BSL vs. SSSL: GeneChing's New Topic

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
41

Originally Posted by LFJ
If you see no resemblance between this Kanjiaquan set and the BSL sets then you are being voluntarily blind.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzE1MTcyMzY=.html

What about these?? They seem pretty similar to me!

Set 1

KJQ: Kaishan (open mountain)
BSL: Kaimen (open door)

Set 4

KJQ: Chuanxinchui (pierce heart hammer)
BSL: Chuanxin (pierce heart)

Set 7

KJQ: Meihuaquan (plum blossom fist)
BSL: Meihua (plum blossom)

Set 9

KJQ: Lianhuantui (linking kicks)
BSL: Lianhuan (linking)

The Shaolin Encyclopedia has Kanjiaquan in the Song Dynasty as well.

If it’s number 7 then it’s arguable that the beginning is similar. But, besides some moves that are common to almost all longfist styles, the structure and sequence is very different. In fact, that’s the case with all the Kanjia forms. They’re short and structured differently from the BSL forms. If you look at all of the BSL forms, you’ll notice that they roughly run along two parallel lines with one or two lines connecting them like an I or H form. All of the Kanjia sets seem to use one line. It’s as if someone wanted to break up the BSL forms and change the way the techniques were applied and add their own favored moves. Furthermore, why would the monks create 13 sets? 13 is not a significant number in Buddhism and isn’t 10 the more common number we see in Buddhist related systems?

As far as the names go, it’s just like I remembered, number four seems to be the only one with a truly similar name and even then there’s an extra word (hammer). I’m not saying that the styles aren’t related just like countless other styles under the Shaolin umbrella, they’re just not as related as people are saying these days. They were obviously developed by different masters and to say that Kuo Yu Cheung made up Bak Siu Lum based on Kanjiaquan seems completely false. It may be theorized that both styles date as far back as the Song Dynasty, but there are no actual records from that time to prove this. So if you’re going to state that Kanjiaquan is older and Bak Siu Lum was made up by Kuo Yu Cheung based on some flimsy evidence then I have to cry foul.

42

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1097372]open door and open mountain? The word open aside, there aren’t similarities here.[/quote]

Meanings are in contexts, not in words. The meaning is the same for both
expressions.

Kaishan (open mountain) taken literally (i.e. to cut into a mountain) means to open a mine. But this is only one context. In another it may mean to open a monastery.

Both expressions mean to establish something, or get something started; similar to “open doors” as an English idiom for making new opportunities. As the name of the first set in their series it marks them as the opening set for their system.

Kaishan (open mountain/ open monastery), being the name in the Kanjiaquan system, shows a monastic tie as it was developed at Shaolin Monastery. While Kaimen (open door), being the name in the Bei Shaolin system, is a more secular phrase as it was developed outside of Shaolin.

Moi Fa is a name used in many kung fu styles that are completely unrelated…

the heart piercing… I would have to see the sets. I think it’s been mentioned that they might bear resemblance to each other and that would be interesting.

Again, linked stepping sets are another common thing.

Of course, but the significance is not only the use of all these terms, but the precise placement of them within the two series of sets for KJQ and BSL.

Kaishan/men for both is set #1.
Chuanxin for both is set #4.
Meihua for both is set #7.
Lianhuan for both is set #9.

That’s almost half of the series sharing practically the exact names for the same numbered set in the sequence.

43

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;1097624]But, besides some moves that are common to almost all longfist styles, the structure and sequence is very different. In fact, that’s the case with all the Kanjia forms. They’re short and structured differently from the BSL forms.[/quote]

I’ll get to the structure in a minute, but I don’t think it can be argued that the overall rhythm and flavor of the sets are not similar; not only visually are they similar, but if you practice both you will not be able to deny the similar feeling of the tempo and style of the sets.

If you look at all of the BSL forms, you’ll notice that they roughly run along two parallel lines with one or two lines connecting them like an I or H form. All of the Kanjia sets seem to use one line. It’s as if someone wanted to break up the BSL forms and change the way the techniques were applied and add their own favored moves.

All the old traditional sets from Shaolin Monastery “run on a single line”. That’s one of the characteristics of Shaolin Monastery boxing systems, whereas other regional folk martial arts have a structure more similar to BSL which breaks this characteristic. In BSL history this is because it was developed outside of Shaolin as an alteration of the KJQ system.

Furthermore, why would the monks create 13 sets? 13 is not a significant number in Buddhism and isn’t 10 the more common number we see in Buddhist related systems?

Many Shaolin Monastery boxing sets have 2 roads or 5 roads. These are not particularly significant numbers in Buddhism either. This is a very weak attempt to place BSL at the Shaolin Monastery, or KJQ elsewhere. There are certain standards for what constitutes evidence or proof in regards to historical facts. This would be inconclusive or simply meaningless.

As far as the names go, it’s just like I remembered, number four seems to be the only one with a truly similar name and even then there’s an extra word (hammer).

If that is your standard, then what makes Meihua & Meihuaquan or Lianhuan & Lianhuantui any less “truly similar” than Chuanxin & Chuanxinchui??

I am thoroughly perplexed by this. Anyhow, the third character in the KJQ sets is basically generic (fist/ leg/ hammer). They can be dropped without the meaning really changing at all.

They were obviously developed by different masters and to say that Kuo Yu Cheung made up Bak Siu Lum based on Kanjiaquan seems completely false…

…So if you’re going to state that Kanjiaquan is older and Bak Siu Lum was made up by Kuo Yu Cheung based on some flimsy evidence then I have to cry foul.

I’m not sure who this is addressed to, but I have never asserted such a thing.

In fact, I remember explaining to you previously how evolution works; with examples of apes and humans, and how the theory is not that just in one generation a couple apes give birth to a human. It is just as patently absurd and false to claim that Gu Ruzhang made up an entire system on his own.

You seem to have missed that part, but martial arts evolve in a similar fashion over centuries. What I said to you was that the system of BSL received by Gu Ruzhang had already undergone centuries of evolution, while the KJQ system continued in another line. Hence today we have two systems that share a root but that have evolved into unique systems that are of course not going to be exactly the same.

44

THis is a hugely interesting topic, let’s not let it degrade into a shouting match!
One can be assertive of course!

I am of the opinion that I would need to actually look at the sets. Because so far, I am not seeing the same thing in the songshan shaolin and the KYC bei shaolin.

yes, longfist styles across the board have similarities. Stances for instance and transitions from them. those are consistent.

sequencing and the practical techniques themselves though? I am not convinced that is true.

But hey, like anyone, what I don’t know could fill a warehouse! A big one! :slight_smile:

45

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1097926]THis is a hugely interesting topic, let’s not let it degrade into a shouting match!
One can be assertive of course!

I am of the opinion that I would need to actually look at the sets. Because so far, I am not seeing the same thing in the songshan shaolin and the KYC bei shaolin.

yes, longfist styles across the board have similarities. Stances for instance and transitions from them. those are consistent.

sequencing and the practical techniques themselves though? I am not convinced that is true.

But hey, like anyone, what I don’t know could fill a warehouse! A big one! :)[/QUOTE]

One of my students used to be a BSL practitioner. He has continued to train with what he learned there and from what I have seen, it looks very close to what we do. For instance the first staff form is almost exactly like Yin Shou Gun. The open hand forms are very long fist looking and although I am not familiar with them, they do have that Songshan flavor to them.

46

OK lets get this started again.

originally posted by LFJ
I’ll get to the structure in a minute, but I don’t think it can be argued that the overall rhythm and flavor of the sets are not similar; not only visually are they similar, but if you practice both you will not be able to deny the similar feeling of the tempo and style of the sets.

Sure, there might be a slightly similar feeling and style but thats the case with many longfist styles Ive come across. For instance, you can see a similar feeling and style in Prof. Jous Xiao Hongquan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4FT_ETpcOA). Actually if you look at some other videos of his youd find that theres probably more techniques that are almost exactly like Bei Shaolins than Kanjiaquans. Why dont we just say that this Xiao Hongquan from Taiwan is directly related to Bak Siu Lum too while were at it? I still dont get how a style that doesnt have any of the same lyrics can be the pre-cursor to Bei Shaolin. Its an insult to their lineage to suggest that either Kuo Yu Cheong or Yim Chi Wen made up Bei Shaolin.

All the old traditional sets from Shaolin Monastery “run on a single line”. That’s one of the characteristics of Shaolin Monastery boxing systems, whereas other regional folk martial arts have a structure more similar to BSL which breaks this characteristic. In BSL history this is because it was developed outside of Shaolin as an alteration of the KJQ system.

Were talking about styles that have developed over centuries. Are you telling me that Kanjiaquan stayed within the Shaolin Monastery since the 1100 or 1200s? Even after all of the invasions, wars, and strife in the region? After the temple had been burned down and destroyed and all of its monks either killed or scattered throughout the land on several occasions? Are we to assume just because of some vague and debatably misread reference to Yim Chi Wen in some old document (that is where this whole theory came from by the way) the Kanjiaquan style stayed alive and unmodified for over 8 centuries? Even when there was no functioning Shaolin Temple at certain times?

One of the main problem with this is that a general rule with these old Shaolin styles was that lineage Masters were allowed to add techniques to their favorite set but never subtract any techniques. They could do this provided that the new technique did not ruin the flavor or rhythm of the set, and did not interfere with the transitional techniques. This is why every ancient style of Chinese martial arts evolved into different branches over time. If this hasnt happened to a style thats supposed to be that old then it can only mean either that the masters who were the care takers for the style forgot parts of the original sets or that the sets are a recent creation within the last 100 years. The BSL forms do run on linear lines but they evolved over centuries to include other angles of attack just like Hung Gar and other Shaolin styles. Maybe all of these styles started on a single line but as one might notice with some other styles developed by the monks within the various temples throughout history they usually didnt end up that way.

Many Shaolin Monastery boxing sets have 2 roads or 5 roads. These are not particularly significant numbers in Buddhism either. This is a very weak attempt to place BSL at the Shaolin Monastery, or KJQ elsewhere. There are certain standards for what constitutes evidence or proof in regards to historical facts. This would be inconclusive or simply meaningless.

Perhaps this is my own theory in this whole debate, but I still find it strange that there are so many Shaolin related styles that follow this 10 hand form structure and Kanjiaquan is the only one that I know of that has the odd number of 13. If lineage masters were allowed to add techniques then the number would have remained at 10. The monks wouldnt have just added an extra 3 sets or established 13 as the number of sets from the beginning. Just look at how significant the number 10 is in Buddhism. Theres:

The 10 Precepts
The 10 Hindrances to Enlightenment (or the Ten Fetters)
The 10 Good Deeds or Meritorious Actions
The 10 Powers of a Buddha
The 10 Great Disciples
And the Zen tradition has the 10 Oxherding Pictures

2 and 5 are also significant in Buddhism but you know what number doesnt appear to have any particular significance and isnt even mentioned in any scriptures as far as Ive seen? Thats right, 13. My point is that theres no question the significance of the number 10 is the reason so many Shaolin related styles have 10 core hand forms. So why would the monks make 13 forms for a style within their temple when they couldve kept them at 10. Religion revolved around everything the monks did. They wouldnt have done this.

I’m not sure who this is addressed to, but I have never asserted such a thing.

In fact, I remember explaining to you previously how evolution works; with examples of apes and humans, and how the theory is not that just in one generation a couple apes give birth to a human. It is just as patently absurd and false to claim that Gu Ruzhang made up an entire system on his own.

You seem to have missed that part, but martial arts evolve in a similar fashion over centuries. What I said to you was that the system of BSL received by Gu Ruzhang had already undergone centuries of evolution, while the KJQ system continued in another line. Hence today we have two systems that share a root but that have evolved into unique systems that are of course not going to be exactly the same.

At least you dont think Gu Ruzhang made up Bei Shaolin but this was what was asserted by Sal Calzonieri and the people who originally claimed that Bei Shaolin came from Kanjiaquan. The root between the two is so obscured that it was easy for them to claim such a thing without ample proof. How convenient that after so many years of the PRC standardizing wushu and oppressing those who tried keeping the old traditions alive that they all of a sudden discover this ancient style in its untarnished form and claim it to be the forerunner to Bei Shaolin. Of course they would never just take our own lineage masters records at face value. They have to make up a whole new history now.

47

Hey Guys,

13 is another special number. We have the 13 Claws (Shi San Zhua) fore runner to Shaolins Eagle and Dragon claws. 13 Hammers, an interesting beginning set, much more useful than lian huan quan. Da hong Quan is reputed to have 13 forms also. (dont think there is anyone left who knows them all, I have looked).

But it doesn’t matter. Most of the versions of KanJia quan I have encountered have actually only had 10 sets.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTQyOTE1NjMy.html

This is a bad quality video but it shows the full ten sets. These are roughly the same as Kanjia quan and certainly are from the same source. Although the later sets have diverged somewhat and the performance style is not as clear as shaolin. I have seen other versions of these 10 sets which are closer to the Kanjia quan.

I haven’t seen all the BSL sets so I can’t really comment, but i thought the above video might be of interest.

48

That is pretty interesting. It’s interesting because it would seem there is some variation to the Kanjiaquan sets. These forms are somewhat different than the ones I have seen and at least some of them seem to run along divergent lines (like around 8:40).

One thing I know for sure though is that this proves all the more that Bei Shaolin and Kanjiaquan were developed by different masters. The fact that there came to be 13 forms as opposed to 10 like in the above example, shows that the Kanjiaquan system has been through some revisions just in the last 100 years. I would dare to guess, that just in the last 50 there have been major changes. The fact that many of the sequences and style of the moves are somewhat different shows that.

The Bei Shaolin (Bak Siu Lum) lyrics stayed more or less the same for at least the past 300 years. I know certain scholars still scoff at this assertion because there’s no documents from that time to confirm this, but what they can’t seem to accept is that the further you go back, the more closely guarded from the public wushu styles were. They were so guarded that they were mainly transmitted from master to student without the use of any books or documents. This is how things were done in a great many styles. Records dating back just 100 hundred years are rare. When Yim Chi Wen passed down his style to Kuo Yu Cheong he gave him the lyrics that had been passed down to him from his sifu, Yim Po. Yim Po learned these from Hsu Wei San and so on. To my knowledge there are no actual books dating back before Kuo Yu Cheong that recorded all of this as it was going on, but if there were they very likely would have been destroyed by either the Qing or the Communists if they were found. Also, there weren’t printing presses pumping out books on kung fu back then and unless someone manually copied it, it’s even less likely such a book would exist. The Shaolin monastery itself is probably missing at least 90% of all of the written documents that ever existed there. It baffles me how anyone could ever claim to be so sure about the exact history of a style they never learned and know virtually nothing about.

Like I said, the lyrics aren’t even remotely the same therefore the styles aren’t the same. It’s my theory that the Kanjiaquan masters of old modeled the names of their sets after Bei Shaolin. It’s there that the similarities end though.

49

hello, please post lyrics

50

To Sal and those whom feel that Ku Ye Cheong’s BSL is somehow related to to the Kanji system:

My teacher told me his Bak Sil Lum history some 20 years ago or so. It is the same history that many Sifu from divergent backwards share. Every teacher (Sifu’s that I have spoken with) that has come out of the Jing Wu era have the same history about Shaolin.

There was what was called the “4 Courts”. These 4 courts taught 4 different Northern systems; Eagle Claw, Mi Tsung Lohan, Praying Mantis and Bak Sil Lum. Why is it that every teacher from the UK to South America to Indonesia to Australia to North America all have the same histories about Ku Ye Cheong’s Bak Sil Lum. I have spoken to Eaggle Claw teachers, Mi Tsung teachers, Praying Mantis teachers etc etc and all have the same Ku Ye Cheong history.

Why is it that the Shaolin of today is coming up with a different view point?

Sil Lum Fighter: Can you elaborate on the “4 Courts”? When did they start? When were they disbannned?

ginosifu

51

[QUOTE=ginosifu;1109044]…snip…
Sil Lum Fighter: Can you elaborate on the “4 Courts”? When did they start? When were they disbannned?
[/QUOTE]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard this term. Are these the 4 northern styles taught in Chin Wu, or is there something else to this I am missing?

52

[QUOTE=Northwind;1109194]This is the first time I’ve ever heard this term. Are these the 4 northern styles taught in Chin Wu, or is there something else to this I am missing?[/QUOTE]

These are not the 5 major northern styles; 4 different system that were taught at the Shaolin Temple. Each had it’s own place at Shaolin and after you completed the basics, you could move on to train in any of these 4 styles.

ginosifu

53

The 4 courtyards of Shaolin

This is a common myth. According to legend, at some time during the Ming or Qing Dynasty, Shaolin Temple was divided into 4 courtyards, each overseen by different masters, each practicing different styles. Each year, Shaolin held a contest between the 4 courtyards. The style that prevailed was the one that was telling you this story.

There’s still some discussion of the 4 courtyards. Even when Shi Suxi was alive, the tension between Suxi’s supporters and Yongxin’s supporters were divided into courtyards - Suxi ruled the south and Yongxin the north, or something along those lines. My next cover story, for our Sep Oct 2011 issue, also discusses the 4 courtyards. Of course, this comes from another style’s perspective, so there’s no mention of BSL, Eagle Claw, Mi Tsung Lohan, Praying Mantis or Kanjiaquan for that matter. Same temple, same courtyard tale, different styles. These sorts of parallel creation tales are commonplace in CMA.

54

[QUOTE=bawang;1097268]gu ru zhang boxing is obviously from shaolin. it has the ying yang salute. but u guys arent arguing about that. u guys are arguing about which branch is older so you can claim some sort of superiority.

im from gu ru zhangs hometown. ive never heard of bak siu lum until i came to america. no one in his hometown does bak siu lum. he was a nobody. bak siu lum is insignificant. the most famous boxing from that region is pei county da hong quan.

kung fu from gu ru zhang’s hometown was famous for SINGING while preforming forms. SINGING. bak siu lum has shaolin roots but is very flowery, AND has cantonese taint. u guys need to know your place.

*rubs testicles[/QUOTE]

I’ve visited with Gu Yu Choeng’s Daughter and Grandson near Guanzhou as well as spent time with a large group of practitioners that are carrying on the tradition in various places on the mainland. I’ve spent time with some of my Sigung’s class mates in Hong Kong. I had the pleasure to work out with Leung Kai Ming’s Group in Kowloon.
I maintain good relations with BSL practitioners around the world.

My point is that I have heard many stories but sadly their is no accredited written history, just word of mouth and the story changes with the teller.

Some of the senior disciples of Wong Jack Man have compiled a history that I had the blessing to read which is filled with a great deal of information couple with both fact and folklore. For the record I am no historian but have had the good fortune to be in the presence of many Great teachers and partitioners from the system. Kept my mouth shut and my ears open…

Northern Shaolin as we know it today was formulated into a teachable system during our Great Master’s time at the Nanjing Martial arts (experiment) Institute. The foundational essence is very old handed down from practitioners whom had relied on it for their survival with great success. It is characterized as an outside the Temple style of Shaolin.

To quote my esteem teacher:
“The Northern Shaolin style of Kung Fu as made famous by Grand Master
Kuo Yu Chang is a cumulative set of Kung Fu techniques, both northern and
southern styles, choreographed by the Grand Master into a curriculum that he
taught both in the Nam Jing Kung Fu Institute and his Canton Kung Fu
institute. His curriculum increased throughout his teaching years to include
techniques of many styles. The Grand Master, being highly skilled in the
Northern style of Kung Fu, emphasized the Northern style of Shaolin Kung
Fu in his teachings. Since most of the stories of martial art origins, including
that of the Northern Shaolin style, are passed down by word of mouth, we
can treat all of this as more a part of a legend than facts. In my opinion, the
real history is not as important as the future of the style. The fact that the
Northern Shaolin style is time proven to be an effective and broad based pool
of martial arts knowledge, deserves our efforts to continue to enhance and
develop its values to benefit others in the future.”

What makes the Northern Shaolim Style unique is that its an overall encompassing style that is well rounded and covers all aspects of training and techniques. According to my teacher most systems of martial arts emphasizes specific characteristics, techniques, philosophies, theories etc. Northern Shaolin curriculum covers techniques
for all fighting ranges (long, medium, and short). It covers the applications of
all parts of the body as weapons and tools without biasing on any particular
means such as kicking or grappling. Since most Kung Fu styles are developed to
enhance the inventor’s specialty or cover for his weaknesses, (examples are Wing
Chun, Pray Mantis, etc.), the most difficult aspects of martial arts are not
covered by many styles. These aspects are speed, mobility, agility, power, and
long fighting range. Just because the Northern Shaolin style is broad and
covered these aspects fully, it actually became famous for these specialties.
From my personal insight, the uniqueness of the Northern Shaolim style is
the natural body mechanics, the foot work, the arrow like forward attack
techniques, the feather like retreat skills, and the broad variety of hand and
kicking techniques.

I’ve been all over China and spent time with Monks, Priests and high level practitioners of amazing martial essence and learned a great deal in observations. I have however not seen one that has seduced me to abandon my long practice of the Northern Shaolim system of Martial Cultivations.

55

[QUOTE=Lokhopkuen;1110466]

My point is that I have heard many stories but sadly their is no accredited written history, just word of mouth and the story changes with the teller.

[/QUOTE]

the story does not change with the teller if you are telling the truth.

56

bei shaolin is far from perfect. it has absorbed a lot of negative influences from cantonese kung fu.

57

Whatever you say buddy,

whatever you say:D

58

i cant take any northern styles that do lion dancing and bang those funny pots seriously.

59

[QUOTE=bawang;1110471]bei shaolin is far from perfect. it has absorbed a lot of negative influences from cantonese kung fu.[/QUOTE]


[SIZE=“4”]This is my mother, she is very trong:p[/SIZE]

60

[QUOTE=bawang;1110473]i cant take any northern styles that do lion dancing and bang those funny pots seriously.[/QUOTE]

What about head bangers bro?

[SIZE=“1”]“You’ll never be half the man your mother was.”[/SIZE]