not every kung fu style came out of shaolin, and not every southern style is derived from a northern style. Although many southern styles are very similar and do seem to have originated from northern styles, Bak Mei, southern mantis, wing chun, etc…the commonality of these styles would suggest a common source and possibly
southern shaolin temple.
the southern style were adapted to the geography and all that which resulted in a mphases on had technique and close range fighting.
reemul’s history debatable but close enough, and I don’t think that watered down would be appropriate, more like simplified to make it easy to learn and to maximize effectiveness.
And why would a northern stylist have a detailed history of southern styles anyway?
“Civilize the mind but make savage the body”
“Kung Fu begins with the conquering of the opponent and ends with the conquering of the self.”
Dont take what I said out context. The comment about being watered down was simply how it began, when monks from the north began training the people. It has changed great deal since then. Also, “watered down” was not to imply that the systems of the South were not effective or less effective than the North.
By the Way, before leaving China Our masters were at the Southern temple. So its not like we are oblivious to what went on in the South.
Because my opinion differs from yours, I don’t seek truth. What ever. Seems to me, you might be afraid of the knowledge I posses, otherwise you wouldn’t be trying to pry it out of me, after I had already stated that I am not at liberty to discuss family matters to any great detail.
off the subject
By the way anybody heard of the late Master Lo?
lived in San Francisco?
I’ve stated my position pretty clearly, you can either accept it or not.
Whether someone is well informed is a matter of opinion, especially with something that lacks a factual(having proof,not strong belief) basis. I’m secure in my belief because I’ve seen what else is out there, not because I’ve closed myself off to the rest of the MA community. If you have a specific question ask it.
1.As your teachers were in Fujian Shaolin when was it destroyed and what was its location ?
2.Were there 36 Chambers in southern shaolin ?
3. What were other systems practised at Henan shaolin ?
4. What years were your teachers in henan & fujian temples ?
5. Who were the Abbotts of both Henan and Fujian temples at the time ?
dont know, never asked and it was never brought up.
same as no. 1. We are Northern practioners most of my knowledge is Nothern though there is a connection with the south my knowlege is limited.
However as of late my teacher has been very forth coming with info so I will ask.
Our history of the shaolin systems of that time period has been mainly centered around the 7 animal systems (most people dont agree with this because the Mantis and monkey system came along much later than the others and are not considered animal systems by some) However as it was passed to us the 7 animal systems were Tiger, crane, snake, eagle, dragon, mantis and monkey. They were also titled as listed in other words Shaolin tiger, shaolin crane… Not eagle claw or black tiger… however other systems later developed and that is not to say such systems were not Shaolin. These systems were always growing and evolving. My contention that the temple lost what it had is based on the masters leaving China. Our systems remains simply Northern Shaolin Tiger.
Thank you for your efforts Reemul, but you have not answered any of the questions clearly except number 3 and that only covered animal systems, I am sure there was a lot more to shaolin than animals !
So I thought that after 12 years you’d know a little more than you do. I still await your response. [Though that story used to be around in the 60’s when no one in the larger general population knew anything about shaolin except DaMo, 5 animals and the fantasies]
The point, would be to start a debate!!! That’s what we do here, we debate stuff.
And that my freind is how we learn!!
Now,reemul,
You have stated that you’re version of history is different that the norm. You then went on to say your version was more correct because your source was a family member that was there at the time.
BUT, you NEVER said what your historical version was!!! That’s why your getting chastised!!
Out with it man, tell us all the details your allowed to tell, then we will have some substance to debate, instaed of the air we are kicking around now.
As i understand it,the temples other than the Shaolin temple in the north were not all buddhist churches. most of them ,in fact were TAOIST temples. this is probably why there is so much controversy on the subject of a Southern Shaolin temple. THat temple in the south could very well be a Taosit church that had the shaolin arts being studied there. But nowadays we refer to it as the “Southern Shaolin” temple. The system that i have studied has its roots from the Southern temple in Fujian. the differences are right on as a previous post outlined with respect to the peoples and the genetic differences. So much was lost and/or destroyed with the japanese incursion of china AND with the dictator MAO and his communist regime. the only thing we have to go on now is what THEY tell us and what our masters and grandmasters tell us is true…man its a chinese box isnt it?,open one and there is another and another and another. I for one would really like to know,for historical purposes, i feel that once the communist regime fades in china that the information will be easier to access and truth can finally be told from THE People’s end.
If a temple was Shaolin…it was by definition a BUDDHIST temple.
Shaolin was a temple where the disciplines and tenets of Chan Buddhism were practiced. Chan is the Chinese version of Zen…
Wu Tang was a Taoist temple.
It is a fallacy that most of the temples practiced martial arts. In fact, most did NOT and only Shaolin was ‘licensed’ to do so by the emperor. THAT is one of the things that made Shaolin different and famous. It was also one of the pieces of opposites…Seeking peace and solitude but practicing a warrior art. This was indeed NOT the norm.
One was either Buddhist or Taoist in the monk world (or another type)…You could NOT be a Shaolin monk and a Taoist one as well. That would sort of be like saying you were a Jewish Moslem. Read Journey to the West and you will see all types of insults and jokes where the butt of the joke are Taoists… The story is a typically Buddhist one.
As for what China may or may not do … before people talk about what the PRC is like, they should visit there. While there are many problems, it is NOT like the western media portrays it just like the west is NOT like the Chinese media portrays it. There are problems…but many of the things people attribute to the communist regime there would be the same regardless…the regime there is closer to the imperial regime than anything else…except for the order of succession being by party affiliation and not by birth. In China, the more things change, the more it stays the same.
I am with you on the Western portrayal of the PRC. While it is not a utopian state, neither is it as bad as the media portray.
I just finished reading Tom Clancy’s “The Bear and The Dragon”, and while I really enjoy his books, never had it hit home to me as solidly how biased and inaccurate a picture he can paint.
When the spy plane incident occurred about 2 months ago, it was obvious that a lot of people had read that book because their impressions of the PRC were exactly what Tom Clancy had put forth in his book. People carried on about how backward and ill-equipped the PRC army was etc. etc. etc. Now I do not doubt the ability of the US to prevail in a hypothetical conflict with the PRC, but I do not think it would be as easy as most people think, and it certainly would not be as easy as Tom Clancy made out.
Anyway, back to the original question - no-one will ever really know the truth of the history of Shaolin. There are hundreds of versions of the history, so how do you pick the truth from all that? All I can say is that you should find a version that sits well with you. Then, don’t worry about what other people have been told because it doesn’t really matter anyway. All that matters is that you believe in your training, and that you train as hard as you can.
cxxx:::::::::::>
What we do in life echoes in Eternity
it is amazing to me that a BUDDHIST TEMPLE would condone fighting as well as training for war. ZEN buddhism or CHAN buddhism(same thing) seems to contradict itself,but i still respect DA MO and his methods…but still i have studied buddhism from the THAI Buddhist aspect and they do not train to fight nor do they condone fighting at all. THE Dali LLAMA is the foremost authority on this subject and does not condone fighting either.
that is one of the main principles of buddhism. the Taoists on the other hand did fight and trained…as in the wudang mountain temple and the HUA Mountain temple as well. so this is an interesting thing brought up. i know the history of Shaolin,and it is an interesting one at that.
Da Mo was a renegade of the buddhists anyway for he did like to fight and condoned self preservation in this manner,seems to me he was more of a TAOIST than anything else. not to discredit any thing that has to do with SHaolin,but it still makes me think about the mystery of these temples and what was really going on there,as i have read in history a good protion of some of these shaolin monks were not monks at all but military leaders who fled to the temples to seek sanctuary from a new regime that would kill off the old genrals of the old one. this makes more sense to me as to how the shaolin monks learned to fight so well. for how could they learn it on thier own when thier own Buddhist doctrines specifically forbid violence of any kind. this also brings us to the mystery of the temples with respect to the different emperors who would destroy the temple and then after a while would be rebuilt,could it be that these temples were a front and actually training centers for military training for the emperors army? Could that support the constant destruction and rebuilding if the temples? and what of the other temples that were not of Shaolin origin but Taoist churches that trained in fighting as well?
man its like a chinese box again. its all pretty interesting,
Says that the Northern Shaolin temple was a toaist/mohist monastary before Bodhi Dharma showed up. This is in contrast to “Legend” which claims in 425a.d. the emperor built the Temple because he was impressed with Dharma. Fighting in relation to Budhism is a contrary, but Chan Buddhism is a mix of Taoism, Mohism, and Buddhism due to the chinese unwillingness to accept pure buddhism. Instead they adapted there own religeon and philosophies and what you have is chan buddhism. Our version also has the the Northern temple begining almost a century earlier. What doesn’t make sense is how the “Legend” version propagates an ambiguous at best origin of fighting arts within a Buddhist Temple. On the other hand the Mohist were a military class of socially retired philosophical acceptance, but maintained Martial practice in seclusion at Songshan since before Dharma. A not so popular Legend names the Mohist as “The Guardians of the Temple” because they protected the Temple on many occasions. This again is before Dharma showed up.
So to me it makes more sense that MA were already there when Dharma showed up but his arival and influence helped define new techniques in training(not so much technical, because he didn’t teach a martial art, but philisophical) as well he brought physical conditiong. All of these, lead to the istitutionalization of Kung fu training.
Buddhism also tells you to look beyond doctrines! Seek Within the mind. But do not search for to find it there for you will not find it! Contradicting, hehee …only depends on the plane of thought which is all relative… I guess not understanding leads you to misunderstand which doesn’t mean anything!
you guys have no idea!!