July/August Issue

[SimonM]

Originally posted by SimonW
Worse still they are doing it for money and fame. Since when did Shaolin monks seek glory in historical times?

I don't think it is as much about money and fame as it is about communicating the dharma. Regardless of whether or not the warrior monks take full vows as a monk or only partial vows, I think we can agree that the monks are Chan Buddhists. Now Buddhism (including Chan, why do you think Zen exists) is a missionary religion - Christianity and Islam do not have sole ownership of that concept. The performances given by "real" monks are done more (I believe) to bring attention to Buddhism in a flashy, visually appealing manner than they are to make a fast buck.

Transmission of the Dharma, one of the three jewels can be accomplished through many means.

As for the "fake" monks, the monks who actually live at Shaolin, from what I have read, don't seem to care that there are guys who haven't sworn the vows at all wearing the robes and doing the performances, that would be attachment, so why don't we practice non-attachment and wish these "fake" monks well in their endeavors.

[GeneChing]

Ok, let's see, SimonM is pro-Shaolin and SimonW is anti-Shaolin. This could get confusing...

[SimonW]

LOL.

Just got the latest issue. The YKS Wing Chun article looks interesting.

[GeneChing]

If you feel like commenting on the latest issue, post on this thread. Thanks for reading us!

[Songshan]

Originally posted by SimonW
Seeing as the Shaolin issues are the ones I am the most bored with, I won't complain to Gene this time. I just want to ask all those that love everything Shaolin, from the martial arts to the bed sheet to the T-shirt to the mug, why do you love it so much?

I am at a loss. The whole modern martial monk thing is a fabrication! They don't take full buddhist vows and are not fully fledged monks (if monks at all!) yet they still wear the clothing. It's all a farce. I just don't understand why people are so fascinated with them or in awe of their martial arts.

I have seen one or two that have exhibited good MA (although they weren't demonstrating a traditional style at the time!) but most of them don't. I just do not see effective MA being practised by them. Just flowery wu shu. Some say "oh, but they practise the real stuff behind closed doors". I find this notion ridiculous. If they do then it makes their prolific displays of wu shu all the more dishonest by fooling a lot of people. Worse still they are doing it for money and fame. Since when did Shaolin monks seek glory in historical times?

Now I know that Gene says that martial arts are about self development and progression etc and therefore wu shu is as valid as anything etc. Okay, that's one opinion. But I disagree. Martial movements without the martial meaning are meaningless. If it was just about mastering a movement in thin air or just about self progression, why not just do Pilates or Yoga or the Jane Fonda work out? If that's what a person is after martial arts are not for them. That's why they are called MARTIAL arts. They are for fighting with.

All it leads to is further degredation of the martial arts. Although I do find it rather humourous and ironic that the same people who idolise the monks also much of the time idolise Bruce Lee. I wonder what Lee would have made of these modern 'monks'?!

The Shaolin issues are the best period. The legacy of Shaolin lives on......only except that the year is 2004. Let's face it we can sit and post here all day and argue that you think the modern martial monks are "fakes" while I think they possess a vast knowledge of kung fu and believe they are real enough to take thier place at Shaolin.

Much of what you do see at the world tours or public demos is Wushu but that is just the beginning. Some like the Wushu some like the "traditional" styles. You have to look past the common assumptions and look for what you really want. It's there. It's much like trying to find a good martial arts teacher in any style. There are so many to choose from but you have to venture out and find the one that you think you can learn the best from. This means researching things for yourself. You can't just accept things at face value.

I believe Martial Arts in general is taking a interesting evolution. We are beginning to see the trend of "sport martial arts". Years ago, who would ever thought Tae Kwan Do would become an Olympic sport? Now Wushu is on the verge of becoming an Olympic sport. What kind of strikes me odd is that there are people who don't recognize Wushu as martial arts. It's all martial arts and it all depends on you. What you put in it is what you get out of it. So SimonW, I wouldn't go to China and say Wushu isn't martial arts okay?

[SimonW]

Wushu = war arts. If it's not teaching you how to fight it's not martial arts, period. To me wushu (the flowery non combat version) is like buying a car without knowing how to drive, or playing video racing game and claiming to be able to drive.

I also take issue with the way the monks are associated with martial greatness anyway, and the connections between martial arts and buddhism/taosim etc. All of the came later. China had martial arts long before the monks ever learnt war arts (in fact some research suggests the monks actually copied from these arts originally before gradually developing their own way)

The idea that somehow religious philosphy and all the 'it's all about your development' stuff is absurd. Sure, it's a small part (IF you want to pursue it) but at the end of the day martial arts is about fighting, and no amount of debate can possibly change that. People can make the gun argument till the cows come home, and how in reality martial arts are not that effective these days as there are more efficient ways of doing damage. Such arguments are rubbish because that is a typically American view point from a country where guns are all over the place. Not everywhere is like that.

So the crunch is, martial arts is for fighting. Religion and philosophy, self development, etc all come as part of the package if a person wants it or is that way inclined, but they are NOT an integral part of martial arts. Only people who think Shaw Brothers films are real think that way. And due to all the above I cannot take the flowery non combat version of wu shu seriously as anything but a fancy display by very flexible and fit people. But martial arts it is not, and no amount of arguing can change the fact.

[GeneChing]

Chinese martial arts have had a self cultivation component since at least the 17th century. This is intimately tied to spirituality, and draws its roots to Taoist cultivation practices, like qigong. Now here is where we need to define some terms. Clearly 'war arts' have existed as long as mankind. You can find evidence of tactical manuals that are very early - in fact, some claim that Sunzi's Art of War is the earliest extant book known to man. However, this is big battlefield stuff, how to move troups, how to command armies and such. Towards the Qing/Ming transition, CMA takes an evolutionary step and adds the notion of qi and qigong into unarmed combat. Now this might have existed earlier, but there's no evidence of it, except with in context with jian - that's another thing that I'm jsut starting to explore. Surely CMA is about self defense, but to say that it's only self defense does it a great disservice. The self cultivation aspect has been a part of the martial arts for several hundred years, and not just Chinese styles. You see it in Japan, Korea and all aspects of Asian arts. Look at Muay Thai, one of the more 'combative' styles, and you'll see that there are very profound spiritual elements, expressed overtly in the bowing in rituals. So I beg to differ. On any level beyond beginning, spirituality is a very integral part of martial arts.

As for the monks and graduates of Shaolin, many of them go into military/police service. Remember that many Chinese armed services aren't actually armed. Often, they only have a restraint tie, a taser, or a baton. There aren't as many guns as there are in the west. So hand-to-hand is very real in China and many of the Shaolin schools serve as feeder programs into their security forces. If that's not 'real', I'm not sure what would be.

[Songshan]

Well like I said SimonW, martial arts is in a modern evolution. Not everyone who learns martial arts just want to learn how to fight. Some want to learn the offense/defense fighting, some learn for the "health and fitness" aspect and some learn for the "sport" aspect as well. We all have our reasons for studying. I can relate to what your saying because I thought the same way you did when I first started training. As a law enforcement officer, I was only interested in the defensive tatic measures. Little did I know when I began trainining with two "martial monks" I embarked on something extraordinary. It wasn't until then did I realize that martial arts is not just about fighting. To say that if your not learning how to fight your not learning martial arts shows that you have just scratched the surface and not reached the roots. Maybe in time you will.

I think martial arts is not just for fighting. The term itself "Martial Arts" is just a big blanket that loosley covers many different fighting styles and systems. Take Tai Chi for example. The style is very soft and flowing with almost a meditation state of mind but yet there are fighting applications in it. Often we see Tai Chi depicted as just a "health" practice among the elderly. It just depends on the student and what aspect of the martial art they grasp. Who is to say that some of the application or techniques some Wushu practitioners use cannot be used in a fight?? Wushu is a martial arts style. It's just not considered a "hard" fighting style.

[SimonW]

As I said, the spiritual side is there IF you want it. It's not a neccessity. The spiritual side of martial arts is not exclusive to martial arts. Martial arts is only one way to come to the same conclusions about life that may be present in other methods. But if you go into martial arts from the start looking for spirituality, there is something wrong with you. Take up Buddhism or another religion instead. It would serve the purpose you are looking for a lot more efficiently.

I would have be very interested to see what people like Wong Shun Leung or Sum Nung would think of your assertions, but alas they are not with us anymore.

Your point about tai chi is also flawed. Once again it is a fighting system first. A system for health etc 2nd as a by product of it's method. It's just that as you practise more and longer, the health aspect becomes more important.

Who is to say wushu cannot be applied in a fight? You say you were a law enforcement officer Songshan. Have you ever witnessed a fight in which wu shu techniques were applicable? I certainly haven't. All fights I have seen require very short, very sharp techniques that get the job done. Where is a wushu practitioners power issuance? When do they actually practise applying those techniques against unwilling opponents?

[Songshan]

Of course the spiritual side is not exclusive only to martial arts. That's why we have churches and so forth for the non martial artists. I do feel that martial arts and spirituality can co-exist. It is there if you want it. I also believe that even in some arts both are a required ingriedient (such as taoism) There's nothing wrong with you if you seek some type of spirituality through martial arts. That's why there is meditation, qi gong, etc. Styles such as Shaolin integrate buddhism and martial arts as a path to attain enlightenment as well as religion. There's fully ordained monks, martial monks, and disciples.

Tai Chi can be a fighting system but there is heavy emphasis on breathing (like qi gong). I think it's up to the individual studying to decide if they want to learn it as a fighting style or for health. I feel that once your placing emphasis on qi, meditation, your walking a fine line between martial and spiritual.

As a police officer I have never witnessed wushu in a fight. My shifu, Shi Xing Hao, teaches wushu as well as traditional kung fu. I have witnessed some of the techniques that were being taught in a form as quite lethal. As law enforcement officers we are trained to react differently when there are weapons being involved. What I meant by my example is that if you throw a wushu practitioner into a fight with a staff, spear, sword, etc., he will hurt you....just by the mere way they can handle weapons. To me that's a fighting art.

[GeneChing]

The problem here is how you define a fight. By strict definitions, is ancient weapon training even practical now? Can I really fight with kwan dao? Not likely. It's not because the techniques are bad really, it's just because there aren't handy kwan daos lying around, especially not where I might be fighting. Oops. Sorry Officer Songshan, nevermind that. I don't get in street fights.
Seriously though, I find the old 'martial arts is just about fighting' argument shallow, obsolete and close-minded. My mom takes tai chi. Is she going to be able to throw down in a fight? No. Will she ever even do push hands? No. Does she know the fighting applications? No. But I encourage her. She likes it because it improves her golf game. I guess you could say she uses it to fight the course. But are you going to deny my ma the martial legacy of tai chi? It's still tai chi. It's still martial arts. You can't really say otherwise until your in your 70's, a grandma, and had to have raised a son like me.

[Songshan]

Well, Ancient weapon training isn't very practical now a days, but it still exists for a reason. I kind of look at training and learning an ancient weapon as part of the heritage of martial arts. There are some weapons that exist which are practical, but it's not very likely you are going to see a kwan dao in a fight. I have come across some individuals on the job that just like to walk around and pack various weapons for no reason at all. Some were MA weapons and some were home made. I used the staff as an example because it's wooden or bamboo and staff like objects can be found laying around SOMETIMES (a broom stick?). Ok, maybe I am fishing here

Overall, I agree with you Gene on your post.