Bodhidharma's Influence and what Shaolin means to TCMA

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi Sal,
No its not.
All it says is the set shown is a Shaolin single form (少林 單式)
I'm I missing something? I don't see the name of the set shown.

It's just a set of 5 rows of single postures that is traditional shaolin training material.

I was just wondering if it was the same as your 5 rows, you never know.

[r.(shaolin)]

Buddhidharma (Damo) did not Create Shaolin Martial Arts according to the late Shi De Qian:

Concerning this famous legend about Shaolin, according to the Shaolinsi Wushu Baike Quanshu, written by the late Shi De Qian, “After the [Manchu] Qing took over, there was fear among the government that the Han Chinese would try to revive the Ming and overthrow the Qing; on many occasions the government prohibited Buddhists, Taoists and common people from practicing martial arts. A few patriots who had the aim of restoring the Ming, yet did not dare to openly practice martial arts, in order to further their goal took advantage of the Qing government's faith in Buddhism and created the myth that Bodhidharma had created Shaolin boxing in order to deceive the government. They spread this story among the people in order to achieve the goal of being able to practice wushu and restore the Ming. Works such as Li Jing's preface to the Yijin Jing, "Shaolin Quanshu Mijue" (1915), Shaolin Quanfa Tushuo (1921), Secret of Tang Xianzu's Bodhidharma Style Boxing (Tang Xianzu Damo Pai Quan Jue, 1926), etc., all contributed to the propagation of this false belief that Bodhidharma had created Shaolin boxing; particularly the book Shaolin Quanfa Jingyi (1918), in which the author took Damo (Bodhidharma) as his name.”
Furthermore, according to the Shaolinsi Wushu Baike Quanshu, “In recent years some monks and lay boxing teachers are unclear as to the origins of Shaolin martial arts and they pass on hearsay which states that Shaolin martial arts were created by Bodhidharma. Therefore they have added "Bodhidharma" to the names of certain routines, such as Bodhidharma Sword (Damo jian), Bodhidharma Staff (Damo gun), Bodhidharma cane (Damo zhang), etc. Actually, this is all unfounded and erroneous speech. Particularly, in the Republican era, books such as True Meaning of Shaolin Boxing (Shaolin Quanfa Jingyi), Secrets of the Martial Arts of Shaolin (Shaolin Quanshu Mijue), Illustrated Explanation of Shaolin Boxing (Shaolin Quanfa Tushuo), and the like have propagated this theory, spreading it abroad and contributing to misunderstandings. This kind of talk is very unadvantageous to those of us who practice and study [Shaolin martial arts which are] the transmitted teachings from our [Chinese] ancestors. In order to unearth the national treasures of our ancestral culture, and advance the tradition of Shaolin martial arts, we must reveal the true history, seek the origin, and by means of conclusive and irrefutable historical evidence inquire into and illuminate the relationship between Bodhidharma and Shaolin martial arts, thoroughly investigating and correcting this unfounded and misunderstood belief.”
In the Ming dynasty, Cheng Zongyou visited Shaolin and documented in 1621 (one of) their staff fighting methods, in such works as Staff Techniques of the Chan Sect of Shaolin (Shaolin Gunfa Chanzong) and Shaolin Staff Techniques (Shaolin Gunfa), he did not make any mention of Bodhidharma practicing martial arts. Thus, one can see that, from the creation of the monastery in the fifth century up to the Ming dynasty, over 1000 years, the belief did not exist that Bodhidharma had anything to do with Shaolin martial arts. Other Ming period books on Shaolin methods also make no mention of animals fighting, Damo, Yijin Jing, etc.

HI Sal,
Thanks.
I find this article and its arguments rather wierd.
Most of the sources Shi De Qian uses are Republican sources out of context and have very little to do with "revive the Ming and overthrow the Qing" which by the late 1800's mostly a non-issue.

The fact remains that there is very little documentations about Shaolin even during the Ming. Perod. What there is, is thin.

To be honest I find arguing "the myth that Bodhidharma had created Shaolin boxing" to be a bit of a of 'straw dog'. In the case of our tradition it is clear that Bodhidharma did not create any martial arts. As you know, traditional Chinese records often contained a mixture of pseudo-historical, fictive material and folklore. Folkloric myths, containing miraculous stories and individuals who possessed superhuman qualities, were often included to persuade or to underline some didactic purpose. These literary devices were even employed in official Chinese historical narratives.
r.

[r.(shaolin)]

Shahar shows the monks historically worshiped King Jinnaluo (Vajrapani) as the progenitor of their arts.

Although Shahar makes a convincing case for the importance of Vajrapani at Shaolin,
the idea that they (the monk practitioner ) "worshiped (Vajrapani) as the progenitor of their arts." is simply not convincing.
r.

[David Jamieson]

What do you guys (r.shaolin and Sal) think about this book

[r.(shaolin)]

This book is accepted by the academic community.
As a side note, most scholars, if not all, agree that "Two Entrances and Four Practices" ( 二入四行: Er ru sixing) is the only text which could be attributed to Bodhidharma.

r.

[David Jamieson]

There is a wealth of references in it's citations as well.
Are you guys familiar with any more of Armless Lin's works?
Is there a decent english version of the biographies of the notable monks?

[r.(shaolin)]

according to the Shaolinsi Wushu Baike Quanshu, written by the late Shi De Qian, “After the [Manchu] Qing took over, there was fear among the government that the Han Chinese would try to revive the Ming and overthrow the Qing; on many occasions the government prohibited Buddhists, Taoists and common people from practicing martial arts. A few patriots who had the aim of restoring the Ming, yet did not dare to openly practice martial arts, in order to further their goal took advantage of the Qing government's faith in Buddhism and created the myth that Bodhidharma had created Shaolin boxing in order to deceive the government.

I don't know if you have read it or not, but Meir Shahar's The Shaolin Monastery (2008) discusses Bodhidharma's legendary connections to martial arts in detail. Another books is Brian Kennedy's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey. What surprises me is that some people on this thread are honestly still claiming Damo taught "exercises" to the monks when this was discredited as far back as the 1920's by Tang Hao. Shahar shows the monks historically worshiped King Jinnaluo (Vajrapani) as the progenitor of their arts.

I used to believe all of the martial legends floating around, but I've found the truth is otherwise with the help of scholarly publications and historical records.

In another forum someone asked what the exact age of the frescos of wuseng inside the Baiyi Hall was. My reply was that the exact date for these two frescos has not been determined, however they were likely done sometime between the late 1700’s or early 1800’s – during the last part of Qianlong’s reign or early part of Jiaqing’s reign.

You will note that included in these frescos are a significant number dark skinned monks and masters most likely representing Indian masters training with or teaching Chinese monks .

These murals strongly suggest that Shaolin monks during the late 1700/early 1800's believed that Shaolin Buddhism and Shaolin martial art had their origins with Indian masters. The point is not if these origins are fact but that the monks simply believed this to be the case. These murals show over two dozen Indian monks and masters. One Indian monk holding a Buddhist symbol of authority and obedience and sitting in the center of a pagoda, flanked on either side by Chinese monks, is being depicted as a senior master. Note, that by the time these these murals were done, Indian Buddhist monks had not been traveling to China for hundreds of years. Clearly, the murals of Baiyi Hall are more idealized beliefs held by the Shaolin monks of the time and not portraits of individual monks from the late Qing period.

These late Qing Dynasty murals support the idea that by the 1700, the Shoalin monks themselves, believed that both Chan and their martial arts came from India.

r.

[ghostexorcist]

First of all I'm not "claim(ing) to have documents that prove a legendary figure... ". I am pointing out that legends which reference and commemorate Bodhidharma and Shaolin martial arts pre-date, "The Travels of Lao Ts'an", "Shaolin School Methods" and "Secrets of Shaolin Boxing" Henning is talking about. [...] The sets I'm talking about (羅漢馬鐙操; 草訪花; and 落腳嵩山) which reference Bodhidharma, pre-date 1904/1907. As well, Shaolin Shifu Liu Baoshan's (劉寶山) sets: 達摩劍 Damo Jian and 達摩杖 Damo Zhang – which also reference Bodhidharma, as well pre-date the 1904/1907 stories Henning refers to.

And yes our legends do mention Vajrapaṇina bodhisattvena mahasattvena (金剛手菩薩) and Ksitigarbha 大願地藏菩薩.
. . . as with the above I'm not trying to prove that Bodhidharma or that these deities actually invented martial arts or martial sets :-)
r.

I never claimed you were trying to prove Damo invented the style. I was just saying that a lot of styles claim to have documents to prove this and its usually based on legend. And all I wanted to know is if your lineage's documents had actually been dated by a professional. Please forgive any perceived rudeness, I am just a highly skeptical person.

You should send scans of the documents and transcriptions of the oral legends to various martial historians to see what they think.

In another forum someone asked what the exact age of the frescos of wuseng inside the Baiyi Hall was. My reply was that the exact date for these two frescos has not been determined, however they were likely done sometime between the late 1700’s or early 1800’s – during the last part of Qianlong’s reign or early part of Jiaqing’s reign.

You will note that included in these frescos are a significant number dark skinned monks and masters most likely representing Indian masters training with or teaching Chinese monks .

These murals strongly suggest that Shaolin monks during the late 1700/early 1800's believed that Shaolin Buddhism and Shaolin martial art had their origins with Indian masters. The point is not if these origins are fact but that the monks simply believed this to be the case. These murals show over two dozen Indian monks and masters. One Indian monk holding a Buddhist symbol of authority and obedience and sitting in the center of a pagoda, flanked on either side by Chinese monks, is being depicted as a senior master. Note, that by the time these these murals were done, Indian Buddhist monks had not been traveling to China for hundreds of years. Clearly, the murals of Baiyi Hall are more idealized beliefs held by the Shaolin monks of the time and not portraits of individual monks from the late Qing period.

These late Qing Dynasty murals support the idea that by the 1700, the Shoalin monks themselves, believed that both Chan and their martial arts came from India.

r.

I've got to leave shortly, so I only have time left to comment on this breifly:

1) I've seen the fresco before. It's true some of the monks might be Indians, but they might have just been dark-skinned Chinese. There were and still are many dark-skinned Chinese. I have a friend from the south who is very dark. A term applied to them in the Tang was Kunlun (崑崙). When Arab traders brought African slaves to China, the term was applied to them, as well as foreigners from Southeast Asia. (for more info on the Kunlun monicker see the journal paper "The Magical Kunlun and "Devil Slaves": Chinese Perceptions of Dark-skinned People and Africa before 1500." It is an engaging piece for people interested in intercultural relations.)

2) Even if they truly were Indians, they might have just been visiting and were learning martial arts from their Chinese brothers. Or they were just Indians living in China. China has always been a huge cultural mixing pot. We can speculate all we want, but we can not really know what the real situation was.

Beyond the interplay between the Brahmin and Kshatriya class (take the legend of Parashurama for example), I am unaware of any long tradition of Buddhist warrior monks in India. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any.

3) Though a slim chance, the picture might have just been influenced by the Sinew-Changing Classic. Since it features an Indian Saint who comes to China and an unrelated India hermit who eventually translates Damo's work into Chinese, it seems possible that the monks would include Indians in the fresco.

[r.(shaolin)]

1) It's true some of the monks might be Indians, but they might have just been dark-skinned Chinese. There were and still are many dark-skinned Chinese. I have a friend from the south who is very dark. A term applied to them in the Tang was Kunlun (崑崙). When Arab traders brought African slaves to China....
....Even if they truly were Indians, they might have just been visiting and were learning martial arts from their Chinese brothers. Or they were just Indians living in China.

Not very likely. Buddhism declined and disappeared from India in around the 13th century long before these frescos were done. My point is that the murals in Baiyi Hall are not documentation or fact, but rather idealized beliefs held by the Shaolin monks during the 1700/1800's.

I think its pretty far fetched to suggest that the designers of these murals at Shaolin intended dark skinned monk to represent Kunlun (African slaves), Indians living in China or simply dark skinned Chinese.

[r.(shaolin)]

However, the idea (legend) of him (Damo) teaching specific martial arts did not come about until 1907 with the publication of the previously mentioned political novel.

My point is that the legend of Damo teaching martial arts at Shaolin pre-dates
"The Travels of Lao Ts'an", "Shaolin School Methods" and "Secrets of Shaolin Boxing".
r.

[ghostexorcist]

Not very likely. Buddhism declined and disappeared from India in around the 13th century long before these frescos were done. My point is that the murals in Baiyi Hall are not documentation or fact, but rather idealized beliefs held by the Shaolin monks during the 1700/1800's.

I think its pretty far fetched to suggest that the designers of these murals at Shaolin intended dark skinned monk to represent Kunlun (African slaves), Indians living in China or simply dark skinned Chinese.

I never implied that it was African slaves. I just said the name was used for all dark-skinned people.

I don't see how dark-skinned Chinese or Indians living in China is far fetched. Foreigners have lived in China for centuries.

[sha0lin1]

I don't think that it is far fetched at all to believe the Indians taught the monks. I have always believed that Shaolin probably evolved from Kalaripayatu, the Indian Martial art. In many ways there are a lot of similarities between the two arts. The Chinese took that and modified and expounded on it and it became TCMA. I have never seen this documented anywhere, this is just based on my observation.

[David Jamieson]

I don't think that it is far fetched at all to believe the Indians taught the monks. I have always believed that Shaolin probably evolved from Kalaripayatu, the Indian Martial art. In many ways there are a lot of similarities between the two arts. The Chinese took that and modified and expounded on it and it became TCMA. I have never seen this documented anywhere, this is just based on my observation.

It can be equally surmised that modern Kalaripayit has been revived and has extensively borrowed from Shaolin kungfu practice. lol

[sha0lin1]

It can be equally surmised that modern Kalaripayit has been revived and has extensively borrowed from Shaolin kungfu practice. lol

Maybe, I have never really looked into the history and origins, but I bet if one did then they would probably find that Kalari predates Shaolin.

[David Jamieson]

Maybe, I have never really looked into the history and origins, but I bet if one did then they would probably find that Kalari predates Shaolin.

maybe so, but it cannot be connected to shaolin practice in the here and now or even in the then and there. Indian culture tends to want to predate everything in some tellings. But, seeing as the Harapa empire was likely the worlds first, I won't begrudge them that.


martial arts develop independently all over the world depending on teh requirement for them. same as most other cultural practices such as religion, written language, engineering and so on.

from one continental region to another, parallel development of human cultures is quite common.

chinese martial arts are distinctive and definitely chinese. while there is some similarity to kalari from shaolin, there are huge differences as well. It just takes time to look.