What if Bodhidharma's Kungfu was fake?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
,
21

Does it matter?

Hatsumi sensei of the Bujinkan put a question to a group one time (don’t remember particulars, so no crucifying!) but it was along the lines of “What if Takamatsu sensei & I sat down one day & made this all up? Would it matter to your taijutsu?” Now mind you that question has been posed by detractors of the Bujinkan since its inception, but would it matter? The combat skills are real, the higher level meditation skills are real, so what’s the big deal where it came from except that it’s survived long enough for me to get into it. Same with kungfu. Who cares if it’s Bodhidharma to Da mo to Long Duck Dong?? Does it work in keeping you safe? Do you obtain benefit from it physically, mentally & for some, spiritually? Does it really, honestly matter?

That’s my thoughts anyway. I was at Shaolin last month, saw the “monks”, saw Tagou at Shaolin village & Master Liang’s Shaolin wushu school in Dengfeng. I saw some really good martial arts that looked a lot like what I saw this old guy in Beijing doing (but slower) at the Temple of Heaven park that looked a lot like I saw a bunch of kids (but way faster)in Xi’an doing at Master Zhou’s wushu school there. It’s martial arts. Period. Who cares where it came from. It’s here, let’s enjoy it & benefit from it.

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

– H.L. Mencken

22

Alot of us don’t care

Most of us don’t really care that much about history as a way of somehow justifying what we study. Ther is a current trend (or maybe not so current) of gaugeing how good a practitioner is by their lineage. We hear it alot especially on the web I trained with xx master who learned from xxx master and he can trace the style all the way back to xxxx general in the Han dynasty. Tracing their styles back along ways may be good but beyond respecting their ansectors it does little else. I think alot of you would agree that alot of styles that are called Shaolin have questionable lineage but if you train hard are still great styles(my style for example). The fact that they may not be directly from Shaolin means little if nothing compared to the work and dedication you put to the style. Just because your style is decended from a famous master doesn’t mean you’ll gain his skill level from doing nothing. Anyway,I heard somwhere that Chinese have a different view of self than in the west because of confucious(sp?) and they tend to atribute their creation to famous or legendary figures. I guess alot of people would call it humble but I call it a lack of self worth but that’s a hole new subject.

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net

23

stonehart phoenix

That’s a great lesson from Hatsumi. I guess some of that is what I’m trying to get at with my original post here.
With so many flame wars here about validity, lineage, reality, I find it really interesting that there is a certain level of acceptance to the notion of Tamo being fake. Indeed, who cares? But this can open a huge pandora’s box because if we accept this, what if Hatsumi did make it all up? Do we accept that? And then, do we accept other controversial masters like Sinte, USSD or Frank Dux? Where do we draw that line? It gets at a fundamental question that everyone seems to like to fight about here - what is real?

And please, can we AVOID turning this into another Shaolin-Do flame war?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

24

Crimson phoenix - damo was actually persian and had blue eyes??? Interesting - where’d u read that?

So, is this new author saying that Damo DIDN’T write the 2 classic qigong texts that are attributed to him? Or just that he didn’t found kung-fu there?

I can believe the former, but am somewhat skeptical of the latter. Why? Because fighting and killing runs counter to Buddhism. So, I doubt that Damo would have engaged in these activities. The fact that the Shaolin monks did so later on only shows how they became corrupted (just like how there was a time when they also were allowed to drink booze and eat meat). I suspect that perhaps Damo’s qigong techniques were incorporated into existing martial arts techniques. Perhaps in that sense, Damo could be considered somewhat of a founder.

25

Gene…

Doesn’t sweat me any. I do study Shaolin-do :wink: & I get the benefits I listed above & more. Everything, everybody else… whatever. I also studied taijutsu in the Bujinkan for several years. I’m used to flames & wear flame retardant boxers. :eek:

In the end, to me, it’s all good as long as something good comes out of it for each person. :smiley:

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.

– H.L. Mencken

26

Regarding Qigong

Qigong preceded Tamo in China. He did not bring it to China as some sort of version of pranayama yoga. General Guan Gong’s doctor Hua Tuo had 5 Animal Frolics centuries before. Additionally, many scholars don’t believe yoga asana is that old beyond a few poses. So it is unlikely that he brought breathing techniques or postures into already existing indigenous martial arts.

I’m playing devil’s advocate here to try to penetrate a little deeper. Tamo means a lot to me, but if I met him on the road, well, you all probably know the zen response…

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

27

Origen, I heard that quite often…at that time, the range of indian influence was spreading from what is now Cambodia to what is now Iran…my most reliable sources are Henry Plée (he brought karate in Europe, and he’s the only 10th dan out of japan) who has an incredible martial library in various languages and another very reliable martial historian and practicionner, Kenji Tokitsu. Both of these guys are very advanced practicionners of japanese arts and practice chinese arts too (both in Taiji, like Kanazawa did…funny how karate practicionners come to Taiji when they realize that the rigidity of karate cannot last too long when you age, but I don’t want to start another controversy!). Anyway I also heard Kan Ge Wu mentionning that ancient texts about Damo’s venue in Shaolin all stressed the incredible aura of spirituality he possessed and that “many monks were intrigued by his eyes” (I don’t remember Kan Ge Wu precising the color, and I heard versions about them being “intrigued by his stares” but it is in accordance with the other sources).
Passionating, isn’t it? I really love these kind of things…
Another thing: has someone here, like me, ever wondered why on the drawings in Shaolin you have monks with clear skins practicing with guys with dark skins and different hair looking like they are indians? Were indian martial artists regularily visiting, or is it a way to acknowledge the indian influence even if indian guys were not really there, or maybe it has nothing to do at all?
I’m curious, I just love these questions!

28

crimson pheonix

The White Garment Hall Murals of Shaolin Temple aren’t that old, perhaps a few centuries. I’d have to really dig for the actual date, but I do remember them not going back too far (although anything that survived the last century of China is pretty far…) So the image of dark skinned warriors training with Chinese monks is relatively contemporary, cohesive with the whole Tamo theory being contemporary fabrication.

However, there is plenty of evidence of trade between India, China, even Africa going back quite far. We tend to view history from a Eurocentric perspective, which acknowleges these countries when Europeans ‘discovered’ them, never mind they had been doing trade with each other without Europe for centuries prior. Certainly, the early pioneers were warriors. That just stands to reason.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

29

Origins, artifacts, ancient writings.

The oldest forms of fighting recorded were discovered in Africa. the depictions were of men wrestling with one another in ritual combat. since we can all agree that the central origin of life and civilization starts in africa we can then expand out from there. as for india and the boddhiharma. it is my understanding that Ta Mo was fleeing india for his methods were unorthodox
and shuned by the old asetics. because the central theme of buddhism is nonviolence and peace, Ta mo did not shun fighting, so as the story goes he comes to shaolin temple finds the monks there weak and unable to meditate for long periods with out falling asleep. it is also my understanding that ta mo was ousted from the temple as well,he then retreated to the cave so famously known and meditated on the problem at hand. 9 years i think it was. during this time he wrote and composed the i chin ching muscletendon excersises. he dies and as the stroy goes a monk finds his book hidden below his altar opens it and then it goes from there. i know i am only telling part of this story and there are quite a few renditions of this story, but what i can figure out from this is that TA MO did not teach fighting at the temple, he taught the ways in which to increase internal strength to meditate PROPERLY. it was the monks who figured out that these techniques helped them martially. There is NO Bodhidarma
kung fu that i am aware of so to say that what if his kung fu was fake is in my opinion a moot topic.

India has its own fighting style i believe. mainly consisting of grappling and wrestling.
shaolin has always been a place where things come and get absorbed. what is unique to Shaolin?
5 animal fist? maybe maybe not. shaolin temple was buddhist right? no violence, no fighting. strange then that fighting is the central theme of study at the temple, then and now. it is also interesting that the temples throughout history were dedicated to the emperors serving at the time. for it was an emporer who built the temple in the first place. but for what? to honor ba to right? and his buddhist principles. yet we see the history as military leaders going there disguising themselves as monks to escape the tyranny of new emperors and regimes. teaching fighting and defense to the monks and the monks accepting this violence? in a BUDDHIST temple?
here is the thing which i dont get. most temples other than shaolin are Taoist temples, with similar but very different ways of thinking.
here is my theory: the temple was once a buddhist place of worship but then over the years it became a military training center and the buddhist principles dwindled and it became a taoist order. still utilizing some of the harmonizing principles that buddhism has, obviously to sane oneself in combat or to justify the killing of another. disciplined warriors able to fight and kill effectively,like a navy seal training camp. a select group of warriors that are trained in the utmost forms of combat. with the animal flair that shaolin has. hey its just a theory. but not too far from the truth about what shaolin really is in my opinion. dont get me wrong i respect shaolin for what it is and i love to practice it and teach it. why do we go to shaolin kung fu anyway gentlemen. to learm to FIGHT. how many people do you know that go to shaolin to study buddhism? i know of noone here in this country who runs a shaolin school(including my school) that teaches the doctrines and buddhist principles. even over there in China were communism rules do you see people going there to study buddhism,they go there to learn how to fight and discipline themselves to fight well and with a flair of animal prowess. sounds like a military training center to me.
interesting to think about huh?

               many respects, willow sword

Whatever you think i am or want me to be, i am.
oh and,Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you are an a$.

30

Fake Kung Fu

First, I want to touch on the whole Fake Kung Fu controversy. The reason many of theses masters are so contraversial is because they ovbiously LIE about thier historys. Simple and true. Now, if they had admitted to learning from books or piecing this stuff together over decades, then maybe we would all be worshiping them as the founders of new and great styles. But because they lie, and try to tie thier systems to Shaolin or otheres they are NOT tied to, they become controversial and even despised in some circles. Shaolin Do may very well be rooted in a Shaolin System that left Shaolin many centurys ago and just happened to survive and continue to grow, or maybe Sin The’ made it all up, who knows. All we know is it’s ovbious he’s not being truthful. The same goes for Dux and others. That’s why we say they are Fake.

Now the legand of Da Mo is different because many many centurys have passed, and it’s pretty much accepted that any real truth will have been distorted over this great expansion of time. It’s doughtfull Da Mo’s kung Fu is fake (In my mind), but it is also doughtfull he created Shaolin Kung Fu. Especially since we all know that Shaolin absorbed and cataloged fighting systems throughout it’s whole existance. Maybe the Louhan or Five Animal styles are thiers, and maybe some lost styles that have come and gone are thiers, but certianly MOST of Shaolin’s material came from the outside. For example, during my reasearch into Tai Tzu Quan, I came across the theory that Sung Tai Tzu created Shaolin’s Hong Quan style. I have several different versions of it’s creation from different sources.

  1. Sung Tai Tzu developed Tai Tzu Chang Quan and taught it to the Monks who expaned it into the Hong Quan style (thus creating a “sister” to the Tai Tzu Chang Quan style)

  2. Sung Tai Tzu developed the Tai Tzu Hong Quan form and the Monks did the rest.

  3. Sung Tai Tzu developed the 4 shorter forms and his descendants developed the 6 longer forms. The Shaolin were just taught the entire system sometime down the road because the Chao family had such close ties to the Temple.

Now, only ONE story can be true. Maybe it’s not even one of the three I sighted. Who knows. The point I’m trying to make is that if Da Mo IS Fake, it happened SO LONG AGO, that it does not matter anymore. AND it still does not take away from all the accomplishments Shaolin made all the centurys since. Heck, the whole Hong Quan thing I wrote above hapened FIVE HUNDERD YEARS after Da Mo. and that was 1000 years PRIOR to today.

If Da Mo actually did exist, and I belive he did, he mostlikely taught the Shaolin how to train and develop thier bodys to maximum potential through the 3 Chi Kung Sets and maybe more exercises that are not credited to him due to lack of documentation or legand. It’s the Monks themselves that applied those training exercises and PRINCIPALS to thier self defence systems.

Da Mo is the original Richard Simmons or Joe Weider of Kung Fu, what the Monks did with his teachings is what’s important.

Royal Dragon

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

Royaldragon.4dw.com

[This message was edited by Royal Dragon on 07-16-01 at 11:23 AM.]

31

A few thoughts

Interesting discussion. Here are a few points I would like to make:

  1. Scholars and historians may not have taken any martial art dicipline. They themselves might even be pacificists and therefore reject the idea that an accomplished buddhist is in fact capable of using lethal force.

  2. Bodhidharma whom some people believe “was” the incarntion of Buddha. The historic Buddha was a prince and was an adept in martial affairs including hand-to-hand combat (some form of Indian westling) piror to his “enlightenment”. There is certainly a big parallel there in the background of the two. If we understand that the Hindu way of thinking that they use parables in their “oral” transmittions, then we would not be confused by the them.

  3. Gene has a very good point on Dhyana. Most people think that meditation is just to stay still and start breathing exercise. Yoga (Hindu tradition) promote mental focus through physical fitness. Sickness and stress are obsticales to enlightenment. Some people thought that it’s faster to achieve enlightenment by cutting out the rest and just do the meditation. That is why there are some many Koan about medition alone will not bring about Buddha nature. It is in fact a serious misunderstanding of Prajna Paramita.

  4. There were Indian monks in the Shaolin temple. They practice martial arts there alongside the Chinese counterpart. The murial of the temple is the physical proof of that. It would not be far fatch to link Kalaripuyattu (Indian martial arts which have extensive Staff fighting training) with the notable treasure of Staff fighting techniques of Shaolin.

  5. There is a striking parallel between the training progress of Kung Fu and Kalaripuyattu including the idea of Marma Adi (secret death blows). Also the preservation of life in the presence of adveristy is high pirority in both systems.

It is easy to flat out deny the link same as Evolution has been denied as a legitimate theory for a long time. The SCHOLARS who opposed the theory outnumbered Darwin by hundreds if not thousands. So go figure. BTW, there is no proof if you don’t go looking for it or looking in the wrong places. How much I love to be one of those scholars that people would just dig whatever I say.

Just a few thoughts

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

32

Just a thought…

I just have an idea that, to me, sits a little better than the shaolin idea of as a Chinese Navy Seals training camp.

We know from the records than an emperor created a temple to Buddha, as earlier evangelists (for lack of a better word) had spread the ideas of Buddha into China. Da-mo comes in to teach his own thing, maybe spread the word a little more than his forebearers, and he shows up at this temple with some out of shape monks. He teaches 'em more buddhism, and teaches them some physical activity to help them meditate better. The monks start teaching laymen both the buddhism and the exercises. In a nutshell, I think that the temple became the precurser to Ching Woo or a university. I read a similar theory on another website, I forget which.

I’ve always found that persuits of the mind go better when hand in hand with physical training. I think a bunch of people showed up to learn about buddha, a bunch of other people showed up later to learn about these new exercises (Ta-mo created or not). Eventually the academics gets stronger- libraries get built; and then the physical training becomes more inclusive, attracting folk martial arts from the surrounding regions.

It’s commonly known that martial arts existed in China long before Shaolin, and Qigong too for that matter (I think someone on here mentioned it earlier). What if shaolin was just the first epicenter where exponents of all these styles could meet and pass on their arts to a large body of students? Of course some of these martial teachers would become interested in buddhism, others would teach the monks out of friendship. The end result being the monks carry down the tradition of the martial arts and keep records of the whole thing in a very academic manner.

Far fetched as it seems, we’ll never know the truth so it’s fun to theorize.
.

33

Your Idea is not so far fetched. infact, it makes so much sens, that I doubt it hapened any other way. Besides, did’nt the Shaolin teach troops for various Emperors, some time during the Tang dynasty? Something about 13 Monks rescuing the Emperor or his son or something? I seem to recall this in my reasearch. Would’nt that make Shaolin the Chinese equivelent of West point?

I’m sure some styles came out of Shaolin that were all there own, but if they were a West point for China, then you can bet much of it was assymilated and blended with the physical discaplines already taught there.

Da Mo, probualy was real, but I bet it’s his exercise system that was superior, NOT his Martial arts. That was the Monks blending current martial arts with Da Mo’s exercises and probually inventing thier own stuff as well.

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

34

Yep, there was an incident or 2 with some pirates where Shaolin monks saved the day; as well as the incident you quoted with the young emperor.

As far as Shaolin being West Point; like everything else with Shaolin, 50% of it was intentional, 50% of it just happened. You’ve got people intentionally trying to make it a center of academia and physical training; then you’ve probably got guys who are academics or martial artists who enter the temple and happen to pass on their knowledge.

If there wasn’t so much in-fighting with the CMA scene, it’d be cool to see the great masters from all over the States get together and make some type of kung fu college. I’m talking an institute where the sum total of knowledge of all the different styles is kept and taught.Official branches could spring up all over the states, with instructors competant and qualified in the style they teach. If you wanna be a full-time instructor in a style, go to college for it. If you want to do it as a hobby join a local club headed by an instructor and practise at your own pace.

The only thing stopping us from reaching an ideal like Shaolin, Ching Wu, or those other Athletic Associations is ourselves. My friend tells me you can major in sports science/kung fu in taiwan. That would be killer to go to college for Hung Gar, Mantis, etc.

I’ll stop rambling now, I promise. :slight_smile:

35

lost disciple

Sounds like what you are proposing is another creation of the great library at alexandria. in ancient times this library contained all the ancient knowlegde wisdom and records of the ancient time predating back who knows how long. but tyranny and fighting brought the library crumbling down and set afire with ALL of the material inside going up in smoke.
the reason i think that we glamorize and hollywoodize shaolin so much is because that is where we as americans first learned of shaolin,ON TV. now in the past 30 yrs or so we have all this NEW AND LOST material surfacing out of the wood works. from my school at Shaolin do to others who have supposedly"the true shaolin lineage" China was even a mystery to the world until NIXON helped to open the doors in to the orient. all we have to go one is what they tell us is true,but why are we as a culture so enamored at the shaolin ways? remember KUNG_FU with david carradine? who came up with that story?
some say bruce lee did,others say it was his agent and producer. its funny that we see all these kung fu movies from china appear in the 60’s and 70’s. Who is to say wht IS fake and What IS not. even in my earlier posts about SD noone could really tell me anything other than what they have heard or “supposedly read” people tell me,investigate the FACTS and YOU will see. well what are these facts about the SHaolin ways?
How do we as westerners know that what we are getting from these asian peoples ARE the shaolin ways?
Remember what china is now. i keep on stating this but with no apparent REALIZATION that this is a COMMUNIST country that we are dealing with.
and despite what american gove. propaganda tells us about communism we have it from the DALI LLAMA himself about what communism is all about. look what happened to his country and where it is now,with out him there. this is MAOs’work. What else has been done to capitolize on american money
by asia? martial arts? Bruce Lee seems to be the focal ASIAN who revealed something to us and was KILLED for doing so. GM Sin Kwang THe started at the same time bruce was starting and GM sin had the Karate name then…why? because that "name is what everybody knew back then. Everyone on this forum THINK about what YOU KNOW or what you think you know. I THINK ABOUT IT EVERYDAY. But what i have learned is what i have learned. AND I HAVE TO GO ON WHAT I HAVE LEARNED AS TRUE. legitamate masters to me are those who humble themselves before this great country of ours and live simply within its borders and imparts wisdom and good teaching to those of us whose culture is as shallow as a bird bath. AND MY TEACHER AND GRANSMASTER IS no different than yours GENTLEMEN.
As a teacher now i HAVE to stand up for what i have been taught and discount those who trash my school as well as other SCHOOLS,WHAT IS FAKE?
WHAT IS NOT FAKE? TO ME IT IS FAKE IF WHEN YOU ARE IN A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION YOUR SKILLS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT DO NOT WORK. ALL THIS POSTURING AND TRASHING AND BS WILL STOP RIGHT HERE AND NOW!!!
Many Respects, willow sword.

Whatever you think i am or want me to be, i am.
oh and,Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you are an a$.

36

Should’nt half of this be…

…on the Shaolin Do and why it’s fake string?

In response to the Shaolin Do aspect:

Please refer to the Shaolin Do and why it’s fake string.

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

37

Yah just gotta make it hard on me huh? :wink:

First off I think the thing that most targets Shaolin Do for attack is the way that it’s presented. If you just said that all those different styles advertised on the pamphlet in addition to the Shaolin five animal forms (or Hua kung fu, whatever you guys call it now) merely influenced your art and that there are forms from your art that were influenced by said style, to make your system more complete, I don’t think SD people would get targeted as much as they do. The unfortunate thing, is that the advertising or miscommunication leads people to assume that’s where you’re coming from.

Not all styles of martial arts have as big of holes in lineage as Shaolin does. The reason northern mantis is popular, for example, is because of the work of Fan Yuk Tong & Lo Kwan Yu from Seven Star, and various others from other lineages of other branches of northern mantis (you 8 step people may want to help me out here). Now if you guys could prove that Su Kong Tai Jin, Ie Man Ching, or Sin Kwan The was a disciple of any of these guys who made their system well known, maybe it would be acceptable that you guys were purporting to be teaching the northern mantis system. As it is, you cannot, and therefor would do better to present your style as having aspects influenced from another style to make it more complete. The same goes for every style that SD advertises that it teaches on its brochure, aside from the original Shaolin or Hua kung fu forms. Being influenced by a particular style is not a bad thing, presenting yourselves as inheritors of a system when you can not prove so is. Most of the systems listed on the pamphlet were never reported as part of the shaolin cirriculum though. I believe someone else pointed out that some of the arts are strictly Taoist (like Hsing Yi).

The university system I was talking about would have criteria a system would need to meet in order to be accepted as a style to be taught. I would hope that these criteria not depend too much on lineage and allow for effective systems that have been created by first generation masters. Obviously Sin The has spent a ton of time promoting SD, obviously a ton of people practise this style and find it useful. It would take a lot of pride & ego swallowing on the part of a ton of traditionalists, but as long as SD/HKF passes the other criteria for entry then there’s no logical reason you guys couldn’t be allowed a department in the college.

I’m serious about accepting various forms of CMA into a university type format. Of course, there will be other criteria each style would have to meet such as whether or not the techniques being taught are taught in a manner consistant with CMA, whether or not the techniques being taught are harmful to one’s health, and possibly whether or not at least one person from the system has been able to effectively use the system in combat (though this one may be sketchy). Systems would be allowed in if they met the criteria. Instructors would be allowed to teach if they were recognized by the instructor/lineage they claimed. People & styles wouldn’t be turned away because of personal bias or previous grievances.

I’m proposing an ideal right now. There’s a lot of bickering that would have to stop, a lot of egos that would have to be put aside, a lot of planning & funding needed, and a lot of hard work would have to be put in before any sort of results came about. I know I’m talking pure fiction, but it’s a pretty ideal if there was any way it could come about.
.

38

NO SHAOLIN-DO FLAME WAR!

Come on friends, I asked politely on page two, let’s save the Shaolin-Do issues for the other threads and stay on subject with this one…

willow sword: Some trace fighting styles and weapon use much further than Africa - was it Book of the Sword by Burton (forgive me, my fencing research is a little dusty…) who made this big argument for how animals teach each other fighting skills - something about ostriches kicking rocks as weapon use. Sorry that’s a sketchy citation and I should check my cites before posting them.
Not sure about that secret book story - first time I heard that version. The Huike story is certainly better established. But there is a huge body of research, yet untranslated from Chinese, that provides better sources than David Carradine - perhaps this is our secret book? I’m working on the translations - be patient…

royal dragon: Sung tai tzu in pinyin is Song Tai Zu (taizu refers to the first emperor of a dynasty.) The Song dynasties were from 960-1279 CE, after Tamo, but I suppose one could argue it refers to the previous southern Song 420-479 CE.
Tamo as Richard Simmons or Joe Weidner doesn’t work for me… Maybe Joe, but definately not Richard.

mantis108: I consider myself a pacifist and Buddhist and that doesn’t interfere with my martial arts at all. The key icon is Manjushri, the sword-wielding bodhisatva. If you understand the yin and yang of pacifism and Buddhism, there is no paradox here.
I actually went to India to research kalaripuyattu, as well as vajramukti, but didn’t go far enough south (actually I was studying yoga and doing the Buddhist sites, so that kept me north.) I’ve always wanted to explore that more.

lost diciple: One of my shaolin brothers took your theory a little further. He proposed that it was the first Tang emperor lifting the ban on meat and liquor and begining the wuseng. The monks are still supposed to be chaste, so he proposed it as an intentional manipulation of Li Shinmen to funnel the libido of young men into kungfu and create his crack army. That was the emperor royal dragon mentioned, saved by the 13 monks…

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

39

I Know, I Know

I was just shamelessly promoting Tai Tzu by trying to use it in an example that ties into the conversastion.

Actually, I’m siteing historical stories and how they got changed, altered or plain forgotten and remade up later by siteing the Tai Tzu/Hong Quan debate. The idea was to point out that this kind of thing was going on with a system developed 1000 years ago, so it is probually worse for an even older style, system (or school) developed 1500 years ago (that And Shameless promotion of my style He, He, He)

RD

Oh, by the way, Why was I the only one to move the Shaolin Do comments to the Shaolin Do conversation. Gene specifically asked us NOT to polute this conversation with that topic. We have a perfectly good string for that, just transfer all you comments there, like I did.

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

40

Words of wisdom from good ole Gene.

The idea you mentioned about funneling the energies of the adolescent kids sounds effective. Damn they must’ve been gooood. :slight_smile:

Sorry if my post was construed as bashing against SD. I was trying to answer the guy’s question and at the same time present the idea of a university of martial arts where the cirriculum would be decided by specific criteria rather than personal biases. I probably should’ve left out the advice on how SD could further accomodate this. I think the response in general showed me the difficulties of bringing something like that about.

6 more days til I find out what I’m doing with my life..