nopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
jkhkjh
nopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
jkhkjh
Ideas get started because someone is interested. When it comes to fields like philology.... well, none of it is especially academically pressing. It's a small field full of idiosyncratic people pursuing their particular interests. I don't see any reason why one of them might not also be interested in the history of martial arts.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneChing
Oh, I forgot, you're ignorant of your own country's history. Or maybe it's me, I should just accept the "new" history now. I guess the temple wasn't destroyed several times and burned down completely in 1928. I guess wushu wasn't made illegal from 1966-1976 and Buddhist monks weren't persecuted and in many cases killed. Historical and religious texts weren't burned to ashes and Shaolin wushu was totally preserved!Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu bawang
nope
Just to clarify why I think Bei Shaolin (or the only style ever know as "Northern Shaolin") should be part of this discussion, is because Yang Xiushan, of Kanjiaquan's lineage, was never even remotely connected to Ku Yu Cheung's teacher, Yim Chi Wen, throughout the history of Bei Shaolin that was accepted before the 1980's. Supposedly Yim Chi Wen's name appears in some old text that was produced by some Kanjiaquan school. I believe the text was used to claim that Yim Chi Wen was a younger classmate of Yang Xiushan of Kanjiaquan's lineage. I have not seen the actual text but my sihing told me that the character used for Yim Chi Wen’s name is not the same as how it was usually written. How can we trust the validity of such a text anyway when it was always told that Yim Po taught his Northern Shaolin (which included the 10 forms and many weapons sets) to Yim Chi Wen who then taught it to Ku Yu Cheung. Ku Yu Cheung didn't just make it all up. If we're going to say that then why don't we just claim that Kanjiaquan or any of the village styles that are being touted as traditional Shaolin were just made up within the last hundred years. If there are old books that prove their authenticity where is the carbon dating? Even then there's barely anything as old as the painting on the wall in the Shaolin Temple which doesn't tell you anything as specific as which Shaolin styles were being taught there. Just left of the middle of the painting two of the monks look exactly like their doing two-person fighting Tan Tui so what does that tell you? Tan Tui was supposedly taught there. Who can say with any certainty what they were doing in the 1800's besides people who were taught in the traditional manner from teacher to student.
I feel ya, rett. It's just you don't know how many times I hear someone suggest 'oh you should do research on such & such..' If you're truly interested, you do your own research. You don't sit around and hope that others do it. I don't mean you specifically, rett. It's just when forum members start tossing about all sorts of research methods that they've read about in Smithsonian or wherever, it gets a little silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rett
Not completely burned, the mural survived didn't it? The fire burned for 40 days. It wasn't to kill people it was to destroy the tactical position. Many things were taken out within the 40 days it took but large things like the great statue of JinNaLuoWang burned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
PRACTICAL wushu was banned between 1949-1972. Performance wushu was allowed and encouraged. Buddhist monks along with everyone else with no seemingly logical discrimination was persecuted during the cultural revolution. The VAST OVERWHELMING majority of wushu masters in Song Shan were NOT monks.
Lots of stuff was burned but to kill Shaolin Wushu you would need a very dramatic purge. It would be almost impossible. How do you suggest they got rid of it? Monks were not persecuted until the cultural revolution ( along time after the burning) and many survived anyway (in fact I don't know any that died specifically because of persecution, I know ones which died of starvation in the late 50's and then ones that dies of old age and illness in the 60's all of whom had many many disciples).
So lets look at your view;
The Shaolin temple had absolutely secret wushu and no-one ever left to spread it outside (steps on your BSL huh?)
The burning of the temple killed almost everyone, despite the fact they had over a month to evacuate.
Anyone who survived then didn't teach between 1928 and 1949 for some unknown reason.
The ban on Practical Wushu (1949-1972) extended to killing everyone who ever practiced it, but only in Shaolin, not in the rest of China because lots of other Kung Fu clearly survived.
For some reason no one who learned Shaolin before 1949 taught it either in secret during the ban, or after 1972. So when they started again in 1972 the oldest wushu master had only been practicing for 13 years and never practiced before? (I have several masters who learned before 1949 and I have trained with them 1 on 1 for a long time)
The Famous and well documented monks like ShiSuXi, Shi Degen who covered this transission time and had may disciples, never existed? Neither did the many folk masters?
Seriously, dude, please explain your logic. Explain how Shaolin Wushu could possibly have been destroyed??? I mean, how could that happen? There is no conceivable meachanism by which that could be acheived?
im from your bak sil lum grandaddys hometown. your style is southern lineage of huaquan/meihuaquan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
Wrong again sparky!Quote:
Originally Posted by bawang
im from your bak sil lum grandaddys hometown. your style is southern lineage of huaquan/meihuaquan.
gu ruzhang claimed to teach shaolin when he went to guangdong because it was his rice bowl. back then clf and hung gar were also "siu lum".Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
Sure, the vast majority of wushu masters were not monks but especially during the period from 1966-1976 these masters were not allowed to train at all. If they did they were risking their lives. I've heard stories of masters who trained in secret at night or in a graveyard. The threat of persecution was made worse when Mao dispersed the Red Guard out to the countryside in 1968 after things started spinning out of control in the cities where people were getting killed and "re-educated."Quote:
Originally Posted by RenDaHai
Not completely burned, the mural survived didn't it? The fire burned for 40 days. It wasn't to kill people it was to destroy the tactical position. Many things were taken out within the 40 days it took but large things like the great statue of JinNaLuoWang burned.
PRACTICAL wushu was banned between 1949-1972. Performance wushu was allowed and encouraged. Buddhist monks along with everyone else with no seemingly logical discrimination was persecuted during the cultural revolution. The VAST OVERWHELMING majority of wushu masters in Song Shan were NOT monks.
Lots of stuff was burned but to kill Shaolin Wushu you would need a very dramatic purge. It would be almost impossible. How do you suggest they got rid of it? Monks were not persecuted until the cultural revolution ( along time after the burning) and many survived anyway (in fact I don't know any that died specifically because of persecution, I know ones which died of starvation in the late 50's and then ones that dies of old age and illness in the 60's all of whom had many many disciples).
So lets look at your view;
The Shaolin temple had absolutely secret wushu and no-one ever left to spread it outside (steps on your BSL huh?)
The burning of the temple killed almost everyone, despite the fact they had over a month to evacuate.
Anyone who survived then didn't teach between 1928 and 1949 for some unknown reason.
The ban on Practical Wushu (1949-1972) extended to killing everyone who ever practiced it, but only in Shaolin, not in the rest of China because lots of other Kung Fu clearly survived.
For some reason no one who learned Shaolin before 1949 taught it either in secret during the ban, or after 1972. So when they started again in 1972 the oldest wushu master had only been practicing for 13 years and never practiced before? (I have several masters who learned before 1949 and I have trained with them 1 on 1 for a long time)
The Famous and well documented monks like ShiSuXi, Shi Degen who covered this transission time and had may disciples, never existed? Neither did the many folk masters?
Seriously, dude, please explain your logic. Explain how Shaolin Wushu could possibly have been destroyed??? I mean, how could that happen? There is no conceivable meachanism by which that could be acheived?
I never said BSL was being taught at the actual temple during the 1800's or the early 1900's but it was accepted that it originated at the temple during that time. Let's not forget, the temple was said to have been destroyed by Qing troops during the 17th or 18th centuries and they didn't just mean to destroy the temple, they meant to kill the monks. So, no, the fact that Shaolin wushu left the temple like it did back then doesn't step on my BSL.
Also, you make it sound like many of the traditional wushu masters didn't leave Mainland China during WWII or during Mao's reign. That's why bawangalangadingdang would say Bei Shaolin is a southern style, because the students of masters like Ku Yu Cheung and Shun Yu Fung (Shaolin Lohan) taught and studied their wushu in Hong Kong where they wouldn't have to worry about fighting for their lives against armies of kids wanting to kill them because they were "too traditional."
I'm not saying that traditional Shaolin wushu didn't survive at all but it sounds a lot like someone's political agenda to say that the traditional styles that left the mainland after WWII aren't as legit as the village styles that supposedly survived in the north. Saying that Bei Shaolin is a southern style is definitely the sort politically influenced BS that you would expect from the ignorant masses.
gan fengchi lineage longfist has been in fujian/zhejiang/jiangsu for over 200 years. only guruzhang claimed "shaolin". even then he had to claim "north shaolin". because cantonese believed hung gar and clf were the "real shaolin".Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
so if you are chasing the shaolin, its best if you switch to hung gar, they are the real shaolin.
I've seen BSL. Its excellent stuff. And it is very similar in technique to shaolins extended hong quan. Some sections are even identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
Its not a southern style originally clearly.
But it is definitely not MORE representative of shaolin than the styles in Song Shan.
I'm sure some people did flee, but they were in the minority. Plenty more people stayed where their ancestors had stayed for generations.
Shaolin has been destroyed a number of times but there is a constant flux of monks. They didn't stay their whole lives and came and went and many were local. The interaction between Shaolin and the mountian villages and nearby temples was so much that the Kung fu of the area is indistinguishable and the same forms and techniques exist in both.
Say at one point the temple was destroyed and everyone killed (that never happened, but just say). Even then, the monks who left a year earlier, or a day or anytime before the destruction were not killed to, and they carried their knowledge with them to their home towns. Since a lot of the monks were local, the local area has a huge amount of Kung fu and have examples of Shaolin quan from many centuries.
This thread is a bit of déjà vu.
Wow time flies, we had this discussion six years ago :-)
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...ad.php?t=47251
Here are one of my posts on this subject for what its worth.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...3&postcount=34
Frankly it is still my belief that the 'system' as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction, a reconstruction largely based on village martial arts, which understandably would resemble each other, and may or may have not been influenced by Shaolin, but hardly a Shaolin tradition transmitted in tact via a particular lineage.
The suggestion that Shaolin functioned as a local martial arts school running classes for the locals and openingly teaching one-and-all, was simple not true.
cheers,
r.
I think that largely depends on who or where you learn from. I think many of the "monks" teach by running down a list of unconnected taolu, so you'd be correct with them. I guess you are referencing the Abbot's Ten Forms of Shaolin. But there are many lay teachers who have a verified lineage connection to the temple that teach a complete "system" in Henan.Quote:
Originally Posted by r.(shaolin)
fyiQuote:
Originally Posted by Siu Lum Fighter
The "two person Tan Tui contact set" was a 20th century invention. Having said that, our tradition also claims that Tan Tui was adopted and practiced by Shaolin monks.
r.