What was known about Shaolin Kung Fu prior to the 20th century?

[r.(shaolin)]

I think that largely depends on who or where you learn from. I think many of the "monks" teach by running down a list of unconnected taolu, so you'd be correct with them. I guess you are referencing the Abbot's Ten Forms of Shaolin. But there are many lay teachers who have a verified lineage connection to the temple that teach a complete "system" in Henan.

Fair enough, but what do you mean by a 'complete system'?
r.

[wenshu]

It sounds a lot like someone's political agenda to say that the traditional styles that supposedly left the mainland after WWII are more legit than the village styles that survived in the north.

Fixed that for you.

[RenDaHai]

The suggestion that Shaolin functioned as a local martial arts school running classes for the locals and openingly teaching one-and-all, was simple not true.
cheers,
r.

Not teaching one and all. But teaching lay disciples. Who then taught their families and a few choice disciples in their home town what they had learned. Also monks were often local and when they went home (remember, Shaolin is not a prison) they taught their families. So many family styles developed in the area. But then some people who had learned these styles became monks, returning the style to shaolin. This happened so much that the temple masters and folk masters were well known to each other and visited each other often and the various styles of Song Shan have become one.



Look at one form for example. Taizu Chang Quan. This form is from a village called LuoTuoYuan. If you go there many people in the village know it. One person from this village is LiangYiQuan, the master of EPO school. Nowadays, because of Epo school, everyone in Shaolin knows this form and it is passed off as Shaolin Temples.

But is it really? Well, kinda, yes.

You see, everyone who knows it learned it from either LiangYiQuan or his students, or they went to the village to get it (the best version with a lot of extras). So it is the viallge style not the tempels?

When you go there, they will tell you they brought the form with them from Shanxi province after migrating to henan 700 years ago. This may be true.

But the style the techniques are done in now are quite obviously Shaolin temple style. Because over those 700 years there has been so much influence from the local styles, and so many people have studied at shaolin and returned and vice versa that the style has become Shaolin. TO the extent where over history versions of this style have been pracitced in Shaolin temple. TO where every move is a move that has the same name and is done in the same way as in the other SHaolin temple styles nearby.

SO what is it? Shaolin or not? It is excellent Kung fu. It has that SOngShan flavour that no where else in China captures. It has those Shaolin techniques.

It has a better claim to being called Shaolin Kung Fu than most, yet it is not Shaolin. But it is.

You see?? The influence from 100 similar styles on its doorstep, the influence from Temple Monks visiting folk masters, from local villagers taking the style to shaolin then returning, for centuries. This is what makes a style SHaolin Kung fu.

When you learn it from a monk, but you let it evolve in another place for centuries, without the influence of song mountian, then it is no longer SHaolin. Doesn't make it any worse or better.

[GeneChing]

The fact that Shaolin Kung Fu is not bound by the Shaolin Temple walls is clear. The question really becomes at what point does Shaolin Kung Fu become so diluted that it no longer retains rights to the title. This, in due course, leads to the biggest most annoying discussion on our forum - at what point is Shaolin Do permissible?

Note that my roots are in BSL and I am a strong advocate of BSL as a genuine Shaolin system. Remember my 3-part web article series: Bak Sil Lum vs. Shaolin Temple. That one gets cited a lot, which was exactly my intention in publishing it.

This thread is a bit of déjà vu.
Wow time flies, we had this discussion six years ago :-)

You are spot on with this post, r.(shaolin). Around and around we go, right? Nice thread necromancy.

[Shaolindynasty]

I'm always confused by the notion that the "temple" has a martial arts lineage. Lineages are held by the people not the buildings. As long as one person teaches the next that lineage will continue. Extremely difficult to wipe something like that out completely even with the strictest bans.

Also from some of the comments posted here and on the ISDFR thread i can see some people still think of shaolin in the kung fu series/36th chamber sense as in its a secret place with esoteric practices inside and the monks have no contact with the outside world.

When i read these threads I kinda wonder how many of the people who speak with certainy about what shaolin temple is and was have actually ever been there?

Just seeing the landscape of the area would help answer some of the questions posed in this thread.

Also just for the sake of conversation what benefit would there be to knowing what shaolin kung fu looked like prior to the 20th century? How would one go about finding this out? Even with historical documentation you would have a series of hand drawings, at best photos. We all know what happens when people attempt learning from a manual (see isdfr thread)even if you could find out it what it was it would not change the reality of what people are doing there today.

I've always wondered why kung fu practitioners seem so overly concerned with history to the point of neglecting what is going on in the here and now

[pazman]

Fair enough, but what do you mean by a 'complete system'?
r.

Perhaps "system" is a strange word to use in this case, that's why I used it in quotations.

My impression of a lot of modern Shaolin schools is that they teach a list of taolu, many of which are actually different styles, perhaps giving brief explanations as to their application. Then they teach sanda as the "fighting" part. In other words, there is no cohesive philosophy behind the collection of techniques. In this case, the training not a coherent system but kind of a grab bag of different activities.

A "system" is complete when it is internally coherent. I don't mean it is complete in the sense it covers everything.

[r.(shaolin)]

Not teaching one and all. But teaching lay disciples. Who then taught their families and a few choice disciples in their home town what they had learned. Also monks were often local . . .

But the style the techniques are done in now are quite obviously Shaolin temple style. Because over those 700 years there has been so much influence from the local styles,

You see?? The influence from 100 similar styles on its doorstep, the influence from Temple Monks visiting folk masters, from local villagers taking the style to shaolin then returning, for centuries. . . .

When you learn it from a monk, but you let it evolve in another place for centuries, without the influence of song mountian, then it is no longer SHaolin. Doesn't make it any worse or better.

Buddhism in great centres like Luoyang, or close to Imperial capitals, tended to be more orthodox and stable. A further important distinguishing feature of monasteries like Shaolin was that they were designated official places of worship. These monasteries received their name via Imperial decree, as well as land, money, servants, subject families, rights to maintain certain industries that generated profits and other benefits. The monks who resided in these official establishments were selected and ordained by Imperial decree and required higher qualifications. Generally the monks residing at Imperial monstaries were not the local folks. Their supervisory clergy was appointed by the Imperial throne and accountable to it. In fact it was customary for three respected monks to be appointed by the Emperor as supervisory members in official monasteries. (the dean, the abbot, and the overseer). The Imperial government was fully aware of the security issues that monastic wealth created for the large Imperial monasteries and would often send military households to be attached to them. These were rights only the emperor could assign to the official institutions. As one would expect, discipline in the official monasteries tended to be stricter and the more monks living in a monastery, the stricter the rules. As a result of strict supervision and Imperial accountability for their conduct, it is understandable that the Shaolin Monastery would have been reluctant to teach martial arts to the laity or outsiders. “Do not pass to anyone outside the temple the religion and the teachings." What is peculiar is the sudden publicity of Shaolin martial arts expertise during the late Ming and Ching Dynasties, apparently encouraged by the monastery itself. There was a swing from monastery martial practice, for the pragmatic purpose of defence, to a badge of identity. Professor Kang Gewu of the Chinese Research Institute noted that there are records of Shaolin monks giving demonstrations of “Jian, Bian (whip), Ji and combat with staves for visitors between 1573 and 1620. Although there are some records of some training of the laity by Shaolin monks during this later period. Still, it must not have been totally acceptable, as Professor, Gewu noted, “In the year 1775, Xu Ji, Acting Governor of Honan Province, invited a Shaolin monk to teach his soldiers spear techniques.” This action was criticized by Emperor Qian Long of the Qing Dynasty. But again the training of laity at Shaolin seems to have happened but was limited and rare. There are however records of notable interactions with outsiders such as senior military personnel and members of the imperial government with Shaolin monks.

I understand that at one point during the 19century martial arts completely stopped at Shaolin and were re-introduced by one of Liu Baoshan's relatives, which could explain why their martial art resembles his so closely.

I would like to point out as well that the development of martial art in the villages had more to do with Henan’s history of natural calamities and economic, social and politic unrest which led to the development of extensive community-based security systems. There was regular cooperation between villages on crop-watching and guarding crops before and during harvest times. To protect villages against attacks of bandit groups, local self-defence-groups (鄉勇) were organized. There a few stories about a villagers going to Shaolin for some training for this expressed purpose.These groups later developed into a para-military organizations which crossed village and even county borders. This pattern of collective organization was increased as imperial order fell apart during the late Qing dynasty specially in the countryside.

r.