Excellent post Inquisitor! 
2 comments InquisitorâŚ
-
What about the âmartial ancestorsâ who did not flee but chose to stay? It seems very often that this argument is often crafted from the assumption that all the great masters fled China during the CR. People also make the assumption that anyone who did stay behind didnât have complete knowledge of their styles/forms and only had piecemeal forms requiring them to be âpatched up.â Not all the great masters fled. Just because none came forward immediately to help the committee does not mean they were not thereâŚthere is a common misconception that traditional CMA are dead in China. I think this has been grossly overstated, and anyone traveling there can tell you that if theyâve got their eyes open.
-
I was not aware that the Shaolin Temple was actively denouncing compulsory wushu whilst propagating comp. wushu as traditional- it seems fairly obvious to me that they support both the traditional styles/forms as well as the compulsory PRC forms. There are huge differences.
-richard
-
Since weâre talking about the Shaolin Temple, Iâll keep my response limited in that respect (rather than talk about the general history of all CMA styles during this period of time). The masters who did not flee were either killed/imprisoned, forced to teach their martial skills to âloyal Communists,â or hid their skills. In the case of the Shaolin Temple monks, I donât believe that any of them were asked to teach once the Communists took over the temple grounds; at least, not in any official sense. That being said, they were limited to the other two options - die or hide. The ones that hid inevitably died during the years, and very few passed on their traditions (although it did happen). Of course, what one must realize is that the vast scope of the Shaolin arts made it impossible for any one person to learn them in their entirety. Do you think that out of the handful of monks who stayed, that between them they knew the total sum of Shaolin knowledge? If they did, could all of them have possibly passed every single bit of knowledge down to successors, and then have those disciples continue the tradition until the time of the ârebuildingâ? Look at the state of Shaolin martial arts outside of China. They are extremely fragmented. There is Bak Siu Lum, Praying Mantis, Wing Chun, Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar, Fu Jow Pai, Shaolin Lohan, My Jong Law Horn, etc etc etc. While not all of these styles came as a result of the Communist takeover, they are a good indication of just how much was incorporated into the Temple. It has been established that no one ever mastered all of Shaolin - not even the Head Abbot (except perhaps early on in its history, when there was much less material to be learned). As for âtraditional kungfuâ - I have never denied that it died out in China. It is a widely known fact that many masters chose to reside in China during that time, and their descendants continue to live in the country today. However, while this may be true, only a fool would think that the governmentâs official (and very overt) stance on the traditional arts will change any time soon. The creation of contemporary wushu is an indication of this thinking. Traditional kungfu may not have died out in China, but to think that it was not weakened is asinine. Dozens of masters fled the country - the few who remained were left in bad straits (most of them died before they could pass on their knowledge).
-
The Shaolin Temple may not be openly denouncing modern wushu, but there have been enough statements by high-level monks to indicate that they recognize a major difference between the ancient arts of Shaolin and the newly created form contemporary wushu. Yet, while indicating that they understand the difference, they openly display in public what can only be called pure modern wushu (with a few Shaolin poses/stances thrown in). What many traditionalists cannot understand is why the modern-day Shaolin Temple would claim to be the clear successor to the Shaolin arts (which they are not, as I have said before) while at the same time actively promoting modern wushu. The tradional arts are nothing like contemporary wushu - this has been acknowledged repeatedly. And yet, the current Shaolin Temple complains about not being seen as legitimate in the eyes of âthose who left.â If they wished to solidify their claim, they should openly display what they have been trying to rebuild - the Shaolin arts of old, not modern wushu. Of course, there is the official statement that âin the current climate of the Communist regime in China, the only way to support the ancient Shaolin Temple arts is to gain stature in modern wushu.â Personally, I think this is a bunch of bullsh-t. Everyone knows that the real wushu contenders are members of their respective province teams - Beijing, Shandong, Guangdong, etc. Shaolin monks will never be at the same level as these people. What do they think winning 10th place in a modern wushu tournament will garner them? Respect from the wushu community? Respect from the traditional masters outside the country? [I was not even aware that the so-called monks could compete in the national or international competitionsâŚsomeone correct me if I was wrong.] At any rate, I believe you are not fully understanding what I previously wrote. The problem is not that people think âShaolin is dead in China!â It is that the current Shaolin Temple says one thing while doing another.
I donât have much timeâŚ
âŚunfortunately to fully reply to your post as i am in the midst of preparing for an extended trip abroadâŚbut I do not think you will see the Shaolin monks displaying for your viewing pleasure, or stamp of authenticity, the traditional forms, anytime soon. And not because they are not propagated, but they are treasuredâŚsome of the forms seem to have a very deep sacredness that I feel isâŚI guess reserved is the word I am looking for. Just look at the 108 Lohan form. It is rare that one person will learn the whole form, all 108 movements until they are truly accepted by their master, and if he even knows it. I feel that most of the monks are content with what they know and do not feel the need to justify anything to the outside world- perhaps this is viewed as smugness or arrogance, but I personally donât think so and understand their position.
Also, the governments hands are in deep, as you mention, so the emphasis on compulsory wushu is I think understandable from quite a few standpoints- not the least of which is that most of the general populace likes to watch wushu, not traditional. As sad as that may be, it is still a fact of life. Personally, I feel that Shaolin is a big enough institution to accomodate both, and I for one have no problem paying respect to those athletes who excel or desire to excel in wushu- it is a tough sport and is not given the credit it generally deserves.
As far as the Shaolin masters themselves, I think more was transmitted than is the common belief- some of the monks know over 80 to a hundred forms, with more contained in the martial librariesâŚof course only a fool would say there were no losses, I just happen to believe, by virtue of some of the things I was/am being exposed to, that the losses are not as severe or as dire as it is popularly believed, and in any case, will fall into the cycle of history just like all the other trials and tribulations the temple has been through.
Of course there were high level martial artist left in China.
AHHHH itâs the âtraditional vs. Contemporary Wushuâ debate/opinion/whatever else you want to call it. Well, I must say that yes, one is different than the other. You could even say that there two different âstylesâ. But I think I tend to agree with Kung Fu ****'s posts (as he is my fellow classmate). If you do worry about what you are learning is traditional or Wushu then you will never learn anything at all because your mind is going to be cluttered with no focus. I believe each style has itâs own advantages.
I think there are many that are quick to jump in the âmonks are wushu experts not monksâ band wagon. Lets face itâŚtraditional shaolin isnât pretty and doesnât look good. Itâs for defense and it can be deadly. Donât be quick to judge a wushu stylist either. Throw that person into a fight with the weapon of their choice and I guarantee you they can do some damage.
I read in someoneâs response that Shaolin wants to be the arts âsuccessorâ while promoting wushu or something like that. The fact is Shaolin created the arts and its stands alone. Shaolin is Shaolin and there is no need for the Temple to prove anything to anybody. What I really find interesting is all these kung fu styles that are out there paint themselves as âshaolinâ even though most of the styles were founded by individuals who werenât even monks or closely associated with Shaolin Temple but yet they use Shaolinâs name in their school. Itâs two way street here. Just as there are many to point out that todays Shaolin monks are primarily wushu stylists there are many others who point out the ones that abuse the very name. I certainly hope that you are not saying that if you are training in Hung Gar, Mantis, JKD, etc. you are learning the real traditional shaolin art than those who are training under one of the monks. If you are then you are totally wrong and way off the target. There are no real winners here in this situation. Check out the latest Inside Kung FU mag with Shi Xing Hong on the cover. Itâs an interesting article. Shaolin has begun to open its doors and is now being taught all over the world. 
wellâŚ
âŚall I can say is that none of this is anything more than educated conjecture, and fact in a few personal examples. I was not discussing Shaolin âschools,â but the temple.
My personal examples are very different from others. Everything else I refuse to jot down in the fact column because few of these conclusions are bulletproof. And amazingly, people who develop detailed âscholasticâ analysis rarely make the effort to speak with both sides of this debate. I have no idea how the statement that training only occurred at the temple within the last 10 years can be made with any certainty. Where did Shi Su Xi come from and where did he learn his forms? Shing Jen? What about De Yang? De cheng? Yan Ming, Yan Chang, Yong Chen, Wan Heng, etc? Many of these masters know around 80 to a hundred forms each. It is no secretthat Shaolin was very extensive. Until these forms are catalogued and studied it is inappropriate to state anything as fact. Yan Ming has stated he knows over a 100 forms. De Cheng has made similar statements, and De Yang has custody of more than a few of the old training manuals. Some of the personal examples I have are as follows. It has been related to me on more than one occassion that many of the shaolin masters were tortured during the âdifficult period.â Many times they were forced to leave the temple, adopted regular clothing, and retreated sometimes to the nunnery further up the mountain, or indeed deeper into the range which hosts hundreds of temples, or left for short periods of time to return later. This seems reasonable and fits an established historical pattern extant in societies which suffer persecution.
You mention Eagle Claw. I have seen it stated over and over again that the Temple teaches wushu forms, and nothing else. The one eagle claw form I learned, the âtraditional,â looks nothing like the compulsory form performed in wushu competitions. It is very different. Is it complete? According to who? Is there more to it? I would think that would be a reasonable assumption. Do some people learn the PRC wushu compulsory form called Eagle claw at Shaolin Temple? Obviously. Some monks concentrate on PRC wushu forms. Others focus more on traditional, and some a mixture. It is all Châan so I donât see the conflict or why it must be one way or the other. And yet, the possibility that this is so- that some monks train wushu, some traditional, some both, is never entertained or addressed.
Perhaps in the more cosmopolitan areas training was problematic, but most of china is not what I would call cosmopolitan. Especially in the Song Shan area, it is very very rural, the mountains are not easily accessible. Even with all the recent development it is still no walk in the park. There, and elsewhere, off the beaten path, you will find quite a few highly skilled traditional masters who bridle at the suggestion that they are figments of my imaginationâŚand that all the true masters split the country. I donât know where your friends or masters went in China. Or when.
Well, this is a dead horse which I am sure will continue to be dragged out and beat down. History is an interesting context but for me what is most important is what is happening now in OUR history, learning Châan. Perhaps some Shaolin masters/monks are making things up, or told to say a certain story and rewriting history, but I am satisfied with what I am being exposed to and so far it has seemed to me more than reasonable. My scholastic experiences in general have led me to have a healthy distrust, or I should say a âsurfaceâ level trust of most scholastic work, and especially in this area, and especially the work done by non chinese. I often find myself scratching my head because so much work gets based off of such little information. Historical sources are notoriuos for being problematic and faulty. An historical source is often so riddled with various biases as to render it worthless as anything other than an opinion, and rarely independantly verifiable or able to withstand the scientific method. Very often the chainfire issue is completely overlooked. People are building cases out of one data set and that is not going to reach an approximation of the truth.
Call me crazy, but thatâs my opinion. Iâll be a skeptic of all of this until something bulletproof comes out.
-sloan
Just my thoughts
For the record, I agree one hundred percent with r.(shaolin) and Inquisitor about the current status of Shaolin Arts in the SongShan temple.
I am talking about the âappearanceâ of unbroken succession or lineage of masters. As r.(shaolin) pointed out, it is hard to practice the many required forms of the true Shaolin arts, when, if after the wrong person peeks through your window, they come in and break your legs, or take you to the back of the field.
To me Shaolin is a building, it is a Kung Fu system, and it is a sect of Buddhism.
As my late Sifu used to say âYou can stay inside the Shaolin Temple for thirty years, and if you dont practice, your Kung Fu will still be no goodâ
The same can be said, âYou can practice Shaolin Kung Fu for thirty years, but if your not practicing Shaolin, then your not practicing Shaolin.â
Even though the building is intact, is the art intact ? Yes they have Kung Fu or Wu Shu or a combination. But is it the same Kung Fu as was being taught in the temple in 1900 ?
If it is then that is good. I hope and pray some of the original arts are still practiced in the temple.
If not then they should admit it. Then invite old masters to pass on the knowledge inside the temple.
Almost everyone has kung fu that is mixed or combined somehow, but the label Shaolin means Shaolin. We are not talking about the building or the robes.
If I opened a school claiming to teach authentic Wing Chun, but taught boxing, I would be challenged or ridiculed as a fake. The same goes for any other traditional style with pride in their art and heritage.
We must teach what we say we teach, or we are fooling people and ourselves.
There are real masters out there (as r. could vouch for) that teach true Shaolin Arts. Straight from the old temple.
As r.(shaolin) discussed about earlier, the older martial arts societies and communities provided an ideal breeding ground for powerful warriors, free thinkers, philosophers and underworld characters with far reaching connections. Traits most unwanted by any government seeking to maintain any type of serious control.
Just remember Tai Ping, Boxer Rebellion and the many large underworld groups etc. etc. All having ties to martial artists somehow someway.
According to Chinese strategy:
âDont push the dog against the wall, or it will be forced to bite, leave him an escape routeâ
So to leave a glimmer of hope to the martial society, the government must do something to appease the martial society, appear even to promote it. But how can you promote a group that will perhaps one day undermine your power and control. It would need to be re-DIRECTED.
The quickest way to redirect a powerful attack is to redirect its power and focus and thus nuetralize it.
If you want to keep a snake, take out its fangs, or it will bite.
In China martial arts seems to have been guided from the âmartialâ to more of an âartâ, and MUCH more importantly, from out of the control of the âmartial societiesâ and into the control of the government.
Before, when learning martial arts, sincere students would have to take oaths of loyalty before their prospective master and school. Strong ties that bind. A little too strong.
I doubt that this type of innitiation is performed so much now in the martial arts circles of Wu Shu or the modern schools. Which is most appropriate for the party line.
I do not mean to insult traditional Chinese Shaolin Arts, I love these more than anything else. But I too am concerned about the past state of affairs.
As brothers in the art, I hope the true ways can be kept alive and not redirected by governments or businesses that have alot to gain by selling a snake with no fangs.
As long as we are aware of the intentions of those that have the capability to deceive us, then we can navigate around them.
I believe we should always face any reality, and if we can improve, then learn from others. I have been practicing a set incorrectly for almost 18 years, now after being corrected I am going to start learning that set again. It is never too late.
The best way for our goal to be crushed, is if we fight and bicker, as is so common in our circle. I hope we can all continue helping each other along the way. Sort the good from the not so good and keep training.
This way the monks and masters long since buried will smile with joy.
âWithin the four seaâs, all men are brothersâ
Cheers
Buddhapalm
History or Arts???
I can honestly say that I have no clue to Shaolinâs history as far as the past goes. I am not an expert in Shaolin and I am certainly not an super advanced expert student either. I just want to make it clear that I am not a historian and I probably couldnât give you much details in the way of chronological events in the Templeâs history itself. I can only go by what Shi Xing Hao (my Sifu) tells me and the time he lived and trained at Shaolin. What I can say is that Shaolin is alive and that there is a difference between traditional Shaolin and Modern (Wushu). I feel both have their place in Shaolin and make up Shaolin. I really never heard of Wushu or seen it until I saw it with my own eyes. When I saw it Shaolin Monks Shi Xing Hao and Shi Deshan demonstrate it and I was literally blown away by how fast and powerful they moved. That was 3 years ago. I never seen anything like it through my whole life and experience in the âmartial artsâ.
As for the âlineageâ followers, you are never going to find Shaolinâs complete list or book of the lineage of Shaolin monks. I am sure it did exist at one point but those records were destroyed or lost through time. The main problem is that we are over here and the Temple is halfway around the world. Add in the language barrier along with the political climate and itâs extremely hard to read and gather historical information. The art is still there and I believe what monks were doing in the early 1900âs are still taught at the Temple todayâŚbut only to a selected few who are worthy and excelled highly in their training. Letâs face it guys I donât think Shaolin would spill all of its secrets and teach the âsacred traditionalâ knowledge/forms to just anyone. So, thats where the wushu comes in. All this is pure opinion now, okay?? :eek:
Actually there is a complete lineageâŚ
Deqian published one years ago. It only covers the fully indoctrinated monks, not the warrior monks, who are technically layman disciples. Itâs the warrior monks that we are most familiar with, so they are not on the lineage, but they can tie themselves in if you ask them.
Obviously, the monks donât practice what they did in the 1900âs since modern wushu and sanda have been added to the curriculum. But arguably, they didnât practice in the 1900âs what they did in the 1800âs and so on for every century. Such isnât the nature of inheritance, especially not for Chan. Additionally, folk masters have always been a big part of Shaolin and still are. Shaolin has certainly rebuilt using folk master resources too.
Talking about bait and hooks . . .
Songshan wrote:
. . . . I can only go by what . .
Thanks Gene
You know Gene I never really looked at it like the way you said it. But I think you are right. You and a few others are the only true insight we have at Shaolin. You spent many days and hours over there. Again just to confirm this is all my opinion. I truly have no real insight to the happenings at Shaolin. I am not an âauthorityâ in the subjeect. The majority of my time with my sifu is spent training and trying to recover literally after some of the training classes. I donât really try to âpryâ and ask so many questions even though I would like to. There is a proper time and place for everything.
My only assumption about these âmaster librariesâ is from what I hear/read from the historical accounts when the temple was burned down. I hear a lot of books, journals, even training manuals were lost in the blaze. I mean we can all sit back and see that Shaolin has had a violent past. I certainly have no idea who or how far back these libraries go. 