Exactly, all that stuff he is saying is totally convoluted stuff from all different legends.Originally Posted by Lama Pai Sifu
Registered User
Exactly, all that stuff he is saying is totally convoluted stuff from all different legends.
Registered User
Hi Sal,Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. . . . .
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.
What are the historical sources for this? I've always been suspicious about this monk.
By the way, do you have the Chinese charcters for Fu Ju?
r.
Registered User
originally posted by 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.
I would like to know if there are specific preserved documents for these claims, or was all of this stuff "uncovered" after 1981? Despite any articles that may have been written, there is no solid evidence that Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two styles or that Northern Shaolin was created much later. If Kan Jia Chuan is older it would have to be older than the Yuan Dynasty. There's always the possibility that it is related to the original 10 hand sets of Northern Shaolin. These were added to over the centuries so it would explain some of the differences.
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.
I'm supposing there are preserved records detailing the history behind these styles? Even if that's the case, it's always been generally accepted that the library was completely burned out in 1925. Even if these documents did somehow survive, most of the information and history of the temple would have been lost. Maybe these three forms were practiced, but there's no evidence proving that the ten hand sets or any of the weapons sets weren't.
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 information that I've always gotten is that it's Hung with a U. Maybe this is a Wade-Giles vs. pin yin thing or just different information. The information I have is that Sun Wu Tzu developed this style and it was based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was practiced around the Yellow River and was also known as "Red Style."
Just like with Tam Tui, the Hui were very proficient in the Ch'a style, but there's no evidence that they were the one's who initially created it. According to the chronicle of the Ch'a family, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) an army went on an expedition to the eastern part of China. When they reached Shantung Province, General Hua Zong Chi was injured and remained behind with the local residents. To show his appreciation he taught the people "Jiazi Chang" or "Frame Style" boxing. This split into "Big Frame Style" and "Small Frame Style" and was developed into what became known as the Ch'a style.
originally posted by Lama Pai Sifu:
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 their 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??
Fantasy and Legend is much of what we have because the distance in time is so great and, even if there aren't records of them, the temple burnings have been accepted as historical facts. Due to all of this turmoil, the records that may have been at the temple at later dates may not have been entirely correct. However, the sets and history of the five mother styles was recorded in text and was orally passed down just like with Northern Shaolin. Families still practice these styles and have for hundreds of years. Of course, there are additions and modifications from generations of masters but the traditions have been kept alive.
Just like you and every other person who researches Shaolin, I get my information from the countless articles and books that have been written and talked about for years. Also, my Si-Hing has chronicled much of this information and most all of it dates back before 1981, when the recent Shaolin "craze" began. There's also the oral and written records of my school. To say that Kuo Yu Chang and other masters in his lineage passed down overly general, ultra simpified and false information is down right insulting. I would be more wary of information coming out of the current temple with it's emphasis on worldwide tours, Broadway productions, and mass media appeal.
Last edited by Siu Lum Fighter; 07-20-2007 at 02:35 PM.
The three components of combat are 1) Speed, 2) Guts and 3) Techniques. All three components must go hand in hand. One component cannot survive without the others." (WJM - June 14, 1974)
Registered User
It is my view that the compilation of traditional sets practiced at Shaolin, is very recent and comes from disparate sources. What complicates this matter somewhat is that the main old monks that give todays Shaolin its credibility, such as Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, Shi Suxi, Shi Suyun, Shi Hai Deng, Shi Xing Zhen, Shi Yang An etc. were all martial arts enthusiasts who learned their martial arts mostly from a variety of sources including lay masters. Just look at their bios.Sal Canzonieri wrote: 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.
For an example, Shi Hai Deng’s martial arts comes from a number of sources. He first began studying martial arts at the age of 7 from his maternal uncle. In 1920 at 18 he entered the University of Sichuan. His stayed there was short. Hai Deng then enrolled at the Police Academy in Chengdu and graduated from there. From there in 1931, Hai Deng went to Woyun Si in the Emei mountains where he studied Bai Mei Quan of the Emei school. At that time as well he began studying Meihua Zhuang with a monk master named, Ru Feng. From this Shaolin monk he learned just two sets Soft fist and Plum blossom fist. Anyway Hai Deng spent most of this time at Woyun Si studying Emei martial arts and Bai Mei Quan. In 1943, Hai Deng, went to Zhaojue Si and received this tonsure name (Hai Deng) from Zhi Guam Fashi. Basically Hai Deng Fashi had expertise in: Yizhi chan; 36 Tongzi gong; Meihua zhuang and Bai Mei Quan - of the Emei school. Sometime during the 60s, the Chinese government briefly restore Shaolin Si and designating Hai Deng to be it in charge.
It appears Zhenxu is the main connection, to the Shaolin martial arts at the present Shaolin's claims of a single monastic lineage. However it also appears that Zhenxu knew a limited number of the sets that were practiced in the 1800's at Shaolin.
Shi Zhenxu arrived at Shaolin in 1920 and at best only studied with Shi Henglin for only 2 or maybe 2+ years. Both Zhenxu and Degen both gained much of their martial art knowledge from various lay-masters.
As I pointed out before, most of the sets (promoted in books such as the Encyclopedia of Shaolin Martial Arts by Shi Deqian) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere seem to be rather incomplete given that very few 2 person sets are documented. The few that are documented seem incomplete and mostly don't appear to related to the single sets.
I think this website sums up the state of affairs fairly:
http://www.authenticshaolin.com/songshan.html these sets (and legends) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere - what is not apparent (at lest to me) which sets came from who or even what Henglin actually taught to Zhenxu and what he got from others, etc.
All the drawing conventions in Shi Deqian's encyclopedia - as are the motion notations - clearly modern. At best these sets are based on what was recorded in the late 70's early 80's. Likely from the, "Unearthing and Establishing Wushu" project conducted during that time period. The Shaolin collection project first took place in 1980 in Denfgeng County and was sponsored by the Shaolin Martial Arts exhibition for Exchange and Emulation. Never-the-less I'm looking forwards to seeing at least some pages of the old books that you are talking about.
In spite of the fact that many of these sets may be old, the system as practiced at Shaolin today is modern going back no further than the early 1980's. Clearly many of the 'traditional' sets are old but they come from a variety of different, and for the most part, 'lay' Shaolin lineages (Liang Yiquan, Zhang Qinghai, Liu Baoshan, etc.).
Frankly it is my belief that the 'system' as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction and not 'the Shaolin system' transmitted via a particular lineage.
cheers,
r.
Last edited by r.(shaolin); 07-20-2007 at 05:22 PM.
Registered User
Even then I read through thousands of topics in this forum about what your saying. Yeah there is a difference between "contemporary" wushu and shaolin wushu. I feel a few hand sets are tossed in there to certify it as "traditional". True wushu translates all to martial arts but it's been the most used statement about the whole shaolin debate. The problem that I personally have seen with the modern shaolin schools is that each monk would take one specific form but modify it. So the same form is done three different ways by three different schools. What is real; what is fake? I am not against any of it and by no means am I trying to scrutinize who anyone trains in modern shaolin. It just depends on what you seek.
Registered User
Fu Ju (song dynasty):
Fu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/186/d214.gif
Ju: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/169/d126.gif
Fu Yu (Yuan dynasty):
Fu: same
Yu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/184/d206.gif
Registered User
Thank you Sal.
That name hasn't cropped up in any of the early northern Chan documents I know of.
I'll do some digging though. What are the sources you have for this monk?
have a great weekend!
r.
Registered User
I have 3 versions of his Shaolin Encyclopedia, the original 2 volume set, the expanded 4 volume set, and the revised with photos of 90% of the forms volumes.
There are many 2 person sets in the expanded edition I have across each book in the set, I don't see "very few" at all.
As I said in my initial post in this thread": Take your pick of which "Real" Shaolin you want: from what time period? From what region? from what Lineage? From what school? From what style? etc, etc. etc
At this point, after 3 decades of research, I am only caring about the physical movements in the sets and how they have evolved from one set to another over time and place. When you look at the actual movements in the sets themselves, there is a clear line of evolution that spans who taught what to whom where and when.
Right now I am looking at the family of sets that have been derived from the XinYi Ba, Rou Quan, and Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan sets, including Song TZ Hong Quan, Lao Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Pao Chui, and so on.
Including the early primitive nei gong sets that clearly show the beginning of movements that are later seen in the series of Shaolin based sets. Nei gongs such as Liu Ho Gong, Chan Yuan Gong, Luohan 13 Gong, Rou Gong, and so on.
As far as the authenticity of the copies made of the books that were later burned at Shaolin (some were not, people were running to get as many out as they could).
Feel free to contact Shi De Gian via email and ask him yourself, he can explain how he and his partners have traveled all over China and the south east for many years comparing and collecting these materials and what they have uncovered from viewing them.
Gene can give you his email address, he is quite amenable to answering questions.
Registered User
Well, martial monks weren't in the religious orders of Shaolin (and Shaolin has had many different ones over the centuries, not just the one that Fu Yu founded.
Such as:
Da Cheng Zen
north sect Mahayana Zen--Shen Xiu
Zen Cao Dong Sect --Ben Ji
Zen Lin Ji Sect --Yi Xuan
Zen Yun Men Sect --Wen Yan
Zen Wei Yang Sect --Hui Ji
Zen Fa Yan Sect --Wen Yi
Shao Lin temple Cao Dong Sect --Fu Yu
All Shaolin religious monks since Fu Yu trace them generations through the Chan records you speak of.
Martial monks were ex-military men often enough, they were the heads of security, not really in the religious thing.
The source I have for Fu Ju (song dynasty) are the preserved documents that have been copied before the fire that were examined / collected by various researchers.
Itinerant practitioner
Pretty elitist thinking don't you think?I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.
Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.
So what are the current monks doing
Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.
You have to consider the diaspora of shaolin kungfu and the subsequent transformations and numerous iterations of same.
to say that one style from 300 years ago is the only true style does disservice to the spirit of shaolin kungfu. Not to mention, it immediately brands that 300 year old stuff as irrelevant because it is stagnant.
what gan Fengchi taught and what is now are two entirely different things. It cannot be any other way.
look around at your classmates. Do they perform and apply exactly the same as you? as each other? no. each is differnet and the ones who go forward will be ever changing the face of the style they learned as it passes again and again. the methods themselves may endure, but the expression has to change with every person who wears the style.
Kung Fu is good for you.
Registered User
Gan Feng Chi there is no real historical evidence that he taught people his Shaolin,
maybe he did to a few people, but he would be too young, the years don't match up to where he was at the time.
For a long time he was in Emei learning 3 Emperor Pao Chui,
and then he spent most of his adult life as a anti-Qing rebel, he spent time developing Hua Quan, and its 4 long set and few weapons sets.
THAT is what he is documented as teaching, it is not Shaolin.
He was executed by the Qing government once he was caught.
I had looked at the dates, it doesn't match up to the BSL story.
It was people from modern times that started claiming him.
They grabbed his name cause he was famous.
Same as using Chi Yuan as a founder, he is always used a founder by many other styles of long fist, only because he is the only long fist monks that they heard of.
The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.
Registered User
Although Shaolin monks may have contributed to the spread of Hong Quan in Shandong, the oral tradition I practice says that Hong Quan was not developed by Shaolin monks and that only two sets of Hong Quan were practiced (mostly Shaolin did not absorb entire systems). Further more these two sets were considered fundamentals and were used in tests of basic skill. The system(s) practiced in Shandong, Shaanxi and Gansu provinces is much more extensive and complete and in fact is widely practiced in all the northern provinces of China today, especially in Shaanxi, Shandong, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. It first spread in the provinces of Henan, Sichuan and Gansu.The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.
Pretty well every oral and recorded legend says that Zhao Kuangyin (960-976 ), the first Song Emperor (posthumous temple name -Taizu) created Hong Quan. Zhao came from a military family in Luoyang, (not far from Shaolin Si). Here is what was passed on concerning development of Hong Quan by Huang Baoshan 黄寶珊 to one of his students in 1993. Huang Baoshan was a very knowledgeable Hong Quan practitioner from the town of Tianshui, Gansu province. Huang and his older generations, believed that the major systematization of the style is most probably during the Qing Dynasty (1368-1911) in the provinces of Shandong and Shaanxi and was spread by teachers connected with the military.
Huang Baoshan - 黄寶珊 (1905-1998) trained with Sun Yanbiao 蓀彥彪 (1884-1981) a famous Hong Quan teacher in North west China. Sun Yanbiao also taught Wang Ziping (1881-1973) and Wang Bugao (1885-1960). Sun Yanbiao's teacher was General Shao Yinhuan 紹銀環(1862-1930). Huang Baoshan (黄寶珊) also studied with General Gao Zhankui 高占魁 who was a famous expert in Hong Quan, and one of the three important generals to spread Hong Quan in Shaanxi during this period. This is documented in the "Shaanxi martial arts records" and the "Sanyuan county annals" . As well according to the Gaoshan Shilu 高山史錄 "Records from Gaoshan," Gao Zhankui was a military instructor in Xian and responsible in winning a battle at Wucheng.
In 1920 Huang Baoshan also visited and studied briefly at Shaolin Si. This was during the time that Venerable Miao Xin (1876-1934) was there. According to him, before 1928, the monks of the Shaolin monastery used to practice Hongquan, but after the reconstruction following the movie "Shaolin Temple" in the 80s , the Hongquan forms the monk practice now, although have same name, are different. Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. In keeping with the oral tradition that has been passed on to my older generation, the two Shaolin Hong Quan forms where developed outside and were imported into Shaolin. In the original system of Hongquan, the movements are long, and are classified as long range boxing (Changquan ). According to Huang Baoshan, pre 1920 Hong Quan movements are long, clear-cut, elegant and clear in their steps and application. As with my Shaolin tradition, Huang Baoshan, also said that the "two roads Hong fist" (erluhongquan), at Shaolin were basic routines. Having seen what was practiced at Shaolin in 1920 Huang Baoshan said that what is being practiced as Hong Quan at the Shaolin temple today, the moves are cut and short, unlike the original Shaolin Hong Quan, which is fluid with long movements of the arms.
r.
Last edited by r.(shaolin); 07-28-2007 at 08:23 AM. Reason: spelling /grammer
Registered User
R Shaolin,
Do you know the origin of this set? I know it's form Shandong, but who created it, and what style is it from?
I have allways been told it is from Zhao Kuang Yin, but reacently I have been hearing there is also a Long fist style created by Ming Tai Tzu as well, and I am wondering if this one might actuialy be from that.
Those that are the most sucessful are also the biggest failures. The difference between them and the rest of the failures is they keep getting up over and over again, until they finally succeed.
For the Women:
+
=
& a
Registered User
Do you honestly think that the Shaolin temple had so many "styles"? What is the most probable fact that monks had some form of exersizes and learned how to protect themselves with some basic stuff. Its a well known fact that a general "type" of person often came to the temples to "escape". These "types" of people often were able to fight. As time developed , I am sure monks were decent fighters.. or tough enough to kick the *** out of anyone trying to rob them. People started to say "I learned from Shaolin" because it became famous and they wanted to be more credible. probably very little "shaolin" kung fu is really shoalin. that doesn't take way from the art.. its just history.I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.
Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.
So what are the current monks doing
Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.
OR
exactly like Jet Li's movies.. and all the styles that claim they come from shaolin are all sub styles of a massive organization of master martial artists.. The 36 chambers, Wu-tang sword style and mad monkey kung fu were all real components to this amazing martial art university. Shaolin has originated almost all martial arts.
Who honestly believe that story about Wing Chun being from Shaolin?
Its a nice story, and It has good points.. but its not real.
Troll Slayer
There are tons of variance and querks in any history, and Shaolin in no different, but one thing can be said without dispute
Over the course of Chinese history, the term Shaolin has been overused and applied to many things that were NEVER part of Shaolin and in general the legend of Shaolin is overblown
Chan Tai San Book at https://www.createspace.com/4891253
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
