Emei Crane

[MasterKiller]

oh yes because shaolin do is worth so much more martially

This guy isn't even Shaolin-Do. It's a super-secret squirrel society based in Portland.

http://www.shaolintemple.org/

The OSC was brought to the United States and (briefly) Canada beginning in 1902, as the most senior echelon of Shaolin monks fled the chaos and destruction of the Boxer Rebellion, the end of the Chinese Empire, the Warlord Period, and the purges of communism. From the late 1920's through 1974, the OSC was headquartered in and operated from New York's Chinatown. Today, the Order continues to preserve and perpetuate Shaolin teachings from its headquarters near Portland, Oregon. In order to better function within the laws of its adopted country, the OSC incorporated as a religious 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2003.

[Jingwu Man]

Southern tigerI wonder how many magazines you would sell if people realized that the "Shaolin temple" is only significant as a tourism destination with fancy wushu, not significant from a martial standpoint.

Uh, have you actually been to the Songshan temple? Not just the wushuguan show, but in the temple, training with the masters? You have to look past the show stuff that is there to get peoples attention, and find the true hardcore, and frankly frightening skills of the real practitioners of Shaolin. It's there, you just have to look beyond just books. Try doing some research yourself.

[GeneChing]

My research on Shaolin, both the modern temple and traditional descendants such as Bak Sil Lum, are a matter of public record. The reason I wrote such a scathing review was the same as Henning and the same as any of the critics of the book. It's well written, but poorly researched. There are plenty of us doing real research on Shaolin. OSC is clearly not among us.

[SouthernTiger]

My research on Shaolin, both the modern temple and traditional descendants such as Bak Sil Lum, are a matter of public record. The reason I wrote such a scathing review was the same as Henning and the same as any of the critics of the book. It's well written, but poorly researched. There are plenty of us doing real research on Shaolin. OSC is clearly not among us.

Mr. Ching,

Point taken. However you assume that the purpose of the book was to "further your research" into Shaolin. The purpose of the book was to introduce to the public what has been passed down in THIS Shaolin lineage. As such, most of the info was passed down orally, as in many traditional teacher-student relationships.

So, I think you beef with it not being properly researched is misplaced. It was not meant to be a research project. Regardless, research into history can be quite subjective. Ultimately, you choose want you want to believe. Good luck in your "research".

And what is with all this Shaolin-do talk. I have no idea what they are about. Is that Steve Demasco "International Shaolin Ambassador" their spokesman or what? To anyone that c ares, I have nothing to do with Shaolin-do. And actually I have very little to do with the OSC. I train under my instructor in which our lineage is from the current SiTaigung of the OSC. But my instructor is loosely associated with them these days...

Once again, my apologies to Wookie for hijacking his thread.

-Blake

[MasterKiller]

Once again, my apologies to Wookie for hijacking his thread.

-Blake

It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

[SouthernTiger]

It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

Tainted? Hmm...thats cute. I can only imagine what you mean since you didnt clarify anything, but whatever...

I imagine Wookie's research has more to do with magazine articles in which practitioners claim they learned a crane style purportedly from omeishan. Perhaps, Wookie could expand somewhat on what articles piqued his interest in this topic. Otherwise, no one else on this board seems to be offering anything substantial.

Wookie?

-Blake

[GeneChing]

Alright, I'll bite, SouthernTiger. Research means that there's some sort of systematic effort to present facts. Sure, there are plenty of oral histories surrounding Shaolin. I've always made an effort to externally validate any story I've heard. Are you saying that there was no such effort made in the publication of this book?

[SouthernTiger]

Alright, I'll bite, SouthernTiger. Research means that there's some sort of systematic effort to present facts. Sure, there are plenty of oral histories surrounding Shaolin. I've always made an effort to externally validate any story I've heard. Are you saying that there was no such effort made in the publication of this book?

Mr. Ching,

You still assume that this book's purpose was to "prove" in some manner what oral tradition has passed down. This is simply not the point. Endnotes and sources were provided where the OSC felt necessary to either corrobrate our oral tradition or explain differences.

You, sir, seem to fancy yourself an historian. The OSC is made up of Buddhist monks not particularly concerned with anything more than a cursory survey of Shaolin history as it is not directly condusive to attaining enlightenment. Therefore these minor, possibly incorrect, details (which you have not specified) are hardly all-important to the reason why the book was published. That is : to present our oral tradition-based lineage and what has been passed down in regards to Shaolin Chan, martial arts, and yes, history to the public for the first time.

This was, of course, explained in the book but I guess you missed that when you were checking dates and names... Either way, your manner in which you treated the book was confounding and frankly poor journalism. If you actually do "review" books, it would behoove you to undertake each project without assumptions and view the work as a whole and perhaps, judge it as to wheather it accomplished what it was published for.

Now, all that being said, I could care less if you dont believe that it is true. In fact, I only hope you are convinced in your own mind that what YOU believe is true. I think Buddha said something along those lines....better your truth than the truth of another or something.

So, in aswer to your question, yes, the OSC did try to validate oral history by referencing other books (or external sources, as you put it) but to the OSC this was a minor issue and not directly related to the purpose of the book. I understand that this may not be up to your standards, but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. You are far too influential a person to make such rash judgements.

-Blake

[GeneChing]

...the book presents an oral history of your tradition, it did the fact checking, there were some "minor, possibly incorrect, details" but those were inconsequential. Cross validation was a "minor issue".

As for my credentials reviewing books, you'll find my name on many major Shaolin works, often in the acknowledgments section and occasionally on the back cover blurb. I've taught martial history seminars across the country, even assisted on the graduate level at Stanford University. I'm cited in numerous works. What were the credentials of the authors of this book again? Oh right, they remain anonymous.

I don't consider my web comments as an 'official review'. Web comments are unedited, self-published opinions. They are not subject to the rigors of formal standards. While it's true, my position does make me a person of influence, and the nature of my comments here, and in other informal places on the web, gives my posts some more credibility, I assure you my review was anything but rash. Keep in mind, I'm exposed to a ton of books and articles on a daily basis. That means I see a ton of garbage too. For the most part, I don't comment on that. But this book was just too much to let pass. I'm far from being alone in my criticisms.

[SouthernTiger]

...the book presents an oral history of your tradition, it did the fact checking, there were some "minor, possibly incorrect, details" but those were inconsequential. Cross validation was a "minor issue".

As for my credentials reviewing books, you'll find my name on many major Shaolin works, often in the acknowledgments section and occasionally on the back cover blurb. I've taught martial history seminars across the country, even assisted on the graduate level at Stanford University. I'm cited in numerous works. What were the credentials of the authors of this book again? Oh right, they remain anonymous.

I don't consider my web comments as an 'official review'. Web comments are unedited, self-published opinions. They are not subject to the rigors of formal standards. While it's true, my position does make me a person of influence, and the nature of my comments here, and in other informal places on the web, gives my posts some more credibility, I assure you my review was anything but rash. Keep in mind, I'm exposed to a ton of books and articles on a daily basis. That means I see a ton of garbage too. For the most part, I don't comment on that. But this book was just too much to let pass. I'm far from being alone in my criticisms.

Mr. Ching,

I still dont think you are quite getting what I am saying. This may be my fault in poorly presenting my side of the discussion. But, methinks you are incredibly obstinant to boot!

As such I see no advantage to either of us by discussing this much further. All I can say is this: If you want to read a book exclusively on Shaolin history which dissects oral tradition in an inacessible and scholarly way: this is not the book for you. However, if you want to learn more about Shaolin from a rare lineage purportedly coming from many of the senior monks of the Shaolin temple: this is the book for you. THIS BOOK IS NOT AN HISTORY TEXTBOOK! (maybe caps will help get this point across)

Mr. Ching, to view this book with the assumption that it must be a history textbook to have any utility is in error. This is comparable to buying a book on cooking looking only for nutrition facts of foods. That is not the purpose of the book therefore it could not fulfill this criteria satisfactorily.

To conclude, I would like to address your last two paragraphs briefly. First, your credentials are impeccable indeed. You are a consummate scholar. However, I dont see what the point of this was? Are you attempting to exalt yourself beyond reproach? If your argument is flawed, your credentials mean nothing. As a buddhist, I would think that you would stress that the message is of prime importantance, not the messenger. Buddha's words are meaningful because there is wisdom contained within, not because it is Buddha saying them.

Secondly, you allude to being in a bandwagon with other critics. However I dont see this as the case. Almost all the reviews that have been given ("professional" or otherwise) have been favorable. Also, the book is selling quite well but of course, I dont mean to imply that if it sells well, it is a great book. I still think you were a bit rash in your judgement, but that is neither here nor there...

To finish, let me say that I enjoyed our discussion and hope that our disagreement does not engender any feelings of bad will. Also, for the record, I throughly enjoy your "Kungfu/Taichi" magazine. Dr. Craig Reid's column is by far worth the price of the magazine.

Thanks and take care!

-Blake

[godzillakungfu]

You, sir, seem to fancy yourself an historian.

You realize you actually called his credentials into question with this remark right?

[GeneChing]

I am incredibly obstinate. And I'm a bad Buddhist too. Getting worse by the moment. Good Buddhists have to give up stuff like garlic and onions and I'm just not that committed to it. I appreciate your support of the magazine.

[SaintSage]

I am incredibly obstinate. And I'm a bad Buddhist too. Getting worse by the moment. Good Buddhists have to give up stuff like garlic and onions and I'm just not that committed to it. I appreciate your support of the magazine.

Recently in one of my theology classes we were talking about how realizing you're a bad Christian is one of the requirements of being a good Christian. Until you realize you're being a good Chrisitian in which case you're being a bad Christian... Any similar ideas in your flavor of Buddhism?

[Shaolin Wookie]

oh yes because shaolin do is worth so much more martially

LOL from the sixteen year old MMAist in Britain with all the access in the world to SD, who's nursing a busted arm from improper technique.

See, we can all take cheap shots at people and styles we know nothing about, talking out of our arses. Did you notice how I used "arse" instead of *****? That's for you, buddy.

[Shaolin Wookie]

It's not really a hijack because most of the stuff I googled about Omei Crane was either related to or copied from Shaolin.com. I imagine a good deal of Wookie's research has been "tainted" by the OSC's online presence.

Could be the case. I don't know. But I swear I had some stuff that came from the KFM archives. Can't find it now, so maybe I'm wrong.