Who here has actually trained with a Shaolin Monk?

[reemul]

I dont think you addressed my question at all in the article however I did notice some interresting points.

For one it seems of late that, Everyone wants to train with "Shaolin" monks, however in your article you point out that the Temple of today does not practice Shaolin Kungfu, but practice contemporary Wushu. I inferred by your article that you recognize that there is a difference between them. By that rationale, they are not Shaolin Monks, but contemporary Wushu "monks" if monks at all, which the later I could careless to dispute.

Another point of interrest was that you said Bak Sil Lum up until recent years referred to Shaolin kungfu outside China, and yet so many members of this forum have trouble believing we our lagit because I'm in the States. Also as I have pointed out, as 1928-1933 the Shaolin masters went into exile which could be interpreted as the foundation of the referrence to Shaolin outside of China.

You inquired our take on subcategories of Shoalin, well for those who think there were none, you are either smokin dope, or pushing PRC propaganda. Some of the animal systems(not forms) of Northern Shaolin kungfu were the first martial arts systems developed. The monastary only served to formally institutionalize MA into a systematic process of training. I can see why the Neo-temple would push propaganda saying others wise, because they don't have them anymore.

[Brad]

Reemul,

If someone is a monk at the Shaolin Temple then they are a Shaolin monk no matter what style of martial art is practiced.

[reemul]

Thats your opinion anyway.

[joedoe]

Yes, that is his opinion, and you should respect it like everyone is respecting your opinion. You seem so ready to put forth your opinion as the correct one, and simply to disregard other people's opinions as wrong.

-------------------------------------
You have no chance to survive - make your time.

[reemul]

So Chill.

So easily are typed words taken out of context.

[GeneChing]

md1: gotcha - mu most be like the Cantonese for wu. wu de wushu, mo de mo i.

r.: Actually there is a great tradition of performance of kungfu, not only as military demos, but as street performers, opera, and acrobatics. The critics of wushu should really take this into consideration - kungfu as a perfomance art has a long standing tradition. While it may lack 'pure' combat applications, performance is one aspect of kungfu that has allowed it to excel, even today in movies. Karate, TKD, BJJ, whatever, it just ain't as showy, so in performance, kungfu/wushu rules.


reemul: I really don't want to get into the shaolin/wushu/fake monk debate again. Been there, done that.

I think you mis-read my article. I did not say they don't practice Shaolin Kungfu at the temple. I did say they practice wushu. They practice both. If you practice everyday, all the time, practicing both is no problem. Really all wushu is is a performance version of kungfu - it's exaggerated, but it's built on the same foundation as traditional.

A major point I was presenting was about the politics of kungfu. Westerners are quick to jump on the PRC for being propagandist because it is what our propagnad has told us. But in fact, everyone has their own propaganda and agenda. For every bit of PRC propaganda, there is something from HK, Taiwan and here. There is a lot of nationalism in kungfu and if you study recent history and undertand your lineage (its context in China this last century) you know where you stand. Nothing worse than one propaganda attacking another for being propagandist. It's a straw man argument, an embarrasingly hypocritical one at that.

Also, I don't deny subcategories of Shaolin at all. In fact, there are more than can be accurately categorize, especially with all the variations. There is no universal standard - if there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's all interpretative, which is why I ask your interpretation. Such is the nature of arts such as kungfu. It's like folktales - no version is wrong, but some are more meaningful than others, especially in context of current events.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

[beiquan]

gene - great article. keep up the research!

[joedoe]

OK. Obviously when I read your posts I read them in the wrong way. I will just not reply to anything you say. :)

-------------------------------------
You have no chance to survive - make your time.

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene wrote:
> Nothing worse than one propaganda attacking another
> for being propagandist. It's a straw man argument,
> an embarrassingly hypocritical one at that.

Gene I don’t think it is about political propaganda at all. To drag in politics would most certainly muddly the waters. It’s about the misrepresentation of wushu from the PRC Shaolin Temple.

Most teaching monks are claiming to be 34th Generation Shaolin Temple Fighting Monk.
The implication, I could only assume, is they knows traditional Shaolin that is traced through lineage all the way to Abbot Fu Yu.
If things are to be put into traditional terms these monks are really 1st generation PRC Shaolin Kung-fu students. The curriculum they studied was designed and complied only recently. I t may contain some or even many traditional forms
but from a variety of sources not from any one lineage and certainly not for the lineage of Fu Yu). For the same reason that Ku Yu Cheong is the founder of his lineage of Shaolin - The Committee - should identify themselves as the founders of their lineage of Shaolin.

However, I have to add, there is much good work the PRC has done and are doing on the history of Chinese martial arts and they should be applauded for it.

kind regards

[r.(shaolin)]

re

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene wrote:
> Actually there is a great tradition of
> performance of kungfu, not only as military
> demos, but as street performers, opera, and
> acrobatics. The critics of wushu should really
> take this into consideration - kungfu as a
> performance art has along standing tradition.


I do not disagree that there is a great and long tradition of performance of kungfu.
As well I agree it is not a black and white issue, there is always a bit of combat
in even the most performance oriented martial art as there is a bit of showboating in the most combat focused martial arts.
If one were to compare the turbulent times of the Five Dynasty to the stability of the Sung Dynasty, often call the Golden Age of martial arts, it was during the Sung that there was a major growth of martial arts performance and the addition of many
showy and acrobatic movements. An example was the famed Yang Hsien-chiang.
He added dramatic high leaps balancing as well as risky and dangerous maneuvers.
The three skills that are valued by performance martial arts: gao, xian, Nan.
Great for entertainment value but a liability in combat.

Case in point: Emperor Jia Qing (Qing Dynasty), after receiving an assessment of one of his armies, made a very disparaging comment aimed at thei r combat effectiveness.
He criticized this armies martial skills as being only for show and performances not for practical use. This was stated in an imperial decree so it was no light matter in his eyes.

[This message was edited by R. on 05-14-01 at 09:25 PM.]

[GeneChing]

Shaolin has always been a political entity from the beginning when it was patronized by the Emperors, so it is of utmost importance to examine the political context of Shaolin, particularly in the case of modern Shaolin. A lot of people are really concerned by the validity of today's Shaolin kungfu due to the influence of PRC and wushu, but they don't really consider the influence of the prior dynasties and the evolution of kungfu over a 1500 year history. Who knows what went into Shaolin prior to this century? There are som big gaps in the history. But it doesn't really matter because we are left with what is now. It's all about evolution. The original version of Shaolin, whatever that might have been, as a vital, living art, has undergone evolution. It should not be invalidated for changing to adapt to the times. By the same notion, the only real Ford is the model T. This plays into the concept of lineage. These lineages are documented and as long as the thread is maintained, there is no reason to restart with every innovation. Just as Bodhidharma is called 1st patriarch of Chan/Zen, he is still considered 27th in the lineage of Buddha.

I think we are all in agreement that 'performance' kungfu is not as efficient for fighting as many other systems, otherwise we probably wouldn't go to the trouble of discriminating it as 'performance.' But in our age of guns, combat is not the only reason to practice kungfu, nor is it the measure of net reproductive success anymore. All arts are equalized by a saturday night special at 20 paces. Today, to paraphrase Bruce Lee, it can be about expressing the human body. So performance is not any less valid as an art just because it isn't as combat effective.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene, I enjoyed your posts.

take care,
r.ˇ

[GeneChing]

enjoyed your posts too, r. keep them coming!
Now back to the original question, has anyone here actually trained with a Shaolin Monk?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

[joedoe]

As I said before, yes. At the Southern Shaolin temple in Quan Chou.

-------------------------------------
You have no chance to survive - make your time.