Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[kwaichang]

Perhaps you would rather have my fist up your fill in the blank KC

[tattooedmonk]

1 more page to go.........

[Citong Shifu]

THis could explain why SD is different than what we see today as "Shaolin"

During the Sung dynasty, Shaolin also heavily taught long staff routines, partly because they caused less bloodshed than swords, spears and knives. Chan Shi founded the Liu Ho Quan (Six Harmonies Boxing) style based on Shaolin techniques. Also, in 1103AD, a famous general, Yui Fei, brought his soldiers to Shaolin to exchange techniques. He also invented his own forms of boxing, such as Yue San Shou and Yu Chia Quan, Eagle Claw, Nine Way Mandarin Duck Continuous Kicks, among others. It is also during the Sung period that the Xing I (mind boxing) style was invented by combining the Taoist five elements theory with 12 animal-imitating boxing techniques and Shaolin soon taught their own versions of all these routines.
Sometimes during the Sung dynasty, secret societies began to be formed, such as the White Lotus of North and West China. Members began to frequent the Shaolin temple and used its cover for clandestine operations. Such people helped to make martial arts flourish at Shaolin. Many styles of Shaolin-derived boxing were soon developed through Northern China as non-monks who studied at Shaolin left and travelled, sharing what they learned, and developing their own routines and styles (such as Mi-Tsung, Tung Bei, Duan Quan, Duan Dah, and Pao Choi). During the Sung period, Fu Ju, then Abbot of Shaolin, invited experts in 18 martial arts schools to exchange skills with those of Shaolin They stayed three years and wrote the Shaolin Boxing Manual, describing 280 routines (this manual helped Emperor Sun Tai Zu thoroughly master what he had learned at Shaolin).


By the later Sung period, various warlords endangered the countryside and they fought the Sung Emperor for power. In 1279, in the midst of China's inner quarrels, the Mongols invaded China and started the Yuan dynasty, which lasted until 1368AD. To cope with the dangerous times, Shaolin fighting techniques became more of a hard style that primarily used speed, aggressiveness and power, It began to emphasize economy of technique and promoted defence through first strike offence power blows. It was extremely effective for its time, but it was not as subtle as earlier Shaolin Quan. Also, it was not as perfected as later versions of Shaolin Quan; it did not resemble modern Shaolin Kung fu neither in execution nor in philosophy. During the thirteenth century, this type of Shaolin boxing that the monks developed exemplified early kung fu. About 300 forms (170 empty hand and 130 weapons routines) were developed from the original 18 Lohan form. The well-known Shaolin Jin Gang style was developed at this time seeking to preserve the original elements of Shaolin Quan.
After violent nationalist revolts, the Mongols were defeated; Chu Yuan Chan, a Buddhist monk, founded the beloved Ming dynasty, which lasted from 1368-1644AD. During this time, many changes occurred in Shaolin's fighting methods, altering its course for the better. By the Ming dynasty, Shaolin style kung fu was based on techniques embedded in the 18 Lohan styles and forms. But, its execution over the past two centuries had lost its softer, internal properties as it constantly mixed with outsiders and became entwined with military politics. (The Shoalin monks also collected outside styles and routines and taught these there as well). Thus, Shaolin Quan Fa had become less fluid and circular and more rigid and linear, relying on feats of strength and body conditioning for results. It started to be reliant on brute strength, losing its original grace and agility.
KC

"It started to be reliant on brute strength, losing its original grace and agility"

Well, I can tell you that this was and is not true at all! Far from it! I dont dispute that you found this somewhere on the internet, but what a bunch of crap... I will agree that internal / external conditioning was a big deal and was trained just as hard as their fighting. Clashing with another fighter, well, this is still a principle, but "only" if you know your skill is superior. The rest, dont right bogus.... I'm not going to dispute this through another 100 pages. It is what it is...

Take care.
CS

[sean_stonehart]

Perhaps you would rather have my fist up your fill in the blank KC

Are you threatening me? Pure & simple, yes or no.

[Yao Sing]

Dude, he likes you. Talking about fisting and making you an offer like that, totally gay.

Come on 500!

[kungfujunky]

Are you threatening me? Pure & simple, yes or no.

lol

you talk so horribly rude to him how else is he to respond?

internet fu!

woohoo

[BM2]

Sean, for whatever reason(s) you seem to be fancinated with coming on here to enlighten everyone. Your opinions of M. Sin are the only ones that I really take issue with when you accuse him of getting DVDs on the China trips. If you have something to back it up then do it, otherwise you come off sounding like an azz. Just me, I wouldn't post something accusing someone whom I do not care for of something if I couldn't back it up.

[sean_stonehart]

lol

you talk so horribly rude to him how else is he to respond?

internet fu!

woohoo

Rude? No... not even close

Abrupt? Yeah probably by any definition

Abraisive? Yeah most likely

In order? For him... yeah.

There's been close to if not 500 pages & thousands of posts on this along with a couple of emails and he refuses to even subscribe to the notions that SD is not all it says it is or is made out to be.

Other SD players, while maintaining the loyalty to SD & ST respectively & respectably, even concede some of these opinions and facts brought forward by these posts on this thread. His last attempt at "proof" even brought a fellow SD-er out as calling BS on his "source".

If everybody in the whole wide world side "the sky is blue, don't you think", he'd sit there going "nah... it's red because I was told so & have seen it for myself" when he looks at the exact same sky as everybody else.

I have no intention or desire to "convert" anybody away from SD. I bring a degree of exposure to other arts to the table to my SD friends & many hours of research and truth seeking as well. I present what I know as I know it as I was exposed to & found it.

If a SDer sees as it is & goes "gee... maybe things aren't alright" & moves on, so be it. If not, so be it. But for the sake of common sense don't say "we (SD) are right you are not" when example on example has been given on missing & incorrect training techniques for specific sets that SD has appropriated & laid claim to in published writing (which is also wrong) because the foundation in generally recognized & accepted CMAs isn't there.

Go 500!!!

[sean_stonehart]

Sean, for whatever reason(s) you seem to be fancinated with coming on here to enlighten everyone. Your opinions of M. Sin are the only ones that I really take issue with when you accuse him of getting DVDs on the China trips. If you have something to back it up then do it, otherwise you come off sounding like an azz. Just me, I wouldn't post something accusing someone whom I do not care for of something if I couldn't back it up.

Dude... I never once said or claimed he did.

I merely pointed out the coincidence of it all.

[BM2]

Nothing is perfect, surely you know that. I really doubt that only a few even know what is meant by the kool-aid comments. I think it occured around '78.
What is real?
What really is at the root of your discontent? Just wondering.

[BM2]

Oh I'm sorry He Who Knows Everything Is Everything SD.

I do know it's a Chang Quan set. I do know it's not from the South where SD claims roots from Fujian. I do know it wasn't taught until recent history like many other things in SD after a couple of China trips & new CDs were available to the public like Mulan Fans from Mulan Quan (which isn't even a freaking TCMA for Crissakes), Xingyi Weaponry, Bagua Weaponry...

So I'll give JP's suggestion a go & see what I can find on it for you since apparently you're not willing to look outside the SD box to see where it came from.

OK, no, I think you heavily implied.

[sean_stonehart]

Nothing is perfect, surely you know that. I really doubt that only a few even know what is meant by the kool-aid comments. I think it occured around '78.
What is real?
What really is at the root of your discontent? Just wondering.

I think it was 78 or so. Maybe 77... I was in elementary school when I remember hearing about it.

The root of my discontentment?? Honesty, integrety, factual information etc... on what is being taught...

Never once have I said it didn't work, wasn't effective or anything of the like. I've never take shots at the people & their ability to use what's been taught to them. I've said & maintained it is not what it is professed to be.

[sean_stonehart]

OK, no, I think you heavily implied.

Yeah ... maybe it is, but strictly speaking I never said it nor would I since I never witnessed such an event or occurance or was involved. That would be stupid to do such a thing.

[kwaichang]

Man you are a Joke I dont know you but I have only spokem with you maybe once E Mail. I still wait for you to prove your point. My opinion is you couldnt take the training and quit. If you cant take it what is your point then ? You are rude and disrespectful. As far as admitting something You show some proof and I will. You listed some things that arent Shaolin I showed you how they were. You act like a baby and sull up if you are proven wrong. Get a Job make something of your self. KC

[BM2]

Yeah ... maybe it is, but strictly speaking I never said it nor would I since I never witnessed such an event or occurance or was involved. That would be stupid to do such a thing.

Dude, that wasn't the first time. I didn't want to go through 499 pages to find more of it.
I am in no way saying you left for the wrong reasons, I don't know anything about you other than meeting once. Just don't care for you coming on here to have the reader think that you, as a former SDer, are implying something that I think is offensive. Nothing more or less.