The Shaolin "Syllabus"?

[Crosshandz]

In Bak Sil Lum vs Shaolin Temple #3 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=156) I read that Abbot Shi Yongxin has attemptedto standardise the Shaolin Syllabus of empty handed sets into:



Xiaohongquan (small red fist)
Dahongquan (big red fist)
Tongbiquan (through arms fist)
Liuhequan (six harmonies fist)
Changquan (long fist)
Changhuxinyimen (long protect heart will gate)
Qixingquan (seven star fist)
Meihuaquan (plum flower fist - although not the same set as in Bak Sil Lum)
Paoquan (cannon fist)
Lohanquan (arhat fist)

Does anyone have any insight/information/opinion as to why Shi Yongxin felt these sets in particular should be the 10 pillars upon which a student's Shaolinquan should be based? Also, just out of interest, how successful has the standardisation process been?

[LFJ]

While some of those are names of sets (e.g. Xiaohongquan, Dahongquan) others are names of subsystems, not individual sets (e.g. Tongbiquan, Changquan, Meihuaquan, Luohanquan). So the list is rather vague and pointless.

It's like saying "Hongquan" is one of the 10 sets, when it's a subsystem of several sets including those of Xiaohongquan and Dahongquan.

I think better than naming 10 individual sets, it would do well to name several subsystems to learn in Songshan Shaolin. Such a list would look like:

Hongquan
Tongbiquan
Paoquan
Luohanquan
Xinyiquan
etc..

Then individual sets could be learned from each. Such as your Xiao/Dahongquan of the Hongquan subsystem, or Changhuxinyimenquan & Qixingquan of the Xinyiquan subsystem.

The subsystems also include main weapon sets. Learning the main sets of the subsystems like this is really what would make up a strong foundation of the Songshan Shaolin system as a whole. Having too much of one subsystem and too little of another would not create a balanced comprehension of Songshan Shaolin.

If you want to name 10 sets to learn, it would be good to name the main set from each subsystem. Then one could taste each flavor and explore more deeply the ones they like or excel at.

That's my opinion, but as the article says, it really depends on who's teaching it. I don't think I'd look to the abbot as my instructor.

[Crosshandz]

While some of those are names of sets (e.g. Xiaohongquan, Dahongquan) others are names of subsystems, not individual sets (e.g. Tongbiquan, Changquan, Meihuaquan, Luohanquan). So the list is rather vague and pointless.

It's like saying "Hongquan" is one of the 10 sets, when it's a subsystem of several sets including those of Xiaohongquan and Dahongquan.

I think better than naming 10 individual sets, it would do well to name several subsystems to learn in Songshan Shaolin. Such a list would look like:

Hongquan
Tongbiquan
Paoquan
Luohanquan
Xinyiquan
etc..

Then individual sets could be learned from each. Such as your Xiao/Dahongquan of the Hongquan subsystem, or Changhuxinyimenquan & Qixingquan of the Xinyiquan subsystem.

The subsystems also include main weapon sets. Learning the main sets of the subsystems like this is really what would make up a strong foundation of the Songshan Shaolin system as a whole. Having too much of one subsystem and too little of another would not create a balanced comprehension of Songshan Shaolin.

If you want to name 10 sets to learn, it would be good to name the main set from each subsystem. Then one could taste each flavor and explore more deeply the ones they like or excel at.

That's my opinion, but as the article says, it really depends on who's teaching it. I don't think I'd look to the abbot as my instructor.

*Light bulb going on*

Ah...

Thanks for that. Sorry if my questions seem a bit ignorant (they are, I'm very new to this Shaolin stuff :p) that makes everything a lot clearer.

If I am understanding you correctly its likely that even that list of 10 styles (right word?) would probably not be known, and if not, not imparted by every Shaolin master? Instead they would likely have a subset they use as a foundation e.g. Xiaohongquan and Da Hong Quan and then tie in other subsets like Changhuxinyi and Qixingquan to form their own curriculum/basis for practice? Thus you might have some Shaolin masters who specialise in like Pao Quan, for example, and others who specialise in something else and so on and so forth?

[LFJ]

I think it's unlikely nowadays that many masters really specialize in one of these subsystems, learning all the different empty hand, weapon, and two-person sets that may be in them. Everyone basically knows the main sets in each, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

They are called subsystems, because they together are what make up Songshan Shaolin as a complete system of martial arts. They share the same basics, being part of the same large system, but each subsystem emphasizes a certain skill or develops upon a strategy more deeply.

So having only the main sets from various subsystems is not like being a jack of all trades but master of none, because they are all part of the same large system.

Most often the first Songshan Shaolin stick set learned is Yinshougun, which belongs to the Mizongquan subsystem. Yet people learn this weapon set before or sometimes without ever learning the main empty hand sets of Mizongquan.

This might mean they will not have a totally clear understanding of the methodology of this stick set, but it's very foundational and uses the regular basics of the Songshan Shaolin system nonetheless. So no harm is done.

[rett]

Is that list meant to be graded in order of difficulty? I just wonder since it starts with xiaohongquan which is supposed to be a common starting point.

[RenDaHai]

@Rett,

There is no difficulty setting. All shaolin sets are equal really. Although Xiao Hong Quan is considered the begining set, it is also a set that is practiced at the highest levels as well since it is the mother set of Shaolin and contains the most important concepts.

@Cross

LFJ cleared most of this up. Going into it;

Xiao Hong Quan for example has 4 sets. The first 2 mesh seemlessly into one 108 move set.

But it doesn't end there. There is the Xiyuan Xiao Hong quan, and the Nanyuan Xiao Hong quan. One from the western courtyard and one from the southern courtyard. ALthough they were once the same set they have evolved seperately over time. BOth have 4 sets. Then we have the Xiaohong quans left in the various villages around shaolin, such as Mogou Pai, Luotuoyuan men etc. THese are frozen in time as the villages are less likely to 'evolve' the form. Some of these can be startlingly different, but containing the same techniques and overall sequence. (THe form Changhuxinyimen is actually a modification of the Xiao hong quan of Mogou Pai for example. If you look hard enough you can find the overall sequence of Xiao hong quan inside changhuxinyimen).

In my time in Shaolin I have seen 5 completely different Qixing quans. Over 20 different Tongbei Quans and maybe more than 30 Luohan quans. Pao quan I stopped counting.

Standardising the forms would be a very bad idea because you would lose a huge amount of technique. No ONE version is the best.

But As LFJ said they all of them are Shaolin. They are not different styles. SO by learning one of each you will get a good overall technique.

However forms like the 4 forms of xiaohong quan are well learned together at the beginning. Because they were made to encompass a full range of technique. The 1st form for example often strikes in gong bu of the front hand. THe 2nd set likes to strike in yao bu off the rear hand. The sets compliment each other and the 2nd set contains the changes of moves in the first.

But once you have a base of technique it is fine to pick random forms. Because they are all shaolin they all compliment each other, and all fit together. Even switching between Nanyuan Pai and Xiyuan pai is ok.

[rett]

@RenDaHai

Thanks for all the interesting info. I gather you've lived around there for a while and picked up a lot.

Is the Wu Gulun style of the forms one of the village forms you describe?

[RenDaHai]

@Rett

yes and no

Not one of the ones I described as their Xiao hong quan is largely identical. (It looks different because of performance style, but the sequence is the same).

However they have a large number of great forms which don't exist anywhere else. Its not a village style but a family style which comes from shaolin. This is the shaolin style I am least familiar with, but I believe their style would be of the Nanyuan Pai.

Nanyuan Pai is much rarer in Shaolin today. Their are several sects, all quite different as each comes from a different time in shaolins history. The way I was told is that many of the Nan Yuan monks were killed away from the temple as they were often the ones called away to battle due to their fighting prowess. So shaolin has less of Nanyuan pai today.

The master who passed down Wugulun style was Wushanlin, and he had many disciples. ALthough I have only encountered the wugulun sect in villages to the north west of shaolin, and of course in their school in Shilipo and temple on sanhuangzhai. Definately some of the best of shaolin left today.

[GeneChing]

"Interestingly, there is a ten empty-hand form grouping that is currently propounded by the present abbot, Shi Yongxin." The grouping was based on one of the early video offerings, and that was around a decade ago. Yongxin subsequently published a book series which was larger - 16 or 18 books was it? It's first thing Monday morning and I can't remember exactly. There have been subsequent publications as well.

As you'll see in my next cover story (Sep/Oct 2011), the Abbot might open the Shaolin curriculum up in a massive way by adding a whole other system.

[Crosshandz]

"Interestingly, there is a ten empty-hand form grouping that is currently propounded by the present abbot, Shi Yongxin." The grouping was based on one of the early video offerings, and that was around a decade ago. Yongxin subsequently published a book series which was larger - 16 or 18 books was it? It's first thing Monday morning and I can't remember exactly. There have been subsequent publications as well.

As you'll see in my next cover story (Sep/Oct 2011), the Abbot might open the Shaolin curriculum up in a massive way by adding a whole other system.

Very interesting. A return to the 36 chambers...? :p

[RenDaHai]

"
As you'll see in my next cover story (Sep/Oct 2011), the Abbot might open the Shaolin curriculum up in a massive way by adding a whole other system.

That sounds interesting. But Song Shan has a documented 1500 forms..... There is no need to make it bigger. What's he adding? Guess I'll have to wait till the issue comes out huh?