PDA

View Full Version : July/August Issue



freedom76
05-28-2004, 03:38 PM
This is the best issue that has come out in a long time! It had a good blend of history, philosophy, and physical movement (especially the photos and explanations and descriptions of the forms). From front to back I was impressed. I had been growing some what bored with the magazine, but a good Shaolin issue brought me back. Thank you.

SimonW
05-30-2004, 01:17 AM
Seeing as the Shaolin issues are the ones I am the most bored with, I won't complain to Gene this time. I just want to ask all those that love everything Shaolin, from the martial arts to the bed sheet to the T-shirt to the mug, why do you love it so much?

I am at a loss. The whole modern martial monk thing is a fabrication! They don't take full buddhist vows and are not fully fledged monks (if monks at all!) yet they still wear the clothing. It's all a farce. I just don't understand why people are so fascinated with them or in awe of their martial arts.

I have seen one or two that have exhibited good MA (although they weren't demonstrating a traditional style at the time!) but most of them don't. I just do not see effective MA being practised by them. Just flowery wu shu. Some say "oh, but they practise the real stuff behind closed doors". I find this notion ridiculous. If they do then it makes their prolific displays of wu shu all the more dishonest by fooling a lot of people. Worse still they are doing it for money and fame. Since when did Shaolin monks seek glory in historical times?

Now I know that Gene says that martial arts are about self development and progression etc and therefore wu shu is as valid as anything etc. Okay, that's one opinion. But I disagree. Martial movements without the martial meaning are meaningless. If it was just about mastering a movement in thin air or just about self progression, why not just do Pilates or Yoga or the Jane Fonda work out? If that's what a person is after martial arts are not for them. That's why they are called MARTIAL arts. They are for fighting with.

All it leads to is further degredation of the martial arts. Although I do find it rather humourous and ironic that the same people who idolise the monks also much of the time idolise Bruce Lee. I wonder what Lee would have made of these modern 'monks'?!

freedom76
05-30-2004, 02:34 PM
I'm not sure if that response was directed at me or people in general. I'll assume it wasn't directed at me since I've never met SimonW. Anyway, I find Shaolin interesting. I don't own any robes, mugs, beads, bedsheets, or authentic Shaolin Temple tea bags. I don't worship the monks or Bruce Lee or anything but God. (In actuality, I'm a Jackie Chan fan) Everybody finds God in different ways and through different means.
As for the modern monks being fabrications, all religion is fabrication...it is man-made. Therefore, if people want to subscribe to a particular sect, denomination, etc., then they follow whatever rules are in that particular group or not. That's their choice. I'm not going to criticize the "authority" that's at Shaolin. If performances are authorized, they are authorized. That doesn't reflect on someone's ability to move well or their understanding of movement, Buddhism, or life in general.
I'm not in awe of their martial arts. Some of the monks I've seen here in the U.S. don't seem to be "standouts" to me, but others are quite good (again in my opinion). Also, your ability to move (or lack there of) doesn't necessarily mean you don't understand or can't teach. Some people who move very well are horrible teachers.
How do we know the martial arts are weaker now than they used to be and at what time, by what standard? There used to be so much secrecy and mysticism surrounding so much of the Chinese martial arts that it can be difficult to seperate fact from fiction. Are the martial arts for fighting? I say that they can effective for fighting, but not necessarily with your fists and feet and not necessarily for physical confrontations. What about Helen Liang using her background in the martial arts to fight cancer? (July/Aug 2003 Kung Fu Qi Gong) That seemed an effective use without fists.
My point is that it is so hard to judge something like the monks or martial arts because we don't have an agreed upon measuring system. If it helps someone, I say that it must be good. If it spreads a positive message, I say it must be good. If you are growing, learning, or improving, I say good. I think that's what it is all about.
Peace be upon you and all of us.

Banjos_dad
05-31-2004, 03:33 AM
Best issue in a long time. Makes up for the last one.

Simon, what's the best trolling motor...Endura, or Minn-Kota? Thought maybe you'd know :eek:

SimonW
05-31-2004, 04:44 AM
Banjos, if you've ever read any of my previous posts you would know that I'm not a troll. I've been buying the mag for years and still re-read old issues occasionally. I feel that the newer mags are not of the same standard to some of the old ones such as the Wong Fei-hung issue etc.

Freedom76, no the post wasn't directed at you personally :)

I find the original Shaolin interesting, but not the new all for show one. Sure, the performances are authorised, but by whom? The PRC authorities more like than the monks themselves. Anyone who needs a reality check as to what the real Shaolin was like in the early 80's when all this started should read Jet Li's account. There were NO martial monks, and in fact only a handful of monks period.

The monks as we know them are just standard wu shu guys. I wouldn't have a problem if they just toured doing wu shu demos. But instead they are using the name of Shaolin. Many of them perform the movements, do that Buddha be praised bowing motion, yet many of them aren't even Buddhists! C'mon, are you really trying to tell me that such things aren't exploitation?

If Shaolin is supposed to be sacred and free from material needs and thoughts they sure are going the wrong way about it. Further, if the idea is to promote Shaolin beliefs and the temple itself then what's with all the martial arts demos!? Any genuine Shaolin believer would think of the martial arts as one of the most minor points of Shaolin and their Buddhist beliefs!

I have no problem with promoting what they are. My problem with the monks and modern Shaolin is that it promotes what it isn't. If the Monastary doesn't show genuine martial monks and instead shows off wu shu guys pretending to be monks it doesn't say much for the honesty and openness of Shaolin now does it?

A place with real Shaolin beliefs wouldn't see the need for a dishonest or exaggerrated portrayal of itself. Sure, there are geuine monks there, or at least there were when Jet Li first went there. They weren't martial though. Do you think they appreciated the commercialism and circus like mentality that the popularity of Jet's film brought about?

Now they are trying to make Shaolin a peaceful place again, and people can learn martial arts/wu shu at the affiliated (or not) schools instead. So much for promoting Buddhism then.

True Freedom76 all religion is a fabrication. However the practises of the current Shaolin are against most of the things their religion is supposed to stand for.

As for the comments on fighting, your example of Helen Liang is a side effect of martial arts practise not the purpose of training. Martial arts are for fighting, period. Anything else is a bonus. Otherwise they wouldn't be called MARTIAL arts now would they?

GeneChing
06-02-2004, 09:40 AM
SimonW - I actually had you, or those who share your opinion, in mind when putting together this Shaolin issue. If you examine it, we focus specifically upon traditional Shaolin. We mention the wushu performance aspect, but that is really such a minor portion of what is happening at Shaolin Temple now. It just seems bigger because most of the travelling performance groups focus on wushu, so if you haven't studied at Shaolin, you might be lead to beleive that this is all they do. In fact, that's not the case at all, and if anything, traditional Shaolin is on the rise at Songshan. We also go at length to tackle the misperceptions of Buddhist monks and Shaolin monks, both in my cover sotry (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=501) and in Dr. Shahar's scholarly analysis (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=506) (which by the way, we're very pleased have published - most scholars of Dr. Shahar's stature wouldn't stoop to publishing in a popular magazine like this). Actually, Shaolin is going to great lengths to promote Buddhism, but we only report on a little of that since, frankly, we're a martial arts magazine, not a Buddhist magazine. Of course, the martial side is more blatent, so it's easy to misinterpret. I often see our role here at the mag to help translate Chinese culture to the west, to alleviate these misinterpretations.

SimonW
06-02-2004, 09:56 AM
Hi Gene,

I should point out that my comments were not directed specifically at this magazine issue (I haven't seen it yet) but rather the Shaolin phenomenon. I just had one of those moments where I got annoyed with people who seemingly suck up anything and everything written or said about Shaolin and take it as gospel.

I'm glad to hear that you have placed an emphasis on traditional Shaolin this last issue and look forward to seeing it.

Banjos_dad
06-07-2004, 02:13 AM
Dr. Shahar shares some of the only solid info easily found on what Shaolin was/is about.

If he could only present a comprehensive history of Shaolin Temple.

GeneChing
06-07-2004, 08:59 AM
He really only specializes on the Ming and Qing, and only Songshan Shaolin. That's what his book will be about.

Ben Gash
06-26-2004, 04:23 AM
Simon does have a point though, Shaolin is the new Bruce Lee.

SimonW
06-26-2004, 04:50 AM
Yep.

Having finally received the latest issue, I'm afraid I am in moaning mode again. I was pretty dissappointed in this issue. The only article I found vaguely interesting was the Lion Books one. And even then it was only the promise of English language versions of the manuals that caught my attention.

I would be very interested to see however what kinds of articles they have in their magazine. Unfortunately they are all in Chinese.

I am at a point now where I am considering not buying the magazine anymore. It's fast becoming like some of the UK mags used to be (and still are to a degree sometimes) where an article is read, but three pages later it feels like you haven't read anything at all.

Gene, if a Shaolin special really is needed again (the multitude of them in that back issues section proves there has been rather more than one or two of them!!) is there no article that traces the history of one of the mantis styles, or hung kuen etc through their relationship to Shaolin rather than the usual monks? How about an article on the myths and stories or otherwise of Fong Sai Yuk? What about the originator of Hung Gar? How about telling us about the real San Te?

GeneChing
06-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Let me see if I can piece it back together...

We appreciate your commnts, Simon. FWIW, the Shaolin Special 2004 is showing the best newsstand sales results so far this year. You may hve your issues with Shaolin, but more of our readers seem to take the opposite stance. We can't please everyone at the same time. That's just an issue of diversity in CMA.

As for Lion Books and Taiwan, we've been running a series - the Treasures of Taiwan - since Mar Apr 2003 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=317). It is largely based on a cooperative effort we have shared with Lion books and Wulin Magazine. So it is available in English. Through us. :D

As for Hung Gar origins, Fong Sai Yuk, and San Te, oh man, that just shot down any arguement you might have about the authenticity of Shaolin. Current research is pretty skeptical on these figures and origin myths. It's hard to do serious scholarly research here because it's such a mess. There's some good stuff on Hung moon and Tiandihui, but on the whole, it contradicts the martial myths, or leads us to beleive that it's all a fabrication, all inventions of tradition. We'd love some good penetrating submissions on this, and I think they will come soon, but right now, the research is a bit daunting. That being said, there are Hung Gar articles coming up in the next two issues. Nothing on mantis, Fong or San, but mabye later.

Tak
06-30-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by SimonW
Although I do find it rather humourous and ironic that the same people who idolise the monks also much of the time idolise Bruce Lee. I wonder what Lee would have made of these modern 'monks'?!
He would be traveling the world right now with his own group of (future movie star) wushu performers.

GeneChing
07-02-2004, 10:16 AM
What would Bruce do? An intriguing question indeed. He would be 64 this year. Jackie's still in it at 50 and the word is that he just purchased a tract of land in China to train his next generation of stuntman. Some of the senior Shaolin monks and masters are older - Shi Suxi is 78, Shi Deqian is 61, Liu Baoshan is 74, Liang Yiquan is 73.... those are just the more popular Shaolin names that readers here might know - there are many more past the 7 decade mark. Longevity is Bruce's one failure.

herb ox
07-22-2004, 12:45 PM
Well, some may be utterly obsessed with Shaolin, but after seeing and meeting some of the monks in person, I still feel they're nothing short of truly amazing. Not to mention they are some of the kindest, gentlest souls I've met (and still able to whoop my @$$ with one finger!).

It's not required to like Shaolin if you practice martial arts. Authentic DOES, not SAYS. A certain "father of iron palm" claimed to be authentic, but that did not stop him from falling hard from the train of wu de.

You don't like Shaolin - that's okay...









... more for us!
:p

hope you find what you're looking for,

h. ox

SimonM
08-11-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by SimonW
Worse still they are doing it for money and fame. Since when did Shaolin monks seek glory in historical times?


I don't think it is as much about money and fame as it is about communicating the dharma. Regardless of whether or not the warrior monks take full vows as a monk or only partial vows, I think we can agree that the monks are Chan Buddhists. Now Buddhism (including Chan, why do you think Zen exists) is a missionary religion - Christianity and Islam do not have sole ownership of that concept. The performances given by "real" monks are done more (I believe) to bring attention to Buddhism in a flashy, visually appealing manner than they are to make a fast buck.

Transmission of the Dharma, one of the three jewels can be accomplished through many means.

As for the "fake" monks, the monks who actually live at Shaolin, from what I have read, don't seem to care that there are guys who haven't sworn the vows at all wearing the robes and doing the performances, that would be attachment, so why don't we practice non-attachment and wish these "fake" monks well in their endeavors.

:)

GeneChing
08-13-2004, 01:46 PM
Ok, let's see, SimonM is pro-Shaolin and SimonW is anti-Shaolin. This could get confusing... :confused:

SimonW
08-13-2004, 03:17 PM
LOL.

Just got the latest issue. The YKS Wing Chun article looks interesting.

GeneChing
08-17-2004, 10:36 AM
If you feel like commenting on the latest issue, post on this thread (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=31692). Thanks for reading us!

Songshan
09-20-2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by SimonW
Seeing as the Shaolin issues are the ones I am the most bored with, I won't complain to Gene this time. I just want to ask all those that love everything Shaolin, from the martial arts to the bed sheet to the T-shirt to the mug, why do you love it so much?

I am at a loss. The whole modern martial monk thing is a fabrication! They don't take full buddhist vows and are not fully fledged monks (if monks at all!) yet they still wear the clothing. It's all a farce. I just don't understand why people are so fascinated with them or in awe of their martial arts.

I have seen one or two that have exhibited good MA (although they weren't demonstrating a traditional style at the time!) but most of them don't. I just do not see effective MA being practised by them. Just flowery wu shu. Some say "oh, but they practise the real stuff behind closed doors". I find this notion ridiculous. If they do then it makes their prolific displays of wu shu all the more dishonest by fooling a lot of people. Worse still they are doing it for money and fame. Since when did Shaolin monks seek glory in historical times?

Now I know that Gene says that martial arts are about self development and progression etc and therefore wu shu is as valid as anything etc. Okay, that's one opinion. But I disagree. Martial movements without the martial meaning are meaningless. If it was just about mastering a movement in thin air or just about self progression, why not just do Pilates or Yoga or the Jane Fonda work out? If that's what a person is after martial arts are not for them. That's why they are called MARTIAL arts. They are for fighting with.

All it leads to is further degredation of the martial arts. Although I do find it rather humourous and ironic that the same people who idolise the monks also much of the time idolise Bruce Lee. I wonder what Lee would have made of these modern 'monks'?!


The Shaolin issues are the best period. The legacy of Shaolin lives on......only except that the year is 2004. Let's face it we can sit and post here all day and argue that you think the modern martial monks are "fakes" while I think they possess a vast knowledge of kung fu and believe they are real enough to take thier place at Shaolin.

Much of what you do see at the world tours or public demos is Wushu but that is just the beginning. Some like the Wushu some like the "traditional" styles. You have to look past the common assumptions and look for what you really want. It's there. It's much like trying to find a good martial arts teacher in any style. There are so many to choose from but you have to venture out and find the one that you think you can learn the best from. This means researching things for yourself. You can't just accept things at face value.

I believe Martial Arts in general is taking a interesting evolution. We are beginning to see the trend of "sport martial arts". Years ago, who would ever thought Tae Kwan Do would become an Olympic sport? Now Wushu is on the verge of becoming an Olympic sport. What kind of strikes me odd is that there are people who don't recognize Wushu as martial arts. It's all martial arts and it all depends on you. What you put in it is what you get out of it. So SimonW, I wouldn't go to China and say Wushu isn't martial arts okay? :D :D

SimonW
09-20-2004, 09:09 AM
Wushu = war arts. If it's not teaching you how to fight it's not martial arts, period. To me wushu (the flowery non combat version) is like buying a car without knowing how to drive, or playing video racing game and claiming to be able to drive.

I also take issue with the way the monks are associated with martial greatness anyway, and the connections between martial arts and buddhism/taosim etc. All of the came later. China had martial arts long before the monks ever learnt war arts (in fact some research suggests the monks actually copied from these arts originally before gradually developing their own way)

The idea that somehow religious philosphy and all the 'it's all about your development' stuff is absurd. Sure, it's a small part (IF you want to pursue it) but at the end of the day martial arts is about fighting, and no amount of debate can possibly change that. People can make the gun argument till the cows come home, and how in reality martial arts are not that effective these days as there are more efficient ways of doing damage. Such arguments are rubbish because that is a typically American view point from a country where guns are all over the place. Not everywhere is like that.

So the crunch is, martial arts is for fighting. Religion and philosophy, self development, etc all come as part of the package if a person wants it or is that way inclined, but they are NOT an integral part of martial arts. Only people who think Shaw Brothers films are real think that way. And due to all the above I cannot take the flowery non combat version of wu shu seriously as anything but a fancy display by very flexible and fit people. But martial arts it is not, and no amount of arguing can change the fact.

GeneChing
09-21-2004, 09:20 AM
Chinese martial arts have had a self cultivation component since at least the 17th century. This is intimately tied to spirituality, and draws its roots to Taoist cultivation practices, like qigong. Now here is where we need to define some terms. Clearly 'war arts' have existed as long as mankind. You can find evidence of tactical manuals that are very early - in fact, some claim that Sunzi's Art of War is the earliest extant book known to man. However, this is big battlefield stuff, how to move troups, how to command armies and such. Towards the Qing/Ming transition, CMA takes an evolutionary step and adds the notion of qi and qigong into unarmed combat. Now this might have existed earlier, but there's no evidence of it, except with in context with jian - that's another thing that I'm jsut starting to explore. Surely CMA is about self defense, but to say that it's only self defense does it a great disservice. The self cultivation aspect has been a part of the martial arts for several hundred years, and not just Chinese styles. You see it in Japan, Korea and all aspects of Asian arts. Look at Muay Thai, one of the more 'combative' styles, and you'll see that there are very profound spiritual elements, expressed overtly in the bowing in rituals. So I beg to differ. On any level beyond beginning, spirituality is a very integral part of martial arts.

As for the monks and graduates of Shaolin, many of them go into military/police service. Remember that many Chinese armed services aren't actually armed. Often, they only have a restraint tie, a taser, or a baton. There aren't as many guns as there are in the west. So hand-to-hand is very real in China and many of the Shaolin schools serve as feeder programs into their security forces. If that's not 'real', I'm not sure what would be.

Songshan
09-21-2004, 11:57 PM
Well like I said SimonW, martial arts is in a modern evolution. Not everyone who learns martial arts just want to learn how to fight. Some want to learn the offense/defense fighting, some learn for the "health and fitness" aspect and some learn for the "sport" aspect as well. We all have our reasons for studying. I can relate to what your saying because I thought the same way you did when I first started training. As a law enforcement officer, I was only interested in the defensive tatic measures. Little did I know when I began trainining with two "martial monks" I embarked on something extraordinary. It wasn't until then did I realize that martial arts is not just about fighting. To say that if your not learning how to fight your not learning martial arts shows that you have just scratched the surface and not reached the roots. Maybe in time you will.

I think martial arts is not just for fighting. The term itself "Martial Arts" is just a big blanket that loosley covers many different fighting styles and systems. Take Tai Chi for example. The style is very soft and flowing with almost a meditation state of mind but yet there are fighting applications in it. Often we see Tai Chi depicted as just a "health" practice among the elderly. It just depends on the student and what aspect of the martial art they grasp. Who is to say that some of the application or techniques some Wushu practitioners use cannot be used in a fight?? Wushu is a martial arts style. It's just not considered a "hard" fighting style. :)

SimonW
09-22-2004, 12:26 AM
As I said, the spiritual side is there IF you want it. It's not a neccessity. The spiritual side of martial arts is not exclusive to martial arts. Martial arts is only one way to come to the same conclusions about life that may be present in other methods. But if you go into martial arts from the start looking for spirituality, there is something wrong with you. Take up Buddhism or another religion instead. It would serve the purpose you are looking for a lot more efficiently.

I would have be very interested to see what people like Wong Shun Leung or Sum Nung would think of your assertions, but alas they are not with us anymore.

Your point about tai chi is also flawed. Once again it is a fighting system first. A system for health etc 2nd as a by product of it's method. It's just that as you practise more and longer, the health aspect becomes more important.

Who is to say wushu cannot be applied in a fight? You say you were a law enforcement officer Songshan. Have you ever witnessed a fight in which wu shu techniques were applicable? I certainly haven't. All fights I have seen require very short, very sharp techniques that get the job done. Where is a wushu practitioners power issuance? When do they actually practise applying those techniques against unwilling opponents?

Songshan
09-22-2004, 10:06 PM
Of course the spiritual side is not exclusive only to martial arts. That's why we have churches and so forth for the non martial artists. I do feel that martial arts and spirituality can co-exist. It is there if you want it. I also believe that even in some arts both are a required ingriedient (such as taoism) There's nothing wrong with you if you seek some type of spirituality through martial arts. That's why there is meditation, qi gong, etc. Styles such as Shaolin integrate buddhism and martial arts as a path to attain enlightenment as well as religion. There's fully ordained monks, martial monks, and disciples.

Tai Chi can be a fighting system but there is heavy emphasis on breathing (like qi gong). I think it's up to the individual studying to decide if they want to learn it as a fighting style or for health. I feel that once your placing emphasis on qi, meditation, your walking a fine line between martial and spiritual.

As a police officer I have never witnessed wushu in a fight. My shifu, Shi Xing Hao, teaches wushu as well as traditional kung fu. I have witnessed some of the techniques that were being taught in a form as quite lethal. As law enforcement officers we are trained to react differently when there are weapons being involved. What I meant by my example is that if you throw a wushu practitioner into a fight with a staff, spear, sword, etc., he will hurt you....just by the mere way they can handle weapons. To me that's a fighting art. :)

GeneChing
09-23-2004, 04:33 PM
The problem here is how you define a fight. By strict definitions, is ancient weapon training even practical now? Can I really fight with kwan dao? Not likely. It's not because the techniques are bad really, it's just because there aren't handy kwan daos lying around, especially not where I might be fighting. Oops. Sorry Officer Songshan, nevermind that. I don't get in street fights. ;)
Seriously though, I find the old 'martial arts is just about fighting' argument shallow, obsolete and close-minded. My mom takes tai chi. Is she going to be able to throw down in a fight? No. Will she ever even do push hands? No. Does she know the fighting applications? No. But I encourage her. She likes it because it improves her golf game. I guess you could say she uses it to fight the course. But are you going to deny my ma the martial legacy of tai chi? It's still tai chi. It's still martial arts. You can't really say otherwise until your in your 70's, a grandma, and had to have raised a son like me. :p

Songshan
09-23-2004, 09:39 PM
Well, Ancient weapon training isn't very practical now a days, but it still exists for a reason. I kind of look at training and learning an ancient weapon as part of the heritage of martial arts. There are some weapons that exist which are practical, but it's not very likely you are going to see a kwan dao in a fight. I have come across some individuals on the job that just like to walk around and pack various weapons for no reason at all. Some were MA weapons and some were home made. I used the staff as an example because it's wooden or bamboo and staff like objects can be found laying around SOMETIMES (a broom stick?). Ok, maybe I am fishing here :)

Overall, I agree with you Gene on your post.