The link ?

[Xian]

Since I gotten deeper into the Shaolin Quan I saw many interesting things. In the beginning the maybe most wellknown Shi De Yang in case of Shaolin Boxing. I mean well known to generall Chinese Martial Arts puplic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po5LCDTVK7s

When you see him he seems to be extremly well trained his eyes seem to stare power and a certain pureness. On his DVDs or demonstrations he seems not to just run the form and finish. But somehow I feel there is something missing. For example it seemed for me at somepoints that in a few forms he was doing them and for a second he wanted to go another way and stopped and then went the way it was shown in the later video.
But nevertheless his movments are very correct you can easily see what he is doing. But somehow I miss bodywork. This is extremley strange for me as it doesnt seems like he is doing the work wrong.

I think there are some people that make the forms like he does, of course they are not trained like he is.

Then there is for example Shi Guo Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dFKKw9V5zc

When I seem him I see him performing differently as for example Shi De Yang. Of course everyone is different, but when you look closer there are differences


Then the third as you may think its Wugulun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9WUNpNQzlw

Much Shenfa, partwise very different looking forms that are shown. And also one thing which I rareley see in todays demonstrations. Mimic, some people find that may ridicoulus but for its a part of the mind set like when do you Monkey fist, imaging to act like a monkey.

The fourth is the very less stuff of Hai Deng. But for me it goes completly out of the Xiao Hong Quan, Da Hong Quan etc.. stuff...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au9M2...el_video_title


My question is, how do they all link ? I mean they all seem to come from Shaolin.But in the same time to be all different. Esspecially I am interested in the role of Wugulun in it. Ive tried to search here on the forum for disscusions but I didnt found what I was looking for.


Kind regards,
Xian

[LFJ]

On his DVDs or demonstrations he seems not to just run the form and finish. But somehow I feel there is something missing. For example it seemed for me at somepoints that in a few forms he was doing them and for a second he wanted to go another way and stopped and then went the way it was shown in the later video.
But nevertheless his movments are very correct you can easily see what he is doing. But somehow I miss bodywork. This is extremley strange for me as it doesnt seems like he is doing the work wrong.

It's simply because the forms taught on the DVDs are bare-bones versions of the forms made for public, they differ from the way a legit student would learn them. Hence, there are places where he almost does it the right way, and sometimes the way he does the forms seem forced.

Almost all Chinese masters in different styles "mark" the forms they put on video or teach on instructional DVDs. Sometimes a key movement is missing which makes the whole form go in the opposite direction. Lots of things are done differently, important body mechanics and details are glossed over or left out, etc..

As for Shi Guosong, Wu Gulun lineage, and the rest in Shaolin, they do things differently because they are from separate lineages within Shaolin. That includes secular masters in the lineages as well. It is not that everyone in the monastery learns the exact same way. It differs from master to disciple. The Wu Gulun lineage is not that old at all. Wu Gulun (Shi Jiqin) was a monk in the mid 1800's and really developed the style he received from his master, hence he is considered the 1st generation master in the lineage.

As for Shi Haideng, he was not from Shaolin. He only stayed there for short periods. He was a martial artist and Chan monk from Sichuan province.

[JamesC]

Isn't Shi De Yang pretty much the Traditional Songshan Form God? I was under the impression that he was basically the Living Traditional Shaolin Sequence Library.

I'd do whatever that guy does.

Also, I would assume he does a LOT of forms and has to retain a LOT of movements. I wouldn't be surprised if it sometimes gets jumbled for a second.

[LFJ]

Yes, Suxi was called the Shaolin Boxing King, and he was the Young Shaolin Boxing King. It's just that the versions of forms taught on the DVDs are not the way a legit student of his would learn them, or the way he usually does them. They are either way dumbed down basic versions or have missing or jumbled moves and sequences. Yet still there are people who do the forms like this and claim to be his students.

[RenDaHai]

Shaolin has a set of principles which all these various sects adhere to. However some interpretation varies between them. But largely, all these sects practice the same shaolin, they merely exaggerate different elements.

Even within 1 school you can see as much variation as between these sects. SOme people like to focus on ShenFa (body mechanics), some people on BaoFaLi (explosive power), some people on ZhengQue (precise form) along with other elements.

In reality shaolin should contain all of these elements, but it is hard to put these all together in harmony.

I could perform XiaoHongQuan 3 times and focus on a different element each time and it would be hard for some people to tell it is the same form. It can look completely different.

Because every individual master has their own characteristics they kind of embed these on their students. In terms of Shaolin Technique, all the sects are quite similar, they just perform a little differently.

[sha0lin1]

I remember when I first started with my Master I was very confused by this. I would learn a form and then look it up on You Tube and see sometimes 5 different versions of the same form. I asked my Master about this and he gave me the same answer as LFJ and RenDaHai. I guess coming from other schools, such as I did, where all the forms are standardized, students new to Songshan Shaolin often have a hard time with this since they think that there is a "correct way" to do it. People can be so single minded about stuff. However, it was hard on my Master because when he was coming up and training he would tell me that whoever the Master was that was teaching, you had to do the form their way and it was always slightly different. Now that I am teaching in my own school, my students also notice this and ask me the same questions. Sometimes I get other students from some of the other Monks schools and they compare what they have learned to how we teach a particular form. They are then able to add to what they know already or enhance our form with these other methods.

[Matthew]

My question is, how do they all link ? I mean they all seem to come from Shaolin.But in the same time to be all different. Esspecially I am interested in the role of Wugulun in it. Ive tried to search here on the forum for disscusions but I didnt found what I was looking for.


Kind regards,
Xian

Hey Xian,

I have not anywhere read that Wugulun well developed his style any differently, but that his lineage is merely distinguished by his name Wugulun because he left the ShaoLin monastery and led a secular life to prevent the loss of his knowledge at the main temples 1920's destruction.

Since then we have seen commercialization/standardization of countless forms. I believe the name Wugulun stands to first distinguish his lineage as a pre-1920's Shaolin authentic lineage and secondly to give honor to the one who prevented it's loss at the temple.

If Shi De Jian (currently "wugulun" lineage holder under SuXi) is any indicator of why they practice the various traditional forms in the 'softer' and 'smoother' fashion they appear to, we can take his quote that it is only through the soft that power is generated. In other words, hard external movements are not the path to developing power. Also he even gives a seemingly commical take on a common longhand technique seen in countless shaolin forms noting that it is often done incorrectly- being fully extended and done with too much external hardness. He says "Doesn't it look good? Being fully extended?" From my view he is sort of poking fun at the traditional assumption that the forms should have a certain "Look" to them even beyond functionality. (although it should also be noted fully extended arms are more easily broken at the elbow joint XD).

an except with english subtitles can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X9opF8MCiE

Also the 'Wugulun' lineage does not practice punches in the way we see most performed with full arm extension and horizontally. Their punch is taught as he demonstrates the two-arm extension there (obviously with one arm doing the motion though).

[LFJ]

I have not anywhere read that Wugulun well developed his style any differently, but that his lineage is merely distinguished by his name Wugulun because he left the ShaoLin monastery and led a secular life to prevent the loss of his knowledge at the main temples 1920's destruction.

Since then we have seen commercialization/standardization of countless forms. I believe the name Wugulun stands to first distinguish his lineage as a pre-1920's Shaolin authentic lineage and secondly to give honor to the one who prevented it's loss at the temple.

http://www.shaolinwugulun.org/view.asp?id=10

"Wu Gulun and Zhan Mo fought their way out of the Temple,past the 18 temple guards,and retreated to a small temple called Shi Guo Si where Zhan Mo taught Wu Gulun the art of Xing Yi Ba,which is regarded as a high level gongfu skill. Wu Gulun trained in many other Shaolin gongfu skills including Qing Gong (light skill) and Chi Gong (breath control). He developed Xing Yi Ba to the highest level and is now regarded as the First Generation Master of this form of gongfu."

If Shi De Jian (currently "wugulun" lineage holder under SuXi)

He's the 4th Generation lineage holder from Wu Gulun under Zhang Qinghe, not Shi Suxi. (1 Wu Gulun - 2 Wu Shanlin - 3 Zhang Qinghe - 4 Shi Dejian) Suxi was his Buddhist refuge master when he ordained.

[rett]

He's the 4th Generation lineage holder from Wu Gulun under Zhang Qinghe, not Shi Suxi. (1 Wu Gulun - 2 Wu Shanlin - 3 Zhang Qinghe - 4 Shi Dejian) Suxi was his Buddhist refuge master when he ordained.

I may be wrong here, but as I understand it Zhang Qinghe symbolically returned the lineage to Shaolin temple and the transmission of lineage was done by Suxi. There is a well-known photo of this occasion. So what both of you are saying accords with the available English language info, in different ways.

[LFJ]

I may be wrong here, but as I understand it Zhang Qinghe symbolically returned the lineage to Shaolin temple and the transmission of lineage was done by Suxi. There is a well-known photo of this occasion. So what both of you are saying accords with the available English language info, in different ways.

Being the monk to officiate the lineage transmission ceremony doesn't make Shi Suxi an inheritor of the lineage. That's what I mean to clarify. The teachings of the lineage went directly from Zhang Qinghe to Shi Dejian. So Shi Dejian is not a lineage holder of Chanwuyi "under" Shi Suxi.

What was transmitted in the ceremony was the Chanwuyi lineage papers, written by Zhang Qinghe and passed onto Shi Dejian via the ceremony officiated by Shi Suxi.

[Matthew]

Thanks LFJ. I would say anyone who practices and studies what they've been transmitted is "developing" their style. What I said, however, was that I had not read anything to indicate he developed his teachings in a manner different from what he had learned.

Hey Xian,

I have not anywhere read that Wugulun well developed his style any differently, but that his lineage is merely distinguished by his name Wugulun because he left the ShaoLin monastery and led a secular life to prevent the loss of his knowledge at the main temples 1920's destruction.

This is more to Xian's question of what the "missing link" is in regards to Wugulun style. It is important to note if Wugulun changed the style, or merely passed it on from Shaolin. This is important to note that if he did not ultimately alter the internal fundamentals of what teachings he received- that his lineage is still authentic pre-1920's-destruction Shaolin transmission.

He's the 4th Generation lineage holder from Wu Gulun under Zhang Qinghe, not Shi Suxi.

You have implicated that I said Shi De Jian was learned from Abbot Su Xi. My use of the word "under" meant under who the head abbot was at the time.
According to Agnes Chan's ChanWuYi book, While Master Xing Xing (Zhang Qing He) was his teacher and the one to transmit the teachings that came from Wu Gu Lun, while Abbot Su Xi was the one who approved the lineage document from Master Xing Xing and the one who officially passed it down to Shi De Jian. (Bottom half of this page).

More importantly, let's keep it relevant to Xian's topic.

So Shi Dejian is not a lineage holder of Chanwuyi "under" Shi Suxi.

Since Abbot Su Xi approved the lineage document on behalf of the entire Shaolin temple and then granted it to Shi De Jian, I would say the word under is acceptable here as long as it is not implying that SuXi was transmitting the knowledge/practice, but the official lineage recognition. I don't know anything about abbot Yong Xin's affiliation/take with Shi De Jian and if he is has already or plans to further document the teachings Shi De Jian has received.


In any case, it is an interesting question Xian poses. Where do these teachings Wu Gu Lun inherited meet the teachings of other Shaolin Teachers? I know Salcanzonieri has been doing alot of work on tracing history of various movements/sets individually.. and he has an extensive number of articles he has written on various origins... In terms of having solid factual information.. I think this has been a difficult point in that alot of it has been burnt down repeatedly and even the written bits we have are sometimes questionable in reliability.

I personally have been most interested in the practice of Shi De Jian and Wu Nan Fang in their soft approach to power generation. The soft movement approach to internal skill seems to be a common theme in various shaolin styles. I.e. Rou Quan and it's similarly derived and various other schools that practice in a softer fashion (And any other taiji-like older shaolin forms). Also note, I'm talking about softness in practicing their form, not in contact, sparring, application study, etc.

I'd be curious further as to anyone's experience with their direct methodology/teachings in terms of Nei Gong and a comparison against the more well known "Shi" monks such as those Xian mentioned.

[XiaoHong]

To Rendahai,

Hi Rendahai this is Eugene with a diff nick,

I was wondering about you could demonstrate 3 kinds of xiaohongquan,

Do you mean that you use 3 kinds of lyrics ? Or 3 types of styles ? wugulun, regular and another one ?

Its just that for example, when you hold or embrace the moon at chest level as to number 2, its hard to imagine for me that there are 3 ways of doing that stance.. maybe in stances, but still you have to hold or embrace the moon, and it would be seenable lol.

I still wonder about your xiaohongquan, as it is not to see on internet.
btw, you never use dingbu s in your xiao training right ?

Much Greetings XiaoHong

[Lucas]

hi just curious, if that is the case, what do you replace dingbu with?

[LFJ]

Thanks LFJ. I would say anyone who practices and studies what they've been transmitted is "developing" their style. What I said, however, was that I had not read anything to indicate he developed his teachings in a manner different from what he had learned.

This is more to Xian's question of what the "missing link" is in regards to Wugulun style. It is important to note if Wugulun changed the style, or merely passed it on from Shaolin. This is important to note that if he did not ultimately alter the internal fundamentals of what teachings he received- that his lineage is still authentic pre-1920's-destruction Shaolin transmission.

Not sure why he would be considered the 1st generation master of the style, if he had not further developed it. Surely he was not the only or first one to practice it to the highest level.

Whether he developed upon the style or not doesn't change the fact of its authenticity as pre-1920's transmission. Many monks at the turn of the century were still developing upon styles and creating new forms, such as Abbot Henglin and Zhenxu. I don't think that deauthenticates their lineage or styles.

You have implicated that I said Shi De Jian was learned from Abbot Su Xi. My use of the word "under" meant under who the head abbot was at the time.
According to Agnes Chan's ChanWuYi book, While Master Xing Xing (Zhang Qing He) was his teacher and the one to transmit the teachings that came from Wu Gu Lun, while Abbot Su Xi was the one who approved the lineage document from Master Xing Xing and the one who officially passed it down to Shi De Jian. (Bottom half of this page).

When you say Shi Dejian is the 4th generation master from Wu Gulun under Shi Suxi, it sounds like Shi Suxi is also part of that lineage, as the 3rd generation master.

There really doesn't need to be any "approval" from Shi Suxi, as far as passing the lineage goes. The lineage was transmitted outside of Shaolin to secular masters before. Zhang Qinghe was only symbolically bringing it back to Shaolin Monastery because Shi Dejian was a monk there.

So Shi Suxi "accepted" the document and officiated the ceremony to represent Shaolin Monastery acknowledging Shi Dejian as a lineage heir, something Zhang Qinghe was not in a position to do. It's not as if Shi Suxi entered that lineage and could have passed it to anyone of his choosing. It was still Zhang Qinghe transmitting to Shi Dejian. As you see in the picture, both Shi Suxi and Zhang Qinghe are handing the document to him. Shi Suxi merely represents the lineage returning to the monastery.

[Matthew]

Not sure why he would be considered the 1st generation master of the style, if he had not further developed it. Surely he was not the only or first one to practice it to the highest level.

Whether he developed upon the style or not doesn't change the fact of its authenticity as pre-1920's transmission. Many monks at the turn of the century were still developing upon styles and creating new forms, such as Abbot Henglin and Zhenxu. I don't think that deauthenticates their lineage or styles.

I'm also very curious about this LFJ. Perhaps rett could give us some insight from his experience with Wu Nan Fang.

From my reading- the ChanWuYi book by Agnes Chan (with writing help from Shi De Jian) does not make mention of Wu Gu Lun as the founder of it. Infact at the link I provided in last post- it does not even mention it by the name of "Wu Gulun Gong Fu." I think it may be simply a marketing tool for Wu Nan Fang's academy. As it is called by Shi De Jian and the official lineage paper (seen at the link in my previous post) it is simply called Shaolin Temple (Yonghuatong branch) ChanWuYi and it recognizes many in the lineage Prior to Wu gulun (Ji Qin).

I don't feel Wu gulun could have Founded a new style as many of the forms Wu Nanfang/Shi De Jian does are documented and known as authentic Shaolin traditional forms.

It should also be noted that in Chinese documentaries it mentions that Wu Nan Fang is the 师弟 Shi Di to Shi De Jian. Meaning that Shi De Jian is his GongFu/ChanWuYi senior. My only thinking is that Wu Nan Fang is marketing more of a school of 'Wu' (combat/martial) and calling it Wugulun Kung Fu. Again- rett may have more insight into this for us.

As for Xian's topic on these different videos..

I do not know if they are much different from external appearance, but I am highly interested in what methodology/instruction/way they teach the Nei Gong development and how it is integrated in the moves. This could be the difference in the links- as I have no experience with any of these 'Shi' monks in question- I can only speculate and hope others will chime in their bit.

From what I understand- variation in external movement is far less important for comparison of these forms than is the internal development NeiGong integration in the movements. At that, I would imagine monks that have developed their NeiGong do not always play the form at Full speed as we often see Shi De Yang and others play it. I would imagine they only do this for show (although I also do not know why they are interested in showing- perhaps to interest new generations in tradition??) and for practicing some sort of fa jin-esque bit.

I don't imagine these monks would start beginners off with such fast movements as it would be very difficult to grasp understanding of neigong.

. As you see in the picture, both Shi Suxi and Zhang Qinghe are handing the document to him. Shi Suxi merely represents the lineage returning to the monastery.

I think we are both agreeing with different words!

Further, I am trying to keep this relevant to Xian's question of how these various forms connect. My belief is that the we would need people with experience with each teacher to compare their learnings in regards to the essential NeiGong and the associated theories.