I was told that this book makes the claim that Shaolin martial arts began with the worship of a Hindu deity named Vashalutherpalshujaj at or some such at the shaolin temple and that Bodhidharma's exercises came later. Any truth to this claim?
Printable View
I was told that this book makes the claim that Shaolin martial arts began with the worship of a Hindu deity named Vashalutherpalshujaj at or some such at the shaolin temple and that Bodhidharma's exercises came later. Any truth to this claim?
He thoroughly proves the point in the book, there is no doubt now.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJM
Go direct to the source, I always say.
As for the Vajrapani issue, we actually leaked that (with Professor Shahar's blessing) way back in 2004. Meat, Wine, and Fighting Monks: Did Shaolin Monks breach Buddhist Dietary Regulations? by Dr. Meir Shahar was from an earlier draft of this book. Of course, if you've been keeping up with Kung Fu Tai Chi (or even just this thread), you knew that. ;)
I don't really have a comment, but I wanted to post under my real profile for once.
It sounds like this book is a must have for Shaolin researchers though. I am putting it on my list.
Can you post some citations from his bibliography so I can read up on it? I'm curious now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri
The conversion from Vajrapani to Bohidharma as the mythical founder of shaolin's fighting methods was very interesting to me. Especially the reason for it. It was also interesting that even though the credit for the creation of shaolin martial arts shifted to Bohidharma the monks still credited Vajrapani for their staff techniques.
These points I found interesting:
There is a part in the book that is very cool, it makes note of a manual written in the 17th century in which the author mentions a few systems that were "popular" at the time, systems like, " eight evasive manuvers, egale claw wang's grappling, Zhang Jinbais striking" and so forth and then goes on to say that eacj is quite wonderful in its own aspects but, thay are all guilty of either emphasizing "top to neglect the bottom or bottom to negelct the top", its goes to say that EVEN if they can successfully overcome an opponent, they cannot be considered perfect in every respect.
Even back then there were issues of about the lack of "all around fighting ability".
Another interesting passage comes from a book written in the 16th century by QI Jiguang called "essentials oo the hand combat classics":
Qi was critical of flowery postures that while they looked good had very little combat implications, he said that without obvious postures or techniques you will be effective in one move, if you do make the mistake of of posturing and posing you will be ineffective with 10 moves, this view was echoed by Tang Shunzhi that said, " the reason of postures in the MA is to facilitate transformations...forms contain fixed postures, but in actual practice there are no fixed postures,When applied they become fluid but still maintain their structural characteristics".
Both men were Generals with military experience.
Yes, as I have always said, it's the movements between the postures where the action is.
So, it's not the forms are no good, it's not understanding them that's the trouble.
They are a means to an end.
The book says that like Chan (Zen) teaches you have to use something until you no longer need it. "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him" is a famous Zen saying.
I wrote an article about this with the complete translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
"The maneuvers of pugilism are what enable us to produce its changes.
Regardless of whether you move horizontally, diagonally, sideways, upwards, forwards or downwards there exists walls and doors for defending and attacking.
This is the meaning of maneuvers.
Within pugilism are the fixed maneuvers, but during their application they are no longer fixed.
And when using them their changes also have no fixed maneuvers, yet the maneuvers are still there.
This is what is known as ba shi."
The article is actually about Mantis Boxing, but this was a relevant passage.
http://www.plumflowermantisboxing.co...pportunity.htm
Kevin
Yes, I am interested. I have some of the Taiwan Gv historical research on MA in Taiwan, but nothing on uniforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie
I would very much like to see this.
kevinbrazier@yahoo.com
Kevin
I got my copy and am devouring it before my very eyes.
~g gets props almost right away in it. So it must be somewhat good. :D
man you all are so enthusiastic about this book....and I'm still waiting for mine in the mail......
.....sad panda...:(
oh man, I am at page 108. Youb are really missing out SoCo. Really missing out.
oh man! page 109 is sweeeet! lol
just messing with ya.
seriously though, it's a pretty interesting piece. am enjoying it.
Whoohoo!!! My copy came in...got the email from Barnes & Noble today so I rushed on over before they closed. And with my card its 20% off
Now I won't be like the poor kid that couldn't afford a nintendo to know what all the other school kids were talking about....
25 copies available from a seller on ebay for only $45