When were the Northern Shaolin Forms replaced by the current Shaolin forms (Hong Chuan, Luohan Chuan, etc.) at the temple? Does anybody know why? Did it happen during the Communist Revolution when the temple was closed and the monks killed or told to go home? Who instituted the current 10 hands? Could the base curriculm be changed by the next Abbott just as easily? Why these sets over the Northern Shaolin sets?
When were the Northern Shaolin Forms replaced by the current Shaolin forms (Hong Chuan, Luohan Chuan, etc.) at the temple?
Which Northern Shaolin are you talking about as well?
I think that the ten current sets you are mentioning, has been spoken to in another thread.
I also think that over 1500+ years, the curriculum is going to change and grow and fall away and expand and be propogated and…etc, etc.
It has also been mentioned in other threads that the current ten are not the same as the Kyu Yu Cheung North Shaolin style, Bak Sil Lum.
cheers
Northern Shaolin Sets
What I mean by Northern Shaolin is Tun Da, Moi Fah, Bot Bo, Chum Sam, Mo I, Koy Moon, Leng Low, Jou Mah, Lien Wan, and Sik Fot.
I was under the impression that these are recognized as Shaolin by the temple but are no longer practiced or taught there. I was wondering why and when that change took place.
As I understand it, they are not considered part of the 200 or so forms at the Shaolin temple.
Also, how much myth or reality is in the Shaolin brands (tatoos, no the ink kind) of the tiger and dragon? There is a man in Minnesota who says he was a monk at the temple and has the brands. I haven’t heard of this being done in any recent history and I’ve heard some debate on whether it was always, or ever, was done.
ght- nice little synopsis!
the 10 of Bak Sil Lum that you mentioned were made very popular in the early 1900’s by Kyu Yu Cheung. They haven’t been practiced at the temple proper for some time. Definitely not the mainstay of the curriculum now. There are posters here including Gene who know the style that can give you a fair bit of history in regards to it.
The guy in minnesota is full of what isn’t scottish if you get my inference.
The branding is a legend and was made popular in the current mindset by a t.v show in the seventies which mixed judeaism, christian, taoist and buddhist philosophy up into a hodgepodge in order to sell a show.
It is still uncertain as to what the real truth is of that particular legend. I have looked and looked for bonafide codified information regarding some of the practices that took place at shaolin and it’s sister temples and this legend has never surfaced.
But, I will admit, I’m still looking 
Anyway, best not to take television shows at face value (even the news these days 
)
cheers
Very interesting stuff, thank you gentlemen. If information is ever found to document the self-branding of shaolin monks it would be very interesting. Historically, I’ve not heard of anybody branding themselves in this type of amnner to seperate themselves from society. Usually, the people in power would brand or mark people so the “good” people wouldn’t mingle with the “bad” people. My research is mostly limited to Christianity and the Catholic church, slavery in the US, and stories here and there in the middle east about criminals being branded so people would know what they had done. Always degrading, NOT like purposefully wearing a religious symbol like the cross that many Christians wear today, or the veiling many Muslim (and some Chritian) women wear, which they do out of choice (some would argue otherwise about some Muslim countries, but that’s not my point) to live their beliefs and be a positive example to others.
Actually, many buddhist monks branded themselves for various reasons from celibacy to some other reason.
The monks who had sworn celibacy in some buddhist temples would brand 9 dots into their foreheads.
There are still some monks that wear these marks.
It is likely that there were some form of similar rituals that were practiced at Shaolin temple after all it was a buddhist temple first and foremost.
But beyond some folk tales and a general perception, the arm bands have yet to surface as bonafide and provable that this practice was common to those monks who went out into the world as laymen or wandering priests.
The practice would definitely not be seen on anyone alive today.
Some people tatoo the dragon and tiger on their forearms and some will brand it there. But this action is not based on solid fact and exposes them as avid viewers of teh Kung Fu series mostly 
hey, people try to emulate their heroes all the time through outward appearances. That can be human nature.
cheers
cheers
If any actual branding did take place, it might have been part of the secret Shaolin societies after the destruction of the Southern Temple. There is no ‘proof’ of branding, but then again there is no proof there was not any..other than the legends…where there is smoke there may have been fire…anyway..the legend is cool and it was incorporated into a good movie and series in the 70’s.
GHD
I’m reading two books on triads, maybe they have info on branding; will post what i find!.
yeah!
Good stuff guys… I love to hear the stories of bak sil lum. As far as the tatoos are concerned, I heard the practice existed prior to the burning of the original temple, but was discontinued in this incarnation of the temple as a “cruel and unusual” practice under the iron hand of the government. Rumors fly.
peace, brothers.
herb ox
Question from an outsider,
1.) If “branding” did happen wouldn’t it have been recorded somewhere either in drawings, writing or goverment records.
I know that the temple supposedly has drawings of the training and practices, wouldn’t those marks be recorded on there too.
2.) Branding would distinguish anybody without a doubt, so if they were prosectued having the marks would have meant instant death I guess.
The same way the Japanese Ninja never wore their “suits” while on a mission, possesion = death.
Cheers.
LC-
unfortunately, it is safe to assume when we talk about the destruction of shaolin, we are talking about total destruction.
books, rooms, wall paintings, statury the works.
During the cultural revolution all of china had book burnings, any books which were contradictory or overtly intellectual were done away with. Particularly religious books and trappings were destroyed with zeal by the Maoists.
Shaolin was a victim as were hundreds even thousands of temples. Few survived in comparison to what had once thrived.
so, all the wall apintings we see at shaolin today are not original, all statues are recent and well, pretty much the whole deal has been reconstructed from scratch since 1981.
The southern shaolin temple was just recently rebuilt and is in no way shape or form the original. It is a redo based on recollection based on recollection.
anyway, no ancient books have really surfaced, there are dang few of them and they are fairyl well guarded if they do exist.
The current manuals have been commited to paper by relatively recent masters.
The last destruction of Shaolin took place in 1928 with the establishment of the rebublic of china. In the 1960’s one of the monks from that period Hai Deng, was asked to return to the temple to reinstall the practices there in order to increase tourism to that area of china and to return to the temple an image of it’s former self. He (Hai Deng) was the only monk who stepped forward to the task after the government sent the word out that any former monk of the shaolin order was invited to rebuild the temple.
What is known is that a great deal of the teachings were codified and these texts were used as teaching tools. (yes the shaolin learned kungfu from books as well as from teachers). Just as much was handed down from teacher to student on a class bass or through individual instruction.
There is no evidence other than folktales regarding the arm brands of the monks. Hai Deng did not have the brands. The monk Sek Ko Sam (Shi gao Khan) did not have the brands either and both these men were bonafide Shaolin Monks.
So, it’s not important. What is important is the ideal and the guiding principles of Shaolin Kungfu. Better to pay attention to the interior layers than the external appearances of things. That is a precept of all buddhist teachings.
cheers
i remember seeing a documentary of Hai Deng… something very interesting to see compared to what is practised there today
dawood
but… but… but…
does this mean David Carridine lied to me?
I’m crushed… burning all my tapes of Kung Fu (and the Legend Continues - should’a done that long ago!)…
A silly, and probably un answerable question
How much of today’s Shaolin is pre 1928?
Also, if Shaolin died in 1928, what about folk masters like the the one who runs Tagou? Or others have migrated to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia?
Basically, where can we find authentic Shaolin Temple Kung Fu from pre 1928 today, and how does it compare to Shaolin practiced at the Temple today?
One more thing
(yes the shaolin learned kungfu from books as well as from teachers)
Reply]
Assuming this is true (and I’m sure it is) why do so many have such a negative opinion of learning from books?
When I was teaching my Kung Fu system, I took quite a bit of flak from people I know in the arts because I was teaching the Southern Louhan form out of Don F Dreggars manual.
For me, I had forgotten much of the forms I was taught, and I felt that I needed to “fill” in certain things in order to create a solid functional curriculem, and THAT form filled my needs as a teaching tool. I also had worked it out during a time I was a solo artists, before I was hevily teaching, and for some reason I rememberd it well over other sets I was actually taught (could be becasue of all the work I put into figuring it out).
Anyway, I suited my purposes, and gave me a solid framework to teach what I know with, but I’m still considered a shmuck in some circles for doing that, yet it seems to be a very traditional thing to do for the Monks.
Thoughts anyone?
RD.
I agree with learning from books in the following cases:
1.) They are used as a supplementary aid to your training.
2.) You already got a solid foundation in MA and can make do with Books and similar.
Said that it naturally depends on the quality and level of said Books.
Also the Temple, I believe was more like a “trading house” for MA and many practiconers of many styles went there not just to study MA but also other aspects. So a lot of Information passed in front of the monks who recorded and studied those.
Cheers.
RD.
I agree with learning from books in the following cases:
1.) They are used as a supplementary aid to your training.
2.) You already got a solid foundation in MA and can make do with Books and similar.
Reply]
I agree with both counts, but I would like to add that for an experianced martial artist, you can gain good curriculem with books. A good manual should provid you with enough material to keep you and your training partners busy for a LONG time. The key is to have the training partners, and seriously work the material in the manual. Even though, many will still consider you a shmuck for doing so. Even if you trained competitors into the medal stands useing material fom the manual (I have experianced this type os bias). In my case, it was just a Kid’s class, but still, I had little more than some Kung Fu under master Tsai (One year tops), another 9 months under Master Abbate and the rest of my experiance was Chung Moo Quan for God sake. I used the material in the Manual to replace a large chunk of my Moo material that I was teaching, and my Kids actually WON with it.
>>Said that it naturally depends on the quality and level of said Books.
Reply]
Very true. I have some that are very good, and others I can’t make heads or tails out of. My own personal notes consist of stick figures with arrows drawn and some archaic written descriptions. None but I could ever hope to decipher them. But every time I review them, I understand them clearly.
>>Also the Temple, I believe was more like a “trading house” for MA and many practiconers of many styles went there not just to study MA but also other aspects. So a lot of Information passed in front of the monks who recorded and studied those.
Reply]
Yes, but there were some core systems practiced there.
I’m guessing that Louhan early on, and maybe through the Sung dynasty, Five Animals later, and I know Tai Tzu Chang Chaun was big in the Ming. I’m just wondering is these styles, and a few other core ones were a mainstay at Shaolin over the long haul. If so, did they look like today’s versions for the most part? Or do today’s versions resemble them in name only?
RD
If so, did they look like today’s versions for the most part? Or do today’s versions resemble them in name only?
I always wonder, if you went back in time, would they at least be able to recognize what you are doing as this form, or style even, with the flavor and a few moves being the same, I’d be siked if that was the case.
Yeah, I’m sure that the ancient masters would recognise what we do. The question here is how much of the old pre 1928 Shaolin was lost, and replaced with material not represenative of the original?
For me, I have the documentation of the Tai Tzu Chang Chuan form of General Qi Jiguang, so I know I have at least that set in the ball park.
in my limited experience, I see a lot of Shaolin flavour in pretty much all the buddhist styles of Kungfu
there is this crossover in cma that seems to stem from Shaolin.
even in taoist martial arts you can find some notably “shaolin” moves.
This likely has a lot to do with the recently mentioned “trading house” idea
Many martial arts were brought into shaolin and absorbed adapted and adopted. Hence the huge body of martial arts that claim linkage to the Shaolin temple.
any system of kungfu uses a system and supplemental exercises to round itself out. The methods used to teach a system are generally methodological and each lesson builds on the last. The same as the form of the style. Each builds on the last and prepares for the next.
so, as these arts were synthesized more and more over time, each seperate style that came into shaolin that was found to be effective and worthy of dissemination would have that pecular shaolin look to it in form especially.
shaolin kungfu covers all the ranges across it’s myriad substyles.
even some of the more obscure and unusual styles will have that little taste somewhere in it.
that’s probably why the old saying “all martial arts have their origin at shaolin”
cheers