I was about to say the same thing, but I was out looking for that 1600 date.Believing in the Southern Temple, and believing in what certain individuals claim happened at the Southern Temple are not one in the same
I was about to say the same thing, but I was out looking for that 1600 date.Believing in the Southern Temple, and believing in what certain individuals claim happened at the Southern Temple are not one in the same
practice wu de
Actually I bored everyone to death. Even Buddhist and Taoist monks fell asleep.....SPJ
Forums are no fun if I can't mess with your head. Or your colon...
uh-oh, I hope no one quotes me on that....Gene Ching
I'm not Normal.... RD on his crying my b!tch left me thread
Consider this: If hundreds of years ago there were possibly thousands of Monks or "Shaolin practitioners", and they were scattered to the 4 corners of the world due to political reasons/prohibitions throughout China, theoretically, there could be "hundreds" of variations of "Shaolin" teachings that all have "Shaolin roots" and could make claim to teach original Shaolin, (I.E. Shaolin-Do).
It's almost a racist concept to say that people who don't wear monk robes can't be teaching original Shaolin. We may as well say that since there are no Italians in Texas then we can't make an authentic pizza. You can't ignore the fact that the longer that monks live/work/teach Shaolin in America the more "diluted" it will become, and therefore will never be "traditional". To "claim" to teach "traditional" Shaolin is acceptible. To claim that "they are the only one's" who can teach "traditional" Shaolin is a total illusion. To say that they are exclusive implies "control", everyone who has studied martial arts for any length of time knows that a sense of "control" is never entirely accurate. So, to have some random Monk, regardless of his age/experience, who "laughs" at another practitioners techniques/claims
Continuation from my former POST: ... So, to have some random Monk, regardless of his age/experience, who "laughs" at another practitioners techniques/claims is absolutely "laughable". Perhaps we should question his sense of infinate wisdom?
dude...I don't know exactly what you're referring to here, but laughing with another person on their growth into their journey is a better way of handling your observations than the straight out violence ( verbal or otherwise) than alot of unlightened or anaware people too often take
it's cute...I oten walk around thinking "that's the funniest thing I ever heard/saw"...as I watch people in their personal physcologies and delimas???
All you need to do is have Gis and belts -- lets not forget the big banner in the window saying "SHAOLIN KUNG FU" and you have the "REAL" traditional stuff!!! It's sad , but in todays MA world it's true! But do not feel bad, Shaolin Do'h has the name to.
~Jason
館術國勇威 Wei Yong Martial Arts Association
戰挑的權霸統傳 The Challenge for Traditional Supremacy
http://www.weiyongkungfu.com
_________________________
What is 'traditional kung fu' ?
Chinese fighting arts developed before the advent of the modern age in China. Not to be confused with modern, post-1949, Wushu or competitive fighting such as kick boxing .
By Shanghai Jing Mo
Tae Bo is not Shaolin.
Master...Teach me kung fu.
How about claiming to be "The Grandmaster of all Shao-Lin"? That's pretty exclusionary, huh?Originally posted by Sho-dan
To say that they are exclusive implies "control", everyone who has studied martial arts for any length of time knows that a sense of "control" is never entirely accurate.
Grandmaster of what was considered shaolin at a particular moment in history as taught by various chinese teachers in Indonesia, then yes, fairly exclusionary.Originally posted by MasterKiller
How about claiming to be "The Grandmaster of all Shao-Lin"? That's pretty exclusionary, huh?
That might not be clear from that title, but when you read the SD history, whether you believe all or it, some of it, or none of it, that's what they are saying.
If by independent you mean lacking any of the body mechanics that make those styles what they are, sure. anybody can buy videos and learn and imitate forms.it has taken on a flavor independent of most of the CMA practiced by the members here. It doesn't make it less authentic, but it does make it different.
you bought the car but did you check under the hood to make sure it has an engine?
Last edited by Fred Sanford; 03-30-2004 at 04:48 PM.
Mack 10 just got out of court,
rollin through tha hood in his super sport ropin Too $hort.
Eighteens got tha rearview mirrors vibratin
Well..................that's the lawyer in you speaking.Originally posted by Judge Pen
Grandmaster of what was considered shaolin at a particular moment in history as taught by various chinese teachers in Indonesia, then yes, fairly exclusionary.
That might not be clear from that title, but when you read the SD history, whether you believe all or it, some of it, or none of it, that's what they are saying.
For all us laymen, without an * and a footnote, the word all is interpreted as universally inclusive; i.e. The gradmaster of everything that has to do with Shaolin....not just Shaolin-Do.
Besides, if that were the case and it was being taught to the students as such, they wouldn't be popping up on Russbo.com asking Doc why he doesn't have 10 pages dedicated to Sin The' on his website, or even here, for that matter.
It's not the lawyer speaking, its just someone speaking with some perspective from within the style.
Fred, with what you have seen on the net, then I agree for the most part. Many teachers don't stress some of the individual stylistic mechanics like they should. Others do, but they are lost on their students. Also, Radhonoti's posts on Chinese martial arts as taught in Indonesia supports an argument that many of the mechanics are lost in the translastion. In America, that would mean we have degenerated another generation, but some of us do the best we can.
IMO, you SDers are grasping at straws and to be quite honest I don't know whether to laugh or throw up.
clearly some of you will never see the light. thankfully some have and have gone on to learn something worthwhile.
Mack 10 just got out of court,
rollin through tha hood in his super sport ropin Too $hort.
Eighteens got tha rearview mirrors vibratin
...or at least, that's what some of the monks say. Shaolin is the grandpappy of all martial arts, at least according to legend, so anyone can claim lineage to some degree. But, and here's the rub, not all of it is good shaolin. In fact, most of it is pretty bad.
Don't be possessive of the name. Be protective of the three treasures.
Gene Ching
Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
Author of Shaolin Trips
Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart
It is unfortunate that there will always be only a handful of knowledgable Masters preserving those 3 treasures and a bus load of instructors unaware of there existance. Know your system know your time know your space and devote your energies accordingly.originally posted by Gene Ching
Don't be possessive of the name. Be protective of the three treasures.
Tony Jacobs
ng doh luk mun fa kin kwan
"...Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower.
Therefore accept the one and reject the other. "
World Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
Southern Shaolin Kung Fu Global Discussion Forum
dude....I understand what you're saying but you don't have to be a "master" to practice the three treasures