The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

[Sal Canzonieri]

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.

Sorry, nothing personal, but it is very frustrating to try to talk to someone that has not done the research to find out the history of this stuff, especially after people, me included, have done decades of searching for answers.

Of course (some of) the movements themselves (the "Shaolin-ness" of them) can be traced eventually back to the Song Dynasty, that's because ALL Shaolin movements grew out of the series of sets that were developed there at that time period (around 961 AD) to standardized Shaolin movements into sets to prevent false people from posing as martial monks.

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.

But why do you say "the PRC"? The PRC isn't saying anything. There is no Official office of martial arts. The old masters in HK, Taiwan, UK, US, EEC in fact ARE the people I have received my archived info from. You have to have their confidence for them to tell you what's really true. Also, many of today's "masters" no matter how great they are have no knowledge at all about their style's history and development, if anything the know some legends, that's all.
Do you seriously think that PRC government workers or communist party members are assigned to create super obscure forged documents that about 100 people in the whole world would even be reading it? Makes no sense again.
These preserved books aren't "in their hands", they are in the hands of the families that have passed them on from generation to generation. Not at some government office building. Why would they care about it there?
There is nobody assigned to officially deny or not deny any style, come on do you realize how totally silly that sounds? All that time and expense to fool like 10 people?

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?

yes, and it is an amalgamation of Shaolin martial arts taught after the 1700s and some Cha Quan, some Southern Choy Li Fut, and some Tan Toi.

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.

That's because you are a novice then, I and many others can clearly see when a set is performed what style it is related to and also if the practitioner is more versed in another style (For example, if a Mantis master does Ba Ji, lets say, I can see that hint of Mantis in their Ba Ji.

Hell, I see moves in Karate that look just like moves in Shaolin.

Good, because karate came from Chinese Martial arts, most people know that. Okinawan karate comes from Southern Pan Gai Noon style, Go Ju Ryu comes from Five Ancestors style, others come from Southern Crane, and other styles of karate come from Luohan style. Karate researchers have done many deep research on their set, move by move they have traced them to specific sets in the Chinese martial arts (and mostly from Shaolin derived arts)

So what if the people's styles in the countryside matched well with written documentation (which may have been forged)

Well there you go, you are like a Born Again Christian, you can prove to them til you are blue in the face that there was never any historical reference to Jesus ever having existed that wasn't forged, and they will never believe you, despite all the physical evidence from much research that has been done.

So, many different people from many different countries have preserved documents that match each other, and you say "so what". And these people from all over the world from many different linages do pretty much the same sets, and you say "so what". Very logical, ha.

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?

I don't know what you have seen, what you understand when you see it, and what level of experience you have that can make this judgment correctly.

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.

Ha, and since the 1980s, in English instead of Chinese, do you know who was the first person in the USA to write a history of Muslim Chinese martial arts? The first person to write about Beggar's Style? The first person to write about how all the legends about Shaolin are incorrect? The first person to write a comprehensive series of articles on CMA martial arts history in english?

Me.

Go here and read all this, then maybe it will make sense to you:

http://www.bgtent.com/naturalcma/index.htm

Bak Si Lum is a style that comes out of the Shaolin material that the people who left Shaolin during the 1700s brought out to the rest of China. The 10 sets were basic Shaolin sets that were added on from other styles until they grew into what they are today (from Cha Quan, Tan Toi, Choy Li Fut, various Northern Shaolin Long fist, and other stuff).

And the Shaolin Kan Jia sets are 13 sets. They have the same names for their sets as the Bak Si Lum / Northern Shaolin style has for their 10 sets.
So, the Kan Jia (which is one of the last styles that came out of Shaolin, along with the Jin Gang long fist style) is a base that was elaborated on.
So, though the 10 sets themselves were created from Shaolin movements and postures, the actual sets were developed much later in time, during the Qing dynasty.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Do people understand how sets are analyzed in relation to each other?

One - as much info as possible is found on "who taught who what, when, and where". In this way, you can see how various sets spread over an area or from one region to another.

Two - from these first clues, the actual sets are compared.
Each move in the two sets being compared are freeze framed one posture at a time.
Then matching postures are looked at between the two sets, and a percentage of common postures is tallied.

Next, if there is a high percentage, the actual sequence of movements is compared, which means if a string of moves is the same in one set and in another set.
Again a percentage is tallied.

Next, the movements are followed from one set in comparison to another so that you can see if more or less movements were added or subtracted between matching postures.

This is how karate's origins have been traced, and how the origins of Tai Ji, Xing Yi, and Ba Gua have been traced by various researchers, such as the famous Kao Ji Wu, who researched the origins of Ba Gua.

Like Royal D said, the Shaolin origin of the Chen tai Ji Yi Lu set have been found in the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan 32 posture set. All the Shaolin TZ postures are found in the Chen Yi lu set in the exact same order, except that there are more moves added in between some of the sequences.
These added moves can be traced to other Shaolin sets such as Hong Quan, Rou Quan, and Pao Chui.
And it makes sense regionally, because Chen Village is only 50 miles away from Shaolin area.

Get it?

[Sal Canzonieri]

oh, and just so you know, in Shandong province where Bei Shaolin style comes from, they also call it Shaolin Kan Jia Quan style there.

[dragonf1y]

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.

Not much to add, just thought you might find this interesting if you have not already seen it.

Chen Tiaji's Chen Xiaowang has a dvd set our and in the first dvd he spends about 5 minutes discussing the ideas of being double weighted and misconceptions that go along with it.



And just because i don't feel like reading back through all of the posts...

Is this whole Shaolin Ninja being tho only true shaolin thing serious or just sarcasm?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I guess I'll keep responding even though I'm finding it difficult to commit as much time to this thread as others.

originally posted by Royal Dragon:
At what level do the Kan jia sets not match the Kyu yu Cheong Ten Hand sets?

Is it just the form choreography?

There are postures and techniques in some of the Kan Jia Chuan that I've seen that I've never seen done in BSL, at all, ever. There are completely unrelated moves in there. I don't know what "percentages" of similiar moves or techniques you guys are dealing with, but I don't even see how many of the sequences in the forms even match up at all. It's true that, as BSL was taught through the years since the 1700's, each grandmaster was allowed to add one technique to one set of his choosing (one that he favored) and nothing could ever be subtracted from the original. But it's only been about 300 hundred years since then. If, originally, they were all the same length, then it would make sense that they were added to since the 1100's since some of the sets are so much longer (69-83 moves compared to 37-45 moves) than others and, from what I gather, they're all longer than the sets in Kan Jia Chuan which seems to me like a cousin of BSL (not a twin brother) that was created later (I'm guessing in the Yuan Dynasty).

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.

Once again, I challenge this because, in my view, there is no credible proof that they weren't. It's true, there are some moves from the Moslim styles, but there is simply no absolute proof that it is a new style or that the forms were "assembled" much later. Assembled by who? This goes against the oral and written records of my style and it is complete conjecture in my opinion.

originally posted by Sal Canzonieri
Sorry, nothing personal, but it is very frustrating to try to talk to someone that has not done the research to find out the history of this stuff, especially after people, me included, have done decades of searching for answers.

Sure you've done a great deal of research, but I still question the credibility of some of your sources. There has been historical research done for decades that has turned up false or fragmented information before.

But why do you say "the PRC"? The PRC isn't saying anything. There is no Official office of martial arts. The old masters in HK, Taiwan, UK, US, EEC in fact ARE the people I have received my archived info from. You have to have their confidence for them to tell you what's really true. Also, many of today's "masters" no matter how great they are have no knowledge at all about their style's history and development, if anything the know some legends, that's all.
Do you seriously think that PRC government workers or communist party members are assigned to create super obscure forged documents that about 100 people in the whole world would even be reading it? Makes no sense again.
These preserved books aren't "in their hands", they are in the hands of the families that have passed them on from generation to generation. Not at some government office building. Why would they care about it there?
There is nobody assigned to officially deny or not deny any style, come on do you realize how totally silly that sounds? All that time and expense to fool like 10 people?

Who did you talk to in Hong Kong or the U.S.? You certainly did not speak with anyone associated with Yim Shan Wu's lineage, that's a given. Even if you did talk to anyone with some credibility, that doesn't invalidate my styles lineage. The reason I have to keep mentioning the PRC is because they have there hands in everything having to do with the Shaolin Temple these days. From the very start, when it was realized that Shaolin martial arts could pull in a significant amount of revenue and prestige for the country during the 1980's, the PRC has been heavily involved. It's so obvious!! There were monks who both left and were kicked out of the temple during this time because of the corruption at the temple and because they were displeased with the new Abbot. They wouldn't even have to do that good of a job forging documents. If the PRC sponsored Shaolin monks say they're authentic, nobody is going to dispute them. And, like I said, many of these families knew that they'd have much honor and fame bestowed upon them if they came forward saying they had been doing real authentic Shaolin. Especially when the temple became so famous in the 80's. What needs to happen is some unbiased lab should carbon date these "preserved" documents.

yes, and it is an amalgamation of Shaolin martial arts taught after the 1700s and some Cha Quan, some Southern Choy Li Fut, and some Tan Toi.

Excuse me, Southern Choy Lay Fut?! Where, pray tell, are there any Choy Lay Fut or Southern moves in Buck Pai Siu Lum? You heard this from whom? Where did you read this false information?

So, many different people from many different countries have preserved documents that match each other, and you say "so what". And these people from all over the world from many different linages do pretty much the same sets, and you say "so what". Very logical, ha.

The Buck Pai Siu Lum traditions have also been preserved in different countries and we can all trace our lineage to when the Shaolin Temple was destroyed in the 1700's. We know that it left the temple and ended up in Shantung with the common people. Of course, you're going to tell me I'm wrong or "so what". But it's always been accepted that before the temple was destroyed, nobody even knew what went on there. So you can't have any more hard evidence than I do. You're saying that there's Choy Lay Fut in my style so how can you expect me to trust your "form archaeology".

[doug maverick]

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.

heres my thinking on the subject. if there monks right, shaolin monks right right, and there practicing forms that are based on shaolin kung fu right right, at the shaolin temple. the doesn't that make it authentic shaolin.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Not much to add, just thought you might find this interesting if you have not already seen it.

Chen Tiaji's Chen Xiaowang has a dvd set our and in the first dvd he spends about 5 minutes discussing the ideas of being double weighted and misconceptions that go along with it.



And just because i don't feel like reading back through all of the posts...

Is this whole Shaolin Ninja being tho only true shaolin thing serious or just sarcasm?

He said that double weighted has nothing to do with 50/50 in each leg.
he said it is about not being able to move your opponent from your position, and the remedy is to sink into your kua and rotate the spine.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by doug maverick:
heres my thinking on the subject. if there monks right, shaolin monks right right, and there practicing forms that are based on shaolin kung fu right right, at the shaolin temple. the doesn't that make it authentic shaolin.

...Excuse me, I didn't quite get that?? I'm not disputing that the current monks are practicing some authentic techniques and methods. I'm just arguing that Bei Shaolin is the most complete and authentic system of Shaolin martial arts from antiquity. Right right?

[The Xia]

heres my thinking on the subject. if there monks right, shaolin monks right right, and there practicing forms that are based on shaolin kung fu right right, at the shaolin temple. the doesn't that make it authentic shaolin.

You haven't heard the low down on modern Shaolin monks?

[zhangxihuan]

You haven't heard the low down on modern Shaolin monks?

geez- leave the monks alone..

honestly- who cares? no one will know any of the answers for real or in their entirety,since none of us was 1) alive during the Song dynasty or is 2) a recognized doctorate level researcher on the subject (i doubt anyone is).. We all do our own research and can come to some general conclusions- like Shaolin is a northern style from China.. but getting into specifics is honestly a waste of time and creates more of a debate and animosity than anything else.


and yes- leave the monk's alone.

[The Xia]

geez- leave the monks alone..

honestly- who cares? no one will know any of the answers for real or in their entirety,since none of us was 1) alive during the Song dynasty or is 2) a recognized doctorate level researcher on the subject (i doubt anyone is).. We all do our own research and can come to some general conclusions- like Shaolin is a northern style from China.. but getting into specifics is honestly a waste of time and creates more of a debate and animosity than anything else.


and yes- leave the monk's alone.

What I see is what I see.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Sal Canzonieri
But why do you say "the PRC"? The PRC isn't saying anything. There is no Official office of martial arts.

Ya, maybe now there's not, but it was only in 1998 when they finally closed the State Sports Commission (the central sports authority). Before that almost all martial arts practices were overseen by the state. Even during the Era of Reconstruction (1976-1989). I mean...you can see the wushu influence in the kung fu or "Kuoshu" that the monks were doing all through the eighties up until now. Traditional martial arts was something completely different before The Cultural Revolution. The government burned schools and libraries during this time. If more than four people got together in a group the Red Guard would immediately haul them in (or worse). Now, you're going to tell me that the authenticity of these "traditional" forms currently taught at the Shaolin Temple hasn't suffered?

The old masters in HK, Taiwan, UK, US, EEC in fact ARE the people I have received my archived info from. You have to have their confidence for them to tell you what's really true. Also, many of today's "masters" no matter how great they are have no knowledge at all about their style's history and development, if anything the know some legends, that's all.

Since the PRC has eased up on their restrictions on traditional martial arts there have been traditional masters of Hung Gar and other arts who will tell you they tampered with their styles in the state sponsored schools. They're teaching tampered-with and impure versions. If state sponsored schools are willing to do that, then there's no telling what they're willing to make up. And there are no Siu Lum traditionalists who are going to tell you that Tong Bei fist or any of those other styles is any more authentic than Bak Siu Lum, Siu Lum Lohan, or any of the other Classical Northern Styles. Once again, weren't all of the records burned up in 1732? Where is all of this "proof" coming from if the whole place was totally burned out and destroyed!? Anyone can just all of a sudden say, "Oh look, I have an ancient scroll. Look, doesn't it look old?"

Do you seriously think that PRC government workers or communist party members are assigned to create super obscure forged documents that about 100 people in the whole world would even be reading it? Makes no sense again.
These preserved books aren't "in their hands", they are in the hands of the families that have passed them on from generation to generation. Not at some government office building. Why would they care about it there?
There is nobody assigned to officially deny or not deny any style, come on do you realize how totally silly that sounds? All that time and expense to fool like 10 people?

Those 100 people who read and accept these "official" documents have an enormous influence on the general public when it comes to these matters. Most people who don't know squat about real Shaolin martial arts (arts, like Northern Shaolin, which were considered by everyone in China to be authentic before the Cultural Revolution) are going to believe the Shaolin "Kuoshu" that they see at demonstrations and on Broadway is really what the monks were doing at Shaolin before 1732.

Bak Si Lum is a style that comes out of the Shaolin material that the people who left Shaolin during the 1700s brought out to the rest of China. The 10 sets were basic Shaolin sets that were added on from other styles until they grew into what they are today (from Cha Quan, Tan Toi, Choy Li Fut, various Northern Shaolin Long fist, and other stuff).

How can you assume all of these things about Kuo Yu Chang and his students? Yes there is Cha and Tam Tui in there. Because these were styles assimilated into Northern Shaolin in antiquity. For you to say that there is Choy Lay Fut in the ten forms is totally wrong. One of Kuo Yu Chang's students, Lung Tse Chung, learned some Choy Lay Fut from Tam Sam because Kuo and Sam swapped students. But Yim Shan Wu's Northern Shaolin was the closest to the way Kuo Yu Chang taught it, and there's was no Choy Lay Fut added to it. They were preserved almost exactly from the way Kuo's teacher, Yim Chi Wen, taught them. Yim Chi Wen didn't practice Choy Lay Fut, and since Northern Long Fist and Choy Lay Fut are Shaolin related styles, it's easy for people to believe this. You're suggesting that Kuo Yu Chang just embellished the ten forms and everything else with impunity and in total defiance of his master. Kuo Yu Chang only knew a little Choy Lay Fut to keep up with the local styles. But, the style that he brought to Southern China was purely Northern. The authentic Northern style that the PRC tried to completely eliminate.

[IronWeasel]

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.

Can you direct me to some details about this? I thought that it was widely accepted that Damo DID develop martial material.

Thanks,

Ironweasel

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I don't believe that he did. It's believed that he introduced some yoga, or exercises to help the fatigued and struggling monks at the monastery. But there is no proof that he brought the 18 Lines Fighting Set to the temple.

Just like there's no proof of anything prior to 1732. Though, in my opinion, there is more circumstantial evidence that Bak Siu Lum is indeed the original Song Shaolin style. This style represents the very best martial arts practiced at the Honan temple during antiquity.

[syn]

I have ALOT to learn about martial arts history.