ATTN: Sal Canzonieri

[David Jamieson]

The physical exitence of Bodhidharma has always been the subject of debate... mostly between historians who cannot find evidence and kungfu practitioners who have second hand stories only.

I think a Ta Mo 'like' person or people may have at one time existed.

Historically speaking, more is known of the second patriarch of Ch'an (Hui ke) and the 5 who followed him (two of which are disputed as to whether it was one or the other who carried the lamp) than is known of Ta Mo. It hasn't ever been settled if his (ta mo's) homeland was india or persia. And any story that has a guys eyelids sprouting into tea bushes has gotta raise a question or two I would think. lol

The one thing that is interesting about the ta Mo myth is it's persistence and it's journey into Japan where he is known as Daruma and the evolution of Ch'an there into Zen practice. Now that's a story!

[Sal Canzonieri]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The physical exitence of Bodhidharma has always been the subject of debate... mostly between historians who cannot find evidence and kungfu practitioners who have second hand stories only.

I think a Ta Mo 'like' person or people may have at one time existed.

Historically speaking, more is known of the second patriarch of Ch'an (Hui ke) and the 5 who followed him (two of which are disputed as to whether it was one or the other who carried the lamp) than is known of Ta Mo. It hasn't ever been settled if his (ta mo's) homeland was india or persia. And any story that has a guys eyelids sprouting into tea bushes has gotta raise a question or two I would think. lol

The one thing that is interesting about the ta Mo myth is it's persistence and it's journey into Japan where he is known as Daruma and the evolution of Ch'an there into Zen practice. Now that's a story!

Well, Buddhidarma most likely existed, maybe just that story about him and Shaolin is fabricated from a fictional novel that came out in the 1600s and it became almost as if it was the truth.

Kinda like it 5,000 years from now if someone finds a fictional novel about something that never happened ever and since they have nothing to compare it to, they think it really happened.

What I find interested is that Hui Ke was said to have lost his right arm and all the Lohan forms start on the left side instead of the right side and you defend yourself from the left hand first.
Wonder why no one thinks about how the old Shaolin forms do that.

[GeneChing]

What I find most interesting about the Tamo myth is that the Shaolin qigong connection actually emerges from the Taoists. Qigong is more of a Taoist thing, by origin. Tamo Yijinjing was something that exists in Taoism prior to it existing at Shaolin.

As for fictional novels, the same can be said for Lord Kwan and Yue Fei. There's evidence in history, but their legend doesn't really emerge until the novels hit. At least, that's what we learn by examining the written record. Of course, those novels were based on storytelling, on plays and on operas. Some of that is recorded, but it's much sketchier than the actual books. So when it is said that something is based on an ancient Chinese novel, that novel may have deeper roots, roots that we can't really tap in a scholarly way. The only source for live theater is reviews in local gazettes, which is actually a sound scholarly record. But that's a lot of deep research if you want to start digging in those... If you can slog through that stuff, you should get your PhD and do some serious academic research.

[David Jamieson]

What I find most interesting about the Tamo myth is that the Shaolin qigong connection actually emerges from the Taoists. Qigong is more of a Taoist thing, by origin. Tamo Yijinjing was something that exists in Taoism prior to it existing at Shaolin.

I've read some stuff that concurs on this. It regards the fact that the Dhayana exercises were in use by the Taoists even before the adevnt of Buddhism in China.

It is interesting that the indian words prana veda and the chinese words qi gong have extremely similar meanings.

Still, I wouldn't take away any of the development that occured independently in China. Ch'an practitioners and the Tao-ists found many similarities in the practice and application of their doings though. Could have a lot to do with the intermeshing of these two in the body of Shaolin.

If we could've only had a few days in the Tang dynasty to see for ourselves.

[Vajramusti]

Kung Lek and Sal (hi Sal)-

Myths and legends are not always 100% false. Some elementary facts can accumulate paddings and perceptions over time.

If you examine the epistemological roots of Chan and Zen- they are exactly the same as early Dhyana buddhism which emerged from the Maha and Hina debates in India. As a matter of fact linguistically Dhyana is Sanskrit- whreas in the
people's vernacular Pali it is Zhan. The pronounciation of
Zab becomes Chan in China and Zen in Japan. They are not original Chinese or japanese "words" in the realm of meaning. Over time they have become so.
Chan didnt fall out of the sky. Early Indian Buddhists travelled far. There was extensive maritime work out of Mahabalipuram
to SE Asia. Boddhidharma is supposed to have disembarked around Cam Ran Bay an area that has had Chan Buddhists...
before going on to Canton.
Needham who is a giant in early Chinese history in his massive multi volume work on science and civilization in China mentions that there wasa whole colonyof several hundred Indians (many astronomers) around Loyang
in the Tang dynasty. Indian astronomy added to the understanding of eclipses.

The specific details of Buddhidharmas appearance etc are the stuff of legends- but the figure had to have historical roots in the spreading of the dharma. Other forms of Buddhism had already reached China- Chan's different view was stark in its simplicity and lack of dependence on
ritual or overdependence on scriptures. And, forms of exercise and breathing to camm the body and mind prior to meditation is an integral part of Buddhism in its
emergence and distancing from Hinduism, The early Chan work and Dogen's shoto zen shobigenzo(sp) are easily understandable because there is a constancy and mind to mind quality about them that is universal- not Chinese, Indian or Japanese.
I dont know about the connection between the one armed patriarch and starting forms on the left side.
In wing chun we start on the left side for atleast one simple reason. ... many societies emphasized righthandedness,,, starting on the left is a reminder of the need for balance,

joy chaudhuri

[Sal Canzonieri]

Yes, there is a deep history to all the various sects of Buddhism in China, that cannot be disputed.
Damo is part of that, just not necessarily part of martial arts.

Taoism and Nei gung/chi gung, wild goose exercises, etc. go very far back as well, at the history of this is fairly well documented. For sure the Shaolin baed early chi-gungs are traceable to Taoism way before, there have been very old manuscripts found of the yijinjing exercises, etc., amongst Taoist artifacts and documents.
Shaolin was essentially before the Yuan Dynasty a place that collected treasure from all over.

Now, Loyang, that place is a special place in martial arts cause it comes up over and over and over again for many reasons.

Ma Xue Li spread Xin Yi Liu Ho from there.
Jue Yuan went there to study with Bai Yu Feng's teacher (who last name was Ma as well!) who's temple (White Horse or White Cloud? Temple) had the remnant internal martial art that was originally practiced at Shaolin, from which Jue Yuan resusitated Lohan Shaolin into the Five Anamals (really it was 12 animals) system.
Tai Tzu Quan arises from Loyang too.
and many more other styles have a root to Loyang.

Something practiced there is the real root of internal martial arts in North China.

[richard sloan]

Hui Ke's salute seems most uncommon these days.

I'm no yoga hound but there are some similarites to some positions there too.

There could also be two people inventing the wheel.

[David Jamieson]

Hui ke's salute is often seen in the opening of Broadsword sets.

at least those sets that are derived from shaolin.

[GeneChing]

The yoga parallel is a bit of a red herring. What most of us think of as yoga is actually just asana - the physical poses. Actually, those don't go back that far historically. You could argue that the advent of Chinese martial arts predates yoga asana, since the only asana that is verifiable as being ancient is dhayana and pranayama. You'll dig a quick grave if you argue that kung fu emerged from asana.

Qigong is uniquely Chinese, with most of its roots in Taoism. You can draw parallels to yogic skills but if you try to map the nadi on the jingluo, you'll drive yourself nuts. Trust me, I tried, and was driven nuts.

As for Loyang, it's the cradle of China, so it's not at all surprising that many aspects of Chinese culture, including martial arts, saw a lot of development there. To quote myself "Zhengzhou is an ancient city with 5300 years of recorded history. During 3600 of those years, on five separate occasions, it served as the national capital." (see Shaolin Trips Episode 4 Chapter 1). Zhengzhou is close to Loyang and Shaolin, of course.

[kai men]

Dear Gene, Sal and others:
I have to clarify something. I have never stated that Kan Jia forms are identical to Bak Siu Lam forms, there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. I dont thinkg anyone in my family said so, may be some bad english writen work of mine lead to some misunderstanding, if so, I offer my sincere apologyes to Sal and fellows.
All I know is that one of my elder brothers, Kao Chian Tou, noticed about a kung fu family in Shandong, very close to the supposed location where it is said that Yim Kai Wun (Yan Si wen) lived. In that school, they teach a curriculum of 10 Shaolin forms, some of the forms have the same names, or similar, to the Ten Core Forms of Bak Siu Lam Moon.
Interesting thing: there was a photograph of Guruzhang there in the school, described as one of the lineage holders of that school
That is all I have read from my brother, and some time after, he was not much interested in any serious research on the subject as probably he found some weack points in the story.
So here is all I know about the subject, not any claim abou Kan Jia or any other style name. At least, not coming from Argentina.
Kindest regards
Horacio

[r.(shaolin)]

Sal Canzonieri wrote:
Well, Buddhidarma most likely existed, maybe just that story about him and Shaolin is fabricated from a fictional novel that came out in the 1600s and it became almost as if it was the truth.
.................................

This is the first time I hear of a claim that the myth of Buddhidarma teaching Shaolin monks martial arts came from a 1600's novel. Which novel and who wrote it? A number of historian's have theorized that this myth comes from the introduction to the "Marrow Washing Classic" by Li Jing that was probably written in the early 1800's (Ching Dynasty). Frankly I just don't find it reasonable nor even believable that this myth was spread or invented by Li Jing's introduction or by novels. As Kung Lek says the Damo story is unique in it's persistence. It is my belief that origin of this myth is connected to the monks of Shaolin monastery.

Most of the arguments made by Tang Fan Sheng in his 1930 book and by later writers such as Matsuda, etc, concerning Damo and Shaolin martial arts, use pretty much the same approach. Although I agree with their conclusion that Damo did not introduced martial arts training to Shaolin, there is good indication that Damo (Buddhidarma) was revered at Shaolin since the Song Dynasty or even earlier. The incorporation of the Damo myth into the historical records at Shaolin may have been gradual. This may have happened during the Ming or Ching period as a kind of apologetics for martial arts training at Shaolin. Traditionally Chinese records often contained a mixture of pseudo-historical, fictive material and folklore. Folkloric myths, were often included to persuade or to underline some didactic purpose. These literary devices were even employed in official Chinese historical narratives. Shaolin sets had both names and histories attached to them with many if not most of these employing the same type of allegorical narratives. In the tradition of Shaolin I practice, a number of bare hand drills (sets) have names and 'histories' which describe and reference the circumstance of Damo's arrival to Shaolin and his settling at Song mountain. In our case these stories do not explicitly say that Damo actually created these sets but rather seem to explain the purpose of these sets in an allegorical manner. Examples other than Yi Jin Jing include; Lohan Kai Men (Lohan opens door) and Cao Fang Hua (Grass visits flower) a 5 section drill, references the reed crossing. and Luo Jiao Song Shan (Settling at Song Mountains). The stories seem intent on drawing connections between Chan meditation and the practice of martial arts, from the point of view of historical development (i.e. Damo taught this. . . ) and from the point of view of practice (i.e. the monks were weak . . . .).

By the Song Dynasty Buddhidarma was well known in the Buddhist community as were Huike and Sengcan. All three appear in the Pictorial of Buddhist Icons which was completed in 1180 (This work was later reproduced in the 1700's at the order of Emperor Gaozong and still survives). In it Damo, Huike and Sengcan, although very well illustrated and detailed do not appear to have martial arts expertise or even appear that they are particularly fit. The document only attests to their prominence.

At least part of the myth Damo has been accepted at Shaolin since the early 1600s. In 1624 (Ming Dynasty) the governor of Henan, Guan Zhngnie, erected a stone tablet at Shaolin with an image of Damo crossing the Yangtze River on reed with five leaves. There is however no indication that would suggest of any health related training.

Verbal traditions from a number Shaolin lineages however indication that the exercise improving monk health aspect of the myth, and was excepted at Shaolin at least since the mid 1800's and likely earlier. For example, this myth has been part of our tradition at least since the early 1800's and I believe the old monks that came back to Shaolin in the late 1970's also have transmitted a similar myth.
r.

[GeneChing]

The earliest Tamo Shaolin connection reference that I know of is the Sinews Transformation Classic (1624 CE) in which appears the aforementioned Li Jing (571-649 CE) forward as well as a forward by Niu Gao (1087-1147 CE - a famous general under Yue Fei). Both forwards are clearly forgeries. The author, Ziming Daoren (Purple Coagulation man of the way) is Taoist. Allegedly there are Taoist records that attribute qigong methods to Tamo as early as the Tang (618-907). You can find Buddhist influence in Taoism as early as 200 CE. Buddhism arrives in China around 100 CE and has a tremendous impact on Chinese culture.

Thanks for clearing up the Kan Jia - BSL comment Horatio! I've been rethinking that connection a bit since this discussion and intend to start chipping on it again.

BTW, I've been enjoying these recent threads immensily. Some fine posts and excellent discussions. I salute the general constructive attitude that everyone has maintained here. Much better than the 'bash Shaolin-do' threads.

[r.(shaolin)]

........................
Gene wrote:
The earliest Tamo Shaolin connection reference that I know of is the Sinews Transformation Classic (1624 CE) in which appears the aforementioned Li Jing (571-649 CE) forward as well as a forward by Niu Gao (1087-1147 CE - a famous general under Yue Fei). Both forwards are clearly forgeries.
........................
That's right. This was one of the points made by Tang Fan Sheng in his 1930 book. Li Jing made the false claim that he was writing his introduction during the Tang Dynasty. Furthermore as some researchers point out, much of the book was largely copied directly from "Transmission of Light".

However I would point out that Li Jing's false claim doesn't necessarily mean that Li Jing invented Damo's connection to these Taoist qiqong methods. I think he is merely repeating information that had been around before his time. The fact is Chinese Buddhists and Taoists borrowed/absorbed from each other from the earliest times.
Part of the problem here is the time frame. We are dealing with a system of thought that is many hundreds of years old, if not thousands years old. A modern interpretation that takes a perspective that, Damo and his connections to Yi Jin Jing is a lie or fabricated is IMO itself a modern misinterpretation of ancient culture. The reality is that the Damo/Shaolin myth (as have hosts of other myths) produced and influenced real history and real culture. Most of these myths, like martial sets, have been passed on person to person, teacher to student without textual resources.

........................
Gene wrote:
"Shaolin now acknowledges that Tamo . . . they are (now) taking the same stance that most Zen scholars take on Tamo."
........................

IMO what is going here is modern interpretation and clearly strategic editing of culture. Various individuals at Shaoln have powerful interest in re-constructing the meaning of these traditions. Standardization of basics and sets is part and parcel of this same process (e.g.. "standardized traditional Shaolin").
........................
Gene Wrote:
Allegedly there are Taoist records that attribute qigong methods to Tamo as early as the Tang (618-907).
........................
This sounds interesting. Have you seen these or are there there any articles in any academic
journals on these?

r.

[GeneChing]

Li Jing's preface is beleived by many to be a fabrication entirely. This beleif has been with us since the Qing. The preface is riddled with inaccuracies. Qing scholar Ling Tingkan (1757-1809) said the real author of the Sinews-transformation classic was an "ignorant village master." Given this perspective, Li Jing is completely out of the equation when it comes to the origin of the Tamo/Shaolin connection myth.

As for Shaolin now acknowledging that Tamo is more legend than fact, I wouldn't call that editing. I would call that reconciling. Editing makes it sound like some kind of communist plot. Every medieval philosophy/religion needs to reconcile scientific and historic evidence with their ancient paradigms or you run into problems like retrograde motion - some weird rationalization that tries to rectify a basic misinterpretation. There's a body of martial scholars now and academic symposiums on martial arts are getting en vogue in China, so this sort of thing comes up. I'm sure you can find plenty of Shaolin masters at Song mountain who will still support the Tamo myth.

The standardized forms are another issue in my mind. I first reported on them back in our 2003 Shaolin special in my coverage of the Grade "A" school tournament in Dengfeng. I think it caused a lot of confusion since many people still cannot get their mind around how many schools there are in Dengfeng and how that relates to the temple. The standardized forms are not coming from Shaolin Temple and to the best of my knowledge, are not practiced inside the temple. It's only really in the private schools in Dengfeng. Some of the wuseng have adopted them because some of the wuseng now run private schools in Dengfeng. But most of the wuseng that I know aren't into the standardized forms. They aren't really taking off.

Lastly, the Taoist references - I'm working on that. It came up in a graduate class on Chinese martial arts that I assisted teaching for last year at Stanford. I wasn't aware of this material at all prior to this and I'm really curious about any Taoist Tamo precedent. When I find some sources, I'll definately let you know.

Great post as always r.(shaolin). You and Sal have made this forum fun again with these latest threads!

[ngokfei]

The earliest Tamo Shaolin connection reference that I know of is the Sinews Transformation Classic (1624 CE) in which appears the aforementioned Li Jing (571-649 CE) forward as well as a forward by Niu Gao (1087-1147 CE - a famous general under Yue Fei). Both forwards are clearly forgeries.

What was found or not found to be able to mark these as forgeries?