Hong Quan anyone?

[Royal Dragon]

I was thinking that.

Are these all supposed to be practiced as one long set?

Either way, what is the reason for having 4 sets, when you could do them all back to back in one form?

[Sal Canzonieri]

I was thinking that.

Are these all supposed to be practiced as one long set?

Either way, what is the reason for having 4 sets, when you could do them all back to back in one form?

Why is there 6 Da Hong Quan sets or 4 Pao Chui sets, and so on?

In this case, and as is often the cause in many CMA, each set is called a Lu in Chinese, which is close to meaning a road or route or routine.
They are really all one long set, but each Lu emphasizes different ideas and strategies.

You are supposed to do them all back to back as one form, yes.
But during each one you look for the new lessons it is teaching you.

By the way, there are 116 movements in these sets, but 108 different postures.
AND< they start and end of sets of 32 postures (like the Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Quan Yi Lu set), AND you can find just about all these postures in General Qi Chi Quang's infamous 32 move set.

[Royal Dragon]

Interesting. Which onces are missing from Qi jiguangs set?

OR, is Qi Jiguangs form a section of this material maybe?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Interesting. Which onces are missing from Qi jiguangs set?

OR, is Qi Jiguangs form a section of this material maybe?

It's always the same 3-4 moves missing, which are from the other styles that he mentioned in his list (Ba Fan Shan, etc).

[r.(shaolin)]

......

In this case, and as is often the cause in many CMA, each set is called a Lu in Chinese, which is close to meaning a road or route or routine.
They are really all one long set, but each Lu emphasizes different ideas and strategies.

Shaolin sets as well are structured on certain number of sections/parts (Chin.:部 bu) or roads (Chin.:路 lu) Both these terms have been included in the names of some sets. However in those cases, the number of sections or roads is generally included in the full name of the set. Shaolin's Tantui Shier Lu 譚腿十二路 "Tantui 12 roads or paths," follows this convention. Like most traditional Shaolin sets Tan Tui travels on a line going back and forth, these lines are called 'roads' (Chin.:路 lu). Each grouping is designed to fall neatly into a single road. This is why you hear the word "tao lu (Chin.:套路) "a set (as in a group) of roads," in reference to sets. As you can see the word 'set' is an appropriate word for what some people call 'forms'.

On the other hand, Shenlong Shier Bu 神龍十二部 which like most traditional Shaolin sets, travels on a line going back and forth, uses the word 'bu部' rather than '路 lu'. This is because it is measured by grouped sequences of attacks and counters which are strategically more complex and do not fall neatly into a line per section.

By the way, the 3 main sets of Shaolin Hong Quan have three different salutes and the opening and closing of each of their sets.

1 - Xiao Hong Quan sets
2 - Da Hong Quan sets
3. - Lao Hong Quan

What has been passed on by our older generations is that all Shaolin sets begin with the Shiwuwei Yin hand position (for dispelling fear and symbolizes protection, etc. - the left Shiwuwei Yin for empty hand sets; the right Shiwuwei Yin for weapons) followed with both palms pressing down along the front of the body. In the case of weapons, just the one hand is pressed down.

Shaolin was unique in that it documented the origins of sets they 'absorbed'. According to the tradition I practice this included retaining the style name of sets, as with Hong Quan. Although Shaolin monks added their own opening gestures in front of these adopted sets they retained the existing beginnings as well. This created longer opening sequences. In other words there was no attempt to hid the source of sets by Shaolin monks.

We do not have any sets called "Lao Hong Quan sets" so I cann't comment.

However in our case, once the typical 'Shaolin Shiwuwei Yin' is done the 'original' openings for Xiao and Da Hong follows. Although these are different for Xiao and Da, they do have some similarity as well. According to our tradition Xiao and Da Hong Chuan Quan sets were practiced at Shaolin monastery for centuries and were used in tests of basic skill (da being the more difficult set). Versions of these extant sets spread to the laity because they were commonly done by all martial monks at one time. During the early 1950's when the PRC's Research Commission of Chinese Physical Culture began to standardize and simplify traditional northern long fist sets, simplified versions (of the way we do Xiao and Da Hong Changquan) have found their way into early modernized wushu.

no flat hand over the fist

That's right, Shaolin does not use this salute.

r.

[r.(shaolin)]

Here's some new and interesting information on the Empty Flower board that you might all like to see, I was amazed by it:

http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/y...num=1187475183

Hong Quan is mentioned.

Hi Sal,
I finallly had a chance to look at this and found it interesting as well.
Here are my thoughts.

At that time, the most important styles in Shaolin Si was Shaolin Taizu Chuan, Shaolin Hong Chuan and Shaolin Pao Chuan.

Basically this confirms that around end of Ming and beginning of Qing dynasties, Hong Quan was important or at least was well known at Shaolin and was attributed to Taizu.

Bai Yufeng's, Wu Xing Di Tang Chuan (5 element tumbling boxing), created during the Yuan dynasty, had probably already been disseminated to the masses.

Our traditions also claims that Bai Yufeng and Wu Xing being created during the Yuan Dynasty, however this is the first time I've heard any one calling Wu Xing a "tumbling boxing". This is interesting because in our tradition 'tumbling' is well represented in three of the 12 sets that make up Shaolin Wu Xing as we practice it. These three important sets being: Wu Xing Hu Shou 五形虎手(Five Shapes of Tiger Hands); Wu Xing Long Shuo 五形龍手( Five Shapes of Dragon Hands) and Long Hu Zheng Sheng 龍虎爭 勝(Dragon and Tiger struggling for Supremacy).

At this time, Ji Longfeng had not yet gained any true inspiration, however, the path to Shaolin runs past the QianZhai Temple in Bo’Ai county.

Priest Dong of QianZhai, was famous for his Shi San Shi Rou Shou (13 soft hands)

This suggests that Rou Quan was not from Shaolin but from Qianzai Temple 千載寺. This temple was not an orthodox Chan Buddhist temple but a synthesized temple that combined Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

This is the same way the merchant Wang Zong Yue passed his Soft Hands and Six Harmony Spear skills to Dong when he passed the temple when he passed by. No style can be created from nothing and just as Zhang San Feng took the lessons of those before him and created the 13 Soft Hands, Ji Longfeng too, had a teacher.

Again this suggests that Rou Quan is not from Shaolin.

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

This suggests that Rou Quan was not from Shaolin but from Qianzai Temple 千載寺. This temple was not an orthodox Chan Buddhist temple but a synthesized temple that combined Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

Again this suggests that Rou Quan is not from Shaolin.

r.

Well, maybe.

First there was the Shaolin nei Gongs that the Rou Quan come from:
LiuHe Gong (6 harmony)
Chan Yuan Gong (Zen Circular exercises)
Luohan 13 Gong

From them the Rou Quan sets were made (3).

oral history says that these sets are from Tang Dynasty or earlier to Sui.

How do we know that the Taoist Shi San Shi Rou Shou (13 soft hands) is not derived from these supposedly ancient Shaolin sets.

Maybe it is possible that Shaolin got them from Taoists? Or vice versa?

I'd have to compare the Shi San Shi Rou Shou (13 soft hands) to the Shaolin Luohan 13 Gong and so on to know for sure.

One thing is for certain, tai ji is very much like these Shaolin sets (both the nei gongs and the rou quan)
AND

the other interesting thing is that the Qianzai Temple's 千載寺 martial art is said to be a Shanxi province Tong Bei origin
AND these Shaolin Nei Gong and Rou Quan sets are CLEARLY derived from Tong Bei !!!
(if you've done both, as I have)

I really wonder which came first, the Shaolin or the Taoist starting point?

Will need some detective work. If the information is available, it can be ascertained I think by comparing dates and so on.

We know that both Chen Wang Ting, his Li family cousins and now it is known that Ji Long Feng went to Qianzai Temple during the early Ming time period.

The 6 Harmony style is known to go back to the Song dynasty.

But this 13 Postures is the real missing link.

When and where did the Taoists get it?

Also, if Qianzai Temple is founded by Shanxi people who moved south to Henan, where did they get this 13 Postures art from?
They say from Taoist source (Zhang Seng Feng - but that is considered merely a legendary story).

If Shaolin has been doing these very primitive but effective sets since Sui or Tang dynasty, then maybe they are the original source?
And people didn't know that the Taoist got it from Shaolin originally, especially since by Ming time period Shaolin had be destroyed and closed down a few times already and their arts scattered all over the place after the Song and Yuan dynasties.

[r.(shaolin)]

I really wonder which came first, the Shaolin or the Taoist starting point?

Will need some detective work. If the information is available, it can be ascertained I think by comparing dates and so on.


When and where did the Taoists get it?

Also, if Qianzai Temple is founded by Shanxi people who moved south to Henan, where did they get this 13 Postures art from?
They say from Taoist source (Zhang Seng Feng - but that is considered merely a legendary story).

Many Buddhists clergy kept friendships with Taoists clergy; and without a doubt there were exchanges and absorption of elements between Taoist and “Buddhist religious teachings as well as martial arts.

Shaolin was characterized by the fact it absorbed many kinds of martial arts coming from all kinds of different people. Just one example is Shaolin's Seven stars sword (chin.: Qixingjiàn 七星剑) which has obvious Taoist reference in its name. This should not surprise in that Taoism has a deep history in China.

During the Tang period of the three spiritual systems: Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, Taoism was the paramount. During the Song and even during the Yuan it continued to be very influential. It was not until the end of the Ming dynasty that it began to decline and during the Qing dynasty it was Buddhism which stood in high regard. By then Taoism no longer had any standing at the imperial court.

The relationships between Taoism and Buddhism was complex, as they influenced each other in many ways while often competing. Chan is a prime example in that it was the product of a successful transformation of Buddhism and Chinese traditional thinking and China’s native culture.

Of the different sects of Buddhism that developed in China, Chan most closely came to reflect Taoist influence. Many scholars maintain that there was an interaction during Imperial times between Taoist monks and Chan Buddhists and there was a mutual borrowing of gods and rites. As late as the early 1900’s, both monks and other observers of the time noted that Taoist monks were in fact allowed to stay in the wandering monks hall’s even at strict model Buddhist monasteries and attend devotions, and meals.

This is supported in histories/legends passed on to my teacher concening some Shaolin sets.

Old Li family histories say that the Li brothers and Chen Wangting created shisanshi tongbei gong 十三式通臂功 - Thirteen Postures Boxing, also called taiji yangshen gong 太極養生功 at Qianzai Temple 千載寺 (note that 'the concept of yin and yang comes from Taoist and Neo-Confucian philosophy not Buddhism).

Our verbal traditions say that Tai Ji were created by a lay follower of the Shaolin Monastery who was (or became – its not clear) a Taoist. The legend continues that a few generations later some sets of this art were introduced to Shaolin by his grand student(s).

[Sal Canzonieri]

This is supported in histories/legends passed on to my teacher concerning some Shaolin sets.

Old Li family histories say that the Li brothers and Chen Wangting created shisanshi tongbei gong 十三式通臂功 - Thirteen Postures Boxing, also called taiji yangshen gong 太極養生功 at Qianzai Temple 千載寺.

Yes, agreed, thanks.

This Tai Ji Tong Bei that Chen Wangting and his Li cousins created was made from what they learned at this Qianzi Temple, which is called "tong bei" (shanxi long fist?) and nei gongs that they incorporated from the big three religions.

Now, it is found out the Ji Long Feng's spear and other training also comes from Qianzi and later Shaolin exchanged material with him, eventually leading to his creation of 6 Harmony Xin Yi.

Qianzi is shaping up to be the missing link between many things: Shanxi Province arts, Chen TJQ, XY, and Shaolin. I think it is important to explore these connections.

Our verbal traditions say that Tai Ji were created by a lay follower of the Shaolin Monastery who was (or became – its not clear) a Taoist. The legend continues that a few generations later some sets of this art were introduced to Shaolin by his grand student(s).

Well, that's the Chang San Feng story, isn't it?
He was the lay follower that went to Wudang and developed TJQ and whose grandstudents spread it in Henan Province.

I think that it wasn't really Chang Seng Feng but the person who ran the Qianzhi Temple who is the real person that did this.
BUT< he had said he had a taoist teacher who taught him the 13 Postures set.

A comparison really needs to be made between Shaolin Rou Quan and Luohan 13 Gong and the 13 Postures Set.

Also, in the long run it is all based on Tong Bei, and very clearly these Shaolin sets, including their pre-requisite nei gong sets: 6 Harmony Gong and Chan Yuan Gong are derived from tong bei, they are almost identical.
And like tong bei, you can do them with sword in hand (like Taoist sets!)
Tong Bei has nei gongs, and is of course a Taoist art (was no Buddhism when tong bei was being developed - from sword movements).

[Sal Canzonieri]

Here's this relevant info with some answers:

According to Qu Jian and Li Xiangyi, “the art of Wuji Cultivating Life” and “the Thirteen Postures Boxing” had been CREATED by the Qianzai Temple priest Shi Li 十力 (614-741), or Li Daozi 李道子, who well studied the Three Teachings, Qianjin yifang 千金翼方 “Revised Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Pieces of Gold,” daoyin 導引 “guiding and pulling” and tunai 吐納 “expelling the old breath and drawing the new.” Based on the stone tablet inscriptions provided in Qu’s article, Shi Li’s art accentuates: “Don’t be bully of futileness, the pugilism is for life and health. The softness overcomes the hardness, give up yourself and follow the opponent 勿為霸腐 拳為民生 以柔克剛 舍己從人.” (Qu Jian; Li Xiangyi).

So, Li Daizi (Shi Li) was the Creater of 13 Postures set, wow interesting!!!!!

Not Chang San Feng, or some mystery Taoist.
Perhaps he was the ex-Shaolin person that turned to Taoism?

Since he was lived from 614-741, it is very well possible that he via his grand-students later brought this type of Rou Quan material to Shaolin? He did live pretty far back!

Interesting that when Ji Long Feng went to Qianzhi Temple, he learned 6 Harmonies (spear and fist) there.
Since the source nei gong to the whole Song dynasty era Shaolin sets (Tai Tzu, Hong Quan, Pao Quan, Tong Bi, etc) comes from the 6 Harmonies Gong set!
Very interesting.

What we need to do is compare 13 Postures Set to Shaolin Luohan 13 Gong and Rou Quan.

[Bruce W Sims]

Although it may seem like the most obvious answer, most of the folks who I know who attempt research in this area seem to be drawn to materials dated back hundreds of years. The lack of documentation seems to bother them not at all.

For myself, I tend not to pay much attention to anything prior to the YUAN Dynasty, as even going back some 700 years is probably a bit of a stretch, yes?

As far as General Qi's material I can only say that I concur with the latest scholarship that supports that the Boxing Canon is primarily TAIZU Long Fist and that General Qi's commentaries provide little or no insight into the execution of such material. I have been aware for some time that it has become acceptable for people to take the salient position of the methods and attempt to chain these together in some fashion as to produce a "form"(See: Qi Family Publication). To my mind it would make much more sense to use the individual methods as they are.

Currently I am engaged in research into the KWON BUP material which is said to derive from the Boxing Canon of General Qi. Unfortunately I must report that while this is a popular position for people who have read the recent translation (See: Kim, Turtle Press), once one steps away from this single representation the entire fabric begins to come undone.

Has anyone else found a similar rapid degrading of information over the last two hundred years? Personally I think we might do better to focus on this rather than attempt to identify something from the 10th Century, yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Royal Dragon]

I think it makes sense to try and identify as much as we can, as far back as we can.

[Bruce W Sims]

I certainly agree with that. I wonder only that perhaps we might have more success--- more useful information of direct consequence to what we do today ---if, perhaps, we begin with what we know in THIS century and work backwards.

For instance, we know that the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI was published in 1795. This post-dates the work of both the Chen Clan as well as YANG Luchan. And, the work, itself, invokes the Boxing Canon of General Qi. Might we not be better served if we could identify those methods for what they are in that work? The Koreans did not use but about 19 of the methods and the time period cannot be so far removed from what we do now that folks are unable to identify the methods for what they are--- a scant 212 years ago. Certainly the nomenclature ought be found in either the CHEN tradition or one of the five styles that make-up the Northern Chinese Long Fist tradition, yes? Such a contribution would allow people to actually put the material of this resource in the Public Domain rather than keep it secretive within the Korean culture.

I think it is always fun to muse over the origins of things. For people who are entertained by the notion, we can always ascribe the "Eight Pieces of Brocade" the the 12 Century patriot Yue Fei, for instance, though we will never be able to know if he originated them or not. And for the TCM folks among us, we can always imagine that the "Yellow Emperor's Canon of Medicine" was actually written in the 3rd Millenium BC rather than the 3rd Century AD as is more likely. But from the standpoint of application and practice, where may the better good be served? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Bruce W Sims]

Hmmmm... What happened to the discussion?

Was it something I said?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[r.(shaolin)]

Bruce (and Sal),

I'm buried with other pressing matters. I do have some thoughts
on your interesting posts. Later this weekend I will try and get them down and post something.

cheers,
r.