The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

[sha0lin1]

I have been reading this thread with great interest since I am a Song Shan Shaolin practitioner. I really liked Gene Ching's reply and Wall's reply. However, being the student of a monk and being taught the histories of the various forms as we learn them, I can say that the basic forms of Shaolin are centuries old. We must not forget that in the "old days," as well as now, and will continue into the future; martial monks left the temple and entered into secular life and continued to practice and teach to the layity. So this notion that all the monks were killed except for a few and the traditional Shaolin kung fu died out is a false one. Because of this Shaolin arts have been preserved and we have seen the emergence of the various styles of Shaolin wushu such as Hung Gar and your BSL. Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term Wushu. People in the Western world draw lines with it thinking that it means only the competition aspect of it that was developed in the 1960's by the PRC. However, wushu simply means martial arts. Way back, who knows when, and whoever translated kung fu to the western world did us a great disservice. So now westerners use Kung Fu to define traditional CMA and Wushu to define the contemporary CMA. My Sifu rarely uses the term Kung Fu, he uses wushu, as do I. So when someone says "Shaolin Wushu" all they are saying is Shaolin Martial Arts. If you want to distinguish, qualify it with traditional wushu or contemporary or modern wushu. At Shaolin Temple they teach traditional and contemporary wushu. When the monks perform and people see that, it is easy to say "oh, that is not traditional kung fu, that is wushu" because of all the acrobatics and flips and spinning kicks and such. However, keep in mind that these are performances and so are meant to inspire awe and entertain the audiences. Our traditional forms do not contain these things. Sometimes the monks will "ad lib" a few acrobatics and fantastic kicks into these forms to jazz them up a bit. Sometimes, and I have seen my master do this with incrudulity, they will make things up on the spot.

[DPL]

Couldn't we say that Shaolin is like an ocean. Constantly flowing like the tide. Transforming and seperating from the source, then returning back later to the new source.

It's more like a schizophrenic elephant with anger management issues, constantly arguing with different parts of itself as to which part is the 'real, authentic' elephant. And also whether it should be called elephant, oliphant, or modern mammoth.

[Royal Dragon]

I'd go with "Modern mammouth" Because it's just cooler!!

if it is pretty widely known, what was taught/known in the shaolin in the past, then why dont the current temple just adopt/go back to whatever it was that was "known" in the past, so arguments like this wont happen? so the current temple teaching can be the *original* teaching
unless what is currently being taught is the original......

Reply]
Shaolin is currently teching the really old original systems. What do you think Louhan, Tai Tzu, Xiao and Da Hong Quan, Cannon Fist, Rou Quan and Tongbei are? All that stuff is pre Ming dynsaty, and some is even pre Sung dynasty. You just can't gte more authentic than that.

Also, I thought the 10 hand sets were taught at shaolin, just by a different name, Kanji Fist or some such thing.

[Shaolinlueb]

everything claims to have come from shaolin. truely authentic shaolin kung fu i think is lost. you can argue this all day. i think all we have are styles one time taught at the temple.

hung gar taught today is not the same ti was taught at the temple. it evolved.

we all have a basis in shaolin.

[Sal Canzonieri]

BSL is an amalgamated style, that is pretty modern compared to the Luohan and Hong gates as Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi was not the DIRECT creator of the 10 sets, that is historically incorrect, he was a anti-Qing rebel and traveled all over the place as a consequence, he taught different people different things and learned different things from different places.

After 1732-35, many martial monks moved out of the temple area, Shadong Long Fist comes from the monks that moved out to that area, for one example.
So, THIS can be considered the "REAL" Shaolin.

People who knew the Luohan gate moved to Shanghai, THIS can be considered the "REAL" Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi taught some people his long fist GATE that he learned at Shaolin to some people, he also practiced Plum Flower Long Fist, which was the style of the anti-Qing rebels at the time. Was his Plum Flower better than his Shaolin, since he used that instead at that time?

Then he went to Emei and studied 3 Emperor Pao Chui style, so when he taught 3 Emperor Pao Chui to some people, was this no good or better than his Shaolin?

LATER still, the actual full style that Gan Feng Chi created, not distantly contributed to as in BSL, was called Hua Quan, FLOWER style (not related to Hua Mountain Quan at all, same name), a soft and hard style that he was very famous for.
THAT's he "real" mature style, not only his Shaolin which is what he did as a youth, which was a root for his Wundang-Shaolin soft hard internal external Hua Quan.
THEN, he was executed for being a rebel.

So, where is Gan Feng Chi's "real" shaolin? very distant to BSL.

AND, guess what, before Gan's time at Shaolin, it has closed down a few times before that and all was lost again. During the Yuan dynasty Shaolin was shut down many hundreds of years before Gan was there, and all the martial art they did was gone, when people (Jue Yuan, Bai Yu Feng, Li Sou) tried to reopen the place to martial arts, they had to go to Luoyang a few miles away to re-learn Shaolin martial art, which they then redeveloped into a new system.
Was this the "REAL" Shoalin? It wasn't what Gan Feng Chi practiced hundreds of years later.

Was the "REAL" Shaolin the stuff that was done at Shaolin before it was closed down in the Yuan Dynasty? During the Tang dynasty they did Tong Bei and Pao Chui which they go from the military that trained them. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin?
During the Song dynasty, they created new set like Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Hong Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Rou Quan and so on. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin.

This system was taught since the Song Dynasty and spread throughout the countryside.

Once Shaolin died out a few more times later, and the "ORIGINAL" Shaolin material that the people did in the countryside only existed, was this the "REAL" Shaolin and not the stuff that was developed later after the Yuan Dynasty?

AND< after Shaolin was closed for its last time in 1920s, some monks left and got married and spread throughout China, they brought with them their sets and copies of the original manuals that documented Shaolin of their time and the ancient Song dynasty original sets. Isn't this the "REAL" Shaolin, if not, why not?
AND, some monks stayed in the area and still trained there at night, even though the place as burned out. And they taught their stuff to the people in the countryside. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin, if not, why not?

After 1981, the lineages that survived the 1920s burning were asked to reintroduce their AUTHENTIC and many generations practiced Shaolin sets back to Shaolin.

SO, today you have two completely different things at Shaolin, acrobatic super fast government workers posing as "monks" (who do modern Wushu theatrucs) and the OLD monks still alive and their students and grand students that practice the old Shaolin sets that have been preserved from their teachers and from their copies of the Shaolin martial art manuals that survived the burning of 1920s.
Isn't this stuff the "REAL" Shaolin?

Take you pick of which "REAL" Shaolin you want.

[gwa sow]

i always did like it when you posted something:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

[mantis108]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang's Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui's saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there's at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng's luohan has anything to do with that we simply can't prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108

[TenTigers]

18 lines fighting set attributed to Dat-Mo?
That would be the deal killer in my book.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang's Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui's saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there's at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng's luohan has anything to do with that we simply can't prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108

Wow, there's a whole bunch of new articles out in China from a research about Hong Quan, Tai Tzu, Fu Ju, the Shaolin Luohan Duan Da Book, and so on. He's been doing a load of research for a long time. The articles I have been reading by him have discussed why clues in the writing show it is from Song dynasty era, and he had an old Song Tai Tzu master read the Duan Da book for the first time and the old man was shocked to realize he understood the material in relation to his Song Tai Tzu background and found many postures from the book were exclusive to Song Tai Tzu postures.

Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. He has no connection with the religious monk Fu Yu who is from the Yuan Dynasty and is of the "new" religious monk lineage that all Shaolin monks have been traced from every since.
Fu Ju was of a different order, none of the martial and religious monks from different religious orders have been included in the "official" lineage that start with Fu Yu.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

Sorry, but almost all you are saying her is just legends and conjecture, the real information out there doesn't follow with what you are saying.

BSL is pretty much the creation of Kuo Yu Chang, and those around him. He merged together everything he learned.

Damo never created any martial art sets, he was only involved in religious things, this has been disproven for decades by historians.
The 18 lines fighting set never existed in ancient times.

All the traditional Shaolin material (the most ancient sets such as Hong quan, TZ hang Quan, Rou Quan, Pao Chui, Tong bi, etc) had been documented in their library since the Song dynasty to the time it got burned down in 1925.
Throughout the centuries people have made copies of the books that document these forms and kept them in their families, and researchers have looked at them and all the books match with the copies that each family has. Also, a good number of the original books that were copied were saved during the fire.
And, the families and schools that have been doing these sets for hundreds of years have clear oral history of who the teachers were from today to way way back to when the material were first taught at and outside of Shaolin. There are long lineage that exist that have preserved the material.

You must be young, no offense, cause this is old common knowledge today amongst martial art historians and researchers.

BSL movements are not ancient forms, they are a distillation of moves from various teachers.
The closest the come to material still preserved in Shaolin is the Kan Jia Quan style of Shaolin, which has similar named sets but the forms are much longer. Kan Jia Quan was developed at Shaolin during the late Yuan time period to protect the monks from invading Taoist who were pretty much at war with the Buddhists over land rights and stealing temples from each other and collection boxes.
The reason they are not done at Shaolin is because they never were done there. The BSL forms were developed after the 1700s, after it was burned down and people scattered. They were created outside the temple, they were ancient sets that were preserved, they were a new style that was developed from the Shaolin long fist that was around during the Qing Dynasty.

You can date movements in set to certain time periods, because movements and postures evolved over time, you can tell how old a movement is by how it is done. Some people preserved ancient ways to do the sets still, because they were isolated, and when compared to how an non-isolated school does a set, you can see how much changed over time.
Just like languages evolve, customs, etc etc.


PLUS, Shaolin had over the centuries many separate schools and also each area of Shaolin, called Gates, practiced their own styles.
It's a mountain area, the temple itself is just one section of the grounds.
East, South, North, West, each did their own martial monks material.
And then the villages around the place had their own too.
So there are so many martial arts that come in and came out from Shaolin.
Shaolin was like the National Guard for the emperors during the Tang and Song dynasty.

There were a series of old monks and many families spread around China that brought the ancient Shaolin sets back to Shaolin upon the request of the people that reopened the temple officially after 1981.
There's a long list of them, would you even know who they are?

[Pk_StyLeZ]

too much to read

i am the real authentic shaolin
come study with me
classes are cheap
50 dollar a month
3 hrs a day
come sign up now
spaces are unlimited

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I'll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It's been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It's always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style". This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And...I don't have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn't invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn't be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li's, "The Shaolin Temple" came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the "real" Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed "Long March" and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu's history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We're talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country's history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren't invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won't even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the "crown jewel" of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the "Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate" is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin's heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I'm confused, are you selling beauty supplies?

[Royal Dragon]

Shaolin's "Crown Jewel" was all based in Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. All the Red Fist sets, Cannon Fist sets and an weapons sets were all built on the Tai Tzu framework. These were the mainstreem Shaolin for centuries.

Rou Quan was a Tai Chi like system for the older Monks.

You also had Tonbei and Xing Yi Ba as well.


Also, Kan Jia Chuan and the Ten hand sets have been compared and are vertually identical. The artical I read seemed to indicate that the Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two.

During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time.

Reply]
You are forgetting the fact that the Sung Emperor Zhao, Kuang Yin sent his Generals to shaolin at this time to TEACH them his style and that of his generals. The results of this were not the ten hand sets, but the 3 core forms of Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and later down the road Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan as well.


As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles.

Reply]
First, Hung is HONG, not to be confused with Southern Hung Gar. It's Northern Military Long Fist, and that is the style of the Emperor taught to Shaolin (thorugh his Generals) during the early Sung dynasty. There would have been quite a bit of Tongbei as well.

*Cha* Fist is a Moslem style, and not in the picture at Shaolin at that time.


The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style".

Rreply]
Sounds like Kuo Yu Chang was not much of a historian to me. What he pased down is so overly general, ultra simpified and in some areas just plain wrong that it really can't be taken as credible.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I'll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It's been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It's always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style". This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And...I don't have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn't invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn't be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li's, "The Shaolin Temple" came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the "real" Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed "Long March" and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu's history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We're talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country's history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren't invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won't even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the "crown jewel" of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the "Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate" is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin's heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I'm confused, are you selling beauty supplies?

I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800's, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for thier staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend...

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??