The Shaolin Grandmasters Text

[GenKwan]

Sal,

The PRC is the People's Rebulic of China, i.e. the country of China post 1949. I wasn't asking if you were a party member or had contact with one. You stated that your sources were Chinese. Assuming these documents are from the PRC, I was asking if you have ever considered their validity.

I don't believe in Santa Claus as you suggest. I do, however, like you, believe in legitamate reseach. But the legitamacy is exactly what I am questioning.

So the question of what are your sources and are they valid still stands.

-GenKwan

[Sal Canzonieri]

okay, so what am I going to list every single book and article I have in my collection?
Every interview I did with people?
Plus there is my teacher, who is over 70 years old, and my teacher's teachers, from Taiwan and China who have degrees in KF history and have written many articles, non-PRC influenced.

I'm not the one who wrote that book, from a group that has already had their legitimacy questioned many times in the past,
and a book that has no author names and does not list any references or source of the information?

What their website and their book states is stuff that is clearly physically IMPOSSIBLE to be, like that ABBOTS from Fukien came here in the 1960s, when they are just finding the ruins of that temple just a few years ago and the place was destroyed almost 300 years ago. That ABBOTS from Shaolin came here. Abbots, they say, not just Monks. The line of Abbots from any temple are well documented and thus well known amongst the people that live there. Shaolin was destroyed in 1928.
Already those are points that cast doubt on the whole house of cards.
Maybe someone told them confusing stuff and there was no way for them to know otherwise.
Back in the old days, many a beginner in China suddenly became Masters and Grandmasters in America, after immigration (til a real one came by and put a stop to it).
I know the KF masters from the 60s and 70s from NYC, I have asked them historical questions and they mentioned everything but any Abbots hiding out in NYC.

Maybe there is a shadow truth that is camaflaged under imbellishment, like the way people play telephone, but taking what they are saying as direct information, it doesn't pan out in comparison to any number of sources.

They wrote the book, let them tell where they get their information from, they have to proove it since they are putting it in writing as public information.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

Let's just start with a few sources, and then we'll go from there.

Regarding the OSC's claims, they have been upfront about the sources of their claims....namely oral tradition and manuscripts left from the abbots. They have clearly stated that the information is up to the reader to decide it's validity. If you think it is rubbish, that is fine, they don't NEED to prove anything as you say. Remember what Shakyamuni said about truth!

The item of discussion here is that you are claiming you have proof that contradicts what the OSC is saying. Well if you don't provide that proof, then your claims are no more or less valid than the OSC's and you can't say the book is rubbish.

I'm sure the KF community would love to have knowledge of this evidence you have, so why not share?

-GenKwan

[Sal Canzonieri]

Well, just off hand is the
Shaolin Da Quan, also known as the Shaolin Encyclopedia,
which was compiled by one of Shaolin's oldest monks, Da Qi,
who was there in the 1920s in Shaolin when it was burned down and he preserved historical records before they could be burned up, he compiled all the Shaolin history, forms, etc, into this 4 volume set.
There is a list in the book in the 800 page volume that lists the history, that matches what the stone stiles also list, of all the names of the Abbots of Shaolin and also the monks from the beginning of Shaolin to present times.
and who Doc from Russbo.com talks to regularly, he will be there in March and will be asking him other questions that I and others have about certain forms.
Really all one has to do is post of Doc's site and ask him to ask them to verify the information according to their direct knowledge and their written documents that have been preserved for hundreds, even thousand of years.

About the Fuijan temple, there have been newspaper articles that show that they recently discovered what might be ther ruins of that temple, up to now there has been no physical proof that the temple existed. The place of the ruins was destroyed almost 300 years ago.

[norther practitioner]

About the Fuijan temple, there have been newspaper articles that show that they recently discovered what might be ther ruins of that temple, up to now there has been no physical proof that the temple existed. The place of the ruins was destroyed almost 300 years ago

Um, well, they've found a few places I thought... and they are all debatable from what I understand, but for the last few years they have had another tourist temple near fukien.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

Was this Shaolin Da Quan published, or is this a private document within their group?

-GenKwan

[Sal Canzonieri]

Originally posted by GenKwan
Sal,

Was this Shaolin Da Quan published or is this a private document within their group?

-GenKwan

It was pubished, years ago, in a limited edition, the first edition was in 2 volumes, the second edition was 4 volumes as more information was collected, I have it right here on my shelf.

[SaekSan]

I created another thread in this forum for this question in particular, I'm not sure if you saw it or not.

Sal Canzonieri stated:

"the dozen Kan Jia Forms come from this (these are the forms that are no called Northern Shaolin style by many who do 10 of these 12 forms - the Wing Lam / Chan Kwok, etc schools)."

Do you have any more information on this? What are the names of the other two sets? Any lineage info? Any other info about the BSL style in itself?

Thank you.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

What is the publication date, and who published it?

-GenKwan

[Sal Canzonieri]

Here's this site will answer both of the last people's questions.
it has info about who compiled the books and it
has the English translations of the table of contents.

http://www.shaolins.com/encyclopedia/


Kan Jia 13 forms:

1.the first opening the mountain fist...................925
2.the second facing the door fist...................940
3.the third three recommendation for Zhu Ge...........954
4.the fourth puncture heart hammer...................971
5.the fifth five men palm....................980
6.the sixth Di Pan leg....................989
7.the seventh plum blossom fist...........993
8.the eighth chain hammer...............1000
9.the ninth chain leg.................1006
10.the tenth ambush palm..............1011
11.the eleventh Pu Di sand.............1017
12.the twelvth capture the enemies back to mountain.............1024
13.the thirteen protect yard hammer.........................1031

People from Chan Kwok's School in Brazil and Argentina
have looked at these forms and have confirmed that the first 10 are identical to the ones they have learned, names are a little different.

Sal

[GenKwan]

Sal,

After reading several articles on the Shaolin Da Quan and other threads in this forum, I get the impression that this was a recent complilation (within the last several decades) from surviving Shaolin sources and Shaolin lay tradition, not a 1500 year old unbroken record of the order. As a PRC publication alone, I question it's validity, however, even if it is acurate, considering what it is, it doesn't seem to be evidence that condradicts the OSC.

-GenKwan

[Sal Canzonieri]

The Shaolin Da Quan are reprints of the material found inside all the documents that have survived in Shaolin hands throughout all the dynasties.
It was compiled in the late 80s, and published in 1992.
Copies of many of these documents can also be found in martial art circles outside of Shaolin but nearby.

The source material is from each dynasty that Shaolin has existed through.
Also, when documentation on a form was missing, Shaolin Lay sources were used for the book.

One of the oldest Shaolin monks still around (his name escapes my at this time of the night) has stated in interviews in print and on videotape that he was there when the temple was buring in the 1920s and he helped grab the documents to preserve them.

The OSC stuff has condradicted every single other Shaolin source I have ever seen. No one from any legitimate lineage that I know of has ever been connected to them.
They might as well be martians from outer space and you can use the exact same arguement about UFOs as you can to defend the OSC, namely that there is no way to prove that UFOs don't exist as there is no way to prove that UFOs do exist.

OSC are the UFOs of Chinese martial arts.
I can make pages and pages of references, interview quotations, direct conversation, etc., etc., but in the long run you can counter anything at all with "well, you haven't proven that these UFOs don't exist", essentially.

So, there is no point other than that they you are really making to me. So there is nothing in the long run that I can ever "prove" that will satisfy someone that is running on beliefs rather than empircal evidence (just like there is NO true historical record anywhere in the world outside the Gospels that Jesus existed, people's belief that he existed is far stronger than anyone not haveing empirical evidence that Jesus once existed).
Time clouds all things.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

UFOs, yes, very humorous. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

PRC publications are highly dubious, but even if this tome in question contains truth, by your own statement it is compiled from incomplete (i.e. what survived) documents.

The fact that what seems to be practiced over there, martially speaking, is largely what the OSC considers the Shaolin lay tradition, lends credence to the claim that the core styles were lost when the ex-patriot monks fled China.

It seems unlikely, given the chaos in China in the early 1900's, that a senior Shaolin monk would have hung around, especially given their hunted status at the time.

It would seem more reasonable to me that the higher levels of the temple would have ordered a mass exodus, taking whatever they could manage in the process, then reunite in a safer location. The mass influx of ex-patriot Chinese into NY's Chinatown is no mystery. It would seem a likely place to resettle.

Of course there is no hard evidence of this, as of yet, but compared to a source like the PRC, the OSC has a leg up in one sense. The OSC doesn't have a 50 year history of spreading lies through propaganda and rewriting unsavory history.

Your personal attack, that I am running on beliefs, is unfounded. An ad hominem argument is hardly effective, at least not with me.

You give a lot of talk about empirical evidence, but you seem to have a difficult grasp on critical thinking, given by some of your logical fallacies. Also, the source you have provided has hardly been established through empirical methods. So I'm curious where are your demands to strict adherence to the scientific method? Do they not apply when it comes to your 'evidence'?

In regards to Christ, it is irrelevant here.

-GenKwan

[richard sloan]

I believe Josephus makes mention of Jesus, I thought of the two mentions only one is a clear addition...anyway...

There is no way to "fake" a real monk, there is way too much detail you would have to have on hand and be fluent enough with to pass off a monk to another real monk...there is knowledge they would possess that would not be known to laymen- one example in gong fu would be some of the buddhist origins to gong fu movements, the poems behind the forms, certain buddhist expressions and meanings derived from characters...many characters are specific to Buddhism and in certain contexts bare Buddhist specific meanings.

Of course Shaolin is a little confusing because of the modern stresses and some "monks" punch time cards, but there is an unbroken transmission lineage from pre warlord attacks despite the fact that many of the monks who knew all the traditional stuff no longer have much to do with Shi Yong Xin after he sort of distanced them.

There are pictures of a 45 volume set copied by Shi Yong Xiang, (burned to death according to the oral tradition) the massive library had many copies extant throughout both the monastic and lay populations...De Yang once had many of these manuals and maybe still does allthough I don't think he keeps his room at the temple anymore, I could be wrong...the point is there was a long tradition of book copying at Shaolin.

Shi Su Yun, Su Goong, Su Xi- a few others, these men inherited pre-warlord Ch'an and gong fu from their pre-warlord attack masters. The lineages are there, they exhibit the knowledge of both Ch'an and gong fu that one would reasonably expect them to know, so doubts of PRC fabrications can be reasonably set aside.

Su Yun had as his master Shi Zhen Xu, for example. He was listed as an abbot sometime in the 1900s. Su Yun was born in 1913, and was 8 when he entered the temple- 1921. Yousan burnt the Temple in 1928. Su Yun was about 15 at the time. A young adult at least. During the CR he was married and had 5 kids- he returned to Shaolin, family in tow, and one of his sons also became a monk- Shi De An. One would think it reasonable to assume that if any Henan Abbots fled Cheng Xu would know about it and this would be known to his disciples. Let's not forget that the Gui Yi Fo, Fa, and Sen, within Shaolin is a serious ceremony- you are a son to your master. This of course assumes a knowledge we don't have of their relationship but I'd say it's a safe bet.

The monk De Ding (I forget which Ch'an family he was in but it was not Cao Dong apparently) inherited a large part of the martial library from his master who was one of the San Jing Gung- one of three monks charged with the keeping and protecting of the library- De Ding buried the copies of the manuscripts he had and so preserving them through the CR we have them now. Many of the monks were rather resourceful in their ability to hide such treasures- we were treated to a special viewing of one such treasure which was a finger painting of the Buddha riding a lion that was hidden in a hallway behind some paneling and curtains and remains there to this day. Anyway, De Ding passed these copies to De Qian, which were then reproduced in the book Sal mentions.

Shi Xing Zhen, the most recent recognized abbot had as his master Shi De Bao. Xing Zhen was born in 1914...his acceptance to Shaolin also predates Yousan's attack.

Wouldn't it be reasonable then, for these men to know all about any exodus and community in which "Abbots" were now retooling Shaolin abroad?

I mean, someone would have known about this foreign body of monks, no? Wouldn't there be commonality between the traditions since they are so fresh.

JAG- I'm not out to "disprove" your story. I am just interested if it is reasonable to accept...

[Just a Guy]

I realize that, Richard - actually, thank you for your many contributions. (Pardon me for prefacing so many of my following remarks by saying "according to our tradition," but I want to make that very clear - and also respect other traditions.)

The priests in our tradition, at least some of them, reached adulthood long before the gentlemen you mention were born. Abbot Li En was 40 years old in 1900, when he initiated the exodus, for instance. I wouldn't expect those who were children when the Honan monastery was burnt in the late 1920s to know about Shaolin politics of the 1890s. According to our tradition, the martial knowledge possessed in the temples in the teens and twenties was greatly exhausted by the loss of so many masters. Also according to our tradition, the pinnacle of Shaolin knowledge was never recorded in book format, for this would make that knowledge available to any who could acquire such tomes - and thus rob the priests of the ability to match appropriate (and dangerous!) skills to those of adequate moral fiber and Buddhist understanding.

According to our tradition, the style guardians left the temples around 1900-1910. Until 1970, our order maintained contact with Shaolin in Hong Kong, and there were exchanges of various sorts (a few even documented in photos), but we've since lost those contacts. We also do not have "relics." Our priests left China with the shirts on their backs and not much more. So we don't have a physical Ark of the Covenant to whip out, or anything like that.

Some others have mentioned that "their teachers" have never heard of Li En Huo, Ben Ch'i Lo, and other priests in our tradition. This informs me that "those teachers" were not part of the inner circle of NYC Chinatown back when it was 95% Cantonese, which isn't very helpful. Sal mentions that "no one from any legitimate lineage" that "he knows of" is connected to our order. Actually, I'm certain he has at least heard of some sifu who *are* indeed connected to us - but you would not believe the secrecy of these guys. Our priests in NYC were like ghosts, and living descendents are equally "closed-door." Shaolin were/are not professional martial artists either, at least not as conceived today - and they are even more obscure for that reason. In publishing our book, we are breaking with our own tradition of the last 100 years in a major way. Consider how strange it must be for an organization of people bound by common purpose and secrecy to publicly acknowledge the existence of their own organization after the passage of so many years.

Basically, we stand behind our book, a review of which will be appearing in the upcoming issue of The Journal of Asian Martial Arts, by the way. We are considering releasing more information in a revision which may consistute "proof" of legitimacy in the eyes' of some. But this is still under internal debate.

Shaolin has never been about "proving" anything, and the order has not traditionally promoted the personal notoriety of its monks. If we can peacefully pursue our studies and raise a little money by publishing some books, that will be satisfactory.

We will soon be publishing style-specific books which will discuss styles in some depth, as well as contain forms with applications, drills, etc. People can examine them and make their own minds up about the quality of information presented.