Order in Shaolin?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
1

I would like to start a civilized conversation on the Shaolin Cirrriculum and how it’s changed since it’s reopening. I was wondering about the forms taught there. They have a long list but alot of people complain that these were complete systems and that the one form is all they have left. From various sources I have found that this is probally true, take for instance the creation story of Wu Chu Chuan (Ngo Chu Kun). This style was supposedly created in order to preserve some of the dying arts of Shaolin. It seemed that alot unorganization in the martial training at shaolin and that alot of monks new completely unrelated SYSTEMS. My thinking is that the new order is preserving a little of some of the popular sytems, what are your thoughts? Do you feel this is benificial?

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net

2

They actually do have a good sized curriculum from what I have learnt about the system taught there.

most importantly they teach “small red boxing” and “large red boxing”, these are fairly old forms from Shaolin.

there are several other forms they teach and of course the Wu Shu guan, outside the temple walls teaches all the competition wushu forms and it is from this school where the monks of the temple are chosen to come inside and learn what is in the temple.

There are a couple of sites that have fairly extensive information regarding today’s Shaolin Temple and teh Wu Shu Guan,

One of the metionables is russbo.com, good info there and there is another fellow who posts here , goes by the name Heming.

Heming is at Shaolin temple and is a member of the secular disciples union. he has access to lots of info and not to mention Gene 'The General" Ching, who just recently returned from the temple and likely has tons of great information to share with us in the magazine-e-zine and here if he will just jar loose with the stuff. :smiley:

C’mon Gene, tell us a story! Tell us a story! :smiley:

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

3

Neo-Shaolin

I don’t decry Shaolin. I would appreciate a little more hard information about it’s sources and development into the present era. Seeing Shaolin practised it looks a definitive style with distinct signatures and sometims very beautiful. But it certainly doesn’t seem a comprehensive manifestation of all styles.

I found very little hard information on russbo.com. His record just suddenly jumps with something like “and then they re-opened the temple”. Hemming seems to has a penchant towards mythology, for instance claiming the SDU has a 1500 year relationship which even russbo (doc) disclaims “any special relationship”.

Even i found some government publication that said they were still trying to research what shaolin once was. They say “an ancient form of long fist”.
It certainly looks as though most of old shaolin has been lost and re-invented. I think modern Shaolin should be called Neo-Shaolin. I don’t have the impression it has all been lost, but it seems the re-inventers seem to have been less than forthcoming in their sources in order to preserve the mythology.

“most importantly they teach “small red boxing” and “large red boxing”, these are fairly old forms from Shaolin.”

Isn’t this just repeating the words of others? Where the audit trail? reference books cited?
…
When monks come out of Sholin and do virtual kickboxing like that NY guy, it hardly seems that a traditional system has been deeply impressed on their being.
To answer the question, i think it really doesn’t matter if they mix systems or re-invent or add on modern popular sustems for the bulk of it, so long as they would be more open and honest about the development of Neo-Shaolin.

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

4

Stumblefist, i swear you’re gonna force me to become a bonafide historian :smiley:

Heming’s site does actually make it clear that the lineage at the current temple was started anew with Fu Yu Hui Ju. this lineage is not the founding lineage of Shaolin but rather it is the current.

i recommended russbo.com, because it does look at what is going on there in the here and now.
Obviously no one is going to get to travel back in time and train, so live with it :smiley:
Either take it for what it is or leave it.
It is after all, your personal choice.

A great deal of the information I have about old Shaolin is primarily religious. The whole martiality of the temple is sketchy at best.
Besides, if I did give you and ISbN number for a book would you make the effort to obtain it? Or are you merely making arguments?
Arhat boxing is considered “old”, big red and small red were practiced by Hai Deng.
Hai Deng was the first martial monk from pre-1928 to return to the temple at the behest of the prc.
Hai Deng taught the big red and the little red.
Hai Deng was duped by the prc and used to make the temple into a tourist attraction by giving validity to legends that were present in the minds of the populace.
when hai deng died, he had to be replaced, he was replaced with modern wu shu artists, because that was all there was and they were the only ones willing to do it.
modern wu shu had to come from somewhere didn’t it? granted, there is a lot about it that is not martially applicable but the training is rigorous and more difficult than what is spoon fed to your average western martial artist.
anyway, I think that people just enjoy being critical for a variety of reasons, me, I’d rather look, listen, learn and understand.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

5

I too would like to know what was taught and HOW it was taught before 1928. I think most of us agree that THIS was real Shaolin Kung Fu. How much of today’s Shaolin pre date 1928? I see a bunch of “Shaolin Monk” video’s in the web store, many are called Traditional. BUT, are they really Shaolin skills that pre date 1928?? or new stuff made up for today? Tea Kwon do was created in the 1950’s and they call themselves traditional, so what do they [video’s] mean by traditional?

Do the senior Soldier monks practice Louhan, Hong Chuan, Five animnals, Tai Tzu and the Da Mo Chi Kung sets? If so, WHERE did they learn them? did the original monks actually find someone to pass thier skils to? and it was then re-taught to todays monks? Or is most of what they do there recently made up and bears no resemblance to the original. And IF it is all made up recently why bother following them, when we could just do the same thing ourselves.

Comments anyone?

Royal Dragon

“Chi is Chinese for Spinach”

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

6

..

i read that there were four old monks that came back to the temple, but now there is only one alive. i doubt they would have taught the monks the number of forms they know. they were probably learned from various schools nearby. just look at the new shaolin videos that came out. i’ve never even heard of some of the forms.

as for the different styles, at very least, they are documented in the shaolin temple’s library of old books, which details every form and application, or so i’ve heard.

why is everyone so suspect of the modern shaolin temple? they never lose challenges. their fighters win in national full-contact fights consistently. they practice traditional forms. they practice in traditional ways. 3 hours of horse stance training anyone?

as for performing for the public, monks did this five hundred years ago as a way to get food or money. besides that, it is an investment of the government.

i won’t try to impress people with a “scholar’s” view of things, because they are usually wrong, and because records are very sketchy at best in China. As for reference books, well, if any book claims to be a “reference” of the history of shaolin kung fu, i would be highly suspect of it, as those sort of books are not written by the people that actually know what is going on at shaolin. please, if you know any books that are authoritive about the history of the traditional and modern shaolin temples, please advise. :rolleyes:

7

I like the eye rolling thing…

Basically, I want to know HOW it was prior to 1928. Just because they are good now, does not mean they are teaching the time honored Shaolin system perfected and taught in the pre 1928 curriculem. I just want to know what it was that was taught and how it was taught back then, and how much of the original system made it through to today.

It’s simple really, I’m still going to do what I do now, regaurdless of the answer, but I still want to know.

I supose it’s for the same reason we learn world history in school as kids.

“Chi is Chinese for Spinach”

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

8

Kung fu never has been and never should be “static”. It should constantly be evolving, changing and improving. To keep the old things that work well is a good idea, but to stagnate in sameness is bad for any course of study.

The Shaolin knew it then, and they likely know it now.

Metamorphosis -is- the tradition.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

9

Shaolin pieces

Kung Lek:
OK, i didn’t get hemmings site yet, it was under work or something last time. so the “fu Yu Hui Ju” sounds reasonable, although he tends towards the mythic on russbo.
Yes, russbo site is great for a lot of current information AND there might be pertinent information to this topic under the discussions where a lot of informed people have posted and others asking the exact same questions as here.

“Obviously no one is going to get to travel back in time and train, so live with it
Either take it for what it is or leave it.”

Thaose aren’t the only options. Ya got me all wrong! I live with it, i want to see the originators of neo-shaolin more honest about it. I’d rather know whatever there is, if any of the real story than a myth. I don’t think the record is completely dead. Also comparative study of systems and movements can help.

“Besides, if I did give you and ISbN number for a book would you make the effort to obtain it? Or are you merely making arguments?”
…
I doubt isbn numbers for old chinese texts , but that is precisely my bent. Ii was thinking in terms of chinese texts and getting some help from a translator. Even references in literature and folklore can help. For instance, regards wudang Zhang San Feng is generally considered a myth but a study of folklore and practices i.e. his statues in toaist temples might shed some light on the subject.

“Hai Deng was the first martial monk from pre-1928 to return to the temple at the behest of the prc.”
We don’t know how much of a piece or accurate piece of Shaolin that was or even how far back that goes. But it is good information and brings in a piece of the puzzle.

“when hai deng died, he had to be replaced, he was replaced with modern wu shu artists,”

There you go…thus neo-shaolin. They should say so instead of alll this “shaolin is very old and the source of all kung-fu” instead of actually some remants of some surviving kungfu has re-invented shaolin. So neo-shaolin comes from outside shaolin not inside.

“modern wu shu had to come from somewhere didn’t it?”
I don’t contest that and i respect the sources. I don’t think they revealed all their sources and how they developed Wushu either. Covering up and then losing the sources damages the development. Not so much covering up as just an instinct for survival. Like how many wushu books from Beijing or the Sports University do you actually see an author dare put his name on it?
Perhaps Shaolin and Wushu cold have a more natural development if there were government assistance in tht form of grants but not government control. Like for some sports in the West.

“but the training is rigorous and more difficult than what is spoon fed to your average western martial artist.”

Oh,no, i’ve been to the city, not going back to the farm. Rigor and more difficult and souless fierceness is not good enough for me.

“anyway, I think that people just enjoy being critical for a variety of reasons, me, I’d rather look, listen, learn and understand.”
…
Listening, looking, learning and understanding is also done through critical analysis.
Don’t mix up critical analysis with criticism.
A lot of thi is not practice, just an intellectual pursuit.

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

10

Development

“Kung fu never has been and never should be “static”. It should constantly be evolving, changing and improving.
The Shaolin knew it then, and they likely know it now.
Metamorphosis -is- the tradition.”

Continuous development within a style by a master or group of masters is not the same thing as well … the complexity of this thing: re-invention of an art from scattered and uncertain sources with political control for external and internal political purposes, many of those reasons which relate directly to the problems of a totalitation government in trying to stay in charge.
The thing make take some time, to settle back into natural process.

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

11

Time and Tradition

I echo Royal Dragon’s sentiment. It may be unknowable, but rather i suspect what little is known is being disguised or withheld in order to promote mythology.

Plastic Squirrel said:
“as for the different styles, at very least, they are documented in the shaolin temple’s library of old books, which details every form and application, or so i’ve heard.”

The library is secret. There is a monk in charge, he is bio’d in Russbo.com. But the library was burned umpteen times. For all we know what they have got in there is a collection of 1940 “Wu Xia” novels. However, that monk (can’t remember his name) is working on a publication with beautiful illustrations from sources in the library.
We can’t expect them to reveal their secrets, but at the same time we can’t be expected to believe "book sources: without any proof. Not even a photo of the library.

“why is everyone so suspect of the modern shaolin temple? they never lose challenges. their fighters win in national full-contact fights consistently. they practice traditional forms. they practice in traditional ways. 3 hours of horse stance training anyone?”

No, That doesn’t make traditional or the best kungfu. Traditional is a body of knowledge, recorded , remembered and developed hundreds of years. Not just claiming but living through practice an a significant number of practicioners. Traditional takes experimental practice over time. Moreover, physical fierceness is not enough. Quality, not blind muscle rules the day. The type of coaching and spiritual development must be incorporated into the practise. That takes a long time to develop. It’s not enough to practice a tradional form, that doesn’t make traditional. The practice methods, the type of training makes the difference. That’s developed fom time. They haven’t had enough time yet.

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

12

stumble- there are plenty of texts from old that have been republished and they now do have isbn numbers :smiley:

I’ll see what I can find :slight_smile:

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

13

Do you think it’s possible, with enough research, its possible piece together a typical training day from the pre 1928 temple? Is there enough written down, that survived to today to figure it out?

Personally, I want to know which sets were created recently, and which go back to pre 1928. Or maybe more specificall when each set was created and who created it and why, so then I could decide wheather or not I felt it was traditional or not. I want details, details, details.

As for the evolution thing, I belive the Masters that developed theses styles had much more LIVE combat experiance than we will ever see. They designed these systems to teach someone how to fight like they do. theses systems were designed to go form ridged and defined curriculems for teaching basics and principals and technique to a totaly free formless fighting. It seems to me, that once one has mastered the system, which is a tool of training, then adaptabilty and flexibility is the M.O.

I want to know what the creative geniusses knew, and the only way to do that is for me to learn the same way they taught thier students. This is not possible if the “New” Shaolin is no longer teaching the same way. Plus, if they are making up new forms and “calling” them traditional (as if they were pre 1928) forms, then I might be learning stuff in total opposition to the original and not even know it.

What qualifies theses guys to make up new sets anyway? If they WERE qualified, then they would have to know the original system, and thus making up new stuff would not be nesassary to begin with.

So how do we know we are getting to the same levels of skill as our ancestors, if we don’t even know if we train the way they did?

Comments anyone?

RD

“Chi is Chinese for Spinach”

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

14

Royal Dragon-

What qualifies anyone to “make up a system”. Because they were all at one point “made up”.

Even todays styles and systems are built upon what was already there for the most part.

Newton said “we only see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants”.

This is so true. it began with neolithic man and improved over time. Some branches died out because of a lack of truth and other branches remain strong, bear fruit and more trees are born.

some branches have bitter fruit and others have sweet. you need both to nourish the self in Kung Fu.

I said it before, you can’t go back in time to train at Shaolin, there is only what there is, take it or leave it. There are plenty of proficient practitioners of chinese martial arts all over the world, quite a lot of them have never been to Shaolin but propogate arts of the Shaolin Temple.

hmmmmmmn, curiouser and curiouser said alice :smiley:

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

15

..

royal dragon - wong kiew kit once described the type of life they lived (food, clothes, rules, sleep, training, etc.), but i’m not sure if it was for the southern or henan temple. i’ll see if i can scratch it up somewhere (that’s a lot of digging to find it on his site, so it might be a bit).

i’m also very curious as to how they trained, but i did read somewhere about a former monk who talked about how he trained with his teachers at the temple (pre-1928). he said that they practiced for i think it was between 8 and 13 hours a day, but i’m not sure. i haven’t read the article in quite a while. he also said that his teachers were very powerful, and the sound of one of them practicing iron palm filled the whole area.

16

..

i totally forgot about this, but look at those old paintings and rubbings that are still re-printed on posters, books, and t-shirts.
interesting to see that in some pictures the monks are practicing in traditional silk clothing, while in others, they are in robes as they appear now.

they have some pictures as www.wle.com

for what it’s worth, i like the new shaolin. it’s fighters are already powerful and skilled. it teaches a multitude of forms, and each one is taught with not only basic applications, but many for each movement as you get more advanced. traditional stances are trained extensively, and they use traditional training methods, like golden bridge. besides all of that, it’s such a good model for shaolin schools and otherwise, because it still teaches in traditional ways and with traditional forms, while still pumping out fighters that don’t resort to fighting like children. as far as i’m concerned, this shaolin is just as good as i have ever heard it to be, and probably better. :slight_smile:

17

On qualifacations,
I think that the originators of the traditional styles had exceptional motivation as well as exceptional testing grounds that just don’t exsist today. The original systems were desgined by them as a way of preserving and teaching thier life experiance. Now, once we learn thier systems, we can expand on them, but for us to just throw it all out, make up a new system based on our limited experiance, claim it is the original and traditional system is just wrong and innaccurate. It’s like trying to reinvent the wheel with out under standing what “roundnes” is.

What is being done, is the creation of NEW systems with old names. Now, from where I’m sitten, these “New” systems are being inter mixed with what’s left of the old so we don’t know where th old ends and the new begins. I just want to figure it all out, that’s all.

“Chi is Chinese for Spinach”

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

18

Shaolindynasty

Where did you get the history on Ngo Cho Kun? I practice that art and have read at least 2 different histories. Could you point me in the direction of where you got your information so I can compare notes?

Thanks in advance. :slight_smile:

cxxx:::::::::::>
You’re fu(king up my chi

19

Yodeling

I re-echo Royal Dragon.
Succinct post!

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

20

I learnt the form “Little Red Boxing” many years ago in the UK from Sifu Derick Frearson.
I believe he’d been to the Shaolin temple and learnt it there!

C…