Shaolin Temple Myths

[Infrazael]

You speak of 1.3 billion people as if they are all one person who is a liar.
What an interesting view. I don't know where to start except to point out that I find that flawed.

Simon, you raise an excellent point. In my experience, very few martial artists practice any form of zen at all. Most that I meet have no idea of what it is, what it is for, why it is, how to do it from seated to moving and so on. it's baffling that it is not inclusive to any tradition that calls itself shaolin or attaches itself to same.

uki - what is a monk?

David what I am referring to is what Mr. Parella also said, regarding the older generation. It is what I see on a day-to-day basis, interactions with many older as well as younger people.

The idea of "face" of "image" is extremely important.

Why do you think education is considered so important? It is not ALL about good Confucian virtues . . . it is so when their child is going to USC or Standord, the parents look too to . . their peers and equals. If that child is going to a lesser institution, they have lost "face" so to speak.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

hello, not true, did you read the posts above?

all the best

I did read it.

And I read the article, well most of it anyway.

I am not sure what you believe that proves? The article cites dozens of books as sources. Many are written in the 90's and even 2000. What exactly does that prove?

In the book I am referring to, they looked at ORIGINAL TEXTS, the actual books written in the 1600, 1700, 1800s. Not copies or citing of works. The original books of the periods. The collector from Taiwan (forget his name) has over 2,000 books in his collections, some dating back to the 1500s! He has collected them from families all over China. This is the closest we can actually come to finding out the truth.

NO WRITTEN WORD OF THE SHAOLIN STORY IN ANY MARTIAL ARTS BOOKS OR TRAINING MANUALS PRIOR TO 1910.

I believe that sentence has a tremendous amount of credibility.

Citing modern books, schools, teachers, websites is all B.S. Finding actual books from that time period is more credible, even through we have to look at them with a squinted eye as well.

Problem is; we all have come to love the Shaolin story. We see it in dozens of films and have become enamored with it. It's hard to see past it and acknowledge the truth. But honestly....the truth makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

The "Truth" being the research in the book I have mentioned here, IF you believe it.

The "Shaolin Story" is hard for most of us to let go. After all, we've been telling it for so long, and some people have built their school's reputation out of it. Some people take it personally, when in fact, it's just a story.

Just look how people argue about lineage on Frank Mcarthy's threads. (or should I say how "Frank argue's") He even admitted to changing dates of birth to make them fit his story's timeline in the past. He's not even Chinese and he does it! Although to be fair, he now says that he did that with the intention of 'finding out what others knew' in an effort to 'smoke out' the real info. You know, cause everyone is hiding the real info. Just like everyone is hiding the real "kung-fu" from everyone as well.

(Now he is going to start yelling at me, lol)

[SimonM]

this lends prestige to the style, the teacher, and the student; 3 generations later, you now have a "classical" document that everyone holds as the truth;

Another issue with classical writing:

Many of the true classics of Chinese literature (I'm thinking specifically of the dedaojing, the analects and the sunzi) were derived from an oral tradition and were not set to paper until some time after the death of their titular authors. This attribution of a tradition to it's founder, based on a tradition communicated orally was likely widespread in other master/apprentice style pedagogial traditions in early China...

When martial arts were being codified.

So even if any one person DIDN'T embellish any given document overly much the broken telephone phenomenon may have acted over the course of generations as one teacher instructed the next until somebody decided to write down the end result.

the biggest myth of the shaolin temples is that there are still monks there...

There are. I've met them. Hell... I've had conversations about qigong with them.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I did read it.

And I read the article, well most of it anyway.

I am not sure what you believe that proves? The article cites dozens of books as sources. Many are written in the 90's and even 2000. What exactly does that prove?

In the book I am referring to, they looked at ORIGINAL TEXTS, the actual books written in the 1600, 1700, 1800s. Not copies or citing of works. The original books of the periods. The collector from Taiwan (forget his name) has over 2,000 books in his collections, some dating back to the 1500s! He has collected them from families all over China. This is the closest we can actually come to finding out the truth.

NO WRITTEN WORD OF THE SHAOLIN STORY IN ANY MARTIAL ARTS BOOKS OR TRAINING MANUALS PRIOR TO 1910.

I believe that sentence has a tremendous amount of credibility.

Citing modern books, schools, teachers, websites is all B.S. Finding actual books from that time period is more credible, even through we have to look at them with a squinted eye as well.

Problem is; we all have come to love the Shaolin story. We see it in dozens of films and have become enamored with it. It's hard to see past it and acknowledge the truth. But honestly....the truth makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

The "Truth" being the research in the book I have mentioned here, IF you believe it.

The "Shaolin Story" is hard for most of us to let go. After all, we've been telling it for so long, and some people have built their school's reputation out of it. Some people take it personally, when in fact, it's just a story.

Just look how people argue about lineage on Frank Mcarthy's threads. (or should I say how "Frank argue's") He even admitted to changing dates of birth to make them fit his story's timeline in the past. He's not even Chinese and he does it! Although to be fair, he now says that he did that with the intention of 'finding out what others knew' in an effort to 'smoke out' the real info. You know, cause everyone is hiding the real info. Just like everyone is hiding the real "kung-fu" from everyone as well.

(Now he is going to start yelling at me, lol)

We have a thread devoted to Medhi's book and, if I recall correctly, it tends to agree with Brian's book.

[Infrazael]

The stories and novels written by Chinese, for Chinese. They are akin to Western "fantasy" stories in a sense. A dash of adventure and mystery . . . violence and romance.

Wu Xia.

Of course, there is the image of the mysterious Shaolin Temples with its Yi Jing Jing and other esoteric practices.

These kinds of tales gets brought over to the West. Furthermore, you have "kung fu" teachers who propagate their stories to gain more students, achieve credibility, or somehow make themselves look superior to the Westerners.

You see what I'm getting with this?

"What do these yan ren know. . . they are easily deceived. . ."

Do not simply believe every word your masters tell you.

[SimonM]

Of course, dig down 10 metres in just about any populated part of China and you'll find some ruins....

Oh, this is so, so true. Thank you for brightening my morning.

Why do you think education is considered so important? It is not ALL about good Confucian virtues . . . it is so when their child is going to USC or Standord, the parents look too to . . their peers and equals. If that child is going to a lesser institution, they have lost "face" so to speak.

Well.... based on my experience... a post-secondary education is seen as the best way to secure stable work in China.

Remember that china has employment pitfalls we just don't have here.

Slavery, witheld wages, factory owners who engineer pay systems designed to keep the workers too poor to advance, just plain crap pay (ok, we have that one in north america too).

The point is that without a degree that's what you can expect in life. If you want a chance to merely be poor but with a stable income that you can depend on you need a degree.

And there ain't no pension plans so when you get too old to work you depend on your kids to look after you.

Problem is; we all have come to love the Shaolin story. We see it in dozens of films and have become enamored with it. It's hard to see past it and acknowledge the truth. But honestly....the truth makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

<snip>

The "Shaolin Story" is hard for most of us to let go. After all, we've been telling it for so long, and some people have built their school's reputation out of it. Some people take it personally, when in fact, it's just a story.

I agree wholeheartedly.

People are naturally predisposed to want to believe in good stories.

The shaolin story shares some elements with many other REALLY good fiction stories that people REALLY believe. It has a persecuted religion, a persecuting, autocratic government of outsiders, an internal betrayer, hell - people have turned stories like that into religions is it really surprising that martial artists have done likewise?

The question becomes who are we today?

Are we historians seeking truth?
Are we members of an oral tradition trying to preserve the continuity of the teachings along with the parables that communicate it?
Are we consumers seeking the best combat deal?
Are we dispassionate outsiders attempting to form an opinion?

Because, accepting that some teachings are untrue, and that this is part of being human the question really is not what happened then. It's: what do we do with it now?

[PM]

imperial archives (imperial archives, ok, real stuff, manuscripts, not some recently written book). both in Taibei and Beijing which have been made public during last couple of dozens years contain many written sources mentioning Northern/Southern Shaolin and martial arts - Qing and Ming dynasty. moreover, we have more than books, right, but eg. stele inscriptions and other archeological evidence.

you wrote:

The two authors, bring to light that the whole story of the Shaolin Temple, the one with the ancestors escaping and all the martial arts taught there, HAD NEVER BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE 1910 (I believe that is the date, or 1912).

i say - it is not true, and have mentioned relevant sources proving the opposite. both Meier Shahar and Dian H. Murray are sinologists, not some teen Shaw Bros fans. i did not say if the stories (Shaolin monks helping the goverment, burning of the monastery, 5 or or how many people escaping, founding various martial arts or secret societies) are true or not, i just say - the claim above is false, we have plenty of Qing dynasty or older material talking about Shaolin monasteries and their connections to martial arts, we have the stories of 5 ancestors, we have even all these famous heroes like Hung Heigun, Fong Saiyuk mentioned before the turn of 20. century. nothing more, nothing less, ok?

[SimonM]

imperial archives (imperial archives, ok, real stuff, manuscripts, not some recently written book). both in Taibei and Beijing which have been made public during last couple of dozens years contain many written sources mentioning Northern/Southern Shaolin and martial arts - Qing and Ming dynasty. moreover, we have more than books, right, but eg. stele inscriptions and other archeological evidence.

Stele inscriptions verify that Northern Shaolin Temple was around and venerable and an important temple (as one would expect from the home of the first and second patriarchs of ch'an) in the time of Qianlong...

They say little about martial arts.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

imperial archives (imperial archives, ok, real stuff, manuscripts, not some recently written book). both in Taibei and Beijing which have been made public during last couple of dozens years contain many written sources mentioning Northern/Southern Shaolin and martial arts - Qing and Ming dynasty. moreover, we have more than books, right, but eg. stele inscriptions and other archeological evidence.

you wrote:



i say - it is not true, and have mentioned relevant sources proving the opposite. both Meier Shahar and Dian H. Murray are sinologists, not some teen Shaw Bros fans. i did not say if the stories (Shaolin monks helping the goverment, burning of the monastery, 5 or or how many people escaping, founding various martial arts or secret societies) are true or not, i just say - the claim above is false, we have plenty of Qing dynasty or older material talking about Shaolin monasteries and their connections to martial arts, we have the stories of 5 ancestors, we have even all these famous heroes like Hung Heigun, Fong Saiyuk mentioned before the turn of 20. century. nothing more, nothing less, ok?

Their book is not suggesting that there wasn't a temple and it didn't have martial arts. That is not what we are saying here.

The story of the five ancestors and the part about all of these southern styles originating there is the part that doesn't exist in written form pre-1910. Yes, there was a temple. Yes they practiced martial arts there (However, from books written by actual monks there, it seems like it was primarily staff training). Can I believe that there was some involement with the government? Sure, not hard to believe.

But all the Shaw Brothers movies, the temple, the chambers, the dragon and tiger, lifting an urn, the 108 wooden men, the five ancestors fleeing? 90% of all our Southern styles originated in the temple? That the temple was kind of like the Kung-Fu Library that held all the information? THAT I believe is all bunk.

Did the temple burn down? Did the government do it? I can believe that, no problem.

[lkfmdc]

Meier Shahar and Dian H. Murray are sinologists

What exactly is a "sinologist"?

Do they have actual academic historical credentials? What university? What degree? Perhaps I missed that part?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Even that famous story about the monks defending the emperor, something like 30 monks against 300 soldiers - it talks about them fighting with staffs (actually, I think 'staves' is the plural**, but I digress)

Doesn't support the 5 ancestors theory, which we all know is rife with holes anyway,...between dates, and who exactly the 5 ancestors were. If you talk to 5 different people/schools, you get 5 different lists of the ancestors.

Not saying Hung Hei Gwoon or Fong Sai Yuk were not real people. Not saying that they didn't do the styles they are credited with or even hang out/hide out at the temple. I can easily believe that. No problem there.

From reading everything, training in KF for almost 3 decades, spending time in China, having a teacher who was born at the earlier part of the 1900's,

I believe that these martial arts did not originate in Shaolin.

I believe that many martial artists/rebels (as TenTigers mentioned) hid out in temples to avoid being captured by the government.

I believe that they brought their martial arts into the temples and practiced and taught there.

I believe that many styles got altered and mixed and combined during those times, as they were all concerned with developing better fighting methods - not creating, naming and chronicling martial arts styles.

But, these are my beliefs. If someone of you share them, great. If not, you're entitled to your opinions as well.


** - props to Steven H. Laurette

[SimonM]

I would think a sinologist would be an anthropoligist, linguist, sociologist or historian who specialized in the study of China within their field.

Of course that returns to the question of accreditation. Do either have any academic publications that have been submitted to peer review? Do either have any credentials from accredited schools?

(When I was a child I tended to believe anything I read. "It's in a non-fiction book, publishers wouldn't print it if it weren't true" I thought. Then I learned how to learn and began to realize that the most rediculous nonsense is published in non-fiction. This began my affection for peer review as a method of vetting what I read.)

[lkfmdc]

I honestly don't know who those people are, but I'd be curious to find out. And even some "notable" historians have made huge mistakes

[hskwarrior]

Mike parrella,

to be PERFECTLY CLEAR, the ONLY dates i change was Jeung Hung Sing's birth year. Originally, we were TOLD one thing, but because i kept digging, i kept discovering that things were incorrect within certain lineages of fut san hung sing clf.

We were told that jeung hung sing was born in 1814, and no one knew how old he was when he died until the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon re-emerged in 2001 and opened its doors to us gung fu wise and historically. Then we began to fill in the gaps.

Hung Sing history until 2001 was an independent issue. So, was i wrong in changing something as a birthdate when we discovered we were originally wrong? and that is the ONLY thing i am guilty of, if it warrants being guilty. since then, my information hasn't changed.

so, why point me out on a simple birthdate, when YOUR BUDDY DFW shocked the CLF world with his new fake discovery of Choy Fook being the green grass monk. i don't care if you don't like my arse, the fact is that EVERYONE who is researching their backgrounds will changed information as it comes along if they were originally wrong to set the story straight.

in the WORDS of the NOT SO FAMOUS dave ross, "And even some "notable" historians have made huge mistakes"

i changed his birthdate because WE were WRONG......so what?

[lkfmdc]

Frank is like glass, completely transparent.....