Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Shaolin Wookie]

uh oh here that wookie hes steppin to you

you just going to sit there like france and take it?

Sorry, I was taking a crap. What did you say?

Oh. France... ****ed French-fry eating ingrates.

I hate France. They should be in Iraq right now. Period. It's just the right thing to do, and we had all the right Intelligence behind our dubious suspicions.

Look at the wonders it's done for us. But then, I think we should kill everything and spare nothing. It's the Shaolin way.

[goju]

i know i hate the french so much too
i think the united forces should just pul out of iraq and bomb france
kill them all except sophie merceau she will be my second wife lol

god that was along crap you need some more fiber in your diet

[Baqualin]

Here's an idea: Lets say someone who thinks they know about martial arts, maybe they do, maybe they don't (maybe they are really good at dancing or posing for pictures), goes to a school for awhile, and thinks the teachers there are no good and he/she can beat up all their black belts. Then he starts telling others how bad that entire style is, and anyone who has anything to do with it, and "spits" on it all. Shouldn't we go back to every martial arts instructor that person has ever had, and "spit" on him/her, and their entire school and every student they have ever had, because it is obviously that instructor's fault for turning out, and permitting to exist, any student who claims to know so much from them, but presents themself so arrogantly, so disrespectfully, and, as they said in "Shogun," "with the manners of a pig." That instructor shoud be ashamed for being associated with one who shows so little honor and respect, for anyone, deserving or not. That instructor obviously tolerates disrespect, encourages the insulting tongue, invites the provoking blow, and has no more of a concept of bushido, or honor and respect in general, than any clown off the street.

All I know, is others here have spoken highly of many of you, such as YS, MK, JP, GT, BQ, KC, TTM, and others whose monikers escape me. I don't know any of you, but you have for the most part, with few isolated exceptions, conducted yourselves with dignity and honor, and have earned the respect of others here and elsewhere. That is good enough for me. On the other hand, there are others that no one, other than himself, speaks highly of, and his words speak for themselves. That says something, too.

I recently told a good freind, a good martial artist that I have learned much from, but who was never interested in testing past 1st black -- but knows more from independent study and research than many who "outrank" him -- my take on teaching stuff to people who don't appreciate it and can't do it. It is better to teach the material to many, knowing that few will take it to heart, than to not teach it at all. The seed may indeed fall on barren minds, but also some will bear fruit.

And in a letter of mine that was published in Kung Fu Magazine in the early 80's, I also said, in response to a critic of SD (it goes back that far and more), get over this stuff.If you go to a school you are not happy with, by all means find another one. It is a style, many like it and learn from it and benefit from it, and it has its basis in stuff that works. Many don't, or don't understand, or don't want to. Many just feed themselves by criticizing others. It is easier to criticize than to hold one's tongue, to retain an open mind, to just "live and let live." How about just keep practicing, and keep learning, do more asking questions than giving answers no one has asked for; and just be quiet about what others do?

I feel much better now that I got this off my chest. LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION AND COULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG. I SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND NOT FOR GMT, ANY OF HIS INSTRUCTORS OR STUDENTS OR SCHOOLS OR MASTERS.

Very well said (I don't think anyones listening...to busy p!ssing)....you must have started around the same time as I did......remember Buell armory
BQ

[OldandUsed]

I agree, well written. Follows along very much as i recall it and see it.

[Tensei85]

I dont know you have to admit after massive hours and a lot of general boredom Goju starts to wear on you. maybe we'll get used to him besides he's just a little unique, after all we accepted Shaolin Wookie even though at the time he wasnt even house broke. He's doing a lot better now though he only has an accident once in a while : )~ j/k

p.s. Shaolin Wookie is the man! or should I say Wookie.

[Judge Pen]

One Student, Thank you for your contribution to the thread. Very well said.

[yeti]

One Student, Thank you for your contribution to the thread. Very well said.

I second this, well done. How long did all that take you?

[goju]

god could you guys be up wookies a nus any more right now?

[Tensei85]

Goju It's better than receiving! But your probably used to it by now, just playing.

[One student]

I second this, well done. How long did all that take you?

Thank you for reading my "manifesto" -- I suspected most people would look how long it was, and, like higher end martial arts, skip it and go back to the ****ing on each other and the snappy one liners and comebacks.

The philisophical answer to "how long did it take," would be: Over 30 years -- how long its been since I started in any form of martial arts. I could also say, several months, how long its been since I've been reading this thread (I did go back to the beginning), sometimes shocked by what persons who profess to be martial artists are willing to say to and about other people, even their own teachers, much less other's teachers, much less people they have never met.

And as I've heard the criticisms, I've also considered potential answers, and weighed them for awhile. I just couldn't take it anymore. My patience, although vast, is not without limits, especially when it comes to ignorance. I hope it is perceived as constructive and informative.

But the short answer is, not too long. I can type pretty darn fast.

[Tensei85]

Hey One student,
I'm not from the Shaolin Do lineage but I did enjoy the read of your post as well. Keep it up.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Here's an idea: Lets say someone who thinks they know about martial arts, maybe they do, maybe they don't (maybe they are really good at dancing or posing for pictures), goes to a school for awhile, and thinks the teachers there are no good and he/she can beat up all their black belts.....That instructor shoud be ashamed for being associated with one who shows so little honor and respect, for anyone, deserving or not. That instructor obviously tolerates disrespect, encourages the insulting tongue, invites the provoking blow, and has no more of a concept of bushido, or honor and respect in general, than any clown off the street.

I agree with your sense of ethics, but I think your ethic here is a little out of context. SD is guilty of passing itself off as something it's not, at times--that is the source of almost all the criticism. I think much of the "Shaolin" without the "do" is misleading. I think citing the stele for authenticity is misleading. I think the "Grandmaster of Shaolin" again without the "do" is misleading. And these are misleading "factos" that are still propagated without the bat of an eyelash.

I personally don't care about SD history that much. I'm into martial arts, and I enjoy both the martial and art aspect. I didn't sign up for a history lesson or a lineage boost. SD has a nice blend of hte martial and the art. I don't think most students cared about Shaolin history...that is, until they find out what they've were told before they invested their time into the art was in fact not peer-reviewed. And if it wasn't peer reviewed, and the SD "pamphleteers" knew it wasn't, but still pawned it off as truth and pretended to be leading authorities---why should I trust them with anything, much less my money, time, and effort?

Such was my dilemma. When people misrepresent "truth" they don't respect your capacity to find it out for yourself. That's disrespectful. I only care about SD history because it is false, yet masquerading as truth.

Some teachers are more progressive. Thankfully, I consider ATL to be so. But the organization is not, if you judge it by its web/print publications.

I wasn't pizzed off that SD wasn't linked to Shaolin temple. I didn't care about hte forms being dissed as "unauthentic" on chatrooms. I've seen demos by leading authorities on all things kung-fu on this site.....and I was unimpressed.

Honestly, when I started Kung Fu I didn't even know there were such things as "codified" "across-the-borders-of-the-world-same-pattern-forms". I figured schools pretty much just made them up for demos, exhibiting the canonical techniques they'd learned from their teachers, now choreographed just for showing-off or for fun. Man was I wrong...or was I? What I was pizzed off at was that what I invested time into and was proud of had conducted its historical research so poorly, had advertised Coke as Pepsi, and such things--as cited above. That is unethical, b/c any halfwit with an enthusiasm for his art will want to know more about it. SD doesn't make that easy with the history it presents. W/O the internet, I might still be talking about the great hairy one at Shaolin Temple, and the destruction of Fukien, and all that jazz. It was hard to be proud of my belts after seeing some of the BS SD puts out. But I got past these details--with much difficulty--and understood my physical effort was worth something, and that my research into the real origiin of the style was worth something different, and I wasn't an SD "pamphleteer" and never will be, and I'll always answer every question posed with the truth as it stands in reality. And when I wear my black belt, it means something because someone else saw something in that effort. Maybe the organization as a whole didn't, but I know my teachers who know me and watched me grow into MA did see something. I respect the people I know, and I respect the arts they dedicated themselves to. But the system's history........I respect its true history, but not the unreliable and fabricated one.

Guess what? Now we can know more about our history, and we do. And still the bad history resurges, gets pasted on www.shaolingrandmaster.com, and there is no "ethic" to the continuation of bad history. The entire history of the art seems like a sham, because there is no mention of the creation of SD in Kentucky, of both GM The's teaching together--and all that. Where's the mention of multiple masters in a school in Bangdung, rather than the usual story that GM Ie was an exiled monk who taught GM The' and some other students---where's the mention of Central Plains Wushu school? Of his teaching-peers, apparently versed in a variety of styles? The "commercial" aspects of SD's history have been jettisoned by the SD "pamphleteers" in favor of a transmission that essential tries to pawn off on the public the following lineage:

Shaolin Temple & GM Su Kong---GM Su Kong in the mountains & Shaolin Temple/GM Ie (a Shaolin monk at a dubious Temple)---GM Ie (an exiled monk) & GM The' (the indoor student of a monk)------GM The' and authentic Shaolin ties & the American student body.

We know this is not true. We know it is misrepresentative. Nobody at Shaolin knows anything of Shaolin-Do. And this kind of misrepresentation is kind of appaling in my opinion. I'm not trying to be disrespectful---but I think it's disrespectful to represent Shaolin-Do in the way it is represented from the top down. If you sign your name to an article you didn't write, or someone helped to draft...or if you allow that to pass in your name...you're adding your assent to it. So you can't weasel out of that one.

Sure, MA history isn't bonafide history...but guys like Meir Shahar show just how amateurish and unreliable SD's historical research is. It's like a recap of every Shaw brothers legend in technicolor....which SD is saying is some kind of digitial tour-de-force based on actual documents.

I looked around Atlanta for the best "teachers" as I cross-trained, not the most respected styles, and I've been happy with SD for the most part. Sometimes it lacks some of the finer points, and sometimes you have to go to the sources to refine your material--that is, if you do love the "art" of "martial arts" and you want to progress. I've heard some crappy theories passed around in SD schools by assistant teachers that I know the head teacher didn't pass around---so where's the info coming from? It's coming from the sources SD puts out as its offical manifesto.

Why don't the SD websites cite GM The' as having created "Shaolin-Do" to suit his commercial needs, or to put his own stamp on the art? Why don't they cite full lineages including Hiang? That is revisionist history, and it's rather annoying to a researcher. So when SD pokes at the unreliable history of Shaolin in general, due to Communist revision, I only shake my head and say, with irony, "He who has a mote in his eye...."

I'm a grad student. I don't believe in trusting any one source. I believe in citing your sources, and only using bonafide sources. I think if someone writes something misleading, it is immoral. I think if you're passing on an oral tradition, you better **** well insist on its oral transmission and "according to one story" type of format; and you better provide a review of formal criticism. I just don't see that in SD lit. GM The' likes telling stories and legends. I think most of us enjoy listening to them when he's talking to us about hte background of styles and forms at festivals and such--but we probably don't believe these tall tales as fact, right? Nor should we. But SD's "historical legacy" is so full of pitfalls and half-shades of truth, critics have plenty to gripe about, and I think they have the moral obligation to do so. I have personally considered it my goal to root out the bull&*(% and scrounge up the scraps of truth. Why? Because if someone asks me the history of my style, my forms, etc., I should know the difference between tall tales and real hard facts. I should know that the 2 China Hand forms are not tiger forms--they're old longfist forms....that's peer-reviewed. I shoudl know my Tai Chi 64 is Cheng Man Ching's. I should know hte difference between the forms. I should know my Bagua is Jiang Rong Qiao's Classical Bagua. And I should know those are modern forms that do not descend from Shaolin. I should know that Shaolin temples and Wudang temples did not form a parent Shaolin network.

GM The' studied at Central Plains Wushu. Not quite "Shaolin-Do", and certainly casts doubt on the "undercover" nature of the style.

Why not simply say GM The' created the style? I'm sure he re-ordered hte structure. The cirriculum is not the same as it was at the beginning. We have internal programs now. I'm sure he picked up his Tai Chi in America or in Indonesia, but since our Tai Chi 64 is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form---it's a late edition---certainly not what "Secrets of the Temple" puts out there. Our Bagua is Jiang Rong Qiao Classical Baguazhang---certainly not the Tung Hai Chuan (I think that's his name) the SD book puts out there, crediting a link between some ancient Taoist trade of secrets. SD is much more modern than it advertises.

GM The' is a laid-back dude, from what I've seen. He's had plenty of ambitions. He seems to admit when he makes mistakes. But the history....man......why not own up to what we know, and what we know is not true?

I do this personally. It would be nice to see an organizational move on that point.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I'm not trying to light a fire under anyone's ass. But all of us are students (teachers or otherwise) and I'm sure we agree with most of what I've just said, even if not with the way I've said it.

Fortunately for us, we're not in charge of hte system...LOL....but we are in charge of ourselves.

Everyone has to find their own way through any MA, and its associated BS--and every MA except MMA has that BS (But then, MMA often has so many self-righteous, self-centered *azzwholes* in it it's almost unbearable).

SD generally acts with class to its attackers, and JP & BQ (etc.) have enough class to cover up for my generally jesterish ribald, which is ever bringing what the dog saw fit to leave outside right back into the living room.

But having class isn't just putting up a hand and telling people to talk to said hand as you go about the usual business. Sometimes it's admitting mistakes, citing better information, and getting a better grasp of what you actually know to be true, versus what others have told you is true.

[Baqualin]

I'm not trying to light a fire under anyone's ass. But all of us are students (teachers or otherwise) and I'm sure we agree with most of what I've just said, even if not with the way I've said it.

Fortunately for us, we're not in charge of hte system...LOL....but we are in charge of ourselves.

Everyone has to find their own way through any MA, and its associated BS--and every MA except MMA has that BS (But then, MMA often has so many self-righteous, self-centered *azzwholes* in it it's almost unbearable).

SD generally acts with class to its attackers, and JP & BQ (etc.) have enough class to cover up for my generally jesterish ribald, which is ever bringing what the dog saw fit to leave outside right back into the living room.

But having class isn't just putting up a hand and telling people to talk to said hand as you go about the usual business. Sometimes it's admitting mistakes, citing better information, and getting a better grasp of what you actually know to be true, versus what others have told you is true.

You should do well in this world
BQ

[OldandUsed]

Shaolin Wookie....

That has got to be the single, most well written dissertation regarding SD and the issues with it that I have ever read. Well done!