The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.

Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.

So what are the current monks doing:confused:

Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Rou Quan, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan, the various Cannon and Tongbei fist forms as well as much of the Louhan is all ancient Shaolin.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Unless there is a direct lineage going back to 448-1732 AD I still don't feel the ancient styles currently being taught there come up to par in authenticity. During the end of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) there were five Shaolin Monasteries and only the style at Honan temple was considered the original Shaolin style. Back then it was called Song Shaolin style. Eventually it became a culmination of the five mother styles: Ch'a Chuan, Wah Chuan, Hua Chuan, P'ao Chuan, and Hung Chuan. These styles are so ancient, that many of the forms were completely lost to posterity.

When the Shaolin Temple was destroyed in 1732, this was the style that was taught by monk Chih Yuan (one of the few monks to escape the temple) and it's believed that it's the style that Gan Fenchi taught before the temple's complete destruction.

Even what's considered Bak Siu Lum Lohan is different from the current style of Lohan that is taught at Shaolin. The Lohan of my lineage comes from a monk named Yuan Tung T'an who lived before the 1920's.

These were the styles that were considered authentic Shaolin before Mao decided to have a "cultural revolution". At this time there was no real activity at the temple at all and it was decrepid and run down. The few old men they could find afterwards who knew some of the local styles that were being practiced there, were the ones who helped create Shaolin Temple Boxing into what it is today.

I'm not saying some of the forms don't have an authentic Shaolin "flavor" to them, but it's still not what was considered THE Shaolin system before The Cultural Revolution. Therefore, by default, Bei Shaolin is the real Shaolin.

[TenTigers]

this is facinating stuff. It's about time someone having the original one, true Shaolin Style came forth. Where is your website?

You realize, this is history in the making, don't you?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Thanks for the sarcasm bub. Don't forget when I'm talking about "Shaolin", I'm talking about the 10 core handsets and all of the myriad weapons sets that are and were a part of what the people knew as the "Shaolin" style of kung fu prior to the The Cultural Revolution. I'm not talking about Hung Ga, Northern Longfist, Choy Lay Fut, Five Animals (although Five Animals was one of the styles practiced at Honan), or any of the local styles in Honan. We're talking about the 10 sets that all of the monks and lay disciples were most likely required to learn. If you want to say that all of the Shaolin related styles are authentic Shaolin, then why not just call Karate, and Tae Kwon Do authentic Shaolin?

http://jingmo.org/curriculum.html
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=158

[TenTigers]

what are the ten forms? Are they the same ten forms as Ku Yu Cheong's?

[Pk_StyLeZ]

so....why do you believe your lineage and not someone elses lineage?
anyone can easily claim they learn from blah blah in the year yada yada and learn from who who doing this time..blah blah blah
who cares
NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE WHICH IS THE AUTHENTHIC STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST SHAOLIN
these debates are stupid and pointless.
china been corrupted so many time, and chinese people lie and scam a lot, you never know who to beleive, sad but true.

and here we go again with the new shaolin being all wushu stuff, mang you people need to go behind the scene and actually see that there is tradtional inside and only mostly wushu is performed BECAUSE THAT WHAT CATCHES THE "GENERAL" AUDIENCE ATTENTION and that wat pays and make the money...........

[Siu Lum Fighter]

TenTiger:
Yes, I am talking about Kuo Yu Chang's (or Cheong's) 10 sets. These were directly passed down from Gan Fengchi and/or Chi Yuan. There are two versions of what happened during this tumultuous time for Shaolin. They go something like this:

Theory 1: This one was originally published in New Martial Hero in the 1970's by Ou Hu Shou who was a classmate of GM Yim Shan Wu. This one is very popular with GM Yim Shan Wu's generation and maybe even earlier generations before Yim's.

Monk Chih Yuan to Feng Shao Ch'en to Hsu Wen San to Yim Po to Yim Chi Wen to Kuo Yu Chang.

Theory 2: This one is popular with the next generation after GM Yim Shan Wu, namely Sifu Chan Kwok Wai who is the lower classmate of Sifu Wong Jack Man.

Monk Chao Yuan Ho Shang to Gan Feng Chi to Wan Pang Ts'ai to Yim Te Kung to Yim Chi Wen to Kuo Yu Chang.

Here's another interesting page about my original sifu:
http://www.geocities.com/jadedragonalaska/wong.jack.man_txt.html

Pk_StyLeZ:
There has been no confusion when it comes to the current lineage before Yim Chi Wen and that's only because no one remembered exactly who taught it to who before the 1800's. All of the above mentioned masters were known practitioners of the same style though. Are you saying that all of these venerable masters were corrupt? Bei Shaolin is closer to what the monks were actually using and studying all the way up until the 1700's. And since when were the original shaolin monks interested in making money and paying bills?

[Royal Dragon]

Ch'a Chuan, Wah Chuan, Hua Chuan, P'ao Chuan, and Hung Chuan. These styles are so ancient, that many of the forms were completely lost to posterity.

Reply]
First, these are what make up today's Northern Long Fist. They were not nessasarily created by Shaolin. *Cha* Fist for example was a Moslem style that was used during the Ming dynasty by the MILITARY, and has nothing to do with Shaolin other than they may have absorbed a bit of it.

NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE WHICH IS THE AUTHENTHIC STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST SHAOLIN

Reply]
Not really true. It's pretty widely known what was at Shaolin in the past. Many of the old records survived (Monks copied scriptures after all), and it is widely known which sets were developed, by whom, and *When* they were developed.

In addition, although the Temple *Grounds* were decimated, the surviving Monks all went to the local villiages and taught openly, so true Shaolin was preserved in the whole area surrounding the Temple grounds, and has flourished for centuries.

Researcher's like Sal Canzonieri can go on and on untill you are down right dizzy with all the historical facts fact that are known about Shaolin, it's evolution, what styles were there, and how each style influanced the ones born after it...and I am not talking vauge general stories, I am talking detial apon detail apon detail (The man is a living encyclopedia). So this No One Really knows sillyness just reflects those who haven't actually tried to school themselves.

[GeneChing]

The problem here is one of discrimination. It's what goes on inside Shaolin Temple vs. what goes on outside and it's been an issue for centuries. It even precedes the development of BSL.

Siu Lum Fighter, I'm glad you liked my first part of Bak Sil Lum vs. Shaolin Temple above. Please read the second (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=157) and especially the third part (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=156). The two systems are harmonious. If you want to draw lines between inner temple and outer temple, you might as well draw lines like inside China vs. outside China, Chinese practitioners vs. non-Chinese practitioners, men vs. women practitioners, ad naseum. Shaolin is a huge concept and can easily encompass both BSL and Songshan. Shaolin has darted in and out of the temple for generations; of course it has or BSL wouldn't even be a style. It's not just about the monks at all. It's not just about we and them. It's about all Shaolin family. There's room for all of us.

I've practiced both BSL and Songshan Shaolin. A few years ago, I was doing a lot of work with BSL as the head Shaolin instructor under Sifu Wing Lam. Nowadays I seldom do BSL anymore, although it's not out of any loss of respect for the system. It's a great system. Right now, I'm training Songshan under Shi Yanfei and Shi Yanxing. Why the switch? Personally, I like Songshan more right now, but that's just me. For a spell, I was very into xingyi. Life is like that for me. I move forward a lot. That's what allows me to do what I do. It's not the best strategy for everyone, but it works for me. The only time I really criticize other people's practice is when they spend too much time criticizing other people's practice. The only time other people's practice is really of interest is when its better than mine. When it's worse, I could care less. It's just your ego that needs to put others down.

I like the fact that Songshan Shaolin is so open-ended, that there isn't this false sense of completion when your finish your BSL 10. I was just talking to a BSL shimei who seemed fixated on learning the BSL 10, but doesn't have a teacher. She was trying to persuade me to return to teaching, but I'm not going to do that right now. The BSL 10 are fine goal, but don't be so attached to it that you fail to learn what is in front of you. We had a related thread with one of my BSL shidi (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35938) a while back too.

I hear BSL is doing fine in PRC. There's Ku Yu Cheong school in Guangzhou (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43615) is thriving apparently. Every monk that I have shown BSL to has acknowledged that it is definitely part of the Shaolin system, however I don't know of anyone who has formally brought it back to Songshan temple. Perhaps that's a goal for you, Sil Lum Fighter. My BSL is way too crappy now to try to teach to the monks, but I'm sure if some one had enough talent in the style, they'd welcome it back into the fold.

[Pk_StyLeZ]

NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE WHICH IS THE AUTHENTHIC STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST SHAOLIN[/I]

Reply]
Not really true. It's pretty widely known what was at Shaolin in the past. Many of the old records survived (Monks copied scriptures after all), and it is widely known which sets were developed, by whom, and *When* they were developed.



if it is pretty widely known, what was taught/known in the shaolin in the past, then why dont the current temple just adopt/go back to whatever it was that was "known" in the past, so arguments like this wont happen? so the current temple teaching can be the *original* teaching
unless what is currently being taught is the original......

me personally, i can careless if it was the original or not. as far as i know the shaolin i practice now, i like it and im glad i got to learn some of it and get to practice it. im happy enough with it. i can careless if it just made up wushu stuff or actually the real original tradtional stuff.

[Wushu_Tiger]

I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.

Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.

So what are the current monks doing:confused:

Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.

Interesting point. The current monks are doing what the political powers at shaolin want them to do. It's not easy to prove or disapprove what constitutes "authentic". The majority of what is seen is called "shaolin wushu". I am not saying that traditional doesn't exist but it's kind of like you have to dig before you find it. So yeah it is "wushuized" to an extent. Just don't expect the PRC to slap any endorsement on any particular style.

[buddhapalm]

Couldn't we say that Shaolin is like an ocean. Constantly flowing like the tide. Transforming and seperating from the source, then returning back later to the new source.

Since Shaolin is so old, there must be many snapshots of it. From the styles of Gan Fengchi, to the Lohan styles, the Luk Hop Styles, add infinitum.

When was the ocean first formed, and where will it lead ? Its just like Shaolin and all other martial arts.....forever in transformation. Don't we all tend to get stuck in the Old Times, and forget about the present ?

There is an old motivating Chinese saying I love:

"The Great Times create the hero, but the Great Hero creates The Time"

Just some thoughts.

[wall]

IMO Shi Suxi is one of the key figures that allow us to determine what and who is "authentic" Shaolin today.

It is well documented and accepted that Suxi, who entered Shaolin in the 1930s, was one of the few and most prominent monks to learn from the last remaining monks of the 1800s, and to pass that knowledge to the first of the "modern" generations, De and Xing.

So I think it should be safe to say that certainly one of the strongest remaining traditional Shaolin lineages is the one that sees Suxi as the "bridge" between the old authentic Shaolin and today. The current most prominent exponent of that lineage is of course Shi De Yang, who happens to be one of the most respected traditional Shaolin KungFu Master in Shaolin itself.

Just my thoughts on authentic Shaolin and its lineage today.

Wall

[ginosifu]

Whatever you say or believe is always subject to perception.

What I mean by that is:

People believe what they want to believe no matter what you say or do. So the best advise I can give you is, if you believe in your heart what your sifu taught you is genuine then thats all you need. You will never be able to change the hearts of those individuals whom do not wish to subscribe to what you are proffessing.

One of my Tai Chi students wanted so badly for people to believe that CHI exists that he went to a proffessional debunker (I forgot ther guys name) to prove to him that it does. When the Debunker made him do some outragious proceedure to prove that CHI is a real thing, there was really no way for him to truly prove it.

I told my student after that: No matter how much you want people to believe in CHI, 50% of them do not care and the other 50% will never believe even if you prove it them.

Sil Lum Fighter - do not worry about what other people are doing... whether it's shaolin Wushu or Kung Fu Do or Bak Fu Do... who cares ! Just continue to practice and pass on what you have.

BTW I am a Wing Lam Lineage student and I like your curriculum. Ours is very similar.

Ginosifu

[sha0lin1]

I have been reading this thread with great interest since I am a Song Shan Shaolin practitioner. I really liked Gene Ching's reply and Wall's reply. However, being the student of a monk and being taught the histories of the various forms as we learn them, I can say that the basic forms of Shaolin are centuries old. We must not forget that in the "old days," as well as now, and will continue into the future; martial monks left the temple and entered into secular life and continued to practice and teach to the layity. So this notion that all the monks were killed except for a few and the traditional Shaolin kung fu died out is a false one. Because of this Shaolin arts have been preserved and we have seen the emergence of the various styles of Shaolin wushu such as Hung Gar and your BSL. Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term Wushu. People in the Western world draw lines with it thinking that it means only the competition aspect of it that was developed in the 1960's by the PRC. However, wushu simply means martial arts. Way back, who knows when, and whoever translated kung fu to the western world did us a great disservice. So now westerners use Kung Fu to define traditional CMA and Wushu to define the contemporary CMA. My Sifu rarely uses the term Kung Fu, he uses wushu, as do I. So when someone says "Shaolin Wushu" all they are saying is Shaolin Martial Arts. If you want to distinguish, qualify it with traditional wushu or contemporary or modern wushu. At Shaolin Temple they teach traditional and contemporary wushu. When the monks perform and people see that, it is easy to say "oh, that is not traditional kung fu, that is wushu" because of all the acrobatics and flips and spinning kicks and such. However, keep in mind that these are performances and so are meant to inspire awe and entertain the audiences. Our traditional forms do not contain these things. Sometimes the monks will "ad lib" a few acrobatics and fantastic kicks into these forms to jazz them up a bit. Sometimes, and I have seen my master do this with incrudulity, they will make things up on the spot.

[DPL]

Couldn't we say that Shaolin is like an ocean. Constantly flowing like the tide. Transforming and seperating from the source, then returning back later to the new source.


It's more like a schizophrenic elephant with anger management issues, constantly arguing with different parts of itself as to which part is the 'real, authentic' elephant. And also whether it should be called elephant, oliphant, or modern mammoth.

[Royal Dragon]

I'd go with "Modern mammouth" Because it's just cooler!!

if it is pretty widely known, what was taught/known in the shaolin in the past, then why dont the current temple just adopt/go back to whatever it was that was "known" in the past, so arguments like this wont happen? so the current temple teaching can be the *original* teaching
unless what is currently being taught is the original......

Reply]
Shaolin is currently teching the really old original systems. What do you think Louhan, Tai Tzu, Xiao and Da Hong Quan, Cannon Fist, Rou Quan and Tongbei are? All that stuff is pre Ming dynsaty, and some is even pre Sung dynasty. You just can't gte more authentic than that.

Also, I thought the 10 hand sets were taught at shaolin, just by a different name, Kanji Fist or some such thing.

[Shaolinlueb]

everything claims to have come from shaolin. truely authentic shaolin kung fu i think is lost. you can argue this all day. i think all we have are styles one time taught at the temple.

hung gar taught today is not the same ti was taught at the temple. it evolved.

we all have a basis in shaolin.

[Sal Canzonieri]

BSL is an amalgamated style, that is pretty modern compared to the Luohan and Hong gates as Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi was not the DIRECT creator of the 10 sets, that is historically incorrect, he was a anti-Qing rebel and traveled all over the place as a consequence, he taught different people different things and learned different things from different places.

After 1732-35, many martial monks moved out of the temple area, Shadong Long Fist comes from the monks that moved out to that area, for one example.
So, THIS can be considered the "REAL" Shaolin.

People who knew the Luohan gate moved to Shanghai, THIS can be considered the "REAL" Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi taught some people his long fist GATE that he learned at Shaolin to some people, he also practiced Plum Flower Long Fist, which was the style of the anti-Qing rebels at the time. Was his Plum Flower better than his Shaolin, since he used that instead at that time?

Then he went to Emei and studied 3 Emperor Pao Chui style, so when he taught 3 Emperor Pao Chui to some people, was this no good or better than his Shaolin?

LATER still, the actual full style that Gan Feng Chi created, not distantly contributed to as in BSL, was called Hua Quan, FLOWER style (not related to Hua Mountain Quan at all, same name), a soft and hard style that he was very famous for.
THAT's he "real" mature style, not only his Shaolin which is what he did as a youth, which was a root for his Wundang-Shaolin soft hard internal external Hua Quan.
THEN, he was executed for being a rebel.

So, where is Gan Feng Chi's "real" shaolin? very distant to BSL.

AND, guess what, before Gan's time at Shaolin, it has closed down a few times before that and all was lost again. During the Yuan dynasty Shaolin was shut down many hundreds of years before Gan was there, and all the martial art they did was gone, when people (Jue Yuan, Bai Yu Feng, Li Sou) tried to reopen the place to martial arts, they had to go to Luoyang a few miles away to re-learn Shaolin martial art, which they then redeveloped into a new system.
Was this the "REAL" Shoalin? It wasn't what Gan Feng Chi practiced hundreds of years later.

Was the "REAL" Shaolin the stuff that was done at Shaolin before it was closed down in the Yuan Dynasty? During the Tang dynasty they did Tong Bei and Pao Chui which they go from the military that trained them. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin?
During the Song dynasty, they created new set like Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Hong Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Rou Quan and so on. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin.

This system was taught since the Song Dynasty and spread throughout the countryside.

Once Shaolin died out a few more times later, and the "ORIGINAL" Shaolin material that the people did in the countryside only existed, was this the "REAL" Shaolin and not the stuff that was developed later after the Yuan Dynasty?

AND< after Shaolin was closed for its last time in 1920s, some monks left and got married and spread throughout China, they brought with them their sets and copies of the original manuals that documented Shaolin of their time and the ancient Song dynasty original sets. Isn't this the "REAL" Shaolin, if not, why not?
AND, some monks stayed in the area and still trained there at night, even though the place as burned out. And they taught their stuff to the people in the countryside. Was this the "REAL" Shaolin, if not, why not?

After 1981, the lineages that survived the 1920s burning were asked to reintroduce their AUTHENTIC and many generations practiced Shaolin sets back to Shaolin.

SO, today you have two completely different things at Shaolin, acrobatic super fast government workers posing as "monks" (who do modern Wushu theatrucs) and the OLD monks still alive and their students and grand students that practice the old Shaolin sets that have been preserved from their teachers and from their copies of the Shaolin martial art manuals that survived the burning of 1920s.
Isn't this stuff the "REAL" Shaolin?

Take you pick of which "REAL" Shaolin you want.

[gwa sow]

i always did like it when you posted something::)

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

[mantis108]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang's Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui's saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there's at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng's luohan has anything to do with that we simply can't prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108

[TenTigers]

18 lines fighting set attributed to Dat-Mo?
That would be the deal killer in my book.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang's Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui's saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there's at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng's luohan has anything to do with that we simply can't prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108

Wow, there's a whole bunch of new articles out in China from a research about Hong Quan, Tai Tzu, Fu Ju, the Shaolin Luohan Duan Da Book, and so on. He's been doing a load of research for a long time. The articles I have been reading by him have discussed why clues in the writing show it is from Song dynasty era, and he had an old Song Tai Tzu master read the Duan Da book for the first time and the old man was shocked to realize he understood the material in relation to his Song Tai Tzu background and found many postures from the book were exclusive to Song Tai Tzu postures.

Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. He has no connection with the religious monk Fu Yu who is from the Yuan Dynasty and is of the "new" religious monk lineage that all Shaolin monks have been traced from every since.
Fu Ju was of a different order, none of the martial and religious monks from different religious orders have been included in the "official" lineage that start with Fu Yu.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I'm arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it's authenticity. It's almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there's there's stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I'm still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung's old Lohan style different? There's not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T'an in the 1800's. So what's the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I'm not saying there isn't some authenticity to it all, I'm just saying that it's a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn't it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn't makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed "ancient" styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn't the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I'm also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I'm looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn't Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we're talking about the early 1700's here).

Sorry, but almost all you are saying her is just legends and conjecture, the real information out there doesn't follow with what you are saying.

BSL is pretty much the creation of Kuo Yu Chang, and those around him. He merged together everything he learned.

Damo never created any martial art sets, he was only involved in religious things, this has been disproven for decades by historians.
The 18 lines fighting set never existed in ancient times.

All the traditional Shaolin material (the most ancient sets such as Hong quan, TZ hang Quan, Rou Quan, Pao Chui, Tong bi, etc) had been documented in their library since the Song dynasty to the time it got burned down in 1925.
Throughout the centuries people have made copies of the books that document these forms and kept them in their families, and researchers have looked at them and all the books match with the copies that each family has. Also, a good number of the original books that were copied were saved during the fire.
And, the families and schools that have been doing these sets for hundreds of years have clear oral history of who the teachers were from today to way way back to when the material were first taught at and outside of Shaolin. There are long lineage that exist that have preserved the material.

You must be young, no offense, cause this is old common knowledge today amongst martial art historians and researchers.

BSL movements are not ancient forms, they are a distillation of moves from various teachers.
The closest the come to material still preserved in Shaolin is the Kan Jia Quan style of Shaolin, which has similar named sets but the forms are much longer. Kan Jia Quan was developed at Shaolin during the late Yuan time period to protect the monks from invading Taoist who were pretty much at war with the Buddhists over land rights and stealing temples from each other and collection boxes.
The reason they are not done at Shaolin is because they never were done there. The BSL forms were developed after the 1700s, after it was burned down and people scattered. They were created outside the temple, they were ancient sets that were preserved, they were a new style that was developed from the Shaolin long fist that was around during the Qing Dynasty.

You can date movements in set to certain time periods, because movements and postures evolved over time, you can tell how old a movement is by how it is done. Some people preserved ancient ways to do the sets still, because they were isolated, and when compared to how an non-isolated school does a set, you can see how much changed over time.
Just like languages evolve, customs, etc etc.


PLUS, Shaolin had over the centuries many separate schools and also each area of Shaolin, called Gates, practiced their own styles.
It's a mountain area, the temple itself is just one section of the grounds.
East, South, North, West, each did their own martial monks material.
And then the villages around the place had their own too.
So there are so many martial arts that come in and came out from Shaolin.
Shaolin was like the National Guard for the emperors during the Tang and Song dynasty.

There were a series of old monks and many families spread around China that brought the ancient Shaolin sets back to Shaolin upon the request of the people that reopened the temple officially after 1981.
There's a long list of them, would you even know who they are?

[Pk_StyLeZ]

too much to read

i am the real authentic shaolin
come study with me
classes are cheap
50 dollar a month
3 hrs a day
come sign up now
spaces are unlimited

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I'll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It's been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It's always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style". This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And...I don't have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn't invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn't be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li's, "The Shaolin Temple" came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the "real" Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed "Long March" and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu's history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We're talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country's history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren't invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won't even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the "crown jewel" of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the "Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate" is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin's heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I'm confused, are you selling beauty supplies?

[Royal Dragon]

Shaolin's "Crown Jewel" was all based in Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. All the Red Fist sets, Cannon Fist sets and an weapons sets were all built on the Tai Tzu framework. These were the mainstreem Shaolin for centuries.

Rou Quan was a Tai Chi like system for the older Monks.

You also had Tonbei and Xing Yi Ba as well.


Also, Kan Jia Chuan and the Ten hand sets have been compared and are vertually identical. The artical I read seemed to indicate that the Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two.

During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time.

Reply]
You are forgetting the fact that the Sung Emperor Zhao, Kuang Yin sent his Generals to shaolin at this time to TEACH them his style and that of his generals. The results of this were not the ten hand sets, but the 3 core forms of Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and later down the road Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan as well.


As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles.

Reply]
First, Hung is HONG, not to be confused with Southern Hung Gar. It's Northern Military Long Fist, and that is the style of the Emperor taught to Shaolin (thorugh his Generals) during the early Sung dynasty. There would have been quite a bit of Tongbei as well.

*Cha* Fist is a Moslem style, and not in the picture at Shaolin at that time.


The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style".

Rreply]
Sounds like Kuo Yu Chang was not much of a historian to me. What he pased down is so overly general, ultra simpified and in some areas just plain wrong that it really can't be taken as credible.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I'll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It's been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It's always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being "Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate", which was subsequently shortened to "Northern Shaolin Style". This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And...I don't have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn't invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn't be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li's, "The Shaolin Temple" came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the "real" Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed "Long March" and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu's history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We're talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country's history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren't invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won't even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the "crown jewel" of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the "Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate" is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin's heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I'm confused, are you selling beauty supplies?

I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800's, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for thier staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend...

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??

[Sal Canzonieri]

I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800's, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for thier staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend...

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??

Exactly, all that stuff he is saying is totally convoluted stuff from all different legends.

[r.(shaolin)]

Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. . . . .
Fu Ju was of a different order, none of the martial and religious monks from different religious orders have been included in the "official" lineage that start with Fu Yu.

Hi Sal,
What are the historical sources for this? I've always been suspicious about this monk.
By the way, do you have the Chinese charcters for Fu Ju?

r.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Royal Dragon:
Shaolin's "Crown Jewel" was all based in Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. All the Red Fist sets, Cannon Fist sets and an weapons sets were all built on the Tai Tzu framework. These were the mainstreem Shaolin for centuries.

Rou Quan was a Tai Chi like system for the older Monks.

You also had Tonbei and Xing Yi Ba as well.

Also, Kan Jia Chuan and the Ten hand sets have been compared and are vertually identical. The artical I read seemed to indicate that the Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two.

I would like to know if there are specific preserved documents for these claims, or was all of this stuff "uncovered" after 1981? Despite any articles that may have been written, there is no solid evidence that Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two styles or that Northern Shaolin was created much later. If Kan Jia Chuan is older it would have to be older than the Yuan Dynasty. There's always the possibility that it is related to the original 10 hand sets of Northern Shaolin. These were added to over the centuries so it would explain some of the differences.

You are forgetting the fact that the Sung Emperor Zhao, Kuang Yin sent his Generals to shaolin at this time to TEACH them his style and that of his generals. The results of this were not the ten hand sets, but the 3 core forms of Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and later down the road Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan as well.


I'm supposing there are preserved records detailing the history behind these styles? Even if that's the case, it's always been generally accepted that the library was completely burned out in 1925. Even if these documents did somehow survive, most of the information and history of the temple would have been lost. Maybe these three forms were practiced, but there's no evidence proving that the ten hand sets or any of the weapons sets weren't.

First, Hung is HONG, not to be confused with Southern Hung Gar. It's Northern Military Long Fist, and that is the style of the Emperor taught to Shaolin (thorugh his Generals) during the early Sung dynasty. There would have been quite a bit of Tongbei as well.

*Cha* Fist is a Moslem style, and not in the picture at Shaolin at that time.

The information that I've always gotten is that it's Hung with a U. Maybe this is a Wade-Giles vs. pin yin thing or just different information. The information I have is that Sun Wu Tzu developed this style and it was based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was practiced around the Yellow River and was also known as "Red Style."

Just like with Tam Tui, the Hui were very proficient in the Ch'a style, but there's no evidence that they were the one's who initially created it. According to the chronicle of the Ch'a family, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) an army went on an expedition to the eastern part of China. When they reached Shantung Province, General Hua Zong Chi was injured and remained behind with the local residents. To show his appreciation he taught the people "Jiazi Chang" or "Frame Style" boxing. This split into "Big Frame Style" and "Small Frame Style" and was developed into what became known as the Ch'a style.

originally posted by Lama Pai Sifu:
I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800's, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for their staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend...

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??

Fantasy and Legend is much of what we have because the distance in time is so great and, even if there aren't records of them, the temple burnings have been accepted as historical facts. Due to all of this turmoil, the records that may have been at the temple at later dates may not have been entirely correct. However, the sets and history of the five mother styles was recorded in text and was orally passed down just like with Northern Shaolin. Families still practice these styles and have for hundreds of years. Of course, there are additions and modifications from generations of masters but the traditions have been kept alive.

Just like you and every other person who researches Shaolin, I get my information from the countless articles and books that have been written and talked about for years. Also, my Si-Hing has chronicled much of this information and most all of it dates back before 1981, when the recent Shaolin "craze" began. There's also the oral and written records of my school. To say that Kuo Yu Chang and other masters in his lineage passed down overly general, ultra simpified and false information is down right insulting. I would be more wary of information coming out of the current temple with it's emphasis on worldwide tours, Broadway productions, and mass media appeal.

[r.(shaolin)]

Sal Canzonieri wrote: Throughout the centuries people have made copies of the books that document these forms and kept them in their families, and researchers have looked at them and all the books match with the copies that each family has. Also, a good number of the original books that were copied were saved during the fire.

It is my view that the compilation of traditional sets practiced at Shaolin, is very recent and comes from disparate sources. What complicates this matter somewhat is that the main old monks that give todays Shaolin its credibility, such as Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, Shi Suxi, Shi Suyun, Shi Hai Deng, Shi Xing Zhen, Shi Yang An etc. were all martial arts enthusiasts who learned their martial arts mostly from a variety of sources including lay masters. Just look at their bios.
For an example, Shi Hai Deng’s martial arts comes from a number of sources. He first began studying martial arts at the age of 7 from his maternal uncle. In 1920 at 18 he entered the University of Sichuan. His stayed there was short. Hai Deng then enrolled at the Police Academy in Chengdu and graduated from there. From there in 1931, Hai Deng went to Woyun Si in the Emei mountains where he studied Bai Mei Quan of the Emei school. At that time as well he began studying Meihua Zhuang with a monk master named, Ru Feng. From this Shaolin monk he learned just two sets Soft fist and Plum blossom fist. Anyway Hai Deng spent most of this time at Woyun Si studying Emei martial arts and Bai Mei Quan. In 1943, Hai Deng, went to Zhaojue Si and received this tonsure name (Hai Deng) from Zhi Guam Fashi. Basically Hai Deng Fashi had expertise in: Yizhi chan; 36 Tongzi gong; Meihua zhuang and Bai Mei Quan - of the Emei school. Sometime during the 60s, the Chinese government briefly restore Shaolin Si and designating Hai Deng to be it in charge.

It appears Zhenxu is the main connection, to the Shaolin martial arts at the present Shaolin's claims of a single monastic lineage. However it also appears that Zhenxu knew a limited number of the sets that were practiced in the 1800's at Shaolin.

Shi Zhenxu arrived at Shaolin in 1920 and at best only studied with Shi Henglin for only 2 or maybe 2+ years. Both Zhenxu and Degen both gained much of their martial art knowledge from various lay-masters.

As I pointed out before, most of the sets (promoted in books such as the Encyclopedia of Shaolin Martial Arts by Shi Deqian) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere seem to be rather incomplete given that very few 2 person sets are documented. The few that are documented seem incomplete and mostly don't appear to related to the single sets.

I think this website sums up the state of affairs fairly:
http://www.authenticshaolin.com/songshan.html these sets (and legends) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere - what is not apparent (at lest to me) which sets came from who or even what Henglin actually taught to Zhenxu and what he got from others, etc.

All the drawing conventions in Shi Deqian's encyclopedia - as are the motion notations - clearly modern. At best these sets are based on what was recorded in the late 70's early 80's. Likely from the, "Unearthing and Establishing Wushu" project conducted during that time period. The Shaolin collection project first took place in 1980 in Denfgeng County and was sponsored by the Shaolin Martial Arts exhibition for Exchange and Emulation. Never-the-less I'm looking forwards to seeing at least some pages of the old books that you are talking about.

In spite of the fact that many of these sets may be old, the system as practiced at Shaolin today is modern going back no further than the early 1980's. Clearly many of the 'traditional' sets are old but they come from a variety of different, and for the most part, 'lay' Shaolin lineages (Liang Yiquan, Zhang Qinghai, Liu Baoshan, etc.).

Frankly it is my belief that the 'system' as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction and not 'the Shaolin system' transmitted via a particular lineage.

cheers,
r.

[Wushu_Tiger]

I have been reading this thread with great interest since I am a Song Shan Shaolin practitioner. I really liked Gene Ching's reply and Wall's reply. However, being the student of a monk and being taught the histories of the various forms as we learn them, I can say that the basic forms of Shaolin are centuries old. We must not forget that in the "old days," as well as now, and will continue into the future; martial monks left the temple and entered into secular life and continued to practice and teach to the layity. So this notion that all the monks were killed except for a few and the traditional Shaolin kung fu died out is a false one. Because of this Shaolin arts have been preserved and we have seen the emergence of the various styles of Shaolin wushu such as Hung Gar and your BSL. Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term Wushu. People in the Western world draw lines with it thinking that it means only the competition aspect of it that was developed in the 1960's by the PRC. However, wushu simply means martial arts. Way back, who knows when, and whoever translated kung fu to the western world did us a great disservice. So now westerners use Kung Fu to define traditional CMA and Wushu to define the contemporary CMA. My Sifu rarely uses the term Kung Fu, he uses wushu, as do I. So when someone says "Shaolin Wushu" all they are saying is Shaolin Martial Arts. If you want to distinguish, qualify it with traditional wushu or contemporary or modern wushu. At Shaolin Temple they teach traditional and contemporary wushu. When the monks perform and people see that, it is easy to say "oh, that is not traditional kung fu, that is wushu" because of all the acrobatics and flips and spinning kicks and such. However, keep in mind that these are performances and so are meant to inspire awe and entertain the audiences. Our traditional forms do not contain these things. Sometimes the monks will "ad lib" a few acrobatics and fantastic kicks into these forms to jazz them up a bit. Sometimes, and I have seen my master do this with incrudulity, they will make things up on the spot.

Even then I read through thousands of topics in this forum about what your saying. Yeah there is a difference between "contemporary" wushu and shaolin wushu. I feel a few hand sets are tossed in there to certify it as "traditional". True wushu translates all to martial arts but it's been the most used statement about the whole shaolin debate. The problem that I personally have seen with the modern shaolin schools is that each monk would take one specific form but modify it. So the same form is done three different ways by three different schools. What is real; what is fake? I am not against any of it and by no means am I trying to scrutinize who anyone trains in modern shaolin. It just depends on what you seek.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi Sal,
What are the historical sources for this? I've always been suspicious about this monk.
By the way, do you have the Chinese charcters for Fu Ju?

r.

Fu Ju (song dynasty):

Fu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/186/d214.gif
Ju: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/169/d126.gif

Fu Yu (Yuan dynasty):
Fu: same
Yu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/184/d206.gif

[r.(shaolin)]

Thank you Sal.
That name hasn't cropped up in any of the early northern Chan documents I know of.
I'll do some digging though. What are the sources you have for this monk?

have a great weekend!

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

As I pointed out before, most of the sets (promoted in books such as the Encyclopedia of Shaolin Martial Arts by Shi Deqian) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere seem to be rather incomplete given that very few 2 person sets are documented. The few that are documented seem incomplete and mostly don't appear to related to the single sets.
cheers,
r.

I have 3 versions of his Shaolin Encyclopedia, the original 2 volume set, the expanded 4 volume set, and the revised with photos of 90% of the forms volumes.

There are many 2 person sets in the expanded edition I have across each book in the set, I don't see "very few" at all.



Frankly it is my belief that the 'system' as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction and not 'the Shaolin system' transmitted via a particular lineage.

cheers,
r.

As I said in my initial post in this thread": Take your pick of which "Real" Shaolin you want: from what time period? From what region? from what Lineage? From what school? From what style? etc, etc. etc

At this point, after 3 decades of research, I am only caring about the physical movements in the sets and how they have evolved from one set to another over time and place. When you look at the actual movements in the sets themselves, there is a clear line of evolution that spans who taught what to whom where and when.

Right now I am looking at the family of sets that have been derived from the XinYi Ba, Rou Quan, and Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan sets, including Song TZ Hong Quan, Lao Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Pao Chui, and so on.
Including the early primitive nei gong sets that clearly show the beginning of movements that are later seen in the series of Shaolin based sets. Nei gongs such as Liu Ho Gong, Chan Yuan Gong, Luohan 13 Gong, Rou Gong, and so on.

As far as the authenticity of the copies made of the books that were later burned at Shaolin (some were not, people were running to get as many out as they could).
Feel free to contact Shi De Gian via email and ask him yourself, he can explain how he and his partners have traveled all over China and the south east for many years comparing and collecting these materials and what they have uncovered from viewing them.

Gene can give you his email address, he is quite amenable to answering questions.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Thank you Sal.
That name hasn't cropped up in any of the early northern Chan documents I know of.
I'll do some digging though. What are the sources you have for this monk?

have a great weekend!

r.

Well, martial monks weren't in the religious orders of Shaolin (and Shaolin has had many different ones over the centuries, not just the one that Fu Yu founded.
Such as:
Da Cheng Zen
north sect Mahayana Zen--Shen Xiu
Zen Cao Dong Sect --Ben Ji
Zen Lin Ji Sect --Yi Xuan
Zen Yun Men Sect --Wen Yan
Zen Wei Yang Sect --Hui Ji
Zen Fa Yan Sect --Wen Yi
Shao Lin temple Cao Dong Sect --Fu Yu

All Shaolin religious monks since Fu Yu trace them generations through the Chan records you speak of.

Martial monks were ex-military men often enough, they were the heads of security, not really in the religious thing.

The source I have for Fu Ju (song dynasty) are the preserved documents that have been copied before the fire that were examined / collected by various researchers.

[David Jamieson]

I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.

Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.

So what are the current monks doing:confused:

Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.

Pretty elitist thinking don't you think?

You have to consider the diaspora of shaolin kungfu and the subsequent transformations and numerous iterations of same.

to say that one style from 300 years ago is the only true style does disservice to the spirit of shaolin kungfu. Not to mention, it immediately brands that 300 year old stuff as irrelevant because it is stagnant.

what gan Fengchi taught and what is now are two entirely different things. It cannot be any other way.

look around at your classmates. Do they perform and apply exactly the same as you? as each other? no. each is differnet and the ones who go forward will be ever changing the face of the style they learned as it passes again and again. the methods themselves may endure, but the expression has to change with every person who wears the style.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Pretty elitist thinking don't you think?

You have to consider the diaspora of shaolin kungfu and the subsequent transformations and numerous iterations of same.

to say that one style from 300 years ago is the only true style does disservice to the spirit of shaolin kungfu. Not to mention, it immediately brands that 300 year old stuff as irrelevant because it is stagnant.

what gan Fengchi taught and what is now are two entirely different things. It cannot be any other way.

look around at your classmates. Do they perform and apply exactly the same as you? as each other? no. each is differnet and the ones who go forward will be ever changing the face of the style they learned as it passes again and again. the methods themselves may endure, but the expression has to change with every person who wears the style.

Gan Feng Chi there is no real historical evidence that he taught people his Shaolin,
maybe he did to a few people, but he would be too young, the years don't match up to where he was at the time.

For a long time he was in Emei learning 3 Emperor Pao Chui,
and then he spent most of his adult life as a anti-Qing rebel, he spent time developing Hua Quan, and its 4 long set and few weapons sets.
THAT is what he is documented as teaching, it is not Shaolin.
He was executed by the Qing government once he was caught.

I had looked at the dates, it doesn't match up to the BSL story.
It was people from modern times that started claiming him.
They grabbed his name cause he was famous.
Same as using Chi Yuan as a founder, he is always used a founder by many other styles of long fist, only because he is the only long fist monks that they heard of.

The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.

[r.(shaolin)]

The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.

Although Shaolin monks may have contributed to the spread of Hong Quan in Shandong, the oral tradition I practice says that Hong Quan was not developed by Shaolin monks and that only two sets of Hong Quan were practiced (mostly Shaolin did not absorb entire systems). Further more these two sets were considered fundamentals and were used in tests of basic skill. The system(s) practiced in Shandong, Shaanxi and Gansu provinces is much more extensive and complete and in fact is widely practiced in all the northern provinces of China today, especially in Shaanxi, Shandong, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. It first spread in the provinces of Henan, Sichuan and Gansu.

Pretty well every oral and recorded legend says that Zhao Kuangyin (960-976 ), the first Song Emperor (posthumous temple name -Taizu) created Hong Quan. Zhao came from a military family in Luoyang, (not far from Shaolin Si). Here is what was passed on concerning development of Hong Quan by Huang Baoshan 黄寶珊 to one of his students in 1993. Huang Baoshan was a very knowledgeable Hong Quan practitioner from the town of Tianshui, Gansu province. Huang and his older generations, believed that the major systematization of the style is most probably during the Qing Dynasty (1368-1911) in the provinces of Shandong and Shaanxi and was spread by teachers connected with the military.

Huang Baoshan - 黄寶珊 (1905-1998) trained with Sun Yanbiao 蓀彥彪 (1884-1981) a famous Hong Quan teacher in North west China. Sun Yanbiao also taught Wang Ziping (1881-1973) and Wang Bugao (1885-1960). Sun Yanbiao's teacher was General Shao Yinhuan 紹銀環(1862-1930). Huang Baoshan (黄寶珊) also studied with General Gao Zhankui 高占魁 who was a famous expert in Hong Quan, and one of the three important generals to spread Hong Quan in Shaanxi during this period. This is documented in the "Shaanxi martial arts records" and the "Sanyuan county annals" . As well according to the Gaoshan Shilu 高山史錄 "Records from Gaoshan," Gao Zhankui was a military instructor in Xian and responsible in winning a battle at Wucheng.

In 1920 Huang Baoshan also visited and studied briefly at Shaolin Si. This was during the time that Venerable Miao Xin (1876-1934) was there. According to him, before 1928, the monks of the Shaolin monastery used to practice Hongquan, but after the reconstruction following the movie "Shaolin Temple" in the 80s , the Hongquan forms the monk practice now, although have same name, are different. Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. In keeping with the oral tradition that has been passed on to my older generation, the two Shaolin Hong Quan forms where developed outside and were imported into Shaolin. In the original system of Hongquan, the movements are long, and are classified as long range boxing (Changquan ). According to Huang Baoshan, pre 1920 Hong Quan movements are long, clear-cut, elegant and clear in their steps and application. As with my Shaolin tradition, Huang Baoshan, also said that the "two roads Hong fist" (erluhongquan), at Shaolin were basic routines. Having seen what was practiced at Shaolin in 1920 Huang Baoshan said that what is being practiced as Hong Quan at the Shaolin temple today, the moves are cut and short, unlike the original Shaolin Hong Quan, which is fluid with long movements of the arms.
r.

[Royal Dragon]

R Shaolin,
Do you know the origin of this set? I know it's form Shandong, but who created it, and what style is it from?

I have allways been told it is from Zhao Kuang Yin, but reacently I have been hearing there is also a Long fist style created by Ming Tai Tzu as well, and I am wondering if this one might actuialy be from that.

[monji112000]

I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it still bothers me that what the majority of people are calling "Shaolin" these days is NOT the oldest, most complete, and authentic system that bears that name.

Gan Fengchi taught everyone the style he learned at Shaolin Temple in the early 1700's. It was the culmination of centuries of kung fu knowledge and it was truely the only style that could be called just "Shaolin" at the time. The PRC basically banned it (and all other martial arts) during the Cultural Revolution. This caused many sifu's, including Yim Shan Wu of my lineage, to leave the country and live in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere.

So what are the current monks doing:confused:

Anyone familiar with the recent history of Shaolin's revival would know that what they're doing isn't a completely authentic Shaolin system. Maybe it's turned into that because of all the propaganda but as a complete system it doesn't go back to the 1700's and earlier. To me it looks like they're doing "wushuized", Shaolin-like moves, with Chi-Gung, Chin Na, and San Shou. I know it probably won't happen but I think the PRC and The Shaolin Temple should acknowledge Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) as the original style for the temple in Honan, period.

Do you honestly think that the Shaolin temple had so many "styles"? What is the most probable fact that monks had some form of exersizes and learned how to protect themselves with some basic stuff. Its a well known fact that a general "type" of person often came to the temples to "escape". These "types" of people often were able to fight. As time developed , I am sure monks were decent fighters.. or tough enough to kick the *** out of anyone trying to rob them. People started to say "I learned from Shaolin" because it became famous and they wanted to be more credible. probably very little "shaolin" kung fu is really shoalin. that doesn't take way from the art.. its just history.

OR

exactly like Jet Li's movies.. and all the styles that claim they come from shaolin are all sub styles of a massive organization of master martial artists.. The 36 chambers, Wu-tang sword style and mad monkey kung fu were all real components to this amazing martial art university. Shaolin has originated almost all martial arts.

Who honestly believe that story about Wing Chun being from Shaolin?
Its a nice story, and It has good points.. but its not real.

[lkfmdc]

There are tons of variance and querks in any history, and Shaolin in no different, but one thing can be said without dispute

Over the course of Chinese history, the term Shaolin has been overused and applied to many things that were NEVER part of Shaolin and in general the legend of Shaolin is overblown

[r.(shaolin)]

Ethnic cultural identity is a sensitive and deeply emotional issue. What makes up ethnic identity is complex - it is not just hard facts that create deeply held cultural feelings. Cultural identity is as much defined and shaped by stories and legends; cultural heros, both mythical and real, as it is by facts (assumed or otherwise). Many Chinese have dedicated their lives and in many case literally given their lives for their culture and country. This is particularly pointed for Chinese people (in China and abroad) that after 50 + years of an attempt to have their traditional culture destroyed first by the West then by the communists.

Shaolin kung-fu is regarded as an intrinsic part of the Chinese cultural heritage and many Chinese martial arts consider it part of their lineages. It is sometimes hard for western enthusiasts to understand this. For centuries, Chinese at home and abroad have been proud of Shaolin. For hundreds of years, there are countless Chinese disciples and martial artists who have identified with Shaolin. How can any individual or one school claim to own Shaolin? When 'outsiders' diss traditions that are dearly held part of cultural identity, many Chinese are sure to find this offensive.

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Although Shaolin monks may have contributed to the spread of Hong Quan in Shandong, the oral tradition I practice says that Hong Quan was not developed by Shaolin monks and that only two sets of Hong Quan were practiced (mostly Shaolin did not absorb entire systems). Further more these two sets were considered fundamentals and were used in tests of basic skill. The system(s) practiced in Shandong, Shaanxi and Gansu provinces is much more extensive and complete and in fact is widely practiced in all the northern provinces of China today, especially in Shaanxi, Shandong, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. It first spread in the provinces of Henan, Sichuan and Gansu.

Pretty well every oral and recorded legend says that Zhao Kuangyin (960-976 ), the first Song Emperor (posthumous temple name -Taizu) created Hong Quan. Zhao came from a military family in Luoyang, (not far from Shaolin Si). Here is what was passed on concerning development of Hong Quan by Huang Baoshan 黄寶珊 to one of his students in 1993. Huang Baoshan was a very knowledgeable Hong Quan practitioner from the town of Tianshui, Gansu province. Huang and his older generations, believed that the major systematization of the style is most probably during the Qing Dynasty (1368-1911) in the provinces of Shandong and Shaanxi and was spread by teachers connected with the military.

Huang Baoshan - 黄寶珊 (1905-1998) trained with Sun Yanbiao 蓀彥彪 (1884-1981) a famous Hong Quan teacher in North west China. Sun Yanbiao also taught Wang Ziping (1881-1973) and Wang Bugao (1885-1960). Sun Yanbiao's teacher was General Shao Yinhuan 紹銀環(1862-1930). Huang Baoshan (黄寶珊) also studied with General Gao Zhankui 高占魁 who was a famous expert in Hong Quan one of the three important generals to spread Hong Quan in Shaanxi. This is documented in the "Shaanxi martial arts records" and the "Sanyuan county annals" . As well according to the Gaoshan Shilu 高山史錄 "Records from Gaoshan " Gao Zhankui was a military instructor in Xian and responsible in winning a battle at Wucheng.

In 1920 Huang Baoshan also visited and studied briefly at Shaolin Si. This was during the time that Venerable Miao Xin (1876-1934) was there. According to him, before 1928, the monks of the Shaolin monastery used to practice Hongquan, but after the reconstruction following the movie "Shaolin Temple" in the 80s , the Hongquan forms they have now, although have same name, are different. The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. In keeping with oral tradition that has been passed on to my older generation, these two forms where developed outside the temple and were imported into Shaolin. In the original system of Hongquan, the movements are long, and are classified as long range boxing (Changquan ). According to Huang Baoshan, Hong Quan movements are long, clear-cut, elegant and clear in their steps and application. Huang Baoshan, also said that the "two roads Hong fist" (erluhongquan), at Shaolin were basic routines. Having seen what was practiced at Shaolin in 1920 he said that at the Shaolin temple today, the moves are cut and short, unlike the original Shaolin Hong Quan, which is fluid with long movements of the arms.
r.

Okay, first, everyone has to stop bothering to mention modern public show Shaolin cause it is just a circus act, it has not bearing on anything anyone is concerned with. I am only concerned with the sets that all the oldest monks have passed on to Shi De Gen, Shi De Yang, Shi De Gian, Shi Se Yuan, the two Liu's, and so on. There is no use bothering with any other things that "Shaolin" circus group does. ALL THESE OLD lineages, indeed do "The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. " I have documentation of these sets, and have learned them, this Da Hong Quan is actually the Lao Jia Quan, many people do not know that. This other Da Hong Quan that people often see is the 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan. What Huang didn't know (realized, whatever) is that there is the Xiao Hong Quan (that everyone is familiar with) then these 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan, and then there is Lao Hong Quan, they are all from Zhao Kuang Yin's Song Hong Quan, that he passed to Shaolin at some point.

Second, Shaolin Quan means all the various long fist styles practiced throughout Henan Province that was once derived from the early sets created by the martial guards at Shaolin under Fu Ju's supervision, such as Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan. There is a series of signature moves that come from this set and if they are not found in a style's sets, then they are NOT Shaolin Quan, but some other kind of long fist.

Third, Yes, but which Hong Quan do you mean?
I've been researching Hong Quan and have found that there are several style named this.

- There is a Tang Dynasty era Hong Quan practiced by their military along with a type of Pao Chui. Sometimes this style is called Long Fist Tong Bei, but it is not related to Qi or Shi Tong Bei.
- There is a Hong Quan that was practiced all along the Yellow River that was derived from the 6 Step Boxing set (which is also mentioned in General Qi Chi's famous book).
-There is Shanxi Hong Quan
-There is Denfang village Hong Quan
- There is Shaolin Hong Quan (Xiao, Da, and Lao Hong Quan sets) that comes from Zhao Kwang Yin.
- There is Shaolin Hong Quan sets that are from 1200s that come from Li Sou (of bai Yi Feng and Jue Yuan fame).
- There is Louyang Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Cha Quan system's Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Shaolin Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Ming Tai Tzu Hong Quan done by Ming Dynasty military (composed of sets named Xiao Hong, Da Hong, and Tiger Claw).

10 different Hong Quan stlyes. They are all different from each other and also there has been some interaction between these depending on the lineage.

Next, can you read Chinese? If so, please read these articles on Song and Ming Tai TZu Hong Quan,
They are all by that researcher, tell me what you think.

http://www.wushu2008.cn/viewthread.php?tid=21406&extra=page%3D4
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Article/Wushu%20Article/1520061102180940.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Article/Wushu%20Article/1620061102181121.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Article/Wushu%20Article/1720061102181332.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Article/Wushu%20Article/1920061102181643.html

http://www.wulinzhi.com/other-chinese-martial-arts/2494

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

oh I see, the comma, these are two different weapons.

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

I fixed the links they are all working for me.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by David Jamieson
Pretty elitist thinking don't you think?

You have to consider the diaspora of shaolin kungfu and the subsequent transformations and numerous iterations of same.

to say that one style from 300 years ago is the only true style does disservice to the spirit of shaolin kungfu. Not to mention, it immediately brands that 300 year old stuff as irrelevant because it is stagnant.
It may sound that way, but I was not trying to be an elitist. It's just my belief that Northern Shaolin, with all of it's weapons sets and fluid movements, is the essence of the old Shaollin. By "old" I mean before the destruction and burnings in the 1700's and afterwards. Of course, the style has been added to over the the centuries. The last great masters to make additions to the lineage of my school were men like Kuo Yu Chang, Yim Shan Wu, and Wong Jack Man. To say the style is "irrelevant" and "stagnant" would be false. When I look at all of the myriad sets and styles at Shaolin Temple today, it seems like chaos from where I stand. And to add all of this modern wushu in there for show?:confused:
originally posted by Sal Canzonieri:
Gan Feng Chi there is no real historical evidence that he taught people his Shaolin,
maybe he did to a few people, but he would be too young, the years don't match up to where he was at the time.

For a long time he was in Emei learning 3 Emperor Pao Chui,
and then he spent most of his adult life as a anti-Qing rebel, he spent time developing Hua Quan, and its 4 long set and few weapons sets.
THAT is what he is documented as teaching, it is not Shaolin.
He was executed by the Qing government once he was caught.

I had looked at the dates, it doesn't match up to the BSL story.
It was people from modern times that started claiming him.
They grabbed his name cause he was famous.
Same as using Chi Yuan as a founder, he is always used a founder by many other styles of long fist, only because he is the only long fist monks that they heard of.

The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.
From what I've read, Gan is mentioned as a Shaolin practitioner in the Wushia (or Wuxia in nonsensical pin yin), not necessarily as the originator, but the 1st laymen to bring it out of the temple, and thereby a founder of sorts. It's un-provable either way.

Anyway, most of our history was received orally, as in most styles, but from people with credibility. Just because they did not write it down does not take anything away from what they said. Many of the real fighters were not educated and could not write. It was not until the 1920's and 30s that students started writing our history. I know in the academic world this is not good enough because it is all based on oral transmission, but is it less valid than research that only just began a little over twenty years ago after Shaolin became this huge phenomenon? How can you tell me Kuo Yu Chang's students are less credible than researchers claiming they've uncovered new evidence 70 to 80 years after the history of Northern Shaolin was written down from the oral transmissions that go back over 150 years? Just because monks were teaching Hong Chuan in Shandong doesn't mean Monk Chih Yuan didn't flee to Hopei Province where he taught many villagers in the area. The lineage continues with Feng Shao Ch'en from there.

[Immortal_Dragon]

Okay, first, everyone has to stop bothering to mention modern public show Shaolin cause it is just a circus act, it has not bearing on anything anyone is concerned with. I am only concerned with the sets that all the oldest monks have passed on to Shi De Gen, Shi De Yang, Shi De Gian, Shi Se Yuan, the two Liu's, and so on. There is no use bothering with any other things that "Shaolin" circus group does. ALL THESE OLD lineages, indeed do "The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. " I have documentation of these sets, and have learned them, this Da Hong Quan is actually the Lao Jia Quan, many people do not know that. This other Da Hong Quan that people often see is the 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan. What Huang didn't know (realized, whatever) is that there is the Xiao Hong Quan (that everyone is familiar with) then these 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan, and then there is Lao Hong Quan, they are all from Zhao Kuang Yin's Song Hong Quan, that he passed to Shaolin at some point.

Second, Shaolin Quan means all the various long fist styles practiced throughout Henan Province that was once derived from the early sets created by the martial guards at Shaolin under Fu Ju's supervision, such as Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan. There is a series of signature moves that come from this set and if they are not found in a style's sets, then they are NOT Shaolin Quan, but some other kind of long fist.

Well generally this is where these kind of "research" threads end up. It turns into a debate where opinions are slipped in often revealing the authors true beliefs. This is the whole problem. The BSL people say they are learning the "real traditional" shaolin sets, the Songshan Shaolin people say they are learning the real traditional stuff and even the Shaolin Do people say they are learning shaolin. Who cares? Why does it matter? If whatever style you train works for you and there are good useful fighting techniques why does anything else matter? Why not just ask your sifu for pete sakes on what the lineage is?

The whole problem with CMA in general is that its all a big jumbo puzzle. Noone is clear on who did what or who came from who in the real down the line lineage. Thats just the way it is. You dont see these kind of debates going on with the Tae Kwon Do stylists or karate stylists. Its because their systems have been solid documented and practiced the same for the longest time. The same form is done the same way no matter which school they came from or if it was done 20 years ago compared to today. Its still the same form practiced the same way.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I't s a silly question / statement in the first place.

Well, I;m bored of this topic, I would like to discuss Shaolin history / forms, etc with people who would like to do so,

So, I am starting a new thread on Hong Quan, and please if you want something to contribute answer that thread, thanks!

No offense to anyone meant, please

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Sal Canzonieri:
BSL movements are not ancient forms, they are a distillation of moves from various teachers.
The closest the come to material still preserved in Shaolin is the Kan Jia Quan style of Shaolin, which has similar named sets but the forms are much longer. Kan Jia Quan was developed at Shaolin during the late Yuan time period to protect the monks from invading Taoist who were pretty much at war with the Buddhists over land rights and stealing temples from each other and collection boxes.
I just wanted to emphasis again that this statement is far from being true. The Kan Jia Chuan sets are actually much shorter and they're anything but a perfect match as Royal Dragon had stated earlier. Any other theories out there? I feel this is important to clarify since I feel it is dangerous to all of a sudden rewrite the history of a style when there's only speculation to justify it.

I also wanted to mention that I've recently read that KYC wrote (or had someone write for him while he was alive) several books. The books were, BSL Sword (Dragon Shape Sword), a History on BSL, and some hand sets with fighting theory. It's just hearsay since these books are still in China, and held by a disciple of his direct lineage and obviously he does not want to release them.

I'm sure there is other material out there that could be held up as "proof" since there are MA books that are locally published in limited numbers that never leave the province that they are printed in.

[Pk_StyLeZ]

Well generally this is where these kind of "research" threads end up. It turns into a debate where opinions are slipped in often revealing the authors true beliefs. This is the whole problem. The BSL people say they are learning the "real traditional" shaolin sets, the Songshan Shaolin people say they are learning the real traditional stuff and even the Shaolin Do people say they are learning shaolin. Who cares? Why does it matter? If whatever style you train works for you and there are good useful fighting techniques why does anything else matter? Why not just ask your sifu for pete sakes on what the lineage is?

The whole problem with CMA in general is that its all a big jumbo puzzle. Noone is clear on who did what or who came from who in the real down the line lineage. Thats just the way it is. You dont see these kind of debates going on with the Tae Kwon Do stylists or karate stylists. Its because their systems have been solid documented and practiced the same for the longest time. The same form is done the same way no matter which school they came from or if it was done 20 years ago compared to today. Its still the same form practiced the same way.


exactly what i been trying to say.....but much more better put =)

[sha0lin1]

Even then I read through thousands of topics in this forum about what your saying. Yeah there is a difference between "contemporary" wushu and shaolin wushu. I feel a few hand sets are tossed in there to certify it as "traditional". True wushu translates all to martial arts but it's been the most used statement about the whole shaolin debate. The problem that I personally have seen with the modern shaolin schools is that each monk would take one specific form but modify it. So the same form is done three different ways by three different schools. What is real; what is fake? I am not against any of it and by no means am I trying to scrutinize who anyone trains in modern shaolin. It just depends on what you seek.

Well this problem is not likely to go away soon. Throughout a monks training at the Temple he is taught by different masters. Some masters have different ways of teaching the same forms, one master may teach a technique such as a low crouch knee break where you go down to the thighs being paralell with the ground, another may teach halfway down, and another may teach standing erect. Also some masters may teach the same form with one or two different movements. There are also different sets of the forms, for instance, Xiao Hong Quan has a 24 posture form as well as the longer 56 posture version. Tong Bi Quan has several different sets in the same form. This can account for the variations you are talking about. Maybe this is as it should be, or maybe each form and their sets should be standardized that is a question that I or anyone cannot answer, we should leave that one up to the Temple. Each monk though teaches according to what he was taught by his main master. No doubt that some monks may add or subtract movements based on what they believe is effective or ineffective. This has happend for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries. However, the core of the form remains the same. Some monks make up forms. In our school our master has created a staff form that he used in competition and for performances. This form is based on traditonal staff techniques. We teach this to our students as the second staff form they learn. We call it Xing Ying Guen (Xing Ying Staff). Now, is it "real" since it was not taught in historic times? I guess that just depends on your beliefs and preferences. The techniques are real and it is a cool form and that is all I need. Forms like this one only add to our heritage and besides, this will also continue, like evolution, descent with modification.

[xcakid]

Over the course of Chinese history, the term Shaolin has been overused and applied to many things that were NEVER part of Shaolin and in general the legend of Shaolin is overblown


Good Eaxample: Shaolin Kempo

[Fei Li]

Hi all.

To me the most comprehensive and reasonable summary about what shaolin is or is not,
I read in Adam Hsu's "A sword polishers record" and "Lone sword against the cold cold sky".

I will scan it if I find the time.
(It is by the way one of the best if not THE best book about kung fu I ever read)

Just a brief summary of what he found out in his travels to the temple:
There was only one Temple, the one in the north.
Shaolin itself was not really known for a long time, but became popular trough the Swordman tales. As a result many MA Schools tried to take advantage of this popularity.
He also states that Shaolin was more of a MA Melting pot than a distinct style.
The monks had a life before entering the temple and they brought different styles in.

Again this was just a brief resumee from what I remembered, read the book, it's worth your time!

[richard sloan]

a picture which may be of interest:

[Fei Li]

No doubt that some monks may add or subtract movements based on what they believe is effective or ineffective. This has happend for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries. However, the core of the form remains the same. Some monks make up forms. In our school our master has created a staff form that he used in competition and for performances. This form is based on traditonal staff techniques. We teach this to our students as the second staff form they learn. We call it Xing Ying Guen (Xing Ying Staff). Now, is it "real" since it was not taught in historic times? I guess that just depends on your beliefs and preferences. The techniques are real and it is a cool form and that is all I need. Forms like this one only add to our heritage and besides, this will also continue, like evolution, descent with modification.

Well theres is certainly an evolution in MA…
BUT the big difference to past times is, that back then if you modified your style and it did not work in reality you got hurt or died.
In our days changes in a system do not really get proofed if they work.
So in my oppinion in our pacific times we can not just change a style that has been tested in real combat for centuries before.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi all.

To me the most comprehensive and reasonable summary about what shaolin is or is not,
I read in Adam Hsu's "A sword polishers record" and "Lone sword against the cold cold sky".

I will scan it if I find the time.
(It is by the way one of the best if not THE best book about kung fu I ever read)

Just a brief summary of what he found out in his travels to the temple:
There was only one Temple, the one in the north.
Shaolin itself was not really known for a long time, but became popular trough the Swordman tales. As a result many MA Schools tried to take advantage of this popularity.
He also states that Shaolin was more of a MA Melting pot than a distinct style.
The monks had a life before entering the temple and they brought different styles in.

Again this was just a brief resume from what I remembered, read the book, it's worth your time!

oh come on, his book is plain old OPINION.
he didn't talk to the many researchers in china, he didn't see the preserved material that was taken out of Shaolin during the 1920's fire, he didn't talk, met with, or look at anything.

To be respectful I won't say more, but come on, many people in the field know him and he is an essay writer, not a deep researcher that looks at archived material.

[Fei Li]

Maybe.

I do nt know how he found out. He states for example an ancient writer from the Ming dynasty who listed up all the knwon and best styles and there is no mentioning of a Shaolinstyle.

I think we can all agree that Shaolin is more a collection of styles than an original style.
He also asked the people in the places where the southern temples supposedly were located and looked the regional archives and there was no Shaolin mentioned.

anyway all I wanted to say is that I thnk today too many people define the quality
of their KF with their connection to Shaolin, although much of it is only fairytale.

Have you read Mr Hsu's books? I find them really convincing and inspiring, I discovered many errors in my training through his books.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

O.K., regarding this material that was saved during the 1920's fire: how much was actually preserved? If the library was indeed almost completely burned out, how can just a few original manuals document all of styles that were practiced at Shaolin? I'm also suspicious as to the authenticity of these "original" sets from the Song Dynasty. There's no allowance for the possibility that these documents are forgeries? It was only after the Cultural Revolution had happened and the government realized that a lot of money could be made off the Shaolin name when, all of a sudden, the Chinese government wanted to showcase "original" Shaolin martial arts. This was after a movie that showcased government sanctioned wushu. These families and so-called monks who claimed that they had the last original documents and that there's were the original sets, knew that they'd be revered and made famous. Since the PRC denied the authenticity of any of the other styles that left the mainland during the Revolution, one has to allow for the possibility that some of these documents are fakes.

Once again, before the PRC and the persecution of real Chinese martial artists whose lineages went back hundreds of years, Northern Shaolin kung fu was considered by just about everyone to be, at the very least, an authentic Shaolin style. The official (and unofficial) denial of this seems partly motivated by political reasons.

It's just like with Falun Gong. The PRC seems to latch on to this idea that anyone or any group of people who are or ever were in the least bit critical of their policies and suspect reasons for doing things is an enemy of the state. They are then not recognized as having any validity and (in the case of Falun Gong and all of the sifu's back in the 50's) they are brutally persecuted.

I agree with Fei Li. Shaolin has been a melting pot of styles. Northern Shaolin happens to be a Shaolin style that was created out of five styles that were practiced there during the 1100's. It was more similar to Hua and Wah, and Cha and less similar to Hung and Pao, but they are all represented in there. These styles exist, the similiarities are there. This should be proof enough but it's not for those who are more apt to believe this recently revised version of history. Here's a question: did the Shaolin monks of the 1920's deny that Northern Shaolin was an authentic Shaolin style? After all, it was more widely practiced then and it was recognized as such by many. Especially after Kuo Yu Chang made it famous.

[Royal Dragon]

I don't think anyone is denying that it is a Shaolln style, BUT I highly doubt it was practiced in the temple back then, as it is today. The system was expanded by Kyu Yu Cheong from what little I know.

Also, Cha Fist is not a shaolin art, it's Moslem in origin. So the presence of that style in the Ten hand sets already shows an outside influance. I think Wha and Hua fist are common villiage Long Fist from outside shaolin as well. Hong and Pao Quan are from Shaolin though...and it was just said above that they are not the major flavor of the Ten handsets.

It sounds to me like the Ten Hand sets are a more modern mix of old Shaolin, and common villiage Long Fist. It's dountfull any of those sets were ever practiced at shaolin, but I bet a good amount of the techniques that make up the forms were found in authentic shaolin sets, and that is what makes it a Shaolin style.


Kan Jia Chuan sets are actually much shorter and they're anything but a perfect match as Royal Dragon had stated earlier

Reply]
I seem to remember there was a comparison made and they were extremely close. If the Kan Jia sets are much shorter, this leads me to believe that the ten hand sets are Kan Jia fist with elements of common villiage Long Fist added later, like Moslem Cha fist, Wah fist, Hua fist, as well as shaolin Hong fist and Pao Quan

It's a more recently expanded version of kan jia made by mixing in the 5 most well known villiage Long Fist styles of Cha, Wah, Hua, Hong and Pao Quan.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Once again, there is evidence that the Ch'a style originated in Shantung during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) by General Hua Zong Chi. The Muslims didn't create the style and you could argue that Tam Tui is not a Shaolin art too but there is evidence to suggest that Shaolin monks learned the style and adopted it into there practice.

I'm still suspicious of the authenticity of these original manuals describing Rou Chuan, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Shiao, Lao, etc. How convenient that they match exactly with the styles taught by these families and monks who came forward with their "old" and "original" Shaolin styles. Why didn't the PRC persecute them during The Cultural Revolution? During that time anyone who didn't enthusiastically embrace communism or who was caught preserving a traditional way of life was branded as "counter-revolutionary" and either tortured, imprisoned, or killed outright. Many of China's great martial artists lost their lives during this time, and Shaolin suffered as a martial arts training center and as a religious institution. They were very thorough so how is it that all of these pieces have just come together so recently and so conveniently?

[richard sloan]

arguments from incredulity are particularly grating when launched against stacks of evidence.

[B-Rad]

O.K., regarding this material that was saved during the 1920's fire: how much was actually preserved? If the library was indeed almost completely burned out, how can just a few original manuals document all of styles that were practiced at Shaolin?

I'm also curious about it. I'd been told before, by a wushu coach with strong connections to the Beijing wushu team, that some documents and lineages were forged/altered when the temple was restored/restocked. Have any of you come across anything like that before in your research? Or, are you be able to tell when something like this has happened?

[Sal Canzonieri]

First of all, yes, many people were killed for a lot of reasons during the so-called Cultural Revolution.
BUT IT WAS RANDOM< many people were not killed, it depends on actually the youth that were rampaging through areas of China and destroying things associated with the past, for fun, using Mao's edict as an excuse.
For as many people that were persecuted there were just as many that were not (they were lucky to not attract attention), otherwise there would be NO traditional martial arts existing in China today.
And, Mao himself had once practiced martial arts and he even wrote about the good it does for people. AND throughout his life, he always had bodyguards that were traditional martial artists, such as in Ba Ji Quan.

Second, DO YOUR OWN **** RESEARCH, I've have been doing so for the last 30+ years and interviewed tons of people now dead of old age, learned with many of them, and accumulated boxes and boxes of notes.
What's the use of telling people about what I learned all these years if they don't want to believe it. No matter what I say, no matter how carefully documented or not it might be,