The Shaolin Workout by Shi Yan Ming

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
21

as usual, these kinds of threads contain a lot of verbage that amounts to so much hooey by a lot of faceless characters who wouldn’t have a clue if they stumbled over a clue root in a clue forest full of clue trees- and yes I mean you ricky. what did you read a few diss threads in a forum and now you are a chan master, lol.

you remind me of some tool I met out at Apt. Shifu was wearing a nice watch, and he bought a round of drinks- it was someone’s birthday. And some tool goes, wow nice watch, no wonder he is buying drinks. An easy conclusion to jump to, but Shifu didn’t buy the watch, it was a gift…

on the former video- he doesn’t like the way they came out, he didn’t like the lack of control he had or the way the project was executed. he felt it was stale and typical. that is what you"heard" but you are misrepresenting it here and expanding it. if he was against video or book learning he wouldn’t have done any articles at all- yet there are a few and they are very good ones too. i’m particularly fond of the black belt punching article.

in general, he doesn’t approve of people burying themselves in books to learn or videos as single source instruction- especially because many of the authors don’t know what they are talking about. one spark for this particular book was the DeMasco stuff that’s being pushed out there right now- we just couldn’t believe some of the wrong info that made it to press, I mean really silly stuff that anyone calling themselves a “disciple” should know. looking through the website and some of the pages of the book he just shook his head, looked away, and said “we should make a book. give people right information and accept the responsibility to share authentic history.”

as to shi yan ming loving money- that really makes me laugh. few people know the internal workings of the usast but that suggestion is ludicrous to me considering I know much of the finances. he is far from rolling in it the way people think. most of the money the temple makes goes back into taking care of the disciples, the ny temple, and the needs of some of the other temples- you know we have 4 now, and have embarked on a capital campaign to raise funds for a full blown facility in NY just like he has always dreamed…which is one reason why we have the book project. We now have over 150,000 raised and are looking to engage an architect and are continually scouting land.

http://usashaolintemple.org/index.php?option=com_phpshop&Itemid=71

shi yan ming suffers/benefits from a portrayal that is not very accurate- he does not hide the fact that he eats meat, but that does not mean he is at Lugers at his personal table every night and a custom cut of meat. In point of fact he usually eats noodles and vegetables, continuously because he is constantly training. But he is not like a lot of others who do hide the fact they eat meat or dissemble about it. He’s also usually slammed for drinking a beer every now and then, which he will consume openly but then again it’s not like he is hitting every happy hour on w3rd st. The way some people make it sound we have a keg next to the sink or he has a flask stashed in his sash. I remember eating lunch in DC with him and De Yang and the waiter brought over a couple of Tsing Tao’s- De Yang had just seen Bush’s motorcade, and he was giddy like a kid, and guess what, when he drank the beer his robes did not burn up, his beads did not all split asunder, the altar at Shaolin did not crack apart to a massive earthquake and when he put his head down at night to sleep on his pillow he was still a shaolin monk, despite havinghad a beer and eating a crab- shell and all.

when it comes to ch’an sym is serious as a heart attack, but he is not representing a prc hegemony or orthodoxy- he didn’t need to go to the beijing university, his dharma master was Shi Yong Chen who still lives in the temple, and the senior monks all spoke highly of him and his accomplishments- especially proud of him bringing his disciples home, in particular the recently passed Shi Su Xi who not only defied expectations to come sit with us, but even laboriously spoke for about a half hour before he grew too tired. Still he made sure to spend the better part of our time there with us. So since they still consider him a part of the order, I think it is hilarious when someone like ricky spews.

about the family, I have literally zero problem with that, and there really isn’t a lot many other people can say, and not just because celibacy is a lark and against a nature ch’an should embellish. when the 14 returned with their families, and kept them, and were considered monks, the monkeys were let out of that barrel, weren’t they, and if your masters sons became monks, and ch’an buddhism didn’t turn into a pumpkin or come crashing down, well why shouldn’t you raise up some kids and enjoy the sharing of love. That’s part of life.

far from expelled, he is well loved by Su Xi’s “side” if you will, and even many on Yong Xin’s- there’s a lot more that could be said about that trust me.

consider this record corrected.

22

I’m sure all of his “disciples” will treat this book like the bible.

Well, I’ll pick one up just to remember my basic wushu. Too bad I have to pay for it…maybe I’ll wait until they start falling into used book stores.

23

Been waiting foryou to chime in on this, richard sloan

You know, personally I’ve always liked Yanming. He’s extremely charismatic, very skilled and a great motivator, which is all you really need from an instructor. And I think his crossover work (for lack of a better term) is extraordinary, which is why I brought up his book here in the first place. But, with all due respect, the family issue is bothersome. Celibacy is not a ‘lark’ in Chan Buddhism. It’s part of the teachings and if you explore those, you can understand the motivations behind them. Surely, there have been those who have broken celibacy vows and there always will be. However, they all fly in the face of doctrine, and that’s philosophically very difficult to negotiate. If you discard the doctrines of Chan, you essentially throw the baby out with the bath water, sort of like Victoria’s Zen At War. The heart of the celibacy issue, like any issue in Chan, is attachment. You can counter with something like “well, obviously you’re attached to the doctrines” but that opens up a whole mess of philosophical baggage.

Anyway, in regards to shaolinboxer’s comment, Yanming’s new book could never be the Shaolin bible. It’s too short. It looks like a fine introduction to Shaolin - very Yanming style with all the “beautiful!” “awesome!” “amitoufo!” and “train harder!” comments that you’d expect from him. I’m curious how that will translate to written word. Knowing Yanming, I can hear him saying that when I read his book, but I’m not sure that others will. We shall see.

24

It doesn’t matter what the content of his book is. The cult of personality that revolves around him will ensure at least a modest success.

And all of his ex-students will get to roll their eyes every time they visit barnes & noble.

25

gene- many things find their way into doctrine.

few monastics can follow all their precepts and I think Buddha himself was rather reluctant to adopt globally what was for personal consideration- I’ve known several and not a single one of them from De Yang, to Yan Ming, to Guolin to the Dalai Lama or Thich Nat Hahn follow them all. Some are just silly and obviously made to illustrate that exact point. Are we really not to eat onions and garlic because of hovering hungry ghosts? Does eating an onion instantly remove your enlightenment club card?

my views on celibacy come first from the Catholic side, where it is indeed a lark- nowadays it is couched in rather grandiose terms, married to christ etc, when the reality is that church (communal) property was passing to sons who were not following their fathers footsteps by becoming ordained priests. Even today several Rites allow for married priests within Catholicism but how few Catholics and how few Catholic priests know this.

Sameway I am happy that when the monks began to return to the Shaolin temple they brought back their families with them- so then if your master is married, a monk, and obviously a functioning one, how do you put the cork back in the bottle, when the refutation is alive and well right before you. Yan ming catches flack because unlike others who hide he is open. At the end of the day he is working for the betterment of others, is achieving monumental results- you should have seen our recent trip to Trinidad- and that is more important than if he is carefully avoiding onions and hovering ghosts.

doctrines are important but not the ends and in some cases not even necessary as the means. I guess I like the illiterate woodchoppers of Ch’an.

I had a much longer post but it went kablooie into cyberspace, I guess my Jamaica connection doesn’t like long times between reply and post button pushing.

26

it’s all about onions & garlic

If it was all about onions and garlic, that would totally bum me out. I’ve never heard the hungry ghosts thing. My understanding of that prohibition is that it seeks to cut the attachment to foods that are too stimulating. I’m not going to completely disregard that at this point, because my own personal alchemical changes in diet have produced some surprising results, so who knows? Maybe I’ll have to give them up someday to reach nirvana. Not today, tho. :wink: Clearly, there are effects of what you put into your body. Again, it’s all about severing attachment.

It’s difficult to follow all the precepts. You must remember that Buddhism was not originally developed for lay people like us. It was developed as a science to harness the mind, strictly for ascetics. So denial of attachments is key. We call them attachments for a reason. Many of them are hard to give up. We all fall from the path sometimes. It’s a difficult path. But saying ‘others fall from the path’ is a weak argument. The pursuit of Chan does not lie in comparison of your personal practice to others. You can certainly make valid claims that others fail at keeping vows and hide those failures, but that skirts the real issue.

Yanming’s case raises some interesting questions. His break from the tenets can be intellectualized as revolutionary or ****ed as heresy. It’s denial of denials, which could actually work in a recursive philosophical way, although like with any recursive logic, it can get real sticky. Personally, I could beleive everything he says - that he’s risen above the attachments of liquor, meat, and sex - if he could also rise above the attachment of being a monk. Do you think he’s attached to his monk title? I have the utmost respect for those that have walked away from it. Ironically, that can show more resolve, sort of like in Hesse’s Sidhartha.

Like I said earlier, I’ve always liked Yanming. We had a great relationship in the past, and despite a past professional split, I support him as much as I can support any of the monks. I’m not trying to bash him here at all. There are plenty of others here who would be happy to do that. Quite the opposite, I’m trying to promote his book because I think being published by Rodale is very exciting. At the same time, any mention of Yanming on a Shaolin forum is bound to elicit such a discussion and I’m eager to see how this plays out, especially now with the book imminent.

27

I have never met YanMing …

… however I have met many times his disciples Heng Xin (Austrian guy who spent 10 years with YanMing at the Manhattan Temple) and Heng Yi (Chinese guy who grew up at the WuShu Guan) … both of whom now run the Austrian Temple affiliated with NYC.

They are great guys, animated by truly positive spirit and passion for Shaolin Wu and Chan, teaching a solid mix of traditional and modern Shaolin martial arts with a good base of philosophy too. They don’t have the ego-drive or Shifu-worship that many Shaolin disciples unfortunately display, but just a healthy respect for their Master and a healthy bond with their students.

So, if the mark of a Master is the teachers he “produces”, well then YanMing in my opinion must be a great Master with great spirit.

On the technical side the only things I’d “add” to what these two disciples do, and I don’t know if that’s something lacking also in NYC, are applications and some combat training: they don’t do any practical application of techniques, even for more advanced students.

Wall

28

richard

(Firstly, I may respect Yanming’s philosophy as he is a lay Buddhist, but not as a monk.)

All you do is make excuses? Do you know the point of monkhood? Not “Shaolin monkhood” but Buddhist monkhood? What monastic code says you can have children while a monk or even have more than one family? If you want to live like this you’re called a layperson. That is if you at least try to follow the 5 precepts for the laity. Yanming doesn’t live as a monk under any monastic code but is sure attached to the ‘Shaolin monk’ title. Why all the excuses and as Gene pointed out, comparing and pointing at others? The Buddha did things with reason. There is no making babies in any “beautiful” monastic code and Shaolin is the only one that allows alcohol and meat eating. Probably because of modern times do they continue to allow it but it defeats the purpose of monkhood. An emporer has more say than the Buddha who set forth the vinaya? Shaolin monasticism has become a joke and is quickly passing away with the old masters. Buddhism is becoming poluted and will eventually die out. There should still be another 2500 years until it’s completely gone as predicted by the Buddha, but it’s going downhill from here and Shaolin is far ahead of the rest. It’s also interesting to consider the fact the Buddha also predicted the end of Buddhism will be due to Buddhist themselves and no one else. Could it even start with less and lack of a true monastic sangha to teach us? Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. The sangha dies out, the Dharma is lost and the Buddha is forgotten.

29

I think the others have a good point about being attached to titles. He has sex, gets married/divorced, makes money for himself, eats meat, and gets hammered like everyone else. As far as I can tell, his martial arts isn’t much different than many other modern wushu athletes either. What makes Yan Ming a monk?

30

I’ll tell you a brief anecdotal story. I grew up in the hardcore scene. No booze, smoke, boom boom- eventually one day at a big family dinner- I am half sicilian- my nonna poured me a glass of wine. I must have explained to her what hardcore was about a zillion times, but you know nonnas. Then it hit me. What was honestly the big deal. Could alcohol lead to disaster? If I did not consume alcohol because of it’s effects, then where does the line get drawn. Tea? Coffee? Soda? Chocolate Milk? Should it just be water? I suppose it could lead to disaster, and it has- but then it also has not. So I drank the glass of wine, which I used to enjoy with dinner before I became hardcore. It was pleasant. And the sky did not fall. Some people said I broke my edge. Actually it was something quite different.

And you know what? My head did not explode either. I did not become a drunkard. That’s the thing, for many people a prohibition against booze is a good thing. But too many people focus on the hammer and nail and not the house.

The pursuit of Chan does not lie in comparison of your personal practice to others.

There you have it. That’s why we can have an illiterate wood chopper as a lineage holder and patriarch. do you think if Hui Neng ate garlic he would not have been passed the robe and bowl? Adhering to precepts had nothing to do with his attainment. Here was man who was not a monk who was more of a monk than those who later tried to kill him.

Let’s face it- everyone has attachments. Is he attached to the title “monk?” I think it is a big part of what he is. Like a painter saying, I am an artist, and now because you do not like the art you say “oh he calls himself a painter but he is not.” Well he shows his work, has peers who acknowledge him as an artist so…my question is who are you to define them and what have you done to lend weight to your opinion? He’s got paint under his finger nails. As far as I am concerned, Shi Yan Ming is in the trenches the way a lot of other monks should be, and I am glad for the opportunity to make a difference in this way.

Usually if people press him on a definition of what he is, he dissembles and says I am whatever you want me to be. Other times he is adamant about what he is. It depends.

Personally, I could beleive everything he says - that he’s risen above the attachments of liquor, meat, and sex - if he could also rise above the attachment of being a monk.

But that’s the thing- it’s not something you “rise” above. You are in this world. You are a part of it. Sometimes he eats meat. Sometimes.

That’s the breakdown point of Buddha’s teachings- the transcendental signifier if you will. “Attachments” are part of the bag. It’s like wondering, did Buddha rise above taking pleasure in a good dump. Hence the dichotomy- you see this kind of spiritual structure in pretty much all transcendental spiritual processes- buddhism is not unique in this regard- it’s just another convenient spiritual label we can use in conversation to point to a recognized process- but without this kind of cross wiring in the process and structure of the system you can not break down and experience directly. It’s not what goes into a man that makes him impure, but what comes out.

Gene I hope my tone is conversational- I appreciate you bringing the book up- I think it is an important small step in getting some accurate stuff out there.

My purpose in bringing up other monks is simply to provide contextual examples of monks who do basically the same thing as Yan Ming- both within and without his system. Prominent, in the spotlight monks- like the Dalai Lama, Thich Nat Hahn.

What do you think about the transmitters after the CR who came back to Shaolin with family in tow? Whose sons became monks? If I were a young monk and I saw that these men were still monks, doing their work, their families with them…well then why not me? And if I were a Catholic priest, and learned the truth about my celibacy you can bet I would start to really wonder.

Ricky-
Frankly- I don’t feel the need to make “excuses” for anyone- you say something about someone who is not here to speak on their own behalf, and you run your mouth off spitting tripe about things you don’t know, then yes I will open mine. I’m supposed to sit here and stay quiet, lol, while you get your digs in. Let’s get something straight- there isn’t a thing you could say or think that will change the good works being done by him and his disciples- and I’m one of them. That continues despite all the negative posts in all the forums, and the reason why is that you’re wrong, and now I have corrected you, and when that is done in defense- suddenly people are making “excuses” etc. Your big beef Ricky is adherence to the precepts and that you heard and think- baselessly- that he’s got a lot of dough. LOL!!

Yet the fact remains, no monastic follows all the precepts, and he is not banking mad cash to retire in Rio in 5 years. And some of the precepts have been added in to no benefit or detraction to their actual purpose of attainment. Please don’t try and tell me about monastics, because I have been around them in one way or another pretty much my whole life.

Ricky- I would say you need to learn more about the world of Buddhism in general, and monastics in particular. You’re ignorant on more than a few things, the meat issue a big one- some even have to eat bugs for their meals.

31

where does the line get drawn

But too many people focus on the hammer and nail and not the house.

You got to focus the hammer on the nail to build a house. I think that’s the problem with most people today. They buy prebuilt houses. They don’t understand hammer and nail. To me, true Shaolin is all about hammer and nail. But that might be a little too metaphoric and garlic doesn’t enter into it. I suppose I could counter your wine anecdote with one of mine after working with drug patients at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, but I think that would take our discussion on a personal level and skirt the basic issue of what it means to be a monk. There’s no doubt in my mind that Shi Yanming could do equally good work without the monk title. It shouldn’t be about that at all. There’s the attachment. The definition of a monk is one of Shaolin’s most tricky concepts, mostly because the definition of wuseng is so soft, but also due to the fallout of the CR. You can look at the dictionary definition, but in English, we don’t really have terms to address things like wuseng or even fangtuo seng. In English, a monk is just someone who lives at a monastery and is accepted by his monkish brothers.

Buddhism is about extinction. That’s the reaal definition of nirvana. I suppose you could say ‘sink below’ as much as ‘rise above’ but the bottom line is you got to get past the attachments. The bottom line is you can’t take a good dump without first taking a good meal.

I hope my tone is conversation too, Richard. You know me - we’re old Shaolin cousins and I’m always a Shaolin devil’s advocate to some degree. I respect Yanming and I miss interacting with him. The last time I saw him was when I was with Martha making Shaolin Ulysses. And the last time I spoke to Sophia was years ago, just prior to one of our Shaolin Specials. Was that the 2003? I can’t remember exactly, but it’s been a long time.

32

That’s so not right. :confused:

Richard, may I ask what “monastics” you have been around your whole life? Your understanding of monastic life sounds “new age” to say the least. :rolleyes: It’s my opinion but I think it’s completely missing the point of monasticism.

33

not right

Ever look up the word Nirvana?

34

im so sick and tired of seeing hammerfists in forms. god i cant believe you bring it up gene…:rolleyes:

ninjetta’s?

35

buddhism as a practice is about first, the four noble truths, then using the eight fold path to live your life so that you may pass into extinction(if you like :slight_smile: ) and break the cycle of rebirth and death.

To cease the cycle is complete and utter freedom for the suffering that life is.

so, yes, it is about finding a way to make oneself extinct.

Having said that, I have to say that although there are ‘living acts’ of buddhism that I respect and admire, the underlying concept to me is innaccurate.

For me, although life does have suffering within it, It is not suffering in and of itself and I would hope that if reincarnation was true, that I would indeed be able to experience life againa nd again throughout all time. To feel, to taste, to touch, to have the use of all ones faculties and senses is no suffering to me.

All Life is change. We only remain in ruts because we keep ourselves in them. We only suffer, because we perpetuate our own suffering through our own fear and ignorance and unwillingness to change.

So, no Nirvana for me thanks, Im not interested in never getting to suffer again. Suffering is a great teacher and shapes our hearts and minds with each encounter with it. Depending on how self absorbed one is, the lessons of suffering can lead to being able to help others not have to in similar circumstances where hindsight is clear.

36

well there is no doubt the CR threw a big monkey wrench in the term “monk” and Shaolin was always one of those round pegs in square hole kind of things- as we know it and many want to use it you are right there is no easy translation sometimes of the word, which is why I leave it up to them,the monks themselves. Sometimes your lips just have to be sealed, especially regarding some of the context and background- family stuff.

Of course you need a hammer and nail to build, but Gene when you’ve got it built you can set them aside or use them as you need. Maybe you change hammers, use steel nails instead of zinc, or you figure a way to not need them at all like a Japanese farmhouse- you still get a structure. You’re not going to have to keep them nearby like when you were building. That’s the metaphor. If you just focus on the hammer and nails you’ll never get anywhere- you’re going to be the poor sucker monk who keeps getting whacked with the stick.

There are tons of cracks which display some rather silly developments in the precepts, and quite a few practices that seem to refute the idea most people have in their heads as to what it means to be a “monk.” Some people have an idea that monks must be reclusives, locked up in their little rooms in little temples stuffed way up on mountains. Yet there is such a rich tradition of mendicant and traveling monks. The stuff with women is particularly enlightening. I mean, forget the hungry ghost stuff- the dietary prohibitions are such a canard it should be self evident. Even before the ghosts get involved onions and garlic increase desire or passions…that made me laugh when I read it. I didn’t know they had Listerine back then, lol…but it makes you wonder how Buddha’s family managed to even join him when you read some of the stuff these guys came up with after his death.

and the funny thing is, the people with most hangups about the word and it’s definitions are rarely monks.

Maybe Shi Su Yun felt the same way as Gotoma did, when his son became a monk…and he could look on his family as one…

Wouldn’t you say it is more about being the one thus come rather than the one snuffed out…what I mean is there is no sinking or rising. There is. The snuffing out or extinction of desire- it’s not enough to just say that, there is a lot more to it…when your belly hungers, whether you eat sooner or later eventually you eat the same way- you take in nourishment and you can take pleasure in that nourishment and not be subjected to desire, per se. So it is not enough to say desire, the context too is very important.

Ricky- You are actually a funny guy. “New Age” he says…hilarious…I can’t wait to tell people you said that. Man you have some funny opinions.

Seriously folks, he is here all night…

37

layers of the onion

Our hammer and nail analogy is beginning to remind me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence. There’s that passage (and it’s been years since I’ve read it so forgive the paraphasing) about not being able to change a tire and having to refocus on just removing the lug nuts. I agree with you that the hammer and nails can be discarded after the house is built, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be engaged. It’s just like you got to remove the lug nuts first. Therein lies the rub.

It’s very akin to Bruce Lee’s Classical Mess issue. It’s easy for him to say that after being classically trained, but it leaves a rather poor role model for those that follow. The next generation that follows are tempted to disregard the classical hammer before even laying a foundation. That’s straight out dangerous. You know how easily zen can go bad. It is the razor’s edge and a lot of people get cut. Zen’s moral code, it’s sense of compassion, can be easily disregarded if you forsake the discipline. But still, what you’re describing sounds a lot more like taoist shamanism than Buddhism, and while there is a lot of cross over, especially in the Chinese circles, they are distinct. At a certain point, if you’re going to break with tradition, you might as well call it something else. That’s what Bruce Lee did. Hell, that’s what Sin The did too.

Zen is in a really weird place in America now. We’re a product. We’re a house cleaner and an MP3 player. Does that happen with other religions? Where’s my air freshener called catholic and my iJew iPod? But anyone who has studied zen knows that this was originally a discipline for monks, not for laypeople. You can mock the ancestors all you want for their ‘silly’ precepts, but that is the very nature of tradition. If you don’t like those traditions, if you don’t accept them, you shouldn’t call yourself part of the sangha. You should go out and forge your own way. Start something new, something that won’t be commercialized into a product name. Truly evovle.

38

This statement is a little faulty. It is not Buddhism but Nihilism. Can you point out the self that we are trying to make extinct?

When you reach Nirvana it means you have cut off all roots of suffering, but you continue to live until the end of your natural life, at which point comes “Parinirvana” which is still not extinction of “oneself”.

Gene- You should say “Buddhism is about extinction of suffering” otherwise you’re misleading people by saying “Buddhism is about extinction” as David just showed us.

Richard- Nice reply. Who would have thought you wouldn’t have anything to answer?

39

Yan Ming is an actor, a performer, a teacher, a lot of good things.

But saying most of these guys are monks is like saying the guy in the goofy costume at disney world is a real dog.

40

Should a Buddhist monk enjoy alcohol, meat, polygamy, fame and fortune? I guess thats a matter of, erm…perspective.

To me, it seems like the more we apologize for these guys or use the philosophical gymnastics of relativity to cover up for their lack of integrity, the more they get away with.

I can be happy for someone who makes it the way some of these dudes have, but not when so much of it seems to be built on deception. What can I say, when the first thing a buddhist monk does when i am introduced to him is hand me a business card or try to sell me something, its disillusioning. After all, i didnt just barf up this image of a humble buddhist monk here to spread dharma and teach gong fu as a form of discipline- this is an image the temple and its monks have widely painted of themselves. It only makes sense, then, that people get frustrated when these guys often (though not always) turn out to be greedy, materialistic businessmen.

As far as the quality of the gong-fu is concerned, i really couldnt care less how fight-worthy it is. The way i see it, [B]many people like to prance around with this idea that “gongfu” dosent just mean martial art but really dont believe it themselves. From what I have seen, “gongfu” (shaolin and non-shaolin) has been a variety of different things in each of the places it existed. it has gone through a transition from meditative yoga-like excercises to fighting techniques to sport to parlor tricks and who the hell knows where next in one place, and in another it has gone from sexual practices, circle-walking, to martial arts…you get the point.
so really, to gripe about the combat-efficiency of wushu or shaolin gongfu is pointless.

[SIZE=“4”]BUT[/SIZE]

When it comes down to it, if you advertise something you have to live up to it. When you make yourself out to be something you are not, you have a lot of deserved criticism coming your way and no amount of culture-difference and pilosophical nonsense will exempt you from it. All this talk about “we cant hold them to standards we dont reach” is apologetic horse-****. It is not unreasonable to expect eomeone to live up to standards they claim to embody.

Some of these guys seriously dont realize that there are people who know better than to just take their word for all this. I have crossed hands with quite a few martial artists in my time and although it kills me to say it, by far the weakest ive ever seen in terms of application and touch presence have been monks. Yet those very monks will swear up and down that theirs is the ultimate fighting system, incorporating the very best of both internal and external discipline. and that I am “number one!” if i practice shaolin.

The focus of these so-called monks is very obvious when you look at their students. I would greatly encourage whoever goes to tournaments where monk schools have a presence to take a look at what the students excel in. In the competitions ive been in, students of monk schools overwhelmed wushu portions of the competition. backstreet-boy after backstreet-boy dazzled the crowd with jumping kicks, barrel rolls and splits.
How do they fare in terms of focus on the traditional stuff? one word sums it up:

Laughable

the tiny bit of “traditional” they did was, at best, abridged (whitness the horribly abridged version of XHQ). I kid you not when I say half of these guys almost fell over backwards in a horse-step. When i say laughable its because i honestly laughed out loud when i saw them. they completely lacked any structure or form of power. none of the twisting, coiling power that you see in the few remaining monks that have an idea what theyre doing, and certainly no grounding foundation. Their movements were sloppy, empty and lacked force.
As far as San-Da theres two points i’d like to make.

1- Why do some of these guys need to invite muai thai coaches to come to teir school? (ive personally seen this)

2- if shaolin is so awesome and comprehensive, why do they have to teach you ring fighting instead of actual fighting?

The best place to look at when you want to know where a teacher’s head is at is the students. The only thing they seemed to have were pretty, shiny outfits, flashy hairstyles and a condescending attitude. Yea, very humble- very Shaolin. Fits in perfectly with the marketing scheme. they dont train martial artists or buddhist disciples, they train Champs and wanna-be movie stars.

the way I see it, they could do just as well and have a much less damaged reputation if they dropped the buddhist facade and went all-out wushu. Why claim to be a school of traditional shaolin gong fu when your are not? Or, on the other hand, if this is really whats being practiced at the temple, why not advertise that?

All seems unnecessary to me, for all the talk about these people’s integrity, they sure seem irresponsible. this kind of stuff is the reason that BJJ nut-jockeys are right to laugh at TCM practitioners.