Shaolin Temple Myths

[lkfmdc]

Oh, going back to Taiping rebellion. Not only weird for the Jesus angle, but quite illuminating in terms of China and Chinese society

You have a guy who drops out of mainstream society because he can't pass his exams. He is then able to co-op already existing militia. He didn't create an army, the militia were already there. The peasants were already militarized because of bandits and feuds. Those with fighting skills, ie "martial artists" had already found a haven in the country side, where the law was absent and violence was the solution to ongoing social tensions

[PM]

well, history, structure and development of gjffk is another story - i have mentioned it just because of the older generation's point of view on Siulam. Wong Feihung is very well documented historical person, and from him it is just 1-3 generations to Luk Achoi/Hung Heigun, disciples of Jisin simsi.

[Yum Cha]

Ok, so there are scholarly and less scholarly references. Better and worse academics.

Oral traditions that we know are myths, constructed and passed down for generations.

Still, I think there is a way to resolve the two, simply give each its due. If history is your forte, have at it bro!

The myths were, like many other myths in many other societies and religions, created for a reason. Sometimes the reason was an individual's vanity. Other times, it was for a lesson. Other times, pure entertainment.

Its not an either or proposition if you have half a brain. Take them for what their worth and enjoy.

[lkfmdc]

well, history, structure and development of gjffk is another story - i have mentioned it just because of the older generation's point of view on Siulam.

my personal opinion would be that there IS a lot of original Siu Lam in that set, that it is close to what they learned originally.. just that it evolved (as all things SHOULD)

Wong Feihung is very well documented historical person, and from him it is just 1-3 generations to Luk Achoi/Hung Heigun, disciples of Jisin simsi.

Luk Ah Choi seems to be no question about, but what if he "created" his teacher and the temple story? If I had a school in 34th street in Manhattan and told you that I had trained in a mountain in NJ and there were no cars, no PATH train, no telephones and no internet, how could you check up? How many would just say "ok"?

How many just say "ok" today? Even with the internet to double check stuff?

[TenTigers]

there's also a good chance that these legends are not nearly as old as we would like to believe. What reason would Luk Ah Choy have for creating such a facinating and heroic history? So at what point in time would people be concerned about promoting their style and schools?


Not sure if this is a can of worms people want opened....

In America, if we want to sell something, we say,"New and Improved!"
In China, they say,"From and ancient and very old traditional formula!"

[lkfmdc]

there's also a good chance that these legends are not nearly as old as we would like to believe. What reason would Luk Ah Choy have for creating such a facinating and heroic history? So at what point in time would people be concerned about promoting their style and schools?


Not sure if this is a can of worms people want opened....

In America, if we want to sell something, we say,"New and Improved!"
In China, they say,"From and ancient and very old traditional formula!"

spot on.... in addition, uneducated and/or low class peasants attempting to raise their position with elaborate geneologies and affiliations

[hskwarrior]

I SAY SPOT ON SPOT ON I SAY

[taai gihk yahn]

I think that the "take home" message here is that, given the vagaries and vicissitudes of Chinese MA history, indeed China's history in general, everything needs to be taken with a big grain of salt;

for example, as Simon (I think) pointed out, the fact that many of the seminal philosophical texts (Analects, Dao De Jing, CHuang Tzu) were pro forma attributed to a specific semi-mythical individual would be from a western scholarly perspective, a huge problem, where as from a Chinese perspective, would not only be not a problem, but would be expected; the western penchant for precise info as to the origin of a certain text would be less important than the content; attribution is almost an afterthought - sort of like "ok, this was written by so-and-so sage-like dude, very wise and hoary and all that, now get over it and pay attention to what 'he' is trying to tell you, numb-nut!"

in regards to MA history, forget about something as old and variegated as Shaolin - just look at Yang taiji - very well documented since at least 3rd gen (Yang Cheng Fu), but you go back to 1st gen (Yang Lu Chan) and it's a nightmare - what exactly did he learn, how did he learn it / was he officially acknowledged as a Chen family student or not, who did he teach what, why did he change the Chen form he learned (personal evolution or because he only got bits of the system), was he really that good or just freakin' huge, etc.; of course, go back to the history of Chen and here, the "origin" theories of taiji are legion and heterogeneous, despite evidently long standing documentation available in Chen village - anyway, not looking to debate particulars, but my point is that, even in a relatively stable system with a lot of documentation, you can have conflicting opinions

I think at this point, to devote reams of paper to argue the relative authenticity of a system is, after a certain point, a bit of a black hole in terms of what you get out of it relative to what you put into it - to argue whether one DCM (dead Chinese male) fought / killed / learned from / cleaned the toilet of another DCM is, at least on some level, somewhat of an exercise in futility; my feeling is that, document what you know, caveat its source accordingly, and then let it go; for example, the whole Green Grass Monk thing, just by way of example as it's being discussed here - obviously some people claim one thing, others claim something else; Frank has evidently done some independent research that he believes supports his polemic about misrepresentation by other folks, which, if true (I'm not suggesting it isn't - I just personally have not read enough / know enough about it to judge it at all), is certainly a good thing as it adds to the body of credible knowledge on the topic; but beyond that, and this is not to be a wise asz about it, what does it contribute? for example, does it give some insight as to the content of the system, vis-a-vis how certain moves "should" be done differently, or does it reveal a previously unknown aspect of how the style should be trained? if I have knowledge of the "true" origins and lineage of taiji, can that help me "decode" aspects of the system, and ultimately make the training more effective? if so, that's awesome; and that way, it side steps the never-ending impasse of who has the "true" lineage and all that: researching ones origins, i believe, will never be 100% conclusive - even the "pros" make mistakes, or come up with "irrefutable" evidence that, 10 years later, gets disproved; and again, if one puts all that time into doing it, it seems to me that there ought to be more return on the investment then just being able to verify ancestry for its own sake...

[Infrazael]

I leave for one day and this entire thread becomes one giant clusterf*ck.

Amazing.

[SimonM]

spot on.... in addition, uneducated and/or low class peasants attempting to raise their position with elaborate geneologies and affiliations

I may be a sandal weaver but my great great great great grandfather was a prince of the Han dynasty. Give me an army.

[diego]

article

Meier Shahar, "Ming-Period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice" (from JSTOR, .pdf, 1,59 MB)

http://www.lghk.org/web/shahar.zip

thanks for the link

[CFT]

I may be a sandal weaver but my great great great great grandfather was a prince of the Han dynasty. Give me an army.

Funny that ... my grandfather 28 generations ago married a princess of the Song dynasty. Can I have a brigade? I don't want to be greedy

[SimonM]

Well... it worked for Liu Bei.

[hskwarrior]

The Riddle of Southern Shaolin

(Translated from Shaolin Fang Go, by Wen Yu Chen ISBN:7-5306-2830-5)


Section 1:

On April 4, 1992 the Putian city government held a press conference to announce that in a township therein the remnants of the Southern Shaolin Temple had been found. Xin Hua and 19 other Chinese and international news agencies showed up for the conference. Soon after, the news was published in Xin Hua and Zhong Xin outlets. The stories said that the work on the theory that Southern Shaolin was located within the Lin Quan Yuan in Putian's Lin Shan neighborhood began with the “Southern Shaolin Temple Remnants Meeting” on Sept 14, 1991.

Attending this meeting were more than 30 scholars and experts from seven provinces and was led by the head of the Chengdu Sports Administration, Prof. Yu Yun Tai, Chinese People’s University (Renmin Daxue) professor Tai Bao Qi, and professor Luo Zhao of the Chinese Social Science World Religion Research Center. The meeting’s main presentation of evidence was a piece of research by the Fukien (Fukien) Cultural Center, Archaeological Team member Lin Gong Yu, entitled “Putian Lin Quan Yuan ruins discovery and early analysis.

According to this report, from Dec. 1990 to May 1991 a 1,325 square meter ruin was found with strata beneath that included Song, Yuan, Ming and late Qing dynasty periods. The remnants accord with building techniques of Ming through Song times. At the same time, Song dynasty era carvings were found that have clear writing: “Lin Quan Yuan, Enlightened Teacher Nan Ti's tower, Tian You,” thus proving it is indeed Lin Quan Yuan. However, Song era writers record in the “San Shan Zhi” (records of San Shan) report that Lin Quan Yuan construction was begun in 557, which is a long way from the Song era (1100”s).

The archaeologist proposes the following theory in the section “Concerning the problem of the Southern Shaolin Temple:” “This find has not found any direct evidence of the Southern Shaolin Temple, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which points to this Lin Quan Yuan as being the Southern Shaolin mentioned by so many modern scholars, legends, novels, and stories among the people”.

5 points support this conclusion. First, correct place. Many scholarly reports are that the southern temple was somewhere in Fukien's Putian “Jiu lian” Mountains. Moreover, the Lin Quan Yuan is found in the Lin Shan neighborhood, which was called Quan Shan in Song times. “Jiu Lian Mountain came along much later as a result of secret society activity.

Second, the Lin Quan Yuan had martial monks. Within the ruins a large stele was on which was carved, “This temple’s martial monks Yong Qi and Jin Qi built a trough in Sept. 1063, placed by Ti Rong.” The archaeologist concludes, “Martial monks are naturally associated with Shaolin”.

Third, Lin Quan Yuan’s location, “Created the right conditions for Northern Shaolin disciples to visit”.

Fourth, Lin Quan Yuan is surrounded by several other temples, and these temples” records and steles have many references to Shaolin disciples. For example, Ku Zhu Temple, Jiu Lian Yan Temple and others record that Shaolin monks built them. The nearby temple’s relationship with Lin Quan Yuan was very close and some even counted themselves as sub-temples. This seems to show that Lin Quan Yuan could be the Southern Shaolin.

Fifth, the Southern Shaolin, “Has always and forever been related to Hong Mun (early triad) legends.” Lin Quan Yuan’s own destruction seems to coincide with the legends of early Qing demolition of the Southern Shaolin temple. The temple’s northern building, “Red Flower Pavilion” (built in 1646) has written over the door, “All things return to the 3-foot sword, in the time of the 5 clouds, the 7-star flag will appear” which seem to relate to the Hung Mun's leader, Wan Yun Long. Not coincidentally, many of the late Ming loyalists, “Left home” became monks and entered the Putian, Fukien, Jiulian Southern Shaolin Temple.

Overall, much of the scholarship in the report is trustworthy. However, the theories in the “Concerning the Southern Shaolin problem” are not. For example, Hua Qiao University’s Lin Yi Zhou’s work “New Study of the Southern Shaolin Temple” presents several doubts:

Fan Wen Lian's 1941 revision of the “Complete History of China” (school text book), struck out the line “Kang It’s 13th year, the triads were formed; they were begun by the Putian, Fukien Jiu Lian Mountain Shaolin Temple monks” because it was seen as incorrect and nothing but legend because Putian does not have a Jiu Lian Mountain. Also, “Martial monks” are not solely from Shaolin. In the Yuan Dynasty, the Quan Zhou Kai Yuan monastery also had fighting monks. Therefore, the words “Martial monks” carved on the stele cannot be definitively related to Shaolin, northern or southern.

In November 1992 I asked about the problem of Lin Quan Yuan and Southern Shaolin, and after much debate, my opinion was asked for. I replied “There is nothing in the Song-Shan (northern) Shaolin Temple’s writings, or other materials we have currently, to indicate a Southern Shaolin Temple. Whether or not Lin Quan Yuan is or isn’t, much remains to be seen and only hard research will reveal the truth.”

[hskwarrior]

Section 2:

On July 9, 1992 the “Fukien Daily” ran a Zhong Xin wire story entitled, “Important discovery about Southern Shaolin Temple found in Fukien’s Quan Zhou.” The article said, “Quan Zhou historical scholars had recently discovered a Qing dynasty record book entitled Records of the Western Mountain. Within this record the location of the Southern Shaolin Temple was revealed as being just north of Quan Zhou in the Qing Yuan Mountains.” The story also reported, “Well-known Quan Zhou historian Chen Si Dong introduced the find to this reporter saying that the recently reopened Eastern Zen Shaolin Temple is built on the remains of the Southern Shaolin Temple mentioned in the Records. The Records were written during the Qing dynasty’s Jia He and Dao Guang emperor’s reigns. Furthermore, the book shows that during the Tang Dynasty’s Zhen Yuan emperor’s reign, Quan Zhou’s scholar Xu Ji's “Records of Central Min” (Min = present day Fukien, Taiwan and northern Kwangtung) have references to Qing Yuan Shaolin Temple”“.

Mr. Chen Si Dong later had 13 articles in the Quan Zhou Evening News covering “Southern Shaolin Temple at Quan Zhou.” His resources included the Song Dynasty work Jiading WenLing Records” edited by Minister Cheng Zhuo, a Ming Dynasty copy of the “History of the Qing Yuan area” an 1810 copy of the Records of the Western Mountain, the 1927 “Martial Lineage of the Fu” and the 1941 “Shaolin Martial Arts Reference” by Tang Hao.

Here are the main points Mr. Chen covers. First, all the materials, old to new, record the location of the Southern Shaolin Temple as Quan Zhou’s eastern area, in the Qing Yuan Mountain’s eastern peak. The Records of the Western Mountain, say “The wisdom of the 13 Empties” entered Min, built the Shaolin Temple on Qing Yuan Mountain, and settled there. Min's martial monks all begin from this place. ”The Shaolin Temple began with 13, and a high wall. The temple’s monks number in the thousands, with hundreds of acres and fragrant forests.” Because Quanzhou Shaolin opposed the Min ruler, Wang Shen Zhi, the temple was razed for the first time. In the Song dynasty because “Thousands of monks opposed the Mongols” the Temple was razed for a second time. Then in 1763, the Qing emperor issued orders to raze it again, and it wasn’t rebuilt. Nevertheless, from Mr. Chen's articles, it is clear that his most relied upon resource is the Record of the Western Mountain.

Current understanding is that the “Record” was originally 12 volumes, but more than half were lost in times of war. Still, descendants of Cai Chun Cao saved six volumes. Then, during the Cultural Revolution, two more volumes were lost. In 1990, Hua Qiao University’s Lin Shao Zhou, while doing research in Jinjiang made several important discoveries, but which are currently unpublished.

The Record that Mr. Chen relies on is an essay of about 1800 characters and has been found to be full of mistakes. Therefore, it can only be taken as fictional. For example, the “Record” reports that the abbot of Shaolin during the end of the Sui dynasty was “Qi Xuan.” However, Shaolin's records report no such person. The “Record” also reports that the “13 Staff Monks” were named “First Empty, Half Empty, Non Empty, Emptiness of Color, Zen Empty, Understanding Empty, Enlightened Empty, Empty Wisdom, Quiet Empty, Really Empty, Truly Empty, Empty Law and Empty Rule.” However, this is impossible. In the Sui and Tang times, there are no examples of this sort of naming convention for groups of monks.

The Record also says that of the thirteen monks, seven died among the soldiers of king Zheng. However, there is no record of this elsewhere. Neither is there supporting evidence for the statement that “The wisdom of the thirteen empties entered Min” from here (i.e. Chan evangelism in the region started here.) In any case, the articles in the “Record” concerning Shaolin in the Ming and Qing dynasties are more numerous. Perhaps they are records of local stories, but it is difficult to call it history (given their content). In conclusion, the “Records of the Western Mountain” is simply full of errors. It cannot be trusted to as evidence of Quanzhou being the location of the Southern Shaolin Temple.