Southern shaolin? Any practitioners

[paper_crane]

i a newbie so please don't tell me off but i would like to know if anyone outhere practices southern shaolin kungfu....not branches such as choy lee fut but southern SHAOLIN kungfu. i know that southern shaolin history is not clear as northern but i was just wondering :o

[David Jamieson]

*raises hand, looks around at the rest of the guys here... :p

[brothernumber9]

I is study dem sudden shaolin. I lernted it from my pappy in West Virginyee and we don't need no stinkin branches.

[David Jamieson]

why do you think southern shaolin history is unclear?

There are the reputed 5 main branches:

Mok, Choy, Li, Hung and Lau.

Choy and Li have fused and Hung in some lineages has adopted the Mok and Lau systems into themselves. INclusive to these is the distilled form of shaolin kungfu known as wing chun. The Q&D style created and intended to instill fighting skill in a shorter period of time than those of the more robusts systems from teh 5 premier branches.

Now, each branch has a family version or two (or 3 or 10, or 100 :p ) and as well there are what are known as village styles. These are fundamentally the flavours of each of the branches as passed down within communities, usually within families of the same surname and spreading out over time. Some have been lost, others are more repleat than ever and going strong.

In the 300 years that was the qing dynasty, Shaolin Kungfu spread far and wide across China and also eventually out of it entirely.

More recently in history, like, in the last 50 years or so we have seen the flourishing of Kungfu practice in the Western countries and this continues to grow as well with Both the traditional old styles and wu shu growing alongside each other and all sorts of unique styles that have been put together like a patchwork by practitioners who have drank from a few cups of the TCMA tea over their lifetimes.

Anyway, for me personally there are only two types of martial arts:

1.effective
2.ineffective

both martially and as health practices these divisions apply in my mind.

a rose is still a rose by any other name ultimately. Each style will have it's own history and lineage, some long, some short, some broken and so on.

anyway...just sayin.

[ngokfei]

I practice Hung and Dog Boxing.

Both are said to have direct roots to the Southern Shaolin Temple

Its probably almost impossible to find styles today that were actually taught exactly they way they were back before the temple's destruction.

Evolution and improvement had its influence

[Judge Pen]

Evolution and improvement had its influence

As well as money, marketing and western expectations.

[ngokfei]

you said it I didn't :D

[mantis108]

There isn't really a Southern Shaolin style in existance per se IMHO unless of course you are talking about the modern Wushu rendition (Nanquan) of what it considers to be Southern Shaolin.

Personally, I believe that Southern Shaolin is in fact a generic or blanket term for the 5 major folk arts (Dazun, Taizu, Xingzhe, Luohan, and Baihe) that were indigenous in Fujian province. From there they evolved and spread to further south such as Guangdong province. The 5 family that Kung Lek mentioned were mainly developed in the Guangdong region. The so called Southern Shaolin actually has ties with Ming military because Shaolin monks in the 1500s received stick figthing training from General Yu Dayou who was the mentor of General Qi Jiguang. They also fought alongside the Ming army against supposed Japanese pirates around Fujian province and neighboring regions. When the Ming dynasty fell, what's left of the Ming military became known as Zhu Jia. Those Shaolin monks troops and the Zhu Jia (military loyalists) forms the 2 main arms of the so called Southern Shaolin but there is the third arm which is the grassroot underground rebellion forces including secret societies such as Tiandihui and the much subdued cult White Lotus which had quite an influence on Yong Chun He Fa that later became Baihe, Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Lung Ying, etc... even Okinawan's Te that gradually became Karate.

So IMHO Southern Southern system in essential is a collective body of work that includes military, monastery (mainly stick fighting) and grass root folk arts of Fujian province. It has 3 major functions that can serve the needs of the general public - martial (as education), healing, and spiritual. It is a folk art rather than a system that originated in a temple (the supposed rediscovered Putian Shaolin).

Mantis108

[BlueTravesty]

just a thought, but check this- perhaps a comprehensive study could be taken of the major southern styles claiming descent from Shaolin- Hung Gar, Wing Chun, White Crane, CLF, Southern Mantis, and others and find the common elements within forms, fighting strategies, as well as those aspects that, while not common, fuse well together, and perhaps you'll find something close to true "Nam Sil Lum." They could even call it "The Southern Fist Symposium." :)

Already, there are the alleged similarities between Wing Chun and SPM (though I don't know much about either style- the style I'm learning is Northern anyway) as well as Hung Gar's Tiger and Crane forms, etc.

Now, just curious, but are the five families previously mentioned the same as those practiced in Ngo Cho Kuen?

[Shaolinlueb]

i know the master benny ming (i think its his name. he does a lot of articles)of wing tsun/ ving tsun/wing chun (i dont know which one he is part of off the top of my head.) he has been reasearching the southern shaolin temple with articles. you can check those out.

[David Jamieson]

the nan chuan form from wushu is hyperspeed rip-off of Hung Gar in my opinion. lol

It uses the kiu sao often and looks like a conglomorate form from the Lam sai wing hung kuen all speed up. :p In all honesty, it is one of the worst of the wushu forms available, they really should've left it alone.

The connections to Buddhism and Taosim are where the connections to Shaolin lie in any kungfu. If you have buddhist qigongs, meditations etc etc in your style, then it likely decended from Shaolin. If you have Ch'an or Zen in your style then it definitely decended from Shaolin in that part and likely in others.

THere are things that are same same from north to south and in keeping with traditional shaolin training.

As for the existence of a real and bonafide temple in fujian that was "Shaolin" well...there is now, and there are legends (not myths) of one that existed there up into the 1800's. legend usually has some truth at it's base whereas Myths are complete abstractions.

Not to mention all the scattered monks at various times who spread what they knew of martial arts all over in China and Asia.

Anyway, the connection to Shaolin is not such a big deal. Even modern wushu can make that claim. :D

[canglong]

i would like to know if anyone outhere practices southern shaolin kungfu...
Yes
Southern Shaolin training (http://www.hungfakwoon.com/)

[Vasquez]

the nan chuan form from wushu is hyperspeed rip-off of Hung Gar in my opinion. lol

It uses the kiu sao often and looks like a conglomorate form from the Lam sai wing hung kuen all speed up. :p In all honesty, it is one of the worst of the wushu forms available, they really should've left it alone.

The connections to Buddhism and Taosim are where the connections to Shaolin lie in any kungfu. If you have buddhist qigongs, meditations etc etc in your style, then it likely decended from Shaolin. If you have Ch'an or Zen in your style then it definitely decended from Shaolin in that part and likely in others.

THere are things that are same same from north to south and in keeping with traditional shaolin training.

As for the existence of a real and bonafide temple in fujian that was "Shaolin" well...there is now, and there are legends (not myths) of one that existed there up into the 1800's. legend usually has some truth at it's base whereas Myths are complete abstractions.

Not to mention all the scattered monks at various times who spread what they knew of martial arts all over in China and Asia.

Anyway, the connection to Shaolin is not such a big deal. Even modern wushu can make that claim. :D

There were many times in history when the shaolin was destroyed. The monks scattered and later regrouped.

[David Jamieson]

There were many times in history when the shaolin was destroyed. The monks scattered and later regrouped.

Well, in terms of the legends, the Henan temple was destroyed 3 times. The last time in 1927-28.

The legend of the Southern Temple has it being burned down in the late 1800's, with some saying that the monks themselves burnt it down.

That's the trouble with the whole Shaolin legend vs the Shaolin reality, at least history wise, it is slightly fragmented with a dash of legend, a pinch of childrens stories, a helping of truth and some complete nonsense. It is still debated, in some cases wildly.

Now, I'm no great historian of Shaolin, but I can tell plastic from glass most of the time. :p

[Infrazael]

why do you think southern shaolin history is unclear?

There are the reputed 5 main branches:

Mok, Choy, Li, Hung and Lau.

Choy and Li have fused and Hung in some lineages has adopted the Mok and Lau systems into themselves. INclusive to these is the distilled form of shaolin kungfu known as wing chun. The Q&D style created and intended to instill fighting skill in a shorter period of time than those of the more robusts systems from teh 5 premier branches.


I don't think Choy Lay Fut is simply a blending of "Choy Gar" and "Li Gar."

I've read the history of Choy Gar, it's nothing like the history of Choy Lay Fut.

Or I may be wrong.

[Fu-Pow]

I don't think Choy Lay Fut is simply a blending of "Choy Gar" and "Li Gar."

I've read the history of Choy Gar, it's nothing like the history of Choy Lay Fut.

Or I may be wrong.


You are both partially correct. As I understand it the Lay of Choy Lay Fut is the same Lay of Lay Gar (aka Li, Lee, Lei). The founder of Lay Gar was Lay Yau Shan who also was a teacher of Chan Heung.

However, the Choy of Choy Lay Fut is not the Choy of Choy Gar. Choy Fook was a notherner who just happend to share the same surname as the founder of Choy Ga.....can't remember his name right now???

[GeneChing]

The founder of Choy Gar was Choy Gau Yi in the Ming, who allegedly learned from a monk named Yi Guan.

[Fu-Pow]

Right....and the teacher of Chan Heung was Choy Fook (aka Ching Cho Wo Sheung ie Green Grass Monk) so not any direct connection that I know of.

[CLFNole]

Do you really believe that Choy Fook was the Green Grass Monk?

[Fu-Pow]

Do you really believe that Choy Fook was the Green Grass Monk?

If not Choy Fook then who was he?

[CLFNole]

Maybe his own person. It was documented that Choy Fook was nicknamed Rotten Head Monk as his head was burnt in the fire that destroyed the temple. Just recently the Chan Family finds a paper saying Choy Fook was the Green Grass Monk. Come on, isn't this awfully convenient. Why not quash the whole GGM story years ago?

They have just as many holes in their stories as the hung sing & buck sing side.

[Infrazael]

I dislike politics. I'm not sure if there is any "perfect" recording of CLF history. It seems everyone has a different version. . . .

I agree with CLFNole, each version has holes.

[CLFNole]

I dislike politics as well; however there is nothing wrong with discussion of history in a friendly manner. There is nothing political about knowing where you come from; however finding that out can be difficult to say the least.

Peace.

[David Jamieson]

sounds like it's time for some rooftop fights!

winner gets to write the history as he sees fit. :p

[jmd161]

That's the problem with so many so called Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Look at the holes in Choy Lay Fut....Look at the arguments within Hung Gar.....then not to mention my style of Black Tiger :rolleyes:


Like my sifu says all the time who really knows ,if any of this stuff is true?


It was so long ago that there's noone left alive to base anything on. Even then ppl will still find ways to debate everything you say. There is just no way to know who's legit and who's not in some cases, because you never know who taught who or exchanged info with who.


Black Tiger is said to have been the highest level of Shaolin training at one time, how many other arts claim that same title?!?!

It was only taught to Monks at one point, how many arts claim that title also?!?!


At one time there was only two known Black Tiger styles Haak Fu Muhn and Shantung Black Tiger (Northern and Southern) How many Black Tiger styles are around now, atleast four i can think up off the top of my head.

So, there's somethings that we'll never know the answer to.

Was there ever a Southern Shaolin Temple?


Some say yes some say no

My lineage says yes because it was created by Su Hak Fu from Sil Lum Fu Jow (Shaolin Tiger Claw) the same Tige Claw style that bore Hung Gar, so if it's a lie, then both Haak Fu Muhn and Hung Gar along with other styles that were bore from them must be fake right?!?!

Who knows?


jeff:)

[Vasquez]

Well, in terms of the legends, the Henan temple was destroyed 3 times. The last time in 1927-28.

The legend of the Southern Temple has it being burned down in the late 1800's, with some saying that the monks themselves burnt it down.

That's the trouble with the whole Shaolin legend vs the Shaolin reality, at least history wise, it is slightly fragmented with a dash of legend, a pinch of childrens stories, a helping of truth and some complete nonsense. It is still debated, in some cases wildly.

Now, I'm no great historian of Shaolin, but I can tell plastic from glass most of the time. :p

I think we can accept most of what's been said to be the truth. If not where does that leave us when it comes to ancient history ancient history in general. it's just that kung fu allows people to do incredible things.

[David Jamieson]

I think we can accept most of what's been said to be the truth. If not where does that leave us when it comes to ancient history ancient history in general. it's just that kung fu allows people to do incredible things.

I have to disagree on this Vasquez.

I think everything should be questioned when it is put forth as a principle or known truth. It is critical to finding the truth of a given thing. So acceptance of what has been said is almost on par with acceptance fo the reality of the tooth fairy. After all, it wasn't so long ago in school that we were taught taht the Egyptian pyramids were made by Hebrew slaves. This of course is not even one iota close to what the archaeological record shows, or for that matter, the written records and sites uncovered in the last 20 years. So, Shaolin certainly needs some scrutiny when you have all sorts of tales and legends and myths all stired together in one pot and offered as bonafide. It behooves scholars to investigate.

Also, I agree, Kungfu allows or rather when achieved makes it so that you are able to do things with your body that your average joe cannot. But then there are levels and degrees to that as well. I know kungfu people who are many years of practice and cannot contort like the 14 year old wushu athletes, but then, everyone's kungfu is their own. Depends on the focus.

And what if your Kungfu was to be the ultimate in the societal norm. :p
It is diligent practice that brings the practitioner to succeeding and attaining Kungfu. The "kungfu" doesn't really do anything. :D

[Vasquez]

I have to disagree on this Vasquez.

I think everything should be questioned when it is put forth as a principle or known truth. It is critical to finding the truth of a given thing. So acceptance of what has been said is almost on par with acceptance fo the reality of the tooth fairy. After all, it wasn't so long ago in school that we were taught taht the Egyptian pyramids were made by Hebrew slaves. This of course is not even one iota close to what the archaeological record shows, or for that matter, the written records and sites uncovered in the last 20 years. So, Shaolin certainly needs some scrutiny when you have all sorts of tales and legends and myths all stired together in one pot and offered as bonafide. It behooves scholars to investigate.

Also, I agree, Kungfu allows or rather when achieved makes it so that you are able to do things with your body that your average joe cannot. But then there are levels and degrees to that as well. I know kungfu people who are many years of practice and cannot contort like the 14 year old wushu athletes, but then, everyone's kungfu is their own. Depends on the focus.

And what if your Kungfu was to be the ultimate in the societal norm. :p
It is diligent practice that brings the practitioner to succeeding and attaining Kungfu. The "kungfu" doesn't really do anything. :D

That's why it helps to go to a traditional school. The full style and histroy is passed on to its rightful inheritor. As long as they maintain the traditional way of teaching the chain would not be broken and all the knowledge is passed down intact.

[David Jamieson]

That's why it helps to go to a traditional school. The full style and histroy is passed on to its rightful inheritor. As long as they maintain the traditional way of teaching the chain would not be broken and all the knowledge is passed down intact.

There is both correct and incorrect in this as well.
Traditional afterall is only being taught in the manner and fashion that your teacher was taught and how his teacher was taught and so on.

So, if a half truth or a lie slipped in 5 generations ago, it is grown and embellished to the point of now where it is almost irrepairable.
Definitely something worth considering. Even some of the most so called traditionalists have murky lineages, backgrounds and questionable histories. That much has been shown again and again.

What's important most to me in a school is:

1. is the result seeable and achieveable
2. Is the result effective
3. Is their benefit to oneself on the whole in regards to health and self defense

If those are there, then for me, the connections to the past are inconsequential.
There are many practitioners out there who have fine lineages but the kungfu they propogate is incomplete, watered down and in some cases wholly ineffective in combat both sportive and for real.

In other words, my yard stick for good martial arts doesn't include the presumption of those three things based on a lot of tradition.

Besides, while many take for granted the shaolin heritage of their style, few consider the huge gap of some 60 - 80 years in the Shaolin heritage and how it has mosty been brought back by folk masters and government wushu sponsorship.

Not to mention the animosity between KMT background clubs (of which there are many connections to those shaolin based styles that came out after the late 20's) and the same PRC driven interests and not to mention teh kungfu that kept going in China and in some cases is still quite obscure.

Things are not soi cut and dried for me anymore and I am not one to take another persons word on something because of their status or fame in such an often closed community.

You either got it in your hands, or you don't got it in other words. Games of face don't fit with my world view and for the most part I eschew them.

anyway, that's my point of view. A method can be sound without all the superfluous trappings of cultural tradition, not that there is anything wrong with cultural tradition, but I have to remain pluralist for the most part and carry on.

[Vasquez]

There is both correct and incorrect in this as well.
Traditional afterall is only being taught in the manner and fashion that your teacher was taught and how his teacher was taught and so on.

So, if a half truth or a lie slipped in 5 generations ago, it is grown and embellished to the point of now where it is almost irrepairable.
Definitely something worth considering. Even some of the most so called traditionalists have murky lineages, backgrounds and questionable histories. That much has been shown again and again.

What's important most to me in a school is:

1. is the result seeable and achieveable
2. Is the result effective
3. Is their benefit to oneself on the whole in regards to health and self defense

If those are there, then for me, the connections to the past are inconsequential.
There are many practitioners out there who have fine lineages but the kungfu they propogate is incomplete, watered down and in some cases wholly ineffective in combat both sportive and for real.

In other words, my yard stick for good martial arts doesn't include the presumption of those three things based on a lot of tradition.

Besides, while many take for granted the shaolin heritage of their style, few consider the huge gap of some 60 - 80 years in the Shaolin heritage and how it has mosty been brought back by folk masters and government wushu sponsorship.

Not to mention the animosity between KMT background clubs (of which there are many connections to those shaolin based styles that came out after the late 20's) and the same PRC driven interests and not to mention teh kungfu that kept going in China and in some cases is still quite obscure.

Things are not soi cut and dried for me anymore and I am not one to take another persons word on something because of their status or fame in such an often closed community.

You either got it in your hands, or you don't got it in other words. Games of face don't fit with my world view and for the most part I eschew them.

anyway, that's my point of view. A method can be sound without all the superfluous trappings of cultural tradition, not that there is anything wrong with cultural tradition, but I have to remain pluralist for the most part and carry on.

It's not to say that a kung fu style is without flaws. It's to say that we don't train enough these days to begin to understand where the flaws are. That's why the traition way is used to pass down the knowledge intact from generation to generation. If we meddle with the 'recording' we not only distort the learning of the present generation but also the learning of future generations.

[David Jamieson]

It's not to say that a kung fu style is without flaws. It's to say that we don't train enough these days to begin to understand where the flaws are. That's why the traition way is used to pass down the knowledge intact from generation to generation. If we meddle with the 'recording' we not only distort the learning of the present generation but also the learning of future generations.

The knowledge isn't passed down intact though from generation to generation.
In fact, there is no line of kungfu that is taught in the same method as it's first master taught it unless the style is very very young.

As for training, when it comes to something like kungfu, how much is enough? How much training is not enough? If you train, you train in my opinion. One doesn't have to be doing 6 hours of athletics to get prepared for a continuous stream of combat matches to say they are training kungfu.

If you train everyday, in some aspect of your kungfu, then you are training. If you train once a week, although you are slacking, you are training. :p

Each and every teacher puts their own experience and their own flavour into the kungfu they teach. Is this "meddling"? Transmission is never, ever perfect is my point and as well, there is no kungfu today that is the same as what was once and that which was then, is not necessarily as good, or any worse than what is now.

Kungfu isn't about some old man 100 yeasr ago who could jump 20feet and kill 10 men with his bare hands. It's not about the temple and it's woes or it's heyday, it's not even about the wanting to be able to do things that you thought were only myths.

Kungfu is about you, working on you, to be a capable and understanding human being, who doesn't have to be affected the demons that would inhabit you otherwise, like self doubt, fear, greed, anger and so on.

Once you have mastered yourself in context to your understanding of your self on all levels, physically and mentally and emotionally, and once you have mastered yourself in context to the world around you and others so that you can funtion optimally in your relationships and in whatever you may encounter by chance, then you've achieved kungfu.

fighting becomes the smallest part of it when you go down the path long enough.
The path being you of course.

[canglong]

A point I find lacking in most of the arguments of historical or systemic clarity on this board is the fact that one should not have to rely on someone to define what is or is not correct historically or principly when that job clearly falls on the system itself. This does not happen by accident but is diliberate there are diamonds and there are gems that look like diamonds only when we know what it is that makes a daimond a diamond can we distinguish between the two. As long as your idea of something comes from a source outside of yourself no certainty of that idea will ever exist. As for Shaolin as was stated earlier if you know what Shaolin is you can actually answer the question of are you training Shaolin The answered is inherent in the system and if it is not there is a reason for that as well.

[Vasquez]

The knowledge isn't passed down intact though from generation to generation.
In fact, there is no line of kungfu that is taught in the same method as it's first master taught it unless the style is very very young.

As for training, when it comes to something like kungfu, how much is enough? How much training is not enough? If you train, you train in my opinion. One doesn't have to be doing 6 hours of athletics to get prepared for a continuous stream of combat matches to say they are training kungfu.

If you train everyday, in some aspect of your kungfu, then you are training. If you train once a week, although you are slacking, you are training. :p

Each and every teacher puts their own experience and their own flavour into the kungfu they teach. Is this "meddling"? Transmission is never, ever perfect is my point and as well, there is no kungfu today that is the same as what was once and that which was then, is not necessarily as good, or any worse than what is now.

Kungfu isn't about some old man 100 yeasr ago who could jump 20feet and kill 10 men with his bare hands. It's not about the temple and it's woes or it's heyday, it's not even about the wanting to be able to do things that you thought were only myths.

Kungfu is about you, working on you, to be a capable and understanding human being, who doesn't have to be affected the demons that would inhabit you otherwise, like self doubt, fear, greed, anger and so on.

Once you have mastered yourself in context to your understanding of your self on all levels, physically and mentally and emotionally, and once you have mastered yourself in context to the world around you and others so that you can funtion optimally in your relationships and in whatever you may encounter by chance, then you've achieved kungfu.

fighting becomes the smallest part of it when you go down the path long enough.
The path being you of course.

I know that transmission is not perfect, that's why we have to make sure its as good as possible. A student may not be good at kung fu, and the inheritor may not be as good as his sifu - but at least if ther forms can be passed on as intect as possible, someone in the future would understand what's going on.

[David Jamieson]

I know that transmission is not perfect, that's why we have to make sure its as good as possible. A student may not be good at kung fu, and the inheritor may not be as good as his sifu - but at least if ther forms can be passed on as intect as possible, someone in the future would understand what's going on.

it's possible I suppose. But there are differences in intact forms passed along from one school to the next and each claims possession of the real transmission. The idea of possession is where the quality and value of the system is lost imo.

One school executes technique differently than another and this may or may not dilute the riginal intention of a given series. In teh end, form is just shape. What's in the shape is as you say, up to that someone to figure out how to make it effective. If that person cannot find a way, then it may only be kept as a shape or a shadow of what it is intended to be while emphasis is placed on those aspects that can be made effective by the individual.

that's the way it is. In my opinion, it is the principles and the kinetics of them in practice that has more importance. Also, I feel this is why the shape of kungfu changes as time passes. In many cases, that which is old becomes new again and is rediscovered. Sometimes, this is mistakenly thought of as new and original, but that's neither here nor there.

But like anything, there is good and bad in the traditional ways of transmission as tehre is in the modern methods. Seems that this is the nature of things.

[Vasquez]

it's possible I suppose. But there are differences in intact forms passed along from one school to the next and each claims possession of the real transmission. The idea of possession is where the quality and value of the system is lost imo.

One school executes technique differently than another and this may or may not dilute the riginal intention of a given series. In teh end, form is just shape. What's in the shape is as you say, up to that someone to figure out how to make it effective. If that person cannot find a way, then it may only be kept as a shape or a shadow of what it is intended to be while emphasis is placed on those aspects that can be made effective by the individual.

that's the way it is. In my opinion, it is the principles and the kinetics of them in practice that has more importance. Also, I feel this is why the shape of kungfu changes as time passes. In many cases, that which is old becomes new again and is rediscovered. Sometimes, this is mistakenly thought of as new and original, but that's neither here nor there.

But like anything, there is good and bad in the traditional ways of transmission as tehre is in the modern methods. Seems that this is the nature of things.

what about dim isn't most of that lost?

[David Jamieson]

By "dim" are you referring to dim mak?

[Vasquez]

yes I meant dim mak - chinese pressure point strikes, like in eagle claw or mantis fist.

[David Jamieson]

yes I meant dim mak - chinese pressure point strikes, like in eagle claw or mantis fist.

I don't think it is "lost" so much as it has been grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented via movies, misunderstanding and embellished transmission of what it is.

For instance, the movie crouching tiger hidden dragon shows a person being paralyzed by a series of strikes to points on the meridians around teh spinal column.

This in turn leads people to think that this is doable. This misinterpretation is common in martial arts particularly in movies where actuality is blurred with fantasy.

The thing about the "truth" of any matter is that once the mystique is removed, in peoples minds interest is lost because they can now in their minds move on to the next thing that is shrouded in mystique.

Maintaining mystique is a vehicle for maintaining peoples interests as well. Dim mak definitely fits in this category. As does a lot of Kungfu or martial arts practice in general. The mystique is also a vehicle to ridicule something such as you see in the chest banging that goes on between some people who are into mma vs some people who are into traditional method of kungfu development. the mma set ridicules the tarditional practices and the traditional people minimize the value of mma fighting sometimes diminishing it to nothing more than barbarism.

This of course is all something that takes place in their own minds and has nothing to do with the actual reality of it. The actual reality of it can only be succinctly gained through ones own practice and experience. IMO, if one hasn't taken a kickj at both, then they have no place commenting on the differences between either.

[Vasquez]

I don't think it is "lost" so much as it has been grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented via movies, misunderstanding and embellished transmission of what it is.

For instance, the movie crouching tiger hidden dragon shows a person being paralyzed by a series of strikes to points on the meridians around teh spinal column.

This in turn leads people to think that this is doable. This misinterpretation is common in martial arts particularly in movies where actuality is blurred with fantasy.

The thing about the "truth" of any matter is that once the mystique is removed, in peoples minds interest is lost because they can now in their minds move on to the next thing that is shrouded in mystique.

Maintaining mystique is a vehicle for maintaining peoples interests as well. Dim mak definitely fits in this category. As does a lot of Kungfu or martial arts practice in general. The mystique is also a vehicle to ridicule something such as you see in the chest banging that goes on between some people who are into mma vs some people who are into traditional method of kungfu development. the mma set ridicules the tarditional practices and the traditional people minimize the value of mma fighting sometimes diminishing it to nothing more than barbarism.

This of course is all something that takes place in their own minds and has nothing to do with the actual reality of it. The actual reality of it can only be succinctly gained through ones own practice and experience. IMO, if one hasn't taken a kickj at both, then they have no place commenting on the differences between either.


Is that so. There's a saying that 1 shaolin monk is worth 1000 soldiers and the emperor asked the shaolin monks help guard th coast line.

[David Jamieson]

Is that so. There's a saying that 1 shaolin monk is worth 1000 soldiers and the emperor asked the shaolin monks help guard th coast line.

Sayings have little to do with actuality. Who propogates this saying? And ultimately, what is the end result?

What happened to the Shaolin temple on more than one occasion?
Do you think this is true today? Do you honestly think one shaolin monk could defeat 1000 soldiers? From any countries army?

Reality would indicate that this saying has no "real" merit in this day and age and had not so much merit in past history. It's a moot point and not really worth arguing about. But rebut if you must. :p

[canglong]

There's a saying that 1 shaolin monk is worth 1000 soldiers and the emperor asked the shaolin monks help guard th coast line.
Reality would indicate that this saying has no "real" merit in this day and age and had not so much merit in past history. It's a moot point and not really worth arguing about. But rebut if you must. In perspective and in context something comparable would be like saying that 10 special forces personnel is equivalent to 100 regular Army grunts which doesn't seem so hard to believe which does give merit to the previous statement the earlier number used to make a point but still valid IMO.

[Vasquez]

Sayings have little to do with actuality. Who propogates this saying? And ultimately, what is the end result?

What happened to the Shaolin temple on more than one occasion?
Do you think this is true today? Do you honestly think one shaolin monk could defeat 1000 soldiers? From any countries army?

Reality would indicate that this saying has no "real" merit in this day and age and had not so much merit in past history. It's a moot point and not really worth arguing about. But rebut if you must. :p

LOL. you should listen to what canglong says. Special forces today may have 5 to 6 yrs training. Shaolin monks train from an early age for 20 to 40 years. the average chinese soldier trains for 3 to 6 months. go figure - qantity vs quality IMO

[David Jamieson]

um, you guys probably shouldn't compare an sas with a carbine automatic rifle with a 16th century buddhist monk.

There is an error in thinking there imo. Even to presume that seals or sas or other tactical specialists have such an extreme upper hand on an average soldier is misinformation somewhere.

You have to seperate legend from fact.

Are seals well trained? Yes. To do what? To plant explosives on the hulls of ships and to work this way underwater. 80% of the training is doing in the water doing exactly this. This is called specialization.

Rangers, Green Berets and other types of behind the line commandos are also specialists and their training isn't exactly what I would call exclusively h2h tactical combatives although there is some of this. Marines and forward companies get more of that type of training and possibly the more shadowy national assassin types, but let's not get into the rwlms of the Tom Clancy books too far when we talk about modern tactical forces versus Shaolin monks.

Anyway, imo, i refuse to live in that type of fantastical thinking. It's nice as a story to read in a wuxia novel but in all seriousness anomolies are a blip in time and history that should not be considered the aggrigate of the timeline.

Were Shaolin monks martially adept? According to a few stories they were. the methods that have been handed down by them certainly do augment ones personal strength and ability through the practice of their martial arts.

But that's something that could be said of a lot of methods. In a lot of sports and a lot of martial arts.

Truth is, if you want to find out how effective your art is in combat, well then you'll have to go and sign up for a fight or train with that aspect built in and see how you do. Until you've used it in a situation that is not within the rigid confines of your school, I am not so certain that anyone will understand the dynamics of the arts they do. It is the unknown, even in a safe environement where the measure is made. Not inside the structure it was built in.

[canglong]

um, you guys probably shouldn't compare an sas with a carbine automatic rifle with a 16th century buddhist monk. David,
Doesn't seem to me that we did that. More to the point that even you yourself acknowledge is time in study and as Vasquez points out the normal training period for most regular military personnel is 3-6 months where as Shaolin Warriors were trained and specialized in specific weaponry starting at an early age going well into adulthood. That was true then as it is now.
Truth is, if you want to find out how effective your art is in combat, well then you'll have to go and sign up for a fight or train with that aspect built in and see how you do. Until you've used it in a situation that is not within the rigid confines of your school, I am not so certain that anyone will understand the dynamics of the arts they do. It is the unknown, even in a safe environement where the measure is made. Not inside the structure it was built in. That would be one perspective another is understanding that Shaolin fighting is grounded in principle and not technique. With Shaolin when we see the principle we understand it to be Shaolin if we see the technique displayed with the exhuberance of youth but without proper understanding of the principles that regulate time space and energy behind the technique we know it is not Shaolin. If we understand the principle of things we need not see the forrest burn down to understand that the possibilities of such actions could be achieved with one match.

[David Jamieson]

Principle drives technique. Applying technique without the principle renders the technique pretty much useless.

My point in playing devils advocate on the shaolin monk equation is that it is just a legend and certainly doesn't hold true today.

One doesn't have skill because they are a student of a given style. One doesn't have skill that is higher because they choose to learn one style over another.

One either has skill or doesn't. The method doesn't preclude the students or the practitioners knowledge, skill or ability.

My other point is that Shaolin monks are buddhist monks first. the martial connection came later (way later) and many of the dhayana practices done by early monks had little if anything to do with martial ability.

Also, we cannot count on the validity of legends and stories to bolster our own place in the shape of things.

[Vasquez]

Principle drives technique. Applying technique without the principle renders the technique pretty much useless.

My point in playing devils advocate on the shaolin monk equation is that it is just a legend and certainly doesn't hold true today.

One doesn't have skill because they are a student of a given style. One doesn't have skill that is higher because they choose to learn one style over another.

One either has skill or doesn't. The method doesn't preclude the students or the practitioners knowledge, skill or ability.

My other point is that Shaolin monks are buddhist monks first. the martial connection came later (way later) and many of the dhayana practices done by early monks had little if anything to do with martial ability.

Also, we cannot count on the validity of legends and stories to bolster our own place in the shape of things.

You're missing the point, spirituality and martial arts are linked -that's why shaolins have such great power. Now MMAers tend to train body without spirit.

[David Jamieson]

You're missing the point, spirituality and martial arts are linked -that's why shaolins have such great power. Now MMAers tend to train body without spirit.

???

vasquez, is it your purpose to simply argue with me to make some stance that shaolin is ultimate and everything else is inferior? Because I don't believe that anymore than I believe I can fly without the aid of an aeroplane.

Be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Your above statement is wholly incorrect. Do you train in any mma? Do you know anyone who does? An art form whethere sportive or not doesn't mean that someone is lacking spiritually.

What do you think of charlatans that leap around in saffron robes but are not ordained buddhist monks? Is that spiritual do you suppose?