Holy Land article

[passing_through]

Anyone on this forum happen to read the the "Holy Land Of Martial Arts Southern Shaolin Temple" article in the JUL-AUG 2003 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf200117.html) issue of Kung Fu Magainze? There's a copy of the article here (http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/holy_land.php).

What are the reactions/thoughts based on the article? One of the most startling events of Sifu Meng's visit was the fact that the only remaining building from the original temple was the Hung Fa Ting, a building said to exist in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun oral legends. The current program at the temple is wushu but they are very interested to develop traditional programs as well.

Jeremy R.

[mantis108]

Well, there are some interesting information. But I think there are some mixed up on the history and there are "so it is logical" attitude involve in writing this article. I would think if there is a more historical facts research done it would make this article even more impressive.

1) the Tang dynasty pirate invasion is IMHO way off. It was a race to the throne that Li Shimin was in trouble. His rival basically was going to embush him. He was saved by the monks who somehow came to that information. The consequence of this "heroic" act started the "political fortune" of Northern Shaolin.

2) Since then Shaolin is one way or the other "politically" involved in Chinese history. Shaolin officially has it own army just like other temple does by Ming dynasty. This can be verified by studying Chinese military history. In Ming dynasty, the Shaolin troops both monks and so-called lay disciples (soldiers) were possibly deployed arround the Fujian province. I suspect that they stationed at a county called Yong Chun within Fujian province. This is why there is the legend about Yong Chun Hall in the Southern Shaolin Temple. I believe that the troops at Yong Chun train a version of Huaquan (flower fist) which later was made famous by other practitioners such as Gan Fengchi around 1720s-1730s.

3) The temple that they found could have been as old as the northern Shaolin but this doesn't mean that this temple has to name orginally as Shaolin temple or even affiliated with it. It could have been renamed or just nickname. It could even be not the "right one" for that matter. The way things are now in China, who is to say there is no tourist dollars influences to "rebuilt" something out of folklore? Finding Tang dynasty artifacts doesn't necessary mean that the temple was built in Tang dynasty. What if the temple come into procession of these stuff say in Ming dynasty as gifts or whatever? It can not be treated as a fact it was built then unless there are other evidences that people lived in that area every since Tang and have some sort of a record to support it. I am curious as to find massive grave sites or such signs which show some kind of atrocity to support the destruction theory. There must be some signs other than burned down ruins. If not, I don't think the picture is complete.

Having said all that the information provided by the article are impressive and worth looking into. I particularly enjoy the near by fortified village bit. Anyway, I think we can treat this venture of rebuilding southern Shaolin temple with cautious optimism.

Mantis108