we have mention of a laolohan form…
the story we have is that the 18 original hands were expanded to 18 sets, and each set further contains 3 sections, and again 3 subsections.
what makes you think it is lost?
I am of the understanding that there were 3 Qi Gong sets originally. According to the legends I have been privy to, Yi Jin Jing, Xui Xue Jing, and Shi Ba Louhan Shou.
Yi Jin Jing is prominantly around, and so is Xui Xue Jing, however I haven’t seen anything out of Song Shan Shaolin depticitng the Shi Ba Louhan Shou Qi Gong at all. In fact I can’t even get a clear deffinition on what it is. Is it just another name for Yi Jin Jing and Xui Xue Jing as a system? Is it like Choy Lay Fut guys say, a posture holding Qi Gong containing 18 postures? Is it a series of 3 moving Qi Gong exercises like Mantis guys say?
My gut feeling is it was a Qi Gong set consisting of 18 postures that were held the way Yoga systems hold postures. But so far, I just don’t see anything out of Song Shan Shaolin that resembles that. The only thing I see called Shi Ba Louhan Shou is a basic martial set, not a Qi Gong set.
Now, it has been sugjested that there isn’t a Shi Ba Louhan shou, and it is mearly another name for Xui Xue Jing and/or Yi Jing Jing, and I am beginning to think that is the case here. Either that, or the original set is lost or evolved into something else.
Please keep in mind I’m just a Qwilow from Chicago, so I don’t have access to Song Shan teachings except through those of you who have been there. I am trying to figure out the maze that is Shaolin by “remote controll”, so to speak.
Here is a link to what the Choy Lay Fut guys say it is.
http://www.anan-do.com/images/eng_lohan.htm
Eighteen Lohan Kung is moderately dynamic and quite therapeutic. Most of the techniques, stances and postures are symmetrical, executed alternatively on both sides
When I was taught the set, I was taught 18 postures, held on each side. Mine is from a Choy Lay Fut guy, not sure what lineage, who taught me at a park in Elmwood pk back in the mid 90’s
I was there doing Chung moo quan movements, and saw him there early one morning (Like 5:30 am) holding postures. We got to talking, and shortly after he taught me the set. He claimed to know the three original Qi Gong’s of Da Mo, but any attempt to verify even what a definition of those three sets has basically led me to confusion.
Song Shan Shaolin now has a few videos of Yi Jin Jing, and Xui Xue jing out, so those two seem pretty clear, but Shi Ba Louhan shou is a jumble of things. I am stil trying to find independant confirmation that what I do is it, or just something more reacent that caries the name.
Royal Dragon,
Your 18 Lohan Kung comes from the Chan family of Choy Lay Fut. Howard Choy of Australia wrote an article about the form in Inside Kung Fu back in the 80’s, when it was a good mag to read.
mickey
Some thoughts about 18 Luohan
I have been following these threads about Shaolin, Luohan, and such things. I must say that I am inclined to agreed mostly with r. (Shaolin). No offence but some of the information seems quite “offical press release” from the so-called Songshan Shaolin “lineage”. I said offical because there seem to have a lot of the “party” direction or rather influence. Anyway, back to thread.
<<<I am well versed on the Lohan system and its history.>>>
Glad to hear this. I am looking forward for the expertise.
<<<All the lohan named forms in any southern chinese martial art style are from after 1644 and often they are named in HONOR of the 18 lohan, not cause they are derived from the original Shaolin Lohan forms. Most of the southern Lohan comes from the Five Ancestors style of south china.>>>
I am curious as to the theory behind this. Why of all things 18 Lohan? I have my theory on this but I would love to hear yours.
<<<The 18 Lohan Chi Gung of Northern Seven Star Mantis was also designed relatively recently and also in honor of the 18 lohan, but it is a chi-gung form that they developed based on some sound ideas.>>>
the mantis 18 Luohan is based on a manuscript by Hsing Hsiao Dao Ren, who said he learned it from Fu Ju. It is also a part of 18 Luohan Duanda (Short strikes of 18 Arhat). Personally, I am in agreement with some Mainland scholars that that particular manuscripts could have been a hoax especially the 18 styles stories. It is rather a rearranging of a few Ming dynasty MA works. Having said that it doesn’t mean that there is little to no value with the maunscript. I believe that it borrowed heavily from some branch of Tongbi (through the arm) and Pigua. BTW, Tongbi as a term seems to be a late Ming early Qing convention. There are also a lot of variations of this manuscript floating around as well.
I am also curious as to what sound ideas are you referring to? You just peaked my interest.
<<<The 18 lohan chi gung of Shaolin, the original one, is really the same thing as the Yi Jin Jing. Its just a another name for it.
And it did not come from Damo, that’s fake story.>>>
I don’t practice this so I have no comment.
<<<There are various lohan forms from Shaolin that are way over 1,000 years old. These are martial arts forms, they are the
18 Lohan Fists form.
the Xiao Lohan
the Da Lohan (which is almost forgotten now in Shaolin there are like 3 people that know it all the way through)
the 18 Lohan Hands forms ( a series of short forms).
The Lao Jia Lohan (a lost form)
and some other ones.>>>
Well, I thought that long forms 10 - 20 moves plus are a relatively modern thing. I don’t know. No offence, this claim is really to me stretching it quite a bit.
<<<The Lohan style is one of the first forms from Shaolin, it was developed by mixing Shuai Jiao with boxing. All the moves can be done as takedowns or as boxing, but nowadays only a few people know the takedowns, but they are easier to discipher of you know Shuai Jiao.>>>
I am curious as to which boxing would this be? What is the frame work or structure is used to build the luohan style? Shuai Jiao has some striking already and it is a stand alone style, is it not? why or who has this idea of mixing? Would you elaborate, please?
Thank you for sheding lights on these matters.
Regards
Mantis108
Phew, here’s my response to your questions, thanks:
Why the 18 Lohan mentions in Southern Shaoin?
Lohan pretty much died out after Jue Yuan and Bai Yu Feng developing what later became known as the Five Animals style. (there are some lineages that arise from Shaolin in the Henan area that continued their practice of Shaolin Lohan and when their forms are compared to those still done as traditional style Shaolin forms they are pretty darn close to exact.)
All the people who are recorded as being students of Jue Yuan and students of students eventually trace to people who moved to southern china and helped develop the Southern Shaolin Styles, like Choy gar, Li Gar, etc., especially Choy Gar. The earliest ancestor to Choy gar stayed at Shaolin after the Ming lost to the Ching, he was an army officer, an uncle of the Ming Emperor, hid out there and eventually moved south when it got too hot to stay.
Now these styles that developed in the south continued their oral teaching that their Five Animals style came from Lohan originally, hence someone somewhere in their lineage coming up with their idea of what a lohan form was like, especially if they saw Five Ancestor’s style of the south do the Lohan forms within their system.
Maybe Choy Gar (and hence Choy Li Fut style) indeed did pass on a 18 Lohan form from Jue Yuan’s time, I have to still compare their moves to the ancient 18 Lohan forms.
what I saw at the website looks like Ca-ca though.
Did you know that originally, in their early days, the Hung gar style taught a form called Xiao Lohan? This surely must have come from Henan Shaolin originally, cause some of of the two oldest more reverered and passed on form from teacher to teacher through the centuries has been the Xiao and the Da Lohan forms, which are nearly forgotten in their original lengths and moves today in Shaolin.
Well, Lohan is essentially Shuai Jiao, like I mentioned before, I can do whole forms as Shuai Jiao takedowns in the exact same sequence of moves instead of as punches and kicks and they jib perfectly, just different why to feel out the applications to these moves in the forms. Also, many of the moves in the Lohan forms are tong bei quan moves, which though not called that, are ancient techniques that go back thousands of years in China and are based on sword fighting movements as hand fighting movements. By boxing, I meant that they moves from Shuai Jiao and Tung Bei were done as boxing style moves, by these ancient people, why? for fun. or cause they forgot the non boxing applications of the moves in the forms.
So, of course there is value in the Mantis Lohan Qi Gong form, why not? Long as it is based on true Mantis (tong bei meets Tai Tzu Quan) ideas. I have a copy here of the old hand drawn manuscript (by Hsing Hsiao Dao Ren?) that the Mantis Lohan Qi Gong is based on, and it is obviously the Muscle Tendon Changing and the Eight Section Brocade moves. And the hand drawn book looks like just like every book I have that comes from the Ching Dynasty. The Mantis version just “mantisized” the moves a lot, but its still just really the moves from those two well known exercises, nothing mysterious.
If you are looking for the real Lohan from ancient times, it’s not like that Choy Li Fut thing, exept in some shallow surface looking way.
I know the ancient 18 Lohan Fists form like the back of my hand and it is not anything like the moves in either of those Qi Gong forms. In the 18 Lohan Fists, I can clearly see the old qi Shaolin Qi Gongs, and I can feel them in the moves, when correctly executed the muscles of my body spiral around my bones and my tendon coil and uncoil like a spring.
The original Da Lohan that goes way back to pre-song dynasty is 108 moves, if you do all the subforms of this form. You think that 20 moves are long forms? All the short forms I know are at least 30-40 moves, they feel really short to me (Lien Wuan, Xiao Hong Quan, Tai Tzi Quan, Lien Bu, etc).
Also, there is a form in Mantis called 18 “ancients” Quan or something like that.
Well, if I look at the form, the 18 Lohan Fists form that I know is hidden inside it, all the moves are done in the same order, just “mantisized”.
So, that is something weird but it must be a clue, yes?
Sal,
Who gives you the authority to say that the form you know predates CLF 18 luohan.
I’m not an expert, just a bad practitioner, but I’m sure this version is as original as any other from the Shaolin tradition can be.
The CLF tradition says that this form is the extended version of Bak Juk Fung that was taught to Chan Heung by Choy Fook. The Choy of CLF is in honor to Choy Fook, it is not related to Choy Gar.
The images in the website are doing with soft jing in higher postures.
You can see images of this form in this site too: http://www.luohan.com/html_uk/uk_luotechnical.html
This form is simmetrical, a trademark of Shaolin, and can be done with different expressions of jing.
This form is based in the san bao, in conjuction with siu and dai lohan develops the jing, chi and shen.
Peace
Mickey,
Thanks for the lineage info. I was never told where it came from when i learned it. I only know the guy did Choy Lay Fut.
http://www.luohan.com/html_uk/uk_luotechnical.html
The above is pretty much my 18 Louhan exactly.
Hi Sal,
<<<Phew, here’s my response to your questions, thanks:>>>
First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to respond to my queries. I really appreciate that. 
<<<Why the 18 Lohan mentions in Southern Shaoin?
Lohan pretty much died out after Jue Yuan and Bai Yu Feng developing what later became known as the Five Animals style. (there are some lineages that arise from Shaolin in the Henan area that continued their practice of Shaolin Lohan and when their forms are compared to those still done as traditional style Shaolin forms they are pretty darn close to exact.)
All the people who are recorded as being students of Jue Yuan and students of students eventually trace to people who moved to southern china and helped develop the Southern Shaolin Styles, like Choy gar, Li Gar, etc., especially Choy Gar. The earliest ancestor to Choy gar stayed at Shaolin after the Ming lost to the Ching, he was an army officer, an uncle of the Ming Emperor, hid out there and eventually moved south when it got too hot to stay.>>>
I think I begin to get a sense of your perspective. Personally, I believe it is a daunting task to try to reconcile both northern and southern records especially there are plenty of “oral traditions” floating around. It would seem that you alluded to the Tien Di Hui story as well as southern Shaolin legends as welll. BTW, I think your position on the Northern Shaolin is inline with most government approved publications. That’s very interesting. In a way, we are somewhat on similar wave length when dealing with the Tien Di Hui and Southern Shaolin.
<<<Now these styles that developed in the south continued their oral teaching that their Five Animals style came from Lohan originally, hence someone somewhere in their lineage coming up with their idea of what a lohan form was like, especially if they saw Five Ancestor’s style of the south do the Lohan forms within their system.>>>
I would caution that this is rather generalized and perhaps a bit narrow focused in the Shaolin perspective. I do think that secret societies (ie Tien Di Hui) and cults (ie White Lotus) played a rather crucial part in the development of Southern “Shaolin” Kung Fu. Shaolin might just be a front in some cases to camouflage the intentions and identities of the rebellions.
<<<Maybe Choy Gar (and hence Choy Li Fut style) indeed did pass on a 18 Lohan form from Jue Yuan’s time, I have to still compare their moves to the ancient 18 Lohan forms.
what I saw at the website looks like Ca-ca though.>>>
Um… there is Choy Gar, a particular southern style and there is the Choy Gar in CLF. I think they are not the one and the same if I am not mistaken. I am not too familar with CLF but it would be interesting to know if Choy Fook is the same person as Tien Di Hui’s Choy Duk Ying. I don’t believe they are the same person. But I could be wrong.
<<<Did you know that originally, in their early days, the Hung gar style taught a form called Xiao Lohan?>>>
He’s another problem. Hung Gar, that’s from Chi Sim to Hung Hey Koon, IMHO could have been a spin off of Yong Chun He Fa (Crane method of Yong Chun), which was the original Fujian White Crane. I am not sure if Hung Hey Koon passed down actual luohan form in his lines. His other Sihingdei though had luohan form that Hung students such as Lam Sai Wing might have picked up and subsequantly included in the famous Fu Hok Seung Ying.
<<<This surely must have come from Henan Shaolin originally, cause some of of the two oldest more reverered and passed on form from teacher to teacher through the centuries has been the Xiao and the Da Lohan forms, which are nearly forgotten in their original lengths and moves today in Shaolin.>>>
I am not family with that. So I can’t comment on it. 
Interesting info though. Thanks
<<<Well, Lohan is essentially Shuai Jiao, like I mentioned before, I can do whole forms as Shuai Jiao takedowns in the exact same sequence of moves instead of as punches and kicks and they jib perfectly, just different why to feel out the applications to these moves in the forms.>>>
This is rather hard to visualize not to mention that Shuai Jiao as it is known today do not use forms or long patterns as their training methodology. So it’s hard to imagine Shuai Jiao is one and the same as Luohan. It could be said that there are Shuai elements in Luohan but it’s just too hard to link the 2 “systems” together for me. Now even Shuai elements don’t have to come from Shuai Jiao. Unless there are records to proof that there were Shuai Jiao people exchanged knowledge with Shaolin. Would such record exists?
<<<Also, many of the moves in the Lohan forms are tong bei quan moves, which though not called that, are ancient techniques that go back thousands of years in China and are based on sword fighting movements as hand fighting movements. By boxing, I meant that they moves from Shuai Jiao and Tung Bei were done as boxing style moves, by these ancient people, why? for fun. or cause they forgot the non boxing applications of the moves in the forms.>>>
Well, this is again very hard to believe. I am sorry but as far as I am aware Tongbi similar to Shuai Jiao didn’t have long forms. Tongbi used to have 24 moves (3 sections of 8 each.) So, I am really really having a hard time to see long form based system like Luohan comes first. I might have missing something in your post somewhere. I just don’t see it, sorry.
<<<So, of course there is value in the Mantis Lohan Qi Gong form, why not? Long as it is based on true Mantis (tong bei meets Tai Tzu Quan) ideas.>>>
I am not from the 7 stars Mantis lineage. I am from the Taiji/Meihwa Manits lineage. I am also the minority in not buying the story of 18 styles forming the Shandong mantis system as we know it.
<<<I have a copy here of the old hand drawn manuscript (by Hsing Hsiao Dao Ren?) that the Mantis Lohan Qi Gong is based on, and it is obviously the Muscle Tendon Changing and the Eight Section Brocade moves. >>>
If you do have an old hand drawn manuscript of “Shaolin Authentics” or “Duan Da Mi Ciao” (and any varation thereof), you would indeed be a very lucky man because we would all want to get our hands on it. When you say copy this wouldn’t be the one by Wong Hon Fun?
<<<And the hand drawn book looks like just like every book I have that comes from the Ching Dynasty. The Mantis version just “mantisized” the moves a lot, but its still just really the moves from those two well known exercises, nothing mysterious.>>>
I agreed nothing mysterious but I am not sure about " mantisized". I have seen a few versions and practice one of the 18 Luohan based on the manuscript. Non of the versions that I know is “mantisized” nor there are moves from mantis in them. However, there are element that seems to share with Classical Tanglang Neigong forms such as Ba Duan Jin Shen Fa and San Hui Jiu Zhuan Huan Yang Fa.
<<<If you are looking for the real Lohan from ancient times, it’s not like that Choy Li Fut thing, exept in some shallow surface looking way.>>>
I am just curious as to how it can be proven there was a “real Luohan” form from ancient time? What prompted you to come to that conclusion? That’s really fascination.
<<<I know the ancient 18 Lohan Fists form like the back of my hand and it is not anything like the moves in either of those Qi Gong forms. In the 18 Lohan Fists, I can clearly see the old qi Shaolin Qi Gongs, and I can feel them in the moves, when correctly executed the muscles of my body spiral around my bones and my tendon coil and uncoil like a spring.>>>
Thank you for sharing the insight. I wish there is a visual to get the gist of what you are saying.
<<<The original Da Lohan that goes way back to pre-song dynasty is 108 moves, if you do all the subforms of this form.>>>
How do you come to this conclusion of such a long form exist pre-Song dynasty?
<<<You think that 20 moves are long forms? All the short forms I know are at least 30-40 moves, they feel really short to me (Lien Wuan, Xiao Hong Quan, Tai Tzi Quan, Lien Bu, etc).>>>
Xingyi is said to be living fossil of Song dynasty martial arts. It’s contain no long patterned forms but indivdual moves. Granted they would link the 5 fists and 12 animals to a “form” but that’s not particularly long more than 50 moves. A full length of 108 moves form pre dating Song is very hard to believe. But that’s perhaps my ignorence?
<<<Also, there is a form in Mantis called 18 “ancients” Quan or something like that.>>>
That is within the 7 star Mantis tradition. It has more to do with the 18 styles story that about Luohan I believe.
<<<Well, if I look at the form, the 18 Lohan Fists form that I know is hidden inside it, all the moves are done in the same order, just “mantisized”.>>>
Really? I am sure the 7 star Mantis people would be happy to hear that. I am not from the 7 star lineage so I would reserve my comments on that.
<<<So, that is something weird but it must be a clue, yes?>>>
It’s very interesing indeed. Could be very useful to the 7 star lines. Thanks
Regards
Mantis108
Originally posted by JAZA
[B]Sal,
Who gives you the authority to say that the form you know predates CLF 18 luohan.
I’m not an expert, just a bad practitioner, but I’m sure this version is as original as any other from the Shaolin tradition can be.
The CLF tradition says that this form is the extended version of Bak Juk Fung that was taught to Chan Heung by Choy Fook. The Choy of CLF is in honor to Choy Fook, it is not related to Choy Gar.
The images in the website are doing with soft jing in higher postures.
You can see images of this form in this site too: http://www.luohan.com/html_uk/uk_luotechnical.html
This form is simmetrical, a trademark of Shaolin, and can be done with different expressions of jing.
This form is based in the san bao, in conjuction with siu and dai lohan develops the jing, chi and shen.
Peace [/B]
Well, the form looks a lot better at this website you gave than at the other website. I meant no offense against the style or the form itself, just how it looked at that first website cited. I’m not in any way saying that the form itself is not valid or not authentic nor not “old”.
But I have to say, without malice, that the Lohan Qi Gong and the Xiao and Da Lohan forms and so on shown and described on this site you just cited are very different from any nothern Shaolin Lohan forms. It would be interesting to trace how they came about to exist and how it got from one place to another.
The 18 Lohan forms that I and others know are almost 2,000 years old, like most of the original Lohan forms. That has been well documented and well perserved in Shaolin both within and outside the temple. Lohan are the oldest Shaolin forms.
Re: Hi Sal,
Originally posted by mantis108
[B]<<<First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to respond to my queries. I really appreciate that. :)>>>
No problem, thanks for the discussion.
<<< I think I begin to get a sense of your perspective. Personally, I believe it is a daunting task to try to reconcile both northern and southern records especially there are plenty of “oral traditions” floating around. It would seem that you alluded to the Tien Di Hui story as well as southern Shaolin legends as welll. BTW, I think your position on the Northern Shaolin is inline with most government approved publications. That’s very interesting. In a way, we are somewhat on similar wave length when dealing with the Tien Di Hui and Southern Shaolin. >>>
Ha, that would be very daunting! It is very hard to see how the north and south really transitioned.
But how is my position in line with most gov’t approved stuff? Mostly every article I have written has been at odds with any official versions. I’m pretty much of the opinion that almost every story about KF histry that is “official” is full of baloney.
<<<I would caution that this is rather generalized and perhaps a bit narrow focused in the Shaolin perspective. I do think that secret societies (ie Tien Di Hui) and cults (ie White Lotus) played a rather crucial part in the development of Southern “Shaolin” Kung Fu. Shaolin might just be a front in some cases to camouflage the intentions and identities of the rebellions. >>>
Yes, I agree, Shaolin more than likely a front for these southern rebel organizations.
<<<Um… there is Choy Gar, a particular southern style and there is the Choy Gar in CLF. I think they are not the one and the same if I am not mistaken. I am not too familar with CLF but it would be interesting to know if Choy Fook is the same person as Tien Di Hui’s Choy Duk Ying. I don’t believe they are the same person. But I could be wrong. >>>
I know that, sorry, I didn’t make it clear which Choy I was talking about. I have some scraps of info here somewhere about a Choy ancestor being an officer in the Ming Army and hiding out at Shaolin and then eventually going south.
In Cantonese there is a mention of first a Chau Jeut Yee
and then a Chau Jeit Yee, that they were from the north originally. These are not the same at all in relation to the other Choy Gar of the south.
<<<He’s another problem. Hung Gar, that’s from Chi Sim to Hung Hey Koon, IMHO could have been a spin off of Yong Chun He Fa (Crane method of Yong Chun), which was the original Fujian White Crane. I am not sure if Hung Hey Koon passed down actual luohan form in his lines. His other Sihingdei though had luohan form that Hung students such as Lam Sai Wing might have picked up and subsequantly included in the famous Fu Hok Seung Ying.>>>
Well, what I have is a transcript I was given of a Hong Men Hall record hundreds of years old that lists the forms being taught as part of the early hung gar system, and the first form listed is Xiao Lohan, which really surprised me!
<<<This is rather hard to visualize not to mention that Shuai Jiao as it is known today do not use forms or long patterns as their training methodology. So it’s hard to imagine Shuai Jiao is one and the same as Luohan. It could be said that there are Shuai elements in Luohan but it’s just too hard to link the 2 “systems” together for me. Now even Shuai elements don’t have to come from Shuai Jiao. Unless there are records to proof that there were Shuai Jiao people exchanged knowledge with Shaolin. Would such record exists?>>>
If you know Shaui Jiao and Lohan, it’s easy to see this.
If I could physically show you, you would see it right away.
Shuai Jiao was immensely popular in ancient times all over China, tournaments gathered 100s of thousands of spectators. It was common for people engaged in military or bodyguard functions to know it and many other people too.
<<<Well, this is again very hard to believe. I am sorry but as far as I am aware Tongbi similar to Shuai Jiao didn’t have long forms. Tongbi used to have 24 moves (3 sections of 8 each.) So, I am really really having a hard time to see long form based system like Luohan comes first. I might have missing something in your post somewhere. I just don’t see it, sorry. >>>
Hmm? Yes, of course, Shuai Jiao and Tong Bei are loose techniques based styles. What Lohan style did was ordered their moves into forms. They consolidated and amalgamated, like Shaolin is want to do, Shuai Jiao and Tong Bei loose techniques and developed the Lohan forms, which can be practiced at various levels, from all strike based to all throws based applications.
Many forms from many styles are amalagamated from tons of loose techniques.
What often looks like a group of strikes in some forms is just the mini-moves inside one throw in Shaui Jiao.
My Shuai Jiao teacher uses 18 Lohan Fist form to teach beginners stuff, we both have analyzed the Lohan forms together to show how each move is easy to do as Shuai Jiao takedowns instead of strikes. I teach Shaui Jiao at my school that I run and I use Lohan forms to start people off after teaching the loose techniques and students are familiar enough with them to try seeing the takedowns inside forms that look like they are only striking.
I can easily take any form from any Chinese style and do the whole form as Shuai Jiao.
Shuai Jiao is the earliest root of all Chinese martial arts, every move in any form has an equivalent move in Shuai Jiao. Sure, a lot of Shuai Jiao today, like a lot of styles, is done robotic like, but not the better taught ones.
<<<I am not from the 7 stars Mantis lineage. I am from the Taiji/Meihwa Manits lineage. I am also the minority in not buying the story of 18 styles forming the Shandong mantis system as we know it. >>>
Well maybe, but as I said in a previous posting here, I have a background in anthropology and I use anthropolocial methods to trace the evolution of forms over time and place. And, for sure 7 star Mantis when analyzed boils down to mostly a mixture of Tai Tzu Quan, Han Tong tong bei, and Fan Tzi Quan. I can show you Tai Tzu Quan forms that if I didn’t tell you what style it was, you would guess Mantis instead. All moves in all the mantis forms trace back to equivalent moves in these 3 styles and they are mentioned as the root styles of these “18 masters”. What it looks like to me that Shandong mantis was developed as an anti-Shaolin style, as a style to counter act Shaolin styles.
So, what’s your theory.
<<<If you do have an old hand drawn manuscript of “Shaolin Authentics” or “Duan Da Mi Ciao” (and any varation thereof), you would indeed be a very lucky man because we would all want to get our hands on it. When you say copy this wouldn’t be the one by Wong Hon Fun?>>>
I’ll have to look and see. It’s just a photocopy of an old manuscript. It was published in a book, it is available if you dig around.
<<<I agreed nothing mysterious but I am not sure about " mantisized". I have seen a few versions and practice one of the 18 Luohan based on the manuscript. Non of the versions that I know is “mantisized” nor there are moves from mantis in them. However, there are element that seems to share with Classical Tanglang Neigong forms such as Ba Duan Jin Shen Fa and San Hui Jiu Zhuan Huan Yang Fa. >>>
The one I saw took the moves from the old manuscript and added mantis hands to them.
<<<I am just curious as to how it can be proven there was a “real Luohan” form from ancient time? What prompted you to come to that conclusion? That’s really fascination.>>>
Because of Shaolin records saying so and also from tracing the moves of the forms using anthropology techniques, which showed when the moves in the form were developed and what forms from other style borrowed from it and when.
<<<How do you come to this conclusion of such a long form exist pre-Song dynasty?>>>
I know that most pre-Song dynasty styles are mostly loose techniques, of course, sure. But the Lohan forms are known to be pretty old even just based on the line of who taught who, it goes far back to early Shaolin times. Da Hong Quan is 108 moves, its a buddhist number, but really it is because it is a bunch of small forms strung together to make one big one. The 18 Lohan Fist form is about 24 moves in length total. Xiao Lohan is a lot more, about 54 moves.
<<<Xingyi is said to be living fossil of Song dynasty martial arts. It’s contain no long patterned forms but indivdual moves. Granted they would link the 5 fists and 12 animals to a “form” but that’s not particularly long more than 50 moves. A full length of 108 moves form pre dating Song is very hard to believe. But that’s perhaps my ignorence?>>>
See the above. Also, yeah, I agree about Xingyi, but the 5 fists are not part of the original style, the 5 fists are from Shanxi province styles, it was practiced there BEFORE Ji Long Feng went there to teach Xin Yi Liu Hu Quan.
The 12 animals is a modern form, extracted from various forms to use as a teaching device. The few truly early Xin Yi forms are very short, yes, less than 20 moves.
The only long forms that I know of that pre-date Song are the Lohan forms, which in essense are lumped together short forms, that I will conceed to you, friend. Thanks - Sal
[/B]
I saw pictures on another forum of a 18 lohan form done by a Mantis sifu. It looked very similar to the Choy Lee Fut form.
If anyone is interested i will find it again & put a link.
Yes, post the link!
Sal
The 18 Lohan forms that I and others know are almost 2,000 years old, like most of the original Lohan forms. That has been well documented and well perserved in Shaolin both within and outside the temple. Lohan are the oldest Shaolin forms.
2,000 years old - are you sure about that date? The earliest that I’ve been able to date the existence of the Lohan in Chinese culture in general is around the 7th century. They don’t really become popular until the 9th or 10th. Sure, that blows the whole 18 lohan originating with Tamo theory, but we’ve been discussing our skepticism of Tamo elsewhere. When you look outside the martial arts into general Chinese history, a lot of our creation myths fall apart.
Yeah, I allways thought Da Mo was credited with developing the Qi Gong, and later the Monks applied them to martial practice, thus creating the Louhan system.
Agreed
Hi Sal, I fully agree with you here.
Have you ever watched Ma Kim Fong’s Luohan style? I have learnt some form from my sifu Chan Kowk Wai, who was a student of Ma Kim Fong in Hong Kong.
I have never found out the origin of that style.
(by the way, I have some doubts about antiqueness of that “18 luohan form” you wrote me some time ago, I think it was standardized by Cai Lung yun)
Kindest regards
Horacio
Not sure if I have seen Ma Kim Fong Lohan, even so I’d like to see it.
Is it a southern KF Lohan style?
The 18 Lohan form that we are both referencing here (that Frank DeMaria teaches) had been indeed popularized in English book by Cai Lung Yun, but he didn’t standardize it.
I have found two different much older books than his that are just about this form, the 8 Step Linking Form (Ba Bu Lian Wuan), and the Wind Devil Staff forms, and there is long discussion about these forms being very ancient in Shaolin (8 Step form is from Tong Bei style originally and taken in by Shaolin eventually), like the Xiao and Da Lohan forms.
AND, my teacher David Chih Young Lin, was taught this form from a lineage that is quite seperate from Cai and taught by people older than Cai Lung Yun is in age today. My teacher didn’t know about Cai teaching it too, he said the form goes way back.
Also, Russ from Russbo.com showed the form on his website, but he didn’t know the name of the form.
I want to know who did Cai learn it from?
Well, maybe calculations wrong, but the form can exist before the Lohan were attributed to it.
Song Dynasty is from over 1,000 years ago and
the Lohan forms, not necessarily that they were called that in ancient times, are in fact the step by step moves of Shaui Jiao throws if done in combinations of moves instead of strikes, so that means the moves in the forms are from before the Tang Dynasty. And Shaolin always say that the Lohan forms are the oldest forms that they have, which makes the forms over 1,500 years old, more accurately.
Sal,
Ma’s Lo Han is a Northern Lo Han style.
Luohan Quan
There is a lot of discussion over terms such as ‘original’ ‘oldest’ most ‘complete’ had to be etc…in this thread that are unjustified.
Luohan as a style or qigong has been in use for many years. To mention facts of 1000 (or worse still 2000) years ago is fairly unjustified without considering all aspects of ‘luohan’ such as the route of 16 and the addition of the Fuhuluohan and xianglong luohan.
as examples:
Current Songshan shaolin Luohanquan and the other ‘luohan’ forms such as the 18 luohan hands series, luohan palms etc are like most current shaolin sets/forms based on Xiao/Da hongquan since the real practitioner of that particular branch was Miaoxing (that happened to dy during the battles earleir).
There is the Luohan Men (Luohan Division) which is one of the major styles arising from the Qing dynasty shaolin Weituo pai.
Another northern luohan style is represented by Luohan Shen Da as taught to the famous Wan Laisheng.
Fujian has its own Luohan style characteristic to region
Singapore/Malaysia also has their Luohan…etc…
In terms of qigong and finding the original something again this is futile since the aims are simple to promote good health, longevity and improved martial skill etc… to own or claim, to adhere or cling to a thing or set of routines/methods as ‘original’ luohan or other would go against the term of ‘Luohan’ in the first place.
Oh, and all chinese martial arts have elements of striking, throwing (Shuaijiao), locking, etc…within. It is the practitioner or socalled master who failed in their learning to emphasise only one.
Also, principles of Tongbeiquan would be in contradiction to luohan as practiced by songshan shaolin today.
Regards
Wu Chan Long