Original Shaolin Staff and Sword

[GeneChing]

There's always a lot of dicssuion here about Shaolin origins so I thought I'd share a recent experience.

I've been working on an instructional video project with Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung - the monkey king. Two of the forms from his Tai Shing Pek Kwar system overlap with Bak Sil Lum - the broadsword and staff. The TSPK broadsword is called lau yip dao or willow leaf broadsword. In BSL it's (interestingly enough) the Pek Kwar Broadsword. The TSPK staff is the Kau Chow staff, the same as in BSL, although when I worked on the BSL WLE video series we translated it as Nine Province Staff. The character literally means 'continent,' which is how we translated for this new TSPK series, despite the fact that there are only 7 continents. The implied meaning is the same - it's just the way they said 'the whole world' in old China.

Anyway, it's always fascinating to find different versions of the same set. Surely anyone who studies Tan Tui or praying mantis Beng bu, knows about variation. An old collegue of mine, a student of Brendan Lai, used to collect different Beng Bu - he said he had over 50 of them and that was over a decade ago. He practiced them all.

My instinct tells me that the TSPK version is older than the BSL version. It is simpler, shorter and there's that issue of the name of the broadsword set. I think I could pick up the TSPK versions fairly quickly since they are so close to sets that I already know, but I probably won't. Despite my feeling that these are closer to the original, perhaps even the original, that holds no value for me personally. After all, they're just sets. Variation in interpretations are minor details really - both versions are completely valid. Both are real kungfu.

But it did get me thinking about Shaolin in general, especially that discussion we have here so often about the validity of the modern Shaolin Temple. When I assume that the TSPK version is the original and BSL is the more modern version (at least within this century) and if I stick to the BSL version, I chuck out a lot of that original nonsense. Being the original, or even just a little earlier on the evolutionary chain, does not mean superior. Now let me back step a little and state for the record that I don't mean to imply that the TSPK is inferior at all. What I want to say is that original is not necessarily superior. I'm just sticking to the successor becuase in this case, I don't see that there is much more I could draw out of the older version.

We often get in this loop about the modern temple not being valid because it has lost connection to the previous incarnation. To me, this TSPK vs. BSL situation is very much the same issue, just from a different angle. Older is better if you're a simple Confucian. Then you have to honor the hierarchical relationships unquestionably. But if you've read Confucious carefully, he did leave an 'out' - the relationships are based on having a superior ruler. If we assume that this is not the case, all bets are off. Taking the Chan perspective, well, it's not about orthodox dogma, it's about the moment.

Anyone else familiar with the TSPK and BSL braodsword and staff?

[buddhapalm]

Nice post Gene :-)

I agree with you, older is not necessarily better. Unbroken lineages are not necessarily more effective.

And as you stated so well "its not about the orthodox dogma".

Though, I do believe that techniques (within older forms) that are time tested in battle or in duels should be reliable. Whereas newer techniques, that may look better, or different, may have lost their original meaning, or usefulness.

The tree will always grow, but will it grow straight ? (..to the principles of real combat)

That to me is where good lineages comes into play. If your master or grandmaster etc was a good fighter or swordsman, then if the art was passed down correctly, we should have the same potential. If we train properly.

We all know that kung fu is based upon the principles and mechanics of combat. Subtle changes in angle etc could render the technique useless, if they dont follow the principles they were intended for.

Or perhaps more usefull if following new superior principles.

If a saber or stick set is changed, is it changed for the better or for the worse, its hard to say. Only in application can we tell.

That is why I am wary of changes made in the last 60 years or so, because any new techniques (talking mainly weapons) would not have had a chance to prove and refine and develop themselves in combat. In the older times a bad technique would leave you without a head. (Zatoichi style)

To my interpretation, sets are just a dictionary of techniques. Memories of what worked from past masters. The pages can be re-arranged in any order according to the situation. But if the pages are ripped, or the pages are unclear, then they are useless.

We are taught that, from practicing the set over and over, then the meaning will come to you in time. If we practice moves that have been changed beyond use, then we will never figure out a usefull meaning of them even after a hundred years.

So what I am trying to say is, it is important that we pass down the technique correctly, and make sure what we have been given works, otherwise it is not martial art, but physical art.

By the way Gene. May I ask, is the Pek Kwa Dao of BSL the same as the one known as Ba Kwa Dao of Jing Wu Association ?

I had read that Kan Tak Hoi of Tai Shing Pek Kwa was good friends with many masters, could the saber set have been taught to him in trade by a Bak Siulum Sifu perhaps ? Or maybe in reverse. Perhaps Ku Yu Cheung learned it from Kan Tak Hoi.

I look forward to purchasing copies of the TaiSing Pek Kwa tapes when they are ready.

Could you tell us which sets will be on the tapes, besides the stick and saber mentioned. How about "Wu Song Breaks Handcuffs" Set ?

Warmest Regards

Buddhapalm

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Hi,

I believe the real issue when it comes to the Shaolin Temple today is not older vs modern, but rather traditional vs comtemporay wushu which has been so drastically changed that it no longer can be classified as true kung fu. Contemporary wushu has: 1. had most of the martial art applicability removed or so modified to make it ineffective, 2. the hyperextended stances and limbs do not provide the internal alignment of tendons, ligaments, bones and muscles to allow for proper flow of energy and blood and does not give proper power generation...as well, the hyperextended limbs make them totally vulnerable to limb breaking techniques found in traditional kung fu.
Traditional kung fu and older kung fu may or may not be the same, as traditional sets can be more new, but follow proper alignments and principals of good kung fu...to develop the practioner properly. I believe older kung fu systems, if learned properly and passed down, will contain these principals, whereas contemporay wushu does not.
The real complaint, when it comes to the modern Shaolin Temple is I believe, that they attempt to pass contemporary wushu off as traditional and legitimate kung fu or systems...it is not.

GHD

[NPM]

“Gou Jau Gwun” or Nine Province Staff is originally from Bak Sil Lum (Ku Yu Cheung and Man Lai Sing lineage). This set is also known as “Luk Hop Yat Lo Gwun” or Six Harmony First Staff. This set was from the “Luk Hop Mun” or Six Harmony School of BSL.

“Pek Kwa Doe” is originally from the Pek Kwa style of Northern China. This style was later named Tai Shing Pek Kwar after Kau Sze (who developed his own monkey style) and his student Kan Tak Hoi.

At one time, Ku Yu Cheung of BSL and Kan Tak Hoi of TSPK exchanged students who in turn exchanged forms and as a result these two sets were shared.

During the 1970’s, I happened to study “Pek Kwa Doe” from both lineages at different times and know that they differ at the end of the form. I believe that the differences were a result of modifications made by one party for whatever reasons they chose.

I read this information from a Chinese martial arts magazine during the 70’s. I am open to hearing other versions of this since I am not a descendant of either lineage nor am I an authority of their histories.

NPM

[GLW]

"I believe the real issue when it comes to the Shaolin Temple today is not older vs modern, but rather traditional vs comtemporay wushu which has been so drastically changed that it no longer can be classified as true kung fu."

This is not as pervasive as people want to think. There are some very valid routines and methods that are still around that many might classify as Modern Wushu. For example, the orignial Compulsory changquan routine is at its core very much like the Traditional Zha quan system. There are only two or three movements in the entire form that you do NOT find in the Zha Quan or Pao Quan systems that it was based on. However, the problem is that if you are NOt taught the ideas behind it, you end up with flash and no substance...which is way common. Now, the NEW Changquan Complusory routine....that is another matter. It is heavy on acrobatics and level of difficulty moves...but it simply does not flow well. There is no clear sense of martial purpose for the entire routine and it has some moves that are used as training methods but would never be in a traditional set...in my opinion...it is a BAD routine.


"Contemporary wushu has: 1. had most of the martial art applicability removed or so modified to make it ineffective, 2. the hyperextended stances and limbs do not provide the internal alignment of tendons, ligaments, bones and muscles to allow for proper flow of energy and blood and does not give proper power generation...as well, the hyperextended limbs make them totally vulnerable to limb breaking techniques found in traditional kung fu."

On item #1, I agree that there are SOME of the new routines that fall into this category. The new Changquan for example. But a lot of the problems you see with the way these routines are done is NOT the routines but the people doing them. This would change in a short time if the competition areana began to REALLY follow their own rules. The rules specify that the elements you are discussing MUST be evident and the deductions are pretty severe if they are not. However, I have seen very few of the judges who actually follow the rules. They would fit well into the Olympic Skating set.

As for item #2, the basis for much of the competition sets is found in styles like Zha Quan....which is characterized by long and low stances, extending stretching out to hte ligaments, etc.... The zha Quan system is very difficult to do the right way but if you get the ideait is like a continual snapping of rubber bands from one technique to another...fast and continuous. Again, it is the ideas behind the methods that are often omitted. There are teachers who know the old ways and teach them with some of the new routines...and the flavor of those routines from those teachers is way different.


"Traditional kung fu and older kung fu may or may not be the same, as traditional sets can be more new, but follow proper alignments and principals of good kung fu...to develop the practioner properly. I believe older kung fu systems, if learned properly and passed down, will contain these principals, whereas contemporay wushu does not. "

I think we are saying the same thing here. A new routine, if done properly is still traditional. An old routine, if done wrong, becomes the flash with no substance as well. I have seen both. It is truly strange to see a traditional Zha Quan routien, for example, done with the flavor of a dance....

Traditional shaolin has a different flavor than many of the styles that claim to be northern shaolin. The name became something kind of like COKE for referring to a soft drink. The flavor of Traditional shaolin is not as open or exended as say traditional Zha Quan...and this is even more confusing with the cross pollination that happens...like systems having routines that they both do ...but different ways to do them...or routines with the same name...but they are 100% different.

These differences can be quite interesting..but there are very few teachers who know the distinction...and many of them (or most) are in their 70's now.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

No...the problem is with the contemporary wushu routines, right from their inception, you could see the hyperextended stances and limbs. It is not some people performing them that are the problem as all the performers of contemporary wushu 30 years ago and present, perform them in the same way ie. hyperextended stances and limbs...the problem is with the sets. Contemporary wushu rules are exactly what these stylists are following when they perform in order to attempt to win a competition. The rules definitely do not reflect principals of traditional kung fu even when taking into account differences between styles, but rather reflect what is identified as contemporary wushu.

True some of the sets and systems you mentioned have more extended stances, but none have the hyperextended stances and limbs if they are being performed according to the principals of traditional kung fu...whether Shaolin in origin or not.

GHD

[GLW]

GHD...

that is where you go wrong. The extension of those routines IS supposed to be just like the extension in systems like Zha quan.

I KNOW this from having talked with members of the older generation who started this. The INTENT was to take the older methods, create standard routines from the same basics and then promote the ability to compete...before this, the ability to compete and show was limited to having only a very select set of judges whose level was extremely high.

The meetings back in the day tended to have a Shanghai contingent who maintained that the applications were of equal importance to the art and health benefits and that it was NOT wushu without all three.

Problem is, that Beijing does not always go with that. Then you have the politics that enter in and pretty soon, you have people who win that do things a certain way - right or wrong...and those who follow them emulate them because they won. Eventually, you have a lot of people who do it wrong and that is the way folks think it is. For a GOOD example of this, look at the 42 Posture Taijiquan routine. The team members do it one way...but if you look at the description of the movements - the STANDARD - it is not the way you see it done.

you end up with coaches who will swear that bad body mechanics are correct. This is NOT true. BUT...on the other side, you also have a large number of 'Traditional' teachers who do northern who do NOT extend enough. The training is to get the optimum extension and then in use, it naturally comes down to a very fast workable level. Just like stances - the Zhaquan saying is "Train low, use high"

This idea is even more clear in the number of the older founding generation who did NOT go in for the Duan system in China...it was politely done but if you know what that means it is them saying that the newer folks are straying from the ideals that the older ones started in the 1950's and 1960's.

the bottom line is if a routine is done with correct alignment, good flow, power, speed, and it flows correctly, it is good...period. If it is NOT, then it is BAD period. It is NOT a Classical vs. Modern thing.

Such sweeping statements make the entire thing way to simple...it is NOT black and white.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Nope...your information is flawed. Contemporary wushu is based on long fist routines (and after.. others), but bas tardiized into what you see in comtemporary wushu. The bas tardization is even more evident in the Nan Quan (southern fist) sets In fact they (communist government) took this bas tardization and injected it into western gymnastic floor routines (except it has a martial arts flavor... ie. go here on the mat and do this -points, go there on the mat and do that - points ie. point spreads for this and that. This is clearly visable to anyone with knowledge and what to look for.
There was not any application or proper alignment (from a traditional point of view) right from the inception of contemporary wushu.
End of story.

GHD

[GLW]

Quite amusing...since I personally know several of the architects of Modern Wushu who started this in the 1950's...

That was NOT their aim nor is it now. In fact, there WERE those who wanted to do just what you said and the folks I know fought against it. They worked at creating new routines that WERE traditional.

the Nan Quan...this one seems to be a major sore point... I know a number of traditional Hung Gar folks who are taking it up for the fun of it...if you have a solid traditional base it can be a decent routine...but you would NOT score well if you made it traditional. So...there you have a point. For the previous version of changquan, if you did it with a traditional flavor...you would score better provided you were fast powerful and had good basics.

you may dislike what it is...but the us vs. them argument is pointless. they both have merits and the difference between the two is not too broad.

What many pass of as traditional...no matter how you slice it is substandard.

If you are passing off a Shaolin form as truly shaolin, it should have a history. There I 100% agree with you. Don't call a cat a dog... But to make other distinctions...well it is a case by case proposition.

Up until the last round of compulsories, I was not too concerned. However, if the trend I see in the new compulsories continues, what you claim to already be fact will indeed become fact...it just is not that way yet.

But please...try to keep an open mind. your dislike for the modern routines is evident...fine, don't do them and feel free to dismiss them entirely. but sweeping generalizations and statements that others who have knowledge are misinformed..well, at no time did I say who my sources were or are...so there is a jumping to conclusions...

I think that you may want to distinguish between how you see the routines done and what they are intended to be. There is night and day there. But...the pity is that what the Beijing team does becomes what everyone thinks of as being correct...and this is far from the truth as well.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Amusing? Perhaps the original architechs as you say may have intended for the new routines to be traditional, but it never came to fruition. From the 70's when contemporary wushu became to be know to the world and up until today, all evidence - books, 8 mm, video, demos etc. support what I say about what makes a traditional set a traditional set, not being found in contemporary wushu. These sources do not support what you say...that said however, as you mentioned, maybe the intent was different. But as I said above, it did not come to be.
Curiously, why the architechs would want to create new sets, when they had a plethora of existing traditional sets to choose from and from which they could have choosen a number to be used for competition, I do not understand, unless...it is as I have said...the original intent was to take the tradtional ie proper alignment and martial arts applicability out.
Please do not be presumptuous....no where did I say I liked or disliked contemporary wushu....what I do not agree with is it being passed off as 'traditonal' kung fu or shaolin, when it clearly is not.
Traditional being substandard!...hmmm sounds to me you have communist leanings ha ha...traditional has survived for over 1500 years and served its proponents well in maintaining health, fighting wars, invaders and bandits...does not appear to be substandard to me! tradtional Kung Fu (Shaolin) - practical, contemporary wushu - points for performance, "fancy fists and embroidered legs", pretty to look at but use it in a deadly confrontation and you are toast. Bak sillum when done properly has proper alignment and combat principals, wu shu does not..they are very different from one another to an experienced observer or practitioner.
But this has gone of topic from my first post which was the differences being more due to traditional vs contemporary rather than old vs new.
This post ends my discussion on this topic.

GHD

[xiong]

As a wushu practitioner who also briefly studied Bak Sil Lum I'd just like to add my two cents to the arguement.

If I understand GHD's arguement correctly, it seems to be popular train of thought, Contemporary Wushu has watered down the martial aspects and is nothing more than gymnastics.

I personally agree with GLW's counter arguements and here is why.

Let me start by saying that my shifu is Li Jinheng and he always makes a distinction between how the techniques are to be performed for competition vs. for self defense.

I have already learned two different Longfist forms(Beijing short form and 32 form) and neither of them seem to me to be appreciably different in character from the concepts of the BSL forms(#6 Duan Da, #4 Chuan Xin?) that I learned previously.

I have not learned the new cumpulsory longfist but I do recognize the areas where it deserves criticism. There are a few sections where it does look to be more gymnastic and less martial.

GLW's point about training low but applying high I think is the key point. Many of the things we do in training are ludicrous in a combat situation. The compulsory competition routines are, IMO, really only useful in that context.

I hear people complain about poor judging at tournaments, or judges not knowing jack about their style. Wushu is a format to have a standard for judging and competeing. Rather than marginalize wushu and it's athletes because you don't agree with the competitions themselves it might be better to look at what the wushu teachers and practitioners are doing outside of competition.

Finally I totally agree with not coopting Shaolin. I think that Shaolin and Kungfu are so over used as a marketing tool that their meaning has become blurred.

Well thats my opinion I'm sure many will not agree, just thought it needed to be said.

[GeneChing]

bp: You gotta trim the branches to make the tree grow straight. Unfortunately we didn't do the video for Wusong, but we have an upcoming feature on it in the mag. Funny you should mention it tho... My understanding is the Jingwu Pek Kwar sword is from the same root as both of these.

ghd: None of the monks attempt to pass mod. wushu off as traditional. Yes they do demonstrate wushu. Perhaps the English narrator says something to that effect, but the monks don't understand English narration nor are they in the position to comment on it. Ask any monk, they will clearly delineate between mod. wushu and trad. shaolin. But then, shaolin's tradition is to absorb other styles - this even exists in it's relative BSL - so mod. wushu and sanda has become part of it. What is traditional shaolin? Burce plaguerized it - "absorb what it useful"

NPM: My BSL sifu Wing Lam teaches Lok Hop (kuen & dao) and he once mentioned that there was another staff that he didn't remember. 6 harmonies is an addendum to his system. This implies that 9 continents was separate, but who knows? I wouldn't surprise me at all if Kan and Ku exchanged. When you learned Pek Kwar Dao from TSPK, what did they call it?

GLW: I'd love to see you put your points together into an article about the traditional connections of wushu. You make some fascinating points...

[buddhapalm]

Gene said:

"bp: You gotta trim the branches to make the tree grow straight."

Ouch ! I wouldnt want to cut the wrong one, or I will end up working in the palace :- o

Just joking...... couldn't resist :-)))

I am doing a little research into Pek Kwar and would love to learn more about this style, especially "Wu Song Breaks". When is the article coming out ? Next edition.

You said:

"My understanding is the Jingwu Pek Kwar sword is from the same root as both of these."

Interesting !

The version I know is quite a bit different than the standard JingWu version, I was told it (my BaKwaDao) was "tuned" by Sun Yu Fung in the Canton Jing Wu.

Sorry to be so off topic guys.

Warmest Regards All

Buddhapalm

[NorthernShaolin]

Buddhapalm: The only root that Pa Kua Saber from Ching Wu (Jing Mo) and Pek Kwar saber (Pi Chi Saber) is that both are of shaolin root or contain the same basic saber cuts. The translation of the chinese writing is different.

Gene: NPM is right but to expand it further, Lui Ho (Luk Hop) full name is Wei T'o Lui Ho which is part of the Shaolin family from Honan. Some people call it Northern Shaolin Lui Ho style for short.

Here where the confusion is: Kuo Yu Chang and Wan Li Sheng were very close friends. Both respected each other and traded ideas and techniques. If you notice, in WLS's famous book, the Lui Ho hand set appears to be is missing the ending part as we currently practice it. It was KYC who made the additions with WLS's approval and thus made the set more fluid. WLS did not like to teach and had very few students which Yim Shan Wu was very lucky to be one of them before learning NSL from KYC. Majority of KYC students had martial art background from other styles and hence many of his students learned weapon sets at the 'middle level' and not from the beginning level of weapon sets for NSL.

Yim Shan Wu was one of these students who learned his basic Northern 'stuff' from Wan Li Sheng before learning from KYC and hence some of the basic beginner NSL weapon sets such as the saber were not taught. After much research, I cannot identify specifically what was the basic NSL saber set when KYC learn his NSL. During the 1800's, some Northern weapon sets were well known and became shared, traded and incooperated into individual styles such as Lui Ho Spear and Plum Blossom Spear.
The lack of beginner weapon sets did not cause a problem because, typically like all great masters during this time, he taught only the advance students. Learning a beginner weapon set never became an issue and certainly the students were not going to ask for it when they're learning the advance 'stuff'.

YSW uses Pi Chi Saber as a basic saber set for NSL before learning the next level of NSL saber sets. This is okay since the Pi Chi saber is of the same family of shaolin and contains the same basic saber moves. As in everything, there exist differnt levels of for each weapon and should, at least, have a beginning and advance set.

YSW also incooperated other Lui Ho weapons such as Nine Island Staff, Lui Ho Saber, Lui Ho Spear. and Lui Ho Double Sabers (This is not the same as in 7*) into his curriculumn of NSL but people give KYC credited for it.

Pi Chi Saber cause from Pi Chi Style which is a branch of Shaolin. When Kau Szu developed his Monkey style he combined Pi Chi Style with his Monkey style. Thus the Pi Chi saber became part of TSPK. This is one of the few original weapon for TSPK. Keng Te Hai picked up many of the current TSPK weapons during the post 1928 First National China tournament. Some of NSL weapons were adpoted by TSPK and installed into their curriculum.

The ending of Pi Chi Saber is different in NSL and in TSPK because it is the signature of the sifu which is related to their particular style. The signature could be either KYC or YSM for NSL and Kau Szu or Keng Te Hai (Kan Tak Hoi) for TSPK.

With all respect to TSPK and all styles that are a branch of Shaolin, if one goes back far enough in time, all their weapon sets were borrowed from Shaolin and contains either elements, flavor, moves or techniques of past and forgotten proven weapon sets of shaolin. To their credit, they evolved these techniques and developed them into sets that fit their style of fighting and thus giving the weapon their flavor of their style to it. That is why most weapon sets appear to the untrained observer as 'looks like the same but in different order'.

There are no original sets anymore. Only sets with deep roots and sets without roots. Existing sets do not improve or develop because no one today has the real ability to improve any existing sets with deep roots. Knowing the existing sets have evolved from somewhere, that the set(s) have deep roots into the past is important. We have to trust that our past masters had the ability and the knowledge and the forsight to evolve their sets with time. All we have is our faith in our individual style that this occurred. That is why we practice what we learned from our sifus.

[buddhapalm]

Thanks for the clarification NorthernShaolin,

Cheers

Buddhapalm