Originally Posted by
BlueTravesty
Very good points.
If there is no "true Shaolin," then by what yardstick are we comparing current Shaolin? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu was MUCH different than the Shaolin practiced at the temple now, but I think the main differences were probably more along the lines of applications, martial intent, fewer forms, and fewer weapons than what we see today. Is it your contention that the Hong and Lohan forms are commercialist Shaolin inventions?
At least some of the money coming to the Monk teachers goes toward Buddhist purposes (In particular, I'm thinking of Shi Guolin.) Granted I'm not a Buddhist, but I can respect money going to a cause other than an MA organization.
As you said, "There are hundreds of pages of debate and discussion about all things Shaolin Do floating all over the net, and elsewhere." Therefore, someone besides us HAS "figured it out." I don't think SD is a "complete fraud" however. I just think the style as a whole should have a slice of humble pie rather than saying "yeah, all you other styles are so fake, just because your arts are Chinese doesn't mean they're REAL."
On a side note, due to a post from another forum user in my area, I found out there's a SD school not too far from where I am currently studying Kung Fu. I wish them the best of luck, as they are currently renting space from a dance school. At our Kung Fu class though, no one has been "up in arms" about it though. You know, kinda like how in REAL life (most) MMA types aren't as snooty about TMA as (most of) the MMA types who post on Martial Arts forums.