article3.html) I came across while searching for their answer to this.</a>

Even more interesting about this link is the mention of a Shaolin-Do master from Indonesia, Master Ta Tju, who is said to be a contemporary of Sin The.

[This message has been edited by Chameleon (edited 07-09-2000).]

Kung Lek
07-09-2000, 03:07 AM
Hi-

Indeed, Moq, qy speaks from personal experience. But most of what qy has said about the politics and marketing forces of the school of shaolin do martial arts do not speak to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of what is taught there as the martial art.

I have no experience other than what I have read in magazines or seen on the internet about this school.
Historically speaking it is difficult at best to verify many lineages claiming to be from Shaolin Temple proper or the alleged Fukien Shaolin Temple in the South.

This is because of the massive diversification of the Shaolin martial arts and the geographical isolation of some styles and so on all the way through to various governments and warlords and revolutionary groups and political activists who have changed the face of history so many times.

Much is held in legend only. The's claims simply may be a mix of blurred history and self motivation to prove his cause with a touch of legends tossed in.
But can it be said that the material taught there is found in not only shaolin martial arts (which are many and scattered) but also in other martial arts from other cultures?
And if so, is what is taught there a valid system of self defense? valid health exercises?

I can't say for sure and definitively.

peace

------------------
Kung Lek

sun lu tang
05-26-2006, 01:59 AM
Everyone's got their own opinion. What I know is that anyone who is traditional Kung Fu in America, like Lily Lau, Tat Mau Wang, Brendan Lai etc... who teach real traditional Kung Fu, respect the hell out of Sin The and his schools.

Grandmaster The has been in America for over 40 years teaching incessantly, and now in his 60's he still moves around like a young teenager while continuing to teach.

I am saddened that all many can worry about is argueing and trying to prove his credibility false, but those of us who train with him consider it a wonderful opportunity. Compared to anything else I have ever seen or heard, I have never seen any style stand up to the diversity or complexity of what he teaches.

It is pathetic to spend so much time to try to disprove it. If everyone is so content with their training why not just leave it be?

SLT

David Jamieson
05-26-2006, 06:46 AM
Everyone's got their own opinion. What I know is that anyone who is traditional Kung Fu in America, like Lily Lau, Tat Mau Wang, Brendan Lai etc... who teach real traditional Kung Fu, respect the hell out of Sin The and his schools.

Grandmaster The has been in America for over 40 years teaching incessantly, and now in his 60's he still moves around like a young teenager while continuing to teach.

I am saddened that all many can worry about is argueing and trying to prove his credibility false, but those of us who train with him consider it a wonderful opportunity. Compared to anything else I have ever seen or heard, I have never seen any style stand up to the diversity or complexity of what he teaches.

It is pathetic to spend so much time to try to disprove it. If everyone is so content with their training why not just leave it be?

SLT

well, seeing as you dragged this 6 year old rutebega out of the ground, I gotta say I pretty much hold to the same general view I expressed above in the archived and internet ancient posts lol.

I don't see how it is any more or less pathetic to drag up a post on the topic that already has 1000 posts.

The effort from both sides, yours as a defender and 'theirs" as detractors is a futile fight. They're saying what you don't want to hear and your saying what they are convinced is not teh way it is.

after all, it's sd that is creating itself and borrowing from other arts that many know are not connected through the known means to the man Thé.

so while the martial arts may have some effect in whatever venue they are expressed in, it is quite clear to most of us who have studied and read and looked at cma for a goodly while, that his historical claims and what not are false. That can't be escaped and you're likely never gonna have any buy in from anyone regarding the historical and lineage-wise credibility of sin thé. Regardless of how loud you say it from teh rooftops or otherwise.

Paying homage to your roots is one thing. Completely co-opting someone elses without having made the efforts to earn it is another thing entirely.

sun lu tang
05-28-2006, 01:33 AM
after all, it's sd that is creating itself and borrowing from other arts that many know are not connected through the known means to the man Thé....


Don't rag on me for participating in this thread and voicing my opinion. Especially when you answer me right back. You would stand up for your sifu if he were being badmouthed, if you had one.

Enlighten me if you would as to who Grandmaster The has stolen material from? Considering he was one of the first to teach Kung fu to americans and he was in Kentucky of all places it doesn't seem he has a lot of rivals to "borrow from."

Anyway I was just stating what I know from my experience in his art. Just like you are allowed your opinion, I was voicing mine.

One other thing, does it strike you as funny that no SD people ever bad mouth any other instructor and everyone gangs up on us?

Makes everyone on these stupid chats look like a computer geek ninja wanna be. If you really want the SD issue to go away, let it go.

MasterKiller
05-28-2006, 05:54 AM
Enlighten me if you would as to who Grandmaster The has stolen material from? Considering he was one of the first to teach Kung fu to americans and he was in Kentucky of all places it doesn't seem he has a lot of rivals to "borrow from."

And he taught a very limited curriculum at first until he went back to Indonesia for a visit. When he came back, he had 900 Shaolin forms. How did that happen?

BM2
05-28-2006, 06:20 AM
Master Hiang names several instructors on his web page.
In an magazine article from the '80s, 320+ forms were from the Southern temple. I don't know if Master Sin has ever said what he knows or if the 900 that has been stated is the total of what the instructors knew together.

David Jamieson
05-28-2006, 06:21 AM
after all, it's sd that is creating itself and borrowing from other arts that many know are not connected through the known means to the man Thé....


Don't rag on me for participating in this thread and voicing my opinion. Especially when you answer me right back. You would stand up for your sifu if he were being badmouthed, if you had one.

Enlighten me if you would as to who Grandmaster The has stolen material from? Considering he was one of the first to teach Kung fu to americans and he was in Kentucky of all places it doesn't seem he has a lot of rivals to "borrow from."

Anyway I was just stating what I know from my experience in his art. Just like you are allowed your opinion, I was voicing mine.

One other thing, does it strike you as funny that no SD people ever bad mouth any other instructor and everyone gangs up on us?

Makes everyone on these stupid chats look like a computer geek ninja wanna be. If you really want the SD issue to go away, let it go.


It would appear by your own words that you are already sold on the idea, so what's really pointless is discussing it with you.

Thé is a karate guy who wasn't making money on karate, so he switched to the more glamorous and mysterious kungfu :rolleyes:

when you look at things for what they are, it's a lot easier to see them for what they are. SD I suppose is as legit a workout as any. The claims are in conflict with not only one or two.

You don't wonder why so many people are simply incensed at this guy for making teh outrageous claims he does? Not even a little bit? If not, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to really agree with your position who isn't already inside that organization. Otherwsie, whatever floats your boat.

as for stealing, where did he get the Hung Gar? lol (if you can call it that...which you can't really because it's a...well not even a shadow of the real thing)

the 900 forms is also a legit question. not to mention the propensity for plain and outright far flung stories of hairy monks and hidden places and blah blah blah.

enjoy though.

BM2
05-28-2006, 07:34 AM
[QUOTE=David Jamieson]
Thé is a karate guy who wasn't making money on karate, so he switched to the more glamorous and mysterious kungfu :rolleyes:

You don't wonder why so many people are simply incensed at this guy for making teh outrageous claims he does? Not even a little bit? If not, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to really agree with your position who isn't already inside that organization. Otherwsie, whatever floats your boat.

QUOTE]

You just made ,in my opinion, an outrageous claim. Where do you base your facts that he switched to the more glamorous and mysterious kungfu:rolleyes: . Don't expect anyone to really agree with your position if you don't have facts to back it up or be incensed at making the outrageous claim you do?
What type of Karate did he teach and when he did do this and where?

David Jamieson
05-28-2006, 07:46 AM
[QUOTE=David Jamieson]
Thé is a karate guy who wasn't making money on karate, so he switched to the more glamorous and mysterious kungfu :rolleyes:

You don't wonder why so many people are simply incensed at this guy for making teh outrageous claims he does? Not even a little bit? If not, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to really agree with your position who isn't already inside that organization. Otherwsie, whatever floats your boat.

QUOTE]

You just made ,in my opinion, an outrageous claim. Where do you base your facts that he switched to the more glamorous and mysterious kungfu:rolleyes: . Don't expect anyone to really agree with your position if you don't have facts to back it up or be incensed at making the outrageous claim you do?
What type of Karate did he teach and when he did do this and where?

shaolin do aka shaolin do karate which propogates kata and kumite....

um, I believe much of it is self evident. Even if you want to read their own site.

Shaolindynasty
05-28-2006, 09:13 AM
Honestly most of what I have seen them do doesn't look like karate. It also doesn't look anything like an art that is descended from south shaolin. Compare SD to hung ga, choy lay fut, jow ga or even wing chun.

I don't know what it is.

Royal Dragon
05-28-2006, 11:00 AM
It's Shaolin Do....

What I have seen, looks like Karate with various animal hands thrown in for good looks. Specifically thier mantis.

I had a thought, maybe it's some sort of Opera style?

Judge Pen
05-28-2006, 07:22 PM
Well there's a video of me doing an original SD form David. Does it look like karate to you?

However you seek to define and deem SD, it started from CMA roots. It certainly has changed from there.

David Jamieson
05-29-2006, 06:06 AM
erm... all asian martial arts have at their roots mother china.

this of course is mostly propoganda and in some cases literally true.

truth is, most martial arts have evolved into what they are now and they aren't anything like the original practices...but that's another argument.

sin thé simply can't supply valid pathing back beyond one teacher nd then it becomes immediately obscured. There is an abundance of material that is claimed to be "original" shaolin or 'the true' shaolin.

which of course, by all appearances it is not.

look, there's a loty of guys out there who make sh1t up and call it creamcheese. watch enough flicks, read enough pulp and if you have some physical ability, you could make a bunch of stuff up too with co-option of other stuff and major blends of this and that.

it happens all the time.

and jp, no offence, but the forms don't look cma-ish in a lot of their aspect.

but it's matter of whatever floats your boat. if you wanna do contemporary commie wushu or sd, or karate or whatever. It's probably important that you just understand what your doing and why.

sd's gotten a bad rap from the cma community for a long time. The cma community doesn't even want to associate themselves with thé's organization or give them any recognition. You guys ever wonder why that is? How come there is so much controversy? from like everywhere including schmucks like me up here who see it as something that is as plain as the nose on ones face.

I'm not gonna begrudge you your practice, but your leader is a bit of a tall story teller with a very questionable background and no real connection to any of the accepted shaolin rooted arts.

it's not hard for chinese masters of well established arts to recognize each others stuff and say, 'that is x or y" but it is with consternation that sd is always regarded as "i don't know what that is" unless of course its self patting on the back of an sd-er who has been heard to say "old chinese men approach me and said that was like how they did it in the old days" :rolleyes:

anyway, you can have sd, i prefer my cma straight up with no icing.

Vash
05-29-2006, 06:11 AM
*cough* San Jian on video *cough*

Shaolindynasty
05-29-2006, 08:36 AM
It's not karate it's not kungfu it is what it is. I don't think anybody would have a problem with it but in their advertiseing they claim to be "the most comprehensive ma" and in some articles they had awhile ago they claimed in china people told them their demo was "true" traditional shaolin, as if everyone else is not.

I think it's the bull stories and the attempt to make themselves legit pure cma through trips to shaolin. It's very manipulative advertiseing.

If SD said we do a mixed martial art using what we feel are the best techniques from shaolin and japanese martial arts. Then nobody would even mention them.

Judge Pen
05-29-2006, 11:30 AM
*cough* San Jian on video *cough*

San Njie? It's coming. In the meantime, check out the kwan dao I did.

David Jamieson
05-29-2006, 01:29 PM
San Njie? It's coming. In the meantime, check out the kwan dao I did.


jp- your pole knife form was fine, it covered the cardinal directions and displayed a few techniques reiterated through the directional changes. However as mentioned, it didn't have any "sweep the beard", "ride the horse" or a couple of other standards that are virtually always found in sets that deal with general Kwan';s weapon in CMA. Pretty much all cma styles that have the weapon have those cultural peculiarities to the Generals Knife set.

SD's. Your's, does not. so, where did it come from taht it would leave out these albeit impractical but nevertheless meaningful aspects of the Kwan Dao performance.

ot to mention, that wasn't actually a Kwan dao you were using. :p

kwaichang
05-29-2006, 03:00 PM
In 1972 only 5 years or so after Master Th'e started teaching, the Show kung fu was introduced to the producers . He asked what this stuff is they said Kung fu, he said OH well I think I had some of that for lunch.
So why would it benefit someone to call something that someone might think they had for lunch, how can naming something some one has not heard of help them to sell it ?? Especially in rural Kentucky. I would understand calling it Ninjitsu in the 80s or Judo in the 60s but Shaolin was not known until the early to mid 70's I was interested and seeking to learn martial arts in the early 70's and met one person who had even heard the name Kung fu much less Shaolin. Also many of the "Kung fu " schools at that time were "closed" so who knows what it looked like? Im pretty sure none of you guys have seen all the forms in the SD system. I have seen other Chang Chuan, Hua, Mantis and Hsing Ie along with Tiger Crane and I see many similarities between SD and the supposed CMA you guys call legitimate. Of course even the 5 or so styles of Hung Gar arent the same so which one of those are legitimate. One last thing is JEET KUNE DO CHINESE ? Well then why the DO ? KC

David Jamieson
05-29-2006, 03:51 PM
you're an sd-er aren't you kwaichang? :p

kwaichang
05-29-2006, 04:36 PM
Yes now but I am not uneducated in and have also studied many of the arts prior to my becoming a "SD" er. BTW I saw one of your form and many of the ones posted on other sights many of the forms are 80 to 90 % identical between SD and the supposed CMA forms although the CMA have a few more superfluous "waving of the arms" KC

brucereiter
05-29-2006, 05:41 PM
you're an sd-er aren't you kwaichang? :p

hi david and anyone who cares,

why do you care so much about shaolin do and it's history/content?

what do you have to gain by trying to prove shaolin do is or is not whatever anyone says it is?

what will you gain if shaolin do is "fake"?

what will you gain if shaolin do is "real"?

why not just practice you chosen art and accecpt that others do things a diffrent way.

as a side note to get on topic about the japanese thing, i spent a little over a week in jakarta indonesia a few years ago and meet and spoke with alot of people and one thing that was i kept hearing from locals was that "chinese stink" or "chinese should leave here" or "chinese take our jobs" etc etc etc ...
from my experience it is not wise to shout too loud that you are chinese or doing chinese things in indonesia. and i would imagine things might have been worse in the past. i do know of a few cma schools there though ...

chinese is a very complex language and most americans are not familiar with chinese terminoligy, think of kentucky in 1969 (i have a very limited understanding and i know a few of you speak chinese well).
why is it so bad that sin the called his school the sin the katate club? it is my understanding that it means china hand club and isnt china hand another way of decribing what we know as "kung fu" or is it gong fu ... or chuan fa or fist method?
if i say i am going to do a kata or a form or a set does that change the content of the movements? there are plenty of students who do not express specific "shenfa" of the style they are doing in and out of shaolin do. why are shaolin do students held to such a high standard? i would say at any school only about 15% will be really skilled but the students that are not so skilled are still gaining benefits and i hope having a good time.



with love,

b

David Jamieson
05-29-2006, 06:34 PM
kungfu, is still not in the common mindset of people here in north america.

I mean, amongst people who practice martial arts, yep, which is a grand .0000006% of the population, but to most people, it's not a given that they will have any idea of what you are talking about.

however, in the chinese community, it's always been around and the chinese community has always been part and parcel to North and South America with many chinese having roots in these countries for more generations than a lot of euro-heritage folks.

It has little to do with history, it has little to do hairy grandmasters, it has little to do with the mixed language terms and mixed methods, it has to do with honesty and truth.

call it what it is and don't piggy back on something because it is more popular than what you have.

It is wrong to take the ford sticker off a car and put a mercedes sticker on it and then sell it as a mercedes to someone who knows little about it.

also, when this is done, it casts a dim light on the entire body of it and causes confusion.

I have no problem with what sd does, it's the spurious claims.

also, the parts of forms that I show through my site are not very much like sd stuff Ive seen, even when they had a whack of them up on the shaolin do site with various people demo-ing them. Those have all been taken down now for the most part for whatever reasons.

and I do appreciate differences and I do recognize differences and I feel that it is important to delineate what is and what is not when it comes to what's what.

as for jeet kuen do, well first of all, it's not a style, it's a concept and it's aimed at all martial artists from all arts. There are a lot of people who teach it as a style...but it ain't that. The concept is designed to improve what you already have and if you came in with nothing, you certainly weren't given that concept, you would learn teh jun fan kungfu first to get a foundation and then you would explore the concept.

by the genuine and authentic folks from the BL concepts it has always been presented as such. the main propogaters of the concept are from all sorts of styles and traditions.

jeet kuen do can be applied to boxers, wrestlers karateka, kungfu people, whoever. It's first and foremost an american art with a chinese heritage.

Just saying, I know which guy in a picture is my blood brother and which guy is not and so do a lot of other people.

Judge Pen
05-29-2006, 06:39 PM
jp- your pole knife form was fine, it covered the cardinal directions and displayed a few techniques reiterated through the directional changes. However as mentioned, it didn't have any "sweep the beard", "ride the horse" or a couple of other standards that are virtually always found in sets that deal with general Kwan';s weapon in CMA. Pretty much all cma styles that have the weapon have those cultural peculiarities to the Generals Knife set.

SD's. Your's, does not. so, where did it come from taht it would leave out these albeit impractical but nevertheless meaningful aspects of the Kwan Dao performance.

ot to mention, that wasn't actually a Kwan dao you were using. :p

Ok, my use of a different weapon to do the form aside. . . .

Virtually all CMA styles have those theatrical standards, but as mentioned by others in the other thread not all of them do. I think that the peculiarities that you mention are part of the theatrical homage to Kwan, but not to the fighting aspects of the weapon itself. Aside from the chi gung aspects of stroking the beard, what are the real fighting applciations of the other standards? I'm not trying to be atagonistic, but since my verson does not have them, I've never been shown the applicaitons.

Let me ask this: Does my pole arm form more resemble a CMA application or that of a naginata? I mean if SD is really Japanese, wouldn't the Kwan Dao resemble the applciations and techniques of a naginata instead?

Regarding KC, he is an SDer. He also independantly studied (and correct me if I'm wrong KC) tang lang, Hung Gar, aikido and shotkan karate prior to starting with SD. I've met the guy and think he has a great and unique perspective on the differences and simularities of the arts he has studied. But since we're both SDers we can't know or have any perspective that would contribute to an intelligent conversation in the martial arts. Please, discount anything we have to say.

Invisible-fist
05-29-2006, 07:10 PM
I think the answer's pretty simple. They use Japanese terms and uniforms because they were already in common usage at the time. "Dojo" "Kata" and "bo" are pretty much English words by now. There's no particvular reason to not use them.

I was telling a friend about a tournment I was in. It went something like this:

"I got second in forms."

"What's forms"

"Prearranged solo routines."

"Huh? OH! You mean KATA!"

As for the uniforms there IS no "kung fu uniform" The whole "Everybody dress alike" thing is very recent. Kung fu schools starting wearing the traditional outfits because students excpected to get a cool outfit when they start training. Also, its an extra sale for the school.

When Sin The started the "Kung fu uniform" wasn't widely available or recognized. He probably used the gis because they were cheap and readily available.

WHat POSSIBLE motivation is there for a Karate guy to pretend to be kung fu? Karate is a bigger seller with much better brand recognition.

Now if he was pretending to be ninjutsu....

Invisible-fist
05-29-2006, 07:11 PM
Judge,

Where are your videos?

I want to see.

kwaichang
05-29-2006, 07:13 PM
Thanks JP. I enjoyed dinner. It is well known that the Chinese community did not want to teach the Gwailow??, the real Kung Fu so if this is true perhaps what you are learning is just flowered up moves to resemble what they once were. Anyway I am happy with what I do and believe from my own experience that it is real CMA. In Japanese there is a term called Bunkai it means to breakdown or analyze the moves of a kata,form, dance, whatever, anyway as far as my art SD is concerned I can take any move from a form and show an application for it. I would find it hard to believe from what I have seen of the CMA forms displayed on the web that the moves can be applied that easily. The Shaolin were fighters as well as Holy men so I feel the moves would be more direct in their application. This being said I will continue to believe that what I do is a Unique CMA derived from the way things were once done not as they are done now or are being taught in some schools now. Since there is no way to prove or disprove it then lets say we are both right and SD is an art of Chinese Origin that you are not familiar with. KC:)

Songshan
05-29-2006, 07:33 PM
Man can we move these Shaolin-Do threads to another forum ?.....has nothing to do with Shaolin Kung Fu!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

brucereiter
05-29-2006, 09:26 PM
however, in the chinese community, it's always been around and the chinese community has always been part and parcel to North and South America with many chinese having roots in these countries for more generations than a lot of euro-heritage folks.


i wonder how large the chinese community was in lexington kentucky from 1965 to 1980?

Judge Pen
05-30-2006, 02:50 AM
Judge,

Where are your videos?

I want to see.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41609

Or just look a couple of threads down. It's the one called "shaolin-do video" :p

Golden Tiger
05-30-2006, 06:12 AM
I just took the time to watch DJ's kwan dao form http://www.davidjamieson.com/kunglek/klkf/olvids.htm

I understand that it was just a part of a form but in it, I see nothing different that would make it CMA if what JP did wasn't. I assume the point that he stops and makes a breathe in/out motion is the "stroking of the beard". Also, the charging sequence seems better suited for a spear than a bladed weapon. Otherwise, all the cuts, slashes and what not are in the SD form. (We just do them with a little more speed and power:p )

The other links that somebody posted, yeah, they are nice. But they could also be open for a lot of critiques. Thankfully, I am not a nit picker.

David Jamieson
05-30-2006, 06:20 AM
shouting down your detractors en masse doesn't make your point any more valid.

drifting off into the minutia of a single form doesn't answer any of the questions or sufficiently rebutt the complaints of those who are your detractors.

sd-er's I give pause and think about what I learn and where I am learning it from and who I am learning it from.

keep in mind that the man with one eye is king in the land of the blind.

and I've probably spent too much time arguing with you about it already.

("we do ours with more speed and power"...nice :p lol )

lxtruong
05-30-2006, 07:06 AM
shouting down your detractors en masse doesn't make your point any more valid.


Ok, well let's examine the basic "SD is teh inauthentic!!!oneoneone!!" reasons:

1. Japanese trappings: gi, "dojo", "kata".
2. "Forms are obviously karate with tiger hand thrown in"
3. "omgz! 900 forms, who can remember that!"
4. "omgz! Hairy grandmaster! History fake!"

Did I get it all? GT was obviously addressing #2. I just looked at the video myself, and like he said, aside from the stroke the beard thinger (reminds me of a move in drunken spear though), the basics are the same. The "around the head" move that JP did is even in your black tiger staff kata. While this doesn't instantly refute #2, it does weaken the arguement.

Feel free to bash us on #1, 3, 4. That being said, I would say that any of you that are calling GM Sin a liar have obviously never met the man. Anyone that spends even a short amount of time with him knows that he's a genuinely nice guy, and certainly not the type that would go about living a lie for 40 years. Perhaps he, or someone back down the line was lied to. I think that you will find that most SD students care little about that. For the most part, we follow the man - not the lineage.

GT/JP: Check out his demo of his black tiger set. Beginning looks very similar to the beginning of tiger/crane kata. It's freaky.

Golden Tiger
05-30-2006, 07:31 AM
shouting down your detractors en masse doesn't make your point any more valid.

David, I have always tried to answer the detractors and never shout them down. And I was only making a valid observation concerning the way you did your form versus the way JP did SD's. No critisms (other than the playful one at the end hence the :p ) just trying to see what made yours CMA and what made ours not CMA.


drifting off into the minutia of a single form doesn't answer any of the questions or sufficiently rebutt the complaints of those who are your detractors.

Not sure what keeping an armed reserve of civilians has to do with this :D , but we were discussing a single form.

Judge Pen
05-30-2006, 07:50 AM
David, I've never shouted on this topic (except maybe at MK a long time ago :D ) I thought we were having an rational conversation on this topic. Just because we don't agree 100% with your postion doesn't mean that our position is irrational. And I asked you some legitimate questions that you haven't answered yet:

1. Does my "pole arm" set display CMA techniques or JMA (such as a naginata)?
2. Aside from the chi gung aspects of stroking the beard, what are the real fighting applcations of the other standards? Other than performance and homage to the General, why do them? Why is it ok for some of them to be removed and still be considered a Kwan Dao set.
3. Why, other than the performance standards of stroking the beard, etc) was your form CMA and mine was not?

Thanks for getting back to me and furthering our rational conversation.

godzillakungfu
05-30-2006, 08:54 AM
This thread is going to get ugly soon so I'll say my piece and continue to observe or PM people.

Yes, I think there are some falsehoods in Shaolin-Do and Chinese Shao-Lin Center. I think this happens in many if not all MA to some extent.

TKD 2000 history
Damo
Yang Lu Chuan fight record
Wing Chun's Nun.
Aikido
The list goes on and on.

If the stuff I read about Sin The's upbringing true, I think it is an amalgam. The few times I talked to Sin The' I got the impression there is a lot more going on than anyone suspects. Of course this is my opinion. I mean there is conjecture that there were at least 4 teachers in his original school. What's to say one teacher didn't have direct roots to Shaolin?

Remember at one time it was frowned upon to do more than one art. I remember these days vividly. You were supposed to stay in one art forever. Unless you read Chinese you only had the word of other translators. We see what happened to the word Chi. Crosstraining was a big no no. So, here comes a teacher that teaches a little of everything (yes I have a problem with this) in his school. It bypasses the old ways of one art one teacher and you get to train multiple arts. Now, as years pass, it is harder and harder to get out from under this as the MA community opens up to foreigners(Americans).

Now, I could start blasting the CSC's and Shaolin-Do but what purpose would it serve? There are huge gaps and things in the history that cast doubt on the veracity on many of the claims. People can fight with what they are taught and many people get a good work out. They do let you read up on history (which led me to leave) and the East at least lets you crosstrain. So, if we are going to enter the preservation of CMA argument, we need to beat up the New Shaolin Temple which has now imported Tae Kwon Do.

This is coming from someone who would be considered an outcast, with an axe to grind, by the CSC's.

Judge Pen
05-30-2006, 09:57 AM
This thread is going to get ugly soon.

Nah. I don't think it will get ugly. It seems that there's always going to be an SD thread that pops up where the SD faithful can debate whether what they do is CMA, JMA or other. The only time it gets ugly is when a person new to the forums reads these threads and takes offense to the dialougue.

I would like to continue the discussion though. I think it's interesting to actually compare concepts in SD to other examples of people here to see what is applicable and where SD's roots really lay. David?

David Jamieson
05-30-2006, 02:57 PM
David, I've never shouted on this topic (except maybe at MK a long time ago :D ) I thought we were having an rational conversation on this topic. Just because we don't agree 100% with your postion doesn't mean that our position is irrational. And I asked you some legitimate questions that you haven't answered yet:

1. Does my "pole arm" set display CMA techniques or JMA (such as a naginata)?
2. Aside from the chi gung aspects of stroking the beard, what are the real fighting applcations of the other standards? Other than performance and homage to the General, why do them? Why is it ok for some of them to be removed and still be considered a Kwan Dao set.
3. Why, other than the performance standards of stroking the beard, etc) was your form CMA and mine was not?

Thanks for getting back to me and furthering our rational conversation.

there was some spiraling occuring. I think you guys are totally allowed your perspective, but on a few of the claims, which is really what was at issue , the claims of the csc, sd and th&#233; himself, those claims that have been redacted or removed and so on.

I never said or implied that sd as an exercise regimen was useless. My concerns were dealing with not just the 900 forms etc etc and were/ are more along the lines of calling something one thing when it is not really that thing and the inference that other arts are untrue.


The Shaolin Temples were the equivalent of universities for the martial arts. Masters were professors, each of them a specialist in a particular area of training. Temples were known for a particular style, just like medical schools of today. Monks at each temple still practiced the forms from the other temples, but they specialized in the style for which their particular temple was known for.
This is highly debateable and is an issue that detracts from teh fact that there is one shaolin temple, it is in henan. While many different types of temples may have had influence from teh shaolin way, there is not evidence of other shaolin temples and in fact the whoe southern temple is still the subject of debate amongst the archeologists, anthropologists and various other experts on the subject. Also, Shaolin was/is first and foremost a buddhist religious temple and not a focus point for martial arts alone. The temple has three treasures, of which martial arts is one third. The primary pursuit of Shaolin was Ch'an (zen) it is paramount to Shaolin practice. Do you practice Ch'an?


Shaolin Do is the most complete and comprehensive martial arts system in the world.


Is this statement mere marketing? If not it is a spurious claim and infers that other asian martial arts are lacking. Would it not be better to say that you would consider it a robust and complete system of martial arts? As opposed to what that says?


Shaolin Grandmaster Sin Kwang The'

How exactly did Th&#233; garner this honour and where is his name in the rolls at shaolin?


All rights are reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or duplicated in electronic or magnetic media or translated to another language without the written consent of Grandmaster Sin Kwang The' and the Shaolin Do Association.

The Shaolin Do Association makes no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Shaolin Do Association shall not be liable for errors contained herein or for incidental or consequential damages or loss in connection with the furnishing performance or use of this material.

The Shaolin Do Art, its logos and graphics and its written materials are protected by federal copyright. Only those individuals with valid Shaolin Do teaching certificates may teach the Shaolin Do Art. Videotaping of any aspect of the Shaolin Do Art is strictly prohibited.

If one is not confident in what they think is a truth, is it a truth? Or should a statement like this give pause?


Ie Chang Ming
1880 - 1976

no photo? no bai si? no record.


Su Kong Tai Djin
1849 - 1928

name in the rolls destroyed in the fire? Lost to the cultural revolution?

Your form, does not bear the hallmarks of kwan dao sets. For most, it would be this alone that would allow one to surmise it is a creation of it's own based upon something else and without knowledge beforehand of teh cultural context of the use of the weapon. Classical weapons, whilc still practiced and while still inclusive of many of the applicatrions the weapons were designed for also have come to bear hallmarks.

'Shaolin' Broadsword is often opened with a single handed salute to honour the Monk Hui K&#233; for instance. By this hallmark, the broadsword set is identified as Shaolin.

Kwan Dao, on the other hand is outside of Shaolin in particular and it's set performances pay homage to the legendary general who weilded the weapon, ergo the hallmarks of ride the horse, sweep the beard away and so on.

Your halberd set is fine, like I said JP and yes there are inherent logical things that one can do with a weapon because that is dictated by the size shape and design of the weapon. Your halberd set employs logically sequenced moves that can in turn be extrapolated into applicable moves with the weapon. the influence is denoted by what is not included with the particular weapon and the name you have chosen to call your weapon. were you not told that that is not a kwan dao?

so, all inconsistencies aside, besides the mixed terms and the mixed curriculum is it not safe to say that sd can have it's roots in shaolin but still be what it is? an american hybrid of asian martial arts? Just think, if you congeled it with mma, you'd probably evenb get a broader spectrum of students.

godzillakungfu
05-30-2006, 04:32 PM
so, all inconsistencies aside, besides the mixed terms and the mixed curriculum is it not safe to say that sd can have it's roots in shaolin but still be what it is? an american hybrid of asian martial arts? Just think, if you congeled it with mma, you'd probably evenb get a broader spectrum of students.Of course. I think JP agreed in one of the combined threads. Most of us believe it is a hybrid, I know I do. Yet, many people feel we would be coping out by saying this or ask why we don't fix things.

Well, unless you start an offshot you can't. If you enjoy training on the west questioning or cross training WILL get you kicked out of the art.

There is a school in Texas that has a BJJ teacher coming once a week.

lxtruong
05-30-2006, 04:57 PM
Of course. I think JP agreed in one of the combined threads. Most of us believe it is a hybrid, I know I do. Yet, many people feel we would be coping out by saying this or ask why we don't fix things.

Well, unless you start an offshot you can't. If you enjoy training on the west questioning or cross training WILL get you kicked out of the art.

There is a school in Texas that has a BJJ teacher coming once a week.

Wow, cross training will get you kicked out? That seems silly. What you do on your own time seems like your business. Of course, where people find time to cross train is a mystery to me, but you know to each their own.

kwaichang
05-30-2006, 05:38 PM
David,
Just curious who taught you and what style (s) did / do you study , is it from Shaolin, have you seen the actual papers or just copies? , if it is the one you do now then other than what your teacher told you and your research, you make claims that have no basis of fact. You cant prove something is not Shaolin just because it does not have a beard pull or doesent look like what you have seen or do or what ever.
My first teacher said you have to adjust your Jock for it to be Shaolin haha
" how stupid". I assure you SD is not Japanese or Korean or Okinawan or Phillipino or a mixture of them I havwe studied them and know the 5 elements of power of those countries styles. SD is CMA from Shaolin
Admit you have seen all the over 450 styles of CMA and have seen all their forms and perhaps we will give you credit for your statements. Until then admit you are not 100% sure and let it be. Also even the old TV series implies that there was a Fukien as well as Henan/Hunan ive heard both , Temples. So to say there was only one temple is Ludicrous.
SD has many different "styles" Black Tiger Mantis Hua Chang Chuan Hung Gar Lohan thus it is more than just one style from one temple by just one teacher. KC:confused: :)

David Jamieson
05-30-2006, 08:58 PM
not to agitate...but, the old tv series isn't exactly a true representation of shaolin and in fact there is a considerable body of knowledge regarding the founding and practice of Ch'an, medicine and martial arts in the shaolin temple.

henan and hunan are two different provinces henan is north of the lake and hunan is south, but honan may be what you are thinking of? this is the old way of saying henan in romanized spelling.

you say that it's not japanese and yet you use Gi's and perform kata and workout in a dojo and yet call it a pure cma? and shaolin to boot.

I've had a few teachers and still learn now. Some had insufficient pedigrees and others have very good ones. This doesn't take away from what's what in regards to what is known as fact and what is propogated by people who haven't bothered to actually study the actuality and instead choose to cling to ideas that are popular myth more than fact.

China is the longest unbroken civilization on the planet. There have been different emperors and dynasties etc etc, but to think that the history isn't rich and robust and covering a great deal of things and instead only having "the old tv show implied there was a southern or fukien temple" is, to me, ludicrous.

no offense, but dude...:rolleyes:

brucereiter
05-31-2006, 12:13 AM
<<Quote:
"The Shaolin Temples were the equivalent of universities for the martial arts. Masters were professors, each of them a specialist in a particular area of training. Temples were known for a particular style, just like medical schools of today. Monks at each temple still practiced the forms from the other temples, but they specialized in the style for which their particular temple was known for."

This is highly debateable and is an issue that detracts from teh fact that there is one shaolin temple, it is in henan. While many different types of temples may have had influence from teh shaolin way, there is not evidence of other shaolin temples and in fact the whoe southern temple is still the subject of debate amongst the archeologists, anthropologists and various other experts on the subject. Also, Shaolin was/is first and foremost a buddhist religious temple and not a focus point for martial arts alone. The temple has three treasures, of which martial arts is one third. The primary pursuit of Shaolin was Ch'an (zen) it is paramount to Shaolin practice. Do you practice Ch'an?>>

hi david,

the above quote from the sd website i think is a laymans decription of how the shaolin temples operated. it was probably geared towards people who have very limited knowledge of cma and chinese culture.

in a few of yang jwing mings books he also states that there were several "shaolin" temples in china and that they were all loosly connected. i have also seen a few other source's that say the same thing. you might want to check and see where he got his information.

the school in bandung indonesia that grandmaster sin the learned at was not a religious organization it was a martial arts school. fwik.

i happen to follow the teachings of buddha (total coincidence i became buddhist as a child and started shaolin do as an adult.) i do think it is important to at least have a basic understanding of chan when studying shaolin martial arts but it is not necsessary to become buddhist or even for the teaching to be part of your life, in the american culture most or many people are christian and i think they should stick with that part of their culture. on that note one of the best ways to express chan is to not even know it exists. do your work eat sleep and poop.

b

Judge Pen
05-31-2006, 02:58 AM
If you enjoy training on the west questioning or cross training WILL get you kicked out of the art.

That's just wrong. My teachers have no problem with what I do in my spare time. Sorry to hear that godzillaking.

As for the rest of this, David never did tell me his martial aplication for the moves that are not present in my form. I pressume from his answer that my form did not, in his limited perception, display JMA pole arm techniques in it. So, and David correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you admit that at least this one form appeared to be of CMA origin even if it wasn't a Kwan Dao form by your standards. If those standards were once in the form but removed (as I've seen done by some other CMA schools) then you might have had a different opinion.

And I think that SDIC is right. There was the main temple, but there were others that developed their own brand. If you want to consider the henan/hunan temple THE temple that's probably the most accurate perception. But more CMA styles than SD consider there to be more than just THE temple. Maybe the old kung fu show had it right after all. :p

B-Rad
05-31-2006, 06:32 AM
I think it's very hard to make any kind of solid convincing historical arguement either way without a solid understanding of Chinese. While more and more translated books are showing up here in the U.S., there's still a great deal of material most of us just don't have any kind of access to. Most just rely on what our teacher's tell us. Even recent events get warped horribly in retellings (anyone remember the BS surounding the Shaolin-Do tablet at the rebuilt temple?) I can only imagine what happens to older oral histories.

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 06:33 AM
And I think that SDIC is right. There was the main temple, but there were others that developed their own brand. If you want to consider the henan/hunan temple THE temple that's probably the most accurate perception. But more CMA styles than SD consider there to be more than just THE temple. Maybe the old kung fu show had it right after all. :p

Here is what Wong Kiew Kit has to say about Shaolin-Do:
http://wongkk.com/answers/ans05a/apr05-1.html

Question 1
My school's grandmaster claims lineage from a monk who was purported to be a grandmaster from the Fukien Temple when it was burned down in the late 19th/early 20th century. However, in my research the only places I see that mention him are affiliated with my school, and he does not seem to be mentioned in other historical accounts.

Have you ever heard of this man? How does he fit in with the history you described in one of your question and answer series? My feeling is that he would be hard to miss because of his unusual appearance and him supposedly being the first to master all styles of kungfu at the Shaolin Temple.
Chris, USA


Answer 1
The southern Shaolin Temole in Fukien (Fujian) Province was burnt down by the Qing Army in the middle 19th century, which is about 150 years before now. The one burnt down in the early 20th century was the northern Shaolin Temple in Henan Province, and that happened about 80 years ago.

In kungfu circles, when one talks about the burning of the Shaolin Temple by the Qing Army, it was the southern Shaolin Temple in Fujian, and not the northern Shaolin Temple at Henan. Many people may not be aware of this fact.

They are also not aware that the burning of the northern Shaolin Temple had nothing to do with kungfu. Traditional kungfu was no longer practiced there for a long time. During the Republican period after the Qing Dynasty had fallen, the northern Shaolin Temple was occupied by a warlord, and a rival warlord attacked and burnt it.

Further, most people are unaware that there were actually two southern Shaolin Temples, one at the city of Quanzhou and the other on Nine-Lotus Mountain. Both were in Fujian Province, and both were burnt down by the Qing Army.

The southern Shaolin Temple at Quanzhou was public. It was built during the earlier Ming Dynasty. When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming, Ming royalists relayed around the temple in an attempt to restore the Mong. The Qing Emperor, Yong Cheng, burnt the temple with help from Lama kungfu experts from Tibet.

The other southern Shaolin Temple at Nine Lotus Mountain was secret. It was built by the Venerable Chee Seen, who escaped from the first southern Shaolin Temple. This second southern Shaolin Temple was burnt by the Qing Army led by Ko Chun Choong, the military governor of Guangdong and Guangxi, with the help of his master, Pak Mei.

It was the northern Shaolin Temple in Henan that the present Chinese government has restored. Neither traditional Shaolin Kungfu nor Zen (Chan) Buddhism was practiced at the northern Shaolin Temple at the time of its restoration. It was only in the 1960s or 70s (I can’t remember the dates exactly) that the Venerable Hai Deng, a well known Shaolin kungfu master and monk, was invited to the northern Shaolin Temple to teach kungfu. However, probably due to policy differences, he soon left the temple, and modernized wushu was then taught in numerous wushu schools around the temple.

I have read in the internet about the grandmaster you mentioned but do not know much about him. As both southern Shaolin Temples in Fujian were burnt about 150 years ago, it would not be possible for the grandmaster to be at either one of the temples. I agree with you that as his outward appearance was so unusual, he would not be missed had he been at the temple.

No genuine master would claim that he had mastered all styles of kungfu at the Shaolin Temple, because doing so would simply reveal his ignorance that the Shaolin arts were (and are) so wide and deep that it was impossible to do so. It was also not necessary. Mastering just one style at the temple would be sufficient for all his kungfu purposes, although some talented masters might have mastered a few styles. But attempting to master all the styles of Shaolin Kungfu is like attempting to master all the languages in the world, which would show that he was not only unwise in his use of time but also ignorant of kungfu philosophy.

The grandmaster might be quoted out of context. Or the claim might have been made by his over-zealous followers.

B-Rad
05-31-2006, 06:44 AM
I don't understand what makes WKK sush a respected source... he makes some loony claims that would get other teachers thouroughly trashed, and from what I've seen, his students are even worse (lots of crazy stuff about using qi to learn a style without ever having studied it... nuts). Anyway, that being said, he does bring up couple basic logic arguements that most people should be able to figure out (that's most of us have made before too) and some common knowledge (at least amoung Chinese kungfu teachers) about the Southern temple legend (as far as it being burned down long before the hairy monk would've been there).

brothernumber9
05-31-2006, 06:49 AM
The "pole arm" form as you call it, looks to me like a CMA type form. I think the crux of the resulting criticisms stem from calling it a kwan dao form. It does not look like any kwan dao form I've seen. It does look like horse cutter forms I've seen.

In regards to what may be missing, I can't say anything is missing by design of the form. However in comparison to other "kwan dao" sets I've seen. This form had virtually no backhanded (for lack of a better way to put it) upward cuts to bow stances that are evident in every other kwan dao form I've seen. In addition the SD form done by JP had loads of vertical/diagonal chopping techs but less than the norm cutting techs that I've seen for a kwan dao.

All the same though, the form looked CMA-ish enough.

But I'm no one, and no one cares or needs to care what I think anyway.

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 06:52 AM
I don't understand what makes WKK sush a respected source... he makes some loony claims that would get other teachers thouroughly trashed, and from what I've seen, his students are even worse (lots of crazy stuff about using qi to learn a style without ever having studied it... nuts).

It's no more looney that burning a baby to death after touching it with hot hands, or climbing a pole like a "golden snake" with no arms or legs, or swimming with your pecs, or being able to discern there are 13 different people in a room instead of 12 because you could hear their breathing...WKK fits very well into present company.

And I agree with BN9. JP's form was CMA enough. It doesn't look like my Kwan Dao form, but mine doesn't have the beard throw or the horse riding either.

B-Rad
05-31-2006, 06:59 AM
Agreed. Sin The's book is complete B.S. But I don't know that fighting crazy with crazy will help any :D Though I suppose that sounds like it could add some entertainment value :p

Judge Pen
05-31-2006, 07:02 AM
I think it is irrelevant if he was real or not. One thing is for certain, GM Sin The' wouldn't know for certain one way or the other: If Su Kong Tai Djian lived, then he died before Sin The' was born. As such, GM The' could have only relied upon the word of his teacher that he existed.

Look at the name Su Kong Tai Djian. Su Kong phonetically resembles Si Gung which is loosely translated as "grand master" or "teacher of my teacher." Tai Djian loosely translated as "Great man" or "Big man". Certainly this could be a title of honor rather than a real name.

I was reading up on Laozi and the Daoist. It seems that there is a debate among modern Chinese historians whether or not Laozi was a real person of an amalgam of different daoist teachers whose writings were eventually compiled into the daodejing (an example of this debate is referenced here: http://www.archaeology.org/9811/newsbriefs/laozi.html) His name, like Su Kong Tai Djian, cam be loosely translated as "old teacher."

It's no secret that GM Ie traveled extensively and studied marital arts in China and Northern Korea (it says so in his letter to GM The' when we was promoted to GM of GM Ie's system). It's no secret that there were other teachers at the school in Bandung where GM Sin The' and Hiang The' were taught. Why would a student not rely upon the word of his teacher? So whether Su Kong existed as taught in SD, existed in some other fashion and was known by GM Ie, or is nothing more than a symbol of the art that GM Ie taught is really irrelevant to me.

The history of SD doesn't concern me. I can use and apply what I know. I trust my teachers can too. I believe that SD is CMA that has taken its own isolated path and evolved into what it is today. There's nothing wrong with that--its still good kung fu.

David Jamieson
05-31-2006, 07:26 AM
JP- Im not familiar enough with Japanese pole arms kata to draw a comparison, i can only go by what I do know, which is cma versions. I've already commented. Are you looking for more?

- other comments-

WKK is in my opinion, probably not the best source of historical infoprmation about Shaolin.

To practice Ch'an is often misunderstood as "enlightenment while having a dump" or "suddenly i was eating a burger and it hit me".
I am sorry to say, but this approach is wholly incorrect and I am bemused at how often I hear it, but oh well...lol

There has always been debate about teh actuality of Lao tze. the same as there has been debate about the actuality of Bodhidharma. This is due to a unique practice in many cultures. the practice is to create something and then to partially ensure you don't have too many detractors, you attribute your creation to a legendry character thereby giving it creedance.

ergo, lao tze may have been a fiction of chuang tzu in order to get the thoughst and ideas to move through society with some cred. Hui Ké may have invented the Bodhidharma character.
Many have certainly used this age old raddish in order to get the ideas put forward. It seems kind of lame, but in context to the judgmental and negative viewpoints of people when they are introduced to something new, it probably has worked.


The history of SD doesn't concern me. I can use and apply what I know. I trust my teachers can too. I believe that SD is CMA that has taken its own isolated path and evolved into what it is today. Then you already believe it and that's fine. It's probably easier to just bah humbug it all and move along isn't it.


And I agree with BN9. JP's form was CMA enough. It doesn't look like my Kwan Dao form, but mine doesn't have the beard throw or the horse riding either. close enough for rock and roll, sure. Your set is korean adaptation of cma isn't mk?


But I'm no one, and no one cares or needs to care what I think anyway. This is something I hear alot when arguments get a little heated. Nothing personal, but if you really meant it, then you wouldn't have said anything. :p


I think it's very hard to make any kind of solid convincing historical arguement either way without a solid understanding of Chinese. While more and more translated books are showing up here in the U.S., there's still a great deal of material most of us just don't have any kind of access to. Most just rely on what our teacher's tell us. Even recent events get warped horribly in retellings (anyone remember the BS surounding the Shaolin-Do tablet at the rebuilt temple?) I can only imagine what happens to older oral histories.

on the first point I think that is a stone cold solid cop out. The information is readily available for the most part. Just don't go looking ion the martial arts books section when you want to learn history and don't bother with wushu monks when you want to learn about buddhism. There is a lot of cross polination in religious studies. The reaons why this big cop out is used today still is precisely because oif the faulty nature of oral tradition. People when confronted with the reality and the actual known history who find contradiction will almost always fall back on "there's no way to know" or "it's anybodies guess" and then they will hide the book. :p typical lol.

It's true that many rely on what their teachers tell them. again, this exposes the faulty nature of the oral tradition, but god forbid anyone should havce to deal with hard realities and bitter.

TO get kungfu you must eat bitter is an old saying. I know this is true. It's easy to see that some don't like their serving of bitter. And that's cool. It's human nature to not want to be regarded as "that guy" or the purple mark on his face guy or whatever.

I don't think I ever said SD as an exercise is bad. I've always been one to point out that most of the trappings surrounding kungfu teachings and practice in the west are doled out by quite a few people who really don't understand what they mean and are instead degraded to so much window dressing. Quaint and stupid all in the same moment. That's some zen! :p Convoluted fairy tales diminish the value of something when the fairy tales outweigh the reality.

BM2
05-31-2006, 07:29 AM
The grandmaster might be quoted out of context. Or the claim might have been made by his over-zealous followers.

That sums up a lot about many things. The way I heard it was M. Su learned the forms, not was the master of everything.

The way it was told about the baby was something such as this...There was a story going around about a sand burn master in another town that accidently burned a newborn when he reached down to pick the baby up which later died of the injuires.
That was it. A story that was going around about something that supposed to have occured in another town. It had nothing to do with Shaolin-Do lineage.

I firmly believe that over-zealous followers and detractors have accomplished much of what we see on the web today. The first group causing much of the second group's actions.

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 07:35 AM
close enough for rock and roll, sure. Your set is korean adaptation of cma isn't mk?. No. My kwan dao form is the Northern Green Dragon set taught by Master Guo Jianhua in Chicago.

And my Dai-Sigung was born in Shandong province. His teacher was from Shandong province. "Korean adaptation" implies it's not CMA.

Did Lin Pin Zhang teach a "Korean adaptation" of mantis?:rolleyes:

Judge Pen
05-31-2006, 07:38 AM
No. My kwan dao form is the Northern Green Dragon set taught by Master Guo Jianhua in Chicago.

Does Master Guo Jinhua stroke the beard and ride the horse in his form, or was he the one to take it out?

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 07:48 AM
Does Master Guo Jinhua stroke the beard and ride the horse in his form, or was he the one to take it out?

The form does not have those movements. I don't know if they were removed or were never present. I find it difficult to believe that he would just take a few moves out just for the hell of it, but I cannot really claim he didn't either.

B-Rad
05-31-2006, 08:11 AM
on the first point I think that is a stone cold solid cop out. The information is readily available for the most part.
No, a great deal isn't readilly available in English, at least in regards to martial arts. You can certainly learn alot about Chinese history in English, but rarely is martial arts written on in any depth. And without solid understanding of the language, how would you go on to conduct your own in depth research?

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 08:15 AM
Martial artists are horrible sources for credible history. IMO, it is unwise to invest any emotional or intellectual interest in what any non-scholars have to say about Chinese history or the history of martial arts. Time and again, just about all of them, including the Chinese ones, seem to always get proven innacurate.

Judge Pen
05-31-2006, 08:34 AM
The form does not have those movements. I don't know if they were removed or were never present. I find it difficult to believe that he would just take a few moves out just for the hell of it, but I cannot really claim he didn't either.

I wasn't implyling that he took them out for the hell of it. I've been told so many different things about what makes a kwan dao for a kwan dao form. Some assert that these 4 standards are essential to a legitimate KD form. Others say they had them in the form but took them out for whatever reason. Still others say that northern KD forms don't have them (its a southern thing), and yet I've heard people say that the 4 standards are a hold-over form the opera days where they were placed in for a theatrical representation of the General. I was just curious about your teacher's take on these issues.

MasterKiller
05-31-2006, 08:39 AM
I wasn't implyling that he took them out for the hell of it. I've been told so many different things about what makes a kwan dao for a kwan dao form. Some assert that these 4 standards are essential to a legitimate KD form. Others say they had them in the form but took them out for whatever reason. Still others say that northern KD forms don't have them (its a southern thing), and yet I've heard people say that the 4 standards are a hold-over form the opera days where they were placed in for a theatrical representation of the General. I was just curious about your teacher's take on these issues.

I wasn't being pizzy. I'm just saying I see no reason why he would have taken it out. I think the whole argument is bit silly, anyway. IMO, your form looked generally Chinese, as opposed to the handsets I linked to which I think look generally Japanese.