The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
21

BSL is an amalgamated style, that is pretty modern compared to the Luohan and Hong gates as Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi was not the DIRECT creator of the 10 sets, that is historically incorrect, he was a anti-Qing rebel and traveled all over the place as a consequence, he taught different people different things and learned different things from different places.

After 1732-35, many martial monks moved out of the temple area, Shadong Long Fist comes from the monks that moved out to that area, for one example.
So, THIS can be considered the “REAL” Shaolin.

People who knew the Luohan gate moved to Shanghai, THIS can be considered the “REAL” Shaolin.

Gan Feng Chi taught some people his long fist GATE that he learned at Shaolin to some people, he also practiced Plum Flower Long Fist, which was the style of the anti-Qing rebels at the time. Was his Plum Flower better than his Shaolin, since he used that instead at that time?

Then he went to Emei and studied 3 Emperor Pao Chui style, so when he taught 3 Emperor Pao Chui to some people, was this no good or better than his Shaolin?

LATER still, the actual full style that Gan Feng Chi created, not distantly contributed to as in BSL, was called Hua Quan, FLOWER style (not related to Hua Mountain Quan at all, same name), a soft and hard style that he was very famous for.
THAT’s he “real” mature style, not only his Shaolin which is what he did as a youth, which was a root for his Wundang-Shaolin soft hard internal external Hua Quan.
THEN, he was executed for being a rebel.

So, where is Gan Feng Chi’s “real” shaolin? very distant to BSL.

AND, guess what, before Gan’s time at Shaolin, it has closed down a few times before that and all was lost again. During the Yuan dynasty Shaolin was shut down many hundreds of years before Gan was there, and all the martial art they did was gone, when people (Jue Yuan, Bai Yu Feng, Li Sou) tried to reopen the place to martial arts, they had to go to Luoyang a few miles away to re-learn Shaolin martial art, which they then redeveloped into a new system.
Was this the “REAL” Shoalin? It wasn’t what Gan Feng Chi practiced hundreds of years later.

Was the “REAL” Shaolin the stuff that was done at Shaolin before it was closed down in the Yuan Dynasty? During the Tang dynasty they did Tong Bei and Pao Chui which they go from the military that trained them. Was this the “REAL” Shaolin?
During the Song dynasty, they created new set like Tai Tzu Chang Quan, Hong Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Rou Quan and so on. Was this the “REAL” Shaolin.

This system was taught since the Song Dynasty and spread throughout the countryside.

Once Shaolin died out a few more times later, and the “ORIGINAL” Shaolin material that the people did in the countryside only existed, was this the “REAL” Shaolin and not the stuff that was developed later after the Yuan Dynasty?

AND< after Shaolin was closed for its last time in 1920s, some monks left and got married and spread throughout China, they brought with them their sets and copies of the original manuals that documented Shaolin of their time and the ancient Song dynasty original sets. Isn’t this the “REAL” Shaolin, if not, why not?
AND, some monks stayed in the area and still trained there at night, even though the place as burned out. And they taught their stuff to the people in the countryside. Was this the “REAL” Shaolin, if not, why not?

After 1981, the lineages that survived the 1920s burning were asked to reintroduce their AUTHENTIC and many generations practiced Shaolin sets back to Shaolin.

SO, today you have two completely different things at Shaolin, acrobatic super fast government workers posing as “monks” (who do modern Wushu theatrucs) and the OLD monks still alive and their students and grand students that practice the old Shaolin sets that have been preserved from their teachers and from their copies of the Shaolin martial art manuals that survived the burning of 1920s.
Isn’t this stuff the “REAL” Shaolin?

Take you pick of which “REAL” Shaolin you want.

22

i always did like it when you posted something::slight_smile:

23

I’m arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it’s authenticity. It’s almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there’s there’s stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I’m still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung’s old Lohan style different? There’s not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T’an in the 1800’s. So what’s the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I’m not saying there isn’t some authenticity to it all, I’m just saying that it’s a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn’t it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn’t makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed “ancient” styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn’t the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I’m also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I’m looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn’t Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we’re talking about the early 1700’s here).

24

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;780102]I’m arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it’s authenticity. It’s almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there’s there’s stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I’m still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung’s old Lohan style different? There’s not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T’an in the 1800’s. So what’s the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I’m not saying there isn’t some authenticity to it all, I’m just saying that it’s a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn’t it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn’t makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed “ancient” styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn’t the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I’m also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I’m looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn’t Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we’re talking about the early 1700’s here).[/QUOTE]

I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang’s Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui’s saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there’s at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng’s luohan has anything to do with that we simply can’t prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108

25

18 lines fighting set attributed to Dat-Mo?
That would be the deal killer in my book.

26

[QUOTE=mantis108;780121]I believe Sun Yufeng learned from Zhang Zhankui, whose teacher (or at least once learned from)was the infamous Shandong mounted bandits Ma Xiang (incent/fragant) according to legend. If memory serves, Zhang Zhankui worked or operated an armed escort service in the Hebei Province, where Sun Yufeng is from. There is not much about Ma Xiang’s Kung Fu background. Zhang Zhankui’s saber play is famous though. But in Shandong during Qianlong and Jiaxing reign (mid 1700s) there’s at least a record of a style called Luohan Xinggong Duanda that claimed to be from Shaolin Fuju monk, which many believe that no such person or connection existed and the manuscript simply borrowed popular lore to help its credibility. Does Su Yufeng’s luohan has anything to do with that we simply can’t prove or disprove anything at this point.

Mantis108[/QUOTE]

Wow, there’s a whole bunch of new articles out in China from a research about Hong Quan, Tai Tzu, Fu Ju, the Shaolin Luohan Duan Da Book, and so on. He’s been doing a load of research for a long time. The articles I have been reading by him have discussed why clues in the writing show it is from Song dynasty era, and he had an old Song Tai Tzu master read the Duan Da book for the first time and the old man was shocked to realize he understood the material in relation to his Song Tai Tzu background and found many postures from the book were exclusive to Song Tai Tzu postures.

Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. He has no connection with the religious monk Fu Yu who is from the Yuan Dynasty and is of the “new” religious monk lineage that all Shaolin monks have been traced from every since.
Fu Ju was of a different order, none of the martial and religious monks from different religious orders have been included in the “official” lineage that start with Fu Yu.

27

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;780102]I’m arguing that BSL is the accumulation of all of the pieced together material after each time the temple was destroyed. Sure, throughout the centuries the monks added some different techniques and styles from the military, from the Hui, from everywhere. But the Bak Siu Lum that we have today is as close to being a complete system that was pieced together before the 1732 destruction as your going to get. Just the size of the system lends some credibility as to it’s authenticity. It’s almost like a history of ancient Chinese martial arts. Besides the five mother styles there’s there’s stuff in there like the 18 lines Fighting Set which was supposedly developed by Da Mo himself. This set, which was passed down to us from Kuo Yu Chang, is older than the one the monks practice today.

As for the Lohan, Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan (I hate pin yin, by the way, it makes no sense) and Tongbei that they are studying at the temple now, I’m still suspicious as to its authenticity. Why is Shun Yu Fung’s old Lohan style different? There’s not much info. on him out there but I know he learned it from a Shaolin Monk named Yuan Tung T’an in the 1800’s. So what’s the exact history behind the current Lohan style they teach there? Once again, I’m not saying there isn’t some authenticity to it all, I’m just saying that it’s a proven fact that BSL is an authentic expression of Shaolin kung fu (or wushu). so why isn’t it recognized by the Temple as such?? The fact that it isn’t makes the whole officially recognized style suspect to me. It makes me believe that the lineage of all of these supposed “ancient” styles were really just pieced together from some old monks who were hiding away in the ruins of a temple that had long since been destroyed several times. The stuff that they still knew or remembered, or their preferred styles, wasn’t the whole body of work that the monks were practicing prior to 1732. So, I’m also referring to the age of the system and the cohesiveness of it when I’m looking for just how authentic it is. Can anyone tell me who specifically passed down the current temple versions of Tai Tzu, Shiao and Da Hong Chuan, Cannon Fist, Rou Chuan and Tongbei?

And, to answer an earlier post, if it wasn’t Gan Fenchi who was the first one to actually transmit the style then it was Monk Chih Yuan who transferred what we know as Bei Shaolin today. Like I said, there are two versions of what happened around this time (we’re talking about the early 1700’s here).[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but almost all you are saying her is just legends and conjecture, the real information out there doesn’t follow with what you are saying.

BSL is pretty much the creation of Kuo Yu Chang, and those around him. He merged together everything he learned.

Damo never created any martial art sets, he was only involved in religious things, this has been disproven for decades by historians.
The 18 lines fighting set never existed in ancient times.

All the traditional Shaolin material (the most ancient sets such as Hong quan, TZ hang Quan, Rou Quan, Pao Chui, Tong bi, etc) had been documented in their library since the Song dynasty to the time it got burned down in 1925.
Throughout the centuries people have made copies of the books that document these forms and kept them in their families, and researchers have looked at them and all the books match with the copies that each family has. Also, a good number of the original books that were copied were saved during the fire.
And, the families and schools that have been doing these sets for hundreds of years have clear oral history of who the teachers were from today to way way back to when the material were first taught at and outside of Shaolin. There are long lineage that exist that have preserved the material.

You must be young, no offense, cause this is old common knowledge today amongst martial art historians and researchers.

BSL movements are not ancient forms, they are a distillation of moves from various teachers.
The closest the come to material still preserved in Shaolin is the Kan Jia Quan style of Shaolin, which has similar named sets but the forms are much longer. Kan Jia Quan was developed at Shaolin during the late Yuan time period to protect the monks from invading Taoist who were pretty much at war with the Buddhists over land rights and stealing temples from each other and collection boxes.
The reason they are not done at Shaolin is because they never were done there. The BSL forms were developed after the 1700s, after it was burned down and people scattered. They were created outside the temple, they were ancient sets that were preserved, they were a new style that was developed from the Shaolin long fist that was around during the Qing Dynasty.

You can date movements in set to certain time periods, because movements and postures evolved over time, you can tell how old a movement is by how it is done. Some people preserved ancient ways to do the sets still, because they were isolated, and when compared to how an non-isolated school does a set, you can see how much changed over time.
Just like languages evolve, customs, etc etc.

PLUS, Shaolin had over the centuries many separate schools and also each area of Shaolin, called Gates, practiced their own styles.
It’s a mountain area, the temple itself is just one section of the grounds.
East, South, North, West, each did their own martial monks material.
And then the villages around the place had their own too.
So there are so many martial arts that come in and came out from Shaolin.
Shaolin was like the National Guard for the emperors during the Tang and Song dynasty.

There were a series of old monks and many families spread around China that brought the ancient Shaolin sets back to Shaolin upon the request of the people that reopened the temple officially after 1981.
There’s a long list of them, would you even know who they are?

28

too much to read

i am the real authentic shaolin
come study with me
classes are cheap
50 dollar a month
3 hrs a day
come sign up now
spaces are unlimited

29

Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I’ll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It’s been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It’s always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch’a, Wah, Hua, P’ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being “Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate”, which was subsequently shortened to “Northern Shaolin Style”. This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And…I don’t have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn’t invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn’t be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li’s, “The Shaolin Temple” came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the “real” Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed “Long March” and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu’s history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We’re talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country’s history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren’t invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won’t even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the “crown jewel” of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the “Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate” is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin’s heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I’m confused, are you selling beauty supplies?

30

Shaolin’s “Crown Jewel” was all based in Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. All the Red Fist sets, Cannon Fist sets and an weapons sets were all built on the Tai Tzu framework. These were the mainstreem Shaolin for centuries.

Rou Quan was a Tai Chi like system for the older Monks.

You also had Tonbei and Xing Yi Ba as well.

Also, Kan Jia Chuan and the Ten hand sets have been compared and are vertually identical. The artical I read seemed to indicate that the Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two.

During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time.

Reply]
You are forgetting the fact that the Sung Emperor Zhao, Kuang Yin sent his Generals to shaolin at this time to TEACH them his style and that of his generals. The results of this were not the ten hand sets, but the 3 core forms of Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and later down the road Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan as well.

As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch’a, Wah, Hua, P’ao, and Hung Styles.

Reply]
First, Hung is HONG, not to be confused with Southern Hung Gar. It’s Northern Military Long Fist, and that is the style of the Emperor taught to Shaolin (thorugh his Generals) during the early Sung dynasty. There would have been quite a bit of Tongbei as well.

Cha Fist is a Moslem style, and not in the picture at Shaolin at that time.

The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being “Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate”, which was subsequently shortened to “Northern Shaolin Style”.

Rreply]
Sounds like Kuo Yu Chang was not much of a historian to me. What he pased down is so overly general, ultra simpified and in some areas just plain wrong that it really can’t be taken as credible.

31

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;780189]Sal Canzonieri:
Fine, I’ll admit that the whole thing about Da Mo creating the 18 lines fighting set is a legend. Albeit, a popular one.

I do, however, believe you are wrong about the history of Bak Siu Lum. First of all, Kuo Yu Chang did not create Bak Siu Lum. It’s been recorded that he learned Tam Tui, the ten sets of Northern Shaolin, the 18 weapons, as well as flying knives, flying darts, Raise Blocking Spear, 24 Technique Spear, Plum Blossom Double Sabers, Chi Gung, and Iron Palm from master Yim Shi Wen in Shantung Province. It was long accepted that these were the sets directly passed down from Monk Chih Yuan. The fact that there were so many traditional weapon sets can be used as ample proof that this style came directly from Shaolin. Weapons training was always a big part of Shaolin. Are the weapon sets in Hong Chuan, Rou Chuan, Pao Chui, and Tong Bi as extensive and varied? I think not. I also think it would be wrong to assume that Yim Shi Wen or one of the sifus before him made up all or any of those sets? There is no proof of that and anyone who claims that is probably completely wrong.

Secondly, Northern Shaolin was not developed from Kan Jia Chuan. The official history behind the style propagated by Kuo Yu Chang is quite different. It’s always gone something like this: During the Song Dynasty (960-1279) there was a group of monks at the main temple who utilized their knowledge and experience to combine the best techniques from what they considered to be the top fighting styles of their time. As I mentioned earlier, these were the Ch’a, Wah, Hua, P’ao, and Hung Styles. The monks named their new style in honor or the five northern mother styles and the Shaolin Monastery. The complete name was recorded as being “Northern Shaolin Style of Shaolin Gate”, which was subsequently shortened to “Northern Shaolin Style”. This was the style known as Song Shaolin style during the Ming Dynasty and the fact that the techniques in the ten sets of Northern Shaolin are so obviously related (and in many cases exactly the same) to the five mother styles is ample proof that this is the correct history. Sorry, but there is no proof behind these claims about Kuo Yu Chang and how it was developed from Kan Jia Chuan. It all sounds like legends and conjecture to me.

And…I don’t have to be old and learned to know that any so-called historical proofs that were uncovered after a PRC endorsed group of monks reopened the temple in 1981 are suspect. Supposedly, there were senior monks who left Shaolin Temple as early as 1901 when the country was ravaged by war. Why do they have nothing to do with todays current temple? http://www.shaolintemple.org/text_backcover.htm
You know why they didn’t invite Bak Siu Lum stylists to the temple to help bring back the old Shaolin sets? Because they were all in Hong Kong and elsewhere. They were very distrusting of the PRC. Who wouldn’t be after the Red Guard went around shooting sifus during The Cultural Revolution? Of course, after Jet Li’s, “The Shaolin Temple” came out, there were bound to be countless monks and families within the PRC coming forth claiming to have the “real” Shaolin sets. Why do I need to know all of their names? Just like the famed “Long March” and other tall tales about Mao, many claims about Shaolin Wushu’s history are likely embellished and fabricated. The library was supposedly completely burned out in 1925. Where did all of these records come from all of a sudden? We’re talking about a regime that, at one time, practically tried to destroy the country’s history. How are you going to trust the official PRC sanctioned history over what was accepted as the official history before The Cultural Revolution? The sifus who left the country during that tumultuous time weren’t invited back to help rebuild the temple so how could they have gotten a complete representation of the oldest styles? I know things are different there now, but, in my view, the Chinese government still has a ways to go before their motives can be completely trusted. They just executed their own Ex-Food and Drug Chief by shooting him in the back of the head!! And I won’t even get into the whole Falun Gong controversy.

I still maintain that Northern Shaolin was the “crown jewel” of Shaolin Wushu all the way up until the temple was almost completely destroyed in 1732. Sure, there were monks practicing all sorts of other styles, but the “Northern Shaolin of Shaolin Gate” is the most comprehensive and complete system from Shaolin’s heyday that has survived the ages.

Pk_StyLeZ:
I’m confused, are you selling beauty supplies?[/QUOTE]

I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800’s, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for thier staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend…

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??

32

[QUOTE=Lama Pai Sifu;780199]I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98% of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800’s, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for thier staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend…

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info??[/QUOTE]

Exactly, all that stuff he is saying is totally convoluted stuff from all different legends.

33

Fu JU was a real person, he was a military monk leader, it was during the early Song Dynasty. . . . .
Fu Ju was of a different order, none of the martial and religious monks from different religious orders have been included in the “official” lineage that start with Fu Yu.

Hi Sal,
What are the historical sources for this? I’ve always been suspicious about this monk.
By the way, do you have the Chinese charcters for Fu Ju?

r.

34

originally posted by Royal Dragon:
[I]Shaolin’s “Crown Jewel” was all based in Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. All the Red Fist sets, Cannon Fist sets and an weapons sets were all built on the Tai Tzu framework. These were the mainstreem Shaolin for centuries.

Rou Quan was a Tai Chi like system for the older Monks.

You also had Tonbei and Xing Yi Ba as well.

Also, Kan Jia Chuan and the Ten hand sets have been compared and are vertually identical. The artical I read seemed to indicate that the Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two.[/I]

I would like to know if there are specific preserved documents for these claims, or was all of this stuff “uncovered” after 1981? Despite any articles that may have been written, there is no solid evidence that Kan Jia Chuan is the older of the two styles or that Northern Shaolin was created much later. If Kan Jia Chuan is older it would have to be older than the Yuan Dynasty. There’s always the possibility that it is related to the original 10 hand sets of Northern Shaolin. These were added to over the centuries so it would explain some of the differences.

You are forgetting the fact that the Sung Emperor Zhao, Kuang Yin sent his Generals to shaolin at this time to TEACH them his style and that of his generals. The results of this were not the ten hand sets, but the 3 core forms of Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and later down the road Xiao, Lao and Da Hong Chuan as well.

I’m supposing there are preserved records detailing the history behind these styles? Even if that’s the case, it’s always been generally accepted that the library was completely burned out in 1925. Even if these documents did somehow survive, most of the information and history of the temple would have been lost. Maybe these three forms were practiced, but there’s no evidence proving that the ten hand sets or any of the weapons sets weren’t.

[I]First, Hung is HONG, not to be confused with Southern Hung Gar. It’s Northern Military Long Fist, and that is the style of the Emperor taught to Shaolin (thorugh his Generals) during the early Sung dynasty. There would have been quite a bit of Tongbei as well.

Cha Fist is a Moslem style, and not in the picture at Shaolin at that time.[/I]

The information that I’ve always gotten is that it’s Hung with a U. Maybe this is a Wade-Giles vs. pin yin thing or just different information. The information I have is that Sun Wu Tzu developed this style and it was based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was practiced around the Yellow River and was also known as “Red Style.”

Just like with Tam Tui, the Hui were very proficient in the Ch’a style, but there’s no evidence that they were the one’s who initially created it. According to the chronicle of the Ch’a family, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) an army went on an expedition to the eastern part of China. When they reached Shantung Province, General Hua Zong Chi was injured and remained behind with the local residents. To show his appreciation he taught the people “Jiazi Chang” or “Frame Style” boxing. This split into “Big Frame Style” and “Small Frame Style” and was developed into what became known as the Ch’a style.

originally posted by Lama Pai Sifu:
[I]I have read a book that dismisses approx. 98 of what you wrote here. May I ask what your source for this information is?? You are making many specific claims as to dates and people of the shaolin temple. Did you know that proir to 1909, there is no written information regarding all these styles and the continual burning of the temples? During the 1600-1800’s, Shaolin was supposedly (according to a source obviously different from yours) well known for their staff play, but NOT well known for hand to hand fighting techniques. Additionally - the story about the 5 ancestors and all the shaolin styles - also not real (according to this source.) Lots of fantasy/legend…

So again, just curious - where exactly do you get your info?? [/I]

Fantasy and Legend is much of what we have because the distance in time is so great and, even if there aren’t records of them, the temple burnings have been accepted as historical facts. Due to all of this turmoil, the records that may have been at the temple at later dates may not have been entirely correct. However, the sets and history of the five mother styles was recorded in text and was orally passed down just like with Northern Shaolin. Families still practice these styles and have for hundreds of years. Of course, there are additions and modifications from generations of masters but the traditions have been kept alive.

Just like you and every other person who researches Shaolin, I get my information from the countless articles and books that have been written and talked about for years. Also, my Si-Hing has chronicled much of this information and most all of it dates back before 1981, when the recent Shaolin “craze” began. There’s also the oral and written records of my school. To say that Kuo Yu Chang and other masters in his lineage passed down overly general, ultra simpified and false information is down right insulting. I would be more wary of information coming out of the current temple with it’s emphasis on worldwide tours, Broadway productions, and mass media appeal.

35

Sal Canzonieri wrote: Throughout the centuries people have made copies of the books that document these forms and kept them in their families, and researchers have looked at them and all the books match with the copies that each family has. Also, a good number of the original books that were copied were saved during the fire.

It is my view that the compilation of traditional sets practiced at Shaolin, is very recent and comes from disparate sources. What complicates this matter somewhat is that the main old monks that give todays Shaolin its credibility, such as Shi Zhenxu, Shi Degen, Shi Suxi, Shi Suyun, Shi Hai Deng, Shi Xing Zhen, Shi Yang An etc. were all martial arts enthusiasts who learned their martial arts mostly from a variety of sources including lay masters. Just look at their bios.
For an example, Shi Hai Deng’s martial arts comes from a number of sources. He first began studying martial arts at the age of 7 from his maternal uncle. In 1920 at 18 he entered the University of Sichuan. His stayed there was short. Hai Deng then enrolled at the Police Academy in Chengdu and graduated from there. From there in 1931, Hai Deng went to Woyun Si in the Emei mountains where he studied Bai Mei Quan of the Emei school. At that time as well he began studying Meihua Zhuang with a monk master named, Ru Feng. From this Shaolin monk he learned just two sets Soft fist and Plum blossom fist. Anyway Hai Deng spent most of this time at Woyun Si studying Emei martial arts and Bai Mei Quan. In 1943, Hai Deng, went to Zhaojue Si and received this tonsure name (Hai Deng) from Zhi Guam Fashi. Basically Hai Deng Fashi had expertise in: Yizhi chan; 36 Tongzi gong; Meihua zhuang and Bai Mei Quan - of the Emei school. Sometime during the 60s, the Chinese government briefly restore Shaolin Si and designating Hai Deng to be it in charge.

It appears Zhenxu is the main connection, to the Shaolin martial arts at the present Shaolin’s claims of a single monastic lineage. However it also appears that Zhenxu knew a limited number of the sets that were practiced in the 1800’s at Shaolin.

Shi Zhenxu arrived at Shaolin in 1920 and at best only studied with Shi Henglin for only 2 or maybe 2+ years. Both Zhenxu and Degen both gained much of their martial art knowledge from various lay-masters.

As I pointed out before, most of the sets (promoted in books such as the Encyclopedia of Shaolin Martial Arts by Shi Deqian) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere seem to be rather incomplete given that very few 2 person sets are documented. The few that are documented seem incomplete and mostly don’t appear to related to the single sets.

I think this website sums up the state of affairs fairly:
http://www.authenticshaolin.com/songshan.html these sets (and legends) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere - what is not apparent (at lest to me) which sets came from who or even what Henglin actually taught to Zhenxu and what he got from others, etc.

All the drawing conventions in Shi Deqian’s encyclopedia - as are the motion notations - clearly modern. At best these sets are based on what was recorded in the late 70’s early 80’s. Likely from the, “Unearthing and Establishing Wushu” project conducted during that time period. The Shaolin collection project first took place in 1980 in Denfgeng County and was sponsored by the Shaolin Martial Arts exhibition for Exchange and Emulation. Never-the-less I’m looking forwards to seeing at least some pages of the old books that you are talking about.

In spite of the fact that many of these sets may be old, the system as practiced at Shaolin today is modern going back no further than the early 1980’s. Clearly many of the ‘traditional’ sets are old but they come from a variety of different, and for the most part, ‘lay’ Shaolin lineages (Liang Yiquan, Zhang Qinghai, Liu Baoshan, etc.).

Frankly it is my belief that the ‘system’ as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction and not ‘the Shaolin system’ transmitted via a particular lineage.

cheers,
r.

36

[QUOTE=sha0lin1;779939]I have been reading this thread with great interest since I am a Song Shan Shaolin practitioner. I really liked Gene Ching’s reply and Wall’s reply. However, being the student of a monk and being taught the histories of the various forms as we learn them, I can say that the basic forms of Shaolin are centuries old. We must not forget that in the “old days,” as well as now, and will continue into the future; martial monks left the temple and entered into secular life and continued to practice and teach to the layity. So this notion that all the monks were killed except for a few and the traditional Shaolin kung fu died out is a false one. Because of this Shaolin arts have been preserved and we have seen the emergence of the various styles of Shaolin wushu such as Hung Gar and your BSL. Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term Wushu. People in the Western world draw lines with it thinking that it means only the competition aspect of it that was developed in the 1960’s by the PRC. However, wushu simply means martial arts. Way back, who knows when, and whoever translated kung fu to the western world did us a great disservice. So now westerners use Kung Fu to define traditional CMA and Wushu to define the contemporary CMA. My Sifu rarely uses the term Kung Fu, he uses wushu, as do I. So when someone says “Shaolin Wushu” all they are saying is Shaolin Martial Arts. If you want to distinguish, qualify it with traditional wushu or contemporary or modern wushu. At Shaolin Temple they teach traditional and contemporary wushu. When the monks perform and people see that, it is easy to say “oh, that is not traditional kung fu, that is wushu” because of all the acrobatics and flips and spinning kicks and such. However, keep in mind that these are performances and so are meant to inspire awe and entertain the audiences. Our traditional forms do not contain these things. Sometimes the monks will “ad lib” a few acrobatics and fantastic kicks into these forms to jazz them up a bit. Sometimes, and I have seen my master do this with incrudulity, they will make things up on the spot.[/QUOTE]

Even then I read through thousands of topics in this forum about what your saying. Yeah there is a difference between “contemporary” wushu and shaolin wushu. I feel a few hand sets are tossed in there to certify it as “traditional”. True wushu translates all to martial arts but it’s been the most used statement about the whole shaolin debate. The problem that I personally have seen with the modern shaolin schools is that each monk would take one specific form but modify it. So the same form is done three different ways by three different schools. What is real; what is fake? I am not against any of it and by no means am I trying to scrutinize who anyone trains in modern shaolin. It just depends on what you seek.

37

[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);780273]Hi Sal,
What are the historical sources for this? I’ve always been suspicious about this monk.
By the way, do you have the Chinese charcters for Fu Ju?

r.[/QUOTE]

Fu Ju (song dynasty):

Fu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/186/d214.gif
Ju: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/169/d126.gif

Fu Yu (Yuan dynasty):
Fu: same
Yu: http://www.zhongwen.com/d/184/d206.gif

38

Thank you Sal.
That name hasn’t cropped up in any of the early northern Chan documents I know of.
I’ll do some digging though. What are the sources you have for this monk?

have a great weekend!

r.

39

[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);780363]
As I pointed out before, most of the sets (promoted in books such as the Encyclopedia of Shaolin Martial Arts by Shi Deqian) were collected from different lay lineages in the region and elsewhere seem to be rather incomplete given that very few 2 person sets are documented. The few that are documented seem incomplete and mostly don’t appear to related to the single sets.
cheers,
r.[/QUOTE]

I have 3 versions of his Shaolin Encyclopedia, the original 2 volume set, the expanded 4 volume set, and the revised with photos of 90 of the forms volumes.

There are many 2 person sets in the expanded edition I have across each book in the set, I don’t see “very few” at all.

[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);780363]

Frankly it is my belief that the ‘system’ as is compiled today did not exist at Shaolin of Imperial time and is a best guess reconstruction and not ‘the Shaolin system’ transmitted via a particular lineage.

cheers,
r.[/QUOTE]

As I said in my initial post in this thread": Take your pick of which “Real” Shaolin you want: from what time period? From what region? from what Lineage? From what school? From what style? etc, etc. etc

At this point, after 3 decades of research, I am only caring about the physical movements in the sets and how they have evolved from one set to another over time and place. When you look at the actual movements in the sets themselves, there is a clear line of evolution that spans who taught what to whom where and when.

Right now I am looking at the family of sets that have been derived from the XinYi Ba, Rou Quan, and Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan sets, including Song TZ Hong Quan, Lao Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Pao Chui, and so on.
Including the early primitive nei gong sets that clearly show the beginning of movements that are later seen in the series of Shaolin based sets. Nei gongs such as Liu Ho Gong, Chan Yuan Gong, Luohan 13 Gong, Rou Gong, and so on.

As far as the authenticity of the copies made of the books that were later burned at Shaolin (some were not, people were running to get as many out as they could).
Feel free to contact Shi De Gian via email and ask him yourself, he can explain how he and his partners have traveled all over China and the south east for many years comparing and collecting these materials and what they have uncovered from viewing them.

Gene can give you his email address, he is quite amenable to answering questions.

40

[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);780391]Thank you Sal.
That name hasn’t cropped up in any of the early northern Chan documents I know of.
I’ll do some digging though. What are the sources you have for this monk?

have a great weekend!

r.[/QUOTE]

Well, martial monks weren’t in the religious orders of Shaolin (and Shaolin has had many different ones over the centuries, not just the one that Fu Yu founded.
Such as:
Da Cheng Zen
north sect Mahayana Zen–Shen Xiu
Zen Cao Dong Sect --Ben Ji
Zen Lin Ji Sect --Yi Xuan
Zen Yun Men Sect --Wen Yan
Zen Wei Yang Sect --Hui Ji
Zen Fa Yan Sect --Wen Yi
Shao Lin temple Cao Dong Sect --Fu Yu

All Shaolin religious monks since Fu Yu trace them generations through the Chan records you speak of.

Martial monks were ex-military men often enough, they were the heads of security, not really in the religious thing.

The source I have for Fu Ju (song dynasty) are the preserved documents that have been copied before the fire that were examined / collected by various researchers.