My knowledge of the Song Shan martial arts is very limited and I've been pondering about the diversity of martial curriculums that have existed and are still being taught.

I believe that each Shaolin instructor possesses, more or less, a unique teaching methodology which might in some cases even be considered as an individual style (eg. Golden Panther Fist). Now, I've noticed that many contemporary Shaolin schools (or all of what I've seen) teach the same forms, such as Siu Hung Kuen, Dai Hung Kuen, Pau Kuen, Lohan Kuen, etc. So could these forms be counted as the so-called pillar forms that are introduced to the student during his initial or "preliminary" phase of training to serve as the building blocks that entail his future training, while all the other non-pillar forms are considered more as specialisations?

How does Shaolin training and methodology nowadays differ from the one they had say two hundred years ago? Apparently many systems were lost during Song Shan's long-lasting timeline, but is there any account on what their curriculums were like and how these forms that are practiced nowadays were practiced and what their significance or purpose (eg. basics, specialisation) was?

The Cultural Revolution did have an impact on Song Shan and the number of dwellers in the old monastery decreased and became very scanty. How did the attempt to restore the Song Shan martial tradition succeed after the 1980s?

Lastly, it would be interesting to know how well-preserved Shaolin literature has been over the centuries. Shaolin has suffered many bloodsheds resulting in loss, but how much of the old Shaolin heritage has been able to be preserved?