The Ten Songshan Shaolin Forms

[Jingwu Man]

Here it is. These are the forms from the apparently unavailable video series. Took me awhile to digitize ten video tapes.
Enjoy!


Xiaohongquan by Liu Chunliang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPtUsiyhPA

Dahongquan by Shi Yongzhi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1h8pyH7Q3Y

Tongbiqaun by Cui Xiqi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tsE3EpxvIw

and his students
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW4eGQwTNpc

Liuhequan by Shi Yanzi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQEP54fBMuU

Taizu changquan by Liang Yiquan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw-qCSCAlHs

and his student
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFJQqdeLVk

Changhuxinyimen by Liu Baoshan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYErJ2GZP4

and his students
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9ARnhPbkhQ

Qixingquan by a master Wang (not sure of the name)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RuX7jh40hc

Meihuaquan by Shi Gongsun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbUUKKWMWYw

Paoquan by Liu Junhai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lev-mkcR4s

Luohanquan by Shi Yanzi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPOiHl18mA

[Sal Canzonieri]

Very nice of you to do that for people.

[X_plosion]

Thanks for sharing.

[Royal Dragon]

Yeah, WOW Thanks!!

I have this whole set in my library, but it's really nice to have the key forms in my laptop too!

What did you mean by "Unavalaible?" I bought mine from Wing Lam about 3-4 years ago.

[Royal Dragon]

Sal,
Is this the form from the Emperor's freind that he had to kill in battle? Or a Shaolin vesion of the Taoist Tong Bei

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tsE3EpxvIw

Is this the full Da Hong? It seems a bit different than the Xaio Hong, but similar at the same time. Does this set match the Xiao Hong, or is this from the newer Hong style?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1h8pyH7Q3Y


I have allways really liked this perticular perfromance of the Tai tzu set. I know it's a bit Wushuised, but it is artistry in motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFJQqdeLVk

Notice the way he punches at :47? I steps back as he punches. Most lines either stay inplace, or move forward here. The quetion, since everyone seems to do this section different, is this part of the form comonly "Marked" ? or si there allowed variences?

[PangQuan]

wow. yes this is very nice.

thanks!




you cannot download video from youtube.com can you?

[Royal Dragon]

Google "VDownloader" and install. You will be able to download then.

[Jingwu Man]

Posted by Royal Dragon "What did you mean by "Unavailable?" I bought mine from Wing Lam about 3-4 years ago."

Someone said these videos aren't on the market anymore. I bought mine a while back too.

Apparently you can go to www.keepvid.com with the IP address of the video you want and save it to your computer, playable on flash.

[PangQuan]

Google "VDownloader" and install. You will be able to download then.

You are so the man

[LFJ]

just a couple comments:

1) are you sure the meihuaquan isnt done by shi guosong? actually, he has a vcd out on this one and its called ditang meihuaquan.

2) the paoquan form done here is the same as the old monk performing as we've seen on youtube. both of them seem to be missing some sections as if slightly abbreviated.

3) the luohanquan form looks like xiaoluohanquan but it is very jumbled from the way i've seen it by a number of different performers.

[LFJ]

Is this the full Da Hong? It seems a bit different than the Xaio Hong, but similar at the same time. Does this set match the Xiao Hong, or is this from the newer Hong style?

its the same as the first road of dahongquan as performed by shi deyang that we saw. so it has 2 more roads following it.

p.s. sheesh! yongzhi was awesome when he was younger, eh?! :eek:

[Pk_StyLeZ]

good videos
keep it up

[Sal Canzonieri]

just a couple comments:

1) are you sure the meihuaquan isnt done by shi guosong? actually, he has a vcd out on this one and its called ditang meihuaquan.

2) the paoquan form done here is the same as the old monk performing as we've seen on youtube. both of them seem to be missing some sections as if slightly abbreviated.

3) the luohanquan form looks like xiaoluohanquan but it is very jumbled from the way i've seen it by a number of different performers.

Sighhhhh, these 10 forms are marked, marked means that they have added moves or subtracted moves so that they can see if you learned the forms from their tape, in case you claim that you learned it from one of the monks.
Also, none of these 10 forms are worth learning from cause they have jumbled moves and interchanged moves and left some add.
Many of the exhibitions of the forms are half hearted, they really don't want you to learn from the tapes.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I would hate for people to perhaps learn them step by step from these tapes and it was all done in vain.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Sal,
Is this the form from the Emperor's freind that he had to kill in battle? Or a Shaolin vesion of the Taoist Tong Bei

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tsE3EpxvIw



The Shaolin Tong Bi or Tong Bei is not like the Original Tong Bei of ancient times, it has almost the same name, but it is a lot more newer and based on different ideas, although the narrator in that video is mixing up the two different Tong Bei and Tong Bi styles together in his talking.

Shaolin Tong Bi is a mixture of their older forms and it done only for training.

Taoist Tong Bei is based on sword and ape movements.

[Sal Canzonieri]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFJQqdeLVk

Notice the way he punches at :47? I steps back as he punches. Most lines either stay in place, or move forward here. The question, since everyone seems to do this section different, is this part of the form commonly "Marked" ? or is there allowed variances?

Yeah at :47 he adds this stepping back cause he was going beyond camera range and had to reel himself back in (that's all).
yeah, this form is often marked here and also earlier at :25-27.

I'll let you in an a secret about this form, it is always marked (moves left out or done very mushy so you can't tell exactly what they did there) exactly at the same spots that it corresponds to something that is very important to Chen Tai Ji.
Why?
Cause a) they don't want you to know that; b) then you will know the real way to do the movements with internal strength and soft/hard/fast/slow energy; and c) the young people that do these forms only care about doing the forms so that they look good to the public, so they have streamlined the forms and taken out the parts that slow it down, which happen to be the important parts.

I got that straight from the horse's mouth, Russ asked his teachers at Shaolin for me.

Also, since I possess the old original Quan Pu for this form I know the real routine, with the original characters in Chinese being from a very old way to make the characters, some of the characters in the verses I had to ask many people to translate until I could find someone of sufficient knowledge that they could understand them.

For example, what is commonly called Single Whip, in the ancient quan pu I have, the character instead says it is a "dig wedge hammer" or a "Plowing hammer" as it would be known today, but the characters not used anymore and are for a very ancient farming tool, where you hold the handles on each side and you walk along a row as you push a blade through making furrows, so that seeds can be planted.
In pinyin it says "Jue-Xie Chui", but it took a long time to decipher that from the old rare characters.

All the verses are like that, saying things in a old way that is not from modern times.

[Royal Dragon]

Yeah at :47 he adds this stepping back cause he was going beyond camera range and had to reel himself back in (that's all).
yeah, this form is often marked here and also earlier at :25-27.

Reply]
I thought so too. He skips some moves at :33 too as well as other places.

I'll let you in an a secret about this form, it is always marked (moves left out or done very mushy so you can't tell exactly what they did there) exactly at the same spots that it corresponds to something that is very important to Chen Tai Ji.
Why?

Reply]
Really? I don't know Chen, so Ican am not able to see that.


Cause a) they don't want you to know that; b) then you will know the real way to do the movements with internal strength and soft/hard/fast/slow energy; and c) the young people that do these forms only care about doing the forms so that they look good to the public, so they have streamlined the forms and taken out the parts that slow it down, which happen to be the important parts.

Reply]
WuShuised.

I got that straight from the horse's mouth, Russ asked his teachers at Shaolin for me.

Also, since I possess the old original Quan Pu for this form I know the real routine, with the original characters in Chinese being from a very old way to make the characters, some of the characters in the verses I had to ask many people to translate until I could find someone of sufficient knowledge that they could understand them.

For example, what is commonly called Single Whip, in the ancient quan pu I have, the character instead says it is a "dig wedge hammer" or a "Plowing hammer" as it would be known today,

Reply]
Interesting, that gives me some things to think about.

but the characters not used anymore and are for a very ancient farming tool, where you hold the handles on each side and you walk along a row as you push a blade through making furrows, so that seeds can be planted.
In pinyin it says "Jue-Xie Chui", but it took a long time to decipher that from the old rare characters.

All the verses are like that, saying things in a old way that is not from modern times.

Reply]
That is why this stuff is so difficult to map out.

[golden arhat]

Google "VDownloader" and install. You will be able to download then.

u sir are THE MAN

[LFJ]

u sir are THE MAN

how come it doesnt work for me? :(

[LFJ]

The Shaolin Tong Bi or Tong Bei is not like the Original Tong Bei of ancient times, it has almost the same name, but it is a lot more newer and based on different ideas, although the narrator in that video is mixing up the two different Tong Bei and Tong Bi styles together in his talking.

Shaolin Tong Bi is a mixture of their older forms and it done only for training.

Taoist Tong Bei is based on sword and ape movements.

what was he mixing up about them? talking about monkey?

i wouldnt say its an inaccurate description for shaolin tongbiquan to be the only "photographic boxing that belongs to the non-photographic boxing of shaolin boxing".

according to master shi deyang it is based on xiaohong, dahong, and houquan (monkey boxing). and the xiaotongbiquan sets have clear "monkey claw" hand forms in them, as well as some monkey behavioral body movements. so it is also called tongbi monkey boxing.

cant get more monkey than that without being placed in the "photographic" class. (i guess that refers to mimicry- or perhaps more appropriately "apery"?)

but its a mixture of the essential principles and techniques of xiaohong, dahong, and monkey... not a copy of those. hence, while it is partially based on monkey boxing it remains "non-photographic", a non-mimicry style.

i think the narrator was on-point with this one.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I don't even understand what he is saying......

[LFJ]

"the boxing is created according to the apes or monkeys long arms. yet the boxing taking over the spirit, but without the form of apes and monkeys, is the only photographic boxing that belongs to the non-photographic boxing in shaolin boxing."

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Of course...all of this is pointless since they should drop these ten forms in favor of the ten Bei Shaolin forms. The Song Shan forms are so much less spectacular anyway:D

[LFJ]

although, having ten forms from another system not practiced or taught in shaolinsi represent the martial arts of the temple, would seem a little awkward.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Indeed, Chan is a great tree of life, of which Bei Shaolin kung fu is a big huge branch near the base. These days everyone only pays attention to the newly grown foliage at the top.:p

[LFJ]

it is possible for bei shaolin gongfu to be a branch of the chan tree. as can anything. but what part of that tree the branch may be doesnt put it any closer to shaolinsi- the temple or its martial arts. lol

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If I understand my history right, the current core ten sets seen at Song Shan Shaolin today represents the really old Song dynasty era Shaolin (although that material has it's roots in the preceding dynasties).

Shaolin ten hand sets (Ky Yu Cheong) on the other had is representing the Ming dynasty era Shaolin material.

Both are the MAJOR variations of Shaolin themple Kung Fu. Those along with the really Old Louhan (which is Tang dynasty all the way back to Shaolin's beginning) are the 3 most over all styles that show Shaolin's most well known and identifying flavors during melenias of its existence.

I am sure there are plenty of other minor stylistic families that have come and gone, but the 3 big ones are what define Shaolin Kung Fu for thier particular Era.


[EDIT]
I forgot about Five Animals... that is in there during some time period as well.
I think Five animals fits in between Sung and Ming, but I really don't remember. I don't think that was really big till Southern Shaolin anyway.

[LFJ]

Shaolin ten hand sets (Ky Yu Cheong) on the other had is representing the Ming dynasty era Shaolin material.

:confused:

as i've learned it, bak siu lam was created in southern china based on what the founder had learned in the temple up in the north. and so to pay tribute to shaolin he named the style "northern shaolin" in cantonese, bak siu lam.

although, it is by all means a style created in the south which has never been taught or practiced as a curriculum in the shaolin temple.

so, i fail to see how such a style can represent the martial arts in the shaolin temple- having never been there.

[LFJ]

i remember gene having a comment on this once before, saying he once showed his northern shaolin forms to some monks in shaolin, and while they didnt recognize the forms they said it is definitely a shaolin-related style.

but it is just that, a shaolin-related style. shi deyang has said, many styles of shaolin temple have spread throughout the country taking on the characteristics of and being adapted to the styles of local area people. but while we cant say these styles are not shaolin, they certainly are different from the material being taught and practiced in the shaolin temple. that point should be clear.

[Shaolindynasty]

Gene wrote a huge article on the subject of bak siu lum vs. songshan shaolin. it's in the ezine I can't find it. It was good stuff. Everyone who practices a system with roots in shaolin should read it.

[Shaolindynasty]

here it is http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=158

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Royal Dragon
If I understand my history right, the current core ten sets seen at Song Shan Shaolin today represents the really old Song dynasty era Shaolin (although that material has it's roots in the preceding dynasties).

Shaolin ten hand sets (Ky Yu Cheong) on the other had is representing the Ming dynasty era Shaolin material.

Both are the MAJOR variations of Shaolin themple Kung Fu. Those along with the really Old Louhan (which is Tang dynasty all the way back to Shaolin's beginning) are the 3 most over all styles that show Shaolin's most well known and identifying flavors during melenias of its existence.
It is my belief and the belief of my sifu and si hing's that Northern Shaolin had been developed from the Song dynasty through the Ming dynasty, as well as during the Qing dynasty all the way up until the temple was destroyed in the 1700's. It was partly for this reason that my sifu felt that it represents the very best of Shaolin. A library of effective and deadly techniques that were actually battle tested throughout Shaolin's tumultuous history. Now, I'm not saying that some variation of the current Song Shaolin sets weren't practiced there as well. But as far as the traditional history of Bei Shaolin goes, it was originally developed sometime during the Song dynasty (perhaps during the 1100's).

As far as Shaolin Lohan goes, I tend to believe that the Northern Shaolin Lohan style that was taught by an original Shaolin monk known as Yuan Tung T'an (who taught Shun Yu Fung) comes closest to the original style. I say this because it really is quite an effective fighting style (not just some performance art). One teacher of mine thinks it's just as real and practical a fighting method as Hsing Yi. Of course with Lohan kung fu I really don't feel anyone can really lay claims to any high level of authenticity. It was created over a thousand years ago and it was usually kept secret.

originally posted by LFJ
as i've learned it, bak siu lam was created in southern china based on what the founder had learned in the temple up in the north. and so to pay tribute to shaolin he named the style "northern shaolin" in cantonese, bak siu lam.

although, it is by all means a style created in the south which has never been taught or practiced as a curriculum in the shaolin temple.

so, i fail to see how such a style can represent the martial arts in the shaolin temple- having never been there.
Ugg...once again, Kuo Yu Chang learned the ten sets from master Yim Chi Wen in Shantung province in the northeast. Yim Chi Wen was a friend of Kuo's dad and it was Kuo's dad who originally told his son to seek out this old master so that he could learn what was, at the time, termed as the art of Northern Shaolin. There seems to be a schism these days between whether or not Master Kuo "made up" these ten sets. As they are long sets (especially #1, 2, 3, 9, and 10) that seem to have a structure to them that seemingly could only have been developed after generations, I do not think Kuo really tampered with them at all. He may have added a move or two. Who knows since there were no video cameras back then and I don't think there has never been any specific mention of him doing this one way or the other. But he would never have disrespected his master as much as to completely change the ten sets as he learned them.

So you see...there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the ten sets or something very close to them were being taught at Shaolin Temple during antiquity. I think we should just leave it at that since the current temple cannot be trusted when they say they have the original, most authentic Shaolin style that ever existed. Bei Shaolin was considered to be THE original Song Shaolin style before the temple was burned down in 1925 and before the tragic and thoroughly devastating Cultural Revolution. How is somebody going to tell me that all of these more recently "uncovered" records survived all of this. And even if a few books did survive, they're not going to describe the whole history of Shaolin martial arts nor all of the authentic styles that were practiced there. I'm sorry, and I know this is going to sound controversial to some, but the way I see it, the Shaolin Temple is, lock stock and barrel, connected to and a part of the PRC. And since the PRC is a, more or less, out of control, corrupt regime that tortures and beats women and children and was founded by a man who condoned torturing, killing, and enslaving his own people, neither it, as a governing entity, nor it's closely affiliated Shaolin Temple can be trusted. Period

[Sal Canzonieri]

Most of these ten core Shaolin sets are from the Qing Dynasty actually.

Only the Xiao Hong Quan (late Yuan, early Ming) set and Tai Tzu Set (Sung) are older.
The Pao Chui set has material from Sung era, but is mixed with other stuff and was completed during the Qing dynasty.

All the other 7 sets are Qing dynasty finalized sets.


---------------------------------

During the later Yuan Dynasty, Shaolin was completely shut down, there was no one there anymore.
All the people spread into the countryside. By the early Ming there was attempts to reopen the place and people had to go to nearby Luoyang to rediscover the lost Shaolin material. This was the stuff that became the "Five Animals" material of Jue Yuan, Bai Yu feng, Li Su, etc.

Before that time, between the Southern Sung and the later Yuan, Shaolin redeveloped their sets into the Vajra sets, which were 12 sets that most closed looks like the Bei Shaolin sets.
So, yes, the Bei Shaolin sets are based on very old and real Shaolin material.

But the point is that there are more than one group of Shaolin sets, depending on what time period these sets left the temple area.

The only "ancient" sets, as in Song dynasty material, that comes from Shaolin that is still practiced generation by generation in local Henan provinces lineages is the Rou Quan and various Nei Gungs that associated with it.

There are many Luohan lineages all over China that trace back to Shaolin sets, but they developed from material that left Shaolin during different time periods.
It was all called "luohan" if it came from the temple, even if it is not exactly "Luohan" sets, but just Shaolin sets of various origins.

[Qixing Tanglang]

Weird to hear people talk about a traditional Shaolin system and then only make reference to a bunch of sets. Something is missing.

N

[Sal Canzonieri]

Weird to hear people talk about a traditional Shaolin system and then only make reference to a bunch of sets. Something is missing.

N

Well, there are a million other aspects of a system, sets are a small part of them.
If the foundation is not there, from basic body mechanics to breathing methods and energy generation, then the sets are useless dancing routines.

But, the topic here was about just these sets, not about Shaolin based systems, hence . . .

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Shaolin systems are identified, and organized around thier forms. So when discussing a perticular system it is only logical to discuss the forms that comprise them, compared to the forms that comprise other systems. Especially when we are talking about closely related systems.

It's like discussing cars based on thier name plates. For example, if I am talking about a Corvette, you know I am not discussing a Camaro. Yes, there are similarities, but also differences.

In Kung Fu, Shaolin might represent all GM products, but which ones? Well, the forms, or groups of forms tell us which system we are discussing (Corvette form, or Camaro form).

This is especially helpful when we have two systems with the same names, like Hong Quan?

[LFJ]

it was Kuo's dad who originally told his son to seek out this old master so that he could learn what was, at the time, termed as the art of Northern Shaolin.

northern shaolin as in the bak siulam system, or of the art of shaolin temple?


Bei Shaolin was considered to be THE original Song Shaolin style before the temple was burned down in 1925 and before the tragic and thoroughly devastating Cultural Revolution.

considered by whom? thats an interesting thing to say. because all the elder generation monks of shaolin who's masters predated these periods teach the styles we have currently in songshan shaolin.

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about. odd that no bak siulam was known and past on by them. only what we currently have in songshan shaolin.

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

thats not to say that bak siulam is not traditional shaolin wushu though. it just developed and spread outside the temple.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

Reply]
Didn't Sal just say it comes from the Yuan dynasty era Shaolin? Xiao Hong is Sung dynasty.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by LFJ
considered by whom? thats an interesting thing to say. because all the elder generation monks of shaolin who's masters predated these periods teach the styles we have currently in songshan shaolin.

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about. odd that no bak siulam was known and past on by them. only what we currently have in songshan shaolin.

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

thats not to say that bak siulam is not traditional shaolin wushu though. it just developed and spread outside the temple.
Considered by the general populace. Other styles like, say, Five Animals were considered to be authentic Shaolin styles but there was only one style called "Northern Shaolin" and it encompassed most of the diverse styles that came through there before the 1700's. Now, it probably wasn't studied there after this time because the temple had supposedly been completely destroyed and any monks who escaped death would have avoided the area. It's true that, throughout the 1800's and the early 20th century there were other styles being practiced there after other monks tried picking up the pieces, but that doesn't prove that Northern Shaolin was never there. Northern Shaolin style was supposedly kept secret through much of it's history so people in the countryside wouldn't have learned it until Gan Fengchi and a few other surviving monks escaped the Qing's wrath. Also, I'm just curious, if Shi Deyang and Shi Decheng's lines predate the periods that I'm talking about, then you're saying that their masters escaped the 1925 destruction and the The Cultural Revolution, correct? And...their masters masters escaped the 1732 destruction as well as all of the other destructions before that, right?

Now, for the sake of reaching some common ground, I can admit that the current Song Shan forms share some similiarities with the Bei Shaolin forms. But the Bei Shaolin forms just seem more explosive to me. They seem more worthy of what the legends say about the famed Shaolin monks of old.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Let's be civil and cooperate and work together to discuss this, instead of what style is superior and more ancient and more authentic and so on, please. I believe that the Bei Shaolin sets are connected to Shaolin at some point in time.

In the spirit of trying to help you out with the possible historical connections between Shaolin and Bei Shaolin:

There's not one piece of historical evidence that the Bei Shaolin sets as practiced today were ever done on Shaolin grounds, other than the similar looking Kan Jia sets of Shaolin Vjara system of Yuan Dynasty (even sharing the same names for the sets).

All of the lineages of monks who left Shaolin during the 1700s and went to Shandong and Shanghai and elsewhere are all either HONG QUAN based or Luohan based.
None of them are even Five Animals based, none.
None of these lineages that can trace person by person all the way back to 1700s Shaolin (such as Wang Zi Peng's Shaolin lineage and Fan Chi Sao's lineage, both in Shandong province) show what they do is anything other than Hong Quan.
The other areas of China that can trace back show Luohan Quan.
None of these independent styles that go back to Shaolin 1700s do anything remotely like Bei Shaolin.

But, in rural areas of Henan province there are very old lineages that do Vajra Shaolin, often called Yuan era Secret Shaolin, and it is similar to Bei Shaolin sets, and again these are Kan Jia sets.

The only other 'secret system" from 1700s Shaolin that still exist and can be documented lineage -wise is the Fu Shou (Monk Hand) system and it looks nothing like any other style around.

The Bei Shaolin sets are closest in mechanics, names for movements, and set names as the Kan Jia sets, which are practiced by people at Shaolin who were students of Su Xi and so on. Whenever you see Vajra Shaolin sets, they are closer looking to Bei Shaolin than any other Shaolin derived style that arose out of the 1700s (lineage-wise).

So, wouldn't you want to investigate the Kan Jia system if it has so many similarities (of course Bei Shaolin evolved over time and absorbed other style's techniques and movements so it is not exactly the same today as Kan Jia - common sense)?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Gan Fengshi left behind evidence of what he actually taught and where he was at certain points in his short life (since he was executed by Qing for being a rebel).

Gen wrote a book, which can still be found, about his personal style, and that was Hua Quan, not the Hua Quan from Hua Mountain area, but meaning Flowery Boxing.
It was based on combining Shaolin long fist with Emei soft fist. This style is still practiced today in the areas he lived and they only do 4 sets. None of them are remotely like Bei Shaolin in anyway. What they do looks mixed with tai chi.

Also, while in Emei, he learned 3 Emperor Pao Chui, there is documentation from lineages there that he learned it and taught it while he was in Emei, which was most of his year after he left Shaolin.

The rebel group he belonged to, it is known that they practiced Plum Flower Boxing, a type of village long fist that is basically Shaolin derived.

The legends about him teaching Shaolin material that Bei Shaolin arose from so far have not been able to be verified because it doesn't match the documentation showing "when he was where".

Now, there was a rebel general, against the Qing, who traveled from the south to the norther east of China and he spread Fanzi and some Shaolin sets to select people. He used a fake name when he was traveling, one of which was GAN FENGSHI - so maybe, maybe, he is the actual person and not the real Gan Feng Shi.

[LFJ]

Didn't Sal just say it comes from the Yuan dynasty era Shaolin? Xiao Hong is Sung dynasty.

i said if baksiulam were ever at the shaolin temple it would have had to have been earlier than the times which before, as "siu lum fighter" claimed, baksiulam was considered THE style of songshan shaolin . based on the fact that none of the monks who's masters predated those times did it. but, anyway i have no reason to believe that it has ever been practiced or taught in the temple at any time. i'm just saying... if it were ever there.


Considered by the general populace.

interesting claim to make....

anyway, it differs with the ideas of monks in shaolin temple.


I'm just curious, if Shi Deyang and Shi Decheng's lines predate the periods that I'm talking about, then you're saying that their masters escaped the 1925 destruction and the The Cultural Revolution, correct? And...their masters masters escaped the 1732 destruction as well as all of the other destructions before that, right?

i was only talking about as far as the cultural revolution and the shi yousan attack, which were the times you mention that before when baksiulam was considered THE style of songshan. because shi suxi and shi suyun (deyang and decheng's masters) predate the cultural revolution and their masters predate the 1928 destruction. and none of them knew baksiulam.


But the Bei Shaolin forms just seem more explosive to me. They seem more worthy of what the legends say about the famed Shaolin monks of old.

explosiveness depends on the practitioner. there are some explosive practitioners of songshan and some rather flowery baksiulam practitioners. and vice versa. :)

but ideas of worthiness dont change history and put a style in the temple. some thai boxing could be considered worthy. but it was never there either.

the common ground i was making with you is that just because a style was never practiced or taught in the shaolin temple doesnt mean that its not authentic shaolin material. because people spread styles, and styles evolve.

baksiulam in all logic developed and spread outside of the shaolin temple based on the shaolin systems. its authentic shaolin wushu. having never been in the temple does not discredit that fact.

[r.(shaolin)]

northern shaolin as in the bak siulam system, or of the art of shaolin temple?

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about.

Both shi suxi and shi suyun learned mostly from various lay masters after the destruction of Shaolin in 1928.

r.

[LFJ]

my point is both shi deyang and shi decheng learned from masters who predate the cultural revolution- shi suxi and shi suyun. their master was shi zhenxu who predates the 1928 attack, and who's master shi henglin takes us back to the 1800s. having various lay masters makes no difference. they all predate those eras and none of them did baksiulam style.

[richard sloan]

and many lay masters can claim monastic transmission in their lines...I think the point to recognize here is that there is certainly a corpus of material in Shaolin and surrounding areas that provides unbroken lines...confused perhaps by modern influxes.

even today it is not uncommon for some monks to seek out these lay masters to pick up material...

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Shi Zhenxu's material may predate the 1928 attack, but, like I said, Bak Siu Lum wasn't there after 1732. This is because the Qing army destroyed and ruined the place and they were trying to chase down the monks and rebels who were in the region. The destruction and loss of the temple's records was probably quite extensive.

There a couple of versions of how Northern Shaolin spread once it left the temple. The one that has always seemed more likely, and, therefore, the one that most people believe, goes like this: In 1674, 128 monks went to the aid of the Ching Emperor against foreign invaders. Although they were victorious, when the Emperor asked if they'd join the Ching army, the monks declined. This enraged the Emperor and he had the temple destroyed. Most of the surviving monks fled to countryside and practiced in hiding or led rebel groups to help over throw the Ching government. In the late 1600's– early 1700’s Northern Shaolin had become a set style. Bak Sil Lum or Northern Shaolin was one of the 4 systems taught at the original Hunan Temple. There were 4 so called courts. Each court taught a different style. The 4 different courts were: Bak Sil Lum (Northern Shaolin), Ying Jow (Eagle Claw), My Jung Law Horn (Lost Track of Buddha's Disciples) and Tang Lang (Praying Mantis). There are records (and, yes, I'm sure you haven't seen them:rolleyes:) that show the style being passed on to Gan Feng Chi from Shaolin monk Chi Yuan. Records show that Gan Feng Chi gave a demonstration of his Northern Shaolin style to the Emperor at the Imperial court. The Northern Shaolin lineage then continued from Gan Feng Chi.

This story was why there was always so much of a buzz surrounding the Gan Feng Chi story. In my school, this was the story that was accepted back in the 1950's, when my teacher began his studies. Regardless of what details are correct, in China the public history of Bei Shaolin was that Monk Chih Yuan brought Northern Shaolin style out of the temple after the 1732 destruction; that's what most people accepted. I'm of the mind that the Kan Jia sets are perhaps earlier material that made it out of the temple when it was destroyed one of the times before 1732. But it's not the complete system that came out of the temple. The style is very eclectic and covers all of the traditional Chinese weapons. From what I've been taught (and from a little of what I've seen) the five mother styles (Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung) are all represented in there. I know at least the Wah style was standardized much later than the Yuan dynasty (during the Jiaqing reign 1522-1566) so I find it unlikely that the ten sets, as we know them, were completed earlier. Hua style (Flower Style) is obviously in there and was, of course, made famous by Gan Feng Chi when he taught it in Kiangsu and Chekiang provinces from 1662 to 1735. This is another reason why it's likely Northern Shaolin was passed on from him.

This was part of the traditional history of the style before the Cultural Revolution, before the temple was destroyed in 1928, and before all of the more recent research that only started taking place in the 1980's. So to say that it was a style that "was never there" seems a little presumptuous. Just because Shi Henglin and others taught in the 1800's at Shaolin Temple doesn't mean his was the oldest or most representative of the styles that came out of Shaolin.

[r.(shaolin)]

my point is both shi deyang and shi decheng learned from masters who predate the cultural revolution-

Fair enough.





shi suxi and shi suyun. their master was shi zhenxu who predates the 1928 attack, and who's master shi henglin takes us back to the 1800s. having various lay masters makes no difference. they all predate those eras and none of them did baksiulam style.

What Shi Zhenxu taught was a 'new' compliation of possibly related Shaolin forms from the Henan region during the time. It can not be considered "THE style" that was practice at Shaolin during the 1800's (if that is what you are saying). Zhenxu knew a very limited number of the sets that were practiced in the 1800's at Shaolin. Shi Zhenxu arrived at Shaolin in 1920 and at best only studied with Shi Henglin for 2 years (who by the way studied various 'lay' boxing styles as well). Like Shi Henglin, Zhenxu and Degen both gained much of their martial art knowledge from various lay-masters in the region.
Basically to say that "Bei Shaolin" was, or, was not, practiced at Shaolin because Zhenxu did not teach it (Bei Shaolin), is not evidence.

[LFJ]

my point in bringing up these masters is that "siu lum fighter" was saying baksiulam was THE style of songshan shaolin "before the cultural revolution and the 1928 attack".

but through the lineage of these monks and all their masters at least back to the late 1800s we see no mention of baksiulam and nothing they do is similar to it.

so my point:

at least through these times, baksiulam was not part of shaolin- based on the material and records that have been passed through our current lineage.

and, any further back we've seen no evidence of baksiulam ever being taught or practiced on the temple grounds.

"siu lum fighter" discusses the history of baksiulam and how it spread out once "it left the temple". but this all assumes that it was at one point a system of the temple- of which we've seen no evidence.

[Royal Dragon]

and, any further back we've seen no evidence of baksiulam ever being taught or practiced on the temple grounds.

Reply]
What about the Kan Jia sets from the Shaolin Vjara system of the Yuan Dynasty? Isn't that basically just an older version of the same system?

[LFJ]

the way i've understood it is that baksiulam was created based on the material being taught at the shaolin temple in the north at the time. hence the name "northern shaolin". being based on the material taught at the temple would explain the similarities between baksiulam and something like shaolin vajra.

[Royal Dragon]

OK then, what is the debate? It's clear that the Bak Silum is Yuan dynasty era Shaolin.

[LFJ]

right, i never said that baksiulam was not authentic traditional shaolin wushu.

the debate, i guess, is whether or not baksiulam was ever part of a curriculum taught and practiced on temple grounds.

my impression is that more evidence would suggest that it was developed outside of shaolin temple, but based on the style there at the time. which doesnt mean it isnt authentic traditional shaolin wushu, but that it was simply developed outside of shaolin temple.

...like many other chinese wushu styles, such as the tongbei systems that spread out from shaolin temple and developed based on the local styles of people in different areas.

they arent now what is currently or was ever taught in shaolin temple as tongbiquan, but we cant say that they arent traditional shaolin wushu. and these came from existing shaolin styles.

baksiulam on the other hand, as i've understood it, was developed outside of shaolin, yet still based on shaolin temple style.

i think its just difficult for some baksiulam practitioners to say their style was never on shaolin temple grounds. but as i said that doesnt make it less authentic. everyone can agree it is true shaolin wushu. so whats the problem understanding your style's history without imposing your interests on it?

[r.(shaolin)]

...like many other chinese wushu styles, such as the tongbei systems that spread out from shaolin temple and developed based on the local styles of people in different areas.


Hi LFJ.
I know that the monks in China today don't like to hear this but I would argue that it was in fact the opposite – Shi Henglin, Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, et. el. picked up their martial arts from the few remaining family martial arts in the region and not from the Shaolin Monastery – which by the mid and late 1800's was extinguished. That is the sad reality, in spite of the 'smoke and mirrors' that is presented by Shaolin today. (see my post at:http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47251&page=10 )
I keep looking (very limited and unlike Sal's resouces) at what is being presented as Shaolin . . .
and am seeing very little.

r.

[LFJ]

i'm not talking about from the region. i'm talking about tongbei style that spread across china. hebei, shanxi, shaanxi, shandong, jiangsu all have different tongbei styles that spread out from the temple and evolved according to the styles of the local people in those areas. there are tongbei research associations of hebei and shanxi which record its history.

as far as material being brought into shaolin from local family styles, i dont see why you would say monks in china today dont like to hear that. :confused: thats been going on throughout shaolin's history. the temple itself was built for an indian monk. then chan buddhism was introduced to china through another in shaolin temple. martial arts was brought into the temple by various secular masters from across the country.

i mean, thats shaolin's history. cross-cultural exchanges of philosophy and martial arts.

and what does it matter where the material comes from? whether monastic or secular?

the debate on this thread, anyhow, is whether or not baksiulam was ever on temple grounds. some people seem to find it hard to accept that in all likelihood it was not.

[r.(shaolin)]

I not following you here about tongbei. Are saying that because the 'local' legends in these provinces say that their version of tongbei came from Shaolin it came from Shaolin?

r.

[Royal Dragon]

i'm not talking about from the region. i'm talking about tongbei style that spread across china. hebei, shanxi, shaanxi, shandong, jiangsu all have different tongbei styles that spread out from the temple and evolved according to the styles of the local people in those areas. there are tongbei research associations of hebei and shanxi which record its history

Reply]
Tong Bei is an ancient Taoist art thousands of years old. Shaolin only got exposed to some of it's many branches. I would be willing to bet most of the lines out there never set foot in Shaolin.

It was a big military art during some periods (Tang and early Sung at least). I venture to say that the Military spread it far more than Shaolin did.

[r.(shaolin)]

i'm not talking about from the region. i'm talking about tongbei style that spread across china. hebei, shanxi, shaanxi, shandong, jiangsu all have different tongbei styles that spread out from the temple and evolved according to the styles of the local people in those areas. there are tongbei research associations of hebei and shanxi which record its history

Reply]
Tong Bei is an ancient Taoist art thousands of years old. Shaolin only got exposed to some of it's many branches. I would be willing to bet most of the lines out therre never set foot in Shaolin.

Iy was a big military art during some periods (Tang and early Sung at least). I venture to say that the Military spread it far more than Shaolin did.

Royal Dragon,
Agreed
r.

[LFJ]

I not following you here about tongbei. Are saying that because the 'local' legends in these provinces say that their version of tongbei came from Shaolin it came from Shaolin?

r.

i'm making an example to say that styles that spread out from shaolin and changed according to the local styles differ greatly from what is being practiced in shaolin today. as of course the styles that were brought into shaolin differ from what shaolin took from it. but we dont say that these styles spreading out of shaolin are not traditional shaolin wushu.

and on the other hand, baksiulam having never been on shaolin temple grounds was developed outside of shaolin based on what was being taught there at the time. similar to these other styles as they developed into something different, we say it is traditional shaolin wushu. although it was developed outside of the temple. its about relationship, but also where it was developed.

thats the relation i'm trying to make. the topic is on baksiulam. dont lose track.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

LFJ:

If I said that Bei Shaolin was THE Shaolin style studied AT the temple during the 1800's (I don't think I did say that exactly, did I? so many posts), what I meant was during the 1800's there was no other style in Northern China that was generally called "Northern Shaolin Style" and it's history was accepted to be what I posted earlier. And, once again, the reason there would be no evidence to be found as to whether or not Bak Siu Lum was ever practiced on temple grounds (besides the lineage history of Kuo Yu Chan passed down from master Yim Chi Wen, and possibly the vajra sets) is because it would've have been destroyed and/or lost to posterity.

Also, perhaps there were records before the Cultural Revolution when many libraries and schools were burned down. There are many books that were only published locally in some districts. If there were any old books on this history out there, there's a good chance they would have perished during the 1960's. I still think it's a little presumptuous to say Bak Siu Lum was never taught at the Temple. Especially when the complete authenticity of Shi Zhengxu's style is in question.

[LFJ]

I still think it's a little presumptuous to say Bak Siu Lum was never taught at the Temple.

and on what do you base the claim that it was? you only talk about its history after leaving the temple, assuming it was once there, but not about how and where it started, or how it appeared in the temple. while the explanation of it being developed outside of the temple makes much more sense.

also, of interest, it is referred to as "northern shaolin" which suggest a name given from outside of the temple and northern region. if it were developed in the temple, this would be a strange name for it. and if it spread out from the temple the original name would have likely spread with it.


Especially when the complete authenticity of Shi Zhengxu's style is in question.

it isnt. even if he learned from lay masters that does not make the style unauthentic. as is shaolin's history, martial arts and philosophy both came from external exchanges. and many lay masters have lineages that cross in and out of shaolin monasticism. especially around the area.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by LFJ
and on what do you base the claim that it was? you only talk about its history after leaving the temple, assuming it was once there, but not about how and where it started, or how it appeared in the temple. while the explanation of it being developed outside of the temple makes much more sense.

also, of interest, it is referred to as "northern shaolin" which suggest a name given from outside of the temple and northern region. if it were developed in the temple, this would be a strange name for it. and if it spread out from the temple the original name would have likely spread with it.

Well, if you want to know the earlier history it goes something like this:

During the Sung Dynasty (960-1279), styles in the north of China, such as Tan Tui, Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung were developed to and evolved into highly sophisticated fighting arts. Eventually these famous styles made their way to the Shaolin Monastery and were added to the curriculum of martial arts. Of course, techniques that evolved in the monastery became highly developed and became closely guarded secrets.

Sometime during the middle of the Sung Dynasty, perhaps the 1100's, the Sung dynasty being divided into the Northern Sung (960-1127) and the Southern Sung (1127-1279), a group of monks at Shaolin utilized their great knowledge and experience and combined the best techniques from what they considered the top fighting styles of their time. They created, or synthesized, a new style. The top fighting styles were considered to be Ch'a Chuan, Wah Chuan, Hua Chuan, P'ao Chuan, and Hung Chuan. The monks named their new style in honor of the five mother northern styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was "Shaolin Northern Style of Shaolin Gate. The name was subsequently abbreviated to "Northern Shaolin Style."

There's a bunch more but I'll let us chew on that for a while.

it isnt. even if he learned from lay masters that does not make the style unauthentic. as is shaolin's history, martial arts and philosophy both came from external exchanges. and many lay masters have lineages that cross in and out of shaolin monasticism. especially around the area.
The same applies to Northern Shaolin. Just because there were lay masters outside of the temple in different provinces, doesn't make the style unauthentic. China has had a very tumultuous history. The times of rebellion and turmoil during the Qing Dynasy shaped the later history of Northern Shaolin and Shaolin Temple itself. I say, if Shi Zhenxu's curriculum exemplifies THE curriculum that was being taught to Shaolin Temple through the 1800's, then it's just as likely that Bei Shaolin was indeed being practiced at the temple prior to 1732.

[Royal Dragon]

And, once again, the reason there would be no evidence to be found as to whether or not Bak Siu Lum was ever practiced on temple grounds (besides the lineage history of Kuo Yu Chan passed down from master Yim Chi Wen, and possibly the vajra sets) is because it would've have been destroyed and/or lost to posterity.

Reply]
We have records and set from the early Sung dyansty and even prior to that. You'd think the records for Northern Shaolin would be available too.

[LFJ]

The same applies to Northern Shaolin. Just because there were lay masters outside of the temple in different provinces, doesn't make the style unauthentic.

if you've been following my posts, i didnt say baksiulam was unauthentic. i was trying to make the point that a style being developed outside of shaolin temple doesnt make it unauthentic. we all agree baksiulam is authentic shaolin wushu. the debate is on where it developed originally.

on the flip side, a style being developed within temple grounds does not make it more authentic- which seems to be what you're trying to do for your baksiulam style, when more facts point to it being developed elsewhere. saying its was developed in the temple makes it sound more credible? but no one is denying its credibility.


I say, if Shi Zhenxu's curriculum exemplifies THE curriculum that was being taught to Shaolin Temple through the 1800's, then it's just as likely that Bei Shaolin was indeed being practiced at the temple prior to 1732.

never said so. my point was that through our lineage dating back to the 1800s no one did baksiulam, not even the lay masters from the area who mixed with the temple.

the likelihood of this material being what was taught in and around shaolin temple in the 1800s (which i'm not even saying) is far greater than the likelihood of baksiulam ever being there, as no hard facts point to it.

but i find it interesting the authenticity or credibility of baksiulam and of shi zhenxu's style from the lay masters, etc. keep being brought up.

i think thats the problem, trying to prove the authenticity of ones style when thats not even the issue.

its a simple question of where the style developed and what evidence supports the theory.

[r.(shaolin)]

"where the style developed"


I would agree, but more important is when, who was behind it and where did the content
come from. In the old traditions, lineage and content (at least from the martial arts perspective) went hand in hand.
r.

[LFJ]

right. and if you narrow down the place then you can begin to find the answers to these other questions, or at least have a starting point.

which is what i'm saying, at least in my lineage in shaolin temple, i havent come across any mention of baksiulam forms or history.

[Qixing Tanglang]

Is this the Bei Shaolin (Northern Shaolin) that came out of the Shangahi Chin Woo organization?

If not then it does not matter and just ignore this.

If it is then this is the famous Shaolin style of Er Lang men taught by Zhao Lian He.

Cheers,
N

[Siu Lum Fighter]

There's no mention of the forms or their history because the place was totalled in 1732. I mean, if you have the near complete destruction of the place and the murder of almost all of the monks like the legends say, then there's not going to be any records, evidence, artifacts, or anything left to prove that it was. The Qing soldiers were on the war path. They were trying to destroy any remnants of Shaolin Temple and kill the monks along with any rebels. Since Shaolin wushu was a closely guarded secret throughout most of it's history then the evidence of it being there would have died with the monks. Fortunately though, it didn't die. And that's why we have the history of the style that, in the Ming dynasty, came to be known as "Song Shaolin Style." I truely believe and intuitively know that this was the "Shaolin Northern Style of Shaolin Gate" or "Northern Shaolin Style" that was developed there all the way up until the temple's unfortunate destruction.

As a practitioner of this style, it makes sense to me. Because it was said that each of the top masters throughout Northern Shaolin's lineage would be able to add a move but not take anything away from the style. If you know the sets, you'll notice that they are all different lengths with some much longer than others. At the same time you can tell that many of the same techniques are represented throughout all of them. I know it sounds like a stretch but you can tell that these sets were added to by masters who may have had different preferences but they were practicing the same style. It also makes sense that they would've been added to since the Song Dynasty. If you were to gauge how many moves there probably were when they were formed compared to the additions, it seems like the time span during which the monks and lay masters (after it left the temple) were modifying them roughly match up with how many additions there are.

[richard sloan]

I know that the monks in China today don't like to hear this but I would argue that it was in fact the opposite – Shi Henglin, Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, et. el. picked up their martial arts from the few remaining family martial arts in the region and not from the Shaolin Monastery – which by the mid and late 1800's was extinguished...

I'm not quite sure how this conclusion can be drawn...meaning that today's current corpus is composed of mostly lay transmitted material, or that this material was held by a 'few' remaining families...

As LFJ stated, it should be made known that many monks have absolutely zero problem with acknowledging the lay repository of shaolin material, a relatively rich tradition actually, from which they draw. Many also come to Shaolin with martial family styles in tow... Two lay masters (at least) are in my lineage and they are not hidden or glossed over, but were appointed by Xing Zhen... Plenty of shifu remark about their training under lay masters...

Yet I would argue that there is certainly a case for strong lines of descent from monastics. There are pictures of Su Xi for example, learning from Miao Xing and others, there is Xing Zhen's lineage and the other families descending from Shi De Bao, several other names which I forget presently...but the lines of descent converge across several lines of monks...Wan Heng gave an interview (I believe in Spain) once which confirmed strict monastic transmission of over 300 forms at least...

In addition to this verbal and written information there are the books...there was still a library to burn in 1928, and not only were there copies and even some originals saved directly from those fires, but other copies have turned up...but most importantly from the standpoint of Shaolin authenticity, there is the Ch'an overlay...actually it's probably better to say that there is a gong fu overlay of ch'an or as sym says shaolin martial arts or ch'an buddhism...but I digress. Point is everyone agrees the fires destroyed the manuscripts. which means they must have been there to burn.

Anyway Ch'an- That kind of knowledge is not something normally delivered through lay transmission- generally speaking it's quite esoteric and quite obtuse, requires special knowledge- and as such it's not something which the PRC could just fabricate...that often seems to be the implication when the subject of how something "Shaolin" descends to us is discussed...so if anything lends a stamp of authenticity to the lines of transmission which have descended to us, I would say that is it.

Unless I misread....

[Royal Dragon]

There's no mention of the forms or their history because the place was totalled in 1732. I mean, if you have the near complete destruction of the place and the murder of almost all of the monks like the legends say, then there's not going to be any records, evidence, artifacts, or anything left to prove that it was.

Reply]
See, here is the thing, Monks, being Monks, copy scripture...or any other thing preserved in textual form. So it stands to reason that there would be many copies of the ancient texts because it is in the inherent nature of Monks to copy text.




The Qing soldiers were on the war path. They were trying to destroy any remnants of Shaolin Temple and kill the monks along with any rebels. Since Shaolin wushu was a closely guarded secret throughout most of it's history then the evidence of it being there would have died with the monks.

Reply]
Shaolin may have been a closely guarded secret, HOWEVER, it was also spread outside the Temple too, so it wasn't as closely guarded secret as legends lead us to believe...otherwise how would Shaolin martial martial arts be preserved in the local villages?


Fortunately though, it didn't die. And that's why we have the history of the style that, in the Ming dynasty, came to be known as "Song Shaolin Style."

Reply]
Song Shaolin is the Tai Tzu based Shaolin, not the Northern Shaolin you are referring to. The Northern is most likely based off off the Viajra Fist from the early to late Yuan dynasty.


I truely believe and intuitively know that this was the "Shaolin Northern Style of Shaolin Gate" or "Northern Shaolin Style" that was developed there all the way up until the temple's unfortunate destruction.

Reply]
As I understand it, martial practice died out at Shaolin near the end of the Yuan dynasty. Which means Northern Shaolin, in whatever primordial form, would be in the care of the lay families in the surrounding area by then. The Ming saw the development of the Five Animals.

As a practitioner of this style, it makes sense to me. Because it was said that each of the top masters throughout Northern Shaolin's lineage would be able to add a move but not take anything away from the style. If you know the sets, you'll notice that they are all different lengths with some much longer than others. At the same time you can tell that many of the same techniques are represented throughout all of them. I know it sounds like a stretch but you can tell that these sets were added to by masters who may have had different preferences but they were practicing the same style. It also makes sense that they would've been added to since the Song Dynasty.

Reply]
Yes, that happened to the Song systems, and likely the Yuan dynasty systems as well. Every generation has it's strict preservationists, and those who just want to fight and collect and add, and those who take a little here, and a little there and evolve thier now new style.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi LFJ.
I know that the monks in China today don't like to hear this but I would argue that it was in fact the opposite – Shi Henglin, Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, et. el. picked up their martial arts from the few remaining family martial arts in the region and not from the Shaolin Monastery – which by the mid and late 1800's was extinguished. That is the sad reality, in spite of the 'smoke and mirrors' that is presented by Shaolin today. (see my post at:http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47251&page=10 )
I keep looking (very limited and unlike Sal's resouces) at what is being presented as Shaolin . . .
and am seeing very little.

r.

I think this is the closest to the truth.
The "real" or "authentic' or "original" Shaolin from various points of Shaolin's existence spread out to the countryside and these people preserved the material, better than Shaolin itself did.

Shaolin it is historically known was closed down about 5 times, there was a long period when it was not even called Shaolin anymore, later it was re-named that again.

Each time it closed whatever martial arts practiced there spread out.
Hence there are different "Shaolin" martial arts and sets practiced in different lineages throughout Henan province (and further out in China and SE Asia).

Shaolin after 1700s were pretty much gone.

During the 1800s to 1925 it has LIMITED material to work from and MANY new sets were developed, mostly these are the ones still done today.

When Shaolin was reopened in 1980s, they had totally nothing there.
Many family lineages were invited to Shaolin to re-teach. (Who? Government works who were the new exhibition "monks" AND a select group of people still interested in not only original Shaolin martial arts but Buddhism as well).

So, for sure, without there preservation of Shaolin material from the various Henan lineages there would be nothing today.

When the countryside was surveyed for any remnants of TCMA during the 1980s, they found in isolated areas lineages doing various Shaolin sets from various time period origins.
The Yuan era sets (what's left of them) were rediscovered in a very remote area.

Also, interesting, is that some separate lineages were found to be doing some sets pretty much exactly the same way as each other, with little variation, even though the lineages didn't know about each other.
I think this is cool, no?

[Sal Canzonieri]

i'm not talking about from the region. i'm talking about tongbei style that spread across china. hebei, shanxi, shaanxi, shandong, jiangsu all have different tongbei styles that spread out from the temple and evolved according to the styles of the local people in those areas. there are tongbei research associations of hebei and shanxi which record its history.

as far as material being brought into shaolin from local family styles, i dont see why you would say monks in china today dont like to hear that. :confused: thats been going on throughout shaolin's history. the temple itself was built for an indian monk. then chan buddhism was introduced to china through another in shaolin temple. martial arts was brought into the temple by various secular masters from across the country.

i mean, thats shaolin's history. cross-cultural exchanges of philosophy and martial arts.

and what does it matter where the material comes from? whether monastic or secular?

the debate on this thread, anyhow, is whether or not baksiulam was ever on temple grounds. some people seem to find it hard to accept that in all likelihood it was not.

Honestly, all of Shaolin and all of Tai Chi, is really a variation of tong bei.

I have yet to see one set in what Shaolin tradition calls its oldest and core material: Hong Quan, Rou Quan, 6 Harmony Nei gung, Chan Yuan nei gung, Luohan 13 Gung, Tai Zu Chang Quan, and so on that is not pretty much the same techniques practiced in Tong Bei, especially Tong Bei whip stick, staff, double swords, double knives.

And Tai Chi (chen, zhaobao, yang, wu, woo, sun) is pretty much the same stuff, with slightly altered strategies.

[Sal Canzonieri]

i'm not talking about from the region. i'm talking about tongbei style that spread across china. hebei, shanxi, shaanxi, shandong, jiangsu all have different tongbei styles that spread out from the temple and evolved according to the styles of the local people in those areas. there are tongbei research associations of hebei and shanxi which record its history

Reply]
Tong Bei is an ancient Taoist art thousands of years old. Shaolin only got exposed to some of it's many branches. I would be willing to bet most of the lines out there never set foot in Shaolin.

It was a big military art during some periods (Tang and early Sung at least). I venture to say that the Military spread it far more than Shaolin did.

Of course not most but enough to have made a difference, the "martial monks" were obviously from outside the temple and they most surely knew military tong bei (or what is called tong bei - which just is a long fist methodology). There was pretty much nothing else back then, other than Shuai Jiao. Some of the earliest Shaolin material is their monkey stuff and that is totally tong bei.

And, the non-martial monks Shaolin tradition holds practiced the Rou Quan and it's related nei gung, and all the movements in these are clearly Tong Bei in origin.

Without tong bei existing first and entering there early enough, there's wouldn't be Shaolin, in my opinion.

[Sal Canzonieri]

LFJ:

If I said that Bei Shaolin was THE Shaolin style studied AT the temple during the 1800's (I don't think I did say that exactly, did I? so many posts), what I meant was during the 1800's there was no other style in Northern China that was generally called "Northern Shaolin Style" and it's history was accepted to be what I posted earlier. And, once again, the reason there would be no evidence to be found as to whether or not Bak Siu Lum was ever practiced on temple grounds (besides the lineage history of Kuo Yu Chan passed down from master Yim Chi Wen, and possibly the vajra sets) is because it would've have been destroyed and/or lost to posterity.

Also, perhaps there were records before the Cultural Revolution when many libraries and schools were burned down. There are many books that were only published locally in some districts. If there were any old books on this history out there, there's a good chance they would have perished during the 1960's. I still think it's a little presumptuous to say Bak Siu Lum was never taught at the Temple. Especially when the complete authenticity of Shi Zhengxu's style is in question.

But don't you think that there would be some lineages somewhere in Henan province doing those exact sets? They only ones that have ever been found are the vajra kan jia sets.

One would say that more than likely Bei Shaolin by the 1800s developed out of these visibly related Shaolin sets and changed into what it is now.
Not one family that practiced Shaolin for generations in Henan does those exact Bei Shaolin sets.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Well, if you want to know the earlier history it goes something like this:

During the Sung Dynasty (960-1279), styles in the north of China, such as Tan Tui, Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung were developed to and evolved into highly sophisticated fighting arts. Eventually these famous styles made their way to the Shaolin Monastery and were added to the curriculum of martial arts. Of course, techniques that evolved in the monastery became highly developed and became closely guarded secrets.

Ah, this is incorrect. Shaolin tan tui is nothing like famous original 10 Road Moslem tan tui, they are unrelated. Shaolin people created their tan tui set in the modern era to have their own kind of tan toi. Many other styles have tan tui sets too, all are unrelated to each other and look nothing like each other.

Cha Quan is from Shandong province, it's been there since Tang Dynasty, it was originally developed from a Moslem style called Jiazhi Quan, Frame Boxing.
Shaolin never practiced it. MODERN Wushu is based on it, so modern Shaolin crap is Cha Quan based, not ancient Shaolin at all.

Wah Quan is pretty much the same story, another Moslem martial art with no contact with Shaolin til modern times. I know you mean Hua Quan, the Shandong style, not the Wah Mountain style (which had some contact with Shaolin at one point - they beat the **** out of the monks!).
Also, the Shandong Moslems had their own Hong Quan and Pao Quan.

The fact that you name these Moslem styles shows a Shandong province connection, where Bei Shaolin was most practiced in the 1800s, and weren't it's founders were based out of there?

A very different Pao Chui and Hong Quan were practiced at Shaolin since earliest times, so it didn't "enter", it was developed there (of course based on tang dynasty soldier techniques with the same names). Shaolin Pao Chui and Hong Quan are the essence of traditional Shaolin, all it's ideas are found in these sets.

There are many different Hong Quan styles, and only the Tai Zu Chang Quan derived ones in Shanxi and Emei were created FROM Shaolin, NOT INTO Shaolin.


Sometime during the middle of the Sung Dynasty, perhaps the 1100's, the Sung dynasty being divided into the Northern Sung (960-1127) and the Southern Sung (1127-1279), a group of monks at Shaolin utilized their great knowledge and experience and combined the best techniques from what they considered the top fighting styles of their time. They created, or synthesized, a new style. The top fighting styles were considered to be Ch'a Chuan, Wah Chuan, Hua Chuan, P'ao Chuan, and Hung Chuan. The monks named their new style in honor of the five mother northern styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was "Shaolin Northern Style of Shaolin Gate. The name was subsequently abbreviated to "Northern Shaolin Style."

This is factually incorrect, and impossible for the reasons I gave above.
The only art Shaolin and the Sung military did in common was the Ba Shan Fan (fanzi) and Chuao Jiao styles. they were developed to fight the northern invaders who rode standing up on short stirups, they kicked them off their horses. This was a well known Red Turban defense / attach technique.

The Moslem Cha, Wah, Hung, Pao Quan styles never reached Shaolin area that early in time and share nothing in common with Shaolin. A bit may be related to Tai Zu Chang Quan, but just a couple postures, and that may just be a coincidence of convergence.



The same applies to Northern Shaolin. Just because there were lay masters outside of the temple in different provinces, doesn't make the style unauthentic. China has had a very tumultuous history. The times of rebellion and turmoil during the Qing Dynasy shaped the later history of Northern Shaolin and Shaolin Temple itself. I say, if Shi Zhenxu's curriculum exemplifies THE curriculum that was being taught to Shaolin Temple through the 1800's, then it's just as likely that Bei Shaolin was indeed being practiced at the temple prior to 1732.

I don't think anyone said that Bei Shaolin is unauthentic, only that those EXACT sets developed over time and hence were not practiced ever in Shaolin.

All the linages that can trace person by person back to an exact monk (and can name this person) from the 1700s are found in Shandong and Hubei provinces, none of them do any sets from the Bei Shaolin style.
All their sets are Shaolin Hung Quan (Flowing Fist) based or Luohan based.

So, that would imply then that Shaolin in the early 1700s was practicing Hung Quan and Luohan, otherwise they would have passed on something else to people and they didn't. If it was important enough they would have passed it on, wouldn't they? Being that the times were so urgent (much more urgent than the 1800s).

Just about everything you are saying was from novels that were written about the southern shaolin not the northern shaolin era, and were passed on as true by rebels that were learning Choy Li Fut, Hong Gar, and so on.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Is this the Bei Shaolin (Northern Shaolin) that came out of the Shangahi Chin Woo organization?

If not then it does not matter and just ignore this.

If it is then this is the famous Shaolin style of Er Lang men taught by Zhao Lian He.

Cheers,
N

No, it's not the various Northern Shaolin sets from Shanghai Chin Woo, it is the "famous" 10 Sets of Bei Shaolin STYLE, that is more commonly known using the southern dialect: Bak Siu Lum, since it is most practiced there.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Ah, this is incorrect. Shaolin tan tui is nothing like famous original 10 Road Moslem tan tui, they are unrelated. Shaolin people created their tan tui set in the modern era to have their own kind of tan toi. Many other styles have tan tui sets too, all are unrelated to each other and look nothing like each other.
I'd love to sit down with you some time and review all of the various 10 line and 12 line sets of Tan Tui out there. Out of all of the styles I've seen and learned (this includes Kuo Lien Ying's style which I felt was pretty unrelated to all of the more popular sets) I've never seen one to be absolutely nothing like another one. Maybe quite different, but never with completely different moves throughout the whole drill.

Cha Quan is from Shandong province, it's been there since Tang Dynasty, it was originally developed from a Moslem style called Jiazhi Quan, Frame Boxing.
Shaolin never practiced it. MODERN Wushu is based on it, so modern Shaolin crap is Cha Quan based, not ancient Shaolin at all.Everything's correct except the part about no monks ever having practiced it. From the information I have (and this is post 1980's research), when the Shaolin Monastery in Honan Province was burned and destroyed in 1732, the Ch'a Style disappeared. Many historians believed that the style was lost along with many other styles when the Ching soldiers killed the monks and destroyed the monastery. It was not until approximately two hundred years later with the official grand opening of the Ching Wu Physical Association in 1911 that Ch'a style again reappeared. The survival of Ch'a style was then credited to the visiting Chinese Moslems who had practiced martial arts in the Shaolin Monastery before it was destroyed. They had learned two styles, the Ch'a style and the Ten Rows of Tan T'ui Style.
So..what, I guess this never happened? There are records to corroborate this.

Wah Quan is pretty much the same story, another Moslem martial art with no contact with Shaolin til modern times. I know you mean Hua Quan, the Shandong style, not the Wah Mountain style (which had some contact with Shaolin at one point - they beat the **** out of the monks!).No, I'm not talking about Hua Chuan, I'm talking about Wah Style. The one that Ts'ai Mao made popular when he killed his enemy and gained notoriety during the Tang Dynasty (713-741). Four hundred years later Ts'ai Tai and Ts'ai Kang became the leading exponents of the style. Ts'ai Wan Chi standardized the style during the Jiaqing reign (1522-1566). It later became known as "Wah Style of the Taoists".

The fact that you name these Moslem styles shows a Shandong province connection, where Bei Shaolin was most practiced in the 1800s, and weren't it's founders were based out of there?
Ya, but that doesn't make any sense, because by the 1800's these styles weren't the most popular styles in Shandong Province. Why would somebody just concoct a style out of five styles that were mostly lost to posterity by the 1800's. It doesn't make any sense. If one were to review these styles as they are practiced today, you can see many of the same techniques in the ten sets. The 1800's was not known for it's Ch'a, Hua, Wah, P'ao, or Hung practitioners so why would these particular styles have been chosen?

A very different Pao Chui and Hong Quan were practiced at Shaolin since earliest times, so it didn't "enter", it was developed there (of course based on tang dynasty soldier techniques with the same names). Shaolin Pao Chui and Hong Quan are the essence of traditional Shaolin, all it's ideas are found in these sets.

There are many different Hong Quan styles, and only the Tai Zu Chang Quan derived ones in Shanxi and Emei were created FROM Shaolin, NOT INTO Shaolin.
O.K., with P'ao are we talking about the same "Three Emperors Cannon Fist"? Cause the P'ao I'm talking about was learned by Monk Puz Hao from a Taoist Priest at Mount Emei. Monk Puz Hao passed the style to Qiao San Xiu and Kan Feng Chi. And by Hung I mean the style developed by Sun Wu Tzu based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was developed in the Yellow River Valley. It was taught to the common people in the valley and later found its way to the Shaolin Monastery. Today, the Hung style I'm referring to is recorded in text and consists of four sets. They are listed in the text, China's Ch'a Fist, by Chang (1985), as Hung Fist numbers 1, 3, 4, and 7. There is evidence that Hung Style expanded to at least ten sets, but sets numbers 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 have been lost to posterity.

In my lineage it has always been accepted that these five mother styles contributed to the development of Northern Shaolin. In general, each of these five styles are of the "long" fist type. Elements of each of these five styles can be seen in the ten forms of the Northern Shaolin system, so again, why would obscure styles that had partly been lost to posterity by the 1800's be synthesized into such a large and complete system like Northern Shaolin?

Here's a question: If Bei Shaolin was never there, were Ying Jow (Eagle Claw), My Jung Law Horn (Lost Track of Buddha's Disciples) and Tang Lang (Praying Mantis) ever practiced there? I know that at least the Eagle Claw and Mantis people would beg to differ if anyone said they weren't.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Mantis was there, as early as Sung dynasty. There are records of Wang Lang being one of the 18 master's who helped develop Shaolin's first forms.

[r.(shaolin)]

I'd love to sit down with you some time and review all of the various 10 line and 12 line sets of Tan Tui out there. Out of all of the styles I've seen and learned (this includes Kuo Lien Ying's style which I felt was pretty unrelated to all of the more popular sets) I've never seen one to be absolutely nothing like another one. Maybe quite different, but never with completely different moves throughout the whole drill.
Everything's correct except the part about no monks ever having practiced it.


Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路 was not just an invention from the early 1900's, nor is it a generic term, but an older Shaolin Si set. According to our tradition, Shaolin Monks adapted an even older northern 10 section set however added 2 sections to it. Our version of it is similar to what was practiced at Jingwu Tiyu Hui; 精武體育會 but comes from a different Shaolin lineage than theirs. If one carefully compares these two sets to the 10 section Cha Quan version it is clear that the 12 section Shaolin version is based on it.
r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Ok, fine, let's discuss this, without being mean to each other, just a normal conversation:

I think you are mixing together all different styles that have the same names, though, they are from different regions and time periods.

All your information is quite familiar and has been proven incorrect in many articles in China. There have been many people looking at this catagorization of the various long fist styles and their relationship to Shaolin.

What researchers have shown is that the source of this story about Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong and Shaolin was Zi Ren/Luohan master Wan Lai Sheng, and people misunderstood what he said.
He said that they were all long fist styles and he categorized them as being related - BUT HE MEANT BY FUNCTION OF THE MOVEMENTS, not related historically. There is not one place in history that mentions these styles had any contact with each other or that they were taught in Shaolin before 1980s.

Many many people have researched where he got this information, which spread everywhere as fact very fast because of his reputation. It was proven that he created this idea and it was his own invention.
No historical data exists anywhere that shows that Shaolin did teach these sets from the Moslem styles of Cha, Wah, Hong, and Pao.



Everything's correct except the part about no monks ever having practiced it. From the information I have (and this is post 1980's research), when the Shaolin Monastery in Honan Province was burned and destroyed in 1732, the Ch'a Style disappeared. Many historians believed that the style was lost along with many other styles when the Ching soldiers killed the monks and destroyed the monastery. It was not until approximately two hundred years later with the official grand opening of the Ching Wu Physical Association in 1911 that Ch'a style again reappeared. The survival of Ch'a style was then credited to the visiting Chinese Moslems who had practiced martial arts in the Shaolin Monastery before it was destroyed. They had learned two styles, the Ch'a style and the Ten Rows of Tan T'ui Style.

Again, this comes from an embellishment over time on Wan Lai Sheng's statement.
First of all, it is in dispute that the place was burned down and monks were killed in 1732. The place was closed down but that's all. It had been rebuilt during the Yuan Dynasty after long years of neglect when it had been shut down due to the northern invasion.
Professor Mohair can tell you that, he did all the deepest research on Shaolin. This story came about because the stories of the southern Shaolin temple being burned down and then eventually it became that the northern place was burned down too.
And, they didn't practice Cha Quan there during the Ming Dynasty. There is nothing out there showing that Moslems from Shandong come to Shaolin and taught them their Cha Quan.

The Moslems of Shandong, quanzhu, and other reigions have been doing their Cha Quan system, which has their own Pao Quan, Hong Quan, Wah (the actual Chinese character means "slippery") sets. I have every single Cha Quan history book written in Chinese.
They've been doing it since the Tang Dynasty.
They have had many famous (in China) practitioners of it from many time periods.
It's simply not true that no one (in China) had heard about Cha Quan again from 1732 to 1911.
Why would these "visiting Chinese Moslems" have to go to Shaolin to learn their own Cha Quan style, a style which was FORBIDDEN to be taught to non-Moslems until 1911, when they were already famous for practicing it for centuries.

Wang Zi Peng is the most famous Cha Quan master of them all.
His lineage is well known and it traces back to the 1700s. He in fact has two lineages, both Shaolin and Moslem Long Fist. Both lineages are known name by name back to the 1700s.




So..what, I guess this never happened? There are records to corroborate this.
No, I'm not talking about Hua Chuan, I'm talking about Wah Style. The one that Ts'ai Mao made popular when he killed his enemy and gained notoriety during the Tang Dynasty (713-741). Four hundred years later Ts'ai Tai and Ts'ai Kang became the leading exponents of the style. Ts'ai Wan Chi standardized the style during the Jiaqing reign (1522-1566). It later became known as "Wah Style of the Taoists".

But that Wah style is a different style than the Wah meant when Wan Lei Shan wrote "cha, wah, pao, hong, and Shaolin". This Wah is not the same Wah as that which is related to Cha Quan. Cha and Wah (not the one you mean) were both one style originally, Jiazi, and then they were split into Cha and Wah (really it is romanized as HUA) later.


Ya, but that doesn't make any sense, because by the 1800's these styles weren't the most popular styles in Shandong Province. Why would somebody just concoct a style out of five styles that were mostly lost to posterity by the 1800's. It doesn't make any sense. If one were to review these styles as they are practiced today, you can see many of the same techniques in the ten sets. The 1800's was not known for it's Ch'a, Hua, Wah, P'ao, or Hung practitioners so why would these particular styles have been chosen?

I don't know where you get this about what was most popularly known or not during the 1800s. They certainly were NOT lost whatsoever during that time. Wang Zi Peng was getting famous then.


O.K., with P'ao are we talking about the same "Three Emperors Cannon Fist"? Cause the P'ao I'm talking about was learned by Monk Puz Hao from a Taoist Priest at Mount Emei. Monk Puz Hao passed the style to Qiao San Xiu and Kan Feng Chi.

Again, this 3 Emperor's is from Emei, (yes Kan (Gan) Feng Shi (Chi) learned there) is not the same Pao Quan meant when the "pao, cha, wah, hong, and Shaolin" statement was made.
And it is not the same Pao Chuan as that practiced in Shaolin, other than 3 movements, they share nothing in their sets.


And by Hung I mean the style developed by Sun Wu Tzu based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was developed in the Yellow River Valley. It was taught to the common people in the valley and later found its way to the Shaolin Monastery. Today, the Hung style I'm referring to is recorded in text and consists of four sets. They are listed in the text, China's Ch'a Fist, by Chang (1985), as Hung Fist numbers 1, 3, 4, and 7. There is evidence that Hung Style expanded to at least ten sets, but sets numbers 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 have been lost to posterity.

Ok, you are mixing together completely different hong quan styles.
The Yellow River hong quan is an ancient military style practiced in the Henan and neighboring area and it is not the same at all whatsoever as the Hong sets from Cha Quan system in that book, I have that book and I have learned both the Cha and the Shaolin hong and they are not the same at all.
The hong sets in that book are just a name for an advanced group of sets of the Moslem style. they don't look any different than any of the famous 10 sets of Cha Quan. And Hong in that book means SLIPPERY, the character stands for SLIPPERY, not "red" or "flowing" as the character Hong for the Yellow River Valley ancient style.
You are mixing together unrelated material.


In my lineage it has always been accepted that these five mother styles contributed to the development of Northern Shaolin. In general, each of these five styles are of the "long" fist type. Elements of each of these five styles can be seen in the ten forms of the Northern Shaolin system, so again, why would obscure styles that had partly been lost to posterity by the 1800's be synthesized into such a large and complete system like Northern Shaolin?

yeah, that's the modern times statement made by Wan Lai Sheng, and many people took it for fact, but it was just meaning long fist functionality, not historically relationship.
Gee, ask anyone who reads Chinese martial art history, everyone knows that this statement goes no further back than Wan Lei Sheng in 1900s modern times.


Here's a question: If Bei Shaolin was never there, were Ying Jow (Eagle Claw), My Jung Law Horn (Lost Track of Buddha's Disciples) and Tang Lang (Praying Mantis) ever practiced there? I know that at least the Eagle Claw and Mantis people would beg to differ if anyone said they weren't.

Eagle CLAW sets of the Fanzi Eagle Claw style was never practiced at Shaolin, we already had a thread about that, people from that style know that. It was developed in Beijing area.
Shaolin did have their own eagle system, it is another yuan dynasty style.
I wrote the whole history of who taught who when already on another thread. People from that style know it, no one refutes it.

My Jung Law Horn is from the Jing Wu association, they combined two old Shaolin styles into one new one. The sets that they do are post 1900s and not done at Shaolin ever, though based on material from ancient Mitsung and Louhan sets that were once done there in the distant past. The Jing Wu people changed them and made new sets.

Tang Lang, well, some say it was done there, but if you ask the people in the Northern Mantis forum here, they will say no. their sets are from Shandong and were developed separately, even if they might have had one or two sets that were BROUGHT to Shaolin from Wang Lang, their founder.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

What researchers have shown is that the source of this story about Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong and Shaolin was Zi Ren/Luohan master Wan Lai Sheng, and people misunderstood what he said.
He said that they were all long fist styles and he categorized them as being related - BUT HE MEANT BY FUNCTION OF THE MOVEMENTS, not related historically. There is not one place in history that mentions these styles had any contact with each other or that they were taught in Shaolin before 1980s.

Where's the proof that that is really what he meant? So, you and all of these researchers are suggesting that Wan Lai Sheng didn't know what he was talking about when there was no reason to disbelieve him at the time and there were no records to dispute his claims. I love how, all of a sudden, there are records to disprove everything all of the older generation masters said. And I'm not talking about the slight handful of old masters that began to be promoted by the PRC or the Shaolin Temple when the government finally decided to bring back CMA (after they'd done so much damage to it). Master Wan Lai Sheng was known to be honest, persistent and kind, especially to his students.


Again, this comes from an embellishment over time on Wan Lai Sheng's statement.
First of all, it is in dispute that the place was burned down and monks were killed in 1732. The place was closed down but that's all. It had been rebuilt during the Yuan Dynasty after long years of neglect when it had been shut down due to the northern invasion.
Professor Mohair can tell you that, he did all the deepest research on Shaolin. This story came about because the stories of the southern Shaolin temple being burned down and then eventually it became that the northern place was burned down too.
And, they didn't practice Cha Quan there during the Ming Dynasty. There is nothing out there showing that Moslems from Shandong come to Shaolin and taught them their Cha Quan.Even if the place didn't burn down in 1732, the library burned down in 1928. Only as many books as a few monks could carry were saved. Out of all of the hundreds of years of invasions as well as the Japanese invasion and the ensuing holocaust you're going to tell me it's impossible that this information in its written form could have been lost. And how bout the fact that most people were illiterate and that the monks wouldn't have copied down all of their manuals. Who would have read them? And why would they share secret knowledge with just anyone. When the library at Alexandria was burned down, there were no books to replace all of the volumes that were in there. Just because there aren't any doesn't mean that all of the history that they described didn't happen. When we're talking about martial traditions, the oral history from master to student is just as important as any old book. Students of any given lineage aren't just going to "forget" what their teacher told them. It's bothersome to me that all of these old masters are being painted out as not knowing where there own styles came from or as believing false information all their lives just because there isn't an old enough book to show it. As far as Shaolin never having been destroyed, it's still disputed as to whether or not there was even a southern temple to burn down. They "think" they know the site now, but I believe this was just an excuse to set up a tourist attraction.


The Moslems of Shandong, quanzhu, and other regions have been doing their Cha Quan system, which has their own Pao Quan, Hong Quan, Wah (the actual Chinese character means "slippery") sets. I have every single Cha Quan history book written in Chinese.
They've been doing it since the Tang Dynasty.
They have had many famous (in China) practitioners of it from many time periods.
It's simply not true that no one (in China) had heard about Cha Quan again from 1732 to 1911.
Why would these "visiting Chinese Moslems" have to go to Shaolin to learn their own Cha Quan style, a style which was FORBIDDEN to be taught to non-Moslems until 1911, when they were already famous for practicing it for centuries.

Wang Zi Peng is the most famous Cha Quan master of them all.
His lineage is well known and it traces back to the 1700s. He in fact has two lineages, both Shaolin and Moslem Long Fist. Both lineages are known name by name back to the 1700s. I'm not disputing whether or not it was practiced from 1732 to 1911. It was said to be obscure and uncommon. This is believable since Shandong went through so many invasions that resulted in huge losses of life and property over time. I think it's certainly possible the martial monks may have absorbed this style since they were all about learning the best styles. It's also possible the local Moslems may have lost some of their system and they went to Shaolin Temple because, let's face it, if anyone would have been good about preserving the material, it would have been the monks. As far as I know there were three branches since the 1700's. There was the Chang, the Yang, and the Li branches. Wang Zi Peng represented the Yang branch.
But that Wah style is a different style than the Wah meant when Wan Lei Shan wrote "cha, wah, pao, hong, and Shaolin". This Wah is not the same Wah as that which is related to Cha Quan. Cha and Wah (not the one you mean) were both one style originally, Jiazi, and then they were split into Cha and Wah (really it is romanized as HUA) later.I know it's not. I'm pretty sure it was a Taoist art. Did Wan Lei Shan actually say it was the Moslem related style? I've never heard that he did.
I don't know where you get this about what was most popularly known or not during the 1800s. They certainly were NOT lost whatsoever during that time. Wang Zi Peng was getting famous then.

Again, this 3 Emperor's is from Emei, (yes Kan (Gan) Feng Shi (Chi) learned there) is not the same Pao Quan meant when the "pao, cha, wah, hong, and Shaolin" statement was made.
And it is not the same Pao Chuan as that practiced in Shaolin, other than 3 movements, they share nothing in their sets.
For the Wah Style: (not the Cha related) the names of the sets have all been lost, only 1-6 exist in text but, out of 48, 12 are said to exist in China.
For the Hua Style: In your book, China's Ch'a Fist, by Chang (1985) only four sets are documented. The rest have been lost.
For the P'ao Style: the names have been lost and the only numbered sets known are 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9.
For the Hung Style: Only the four listed in the above mentioned book survive. These are 1, 3, 4, and 7. Again, these styles were already being lost to posterity when Northern Shaolin, according to some, was being formulated. Why would someone use these obscure, and, at the time, incomplete systems to create such a complete and comprehensive system like Northern Shaolin. The sets as they are presented in the Chang book do appear to be related to BSL. Isn't there a possibility that the versions of these styles that are being done at the current temple aren't historically accurate? And how do you know that Wan Lai Sheng was talking about a different P'ao style, I would like to know?
Ok, you are mixing together completely different hong quan styles.
The Yellow River hong quan is an ancient military style practiced in the Henan and neighboring area and it is not the same at all whatsoever as the Hong sets from Cha Quan system in that book, I have that book and I have learned both the Cha and the Shaolin hong and they are not the same at all.
The hong sets in that book are just a name for an advanced group of sets of the Moslem style. they don't look any different than any of the famous 10 sets of Cha Quan. And Hong in that book means SLIPPERY, the character stands for SLIPPERY, not "red" or "flowing" as the character Hong for the Yellow River Valley ancient style.
You are mixing together unrelated material.As far as the character goes there shouldn't be any dispute since it was also known as "Red" style. And are you saying that the current Shaolin Hong is related to the ancient military style? Even so, how do the current monks know that their "Shaolin Hong" is the one from antiquity?

Of course, they don't seem to accept any non-government condoned research or explanations. Recently some South American BSL people found one of Kuo Yu Chang's disciples just outside of Bejing. He was about 90 something years old. (He just passed away 2 years ago) and he was saying that he attempted to teach BSL secretly but the PRC kept stopping him from teaching the traditional way. They wanted him to wushuize the style and he refused, so they banned him from teaching. If he was caught teaching the traditional way, he would be arrested. It's this type of thing that prevents us from knowing the truth.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Let's let someone else beside me respond about this stuff.

By the way, I agree that the PRC didn't let people teach the traditional way, but they aren't doing that now, far as I heard. Now westerners demand the traditional way, so they are bowing to money that westerners will bring if they can get traditional teachings. That's why they are giving money to people to film all the many traditional vcds that are coming out. Westerners have a strong demand for them.

Wan Lei Sheng is not being branded a lier, etc. Only that nowhere else can this categorization story be traced to, that it begins and ends with his statement, which people popularly distorted over time. Meaning that it is an idea that he had, and from his time period in origin. Same as people distorted the information about Southern Shaolin 5 elders monks origins that were written in comic book type novels and by the 1800s believed it as truth, when it was only fictional novels.

Who said ALL the monks were illiterate? Most in fact that were involved with the library and the scriptures, etc there were not at all. Do you know how many written items came out of Shaolin over the centuries? Tons.
Martial monks who had military backgrounds shouldn't be confused with Religious monks there. Both practiced DIFFERENT martial arts for self defense, with their own chi gung works.

Fact is that many of the books were hand copied for preservation over the many centuries before the 1920s burning, and these books are found now in museum collections (gathering during the 1980s surveys) in China or as family heirlooms passed on for generations.
Quite a few people have traveled all over China and South East Asia to look at and compare these hand copied old books, for the last 50 years. They have matched with each other very closely.

For the rest of your statements, again you are mixing together unrelated styles that are from different regions and time periods.

You bring up the Cha Quan book, one of many I have, and you don't even know that the character for Hong being used in that book stands for SLIPPERY instead of Flowing (by the way it is only in modern times do people mistakenly label that character as "red" when in fact it means Flowing. Red Hong Quan is only modern times used. Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Can you see for yourself that there is a Pao, Hong, Wah, and Cha quan series of sets in these MOSLEM martial arts books?
I have Wang Zi Peng's books, he explains it the way that I do, these are Moslem sets based on Cha Quan and unrelated to the Shaolin sets of the same name.

Wang Zi Peng also did Shaolin Hong Quan that comes from monks that left Shaolin in the 1700s, you can see their names here: http://www.swyi.com/masters.htm
Scroll down and you will see Wang's lineage teacher by teacher back to the 1700s.

It is unrelated to the Moslem Cha Quan Hong sets that he learned from a different lineage.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Reply]
I thought that was all Sung dynasty Shaolin derived? Like the Seven Star Fist that came from a Tai Tzu influence, and then migrated to Shanxi growing in size as it migrated?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Reply]
I thought that was all Sung dynasty Shaolin derived? Like the Seven Star Fist that came from a Tai Tzu influence, and then migrated to Shanxi growing in size as it migrated?

The sets were taught in Emei first (how far back? No one knows exactly), named in Zhau Men in honor of the Sung Dynasty where the moves in the sets came from first, and eventually reached Shanxi during the early 1800s, when an Emei Zhou Men school was opened there. This school did both emei sets and shanxi sets from various styles.

[Royal Dragon]

I see. I thought the set had migrated much sooner than that.

So it's really an Emei set done in Shanxi.

[r.(shaolin)]

whoooyaaa! Where to begin? Here is some background.

Ok. First re: Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong as being the basis of Shaolin issue.

During the last years of the Qing Dynasty in the late 1800s and the early years of the Republic two clear factions developed among martial arts associations – the modernists who basically rejected old Imperial values and what they saw as factional traditions. They proposed reforms by way of standardization. Resisting these changes were the conservatives who hoped to preserve China’s old ways. In the 1930s, there were over 560 independent martial arts organizations operating in China – a huge number and this was counting only the ones that were documented – each vying for attention and survival. The vast majority have since disappeared.

By the mid 1920s the reformers had clearly taken the leadership in presenting CMA to the public and the political leadership of the time. The two main groups to survive were the Jingwu Tiyu Hui; 精武體育會 and the Goumindang Central Academy. Generally the Jingwu did not create new forms but rather used existing sets to compose their core introductory curriculum. Once becoming competent in the basics students then went on to study what were traditional systems of their choice.

The Goumindang Central Academy on the other hand was created to eradicate diversity and factionalism through a national organizational structure. They began grouping different lineages and, to their minds, related arts, into sub-divisions. This entailed combining forms from different lineages and even unrelated styles, under their newly devised sub-divisions. In some cases this was accomplished by designing entirely new martial arts routines in order to create a common progressive curriculum. At first the school was organized into two school Shaolin and Wudong. Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong were grouped to represent the 'Shaolin Style'. These similar looking systems however came from unrelated lineages each with there own varied basics.

Never the less, inspite of this I do believe that Northern long fist styles, many of which by tradition connect themselves to Zhao Kuangyin 趙匡胤, the first emperor of the Song Dynasty did have important influence on Shaolin's Hong Quan 大洪拳 and 小洪拳 and Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路. Although Cha Quan is not mentioned in our tradition it has clearly influence some on Shaolin sets during imperial times and at least some of these military sets were absorbed and adopted in Shaolin during antiquity.

Before getting to other matters, the so called "family, hand copied books records" mostly have very little academic credibility when it come to authenticating a "Shaolin" source – even if they repeat the same information. Shaolin was a famous brand by that time and many local villagers hitched their proverbial wagons to it. In spite of what many people believe that the Qing was hostile to Shaolin, (mainly because during Yongzheng's reign, 1727, people were not allowed to practice martial arts), the Qing Dynasty was mostly supportive of Shaolin. Emperor Qianlong (乾隆) in fact was very supportive of Shaolin. It is well known that he even stayed at Shaolin and was instrumental in up grading Shaolin and its compound. Emperor Qianlong was a great supporter of culture, education and a advocated of academic research. He ruled for over 60 years and was the longest reigning monarch in Chinese history. Many military officers and other dignitaries stayed and practiced at Shaolin during the Qing and Ming Dynasty. However, our tradition tells that monks as rule did not go around teaching the local population martial arts. Monks of Shaolin generally were careful not to teach the locals because of their special relationship with the imperial government and because of political sensitivities.


r.

[Royal Dragon]

I do believe that Northern long fist styles, many of which by tradition connect themselves to Zhao Kuangyin 趙匡胤,

Reply]
Yes. however there are only 3 known sets at Shaolin with direct documented personal transmission from him...one is still sort of questionable. The questionable one id the first road of the Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chaun.

That set was developed from a joint effort of 18 masters *Starting* with Zhao Kuang Yin's material. 3 Roads are documented, but I suspect there are actually 18. It is generally assumed that the first road of the form is from Zhao himself, either left previously, or through one of his closer people that he sent there. It's not actually known for sure, the wording of the Shaolin records is not clear enough to be certain. The other 2 are Lao Hong Quan, and his Monkey set. The records are said to be quite clear about those being direct person to person transmission.

the first emperor of the Song Dynasty did have important influence on Shaolin's Hong Quan 大洪拳 and 小洪拳

Reply]
The Xiao Hong Quan and Da Hong Quan sets were compiled from his notes that he left there. It wasn't direct person to person transmission like the other 3. Also, I am told the Cannon Fist is in part built on the same frame work.

There are a number of other Long Fist styles called Tai Tzu, like the material seen in Shandong, These Tai Tzu Long Fists are only called that in an honorary sense because Zhao Kuang yin not only taught his Long Fist to Shaolin, but also sent his Generals and other top masters there to teach (this pretty much amounted to military Hong Quan and Tong Bei mostly).

None of it is his material exactly. A few of his techniques are seen in those systems, but who knows if they came from him, or the Tong Bei. Zhao's Long Fist is really just Taoist Tong Bei mixed with military Hong Quan common in the pre Sung Era; only it has more refined internals from the teachings of Chen Hsi I, and the Taiji Ruler (IE., More like the Rou Quan sets). Oral traditions say he taught Zhao during his youth. There is some debate on this because there is no direct written documentation, only oral accounts. There is documentation, however, that Chen Hsi I was also summoned to the Imperial Palace to continue teaching, but he declined. The deal was settled over a Chess game.

This means any techniques that "Look" Like they came from Zhao, could have just come from his source arts directly, and not actually him or his personal brand of martial arts.


and Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路. Although Cha Quan is not mentioned in our tradition it has clearly influence some of Shaolin sets and at least some of these military sets were absorbed and adopted.

Reply]
Maybe, but I think you are seeing the results of Shaolin Hong Quan mixing with Shandong Moslem styles AFTER the Monks left Shaolin and migrated to Shandong in the 1700's A lot of Cha Fist shows up in those lines.

[Royal Dragon]

However, our tradition tells that monks as rule did not go around teaching the local population martial arts. Monks of Shaolin generally were careful not to teach the locals because of their special relationship with the imperial government and political sensitivities.

Reply]
As I understand it, the Monks would open up and teach during times the temple had been shut down or destroyed, so all thier core important defining material got spread to the lay families and villagers around Henan. This is why we still have them today.

[Sal Canzonieri]

wasn't the Shaolin division at the Central Academy (and elsewhere) made from a combination of Moslem and Shaolin long fists, MOSTLY because Wang Zi Ping was from both lineages and was the most popularly known?
I think so from what i have read and heard from his daughter (when she was alive).

[r.(shaolin)]

wasn't the Shaolin division at the Central Academy (and elsewhere) made from a combination of Moslem and Shaolin long fists, MOSTLY because Wang Zi Ping was from both lineages and was the most popularly known?

Early in the Academy's history, for a short time when it was two separate schools - Wudang and Shaolin, Wang Ziping was the executive director of Shaolin and that may be the case at first. The teaching director of the Shaolin section at that point was actually Ma Yufu. In 1928 even the two schools idea was eliminated and new staff came in.

By the way have you seen Wang Ziping's Shaolin Hong Quan?

r.