H Gene,
Spot on the right question
However, what do we need a shaolin temple for?
If u took a less positive approach, what downsides would you expect? brand issue? control issues?
Interesed to hear ur views on this.
thanks.
N.
Narval,
Not to speak for Gene but I think he means that the history of the the southern shaolin temple (whether real or perceived) will draw experienced southern shaolin people together.
The LA strip mall draws other types of people together.
Wow. I suppose I could argue for myself with you, Ego, or, like your name forces me to, accept the pretentious attitude you display here as childish and moronic. However, does not everyone with a shred of intelligence wonder where their art’s and others have come from? I don’t care about arguing but really, what do you hope to achieve by insulting myself and other respected members on here. Hasayfu has it right that no matter what the arts will continue to thrive and dispite the true history there can be a unity. Kung fu stresses spirtual aspects that were probably not covered in the military and what could they have been taught? What do the armed forces learn but a couple techniques from a handful of martial arts. Is that complete?
Golden Horse:
I’m not saying that the local villages can’t fight. I’m saying that their standard of fighting is less than the average soldier. Is this logical enough for you. In any case being a butcher or a black smith does not make you an expert a wielding a halbard or a broad sword. there are many subtleties in the weapon that need to be mastered that seperates life and death.
With regard to your comments on Japanese pritates, the chinese army is less equip to deal with hit and run raides on unprotected villages. The chinese military are not particularly sea faring so it is very difficult for them to hunt down the pirates in open waters. it makes sense to contract the shaolin monks who have outpost in the southern coast. Although the japanese steel is superior, the shaolin monks can deploy far larger numbers. it doesn’t take much to fend off the pirates - they are NOT looking for a fight but easy targets to raid. It is more the case of deterence (having shaolin monks) rather than the fighting abilities which reduced the extent of pirate activity.
My experience with southern kung fu is that it is not as complete as northern styles. Uner circumstance southern could work well but the “sweet spot” is much smaller. Perhaps you’re just a lucky guy!
Wong Fei Hung was never known to be a great general or a martial artist except in pop culture. he organized an underground movement that did NOT overthrow the ruling dynasty. he had to get the popular support from the Hun chinese which is why he is remembered today. Most of China now are Hun chinese.
WinterPalm:
"Kung fu stresses spirtual aspects that were probably not covered in the military and what could they have been taught? "
If spirituality is an important ingridient in fighting then wouldn’t the military teach the spiritual aspects to its troops? If so and it was not taught, then perhaps it is not (important)
“What do the armed forces learn but a couple techniques from a handful of martial arts. Is that complete?”
That’s actually not true. Most Generals master a number of styles. speical forces in china today master a range of northern styles. It is these forms of martial arts that slowly found their way into the general population who added more flowery and redundent moves to the system. That is why most kung fu styles today teach 30 to 100 forms. what rubbish!
Well, I was not going to post further on this, but what the heck - one more.
I’m not saying that the local villages can’t fight. I’m saying that their standard of fighting is less than the average soldier
Totally disagree…modern case in point - Vietnam.
In any case being a butcher or a black smith does not make you an expert a wielding a halbard or a broad sword.
I said wu dip do, hoe, horsebench and they also used other weapons..and used them very well…better than the average soldier who only had the rudiments of hack and slash with the Dao.
With regard to your comments on Japanese pritates, the chinese army is less equip to deal with hit and run raides on unprotected villages
On this you are right, they could not fight very well and that is why the Shaolin monks were called in to defeat the pirates. BTW this is not a swashbuckling on the highseas fight…no, no…this battle took place on solid land.
Although the japanese steel is superior, the shaolin monks can deploy far larger numbers.
Larger numbers?!..only a few monks were sent.
It is more the case of deterence (having shaolin monks) rather than the fighting abilities which reduced the extent of pirate activity.
Actually, I believe it is recorded that the invaders were soundly defeated in combat by monks wielding staffs against steel.
My experience with southern kung fu is that it is not as complete as northern styles
Well I do both…and what you say is just not the case. In fact, the Southern systems have much more intricate and complex hand work than the Northern such as Bak Sil lum. The Southern has kicks but not as many as the northern and of course not as high…instead focusing on applicability in combat.
Perhaps you’re just a lucky guy!
You bet, I had the opportunity to learn great Southern Kung fu and to also learn the northern along with Kun Tao.
he organized an underground movement that did NOT overthrow the ruling dynasty.
Actually, Wong Fei Hung joined forces with the Chinese Nationalists to overthrow the Ching Dynasty in 1911 (I am pretty sure this was the year)
he had to get the popular support from the Hun chinese which is why he is remembered today. Most of China now are Hun chinese.
China has been mostly Han Chinese for many hundreds of years.
Wong Fei Hung is revered by most of the Chinese populace, not only because he was Han but for, as I stated before, for his great martial art skills, his humanity, courage, loyalty, contributions to society etc. etc.
If spirituality is an important ingridient in fighting then wouldn’t the military teach the spiritual aspects to its troops? If so and it was not taught, then perhaps it is not (important)
It is not important if all you want to do is kill…but as stated martial art is much, much more than that and thank God it is…otherwise we would all just be grunts.
That is why most kung fu styles today teach 30 to 100 forms
Simply not true.
And THIS is definitely my FINAL post regarding your unfounded statements.
GHD
Golden Horse
“Well, I was not going to post further on this, but what the heck - one more.”
and one more reply for the road.
“Totally disagree…modern case in point - Vietnam.”
Not true. In fact documentaries with the vietnamese on their perspective of the war showed that they had high respect for the US grunt, the accuracy of their shots etc. The vietnamese were however prepared to take heavier casualties such as 3:1 loss to take down a US troop. Other logistical issues had the vietcong in an advantage. they were trained by the north vietnamese and supplied by the chinese. The US had to ship in the resources from 1/2 way round the world. MIG fighters were a match for US fighters so unlike the gulf war the US did not have air superiority. guided weapons were not that advance at that time such that the more nimble (and cheaper ) MIG fighters held a 1:1 kill ratio against the US jets. SAMS were also a problem for the US because ECM (electro counter measures) were in their infancy. You can see that the Vietnam war was not a military force against a peasent army. You may choose to reply!
“I said wu dip do, hoe, horsebench and they also used other weapons..and used them very well…better than the average soldier who only had the rudiments of hack and slash with the Dao.”
No one fights with a Gaddam chair in a battle field. what a stupid weapon. You only see chair fights on WWF! Southern kung fu is only for show.
“On this you are right, they could not fight very well and that is why the Shaolin monks were called in to defeat the pirates. BTW this is not a swashbuckling on the highseas fight…no, no…this battle took place on solid land.”
Depends on their state of combat readiness, in general they fought better then civilians. otherwise why aren’t soldiers monks and monks soldiers? Some of what you say about shaolin history defies common sense.
what i’m saying is that becase the chinese cost line is so large, it is impossible even for a large army to patrol the full parameter noting that there are more pressing matters (ie barbarians) to the north. If monks have outpost in the south, it makes perfect sense to use them. afterall pirates can’t deploy themselves in large enough numbers and look for soft targets to raid.
“Larger numbers?!..only a few monks were sent.”
You need a continual presence. There are many groups of pirates. is not like you beat off one group and no one comes raiding again. a few monks can’t patrol the coast line can they?
“Actually, I believe it is recorded that the invaders were soundly defeated in combat by monks wielding staffs against steel.”
hardened wood is not so easy to chop through. If you have a group of monks with 9ft long poles, it is a difficult task even if you have swords.
“Well I do both…and what you say is just not the case. In fact, the Southern systems have much more intricate and complex hand work than the Northern such as Bak Sil lum. The Southern has kicks but not as many as the northern and of course not as high…instead focusing on applicability in combat.”
northern kung fu has very few high kicks. looks like you’ve been learing wu shu disguized under the label of northern kung fu.
“You bet, I had the opportunity to learn great Southern Kung fu and to also learn the northern along with Kun Tao.”
you’re luckier than you think, with a bit of basic kung fu and wu shu you’ve lived the tough streets this long.
“Actually, Wong Fei Hung joined forces with the Chinese Nationalists to overthrow the Ching Dynasty in 1911 (I am pretty sure this was the year)”
armies weren’t using kung fu at this time!
“China has been mostly Han Chinese for many hundreds of years.
Wong Fei Hung is revered by most of the Chinese populace, not only because he was Han but for, as I stated before, for his great martial art skills, his humanity, courage, loyalty, contributions to society etc. etc.”
it’s basically folk lore. put it this way the chinese have for a long time not have much to be proud about. The Chings were considered invaders, the communist were oppressive. so that leaves the nationalist - No because they were corrupt (or considered to be). thie leaves Wong Fei Hung. not because he was better, but just being an ordinary guy.
“It is not important if all you want to do is kill…but as stated martial art is much, much more than that and thank God it is…otherwise we would all just be grunts.”
No it is not because you want to kill. martial arts should teach you better ways of killing if need be. The objective is combat orientated. if you want spirituality then go to a church.
“Simply not true.
And THIS is definitely my FINAL post regarding your unfounded statements.”
which part have I said does not make sense?
shaolin ego
Hasayfu is right. Kungfu is about family. Our family has spread out around the world now, even to those LA strip malls. Our ancestors keep us together. So it’s nice to have a place to honor them, somewhere in the world, and it might as well be one of these reconstructed temples. People have been trying to build stuff like this since Bruce made up Han’s island. Now a few such places are really open for business. Of course I’m going to support that.
I can’t follow ego - too much reading for me. I can’t spend THAT much time on the forum. Can you resubmit your points 100 words or less?
GeneChing:
If kung fu is about family, then the southern kung fu family must be dysfunctional. Actually, I find it very had to percieve kung fu as being family. isn’t it just a set of movements - what ever stle one is studying.
I perceive that kung fu is prone to more ancesteral acknowledgement than other forms of human endeavor probably with the exception of religion. I find it very difficult to comprehend why this is the case when kung fu should be about fighting plain and simple.
I speak to many people in economics and they do not feel compelled to visit where Adam Smith was born or the lecture hall in which he taught his subjects. Economist tend to be more focused on current events and adapting existing theories to solve real life problems.
why is it then kung fu people dwell on the past. Isn’t it good enough to say that the style was developed some how or other and that having learned it, one can beat up haighly skilled fighters? Isn’t this considered to be problem solving in kung fu language taking the economist analogy?
Ok that’s more succinct
The Kung Fu family is definately disfunctional. But then, I often think all families are dysfunctional. That is the heart of sitcom. 
The thing about kung fu is that it aspires to a spiritual level. It’s implicit in the term ‘kung fu’ - that’s the ‘fu’ of it. But on a basic level, when you really start thinking about studying the art of war, it has to become spiritual, otherwise it’s just killing. Even on that level, you have to either become a detached cold blooded butcher or take some refuge in the spiritual realm. Now, I’ve never killed anyone, not in this lifetime anyway, but I imagine that it would have a negative effect on my personality and the negativity would have to be balanced with some sort of spiritual work. Given such spiritual ramifications, a pilgrimage to the place of origin, whether real or symbolic, is fitting.
Perhaps there is no spirituality in economics, so few are interested in Adam Smith’s lecture hall. It’s too bad. With the current economic state of the U.S., perhaps it’s spirituality that is lacking. The leaders are too detached from the commoners and are commiting crimes against the people. They have become cold blooded killers. Perhaps it’s time to lead that pilgrimage to the lecture hall. After all, we need to remember who owns which acorns, yes?
Some stuff about history…
To EGO:
They were farmers and merchants as opposed to being professional fighters. In contrast northern kung fu has been and continues to be used in the chinese military.
Chinese history is filled with cases in which military discipline deteriorated and many soldiers did not train/could not fight. There’s even this saying: “During Late Qing, a soldier always carried two weapons: his gun… and his Opium Pipe.” If the Qing soldiers were that good, why were they defeated by the Hakka peasants of the Taiping Rebellion?
he organized an underground movement that did NOT overthrow the ruling dynasty.
Yes, but none of the underground movements did actually overthrow the Qing. The Qing’s fall was more or less its’ own doing.
To Gold Horse Dragon:
Actually, Wong Fei Hung joined forces with the Chinese Nationalists to overthrow the Ching Dynasty in 1911 (I am pretty sure this was the year)
Actually that wasn’t Wong Fei Hung, it was his student Lam Sai Wing.
Wong Fei Hung overated!..pleaaase Chinese have built a monument and building in his Honor, he is celebrated in movies and plays adinfinitum…gee how many million Chinese revere his memory, you think this occurs for just anyone without having achieved greatness through action and character?..think you pretty much stand alone there buddy on your view of him.
Well, not really… EGO is rude and annoying, but he’s got a point here. Many heroic things credited to Wong Fei Hung were actually done by Lam Sai Wing. Wong Fei Hung, although a superb martial artist, did not do any heroic deeds which can be verified. Lam Sai Wing did many good things for society but somehow his teacher got all the credit (mostly due to the movies).
geneching:
if you say that kung fu without the spiruitual side is just about killing and therefore should be balanced with a spiritual side, then why is it that other methods of killing which are far more lethal than kung fu does not require a spiruitual side.
take for example a pilot who drops a 2000lb guided bomb on a target. does the training to perform an effective bombing run require a level of spiritual mastery? clearly no!
I maintain that spirituality in kung fu is superflous. one should just learn the fighting aspects of kung fu. the spiritual and i’ll add cultural side are “add-ons” which occurred about the time when kung fu was supersceeded by the gun for battlefield applications.
I’m not saying that spirituality and morality has no place in human endeavour. I’m saying that kung fu is not to place to find such things. there are many philospohical books from the east and west not to mention an abundent of religions to draw on these ideas.
Mingfai:
I know that Golden Horse is a f-ckun 1diot. he is supporting his arguments with myth. he draws his argument from kung fu movies.
but before you get too happy thinking that you have got my approval, I must say that you are little better. Whilst chinese kung fu is powerful, it had become obsolete in the twilight days of the Qing. Perhaps your reference to the lazy soldiers of the Qing signify that a laz soldier with a gun is far more powerful than a hard working solider at kung fu.
As for the Taiping rebellion, soliders would fight if they feel they have the support of the populace. thats been shown time and again in history.
well despite the common useage of the term “Kungfu” it doesn’t mean “martial arts”.
Kungfu is achievement through effort and time. It is achievemnet to a level that surpases the mundane.
A person can attain Kungfu but in reality does not practice it. You can achieve Kungfu in Martial arts, the same as you can achieve it in painting.
So, Martial arts can defintely be practiced, but without the total union of teh whole self “Kungfu” in martial arts cannot be achieved.
It is like denying that the world is round. 
To achieve Kungfu in anything requires the whole of your being and all of your effort to truly and with any appreciable depth, understand the true nature of that path.
So, yes, I agree you can be an excellent martial artist without any spirituality involved, but without the wholeness of yourself, including your very essence of being (or spirit if you want to call it that) you cannot achieve Kungfu.
This is only my opinion garnered through my limited personal experience. I was never one to get into the mysticism or rather over mysticism of anything. I like the cut and dried approach. But I do believe that essence of self is as of much value as is diligent practice of mechanical technique.
An artist is regarded by their ability to place themselves in their work and to have that work recognized as the artists. Without that instilled essence, you have the difference between a cheap painting on a hotel wall and a masterpiece that moves you emotionally at some level.
cheers
I know that Golden Horse is a f-ckun 1diot. he is supporting his arguments with myth. he draws his argument from kung fu movies.
I respect Gold Horse Dragon. More than I would respect you right now anyway.
but before you get too happy thinking that you have got my approval, I must say that you are little better.
Ha! Like I would even care.
Whilst chinese kung fu is powerful, it had become obsolete in the twilight days of the Qing. Perhaps your reference to the lazy soldiers of the Qing signify that a laz soldier with a gun is far more powerful than a hard working solider at kung fu.
Look, you’re the one who is ALWAYS saying that “Northern kungfu is better because it was trained by soldiers, Southern kungfu is weak because it was developed by peasants etc” and all that other crap. That just doesn’t make any sense. Like there were only soldiers in North China, while there was no military based in the South. Besides, soldiers would train skills for the battlefield, which was different than techniques for self-defense on the street. Soldiers would train simple moves with spear and saber to charge at the enemy, they won’t spend a lot of time on empty-handed combat. Just take a look at the military training book Wubeizhi of the Ming Dynasty, or the books from General Qi Jiguang fromthe same era. Hundreds of weapon techniques are shown in those books, while there was only a handful of empty-hand techniques. Does that mean that Northern kungfu (as it was developed by soldiers according to you) sucks at emptyhanded combat?
You’re ignorant in the sense that you simplify and categorize things which you do not fully understand AND then draw silly conclusions out of it. The terms Northern and Southern kungfu does not mean “Soldier” and “Peasant”, “Good” and “Bad”… it is just a geographic difference (and the boundaries are not even officially defined). Northern styles come from the North, Southern styles come from the South. AND THAT’S IT, nothing more.
There are many differences between Northern styles, and Southern styles also differ from each other. Instead of being rude and annoying, you might compare the technical aspects of styles which you favor with those from styles you find weaker, that would be very interesting. But the same ol’ comment of “soldier vs peasant”, saying “North is better than South” every time… what’s the use? Try to behave in a mature, civilized way and discuss things with a objective attitude and technical arguments.
OK, that article and the report it metions have totally failed to show any evidence for the existence of a southern Shaolin temple, never mind if this is it.
I agree that there is potential for great things, but why not just start up a purpose built southern kung fu research institute? Why do we need to train in a refurbished ruin under a probably false pretext? Will they then parade around acting as supreme oracles on all things kung fu as the Songshan guys now do? Will they then tear down local buildings? The whole thing just has tourist trap written all over it.
There is a great deal of quality traditional kung fu in china, the teachers just aren’t that famous and you don’t see them over here.
well, you could argue the point of why you would want to train in a kwoon loaded with the trappings of Chinese mythology, burning incense, bowing, ideograms and dragons painted on the walls.
Why not train in an atmosphere that promotes a line of thinking?
I think it’s good to make the old new, even if it is just an idea.
Let them fill the temple with neophytes and let Kungfu spread further into the world. Even if it rides a dragons tail of myth and wonder.
cheers
Kung Lek:
In practical terms of self defence which is (i hope) the motivation behind you learning kung fu, the question you should ask is, does the “kung fu” in kung fu make you a better fighter?
Further more you even referred to some of these as “trappings of Chinese mythology, burning incense, bowing, ideograms and dragons painted on the walls”. clearly they don’t. It would be a shame if a student had to did through all these trappings to find the little fighting value in southern kung fu systems.
I would be happier to see kung fu schools throw out these “trappings” but retain the “kung fu” that makes one a better fighter. what do you think?
Ming Fa:
Not all soldiers learn basic spear and broad sword movements. clearly you have even stated that there are records of 100s of weapon techiques in your own post. Being so proficient in weapons they too would be well versed in empty hand.
if you understand weapon applications, the movements are adaptations of what you’ll do with empty hand. And clearly in northern styles there are empty hand moves that duplicate what you do with a broad sword and shield.
North versus south does draw the distinction between soldier and peasent in the sense that soldiers learn northern ung fu while peasents did not generally have access to these skills. of course there are exceptions as military men do retire. they however became body guards rather than becoming farmers.
To EGO,
Not all soldiers learn basic spear and broad sword movements. clearly you have even stated that there are records of 100s of weapon techiques in your own post. Being so proficient in weapons they too would be well versed in empty hand.
Not neccessarily, but nonetheless a very good point. I partly agree.
if you understand weapon applications, the movements are adaptations of what you’ll do with empty hand. And clearly in northern styles there are empty hand moves that duplicate what you do with a broad sword and shield.
Well, Xingyi and Baji are said to be based on spear techniques, so there is truth in your assumption.
North versus south does draw the distinction between soldier and peasent in the sense that soldiers learn northern ung fu while peasents did not generally have access to these skills. of course there are exceptions as military men do retire. they however became body guards rather than becoming farmers.
I don’t understand why you think that all Chinese soldiers in the past learned northern kungfu. It was a tradition in the North for farmers to train boxing styles during the cold seasons when they could not work on their land. Militia was recruited out of the peasant population, while many soldiers after leaving the military worked as farmers, this happened throughout entire China. Of course some of them would become bodyguards, but that would really have been exceptions. China was and still is a country with a majority of the people working in agriculture.
Where does he get the idea that everyone in southern China was a farmer? Or that no northern style originated in a village? Or that every southern style did? Or that Chaina had this giant, highly trained standing army. Or that anyone values his opinion?
Chaquan-village
Bajiquan-village
Piguazhang-village
Meihua-Shaolin
Hongquan-village or shaolin (depends which one)
Paoquan-village
Taizhuquan-shaolin
Tonglong-Shaolin
Taizhuquan-shaolin
Yingjow-reputedly of military origin, but all meaningful development for past 600 years is shaolin
Taijiquan-village
Pakuazhang-village
Xingyi-similar to Yingjow Essntially village.
That’s most of the famous northern styles. Not much military origin there. Armies tend to use stansardised training, you’d only have one or two styles.
Exactly!
Where does he get the idea that everyone in southern China was a farmer?
Beats me…
Or that no northern style originated in a village?
No idea…
Or that every southern style did?
Dunno.
Or that China had this giant, highly trained standing army.
Which was not the case the larger part of history.
Or that anyone values his opinion?
Well, if he could give some clear views and sound theories, I would really like to hear them and learn. But most of the time he just talk bad about Southern kungfu without any logical explanation.
Chaquan-village
One version of the style’s history tells that it was indeed created by a general.
Tonglong-Shaolin
Some styles say that Mantis founder Wang Lang had been a general, while other sources claim he was an ordinary civilian.
Taizhuquan-shaolin
Attributed to Song emperor Zhao Kuangyin, who used to be a general.
That’s most of the famous northern styles. Not much military origin there.
Well, there was bound to be some sort of militay influence, but the same thing goes for Southern styles. So I don’t understand EGO’s claims at all.
Armies tend to use stansardised training, you’d only have one or two styles.
Totally agree .
Ego’s made up rhetoric about North and South has as much validity as his supposed “New Jersey” identity.
The kid doesn’t even know what’s next to the New Jersey Turnpike and he’s proclaiming the lameness of Southern Methods - even though he himself is actually of Southern Chinese descent and is living in Australia under the name of “Kelvin Chan”.
Too bad, Ego. I was in NYC last week. We could’ve met in person - had you flown yourself in from Australia.