The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

[David Jamieson]

I am not demanding anything friend, I simply asked that the Great Master be remembered with respect. Although there is some confusion related to the oral history I have run across no blatant lies related to the exploits of Master Gu Yu Cheong. Why go there especially when you could offer nothing to clarify the misunderstanding.
I could retort with something nasty connected with the ancestors of your lineage or even mount a personal attack on your character and skill level but this would serve nothing good.

I had withdrawn from these forums for a bit due to the cowardly sass and petty nitpicking that crops up now and again here. As a fifth generation disciple of BSL I am active in the practice and promotion of our system of self cultivation and extend respect and fellowship to all practitioners of traditional martial arts. I am hoping to convince you to do the same and if not at least appeal to you not to contribute to the confusion.

With all due respect to trash the memory of a great Master is disrespectful and can cause real problems plain and simple. I am sure that this is not your intention so I hope this brings closure to any misunderstanding.

Best Wishes

Nobody disrespected anyone. However you make implications that are indicative of your own point of view being slightly skewed in my opinion. "you could make comments".

why don't you already then. You certainly have talked your fair share of talk here as has anyone. BUt don't put words in my mouth.

my comment was this:

one history says master ku was shot by prc forces for his participation in the kmt.
the other history says he died at home.

If this point isn't in any way authoritatively clarified, then asking someone to give buy in to any of it is a big ask.

If the records show that Master Ku is the founder of the style, then where does Shaolin fit in as the pureness etc etc. Clearly, this style is something that Master Ku created from his practices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It is progress. If we fought the same way as gentlemen of the turn of the century fought, compared to the rawness of todays fighting styles, we would be a sorry lot of pansies dancing about and looking great with solo form but in truth being total sucking wind when it came time for real application off the comfort zone of the classroom floor. In short, we could probably all do without the lecturing and we should all look for truth and if it's a dead end, leave it, move on and continue practice.

when all this is related to false pride and the stupid face games that kungfu people in general tie themselves to like stupid children, then the value overall is lost.

And it is YOUR fault as well as mine that things are this way.

Better that we enjoy our practice, find the value in it for ourselves and stfu when we try to come off as some sort of authority in the matter when all we really have is only what we have.

No one should be outraged by the difficulty of the questions that arise from this. Everyone should positively demonstrate the style and not bother with try to concoct and then get collaboration on stories. This action devalues everything and is probably the most disrespectful thing that can be done to any lineage, name, style or system of thought and action.

I'd rather look at the hard questions than to maintain a continuance of pretending one thing when reality is another.

Again, I do not say these things to offend and if you are offended then I would say you have too much pride and too little sensibility.

regards and keep trying to understand, even if you never do get to the truth, it's always effort to work towards it.

[Qixing Tanglang]

[QUOTE=

It is quite clear that "sets" and "fighting (2 person) sets" have been instrumental in TCM for many hundreds of years - even before the Song Dynasty. There are images of two person weapon training in Chinese stone painting going back at least to the Eastern Han Dynasty.

[/QUOTE]


No. Forms are just one small piece of a much larger tradining puzzle.

In the context of a traditional fighting system, and in the ranking of usefullness, they would be ranked down near the bottom of the food chain.

Forms that are intrumental in systems belong to schools that primarily teach forms, not fighting.

Dont know how pictures proove the instrumentalness of a form?

Cheers,
N

[r.(shaolin)]

Qixing Tanglang, I think you are missing my point, which is about the historicity of "forms" in both civilian and military settings. The facts suggest that 'sets' have been part of 'wushu' (read, military arts) for hundreds of years. For example, there are extant copies of diagrams of Chinese military training sets (both single and contact sets) used in training 500 years ago. Interesting these were documented during that time by the Korean military, who incidentally only included diagrammed sets, in their survey of Chinese military training. This of course should not imply that set drill training was the only kind of training being done by the Chinese or even that it was the most important. I said 'instrumental' not principle or primary. As I noted in my posts, by the Song Dynasty some drills became very 'fancy' and were criticized for having a negative effect on military training: "This created an entire category of martial arts known as "Hua Fa Wuyi" (花法武藝 - fancy methods for developing military skill). During the Northern Song period, it was noted by historians this type of training had a negative influence on martial training in the military."

r.

[Lokhopkuen]

cessation of suffering arrives with demise of the flesh. and begins anew when we are reborn.

the path towards it is a path, but suffering doesn't end until physicality does.

the cycle of death and rebirth is only escapable by successive incarnations and dependent upon continued practice in each of those lives.

i think acceptance and carrying on is the message of the 8 fold path. chop wood, carry water. That is what there is for these corporeal and weak forms we wear.

Suffering is cause by emotional attachment to sensory objects or events.
When the attachment is severed the suffering ceases.

Chew on this one:


The Four Noble Truths:

1) The Truth concerning the origin of Suffering is thus:
Birth is characterized by suffering and dissatisfaction, Death is characterized by suffering and dissatisfaction, Being with the unpleasant is characterized by suffering and dissatisfaction, Being away from what is pleasant is characterized by suffering and dissatisfaction.

2) The truth concerning the cause of this suffering and dissatisfaction is that it arises from cravings, the craving not to be forgotten, craving for sense pleasures and craving sometimes, for death.

3) The truth concerning the way to overcome the suffering and dissatisfaction brought about by craving is to cause craving itself to cease, to withdraw from participating in it, to renounce it, to liberate oneself from it completely.

4) The truth concerning the way to cease craving is to follow The Noble Eightfold Path of Virtue which consists of right views, right intentions, right speech, right activities, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

[Lokhopkuen]

FYI I am an authority on the matter.

I have practiced the style 30 plus years and I have been very attentive to my teacher's instructions.

I have traveled to China and meet Northern Shaolin Masters in PRC, HK, Kowloon. I have met most of the Masters here in the US and i am friendly with the ones in South America.

I did not make any statement towards BSL being any pure anything.

I could give a s h i t as I am one of those who practices everyday rain or shine. s c r e w all the petty little nit pickers and martial politicians and please include yourself right in there in your most convenient configuration.

I simply asked that we speak in a respectful tone toward the memory of Master Ku Yu Cheong who's legacy has elevated all of us who follow his teaching. What difference does it make where or how he died?

What is it to you? Aren't you a Hung Ga exponent or something?Go and diddle about in your own ancestry.

DID YOU READ THE PRESS RELEASE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS MEMORIAL?
It would seem that did not clear it for you so you want to be antagonistic toward me?
False Pride nope, just plain good old American home grown pride, ego? Yea bro I got all that in spades and i am working on it, but at least i am a real person and not some pompous a s s trying to pretend to be something I am not.

<"One lie will muddy the clearest of water and should not be tolerated. there is no excuse for "stories". They only take away from everything else because they begin the ball of inaccuracies rolling.

If you doin't know where you came from, you don't know where you are and worse, you don't know where you're going.

Respect is great and all, but respecting a lie is a fools game.">

What does this muddle minded idiot nonsense have to do with the Bak Siu Lum founder? Only a complete A-hole would write something like that. In case you did not catch it earlier there is no official written history only oral transmission and that is where legend and confusion creep in which again is why i posted the press release. Actually there is a pretty accurate account circulating in the Jing Mo, Wong Jack Man group but i don't think they intended that for public dissemination.

The style is not a creation of KYC, it is his attempt to organize his life's learnings into a TEACHABLE system for inclusion in the curriculum during his tenure as a professor at the Martial institute of Nanjing. The Cha, Shaolin, Wah, Fa, Hung & Tan Tui he practiced are included in a well ordered organized fashion which teaches the practitioner a series of rare martial skill sets unique to the system. It is not some haphazard patch work or random martial reinvention of "Hey dude i created my own style!".

As far as how pure or un-pure of a Shaolin system how the hell would i know? I like what i have seen of the Sung mountain Shaolin. It has a lot of spirit as does our BSL and they are both great methods of personal physical and spiritual cultivation.
i am just a guy who began a sincere study of martial art and was lucky enough to find a real teacher of traditional gung fu. I practiced, learned the history, got the well rounded Northern Shaolin experience and now I show up here just in time to witness your musings of the uninformed kind. You remind me of that jack a s s "Dou Won Chun" on the old Kung Fu Mailing list.

I implied nothing, i spoke very clearly as polite as i know how.

Saying STFU, saying you are not trying to insult and then pick and jab with comments on my lack of character is just plain insulting. My comments here do not devalue the style they are simply my opinion and have no reflection on my teacher or the style i practice.

Is that un-skewed enough for you David Jamieson?

Nobody disrespected anyone. However you make implications that are indicative of your own point of view being slightly skewed in my opinion. "you could make comments".

why don't you already then. You certainly have talked your fair share of talk here as has anyone. BUt don't put words in my mouth.

my comment was this:

one history says master ku was shot by prc forces for his participation in the kmt.
the other history says he died at home.

If this point isn't in any way authoritatively clarified, then asking someone to give buy in to any of it is a big ask.

If the records show that Master Ku is the founder of the style, then where does Shaolin fit in as the pureness etc etc. Clearly, this style is something that Master Ku created from his practices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It is progress. If we fought the same way as gentlemen of the turn of the century fought, compared to the rawness of todays fighting styles, we would be a sorry lot of pansies dancing about and looking great with solo form but in truth being total sucking wind when it came time for real application off the comfort zone of the classroom floor. In short, we could probably all do without the lecturing and we should all look for truth and if it's a dead end, leave it, move on and continue practice.

when all this is related to false pride and the stupid face games that kungfu people in general tie themselves to like stupid children, then the value overall is lost.

And it is YOUR fault as well as mine that things are this way.

Better that we enjoy our practice, find the value in it for ourselves and stfu when we try to come off as some sort of authority in the matter when all we really have is only what we have.

No one should be outraged by the difficulty of the questions that arise from this. Everyone should positively demonstrate the style and not bother with try to concoct and then get collaboration on stories. This action devalues everything and is probably the most disrespectful thing that can be done to any lineage, name, style or system of thought and action.

I'd rather look at the hard questions than to maintain a continuance of pretending one thing when reality is another.

Again, I do not say these things to offend and if you are offended then I would say you have too much pride and too little sensibility.

regards and keep trying to understand, even if you never do get to the truth, it's always effort to work towards it.

[David Jamieson]

FYI I am an authority on the matter.

I have practiced the style 30 plus years and I have been very attentive to my teacher's instructions.

I have traveled to China and meet Northern Shaolin Masters in PRC, HK, Kowloon. I have met most of the Masters here in the US and i am friendly with the ones in South America.

I did not make any statement towards BSL being any pure anything.

I could give a s h i t as I am one of those who practices everyday rain or shine. s c r e w all the petty little nit pickers and martial politicians and please include yourself right in there in your most convenient configuration.

I simply asked that we speak in a respectful tone toward the memory of Master Ku Yu Cheong who's legacy has elevated all of us who follow his teaching. What difference does it make where or how he died?

What is it to you? Aren't you a Hung Ga exponent or something?Go and diddle about in your own ancestry.

DID YOU READ THE PRESS RELEASE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS MEMORIAL?
It would seem that did not clear it for you so you want to be antagonistic toward me?
False Pride nope, just plain good old American home grown pride, ego? Yea bro I got all that in spades and i am working on it, but at least i am a real person and not some pompous a s s trying to pretend to be something I am not.

<"One lie will muddy the clearest of water and should not be tolerated. there is no excuse for "stories". They only take away from everything else because they begin the ball of inaccuracies rolling.

If you doin't know where you came from, you don't know where you are and worse, you don't know where you're going.

Respect is great and all, but respecting a lie is a fools game.">

What does this muddle minded idiot nonsense have to do with the Bak Siu Lum founder? Only a complete A-hole would write something like that. In case you did not catch it earlier there is no official written history only oral transmission and that is where legend and confusion creep in which again is why i posted the press release. Actually there is a pretty accurate account circulating in the Jing Mo, Wong Jack Man group but i don't think they intended that for public dissemination.

The style is not a creation of KYC, it is his attempt to organize his life's learnings into a TEACHABLE system for inclusion in the curriculum during his tenure as a professor at the Martial institute of Nanjing. The Cha, Shaolin, Wah, Fa, Hung & Tan Tui he practiced are included in a well ordered organized fashion which teaches the practitioner a series of rare martial skill sets unique to the system. It is not some haphazard patch work or random martial reinvention of "Hey dude i created my own style!".

As far as how pure or un-pure of a Shaolin system how the hell would i know? I like what i have seen of the Sung mountain Shaolin. It has a lot of spirit as does our BSL and they are both great methods of personal physical and spiritual cultivation.
i am just a guy who began a sincere study of martial art and was lucky enough to find a real teacher of traditional gung fu. I practiced, learned the history, got the well rounded Northern Shaolin experience and now I show up here just in time to witness your musings of the uninformed kind. You remind me of that jack a s s "Dou Won Chun" on the old Kung Fu Mailing list.

I implied nothing, i spoke very clearly as polite as i know how.

Saying STFU, saying you are not trying to insult and then pick and jab with comments on my lack of character is just plain insulting. My comments here do not devalue the style they are simply my opinion and have no reflection on my teacher or the style i practice.

Is that un-skewed enough for you David Jamieson?

Your anger is gonna eat you dude. Every thing you read, you read sideways and feel slighted by it. whatever. If you're an authority, you are a poor example. How's that?

ps please don't spew buddhism at me when you make it clear and obvious you haven't practiced it, don't practice it and have even less understanding of what you are writing down. Also realize, I am not a buddhist, don't claim to be.

I am only returning to you that which you are doling out with your "authority". So that's the extent of my buddhism.

I don't know you and I don't really have much concern about your chest puffing and over inflated sense of self. Although I know what your name is, you don't want to reveal that but you want to be recognized and you fail to see the problem with that thinking.

Be all you can be dude. And try to burn some of that anger.

best wishes to you too!

[Shaolindynasty]

Also realize, I am not a buddhist, don't claim to be.

Trust me this is very obvious

[Lokhopkuen]

Your anger is gonna eat you dude. Every thing you read, you read sideways and feel slighted by it. whatever. If you're an authority, you are a poor example. How's that?

ps please don't spew buddhism at me when you make it clear and obvious you haven't practiced it, don't practice it and have even less understanding of what you are writing down. Also realize, I am not a buddhist, don't claim to be.

I am only returning to you that which you are doling out with your "authority". So that's the extent of my buddhism.

I don't know you and I don't really have much concern about your chest puffing and over inflated sense of self. Although I know what your name is, you don't want to reveal that but you want to be recognized and you fail to see the problem with that thinking.

Be all you can be dude. And try to burn some of that anger.

best wishes to you too!

No David I am not nor have I been angry in anything I have written here but you certainly are obtuse....

[Lokhopkuen]

Trust me this is very obvious

High Five

[Lokhopkuen]

No. Forms are just one small piece of a much larger tradining puzzle.

In the context of a traditional fighting system, and in the ranking of usefullness, they would be ranked down near the bottom of the food chain.

Forms that are intrumental in systems belong to schools that primarily teach forms, not fighting.

Dont know how pictures proove the instrumentalness of a form?

Cheers,
N

How do you learn to fight without form? Without form there is no style, without style there is random trial and error leading to a grand waste of time.

In traditional gung fu you begin with standing forms then stepping forms.
This creates the firm foundation you will need before developing skills of the waist and hands.

The First part of traditional training emphasizes the development of the joints
of the individual. In this stage the exercise routines or the
fighting forms the movements are wide and long circular
executed with fluidity rather than strength. The purpose is to
widen the range and mobility of all the joints including neck, shoulder, waist,
hip, wrist, ankle etc. At this stage, the movements or techniques have little
actual combat applications.

Second part of traditional training should be focused toward strength and endurance. When the mobility of a practitioner has been developed to an adequate level then you begin exercises that develop muscular strength and endurance.

The Third part is self awareness training. The training
of self awareness can be developed via meditation, self reflection, knowledge
and theory studies, and internalizing ones practices. The outcome of this
stage of training will determine whether the practitioner becomes an
enlightened martial artist, or just another fighter.

The Fourth stage is actual combat training. One can learn to fight and apply
techniques by actual applications and combat experiences but this is a
hard and slow way of developing ones skills even though it might seem like
its the quick way in the beginning.

The Final stage of training is to understand Martial Arts as a way of life. How to develop personal happiness and satisfaction out of Martial Arts.

Anyway that is the way I was taught but hey try it your way...

[sanjuro_ronin]

How do you learn to fight without form? Without form there is no style, without style there is random trial and error leading to a grand waste of time.

In traditional gung fu you begin with standing forms then stepping forms.
This creates the firm foundation you will need before developing skills of the waist and hands.

The First part of traditional training emphasizes the development of the joints
of the individual. In this stage the exercise routines or the
fighting forms the movements are wide and long circular
executed with fluidity rather than strength. The purpose is to
widen the range and mobility of all the joints including neck, shoulder, waist,
hip, wrist, ankle etc. At this stage, the movements or techniques have little
actual combat applications.

Second part of traditional training should be focused toward strength and endurance. When the mobility of a practitioner has been developed to an adequate level then you begin exercises that develop muscular strength and endurance.

The Third part is self awareness training. The training
of self awareness can be developed via meditation, self reflection, knowledge
and theory studies, and internalizing ones practices. The outcome of this
stage of training will determine whether the practitioner becomes an
enlightened martial artist, or just another fighter.

The Fourth stage is actual combat training. One can learn to fight and apply
techniques by actual applications and combat experiences but this is a
hard and slow way of developing ones skills even though it might seem like
its the quick way in the beginning.

The Final stage of training is to understand Martial Arts as a way of life. How to develop personal happiness and satisfaction out of Martial Arts.

Anyway that is the way I was taught but hey try it your way...

There is some debate to this.
Over the years I have researched this and the conclusions are conflicting at best.
While every MA has a history of two man drills and solo exercises to be done to "learn " the style on your own, prearranged forms per say ( as we see them now) seem to be a "modern invention".
Certainly their emphasis over actual drills and fighting is a modern one.
I think that, in regards to weapons arts, forms were the only way to train for obvious reasons, and that kind of begam to flow over into empty hand systems.
Certainly one doesn't need forms to be a good fighter, many systems have proven that, but one certaily needs them to be a "complete" MA of any given system.
I think that forms were more of a "transmission" tool than an actual "fighting tool".

[Royal Dragon]

There is some debate to this.
Over the years I have researched this and the conclusions are conflicting at best.
While every MA has a history of two man drills and solo exercises to be done to "learn " the style on your own, prearranged forms per say ( as we see them now) seem to be a "modern invention".

Reply]
Forms at Shaolin were instituted in the early Sung dynasty starting in 961 AD. They are hardly modern.

Certainly their emphasis over actual drills and fighting is a modern one.

Reply]
Yes, absolutely! BAck before Chinese Kung Fu was heavily form oriented, it was practiced very similar to the way MA is today...heavy application oriented.

I think that, in regards to weapons arts, forms were the only way to train for obvious reasons, and that kind of begam to flow over into empty hand systems.

Reply]
Take your pick from 15 videos, almost all are swords practiced against a partner, not forms

http://ca.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=WJLadmin&p=r




Certainly one doesn't need forms to be a good fighter, many systems have proven that, but one certaily needs them to be a "complete" MA of any given system.

Reply]
Forms were originally a*Diploma* of sorts. You only got taught it once you mastered the system to show you graduated the training course.

I think that forms were more of a "transmission" tool than an actual "fighting tool".

Reply]
Yes, I would agree.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Will you use the quote function for the love of CHI !!!

Reply]
Take your pick from 15 videos, almost all are swords practiced against a partner, not forms

http://ca.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=WJLadmin&p=r

Solo work with live weapons, especially the sword, are the stable of every armed MA, western and eastern.
Partner work is basically pre-arranged forms.
Now we do have padded work with blunt alternatives and that is great, though at times the intent is loss.

Reply]
Forms were originally a*Diploma* of sorts. You only got taught it once you mastered the system to show you graduated the training course.

Certain forms, yes, others no.
Forms that were designed to condition the practioner or develop certain attributes were taught in the beginning - sanchin and all its spelling variations for example.

Certainly certain forms were taught to certain students that suited them and all the forms were only taught to those that would "carry the torch".

[Lokhopkuen]

There is some debate to this.
Over the years I have researched this and the conclusions are conflicting at best.
While every MA has a history of two man drills and solo exercises to be done to "learn " the style on your own, prearranged forms per say ( as we see them now) seem to be a "modern invention".
Certainly their emphasis over actual drills and fighting is a modern one.
I think that, in regards to weapons arts, forms were the only way to train for obvious reasons, and that kind of begam to flow over into empty hand systems.
Certainly one doesn't need forms to be a good fighter, many systems have proven that, but one certaily needs them to be a "complete" MA of any given system.
I think that forms were more of a "transmission" tool than an actual "fighting tool".

I agree absolutely.

[r.(shaolin)]

There is some debate to this.
I think that, in regards to weapons arts, forms were the only way to train for obvious reasons, and that kind of begam to flow over into empty hand systems.
Certainly one doesn't need forms to be a good fighter, many systems have proven that, but one certaily needs them to be a "complete" MA of any given system.
I think that forms were more of a "transmission" tool than an actual "fighting tool".

Traditional Shaolin contact sets (dui lian - 對 練) are a series of fighting dills (lian 練). That is why contact sets are called dui lian - 對 練. There are usually 21, 18, 12, 9 or 5 genieric drills in each set. These drills were considered only generic patterns and never meant to be considered inflexible 'tricks'. Although these 'drills' can, and were, done one after the other in a set once they have been mastered, beginner and intermediate level students practice them mostly individually with opponents switching sides. Basically, dui lian were not only a sophisticated and effective methods of passing on the fighting knowledge of the older generation, they were effective training methods. Unfortunately it appears that most dui lian and their training methodology have disappeared. In modern Chinese martial arts most of the dui lian are recent inventions designed for light props resembling weapons. The role of this kind of training has at best degenerated to the point of being useless performance.

I would add that for a lot of its history Shaolin martial arts, was largly weapon focused - staves were used to defend the monastery not bare hands. You will note that even the more recent military exploits of Shaolin, during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, involved weapons. As I mentioned in another post, according to the traditions of our lineage, monks first studied basics for one year were then taught staff fighting – so that they could protect the monastery. Although sport wrestling has been as sport in China for centuries, weapons have been the most important part of Chinese wushu in ancient times. If one wants to talk about recent or 'modern' developments in Chinese martial arts (including Shaolin for that matter) it is the over emphasis on bare hand fighting. During the Northern Song Dynasty (976- 997 A.D) when platform fighting known as Da Laitai (Title fights challenge on platform) first appeared, these fights were with only swords and staves. Although later, when bare hand fights appeared as well, it was the weapons events that became the most famous. These open-ring competitions had regulations and were organized by government organizations; some were also organized by the public. The government competitions resulted in appointments to military posts for winners and were held in the capital as well as in the prefectures.

r.