The state of the PRC Shaolin.

[r.(shaolin)]

Re: Jan/Feb issue of ‘Kungfu Qigong’

[kungfudork]

"Seeing how one ‘monk’ demonstrates and explain the difference between modern wushu and traditional basics, in particular the ‘gongbu’ further convinces me that tradition at Shaolin is not alive and well."

what is your logic behind this statement. i wrote the article you are refering to. this topic was my idea, not my shrfu, shi xing hao. at school i train our regular traditional shaolin curriculum, and sometimes i join in the changchuan(longfist or contemp wushu) class......shrfu is always correcting me, saying i can't do traditional stances in longfist class, because it isn't longfist. this is why the article was written, i felt it was an interesting topic and a controversial one too, since alot of people feel that Shaolin today is all contemporary wushu. This wasn't some mastermind scheme to help Shaolin Temple distance itself from contemp wushu. The first i have even heard of this is from your first paragraph, and it quite possibly is true....i don't know, but i do know that isn't why the article was written.
if you question the traditional aspects of our shaolin class you are more than welcome to visit the school and even join in a class. this is a friendly invitation, not a challenge. we do not mix the traditional with the contemp wushu in our classes.....i will admit for demonstration purposes we sometimes add some flashy moves to the traditional forms, but this is for the demonstration team only and not part of the curriculum.
i would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you more.

respect to all!

thanks,
dieter wagner

[r.(shaolin)]

You said it yourself:

”I found my sihifu, Shaolin Monk Shi Xing Hao, always bringing to my attention that I was mixing my traditional and longfist basics, such as stances and execution of movements”.
----
Basics can be seen as the gross motor skills. These will perform under the stress of combat and are most important just when complex and fine motor skills generally deteriorate. Modern training research tells us this and interestingly the traditional martial arts recognized this. The importance of basics is recognized in literally all fields . You will react like you train.

It is interesting that when various arts were absorbed into Shaolin during Fuyu’s time, it was said that basics of each of the forms were changed to conform with Shaolin basics (Shaolin Ji Ben Dong Zuo - this refers to both standing and moving basics).
Its clear that the present monks are well trained in modern sport wushu. Modern sport wushu basics were designed for aesthetics and audience appeal not for combat nor for health considerations. The bottom line is that basics of modern wushu contradicts traditional shaolin martial arts both in form and content. Of all the basics used in modern wushu the ‘gongbu,’ in IMO is one of its most unsound features.

In your article you write that Xing Hao says, “If you are spending time worrying about “that is longfist” and “that is traditional,” then you are wasting precious time that could be spent training.”

I can see that he has a vested interested in modern wushu basics. Hardly good advice as there is some evidence of the knee problems that modern wushu practitioners are prone to. Looking at the way they do gongbu it is little wonder. The knee problems have has less to do with how low the stances are, than the position of the back foot as evidenced by the photos.
-----
My comments re: Revernd Shi Yongxin are more to do with his special message at the front of the mag. and his address given 1999. In that address
it is clear he is distancing Shaolin from contempory wushu.

regards,
r.

[kungfudork]

i said it was possible that yongxin was trying to differentiate shaolin from contemporary wushu...and it seems he is, but the article we wrote had nothing to do with this.

"In your article you write that Xing Hao says, “If you are spending time worrying about “that is longfist” and “that is traditional,” then you are wasting precious time that could be spent training.”"

yes i can see that there are knee problems from this position that really stresses the knee, but the point of the statement was that no matter what you decide to train you should concentrate on training. it wasn't meant to imply that the two are the same. if everyone spends their time saying i am traditional or i am modern then you are wasting time. what ever you train, you should train with your heart and soul, if you don't , then you are only doing dancelike movements that have no meaning. if you want to train modern then do so, if you train traditional then do so.....that is your choice. there is a difference between the two and any knowledgible teacher should be able to keep the two seperate in class, letting the students know the differences and why they are different.

in our article no where did we recommend which style to study. we only stated the differences of the basics for each style...you act like we are promoting modern wushu.

"Its clear that the present monks are well trained in modern sport wushu. "

i agree most of them are, like the article stated my sifu was already a modern sport wushu champion when he was 13-14. instead of going to his province team he decided to go train at shaolin. here he learned traditional arts and quite honestly didn't enjoy being there, because he was a modern champion and now the stuff he was being trained in he couldn't do very well because it was different. it seems to me that you are making the assumption that if they know modern wushu then there is no way in hell they can know anything traditional. please come visit the school you can see the differences and the differences are taught to the students. that is the point of the article, if you are training either style you should know the differences.......if you mix them together then you have neither modern sports wushu nor traditional.

"The bottom line is that basics of modern wushu contradicts traditional shaolin martial arts both in form and content. Of all the basics used in modern wushu the ‘gongbu,’ in IMO is one of its most unsound features."

duh, that was one of the points of the article, the basics are different.....there isn't a shaolin version of modern wushu. both are practiced at shaolin, but the differences are noted. just as it is at our school....the traditional shaolin curriculum isn't mixed with the modern wushu. for those students who also study the modern stuff our sifu makes sure that they know the differences and keep the two seperate.

i really don't see the point of your message anymore. you are trying to tell me that the basics of modern wushu and traditional shaolin are different and that was what the article was about. in our school the traditional is the priority....learning longfist (modern wushu) is only a side class for those who want to compete in this style. i can assure you that our traditional curriculum isn't some mix of the two styles. traditional is traditional and combat based. modern wushu is for competing.

but i must say.....i believe that no matter what you train, if you train it consistently then it will be effective. if i puch a tree everyday for 3 years as hard as i can, i can promise you that my punch will do severe damage to anyone i hit, even though i have never studied a martial art. this fact can't be denied. this is kungfu, anything you train over a long period of time you will be more efficient than someone who doesn't train.

sorry for the rambling but i am a few sheets to the wind. i hope my post makes some sense. " i like whiskey"

respect to all,
dieter wagner

[GeneChing]

I interviewed Abbot Shi Yongxin in 2001 to generate that message you read in the front of our recent Shaolin special. IMO, he wasn't distancing himself from wushu at all. Perhaps it is my poor translation, but I believe his intention was to acknowledge the traditional roots and it would be a converse error to think that this endorsement is distancing itself from modern wushu. At Shaolin, and in many parts of China, wushu and traditional kungfu exist harmoniously. If you practice like they do in China - everday, all day, from childhood - you can achieve both. It's much more difficult for those of us who cannot commit that kind of effort, so it is better that we choose. It would be a mistake for Shaolin to detach itself from wushu because it is such a measure of martial skill in China. Shaolin students must still earn awards in every field - after all, there's a reputation to maintain. And if it makes into the Olympics - man, that's something that the traditional styles couldn't even ever dream of...

[r.(shaolin)]

Here are a few quotes from Abbot Shi Yongxin's 1999 address.

[GeneChing]

Can you get it to me in the original Chinese?

[r.(shaolin)]

" Can you get it to me in the original Chinese?"

I'd love to get the original. You have much better connections to Shaolin than I do. Can you possibly make an inquire? A summary of it was on russco.com



kind regards,
r.

[GeneChing]

I should have guessed. Was that your source?

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Gene - I was hoping to hear your thoughts and reactions to the Abbots position.

I've only seen the summary on russco.com, but would like to get the full address in Chinese. I sent a email to russco but haven't received a reply.

You say you know the owner of the site, possibly he has the original in Chinese.

r.

[xiong]

Although a long read this has been pretty interesting.

My question is for r.(shaolin) specifically, but perhaps the rest of you could give your opinion. I was interested in looking at the history of Kung Fu/Wu Shu from 1949 on.

I am a Wushu student and was curious as to why there was such a negative connotation, I thought it was nationalist sour grapes, but in some of my own research did find that the PRC government did try to take away the martial aspects and persecute MA in general as being bourgoise.

I am just trying to locate sources to try and increase my own understanding, perhaps I may have some information good enough to post.

One thing I read somewhere was looking at the governmental control of wushu in the context of the PRC as a dynastic change. At various times in history martial arts has been prohibited by the incoming dynasty. And schools of martial arts have been instrumental in secret societies fighting for the overthrow of the usurpers.

In this context the PRC's attitude towards wushu seems to follow a cultural precedent that is not particular to communism.

Anyway just some thoughts, what I'm primarily interested in is sources, I don't think that it can be disputed that the PRC tried to subvert the martial aspect of wushu.

[GeneChing]

Rich is my younger disciple brother under Warrior monk Shi Decheng. I doubt he has the chinese since he reads less than I do. But I know most of his sources, so I'll look into it.

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene I did hear from your 'junior' brother. I gather that although the position paper did come from Shaolin and is credited to Reverend Shi Yougxin, Dr. Russell, believes it was written for him by someone else.

Never the less, Reverend Shi Yougxin's name is attached to it and the person who wrote it, certainly was informed. The points made were thoughtful. I found two issues he raised, one of standardization and the other of competition, particularly interesting.

Recently The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in their series "Ideas" did a piece called "The Way of the Western Warrior." Possible some of you may have heard this excellent analysis. It explored how Western culture is transforming the martial arts. Recent controversies aside, one of the themes that it looked at, was the negative effects Olympic
competition have had on the martial arts. Case in point is Judo. In the program Joe Svinth, who is the sport history consultant for the Japanese-American National Museum in LA, points out that many judo practitioners regret to this day that judo was turned into a sport.

xiong - You make some good points.

I neither accept reasons, like jealousy and sour grapes as the root of the reoccurring questions. . . .

You must remember that for thousands of years the Chinese have had a great reverence for their ancestors and a acute sensitivity to their traditions and history. For thousands of years this was part of their identity. Its a culture of deep deep roots.

What happen to China since 1949 was a great humiliation. But how do they unearth the past with out digging up what happened to the millions missing since 1949. The bitter irony is that millions of innocent were killed in an effort to destroy the past. What they are actually doing now, is restore the past by rewriting and inventing it in a way
that tries to forget what really happened.

On an other thread someone posted that "There's a big myth in this country that it's still illegal to practice traditional Kungfu in Communist China . . . " This is a straw dog. It is well known that traditional martial arts were being openly practice in China beginning with the mid 80's.

Systems like Shaolin that were comprised of a large body of forms were the most damaged. With 30 years of suppression by the communists and the war with Japan previous did great harm to these traditions. The real myth is that this suppression was not extensive and devastating. When the PCSC issued the document titled 'Circular of Unearthing the Establishing Wushu Heritage' they were not kidding it was 'unearthing'. During the mid 80's Chinese masters living abroad were solicited to 'come home' and have their systems documented. Even in the 90's officials were sent abroad in search of the 'old sifu'. Yes there is 'traditional' martial art being practice in Shaolin Monastery but its should be more accurately call 'traditional patchwork'

I think it would be an interesting story to compare an art with 180+ forms like "Northern Shaolin" from Kuo Yu Chang's lineage as practiced in the PRC with the same art as practiced outside of the PRC. Gene, if I recall you are familiar with this art.

regards,
r

[xiong]

And the PRC is not alone in this. But polotics aside I see what you are saying. Unfortunately China has suffered greatly since at least the 19th century, if not prior to that, concurrent with it's involvement with the west, and I don't mean India.

My ideas are not original, I can't remeber where I read it, but the thesis was very intriguing. I have only barely scratched the surface of what I am interested in. I have looked at the encyclopedia of martial arts and read some thing online that gives references to Chinese MA in North America in the 20th cent.

Are you familiar with the Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts. I saw it advertised in the latest WLE catalog and was wondering about it's coverage of post '49 history.

[r.(shaolin)]

Yes I'm quite familiar with

[xiong]

Thanks again r.(shaolin), very informative. I'm sorry to have hijacked your thread, it has been very interesting.

As a side note how do you feel about the inclusion of wushu in the 2008 olympics? I have not yet read the KFQ article on the subject, just curious on your thought s about its possible effects on CMA as a whole.

[GeneChing]

Ted Mancuso, the publisher of Kang's book in English, was a classmate of mine under Wing Lam. He was kind enough to let me practice at his school when I lived in Santa Cruz in the late 80's. We've been friends for years. According to him, Kang's book was actually compiled from some of the answers to the questions for China's examination for teaching certification. I think he said it was only about 1/6th of the material that they needed to know for the exam. Personally, I felt Kang's treatment of post-communist wushu really toe-ed the party line. Nevertheless, that book is quite a treasure - I pushed many copies of it when I worked for WLE because I really beleive in it.

The special message from the abbot to our readers in our Shaolin issue was complied from an interview I did with him in during the last festival. His focus on traditionalism may well be the byproduct of me being the interviewer. Kungfu is not Yongxin's forte, and he tends to dodge questions about traditionalism, so of course, that's what I asked.

As for the Rich's interview, the translation is really funny to me. The use of the word kungfu instead of chaun tong wushu is strange. I do a lot of translation myself, as you know, so I know how easy it is to spin stuff. It's been quite a puzzle for me, because it just doesn't sound like Yongxin to me and I've met with him on several occasions. But I'd like to come clean on this matter since it stretches my 3rd & 4th vow of being a translator and accept it as valid (that's why I was interested in the Chinese.) Rich does great research for a kenpo man;)
In fact, he's at Shaolin now.

So my opinion, dear r(shaolin), is that Yongxin is the one to watch. He's absolutely fascinating. How he navigates Shaolin through his watch is destined to be extraordinary.

[richard sloan]

...have you ever taken a peak at Shi De Yang's library?

No one can deny the tragedy of the great step backwards. However I don't think traditional forms are as much 'patchwork' as some believe. The fact that masters were solicited to return does not necessarily imply logically that there were no surviving masters within China herself- all that we can logically infer from that is that whoever was trying to catalogue the arts in such manner was at a disadvantage- the conditions of that disadvantage and their causes is unfortunatley relegated to speculation.

Complicating the issue of Shaolin is the fact that many who train there train the compulsory forms. I can't blame them really.

[GeneChing]

Actually, the last time I saw Deyang was in his temple chambers in the statue courtyard for tea and your master dropped in to pay respects. That was last year.

I've seen a few of the personal respostories at Shaolin as well as what I was told was the main library. Lots of books, but I don't read Chinese, so they might as well have been menus.

Abbot Yongxin recently published a limited edition book series about Shaolin. Sort of an "official" encyclopedia. It's a beautiful edition, traditionally bound and boxed with a very limited printing. Only in Chinese of course and the price tag is astronomical. Benn working on getting my paws on a copy, but can't justify the cost right now.

[Inquisitor]

Having been involved in both contemporary wushu and traditional kungfu, the matter of the state of the Shaolin Temple in the People's Republic of China is rather important to me. Also, I hope that knowing both ends of the spectrum gives me some insight that others who are only one one side do not have, and I hope that this understanding will help them.

The main "beef" that most traditionalists have with contemporary wushu is that oftentimes it either tries to pass itself off as the "real deal" (e.g. advertisements that a modern wushu school teaches "ancient Chinese kungfu") or that it doesn't bother to make a clear distinction between the two (e.g. "wushu is kungfu! they are the same thing!"). To anyone who has experienced both, it is blatantly obvious that contemporary wushu is not the same thing as traditional kungfu, and vice versa. Also, there is an issue with the "*******ization" of various styles (look at Nanquan - a mix of Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, and other Southern Shaolin styles) and the change in the main goals - pugilism and philosophy. The main aim of modern wushu is, in three short words, to look good. However, all that being said, the traditionalist oftentimes looks down upon the contemporary wushu practitioner with contempt; not trying understand the time, effort, energy, and dedication required to gain skill in the sport. Wushu practitioners are true athletes, and should be recognized as such.


The problem with the Shaolin Temple today is comparable to the schism between the traditionalist and contemporary factions. People do not appreciate the fact that the so-called "Shaolin Temple" of today tries to pass itself off as the uninterrupted, true successor to the Shaolin arts of old. What is perhaps even more egregious, they make this statement while at the same time making public demonstrations of blatant contemporary wushu - right down to the compulsory Chanquan form. Another major issue is that the PRC is obviously using the Shaolin Temple grounds as a moneymaking device. For people whose "martial ancestors," as it were, fled the country to preserve the arts, this is nothing less than insulting, like a slap in the face. Were the modern-day Shaolin Temple to make a public announcement that they are not the true inheritors of Shaolin knowledge and practice but are attempting to "bring everything together" and perhaps rebuild what was lost, I feel that many would have less reason to be angry. However, as it is, I doubt such a thing would come to pass. The simple fact of the matter is that the Shaolin Temple within the Communist government of China is misrepresenting itself.

[Fifth Brother]

Excellent post Inquisitor! :)

[richard sloan]

1. What about the 'martial ancestors' who did not flee but chose to stay? It seems very often that this argument is often crafted from the assumption that all the great masters fled China during the CR. People also make the assumption that anyone who did stay behind didn't have complete knowledge of their styles/forms and only had piecemeal forms requiring them to be 'patched up.' Not all the great masters fled. Just because none came forward immediately to help the committee does not mean they were not there...there is a common misconception that traditional CMA are dead in China. I think this has been grossly overstated, and anyone traveling there can tell you that if they've got their eyes open.

2. I was not aware that the Shaolin Temple was actively denouncing compulsory wushu whilst propagating comp. wushu as traditional- it seems fairly obvious to me that they support both the traditional styles/forms as well as the compulsory PRC forms. There are huge differences.

-richard

[Inquisitor]

1. Since we're talking about the Shaolin Temple, I'll keep my response limited in that respect (rather than talk about the general history of all CMA styles during this period of time). The masters who did not flee were either killed/imprisoned, forced to teach their martial skills to "loyal Communists," or hid their skills. In the case of the Shaolin Temple monks, I don't believe that any of them were asked to teach once the Communists took over the temple grounds; at least, not in any official sense. That being said, they were limited to the other two options - die or hide. The ones that hid inevitably died during the years, and very few passed on their traditions (although it did happen). Of course, what one must realize is that the vast scope of the Shaolin arts made it impossible for any one person to learn them in their entirety. Do you think that out of the handful of monks who stayed, that between them they knew the total sum of Shaolin knowledge? If they did, could all of them have possibly passed every single bit of knowledge down to successors, and then have those disciples continue the tradition until the time of the "rebuilding"? Look at the state of Shaolin martial arts outside of China. They are extremely fragmented. There is Bak Siu Lum, Praying Mantis, Wing Chun, Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar, Fu Jow Pai, Shaolin Lohan, My Jong Law Horn, etc etc etc. While not all of these styles came as a result of the Communist takeover, they are a good indication of just how much was incorporated into the Temple. It has been established that no one ever mastered all of Shaolin - not even the Head Abbot (except perhaps early on in its history, when there was much less material to be learned). As for "traditional kungfu" - I have never denied that it died out in China. It is a widely known fact that many masters chose to reside in China during that time, and their descendants continue to live in the country today. However, while this may be true, only a fool would think that the government's official (and very overt) stance on the traditional arts will change any time soon. The creation of contemporary wushu is an indication of this thinking. Traditional kungfu may not have died out in China, but to think that it was not weakened is asinine. Dozens of masters fled the country - the few who remained were left in bad straits (most of them died before they could pass on their knowledge).

2. The Shaolin Temple may not be openly denouncing modern wushu, but there have been enough statements by high-level monks to indicate that they recognize a major difference between the ancient arts of Shaolin and the newly created form contemporary wushu. Yet, while indicating that they understand the difference, they openly display in public what can only be called pure modern wushu (with a few Shaolin poses/stances thrown in). What many traditionalists cannot understand is why the modern-day Shaolin Temple would claim to be the clear successor to the Shaolin arts (which they are not, as I have said before) while at the same time actively promoting modern wushu. The tradional arts are nothing like contemporary wushu - this has been acknowledged repeatedly. And yet, the current Shaolin Temple complains about not being seen as legitimate in the eyes of "those who left." If they wished to solidify their claim, they should openly display what they have been trying to rebuild - the Shaolin arts of old, not modern wushu. Of course, there is the official statement that "in the current climate of the Communist regime in China, the only way to support the ancient Shaolin Temple arts is to gain stature in modern wushu." Personally, I think this is a bunch of bullsh-t. Everyone knows that the real wushu contenders are members of their respective province teams - Beijing, Shandong, Guangdong, etc. Shaolin monks will never be at the same level as these people. What do they think winning 10th place in a modern wushu tournament will garner them? Respect from the wushu community? Respect from the traditional masters outside the country? [I was not even aware that the so-called monks could compete in the national or international competitions...someone correct me if I was wrong.] At any rate, I believe you are not fully understanding what I previously wrote. The problem is not that people think "Shaolin is dead in China!" It is that the current Shaolin Temple says one thing while doing another.

[richard sloan]

...unfortunately to fully reply to your post as i am in the midst of preparing for an extended trip abroad...but I do not think you will see the Shaolin monks displaying for your viewing pleasure, or stamp of authenticity, the traditional forms, anytime soon. And not because they are not propagated, but they are treasured...some of the forms seem to have a very deep sacredness that I feel is...I guess reserved is the word I am looking for. Just look at the 108 Lohan form. It is rare that one person will learn the whole form, all 108 movements until they are truly accepted by their master, and if he even knows it. I feel that most of the monks are content with what they know and do not feel the need to justify anything to the outside world- perhaps this is viewed as smugness or arrogance, but I personally don't think so and understand their position.

Also, the governments hands are in deep, as you mention, so the emphasis on compulsory wushu is I think understandable from quite a few standpoints- not the least of which is that most of the general populace likes to watch wushu, not traditional. As sad as that may be, it is still a fact of life. Personally, I feel that Shaolin is a big enough institution to accomodate both, and I for one have no problem paying respect to those athletes who excel or desire to excel in wushu- it is a tough sport and is not given the credit it generally deserves.

As far as the Shaolin masters themselves, I think more was transmitted than is the common belief- some of the monks know over 80 to a hundred forms, with more contained in the martial libraries...of course only a fool would say there were no losses, I just happen to believe, by virtue of some of the things I was/am being exposed to, that the losses are not as severe or as dire as it is popularly believed, and in any case, will fall into the cycle of history just like all the other trials and tribulations the temple has been through.

[r.(shaolin)]

Of course there were high level martial artist left in China.

[Songshan]

AHHHH it's the "traditional vs. Contemporary Wushu" debate/opinion/whatever else you want to call it. Well, I must say that yes, one is different than the other. You could even say that there two different "styles". But I think I tend to agree with Kung Fu ****'s posts (as he is my fellow classmate). If you do worry about what you are learning is traditional or Wushu then you will never learn anything at all because your mind is going to be cluttered with no focus. I believe each style has it's own advantages.

I think there are many that are quick to jump in the "monks are wushu experts not monks" band wagon. Lets face it.....traditional shaolin isn't pretty and doesn't look good. It's for defense and it can be deadly. Don't be quick to judge a wushu stylist either. Throw that person into a fight with the weapon of their choice and I guarantee you they can do some damage.

I read in someone's response that Shaolin wants to be the arts "successor" while promoting wushu or something like that. The fact is Shaolin created the arts and its stands alone. Shaolin is Shaolin and there is no need for the Temple to prove anything to anybody. What I really find interesting is all these kung fu styles that are out there paint themselves as "shaolin" even though most of the styles were founded by individuals who weren't even monks or closely associated with Shaolin Temple but yet they use Shaolin's name in their school. It's two way street here. Just as there are many to point out that todays Shaolin monks are primarily wushu stylists there are many others who point out the ones that abuse the very name. I certainly hope that you are not saying that if you are training in Hung Gar, Mantis, JKD, etc. you are learning the real traditional shaolin art than those who are training under one of the monks. If you are then you are totally wrong and way off the target. There are no real winners here in this situation. Check out the latest Inside Kung FU mag with Shi Xing Hong on the cover. It's an interesting article. Shaolin has begun to open its doors and is now being taught all over the world. :p

[richard sloan]

...all I can say is that none of this is anything more than educated conjecture, and fact in a few personal examples. I was not discussing Shaolin 'schools,' but the temple.

My personal examples are very different from others. Everything else I refuse to jot down in the fact column because few of these conclusions are bulletproof. And amazingly, people who develop detailed 'scholastic' analysis rarely make the effort to speak with both sides of this debate. I have no idea how the statement that training only occurred at the temple within the last 10 years can be made with any certainty. Where did Shi Su Xi come from and where did he learn his forms? Shing Jen? What about De Yang? De cheng? Yan Ming, Yan Chang, Yong Chen, Wan Heng, etc? Many of these masters know around 80 to a hundred forms each. It is no secretthat Shaolin was very extensive. Until these forms are catalogued and studied it is inappropriate to state anything as fact. Yan Ming has stated he knows over a 100 forms. De Cheng has made similar statements, and De Yang has custody of more than a few of the old training manuals. Some of the personal examples I have are as follows. It has been related to me on more than one occassion that many of the shaolin masters were tortured during the 'difficult period.' Many times they were forced to leave the temple, adopted regular clothing, and retreated sometimes to the nunnery further up the mountain, or indeed deeper into the range which hosts hundreds of temples, or left for short periods of time to return later. This seems reasonable and fits an established historical pattern extant in societies which suffer persecution.

You mention Eagle Claw. I have seen it stated over and over again that the Temple teaches wushu forms, and nothing else. The one eagle claw form I learned, the 'traditional,' looks nothing like the compulsory form performed in wushu competitions. It is very different. Is it complete? According to who? Is there more to it? I would think that would be a reasonable assumption. Do some people learn the PRC wushu compulsory form called Eagle claw at Shaolin Temple? Obviously. Some monks concentrate on PRC wushu forms. Others focus more on traditional, and some a mixture. It is all Ch'an so I don't see the conflict or why it must be one way or the other. And yet, the possibility that this is so- that some monks train wushu, some traditional, some both, is never entertained or addressed.

Perhaps in the more cosmopolitan areas training was problematic, but most of china is not what I would call cosmopolitan. Especially in the Song Shan area, it is very very rural, the mountains are not easily accessible. Even with all the recent development it is still no walk in the park. There, and elsewhere, off the beaten path, you will find quite a few highly skilled traditional masters who bridle at the suggestion that they are figments of my imagination...and that all the true masters split the country. I don't know where your friends or masters went in China. Or when.

Well, this is a dead horse which I am sure will continue to be dragged out and beat down. History is an interesting context but for me what is most important is what is happening now in OUR history, learning Ch'an. Perhaps some Shaolin masters/monks are making things up, or told to say a certain story and rewriting history, but I am satisfied with what I am being exposed to and so far it has seemed to me more than reasonable. My scholastic experiences in general have led me to have a healthy distrust, or I should say a 'surface' level trust of most scholastic work, and especially in this area, and especially the work done by non chinese. I often find myself scratching my head because so much work gets based off of such little information. Historical sources are notoriuos for being problematic and faulty. An historical source is often so riddled with various biases as to render it worthless as anything other than an opinion, and rarely independantly verifiable or able to withstand the scientific method. Very often the chainfire issue is completely overlooked. People are building cases out of one data set and that is not going to reach an approximation of the truth.

Call me crazy, but that's my opinion. I'll be a skeptic of all of this until something bulletproof comes out.

-sloan

[buddhapalm]

For the record, I agree one hundred percent with r.(shaolin) and Inquisitor about the current status of Shaolin Arts in the SongShan temple.

I am talking about the "appearance" of unbroken succession or lineage of masters. As r.(shaolin) pointed out, it is hard to practice the many required forms of the true Shaolin arts, when, if after the wrong person peeks through your window, they come in and break your legs, or take you to the back of the field.

To me Shaolin is a building, it is a Kung Fu system, and it is a sect of Buddhism.

As my late Sifu used to say "You can stay inside the Shaolin Temple for thirty years, and if you dont practice, your Kung Fu will still be no good"

The same can be said, "You can practice Shaolin Kung Fu for thirty years, but if your not practicing Shaolin, then your not practicing Shaolin."

Even though the building is intact, is the art intact ? Yes they have Kung Fu or Wu Shu or a combination. But is it the same Kung Fu as was being taught in the temple in 1900 ?

If it is then that is good. I hope and pray some of the original arts are still practiced in the temple.

If not then they should admit it. Then invite old masters to pass on the knowledge inside the temple.

Almost everyone has kung fu that is mixed or combined somehow, but the label Shaolin means Shaolin. We are not talking about the building or the robes.

If I opened a school claiming to teach authentic Wing Chun, but taught boxing, I would be challenged or ridiculed as a fake. The same goes for any other traditional style with pride in their art and heritage.

We must teach what we say we teach, or we are fooling people and ourselves.

There are real masters out there (as r. could vouch for) that teach true Shaolin Arts. Straight from the old temple.

As r.(shaolin) discussed about earlier, the older martial arts societies and communities provided an ideal breeding ground for powerful warriors, free thinkers, philosophers and underworld characters with far reaching connections. Traits most unwanted by any government seeking to maintain any type of serious control.

Just remember Tai Ping, Boxer Rebellion and the many large underworld groups etc. etc. All having ties to martial artists somehow someway.

According to Chinese strategy:
"Dont push the dog against the wall, or it will be forced to bite, leave him an escape route"

So to leave a glimmer of hope to the martial society, the government must do something to appease the martial society, appear even to promote it. But how can you promote a group that will perhaps one day undermine your power and control. It would need to be re-DIRECTED.

The quickest way to redirect a powerful attack is to redirect its power and focus and thus nuetralize it.

If you want to keep a snake, take out its fangs, or it will bite.

In China martial arts seems to have been guided from the "martial" to more of an "art", and MUCH more importantly, from out of the control of the "martial societies" and into the control of the government.

Before, when learning martial arts, sincere students would have to take oaths of loyalty before their prospective master and school. Strong ties that bind. A little too strong.

I doubt that this type of innitiation is performed so much now in the martial arts circles of Wu Shu or the modern schools. Which is most appropriate for the party line.

I do not mean to insult traditional Chinese Shaolin Arts, I love these more than anything else. But I too am concerned about the past state of affairs.

As brothers in the art, I hope the true ways can be kept alive and not redirected by governments or businesses that have alot to gain by selling a snake with no fangs.

As long as we are aware of the intentions of those that have the capability to deceive us, then we can navigate around them.

I believe we should always face any reality, and if we can improve, then learn from others. I have been practicing a set incorrectly for almost 18 years, now after being corrected I am going to start learning that set again. It is never too late.

The best way for our goal to be crushed, is if we fight and bicker, as is so common in our circle. I hope we can all continue helping each other along the way. Sort the good from the not so good and keep training.

This way the monks and masters long since buried will smile with joy.

"Within the four sea's, all men are brothers"

Cheers


Buddhapalm

[Songshan]

I can honestly say that I have no clue to Shaolin's history as far as the past goes. I am not an expert in Shaolin and I am certainly not an super advanced expert student either. I just want to make it clear that I am not a historian and I probably couldn't give you much details in the way of chronological events in the Temple's history itself. I can only go by what Shi Xing Hao (my Sifu) tells me and the time he lived and trained at Shaolin. What I can say is that Shaolin is alive and that there is a difference between traditional Shaolin and Modern (Wushu). I feel both have their place in Shaolin and make up Shaolin. I really never heard of Wushu or seen it until I saw it with my own eyes. When I saw it Shaolin Monks Shi Xing Hao and Shi Deshan demonstrate it and I was literally blown away by how fast and powerful they moved. That was 3 years ago. I never seen anything like it through my whole life and experience in the "martial arts".

As for the "lineage" followers, you are never going to find Shaolin's complete list or book of the lineage of Shaolin monks. I am sure it did exist at one point but those records were destroyed or lost through time. The main problem is that we are over here and the Temple is halfway around the world. Add in the language barrier along with the political climate and it's extremely hard to read and gather historical information. The art is still there and I believe what monks were doing in the early 1900's are still taught at the Temple today........................but only to a selected few who are worthy and excelled highly in their training. Let's face it guys I don't think Shaolin would spill all of its secrets and teach the "sacred traditional" knowledge/forms to just anyone. So, thats where the wushu comes in. All this is pure opinion now, okay?? :eek:

[GeneChing]

Deqian published one years ago. It only covers the fully indoctrinated monks, not the warrior monks, who are technically layman disciples. It's the warrior monks that we are most familiar with, so they are not on the lineage, but they can tie themselves in if you ask them.

Obviously, the monks don't practice what they did in the 1900's since modern wushu and sanda have been added to the curriculum. But arguably, they didn't practice in the 1900's what they did in the 1800's and so on for every century. Such isn't the nature of inheritance, especially not for Chan. Additionally, folk masters have always been a big part of Shaolin and still are. Shaolin has certainly rebuilt using folk master resources too.

[r.(shaolin)]

--------
Songshan wrote:
. . . . I can only go by what . .

[Songshan]

You know Gene I never really looked at it like the way you said it. But I think you are right. You and a few others are the only true insight we have at Shaolin. You spent many days and hours over there. Again just to confirm this is all my opinion. I truly have no real insight to the happenings at Shaolin. I am not an "authority" in the subjeect. The majority of my time with my sifu is spent training and trying to recover literally after some of the training classes. I don't really try to "pry" and ask so many questions even though I would like to. There is a proper time and place for everything.

My only assumption about these "master libraries" is from what I hear/read from the historical accounts when the temple was burned down. I hear a lot of books, journals, even training manuals were lost in the blaze. I mean we can all sit back and see that Shaolin has had a violent past. I certainly have no idea who or how far back these libraries go. :D