Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 342

Thread: The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Fei Li View Post
    Hi all.

    To me the most comprehensive and reasonable summary about what shaolin is or is not,
    I read in Adam Hsu's "A sword polishers record" and "Lone sword against the cold cold sky".

    I will scan it if I find the time.
    (It is by the way one of the best if not THE best book about kung fu I ever read)

    Just a brief summary of what he found out in his travels to the temple:
    There was only one Temple, the one in the north.
    Shaolin itself was not really known for a long time, but became popular trough the Swordman tales. As a result many MA Schools tried to take advantage of this popularity.
    He also states that Shaolin was more of a MA Melting pot than a distinct style.
    The monks had a life before entering the temple and they brought different styles in.

    Again this was just a brief resume from what I remembered, read the book, it's worth your time!
    oh come on, his book is plain old OPINION.
    he didn't talk to the many researchers in china, he didn't see the preserved material that was taken out of Shaolin during the 1920's fire, he didn't talk, met with, or look at anything.

    To be respectful I won't say more, but come on, many people in the field know him and he is an essay writer, not a deep researcher that looks at archived material.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    57
    Maybe.

    I do nt know how he found out. He states for example an ancient writer from the Ming dynasty who listed up all the knwon and best styles and there is no mentioning of a Shaolinstyle.

    I think we can all agree that Shaolin is more a collection of styles than an original style.
    He also asked the people in the places where the southern temples supposedly were located and looked the regional archives and there was no Shaolin mentioned.

    anyway all I wanted to say is that I thnk today too many people define the quality
    of their KF with their connection to Shaolin, although much of it is only fairytale.

    Have you read Mr Hsu's books? I find them really convincing and inspiring, I discovered many errors in my training through his books.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Hermit Kingdom
    Posts
    360
    O.K., regarding this material that was saved during the 1920's fire: how much was actually preserved? If the library was indeed almost completely burned out, how can just a few original manuals document all of styles that were practiced at Shaolin? I'm also suspicious as to the authenticity of these "original" sets from the Song Dynasty. There's no allowance for the possibility that these documents are forgeries? It was only after the Cultural Revolution had happened and the government realized that a lot of money could be made off the Shaolin name when, all of a sudden, the Chinese government wanted to showcase "original" Shaolin martial arts. This was after a movie that showcased government sanctioned wushu. These families and so-called monks who claimed that they had the last original documents and that there's were the original sets, knew that they'd be revered and made famous. Since the PRC denied the authenticity of any of the other styles that left the mainland during the Revolution, one has to allow for the possibility that some of these documents are fakes.

    Once again, before the PRC and the persecution of real Chinese martial artists whose lineages went back hundreds of years, Northern Shaolin kung fu was considered by just about everyone to be, at the very least, an authentic Shaolin style. The official (and unofficial) denial of this seems partly motivated by political reasons.

    It's just like with Falun Gong. The PRC seems to latch on to this idea that anyone or any group of people who are or ever were in the least bit critical of their policies and suspect reasons for doing things is an enemy of the state. They are then not recognized as having any validity and (in the case of Falun Gong and all of the sifu's back in the 50's) they are brutally persecuted.

    I agree with Fei Li. Shaolin has been a melting pot of styles. Northern Shaolin happens to be a Shaolin style that was created out of five styles that were practiced there during the 1100's. It was more similar to Hua and Wah, and Cha and less similar to Hung and Pao, but they are all represented in there. These styles exist, the similiarities are there. This should be proof enough but it's not for those who are more apt to believe this recently revised version of history. Here's a question: did the Shaolin monks of the 1920's deny that Northern Shaolin was an authentic Shaolin style? After all, it was more widely practiced then and it was recognized as such by many. Especially after Kuo Yu Chang made it famous.
    Last edited by Siu Lum Fighter; 07-25-2007 at 03:07 AM.
    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)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sub. of Chicago - Downers Grove
    Posts
    6,772
    I don't think anyone is denying that it is a Shaolln style, BUT I highly doubt it was practiced in the temple back then, as it is today. The system was expanded by Kyu Yu Cheong from what little I know.

    Also, Cha Fist is not a shaolin art, it's Moslem in origin. So the presence of that style in the Ten hand sets already shows an outside influance. I think Wha and Hua fist are common villiage Long Fist from outside shaolin as well. Hong and Pao Quan are from Shaolin though...and it was just said above that they are not the major flavor of the Ten handsets.

    It sounds to me like the Ten Hand sets are a more modern mix of old Shaolin, and common villiage Long Fist. It's dountfull any of those sets were ever practiced at shaolin, but I bet a good amount of the techniques that make up the forms were found in authentic shaolin sets, and that is what makes it a Shaolin style.


    Kan Jia Chuan sets are actually much shorter and they're anything but a perfect match as Royal Dragon had stated earlier

    Reply]
    I seem to remember there was a comparison made and they were extremely close. If the Kan Jia sets are much shorter, this leads me to believe that the ten hand sets are Kan Jia fist with elements of common villiage Long Fist added later, like Moslem Cha fist, Wah fist, Hua fist, as well as shaolin Hong fist and Pao Quan

    It's a more recently expanded version of kan jia made by mixing in the 5 most well known villiage Long Fist styles of Cha, Wah, Hua, Hong and Pao Quan.
    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

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Hermit Kingdom
    Posts
    360
    Once again, there is evidence that the Ch'a style originated in Shantung during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) by General Hua Zong Chi. The Muslims didn't create the style and you could argue that Tam Tui is not a Shaolin art too but there is evidence to suggest that Shaolin monks learned the style and adopted it into there practice.

    I'm still suspicious of the authenticity of these original manuals describing Rou Chuan, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Shiao, Lao, etc. How convenient that they match exactly with the styles taught by these families and monks who came forward with their "old" and "original" Shaolin styles. Why didn't the PRC persecute them during The Cultural Revolution? During that time anyone who didn't enthusiastically embrace communism or who was caught preserving a traditional way of life was branded as "counter-revolutionary" and either tortured, imprisoned, or killed outright. Many of China's great martial artists lost their lives during this time, and Shaolin suffered as a martial arts training center and as a religious institution. They were very thorough so how is it that all of these pieces have just come together so recently and so conveniently?
    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)

  6. #66
    arguments from incredulity are particularly grating when launched against stacks of evidence.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    773
    O.K., regarding this material that was saved during the 1920's fire: how much was actually preserved? If the library was indeed almost completely burned out, how can just a few original manuals document all of styles that were practiced at Shaolin?
    I'm also curious about it. I'd been told before, by a wushu coach with strong connections to the Beijing wushu team, that some documents and lineages were forged/altered when the temple was restored/restocked. Have any of you come across anything like that before in your research? Or, are you be able to tell when something like this has happened?
    Last edited by B-Rad; 07-25-2007 at 05:57 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    First of all, yes, many people were killed for a lot of reasons during the so-called Cultural Revolution.
    BUT IT WAS RANDOM< many people were not killed, it depends on actually the youth that were rampaging through areas of China and destroying things associated with the past, for fun, using Mao's edict as an excuse.
    For as many people that were persecuted there were just as many that were not (they were lucky to not attract attention), otherwise there would be NO traditional martial arts existing in China today.
    And, Mao himself had once practiced martial arts and he even wrote about the good it does for people. AND throughout his life, he always had bodyguards that were traditional martial artists, such as in Ba Ji Quan.

    Second, DO YOUR OWN **** RESEARCH, I've have been doing so for the last 30+ years and interviewed tons of people now dead of old age, learned with many of them, and accumulated boxes and boxes of notes.
    What's the use of telling people about what I learned all these years if they don't want to believe it. No matter what I say, no matter how carefully documented or not it might be, someone is going to say "yeah, sure, I don't believe it, I believe what I read or my teacher told me". Whatever, good for you. Fine then, Stay Ignorant.

    For the last 50 years many many people in China have been researching Shaolin and what it is and what it was and what the sets are and what has been preserved, etc, etc, etc.
    I have seen this material. I have copies of this material.
    Some stuff was grabbed before it was burned, that's common sense that people would be grabbing as much as they could.
    Some stuff was copied by hand by various people in the many years before the 1920s burning, and they passed these copied documents from person to person over the generations.

    Shi De Gian and other people with him and independent of him went all over China and south east Asia and traced where former martial artists from the Shaolin area had moved on to and they asked to see any written material that was preserved by their descendents.
    They compared all the documents that they found over the past decades with each other and looked for discrepancies, etc.
    They documented what they found in a series of books, the Shaolin Encyclopedia volumes are just one set of these books, there are many more.

    The Shaolin Temple itself NEVER officially practiced martial arts, it was always, since the place first existed, either the guards there, or the newly ordained monks that once had a military background, or visiting bodyguards that did the martial arts, as would be natural (and as happened at many of the other temples (Emei, Wudang, Fujian, etc). During the Tang Dynasty, a rank of Wu Seng, military monk, was set up and trained to guard many hundreds of acres of land, the crops, the donation money, the golden and bejeweled statues, and the local people that worked for Shaolin farming or whatever. Many different martial arts wound up being created or merged together as would be natural when these people met and hung out with each other in the relative seclusion of the place. It was a big place with more than one area that was guarded. Each of these did their own martial arts because they had different leaders, more common sense. Also this was a smart security measure for obvious reasons. They called these areas, gates, each gate had different sets that they favored.

    Shaolin opened and close many times since it was first built, it even had changed its name during one time period. So, many people dispersed from the Shaolin area to the local countryside or to other parts of China, more common sense.

    After decades of comparing any written documentation these people might have preserved in their generations, much of the sets MATCHED well with each other, so these sets were reintroduced into the martial arts training of people teaching Traditional Shaolin based martial arts, all around the Shaolin area. It is known who created each set, and when, and so on.

    It doesn't matter not one iota what the "Acrobatic" government employees do with their modern wushu "Shaolin" stuff, it is entirely irrelevant to traditional Shaolin martial arts that the old people teach.

    (By the way General Hua WAS indeed a Moslem, most generals were in the Chinese army.)

    And to say "I'm still suspicious of the authenticity of these original manuals describing Rou Chuan, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Shiao, Lao, etc. How convenient that they match exactly with the styles taught by these families and monks who came forward with their "old" and "original" Shaolin styles."
    makes NO sense at all. How the heck ELSE could it exist? Of course it is going to match, since it is a family preserved document of what they have been doing over a span of generations. Do you know how many hundreds of people that this covers? From all over china, and Vietnam, Indonesia, etc, etc.
    HOW can they make a vast conspiracy of forgeries that spans centuries and countries and generations????
    That make no sense. The fact is that some many different people's Shaolin derived sets matched quite well with each others, despite how far away from each other they were and for how long.

    And the PRC has never denied or not denied anything concerning what you are talking about, they have much more important things to do then mettle with something so trivial and inconsequential to daily life. Show me ONE government paper stating that a particular style was "denied". Ludicrous! I certainly have no desire to defend the PRC< but don't make up silly stories that are totally illogical because your prejudiced and basically racist imagination made it up.

    Ask Gene to give you She Di Gian's email and contact him yourself and ask about the authenticity of his 50 years of research (you'll have to do it in Chinese). Go head.

    Bak Si Lum (Bai Shao Lin) style didn't exist far in the past, that's a fact. It was never taught in Shaolin area because the sets were created outside of this area, just like, for example, Choy Li Fut sets aren't done at Shaolin, though the movements come from Shaolin sets. The style was developed outside of the area. (and Kuo also learned Choy Li Fut by the way and it was another influence on what he taught as Bak Si Lum).
    It is an accumulation of many different people's best techniques from various Shaolin derived sets. All a researcher has to do is look at the movements and postures and they can tell what time period the movements come from by how they are done, and they acn tell what styles they were taken from. Each style has signature moves that are always there and can be traced as they are borrowed from one style to another. Different movements cluster from different time periods. It is just like an anthropologist traces pottery patterns from one region and time period to another, the SAME criteria is used to trace the martial art information.
    Last edited by Sal Canzonieri; 07-25-2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason: typos

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    57
    Correct me if I am wrong, my Sifu told me Bak Siu Lam is more or less Chang Chuan,
    although a bit "southernized"

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Hermit Kingdom
    Posts
    360
    originally posted by Sal Canzonieri
    Ludicrous! I certainly have no desire to defend the PRC< but don't make up silly stories that are totally illogical because your prejudiced and basically racist imagination made it up.
    Wow...ease back on the handle there bud. Is it the possibility that some of the documents and lineages were forged or altered that has caused this spasm lasting half a thread page? And, first of all, let me emphasis that I am not a racist. Where did that come from!! I've been arguing that, as a governing entity, the PRC is still a somewhat corrupt, hegemonic power, that would be willing to forge documents, and you call me a racist?!?! Wha...WHY? Who am I being racist against, Chinese people?!?!

    Look, I won't deny that there may be some validity to some things that you are saying. But still there is no proof that Northern Shaolin wasn't developed and practiced during the Sung Dynasty. It's always been assumed that Ching soldiers successfully destroyed the place in 1732. The warlord Shi Yousan set fire to the many manuscripts of the temple library in 1928. The Cultural Revolution purged all monks and Buddhist materials from within its walls, leaving the temple barren for years. Frankly, it doesn't matter that there were styles that were practiced in secret in the area or in the countryside. It still doesn't prove one iota that Northern Shaolin was not studied at the temple during it's heyday.

    If the PRC is right then why do all of the old Masters and Sifus who went to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the U.S. say different? Judging by the track record of the current regime I'd say it's entirely possible that they may have produced "old" papers and books saying a new history. Why would a Ming or Ching book be in their hands? Copies can be altered just like ID's can be made to look real or a book can be made to look old. Maybe styles weren't denied, but they weren't recognized for their true heritage.

    By the way, have you looked at the movements and postures in Bak Siu Lum? Have you tried to trace the martial art information in the style? Much of the information gleaned from other Long Fist styles really can't be seen as "proof" since "Shaolin martial arts" as they are practiced by countless people seems to be such a nebulous and amorphous body of work that I can't see how anyone could be that accurate when it comes to tracing any of these styles specific lineage. Hell, I see moves in Karate that look just like moves in Shaolin. So what if the people's styles in the countryside matched well with written documentation (which may have been forged) from what I've seen of Kan Jia Chuan it doesn't MATCH WELL with Bak Siu Lum. So how can I trust what they say on that?

    And fine, perhaps I was wrong about General Hua and his religious background. I've just done some research on the man who created Tam Tui and I came up with another Muslim by the name of Cha Shang Yir who lived from 1568 - 1644 AD. I knew these styles were associated with Muslims but I was a little hazy on their genesis. It makes no difference though. The Shaolin monks would have readily adopted these systems just like everything else. After all, The Hui were assimilated into the cultures of the Chinese people just like different martial arts were at Shaolin Temple.
    Last edited by Siu Lum Fighter; 07-26-2007 at 07:14 AM.
    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)

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sub. of Chicago - Downers Grove
    Posts
    6,772
    At what level do the Kan jia sets not match the Kyu yu Cheong Ten Hand sets?

    Is it just the form choreography?

    Chen Taiji Quan eveolved and developed from the Shaolin 32 posture Tai Tzu Chang Chuan form.

    On the surface however, the old Chen Taiji form does not match the Shaolin 32 posture Tai Tzu Chang Chuan either, untill you look close and see that the Chen set has additional movements performed *In between* the Tai Tzu postures, making it difficult to see.


    The Tai Tzu form is STILL in the Chen set, each move in order, same as it is done in the Tai Tzu 32 posture form. The Chen Taiji set just has added moves inbetween the Tai Tzu's movement. You just need to look closely to see it. Have you compared the kan jia fist on that level? or did you just do a point by point comparison of the routines outer choreography?

    You said the Kan Jia has shorter sets. That would make sense if the Ten hand sets came from Kan jia. Maybe if you look close you will find that the shorter kan jia sets are imbedded in the Ten Hand sets the same way as the shorter Tai Tzu 32 posture form is imbedded into the oldest Chen style Taiji Quan form.

    Like Chen style compared to Tai Tzu, maybe the Ten Hand sets are Longer because there are add moves in between the original Kan Ji postures. If you just look at them supperficially they don't appear to match, when in reality they do. It's just hard to see because the Ten Hand Sets have all these extra moves stuck in between the Kan jia set's sequential postures and techniques?

    Either way, the Ten hand sets were not ever practice in Shaolin. They are newer formalised routines that are built on Shaolin technology, and with Shaolin techniques. From the clips I have seen online, it looks to me like someone took many standard and common Shaolin Long Fist techniques, mixed in techniques from the most wide spread Moslem styles that could be found, and assembled them into new forms.

    So in essence, the many of the techniques contained inside of the Ten Hand sets are from Shaolin, they were just organised much differently than you have today.

    What you need to do is start buying all the VCD's on the old traditional shaolin sets, get to know what time period they come from, and then look to see how many of the techniques inside the Ten Hand sets match up. Then do the same for the Moslem styles and make another comparison. By doing that enough times you will be able to figure out which techniques come from the temple, and which are from the outside Moslem systems.

    It will also become gradually clearer that the Ten Hand sets, as choreagraphed today, never existed in Shaolin as complete formal routines.
    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

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,946

    Don't let me down

    All I can say here is I look forward to the day when this thread is bigger than this other thread. Score at this post: 71 to 5721
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sub. of Chicago - Downers Grove
    Posts
    6,772
    It's not going to happen because the Ten Hand sets actually ARE a Shaolin derived system.
    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

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Shaolin Ninjitsu Commune
    Posts
    176
    Ah yes. Shaolin-derived. But Shaolin? Not quite.

    My friend, even karate is Shaolin-derived. The only true form of Shaolin, preserved untouched, is Shaolin Ninjitsu. Everything else is but a mere derivative, and therefore only based on the martial arts of the ancients. In the past, all forms were done from a stationary stance. One never takes a step; he only punches, kicks, and rotates upon one foot. If by chance one is forced to imitate a step, one replaces one foot with the other as if marching in place. This makes tornado kicks incredibly tough to perform, but it really makes them devastating.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by John Takeshi View Post
    Ah yes. Shaolin-derived. But Shaolin? Not quite.

    My friend, even karate is Shaolin-derived. The only true form of Shaolin, preserved untouched, is Shaolin Ninjitsu. Everything else is but a mere derivative, and therefore only based on the martial arts of the ancients. In the past, all forms were done from a stationary stance. One never takes a step; he only punches, kicks, and rotates upon one foot. If by chance one is forced to imitate a step, one replaces one foot with the other as if marching in place. This makes tornado kicks incredibly tough to perform, but it really makes them devastating.
    Well, that is entirely TRUE for real higher level martial arts.
    In Chinese MA you are never double weighted, one foot replaces the other, that;s totally correct, that is indeed the most ancient and longest tradition that has been ignored or lost to many people today.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •