Shaolin Defined

[bawang]

in the old manuals from the beijing online library, there were a lot of old stories of wondering shaolin monks teaching people in need so they can have revenge. usually the story goes a wondering monk sees a person being sad because his friend/relative/himself got (insert) by (some people), so he teach him (random gong). then after this person masters this gong, he kill their whole family. after they got revenge he goes to the shaolin temple.

[Shaolin Wookie]

usually the story goes a wondering monk sees a person being sad because his friend/relative/himself got (disemboweled) by (some opium dealers from Taiwan over a shipment of loco weed), so he teach him (bong gong). then after this person masters this gong, he kill their whole family. after they got revenge he goes to the shaolin temple.

I love Mad Libs. Does make you wonder what they were cooking in those branding cauldrons at the entrance to the temple. Free basing?

[bawang]

I love Mad Libs. Does make you wonder what they were cooking in those branding cauldrons at the entrance to the temple. Free basing?

i think the spirit of shaolin is less combining chan buddhism with chinese kung fu, than Chinese nationalism.

i wish a shaolin monk would teach me skill of iron butt
i heard Shi De Yang got arrested and put in the Bay area big house for trying to solicit a ying yang man and drinking special water in public, Big Ray Ray tried to anoosrape him, and he clenched his buttcheeks and ripped it right off

[Bruce W Sims]

Stanley Henning made quite a wave when he related that the greater amount of focus on "Shaolin" related more to literary works of the 18th and 19th Century than actual practices or concrete information.

Has anyone ever sought to construct a history of Chinese Boxing traditions without relying on including Shaolin history and see if the result is at least somewhat as cohesive as when such material is used? Thoughts?

BTW: What I have noticed for myself is that there are very discrete stories told between which there seem to be very large gaps. The assumption seems to be that during those gaps things went on pretty much as when the discrete incident occurred. However, I have not found any evidence to support this. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[David Jamieson]

shaolin spans a 1500+ year long history.

to stick it in a box for the sake of categorizing it is a fruitless effort that will reap little reward and certainly not contribute to further understanding of what it is or isn't.

[Bruce W Sims]

I think you are very right, David.

I also think that using a term for which there is no actual understanding is equally fruitless. There are some terms such as "master" and "grandmaster" which are thrown about with considerable abandon, but are poorly defined and understood. Fact is that prior to the 1970-s the term 'grandmaster" did not even exist within the context of MA and the term "master" was not used here in the US until the 1960-s (See: Black Belt Magazine). In the Korean traditions, rank, for instance, did not exist at all until its was foisted on Korean martial traditions following the Japanese Occupation (1907-1946).

Taken a step ****her, there are terms such as "soke" in Japanese traditions and "sifu" in Chinese traditions which are regularly invoked and used by Western practitioners with very little insight into what the purpose and obligations of these titles entail (See: JAMA). All of which is to say that if the use of a term such a "Shaolin" is only to invoke an emotional response rather than makes a true distinction among the various traditions, then I think perhaps, we need to examine who is using the term and why. For myself, I am of an understanding that there are some folks who have come to use "Shaolin" as a category to cover all Northern Chinese traditions, much like others use the term "Long Fist". This begs the question, what distinction is being made when someone identifies a practice as "Shaolin Long Fist", yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Shaolin Wookie]

shaolin spans a 1500+ year long history.

to stick it in a box for the sake of categorizing it is a fruitless effort that will reap little reward and certainly not contribute to further understanding of what it is or isn't.

I bet you're the kind of guy that doesn't fold his clothes or sort them according to type (socks, boxers, T-shirts) before stuffing them into a dresser, and when you pack your luggage, you just jam a bunch of **** into a gym bag and strain with the zipper for ten minutes before you can get the sucker closed.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I think you are very right, David.

I also think that using a term for which there is no actual understanding is equally fruitless. There are some terms such as "master" and "grandmaster" which are thrown about with considerable abandon, but are poorly defined and understood. Fact is that prior to the 1970-s the term 'grandmaster" did not even exist within the context of MA and the term "master" was not used here in the US until the 1960-s (See: Black Belt Magazine). In the Korean traditions, rank, for instance, did not exist at all until its was foisted on Korean martial traditions following the Japanese Occupation (1907-1946).

Taken a step ****her, there are terms such as "soke" in Japanese traditions and "sifu" in Chinese traditions which are regularly invoked and used by Western practitioners with very little insight into what the purpose and obligations of these titles entail (See: JAMA). All of which is to say that if the use of a term such a "Shaolin" is only to invoke an emotional response rather than makes a true distinction among the various traditions, then I think perhaps, we need to examine who is using the term and why. For myself, I am of an understanding that there are some folks who have come to use "Shaolin" as a category to cover all Northern Chinese traditions, much like others use the term "Long Fist". This begs the question, what distinction is being made when someone identifies a practice as "Shaolin Long Fist", yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

And yet, there is a mammoth thread right below this one going on 500 pages, delineating in no uncertain terms what exactly is not Shaolin, in more or less uncertain terms, despite the fact that nobody knows for certain what in the hell is Shaolin.

[David Jamieson]

Ch'an, medicinal practice, kungfu.

these practices combined can be said to be a shaolin way, particularly when dranw form the well of shaolin.

zen is zen, but has a few different paths.

medicinal practice is the same, many different paths and kungfu, well taht's all over the place. But, if it is "just" martial art and has no medicinal practice and has no zen, then it cannot be said to be "shaolin" it cqn only be said to be drawn from shaolin. That's the major point of difference.

just sayin.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Ch'an, medicinal practice, kungfu.

these practices combined can be said to be a shaolin way, particularly when dranw form the well of shaolin.

zen is zen, but has a few different paths.

medicinal practice is the same, many different paths and kungfu, well taht's all over the place. But, if it is "just" martial art and has no medicinal practice and has no zen, then it cannot be said to be "shaolin" it cqn only be said to be drawn from shaolin. That's the major point of difference.

just sayin.

So, by this logic, b/c Shaolin-Do does have medicinal/herbal practices, iron palm, tons of chi-kung and several other health related practices on top of kung-fu, and does include "secular" Ch'an (just taught as Ch'an meditation practices, no sutras), and has kung fu on top of that............

Well, you get the picture.

BTW, I'm not trying to hijack this thread for SD. I'm just seeing if you think your definition of Shaolin stands true by positing the hot topic and resident controversial style in a dialectical manner.

[David Jamieson]

There is a style of Okinawan Karatedo that is called "shorin ryu"

this means "shaolin school".

I myself have learned sil lum kungfu which is also shaolin.

what is at shaolin temple nowadays is not necessarily what is out and about in the rest of the world.
I don't think it matters anymore. However, i have never had anyone try to tell me that Karate or Kempo was bonafide shaolin, only based on it.

[mkriii]

Believe me there is a difference between shorin ryu and Shaolin Kung Fu. Shorin Ryu is more hard and linear from what I have seen and I have seen A LOT of Shorin Ryu stylists. Shaoling in more circular and soft with very little hardness.

[David Jamieson]

Believe me there is a difference between shorin ryu and Shaolin Kung Fu. Shorin Ryu is more hard and linear from what I have seen and I have seen A LOT of Shorin Ryu stylists. Shaoling in more circular and soft with very little hardness.

yes i understand that. This is why i was using it to make the point. But I must disagree with your statement regarding hardness. there is plenty of hard ass hardness in sil lum kungfu.

[bawang]

Believe me there is a difference between shorin ryu and Shaolin Kung Fu. Shorin Ryu is more hard and linear from what I have seen and I have seen A LOT of Shorin Ryu stylists. Shaoling in more circular and soft with very little hardness.

shaolin is very direct and hard, it should because it's external right?
(traditionally shaolin is known for linear and straight forward, i heard from real practitioners!! most of their forms go straight forward)
but i think the japanese "shorin" schools actually are not shaolin but shaolin "inspired". most of they just do normal kempo.

[B-Rad]

Of course Shaolin-Do goes far beyond just claiming to be traced back to Shaolin to the head teacher claiming to be THE grandmaster of ALL of Shaolin while teaching forms from many other styles that have verifiable origins that have nothing to do with Shaolin, and having lots of b.s. stories about his own training background... not to mention him or other high ranking black belts actively spreading new lies It's an important distinction imo.