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

[David Jamieson]

I've read the book thoroughly, and it doesn't list any techniques/styles for Shaolin Kung Fu following the earliest known manuals and drunken style. There is a gap of several hundred years where only neighbouring Kung Fu styles are explicitly talked about.

David obviously hasn't read the book because the Shaolin Temple burnt only once!

I should have guessed.

Do you want the page number? OK.
Chapter 5- Hand Combat probably has what you want. It also contains the reference from the earlier part of the book I mention regarding the use of staff.


page 61 has an illustration from 1621 shaolin staff method manual.


Bandits destroyed the temple by sacking it in approx CE 1350.
It was again destroyed in 1641 prior to the fall of the Ming by LiZicheng
It was again destroyed in 1927-28.

Pretty sure you're just trolling or looking for free info that you are obviously too lazy to pick up a book and read for yourself. probably in some effort to make crap attacks against current styles that link to shaolin for whatever motivation you have.

But hey that's cool, why don't you attack me personally and tell more lies about what I do or don't do? In teh meantime, read the book, it is in there and there are many other reliable sources as well.

just because you live in a void of information about other cultures doesn't mean you can't make the effort to learn.

not to mention that you almost immediately discount everything everyone here is telling you. Confirmation bias much?

[Scott R. Brown]

I think I have learned quite a bit from reading this thread so far:

1) Shabadabadoo is the expert on Shaolin Kung Fu because he put words on paper and words on paper mean more than something that is said with the voice.

2) It doesn't matter a fig what people who have lived in the area for generations think or believe because they only have traditions that go back hundreds of years, but they are oral traditions and these are less reliable than what Shabadabadoo wrote because he is the expert!

3) Family traditions that grew out of Shaolin because they were learned through those who trained at the temple are of less veracity than anything Shabadabadoo wrote, because the written word is KING and real life experience is nothing compared to words on paper.

4) People who read books written by other people who got their information from other people who wrote books know more about the subject under discussion that people who have actually been there, done that with other people who have been there and done that who learned from others who have been there and done that, because.....well doing it is not as reliable as writing a book about doing it!

5) Someone who asks a question with a cup already full has no room for anymore tea!

6) Stupid people ask questions they think they already have the answers too in order to show others how smart they are, but only end up looking more stupid than they were to begin with!

7) My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught us, "He who asks a question and doesn't like the answer he gets, didn't want an answer to his question in the first place!"

He was very wise!

[RenDaHai]

@RDH

I don't seem to remember. Are your four roads of Shaolin XHQ from different sources? Of course not counting the 1st which I know you've probably covered with a number of folks.

Hey LFJ

Same source. I learned 1,2,3,4 all from CuiXiQi and his son. Last time we met I hadn't learned 3 and 4 but I have now. I think i showed you part 2.

I also have the Nanyuan XHQ ( i showed you that too), LuotuoYuan XHQ and Mogou XHQ which are all part 1. The nanyuan have all 4 roads in tact and part 1 and 2 are very similar to My 1and 2 from CuiJia. But I only learned 1 and saw the others. I intend to learn all.

Thats 7 XHQs, but the 4 from CuiJia are all supposed to be practiced together as a complete set. Also We have DaHong 1+2 and when you see their DaHong part 2 it is obvious it was created to be part of the same style as XHQ 1,2,3,4. The 6 together form a complete sub style of Hong Quan.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hey LFJ

Same source. I learned 1,2,3,4 all from CuiXiQi and his son. Last time we met I hadn't learned 3 and 4 but I have now. I think i showed you part 2.

I also have the Nanyuan XHQ ( i showed you that too), LuotuoYuan XHQ and Mogou XHQ which are all part 1. The nanyuan have all 4 roads in tact and part 1 and 2 are very similar to My 1and 2 from CuiJia. But I only learned 1 and saw the others. I intend to learn all.

Thats 7 XHQs, but the 4 from CuiJia are all supposed to be practiced together as a complete set. Also We have DaHong 1+2 and when you see their DaHong part 2 it is obvious it was created to be part of the same style as XHQ 1,2,3,4. The 6 together form a complete sub style of Hong Quan.

It is a shame you didn't happen to learn it all from a book. Then perhaps you would have learned something of value.

Maybe you can ask your sifu to write it all down (in English of course) so it can be REAL style!

[falkor]

Do you want the page number? OK.
Chapter 5- Hand Combat probably has what you want. It also contains the reference from the earlier part of the book I mention regarding the use of staff.

That chapter mentions the earliest sources of Shaolin Kung and Drunken style as well as other styles taught in close proximity to the temple, but it doesn't mention how Shaolin Kung Fu itself (Shaolin Quan) developed between the Ming-Qing period (when those 2 books were thought to first be written) and 1904, excluding examples of known techniques that would have formed part of the Shaolin repertoire.

page 61 has an illustration from 1621 shaolin staff method manual.

The first part of the book is about Shaolin staff, right, but this topic is about Shaolin Kung Fu (or empty hand combat)

Bandits destroyed the temple by sacking it in approx CE 1350.
It was again destroyed in 1641 prior to the fall of the Ming by LiZicheng
It was again destroyed in 1927-28.

Sorry, I forgot to emphasise the word "burnt", as that is the source of much legend and confusion. Sacked/destroyed would be a better word for the first 2 events, and burnt is more accurate for the last event, but now I see where the added confusion lies.

Pretty sure you're just trolling or looking for free info that you are obviously too lazy to pick up a book and read for yourself. probably in some effort to make crap attacks against current styles that link to shaolin for whatever motivation you have.

I'm done with Shahar's book, but if you can point me in the right direction to any other relevant scholarly works to fill the gap relating to Shaolin Kung Fu specifically--as well as history of modern Wu Shu--then that's why I am here.

But hey that's cool, why don't you attack me personally and tell more lies about what I do or don't do? In teh meantime, read the book, it is in there and there are many other reliable sources as well.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm not in the business of personal attacks.

not to mention that you almost immediately discount everything everyone here is telling you. Confirmation bias much?

I'm not discounting anything, but people need to back up what they are saying with quotes from primary or secondary sources, otherwise--in the mythical world of Shaolin--how can anyone take them seriously? Such bad scholarship has been published in Kung Fu magazines over the years; why should anyone entertain fantasy? I say let's stick to the facts!

[RenDaHai]

Shahar refers to villages and admits he would save that for a modern historian. It's not that he didn't understand; it was simply outside the scope of his book.

You believe the history of the temple in terms of knowledge remained unbroken for hundreds of years, but many people will not agree with you (goes against Shahar's sources) due to the political events that the temple and monks got caught up in. So we'll have to agree to differ there, though I appreciate you sharing your opinons.

It goes against his sources because he didn't cover the villages. The knowledge is unbroken because you can't consider the temple like this isolated place with secret knowledge. The Kung Fu was in constant flux being exchanged with the villages literally on its doorstep (village people literally trained on the actual doorstep of Shaolin). So if someone leaves shaolin it doesn't break the line at all. They might have gone as close as 100m down the road and passed it on there and a student would then return to shaolin temple. It is literally that close. That is why it is ridiculous to assume anything is lost because of that reason. The Great leap forward starvation and the culteral revolution did the most to damage Kung Fu. But people like my master learned before this time and are still teaching today. There are many like this so the CR didn't finish them all. The knowledge could only be broken if they all died at exactly the same time, and that didn't ever happen.

Oral traditions cannot always be trusted, but I can see you believe in them, which is your prerogative. For sceptics like me, we need written documents.

Neither can written documents. Remember only scholars could read and write and what they wrote was not necesserily the truth but what they needed to write to fullfil their motives. Oral history is possibly less biased. It exagerates stories but tends to contain the memory of events. Anyway when I am talking about LiGenSeng it is literally within LIVING memory. So if you ask a few old people who actually knew him (he only died in 1960) they will not all tell the same lie.

Does anyone else have anything to add in terms of pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu based on credible written sources? You can see that it's not an easy question to answer, hence Shahar did not have anything to add at the current time. However, for those knowledgeable about Shaolin Kung Fu, they may well know about some Qing training manuals or have other sources at hand that Shahar did not consider for his book in terms of the scope.

Shahar to give him credit did an extensive search of written sources. There is nothing else apart from the hand written manuals. But these need to be Carbon dated to confirm and its a lot of work.

The best you can do is to look at examples of Kung Fu from the hundreds of villages and see the differences and similarities and come to the conclusion that to have 1500 forms, all well made and all containing many of the same basic techniques and methods yet also different it must have taken centuries and that must be shaolin Kung Fu just as they say it is.

Remember this was a niche topic at the time. No local style books would have been printed, only hand written, even into the 20th century. These survive only in the hands of families. But you can actually SEE the kung fu. You can see its evolution buy looking through the various forms.

[RenDaHai]

You believe modern Wu Shu is just like the original Shaolin Kung Fu? I thought it was commonly agreed upon that the government adapted it for show after a long period when Kung Fu practise was banned in China. Again, facts in the form of well-researched books or articles should be able to settle this part of the debate. It comes down to my question about who was consulted when Wu Shu entered the competition realm.

Do others believe that Wu Shu today is what Shaolin monks practised in the past?

The forms I posted ARE the forms the monks practiced in the past. HOw do I know? Becuase the ones I posted are the same as my master learned in the 30's (the first video IS my ShiYe). They Therefore cannot be affected by modern wushu.

I know they are the same because I have seen many versions of these SAME forms in the villages around. Different enough that they must have been learned at a different time but similar enough that one can see they are the same form.

[falkor]

Shahar to give him credit did an extensive search of written sources. There is nothing else apart from the hand written manuals. But these need to be Carbon dated to confirm and its a lot of work.

Shahar only researched the history of the monastery and people up until the 19th century with mention of Shaolin staff and local hand techniques. It was not in his interest to explain the definition of Shaolin Kung Fu or trace its development, but if he did then I'm sure I would already have my answer.

The best you can do is to look at examples of Kung Fu from the hundreds of villages and see the differences and similarities and come to the conclusion that to have 1500 forms, all well made and all containing many of the same basic techniques and methods yet also different it must have taken centuries and that must be shaolin Kung Fu just as they say it is.

That tells me more about general martial arts development in the villages of Henan provice or north China than it does about Shaolin/Kung fu. Something similar happened around Fujian tied up with the history of Southern boxing. I don't believe we are left with no choice but to reverse engineer current forms to figure out the parent style. There must be sources out there that describe Shaolin Kung Fu in the 18th-19th century.

Remember this was a niche topic at the time. No local style books would have been printed, only hand written, even into the 20th century. These survive only in the hands of families. But you can actually SEE the kung fu. You can see its evolution buy looking through the various forms.

There clearly were records of temple visits, which Shahar quotes, but he doesn't say whether they included descriptions of Shaolin Kung Fu. Lots of manuals have already been preserved and published; any of those could be shown to pre-date the 20th century at least and provide lists of techniques practised at Shaolin. I believe it's a company called Lion; does anyone have a catalogue/list of their publications? Anyway, I'm not skilled to carry out such research myself of the primary sources, but somebody must have already done some work on it and published something that at least answers my question. Does anyone have links to Tang Ho's works translated into English? He must have found out what Shaolin Kung Fu consisted of prior to 1904; what were they practising for hundreds of years? Nevermind what they are practising now.

It's starting to feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here, as I don't seem to be getting any relevant answers to my question. I didn't think we would be getting into arguments, etc. OK, what about just a biblography of other books about Shaolin that might be worth reading?

[falkor]

The forms I posted ARE the forms the monks practiced in the past. HOw do I know? Becuase the ones I posted are the same as my master learned in the 30's (the first video IS my ShiYe). They Therefore cannot be affected by modern wushu.

I know they are the same because I have seen many versions of these SAME forms in the villages around. Different enough that they must have been learned at a different time but similar enough that one can see they are the same form.

The first video you showed was very aesthetically pleasing. OK, I'll take a look at those latest videos you posted when I get home from work. Do you have any weblinks to the specific techniques in question? Or hopefully the Youtube links and discussions will provide context.

[pazman]

Having lived in Japan and China for nearly ten years and now returned to the USA, I find there is never a lack of people who'd like to tell me what China or Japan is really like.

When I visited my alma mater, I was invited by a group of Japanese language students to come talk to them about my experiences. Invariably, the question of "what's your favorite sushi?" came up. I answered "Ebi abocado" (shrimp and avocado). One student, who had no doubt never visited Japan, was stupid enough to say "Actually, that doesn't exist in Japan. Japanese people would never eat such a thing."

Meir Shahar's book is a good start but it is the only decent book in English done with proper research. Dahai lives there, speaks Chinese, and most of his posts confirms my own experiences.

[GeneChing]

...you need to subscribe.

*The initial creation of modern competition Wu Shu, including consulted practitioners of Kung Fu

I address this topic in several sections, most notably the early chapters which set up the context as well as some of the masters sections, where some prominent figures from that transitional era are profiled. Also, you should look into our Wushu in the White House series which we ran in 2004. It has been tackled numerous times in our magazine.

*How modern Wu Shu compares to original Wu Shu and Shaolin Kung Fu

This is addressed in my book in the early chapters as well. This has been addressed in a few articles in our past Shaolin Specials too.

*How monks came to occupy the temple again and how it became commercial (before or after the release of Jet Li's Shaolin Temple)

I include some peripheral discussion of this within some of the masters chapters.

*The formation of the Wu Shu team with coaches Wu Bin and Li Jun Feng

I don't address this so much as my book is not about that. Again, it is addressed in several magazine articles. All of our past table of contents are accessible here and all of our past cover stories are available here.

*When the monks first toured the world

This is also in the early chapters. It is mostly about the U.S. tours, but as I did a lot of work with some of the initial European tour promoters, there is some peripheral discussion of the world tours.

If so, is there any way I could pay you directly for a PDF or eBook?

Nope. Hard copy only. Get Shaolin Trips through Amazon and it'll help my sales numbers there.

[LFJ]

Hey LFJ

Same source. I learned 1,2,3,4 all from CuiXiQi and his son. Last time we met I hadn't learned 3 and 4 but I have now. I think i showed you part 2.

I also have the Nanyuan XHQ ( i showed you that too), LuotuoYuan XHQ and Mogou XHQ which are all part 1. The nanyuan have all 4 roads in tact and part 1 and 2 are very similar to My 1and 2 from CuiJia. But I only learned 1 and saw the others. I intend to learn all.

Thats 7 XHQs, but the 4 from CuiJia are all supposed to be practiced together as a complete set. Also We have DaHong 1+2 and when you see their DaHong part 2 it is obvious it was created to be part of the same style as XHQ 1,2,3,4. The 6 together form a complete sub style of Hong Quan.

That's right as far as I can remember. I'm definitely most interested in this subsystem. Must see, must learn...

[LFJ]

Having lived in Japan and China for nearly ten years and now returned to the USA, I find there is never a lack of people who'd like to tell me what China or Japan is really like.

When I visited my alma mater, I was invited by a group of Japanese language students to come talk to them about my experiences. Invariably, the question of "what's your favorite sushi?" came up. I answered "Ebi abocado" (shrimp and avocado). One student, who had no doubt never visited Japan, was stupid enough to say "Actually, that doesn't exist in Japan. Japanese people would never eat such a thing."

Highlarious! Know what you mean...

[falkor]

A lot of people come to England and know about major tourist attractions other than Big Ben that I never even knew existed on my doorstep. However, they all miss out on seeing London's Roman Colosseum. I can show a Japanese tourist where every visible Roman monument survives, and by the same token I'm sure they could teach me about some modern day building that's significant only to tourists.

[RenDaHai]

The first video you showed was very aesthetically pleasing. OK, I'll take a look at those latest videos you posted when I get home from work. Do you have any weblinks to the specific techniques in question? Or hopefully the Youtube links and discussions will provide context.

The first one is a form called DaTongBei Quan. None of its techniques are unique and anyone from any northern school should be able to tell you the use of any of them.

We don't need to reverse engineer any Kung fu. The techniques of Shaolin, Wudang, Taiji, XingYi, Pao Chui, TongBei, Zha Quan, Hua Quan, Hong Quan, Luohan etc. etc. Are all largely identical. They are performed slightly differently due to local culture and sometime they have different names. But often the same.

The main form of Shaolin is called XiaoHOngQuan. It appears in almost every village. And the last living old monks all knew this.

The main special techniques are:

Xie Xing (Slanted form)


Qi Xing (Seven stars)


Chong Tian Pao (Sky Cannon)


Pan Zhou (Coiled elbow)


A long with a whole load of standard techniques and a few other special techniques which are less common. These are all standard moves. They all appear in the current XHQ as well as Mogou XHQ which diverged 500 years ago. And in Nanyuan XHQ which diverged 360 years ago. And many others. The fact they all contain these techs we can safely assume that was in the syllabus pre 1904. The masters who trained before that time are still within the living memory of my master who still teaches today.