The state of the PRC Shaolin.

[r.(shaolin)]

Re: Jan/Feb issue of ‘Kungfu Qigong’

[kungfudork]

"Seeing how one ‘monk’ demonstrates and explain the difference between modern wushu and traditional basics, in particular the ‘gongbu’ further convinces me that tradition at Shaolin is not alive and well."

what is your logic behind this statement. i wrote the article you are refering to. this topic was my idea, not my shrfu, shi xing hao. at school i train our regular traditional shaolin curriculum, and sometimes i join in the changchuan(longfist or contemp wushu) class......shrfu is always correcting me, saying i can't do traditional stances in longfist class, because it isn't longfist. this is why the article was written, i felt it was an interesting topic and a controversial one too, since alot of people feel that Shaolin today is all contemporary wushu. This wasn't some mastermind scheme to help Shaolin Temple distance itself from contemp wushu. The first i have even heard of this is from your first paragraph, and it quite possibly is true....i don't know, but i do know that isn't why the article was written.
if you question the traditional aspects of our shaolin class you are more than welcome to visit the school and even join in a class. this is a friendly invitation, not a challenge. we do not mix the traditional with the contemp wushu in our classes.....i will admit for demonstration purposes we sometimes add some flashy moves to the traditional forms, but this is for the demonstration team only and not part of the curriculum.
i would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you more.

respect to all!

thanks,
dieter wagner

[r.(shaolin)]

You said it yourself:

”I found my sihifu, Shaolin Monk Shi Xing Hao, always bringing to my attention that I was mixing my traditional and longfist basics, such as stances and execution of movements”.
----
Basics can be seen as the gross motor skills. These will perform under the stress of combat and are most important just when complex and fine motor skills generally deteriorate. Modern training research tells us this and interestingly the traditional martial arts recognized this. The importance of basics is recognized in literally all fields . You will react like you train.

It is interesting that when various arts were absorbed into Shaolin during Fuyu’s time, it was said that basics of each of the forms were changed to conform with Shaolin basics (Shaolin Ji Ben Dong Zuo - this refers to both standing and moving basics).
Its clear that the present monks are well trained in modern sport wushu. Modern sport wushu basics were designed for aesthetics and audience appeal not for combat nor for health considerations. The bottom line is that basics of modern wushu contradicts traditional shaolin martial arts both in form and content. Of all the basics used in modern wushu the ‘gongbu,’ in IMO is one of its most unsound features.

In your article you write that Xing Hao says, “If you are spending time worrying about “that is longfist” and “that is traditional,” then you are wasting precious time that could be spent training.”

I can see that he has a vested interested in modern wushu basics. Hardly good advice as there is some evidence of the knee problems that modern wushu practitioners are prone to. Looking at the way they do gongbu it is little wonder. The knee problems have has less to do with how low the stances are, than the position of the back foot as evidenced by the photos.
-----
My comments re: Revernd Shi Yongxin are more to do with his special message at the front of the mag. and his address given 1999. In that address
it is clear he is distancing Shaolin from contempory wushu.

regards,
r.

[kungfudork]

i said it was possible that yongxin was trying to differentiate shaolin from contemporary wushu...and it seems he is, but the article we wrote had nothing to do with this.

"In your article you write that Xing Hao says, “If you are spending time worrying about “that is longfist” and “that is traditional,” then you are wasting precious time that could be spent training.”"

yes i can see that there are knee problems from this position that really stresses the knee, but the point of the statement was that no matter what you decide to train you should concentrate on training. it wasn't meant to imply that the two are the same. if everyone spends their time saying i am traditional or i am modern then you are wasting time. what ever you train, you should train with your heart and soul, if you don't , then you are only doing dancelike movements that have no meaning. if you want to train modern then do so, if you train traditional then do so.....that is your choice. there is a difference between the two and any knowledgible teacher should be able to keep the two seperate in class, letting the students know the differences and why they are different.

in our article no where did we recommend which style to study. we only stated the differences of the basics for each style...you act like we are promoting modern wushu.

"Its clear that the present monks are well trained in modern sport wushu. "

i agree most of them are, like the article stated my sifu was already a modern sport wushu champion when he was 13-14. instead of going to his province team he decided to go train at shaolin. here he learned traditional arts and quite honestly didn't enjoy being there, because he was a modern champion and now the stuff he was being trained in he couldn't do very well because it was different. it seems to me that you are making the assumption that if they know modern wushu then there is no way in hell they can know anything traditional. please come visit the school you can see the differences and the differences are taught to the students. that is the point of the article, if you are training either style you should know the differences.......if you mix them together then you have neither modern sports wushu nor traditional.

"The bottom line is that basics of modern wushu contradicts traditional shaolin martial arts both in form and content. Of all the basics used in modern wushu the ‘gongbu,’ in IMO is one of its most unsound features."

duh, that was one of the points of the article, the basics are different.....there isn't a shaolin version of modern wushu. both are practiced at shaolin, but the differences are noted. just as it is at our school....the traditional shaolin curriculum isn't mixed with the modern wushu. for those students who also study the modern stuff our sifu makes sure that they know the differences and keep the two seperate.

i really don't see the point of your message anymore. you are trying to tell me that the basics of modern wushu and traditional shaolin are different and that was what the article was about. in our school the traditional is the priority....learning longfist (modern wushu) is only a side class for those who want to compete in this style. i can assure you that our traditional curriculum isn't some mix of the two styles. traditional is traditional and combat based. modern wushu is for competing.

but i must say.....i believe that no matter what you train, if you train it consistently then it will be effective. if i puch a tree everyday for 3 years as hard as i can, i can promise you that my punch will do severe damage to anyone i hit, even though i have never studied a martial art. this fact can't be denied. this is kungfu, anything you train over a long period of time you will be more efficient than someone who doesn't train.

sorry for the rambling but i am a few sheets to the wind. i hope my post makes some sense. " i like whiskey"

respect to all,
dieter wagner

[GeneChing]

I interviewed Abbot Shi Yongxin in 2001 to generate that message you read in the front of our recent Shaolin special. IMO, he wasn't distancing himself from wushu at all. Perhaps it is my poor translation, but I believe his intention was to acknowledge the traditional roots and it would be a converse error to think that this endorsement is distancing itself from modern wushu. At Shaolin, and in many parts of China, wushu and traditional kungfu exist harmoniously. If you practice like they do in China - everday, all day, from childhood - you can achieve both. It's much more difficult for those of us who cannot commit that kind of effort, so it is better that we choose. It would be a mistake for Shaolin to detach itself from wushu because it is such a measure of martial skill in China. Shaolin students must still earn awards in every field - after all, there's a reputation to maintain. And if it makes into the Olympics - man, that's something that the traditional styles couldn't even ever dream of...

[r.(shaolin)]

Here are a few quotes from Abbot Shi Yongxin's 1999 address.

[GeneChing]

Can you get it to me in the original Chinese?

[r.(shaolin)]

" Can you get it to me in the original Chinese?"

I'd love to get the original. You have much better connections to Shaolin than I do. Can you possibly make an inquire? A summary of it was on russco.com



kind regards,
r.

[GeneChing]

I should have guessed. Was that your source?

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Gene - I was hoping to hear your thoughts and reactions to the Abbots position.

I've only seen the summary on russco.com, but would like to get the full address in Chinese. I sent a email to russco but haven't received a reply.

You say you know the owner of the site, possibly he has the original in Chinese.

r.

[xiong]

Although a long read this has been pretty interesting.

My question is for r.(shaolin) specifically, but perhaps the rest of you could give your opinion. I was interested in looking at the history of Kung Fu/Wu Shu from 1949 on.

I am a Wushu student and was curious as to why there was such a negative connotation, I thought it was nationalist sour grapes, but in some of my own research did find that the PRC government did try to take away the martial aspects and persecute MA in general as being bourgoise.

I am just trying to locate sources to try and increase my own understanding, perhaps I may have some information good enough to post.

One thing I read somewhere was looking at the governmental control of wushu in the context of the PRC as a dynastic change. At various times in history martial arts has been prohibited by the incoming dynasty. And schools of martial arts have been instrumental in secret societies fighting for the overthrow of the usurpers.

In this context the PRC's attitude towards wushu seems to follow a cultural precedent that is not particular to communism.

Anyway just some thoughts, what I'm primarily interested in is sources, I don't think that it can be disputed that the PRC tried to subvert the martial aspect of wushu.

[GeneChing]

Rich is my younger disciple brother under Warrior monk Shi Decheng. I doubt he has the chinese since he reads less than I do. But I know most of his sources, so I'll look into it.

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene I did hear from your 'junior' brother. I gather that although the position paper did come from Shaolin and is credited to Reverend Shi Yougxin, Dr. Russell, believes it was written for him by someone else.

Never the less, Reverend Shi Yougxin's name is attached to it and the person who wrote it, certainly was informed. The points made were thoughtful. I found two issues he raised, one of standardization and the other of competition, particularly interesting.

Recently The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in their series "Ideas" did a piece called "The Way of the Western Warrior." Possible some of you may have heard this excellent analysis. It explored how Western culture is transforming the martial arts. Recent controversies aside, one of the themes that it looked at, was the negative effects Olympic
competition have had on the martial arts. Case in point is Judo. In the program Joe Svinth, who is the sport history consultant for the Japanese-American National Museum in LA, points out that many judo practitioners regret to this day that judo was turned into a sport.

xiong - You make some good points.

I neither accept reasons, like jealousy and sour grapes as the root of the reoccurring questions. . . .

You must remember that for thousands of years the Chinese have had a great reverence for their ancestors and a acute sensitivity to their traditions and history. For thousands of years this was part of their identity. Its a culture of deep deep roots.

What happen to China since 1949 was a great humiliation. But how do they unearth the past with out digging up what happened to the millions missing since 1949. The bitter irony is that millions of innocent were killed in an effort to destroy the past. What they are actually doing now, is restore the past by rewriting and inventing it in a way
that tries to forget what really happened.

On an other thread someone posted that "There's a big myth in this country that it's still illegal to practice traditional Kungfu in Communist China . . . " This is a straw dog. It is well known that traditional martial arts were being openly practice in China beginning with the mid 80's.

Systems like Shaolin that were comprised of a large body of forms were the most damaged. With 30 years of suppression by the communists and the war with Japan previous did great harm to these traditions. The real myth is that this suppression was not extensive and devastating. When the PCSC issued the document titled 'Circular of Unearthing the Establishing Wushu Heritage' they were not kidding it was 'unearthing'. During the mid 80's Chinese masters living abroad were solicited to 'come home' and have their systems documented. Even in the 90's officials were sent abroad in search of the 'old sifu'. Yes there is 'traditional' martial art being practice in Shaolin Monastery but its should be more accurately call 'traditional patchwork'

I think it would be an interesting story to compare an art with 180+ forms like "Northern Shaolin" from Kuo Yu Chang's lineage as practiced in the PRC with the same art as practiced outside of the PRC. Gene, if I recall you are familiar with this art.

regards,
r

[xiong]

And the PRC is not alone in this. But polotics aside I see what you are saying. Unfortunately China has suffered greatly since at least the 19th century, if not prior to that, concurrent with it's involvement with the west, and I don't mean India.

My ideas are not original, I can't remeber where I read it, but the thesis was very intriguing. I have only barely scratched the surface of what I am interested in. I have looked at the encyclopedia of martial arts and read some thing online that gives references to Chinese MA in North America in the 20th cent.

Are you familiar with the Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts. I saw it advertised in the latest WLE catalog and was wondering about it's coverage of post '49 history.

[r.(shaolin)]

Yes I'm quite familiar with