stumble fist-
Ok, I’ve made some enqueries and apparently the term “wu shu” was likely derived from the term “wu xia” as early as the Tang dynasty.
Kung fu is the favoured term in Cantonese while in common speech it is Wu Shu.
peace
Kung Lek
Actually
It doesn’t matter how traditional it is to me, if the skill is good it is good plain and simple. As far as us having less experience than our anscestors we do in certain areas, but we also have experiences they don’t so it works both ways, ultimately I believe styles evolve for what is good for the time. What I was asking is more along the lines of do you feel Kungfu should be a preservation act as alot of people treat it? In Shaolin if they are taking what bits and pieces they can that is good but should people be preoccupied with “preserving the past” Someone here mentioned that Kungfu was alive and always changing(true) so what does reviving dead styles do that is helpful?
P.S. I love the Shaolin temple as it is now and I think it lives up to the legends in every way, after all if we were to recreate Bruce Lee acording to his legends instead of reality then…
Abandit:I got it somewhere on this forum it was a thread on shaolin histroy it was in a long article from cyberkwoon somebody put on here I’ll put it in a new topic for you since I saved it. I also think that histroy is in the book Ngo Cho Kun but I am not sue since I haven’t looked at it in a while.
New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net
History of Words
"Ok, I’ve made some enqueries and apparently the term “wu shu” was likely derived from the term “wu xia” as early as the Tang dynasty.
Kung fu is the favoured term in Cantonese while in common speech it is Wu Shu."
…
Kung Lek:
Thanks.
Both these things are as i suspected. Especially the second because of the sour face of my Guandgdong-born Sifu when he heard that word. 
Now, remember the CCP instituted Putonghua as the “common speech” and has forced it’s assimilation since 1949 (which i think was a good idea). i.e. putonghua is compulsory in all the schools, which is why in many parts of China you’d best find somebody younger to talk to if local accent is a problem.
…
I didn’t say “wushu” was madeup, but perhaps its meaning extended and certainly popularized since 1949. So i still wonder if it was in common usage in say 1935 or the popular references in history?
1928
Well, there’s really not much to be said for what may have been going on in the temple at that time. Venerable Shi Suxi, one of the oldest monks at Shaolin now if not the oldest, didn’t enter Shaolin until 1939. And who knows if it was “real” then? We just fixate on that dates because it is one of the oldest ones we can validate. The Cult. Rev. was hard on Shaolin too, obviously. Both these points a sort of moot to me, since what might have been before is ultimately unknowable for us.
So how was the curriculum reconstructed? Well, a few monks remained and so did a lot of lay people like us. Shaolin culled the resources that remained. Is is the same as before? Probably not exactly, but I find it hard to beleive that it was ever a static curriculum. All the legends of Shaolin led us to beleive that it was constantly transforming to stay in the present. Nothing is fixed. Is it traditional? Chan is traditional - it is a tradition of being in the present moment and the kungfu and chan are one.
The wise Shaolin critic focuses not on Songshan but on Putianshan. That is the new hotbed fro controversy. Songshan is well on its way to become a UNESCO world heritage site, an admirable goal in the greater scheme of things.
How’s that for a story Kung Lek?and as for you guys commenting on Russbo - I was just down to visit my younger bro Dr. Rich Russell, two weekends ago. Monk Shi Xinghong was there visiting and some of us disciples got together for a little reunion. All I can say is that Shaolin Vegas will be rocking if it really comes together. Russbo is a good church going man…
Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com
Hahaha, thanks Gene 
I’m sure you’ll share more in the upcoming mags and e-mags.
best regards
peace
Kung Lek
Shaolindynasty - thanks, I thought maybe you had gotten it out of a book or from a website. Oh well, the search continues
Gene, can you fill us in on the controversies surrounding Putianshan?
cxxx:::::::::::>
You’re fu(king up my chi
From what I’ve seen of the modern monks of Shaolin and their martial arts it is my conclusion that this art is more related in basics, and execution, to modern wushu . These basics were developed in 1961 when modern ‘wushu’ was standardized.
Its techniqu es have their origin with the PCSC (The Physical Culture and Sports Commission.) and are the result of a process that began in the
early 1950’s. The claim to a to pre-1928 martial lineage, let a lone to Fu Yu’s martial tradition, is simply false.
The sc ra mble in recent years to add traditional forms to their art is a patch job and more about 'back filling ’ Certainly it’s not a traditional
lineage. I am certain, Hai Deng knew nothing about most of these forms done by them today.
It is apparent tha t H ai Deng has been more a ‘source of legitimacy’ than a source of martial tradition.
By the way, the term ‘wu shu’ was a term
already in use during the Northern Wei Dynasty, before Shaolin Temple was
built. The character ‘Wu’ in Chinese is made up of two parts one meaning
‘stop’ the second meaning ‘invaders lance.’ and ‘shu’ refers to methods and techniques..
[This message was edited by r.(shaolin) on 10-22-01 at 09:27 PM.]
But who really cares about what is “traditional” and what is not? Why is it important that they or anybody else have an unbroken lineage?
New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net
“But who really cares about what is “traditional” and what is not? Why is it important that they or anybody else have an unbroken lineage?”
Your right its not important to some and they couldn’t care less - and I’m fine with that. However, I for one, am interested.
I find it peculiar that the that often those claim a lack of interest are the same people putting ‘Shaolin’ into their name. I wonder why ?
Hey, what are you trying to say
I started this thread cause I am interested in learning more about the history. I am proud to have the Shaolin name as part of my style cause that’s were the at least the majority of the style came from(actually the southern temple if it really exsited). I like to know about the history of Shaolin but I don’t think it should be used to try to discredit the current Monks. I am just curious about how much patch work they had to do and about things like Hong Chuan being a complete system that used to be practiced there that they may have only part and are they trying to rediscover all the “lost” arts.
New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net
Guess I killed the controversy and we know how those threads do 
New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net