Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18

Thread: Shaolin Kung Fu a spectacle or martial art?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    43,114

    Why must spectcacle and martial art be dichotomous?

    Sure there are some expressions of martial arts and spectacles that are distinct, but to divide them for the sake of argument is so Western Cartesian. It reminds me of that old koan 'which came first? the chicken or the egg?'

    The chicken is the egg.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Royal Dragon View Post
    My take, on never actually being at Shaolin, but seeing Songshan Shaolin around me as it spread, is that there are "Historical" reenactors, theatrical performance players, certainly the Chinese version of professional wrestling...and buried in there, off on the sidelines away from all of that, you still have small pockets of the real art. You may find them in the Sanda/San Shou community, because fighters like to fight. But I have serious doubts that you would find them at Shaolin itself.
    Ok, there are show performers, some may be monks, most are usually kung fu students/teachers, we all know this.
    How do you become a "historical actor" at a Buddhist Temple? Let alone one with a rich history like Shaolin?
    The Pagoda Forest? Thousand Buddha Hall? Are those mock ups as well?
    This idea that Shaolin is a some history park with prop monks always puzzles me. It is naturally a great tourist attraction, its still an active Buddhist Temple though, and a very old and Original one.
    The amount of sutra a real monk would have to memorize to just "play a role" is baffling, I dont think anyone would do that just for show. I wont argue much in the favor of Shaolin Chan and Wu, because they both have to be experienced.
    I'm just wondering what you mean by historical actors, because people reach pretty far with that term, blindly.

    I will say this, if someone treats Shaolin like a spectacle, and they want to go play tourist and go "see the show", there is most certainly a show for them to see, and fairly so.
    If someone seeks Ch'an, seeks Buddha, there is Ch'an and Buddha.
    if someone seeks Wugong, there is wugong.
    any fool can be fooled, thats easy.
    and the truth doesn't hide at all.

    you go looking for the real thing, genuinely, you will find it.
    it's like a mirror most of the time, you are finding what you "are" at that moment.
    your perception is sometimes limited to your understanding.
    when a carpenter looks at a building, he sees more than someone who doesnt know carpentry.
    when parents move about their house, their perspective is greatly different than their baby's perspective..

    so it is with Shaolin. Buddhist monks are not props or actors. Buddha is still reality.


    Amituofo
    "色即是空 , 空即是色 " ~ Buddha via Avalokitesvara
    Shaolin Meditator

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    340

    video about visiting Shaolin

    "色即是空 , 空即是色 " ~ Buddha via Avalokitesvara
    Shaolin Meditator

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •