This thread is going to get ugly soon so I’ll say my piece and continue to observe or PM people.
Yes, I think there are some falsehoods in Shaolin-Do and Chinese Shao-Lin Center. I think this happens in many if not all MA to some extent.
TKD 2000 history
Damo
Yang Lu Chuan fight record
Wing Chun’s Nun.
Aikido
The list goes on and on.
If the stuff I read about Sin The’s upbringing true, I think it is an amalgam. The few times I talked to Sin The’ I got the impression there is a lot more going on than anyone suspects. Of course this is my opinion. I mean there is conjecture that there were at least 4 teachers in his original school. What’s to say one teacher didn’t have direct roots to Shaolin?
Remember at one time it was frowned upon to do more than one art. I remember these days vividly. You were supposed to stay in one art forever. Unless you read Chinese you only had the word of other translators. We see what happened to the word Chi. Crosstraining was a big no no. So, here comes a teacher that teaches a little of everything (yes I have a problem with this) in his school. It bypasses the old ways of one art one teacher and you get to train multiple arts. Now, as years pass, it is harder and harder to get out from under this as the MA community opens up to foreigners(Americans).
Now, I could start blasting the CSC’s and Shaolin-Do but what purpose would it serve? There are huge gaps and things in the history that cast doubt on the veracity on many of the claims. People can fight with what they are taught and many people get a good work out. They do let you read up on history (which led me to leave) and the East at least lets you crosstrain. So, if we are going to enter the preservation of CMA argument, we need to beat up the New Shaolin Temple which has now imported Tae Kwon Do.
This is coming from someone who would be considered an outcast, with an axe to grind, by the CSC’s.
Nah. I don’t think it will get ugly. It seems that there’s always going to be an SD thread that pops up where the SD faithful can debate whether what they do is CMA, JMA or other. The only time it gets ugly is when a person new to the forums reads these threads and takes offense to the dialougue.
I would like to continue the discussion though. I think it’s interesting to actually compare concepts in SD to other examples of people here to see what is applicable and where SD’s roots really lay. David?
there was some spiraling occuring. I think you guys are totally allowed your perspective, but on a few of the claims, which is really what was at issue , the claims of the csc, sd and th himself, those claims that have been redacted or removed and so on.
I never said or implied that sd as an exercise regimen was useless. My concerns were dealing with not just the 900 forms etc etc and were/ are more along the lines of calling something one thing when it is not really that thing and the inference that other arts are untrue.
The Shaolin Temples were the equivalent of universities for the martial arts. Masters were professors, each of them a specialist in a particular area of training. Temples were known for a particular style, just like medical schools of today. Monks at each temple still practiced the forms from the other temples, but they specialized in the style for which their particular temple was known for.
This is highly debateable and is an issue that detracts from teh fact that there is one shaolin temple, it is in henan. While many different types of temples may have had influence from teh shaolin way, there is not evidence of other shaolin temples and in fact the whoe southern temple is still the subject of debate amongst the archeologists, anthropologists and various other experts on the subject. Also, Shaolin was/is first and foremost a buddhist religious temple and not a focus point for martial arts alone. The temple has three treasures, of which martial arts is one third. The primary pursuit of Shaolin was Ch’an (zen) it is paramount to Shaolin practice. Do you practice Ch’an?
Shaolin Do is the most complete and comprehensive martial arts system in the world.
Is this statement mere marketing? If not it is a spurious claim and infers that other asian martial arts are lacking. Would it not be better to say that you would consider it a robust and complete system of martial arts? As opposed to what that says?
Shaolin Grandmaster Sin Kwang The’
How exactly did Th garner this honour and where is his name in the rolls at shaolin?
All rights are reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or duplicated in electronic or magnetic media or translated to another language without the written consent of Grandmaster Sin Kwang The’ and the Shaolin Do Association.
The Shaolin Do Association makes no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Shaolin Do Association shall not be liable for errors contained herein or for incidental or consequential damages or loss in connection with the furnishing performance or use of this material.
The Shaolin Do Art, its logos and graphics and its written materials are protected by federal copyright. Only those individuals with valid Shaolin Do teaching certificates may teach the Shaolin Do Art. Videotaping of any aspect of the Shaolin Do Art is strictly prohibited.
If one is not confident in what they think is a truth, is it a truth? Or should a statement like this give pause?
Ie Chang Ming
1880 - 1976
no photo? no bai si? no record.
Su Kong Tai Djin
1849 - 1928
name in the rolls destroyed in the fire? Lost to the cultural revolution?
Your form, does not bear the hallmarks of kwan dao sets. For most, it would be this alone that would allow one to surmise it is a creation of it’s own based upon something else and without knowledge beforehand of teh cultural context of the use of the weapon. Classical weapons, whilc still practiced and while still inclusive of many of the applicatrions the weapons were designed for also have come to bear hallmarks.
‘Shaolin’ Broadsword is often opened with a single handed salute to honour the Monk Hui K for instance. By this hallmark, the broadsword set is identified as Shaolin.
Kwan Dao, on the other hand is outside of Shaolin in particular and it’s set performances pay homage to the legendary general who weilded the weapon, ergo the hallmarks of ride the horse, sweep the beard away and so on.
Your halberd set is fine, like I said JP and yes there are inherent logical things that one can do with a weapon because that is dictated by the size shape and design of the weapon. Your halberd set employs logically sequenced moves that can in turn be extrapolated into applicable moves with the weapon. the influence is denoted by what is not included with the particular weapon and the name you have chosen to call your weapon. were you not told that that is not a kwan dao?
so, all inconsistencies aside, besides the mixed terms and the mixed curriculum is it not safe to say that sd can have it’s roots in shaolin but still be what it is? an american hybrid of asian martial arts? Just think, if you congeled it with mma, you’d probably evenb get a broader spectrum of students.
Of course. I think JP agreed in one of the combined threads. Most of us believe it is a hybrid, I know I do. Yet, many people feel we would be coping out by saying this or ask why we don’t fix things.
Well, unless you start an offshot you can’t. If you enjoy training on the west questioning or cross training WILL get you kicked out of the art.
There is a school in Texas that has a BJJ teacher coming once a week.
Wow, cross training will get you kicked out? That seems silly. What you do on your own time seems like your business. Of course, where people find time to cross train is a mystery to me, but you know to each their own.
David,
Just curious who taught you and what style (s) did / do you study , is it from Shaolin, have you seen the actual papers or just copies? , if it is the one you do now then other than what your teacher told you and your research, you make claims that have no basis of fact. You cant prove something is not Shaolin just because it does not have a beard pull or doesent look like what you have seen or do or what ever.
My first teacher said you have to adjust your Jock for it to be Shaolin haha
" how stupid". I assure you SD is not Japanese or Korean or Okinawan or Phillipino or a mixture of them I havwe studied them and know the 5 elements of power of those countries styles. SD is CMA from Shaolin
Admit you have seen all the over 450 styles of CMA and have seen all their forms and perhaps we will give you credit for your statements. Until then admit you are not 100% sure and let it be. Also even the old TV series implies that there was a Fukien as well as Henan/Hunan ive heard both , Temples. So to say there was only one temple is Ludicrous.
SD has many different “styles” Black Tiger Mantis Hua Chang Chuan Hung Gar Lohan thus it is more than just one style from one temple by just one teacher. KC:confused:
not to agitate…but, the old tv series isn’t exactly a true representation of shaolin and in fact there is a considerable body of knowledge regarding the founding and practice of Ch’an, medicine and martial arts in the shaolin temple.
henan and hunan are two different provinces henan is north of the lake and hunan is south, but honan may be what you are thinking of? this is the old way of saying henan in romanized spelling.
you say that it’s not japanese and yet you use Gi’s and perform kata and workout in a dojo and yet call it a pure cma? and shaolin to boot.
I’ve had a few teachers and still learn now. Some had insufficient pedigrees and others have very good ones. This doesn’t take away from what’s what in regards to what is known as fact and what is propogated by people who haven’t bothered to actually study the actuality and instead choose to cling to ideas that are popular myth more than fact.
China is the longest unbroken civilization on the planet. There have been different emperors and dynasties etc etc, but to think that the history isn’t rich and robust and covering a great deal of things and instead only having “the old tv show implied there was a southern or fukien temple” is, to me, ludicrous.
<<Quote:
“The Shaolin Temples were the equivalent of universities for the martial arts. Masters were professors, each of them a specialist in a particular area of training. Temples were known for a particular style, just like medical schools of today. Monks at each temple still practiced the forms from the other temples, but they specialized in the style for which their particular temple was known for.”
This is highly debateable and is an issue that detracts from teh fact that there is one shaolin temple, it is in henan. While many different types of temples may have had influence from teh shaolin way, there is not evidence of other shaolin temples and in fact the whoe southern temple is still the subject of debate amongst the archeologists, anthropologists and various other experts on the subject. Also, Shaolin was/is first and foremost a buddhist religious temple and not a focus point for martial arts alone. The temple has three treasures, of which martial arts is one third. The primary pursuit of Shaolin was Ch’an (zen) it is paramount to Shaolin practice. Do you practice Ch’an?>>
hi david,
the above quote from the sd website i think is a laymans decription of how the shaolin temples operated. it was probably geared towards people who have very limited knowledge of cma and chinese culture.
in a few of yang jwing mings books he also states that there were several “shaolin” temples in china and that they were all loosly connected. i have also seen a few other source’s that say the same thing. you might want to check and see where he got his information.
the school in bandung indonesia that grandmaster sin the learned at was not a religious organization it was a martial arts school. fwik.
i happen to follow the teachings of buddha (total coincidence i became buddhist as a child and started shaolin do as an adult.) i do think it is important to at least have a basic understanding of chan when studying shaolin martial arts but it is not necsessary to become buddhist or even for the teaching to be part of your life, in the american culture most or many people are christian and i think they should stick with that part of their culture. on that note one of the best ways to express chan is to not even know it exists. do your work eat sleep and poop.
That’s just wrong. My teachers have no problem with what I do in my spare time. Sorry to hear that godzillaking.
As for the rest of this, David never did tell me his martial aplication for the moves that are not present in my form. I pressume from his answer that my form did not, in his limited perception, display JMA pole arm techniques in it. So, and David correct me if I’m wrong, wouldn’t you admit that at least this one form appeared to be of CMA origin even if it wasn’t a Kwan Dao form by your standards. If those standards were once in the form but removed (as I’ve seen done by some other CMA schools) then you might have had a different opinion.
And I think that SDIC is right. There was the main temple, but there were others that developed their own brand. If you want to consider the henan/hunan temple THE temple that’s probably the most accurate perception. But more CMA styles than SD consider there to be more than just THE temple. Maybe the old kung fu show had it right after all.
I think it’s very hard to make any kind of solid convincing historical arguement either way without a solid understanding of Chinese. While more and more translated books are showing up here in the U.S., there’s still a great deal of material most of us just don’t have any kind of access to. Most just rely on what our teacher’s tell us. Even recent events get warped horribly in retellings (anyone remember the BS surounding the Shaolin-Do tablet at the rebuilt temple?) I can only imagine what happens to older oral histories.
Question 1
My school’s grandmaster claims lineage from a monk who was purported to be a grandmaster from the Fukien Temple when it was burned down in the late 19th/early 20th century. However, in my research the only places I see that mention him are affiliated with my school, and he does not seem to be mentioned in other historical accounts.
Have you ever heard of this man? How does he fit in with the history you described in one of your question and answer series? My feeling is that he would be hard to miss because of his unusual appearance and him supposedly being the first to master all styles of kungfu at the Shaolin Temple.
Chris, USA
Answer 1
The southern Shaolin Temole in Fukien (Fujian) Province was burnt down by the Qing Army in the middle 19th century, which is about 150 years before now. The one burnt down in the early 20th century was the northern Shaolin Temple in Henan Province, and that happened about 80 years ago.
In kungfu circles, when one talks about the burning of the Shaolin Temple by the Qing Army, it was the southern Shaolin Temple in Fujian, and not the northern Shaolin Temple at Henan. Many people may not be aware of this fact.
They are also not aware that the burning of the northern Shaolin Temple had nothing to do with kungfu. Traditional kungfu was no longer practiced there for a long time. During the Republican period after the Qing Dynasty had fallen, the northern Shaolin Temple was occupied by a warlord, and a rival warlord attacked and burnt it.
Further, most people are unaware that there were actually two southern Shaolin Temples, one at the city of Quanzhou and the other on Nine-Lotus Mountain. Both were in Fujian Province, and both were burnt down by the Qing Army.
The southern Shaolin Temple at Quanzhou was public. It was built during the earlier Ming Dynasty. When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming, Ming royalists relayed around the temple in an attempt to restore the Mong. The Qing Emperor, Yong Cheng, burnt the temple with help from Lama kungfu experts from Tibet.
The other southern Shaolin Temple at Nine Lotus Mountain was secret. It was built by the Venerable Chee Seen, who escaped from the first southern Shaolin Temple. This second southern Shaolin Temple was burnt by the Qing Army led by Ko Chun Choong, the military governor of Guangdong and Guangxi, with the help of his master, Pak Mei.
It was the northern Shaolin Temple in Henan that the present Chinese government has restored. Neither traditional Shaolin Kungfu nor Zen (Chan) Buddhism was practiced at the northern Shaolin Temple at the time of its restoration. It was only in the 1960s or 70s (I cant remember the dates exactly) that the Venerable Hai Deng, a well known Shaolin kungfu master and monk, was invited to the northern Shaolin Temple to teach kungfu. However, probably due to policy differences, he soon left the temple, and modernized wushu was then taught in numerous wushu schools around the temple.
I have read in the internet about the grandmaster you mentioned but do not know much about him. As both southern Shaolin Temples in Fujian were burnt about 150 years ago, it would not be possible for the grandmaster to be at either one of the temples. I agree with you that as his outward appearance was so unusual, he would not be missed had he been at the temple.
No genuine master would claim that he had mastered all styles of kungfu at the Shaolin Temple, because doing so would simply reveal his ignorance that the Shaolin arts were (and are) so wide and deep that it was impossible to do so. It was also not necessary. Mastering just one style at the temple would be sufficient for all his kungfu purposes, although some talented masters might have mastered a few styles. But attempting to master all the styles of Shaolin Kungfu is like attempting to master all the languages in the world, which would show that he was not only unwise in his use of time but also ignorant of kungfu philosophy.
The grandmaster might be quoted out of context. Or the claim might have been made by his over-zealous followers.
I don’t understand what makes WKK sush a respected source… he makes some loony claims that would get other teachers thouroughly trashed, and from what I’ve seen, his students are even worse (lots of crazy stuff about using qi to learn a style without ever having studied it… nuts). Anyway, that being said, he does bring up couple basic logic arguements that most people should be able to figure out (that’s most of us have made before too) and some common knowledge (at least amoung Chinese kungfu teachers) about the Southern temple legend (as far as it being burned down long before the hairy monk would’ve been there).
The “pole arm” form as you call it, looks to me like a CMA type form. I think the crux of the resulting criticisms stem from calling it a kwan dao form. It does not look like any kwan dao form I’ve seen. It does look like horse cutter forms I’ve seen.
In regards to what may be missing, I can’t say anything is missing by design of the form. However in comparison to other “kwan dao” sets I’ve seen. This form had virtually no backhanded (for lack of a better way to put it) upward cuts to bow stances that are evident in every other kwan dao form I’ve seen. In addition the SD form done by JP had loads of vertical/diagonal chopping techs but less than the norm cutting techs that I’ve seen for a kwan dao.
All the same though, the form looked CMA-ish enough.
But I’m no one, and no one cares or needs to care what I think anyway.
It’s no more looney that burning a baby to death after touching it with hot hands, or climbing a pole like a “golden snake” with no arms or legs, or swimming with your pecs, or being able to discern there are 13 different people in a room instead of 12 because you could hear their breathing…WKK fits very well into present company.
And I agree with BN9. JP’s form was CMA enough. It doesn’t look like my Kwan Dao form, but mine doesn’t have the beard throw or the horse riding either.
Agreed. Sin The’s book is complete B.S. But I don’t know that fighting crazy with crazy will help any Though I suppose that sounds like it could add some entertainment value
I think it is irrelevant if he was real or not. One thing is for certain, GM Sin The’ wouldn’t know for certain one way or the other: If Su Kong Tai Djian lived, then he died before Sin The’ was born. As such, GM The’ could have only relied upon the word of his teacher that he existed.
Look at the name Su Kong Tai Djian. Su Kong phonetically resembles Si Gung which is loosely translated as “grand master” or “teacher of my teacher.” Tai Djian loosely translated as “Great man” or “Big man”. Certainly this could be a title of honor rather than a real name.
I was reading up on Laozi and the Daoist. It seems that there is a debate among modern Chinese historians whether or not Laozi was a real person of an amalgam of different daoist teachers whose writings were eventually compiled into the daodejing (an example of this debate is referenced here: http://www.archaeology.org/9811/newsbriefs/laozi.html) His name, like Su Kong Tai Djian, cam be loosely translated as “old teacher.”
It’s no secret that GM Ie traveled extensively and studied marital arts in China and Northern Korea (it says so in his letter to GM The’ when we was promoted to GM of GM Ie’s system). It’s no secret that there were other teachers at the school in Bandung where GM Sin The’ and Hiang The’ were taught. Why would a student not rely upon the word of his teacher? So whether Su Kong existed as taught in SD, existed in some other fashion and was known by GM Ie, or is nothing more than a symbol of the art that GM Ie taught is really irrelevant to me.
The history of SD doesn’t concern me. I can use and apply what I know. I trust my teachers can too. I believe that SD is CMA that has taken its own isolated path and evolved into what it is today. There’s nothing wrong with that–its still good kung fu.
JP- Im not familiar enough with Japanese pole arms kata to draw a comparison, i can only go by what I do know, which is cma versions. I’ve already commented. Are you looking for more?
other comments-
WKK is in my opinion, probably not the best source of historical infoprmation about Shaolin.
To practice Ch’an is often misunderstood as “enlightenment while having a dump” or “suddenly i was eating a burger and it hit me”.
I am sorry to say, but this approach is wholly incorrect and I am bemused at how often I hear it, but oh well…lol
There has always been debate about teh actuality of Lao tze. the same as there has been debate about the actuality of Bodhidharma. This is due to a unique practice in many cultures. the practice is to create something and then to partially ensure you don’t have too many detractors, you attribute your creation to a legendry character thereby giving it creedance.
ergo, lao tze may have been a fiction of chuang tzu in order to get the thoughst and ideas to move through society with some cred. Hui Ké may have invented the Bodhidharma character.
Many have certainly used this age old raddish in order to get the ideas put forward. It seems kind of lame, but in context to the judgmental and negative viewpoints of people when they are introduced to something new, it probably has worked.
The history of SD doesn’t concern me. I can use and apply what I know. I trust my teachers can too. I believe that SD is CMA that has taken its own isolated path and evolved into what it is today.
Then you already believe it and that’s fine. It’s probably easier to just bah humbug it all and move along isn’t it.
And I agree with BN9. JP’s form was CMA enough. It doesn’t look like my Kwan Dao form, but mine doesn’t have the beard throw or the horse riding either.
close enough for rock and roll, sure. Your set is korean adaptation of cma isn’t mk?
But I’m no one, and no one cares or needs to care what I think anyway.
This is something I hear alot when arguments get a little heated. Nothing personal, but if you really meant it, then you wouldn’t have said anything.
I think it’s very hard to make any kind of solid convincing historical arguement either way without a solid understanding of Chinese. While more and more translated books are showing up here in the U.S., there’s still a great deal of material most of us just don’t have any kind of access to. Most just rely on what our teacher’s tell us. Even recent events get warped horribly in retellings (anyone remember the BS surounding the Shaolin-Do tablet at the rebuilt temple?) I can only imagine what happens to older oral histories.
on the first point I think that is a stone cold solid cop out. The information is readily available for the most part. Just don’t go looking ion the martial arts books section when you want to learn history and don’t bother with wushu monks when you want to learn about buddhism. There is a lot of cross polination in religious studies. The reaons why this big cop out is used today still is precisely because oif the faulty nature of oral tradition. People when confronted with the reality and the actual known history who find contradiction will almost always fall back on “there’s no way to know” or “it’s anybodies guess” and then they will hide the book. typical lol.
It’s true that many rely on what their teachers tell them. again, this exposes the faulty nature of the oral tradition, but god forbid anyone should havce to deal with hard realities and bitter.
TO get kungfu you must eat bitter is an old saying. I know this is true. It’s easy to see that some don’t like their serving of bitter. And that’s cool. It’s human nature to not want to be regarded as “that guy” or the purple mark on his face guy or whatever.
I don’t think I ever said SD as an exercise is bad. I’ve always been one to point out that most of the trappings surrounding kungfu teachings and practice in the west are doled out by quite a few people who really don’t understand what they mean and are instead degraded to so much window dressing. Quaint and stupid all in the same moment. That’s some zen! Convoluted fairy tales diminish the value of something when the fairy tales outweigh the reality.
The grandmaster might be quoted out of context. Or the claim might have been made by his over-zealous followers.
That sums up a lot about many things. The way I heard it was M. Su learned the forms, not was the master of everything.
The way it was told about the baby was something such as this…There was a story going around about a sand burn master in another town that accidently burned a newborn when he reached down to pick the baby up which later died of the injuires.
That was it. A story that was going around about something that supposed to have occured in another town. It had nothing to do with Shaolin-Do lineage.
I firmly believe that over-zealous followers and detractors have accomplished much of what we see on the web today. The first group causing much of the second group’s actions.
Though I suppose that sounds like it could add some entertainment value