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

[falkor]

I think you've got a slightly unrealistic attitude here. This is a conversational discussion forum. It seems like you're looking for a book that hasn't been written yet. Why the defensive expression of some sense of entitlement you seem to think you have? I still believe you have some kind of investment in certain kinds of answers that you aren't being open about. You want to legitimize something, or delegitimize something else, in a way meaningful to you. Why don't you say what your core interest is?

This forum is about exchanging information. It's not about trying to confuse people or analyse their agendas/personalities. You're trying to look for something in me that doesn't exist. I've provided a clear summary of my lack of knowledge and where I am trying to improve it with wisdom from you guys. As it stands I'm obviously not yet ready to take the Wushu exam. By no means am I entitled to an answer to Shaolin Kung Fu when posting on a Kung Fu forum, but when a member does choose to contribute an answer I don't expect to have to spend the rest of the day trying to untangle some cryptic message.

[Scott R. Brown]

I read that 5000 different books have been published claiming that Shakespeare's Plays were not written by Shakespeare. All of them with evidence. Yet we still generally agree that Shakespeare did indeed write his plays. Puts historical analysis into context huh?

You are very patient helping over and over again with explaining fairly basic information to a blank wall!

[RenDaHai]

No one posted this yet.

Painting on the wall inside the shaolin temple. From before 1904. Displays known techniques.

[falkor]

You're not looking for answers, you're looking for someone to confirm preconceived bias.

Nope, I'm looking for evidence. I follow wherever the evidence takes me. Since this is about pre-20th century, I'm not interested in what's happening at the Shaolin Temple now. And I came here not knowing about Chang Quan. If I wanted to get followers for my preconceived bias then I wouldn't open this topic the way I did. I would have opened it with something like: All Shaolin monks are gay; you either agree with me or **** off.

[r.(shaolin)]

Cheers for the info!


Did these guys all study Hong Chuan Quan or consult masters of that style?


Does Hong Chuan Quan (or related sets) include the Monkey you spoke of that actually imitates the monkey (in a loose sense)? What does the traditional Song Shan Crane look like or is there no traditional Song Shan Crane as part of Hong Chuan Quan?

Wang Zi-Ping: Chaquan, Hua Quan,
Cai Longyun: Hua Quan. Hua Quan has 5 Animals: Ape/monkey, Tiger, Dragon, Leopard, and Eagle but these do not imitate the animals. Hua and Hong styles are very similar and likely have the same roots.

[falkor]

Yes you have serious comprehension problems. You have reasoning problems. You have a marked lack of personal insight. You have fantasies about the way you want things to be and fail to accept the repeated evidence that the problem is you and your unrealistic expectations.

It is very likely no one will have your desired information and it really isn't all that important to anything of substance in Kung Fu or life. It might be interesting to know but it isn't very important.

Also, your reliance on apparently only one source is very foolish.

Thank you for your psychological assessment of me. To me it's very important to know about Shaolin Kung Fu in history, but sure, it's not important to everyone else. I came here to learn about more sources, but so far only Gene Ching has been able to provide any recommendations to books/magazines. Gene has posted the least in this topic, but in terms of information value he is up there with RenDaHai.

No such thing as bad students only bad teachers. If I want to learn Kung Fu from any of you guys then I would pick Gene Ching! RenDaHai, I would have to treat him to some women, fine wine and red meat before we even discussed tuition fees.

[Scott R. Brown]

This forum is about exchanging information. It's not about trying to confuse people or analyse their agendas/personalities. You're trying to look for something in me that doesn't exist. I've provided a clear summary of my lack of knowledge and where I am trying to improve it with wisdom from you guys. As it stands I'm obviously not yet ready to take the Wushu exam. By no means am I entitled to an answer to Shaolin Kung Fu when posting on a Kung Fu forum, but when a member does choose to contribute an answer I don't expect to have to spend the rest of the day trying to untangle some cryptic message.

Once again you have a very unrealistic expectation about the Forum!

The information presented to you here has not been cryptic. It is easy to understand. You do not want to accept it, that is fine. But you are wrong or at least more wrong in your understanding of what happened then those who have actually done something besides read one or two books on the subject.

You do not want to accept information from people who are more in the know than you, that is reflective of your state of mind. It is blaring out there repeatedly for everyone here to see. It is pertinent to the conversation because when someone takes the time to repeatedly attempt to educate you and you keep refusing to consider that information, the error lies within you, not them. Not their lack of their written sources.

It is your lack of education and understanding and ability to reason on the most basic level that is the problem and that is very pertinent to the conversation here.

If I related to another that I tasted an orange and then related to him where I found it, I described what an orange tree looks like, how it grows and what an orange tastes like,because I have eaten an orange. I have seen an orange tree. Perhaps I have even cultivated an orange tree, but the person says, "Yeah, but where is the book that documents this information!" One must consider the foolishness of this statement and the type of personality of the person who would make such a foolish statement about a topic they know very little about!

[falkor]

Wang Zi-Ping: Chaquan, Hua Quan,
Cai Longyun: Hua Quan. Hua Quan has 5 Animals: Ape/monkey, Tiger, Dragon, Leopard, and Eagle but these do imitate the animals. Hua and Hong styles are very similar and likely have the same roots.

Do or do not imitate animals? Sorry, it's been a while and your response is now out of context. Are the 5 animals you refer to part of what RenDaHai studies in traditional Hong Quan?

[Scott R. Brown]

Thank you for your psychological assessment of me. To me it's very important to know about Shaolin Kung Fu in history, but sure, it's not important to everyone else. I came here to learn about more sources, but so far only Gene Ching has been able to provide any recommendations to books/magazines. Gene has posted the least in this topic, but in terms of information value he is up there with RenDaHai.

You are welcome!

No such thing as bad students only bad teachers. If I want to learn Kung Fu from any of you guys then I would pick Gene Ching! RenDaHai, I would have to treat him to some women, fine wine and red meat before we even discussed tuition fees.

LOL!! You know nothing about teaching either!

There MOST DEFINITELY is such a thing as a bad student! Any Kung Fu instructor, any teacher who has taught for any length of time has had many foolish, bad, poor, ignorant students who think they know more than their instructors.

And it is unlikely any real instructor here would tolerate your "know-it-all" attitude for long! We have all taught students like you and your kind do not last because they are unrealistic in their fantasies about Kung Fu.

[rett]

Thank you for your psychological assessment of me. To me it's very important to know about Shaolin Kung Fu in history, but sure, it's not important to everyone else. I came here to learn about more sources, but so far only Gene Ching has been able to provide any recommendations to books/magazines. Gene has posted the least in this topic, but in terms of information value he is up there with RenDaHai.

No such thing as bad students only bad teachers. If I want to learn Kung Fu from any of you guys then I would pick Gene Ching! RenDaHai, I would have to treat him to some women, fine wine and red meat before we even discussed tuition fees.

Plain fare at a dingy faux-western restaurant might be enough.

[falkor]

OK, there's very little information now being exchanged in this thread based on the subject, so I might as well call it a day. Gene Ching's book should arrive next week or the week after. I might end up starting a new topic one day, but this one definitely seems dead and buried: overtaken by trolls, lurkers and lousy teachers. Happy New Year! Thank you all for your time... Good-bye.

[Scott R. Brown]

A smart person would have called it a day from the first few posts!

The thread was killed by your ignorance, not the kind and patient people who have taken their time to educate someone who has their own preconceived notions and is unable to see beyond them.

Good Luck with your future disappointments!

[Jimbo]

It doesn't pay to cast pearls before swine. He never intended to learn anything from the start.

[r.(shaolin)]

Do or do not imitate animals? Sorry, it's been a while and your response is now out of context. Are the 5 animals you refer to part of what RenDaHai studies in traditional Hong Quan?

Typo. I meant they do NOT imitate the animals.
r.

[wenshu]

After 1904 Kung Fu was no longer being practised at the temple; the modern day Wu Shu Monks are not descended from the original monks nor do they learn the same Shaolin Kung Fu that was being taught at Shaolin prior to 1904. What was the original Shaolin Kung Fu? Without having to look into different people's claims about having preserved elements of Shaolin Kung Fu on the island of Taiwan throughout the Cultural Revolution, there must be some 18th-19th century source that gives us a rough idea what real Shaolin Kung Fu was? This information must be known, but Shahar's book is not a history of Shaolin Kung Fu, but a history of the monks and monastery. Is my question not clear in any way? Can anyone please shed any light regarding a possible answer?

What is clear from your loaded questions is that you have already made up your mind.
You practically answer your own questions, refuse to examine your own preconceived bias and then attack those who don't offer magazine articles that suppor your bias. You expect too much from others if you are fundamentally unwilling to examine the source of your assumptions.

You're lucky people like to talk about themselves so much otherwise you would have just been ignored.