Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[BM2]

BM2 sorry to hear about your ADD, I'll try and make my posts shorter. Besides, it seems I'm wasting my breath anyway.

Yeah it sucks having ADD and my oldest son has it too. And as far as you are wasting your breath, realise that they feel the same about you too. I feel that there is truth in some of what is being presented from most sides.

BM2, hope this was an easier read...[/QUOTE]

And I read at least 90% of it.

[Baqualin]

HEY KC.....Do we have a new member to the Shaolin-Do family yet??

Hopefully you got in a few hours of breathing with your lady of labor....your going to need it for the Meteor Fist in March

[MasterKiller]

First of all the roots of Shao-lin quite probably did begin 1,500+ years ago. Most historians agree on this, though, it was more like between 1,300-1,400 years ago that it came to be somewhat organized and to be known as Shaolin.

I'm referring to organized martial systems, not the monastary itself.

Second of all, nobody in our school or really any very knowledgeable & realistic history experts would credit Bodhidharma or Tamo with founding the martial arts aspect of Shaolin. Shaolin IS Chan or Zen Buddhism and related meditations as well as having alot of Taoist philosophy included. It is from his impact on the meditative aspects of Shaolin, Buddhism in Shaolin, and certain Chi Kungs that cause many Shaolin to pay Bodhidharma homage as a founder of Shaolin. It is not known, nor will it probably ever be known whether he taught them any fighting techniques. However, it stands to reason that since the monks were so weak & out of shape that he had to teach them exercises just so they could stay awake to meditate properly, training in Kung Fu was probably at least 50 or more years after his time.

That is neither here nor there. At any rate, it is highly probably that Bodhidharma never existed. If he did, he did not write the Yi Jin Jing. It was probably written no earlier than 1827.

What I find extremely humorous in your line of reasoning is this: JP and others are absolutely correct when they say that history is inherently flawed & biased. Much is completely unverifiable due to the repeated destruction of literature & records in China. The funny part is you can't believe something said by a living, breathing person from firsthand experience (GT), but you regard something written by someone nearly 500 years ago regarding something 1000 years before his time as gospel truth.

Well, your GMT often says things that are completley inconsistent with reality, let alone Chinese martial history. Really, if he had a shred of credibility, researchers like Meir Shahar would be quoting him in their scholarly works.

Why isn't Secrets from the Temple considered a seminal historical acheivement in Chinese martial history?

I agree history is flawed, especially Chinese martial history, but historical researchers have much more credibility than some guy who learned kung fu and some wild bedtime stories from his grandpappy in Indonesia, wouldn't you agree?

Tang Hao's research was not 500 years ago, as you seem to suggest. Try early 1900's.

Lastly, I find more and more people who are respected masters with ties & verifiable lineage relative to Shaolin who confirm things that I learn from Masters Soard & GT regarding technique & history of Shaolin, thus no reason to doubt.

Yeah, better to listen to a couple of people who work in the TV industry instead of Chinese history scholars.

[Judge Pen]

HEY KC.....Do we have a new member to the Shaolin-Do family yet??

Hopefully you got in a few hours of breathing with your lady of labor....your going to need it for the Meteor Fist in March

Actually, I heard from KC yesterday. He had a baby girl yesterday morning. 21 1/2 inches and 7lbs 6 oz. Everyone was doing well.

Now my daugther will have a sparring partner.

[Judge Pen]

At any rate, it is highly probably that Bodhidharma never existed. If he did, he did not write the Yi Jin Jing. It was probably written no earlier than 1827.

Sure. Like Lao Tzu, he was probably a created figure--an amalgamation of ideas and principles that are probably attirbutable to several anonomyous individuals, but for some reason, Chinese culture like to attribute great ideas to a single person and invent them if necessary.... kind of sounds familiar.

Well, your GMT often says things that are completley inconsistent with reality, let alone Chinese martial history. Really, if he had a shred of credibility, researchers like Meir Shahar would be quoting him in their scholarly works.

Why isn't Secrets from the Temple considered a seminal historical acheivement in Chinese martial history?

Because its a collection of stories handed down that are based on legend and supposition and some fact. Say what you want about the book, its best attribute is a concise and accurate summary of meditation techniques and principles

I agree history is flawed, especially Chinese martial history, but historical researchers have much more credibility than some guy who learned kung fu and some wild bedtime stories from his grandpappy in Indonesia, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, but the researcher's accuracy is limited by the source material. More often than not, that is based on the unverifiable oral history of many martial arts teachers. The researcher will then cross-reference based upon the avaialbe documentation to see if there is any third-party accounts to support the offered stories. If there are, then great, but there often won't be, especially in Chinese history.

Oh, are you conceding the GMST learned kung fu in Indonesia?

Tang Hao's research was not 500 years ago, as you seem to suggest. Try early 1900's.

Which was prior to the cultural revolution but still based upon ancient information that was often passed by word of mouth. How much of the documentation that he relied upon in his research is still available?

[MasterKiller]

Which was prior to the cultural revolution but still based upon ancient information that was often passed by word of mouth. How much of the documentation that he relied upon in his research is still available?

Look, I'm not going to spend 3 weeks arguing over the credibility of Tang Hao's research when it is widely accepted by real historians as accurate and unbiased. At least not on this thread. We can start a Tang Hao thread if you want, but then you guys really wouldn't have anything to say because it seems you'd never heard of him until I brought it up anyway.

I just opened a door for you. Go find out about Tang Hao's research. Or, keep sounding like you learned your history from David Carradine. As with all else, the choice is yours to make.

[Judge Pen]

Look, I'm not going to spend 3 weeks arguing over the credibility of Tang Hao's research when it is widely accepted by real historians as accurate and unbiased. At least not on this thread. We can start a Tang Hao thread if you want, but then you guys really wouldn't have anything to say because it seems you'd never heard of him until I brought it up anyway.

I just opened a door for you. Go find out about Tang Hao's research. Or, keep sounding like you learned your history from David Carradine. As with all else, the choice is yours to make.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? I'm not arguing with you about his credibility anymore than I think most historians' accounts are flawed for a number of reasons. You're right, I don't know anything about him and his work is probably the most widely accepted accounts today. I was only pointing out my perception of historians in general. I'm not trying to make a federal case out of it.

[Judge Pen]

The way I see it, this thread is like a local bar in a rough area. There's a set of regulars, occasional visitors, and people who pay a few visits then never come back. Heated debate is common and sometimes this turns into fights. When a fight becomes a brawl someone or several people call the metaphorical cops (Gene and/or other mods). Despite all this, chit chat still has a place here. After all, it’s a local bar.

I think this analogy is appropriate. After I read this thread, I feel like having a drink of something strong.

[Baqualin]

Actually, I heard from KC yesterday. He had a baby girl yesterday morning. 21 1/2 inches and 7lbs 6 oz. Everyone was doing well.

Now my daugther will have a sparring partner.

MANY CONGRATS KC FROM THE LEXINGTON SCHOOL

I'll let master Ben Know

[kungfujunky]

congrats jp and kc

hey bq is the meet still on for march?

and do you have dates for the best time

[kwaichang]

Ok we are home everyone is well I taped the whole operation C-section anyway I will post it all here. NOT. All are well the baby is beautiful I keep asking who the father is but no answer yet. Her name is Madelyn Ruth. After my mom. KC
Thanks all.

[Judge Pen]

Ok we are home everyone is well I taped the whole operation C-section anyway I will post it all here. NOT. All are well the baby is beautiful I keep asking who the father is but no answer yet. Her name is Madelyn Ruth. After my mom. KC
Thanks all.

Pretty name. Lucas is a good looking kid too. I don't know how such pretty babies come from you, man. Congrats, thou. Let me know when you guys feel up for visitors--we have some stuff for you.

[Lokhopkuen]

What, give up all this free exposure......besides wouldn't it be awfully boring around here without us. By the way you don't have to accept that were TCMA, but that doesn't make it not true.
BQ

PS: Surely you can find something more exciting to dream about

Are you guys the same style as these guys?

http://www.shao-lin.com/category.cfm?CategoryID=28

If so it is not TCMA......

[godzillakungfu]

Yes.

We know it isn't technically TCMA by your definition. Old debate. Read the thread.

[Lokhopkuen]

Yes.

We know it isn't technically TCMA by your definition. Old debate. Read the thread.

I have been reading it.

As far as MY DEFINITION you are right it is not.

I am only chiming in because your thread "Is Shaolin-Do for real?" has dominated the top slot of a TRADITION CHINESE MARTIAL ART forum for weeks and it is related to HENAN SHAOLIN in no form other than it shares part of it's name.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpaW5hXWDg

NOT TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ART {You guys should find him and punish him..} BAD. Not TCMA. Not MARTIAL ART. No manifest energy, no connection, no substance, no historical connection in it's essence to TCMA. Wake up. Serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6VnLPJI5qg

NOT TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ART

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m203c8l6B7w

NOT TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ART {BUT PROBABLY THE BEST (easiest to watch) FORM I HAVE SEEN FROM YOUR STYLE..}

Just to be fair and I am not really any good but I do practice each day:
http://www.harmoniousfist.com/videos/kwandao.mov
It's an old vid of one of my casual personal cultivation sessions and a TCMA practice set.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMuUwCd7sfo
This is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdLr_Ks_Gc8
This is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ank1N98rkqc
This is ALL A BIT WUSHUY WAY DIFFERENT FROM SHAOLIN DO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpwE_PZw5x0
THIS IS TRADITIONAL AND THE ESSENCE IS EASY TO SEE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8S_78v5O-o

THIS IS TRADITIONAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drz-CMespEM
THIS IS TRADITIONAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBXal1GAA4A
THIS IS SILLY BUT MORE ENTERTAINING THAN YOUR KWANDAO FORM
HA HA HA!

PEACE


PS No doubt that many of you are serious dedicated practitioners and formidable fighters I salute you as brothers in the martial art. However just because somewhere in your history someone snatched the SHAOLIN moniker and tacked on a Japanese/ Korean suffix does not make it Traditional Chinese Martial Art. Most traditional Chinese Masters have something described as less than affection for the Japanese.

Lets not fight or Fork it, lets fight over it as that is what internet forumishnessnish is all about.

Come on, make me a believer!

But IF NOT!!!

Please stop 'cause shaolin-do at least from my perspective as a 30 plus year {non elitist fun and friendly} TCMA Practitioner,

is not repeat i[I]s not TCMA [/I

D*A*M*N* IF I SAY IT BOLD ENOUGH< ENOUGH TIMES THE FORCE OF MY WILL MAKES IT SO!! HA HA AH!! (THAT IS A JOKE, HUMOR)

]Just because a lizard claims ancestry to a Brontosaurus dose not make it a dinosaur.

The END