Shaolin 10 FAQ
This forum topic is why I wrote this article. People often confuse BSL with Songshan Shaolin. It’s different. Different styles, different lineages, that’s what you get from 1500+ years of history. It’s like the difference between Marlboro and Coca Cola - 2 great US companies and we’ve only had 200+ years.
By the way, I was at Shaolin for a research symposium and they had this special demonstration of traditional Shaolin - NO WUSHU - lots of old masters. It was very cool. One of the best demos I seen at the temple ever.
Demo
Hi Gene,
Did you manage to get the demo on film ?
Cheers
Buddhapalm
I got some of it…
…had to muscle my way past a bunch of shaolin students who were also trying to get it on film and there was this monk who kept getting in my way. Then I had to change tapes at a real awkward time. But I got most of it. It’s part of my special secret library. Other Songshan shaolin people will be into it, but I doubt outsiders will get it.
FWIW, I also got to see the internal temple version of Xiaohong - very interesting - it had much more energy channeling. Didn’t get that on film though. That’s part of the special secret library in my head. 
shaolin secret manual
Shucks,
You have the shaolin secret manual. Denizens of rooftop jumping ninjaesque Shaolin renegades will be scouring the Tiger Claw Office during lunch time. Hoping in vain to find a copy, unbeknownst to them of the labyrinth below.
On a serious note, it sounds like interesting footage. I would love to see traditional Shaolin Kung Fu performances some day.
Sounds like a great trip. You have a great opportunity to travel and see great things. I envy you my friend.
Cheers
Buddhapalm
We spray for ninjas here all the time.
But they’re pervasive. You can trap 'em or use those no-ninja strips and they always come back.
There’s a fair amount of Shaolin VCDs now, many with some good traditional stuff, so I’m far from the keeper of the secret footage. Usually people overlook the traditional stuff because they either don’t know whtat they are looking at or they expect something flashy that isn’t wushu (!?) It’s funny really because you can almost always see a demo of traditional xiaohong at Shaolin, but few take notice. Then again, there is that internal temple version…
Shaolin is a Chinese box. Open one, find another. People who say they’ve mastered it or seen it all don’t realize that they’ve only openned one box.
Gene,
What’s your opinion on the Shaolin information released on VCD? Do the forms seem fairly accurate? I bought a lot of 15 Shaolin VCDs from ebay for $50 just because I couldn’t pass up something that cheap, but I was wondering just how accurate the forms such as Xiahongchuan and Dahongchuan could be. I’m sure they hold stuff out.
Shaolin VCDs
There are a lot of them now. A LOT. Like hundreds. There are 80 registered schools near Shaolin, so just do the math. If only a tenth of them each put out their own series, and those series are, say maybe a dozen VCDs, well, actually there’s probably more. As for the quality, some are certainly better than others (some aren’t even produced near Shaolin.) The forms are external versions, mostly as good as you get anywhere. But these are mostly from private schools and private enterprise. Everyone claims to have direct connection with the temple - to be the authorized version - but the abbot appears on many different ‘authorized’ versions. Authorization isn’t as important as blacklisted people (but I don’t think thyev’e made any VCDs.)
Two things to keep in mind:
-
There is variation in the execution of the sets so something like xiaohongquan has many different versions. You can tell who taught who by how they execute any given form.
-
Individual masters may specialize in particular forms. Just like anywhere, masters specialize. For example, GM Liang Yiquan is best known for his Dahong. So when getting VCDs, it’s good to know who the masters are. If you don’t know, it probably doens’t matter and any VCD will do.
Thanks for the info. Most of the ones I got have an introduction by the abbot, and seem to be filmed at Shaolin. However, the Heart-Protected form looks like it was filmed at a TV studio.
I was mainly interested in the weapons forms that came in the batch, such as Yin Yang Staff (aka Negative-Positive cudgel?) and Cool Breeze Straightsword (?). Wish I could read Chinese…
MK
What do the covers look like?
Cool breeze sword
Yin Yang Cudgel
Most of the other videos I got in the batch are from the same series, have an intro by the abbot, and seem to be filmed at Shaolin:
Major Hong Boxing
Minor Hong Boxing
Minor Tongbei Boxing
Major Cannon Boxing
Seven Star Boxing
Taizu Chang Chuan
Fanzi Chuan
Yin Yang Staff
Plum Blossom Staff
Double Whip Chain
These are from a different series, though, and are not filmed at the temple (at least, not in it):
Jingang Chuan
Major Arhat Boxing
Wo Long Dao
Heart-Protected Will Gate
Like I said, i got the whole batch for $50, which I just couldn’t pass up. It also came with some Tai Chi videos, but I resold them on Ebay for $25, so in actuality, I was only out approx. $25 for the whole lot.
Gotcha MK
I’ve seen that series available, but I’ve only seen the Xiaohong one. What do you think of the series? At $50 for the lot, you did quite well. 
I’m no expert on Shaolin forms, but from what I’ve seen, the open-hand forms look authentic enough. They are very un-flashy, if that means anything. Granted, I’ve only had time to watch most of them once.
However, I know a Tongbei Chuan form, and it looks nothing like the Tongbei Chuan on the VCD, so I suppose there is some variation I should expect.
Also, I thought Jingang Chuan was an internal exercise. The Jingang Chuan VCD has a regular form on it, with lots of knee kicks and slaps with the backs of the fingers.
The staff forms use waxwood staffs, which I always thought were primarily for Modern Wushu. Are waxwood staffs standard issue at Shaolin?
The Double Whip-Chain form looks very much like a Modern Wushu, also.
What does a traditional whip chain form look like?
I’ve wondered for years now what a traditonal whip chain form looks like, or even if there is one. Just because there are butterfly kicks, is it then to be considered modern wushu? If there is rolling or ground work, does this make it wushu? I know groundwork has been around for an incredibly long time. I don’t know about the history of butterfly kicks, I just know that there are pretty tough, especially in repetition. Any thoughts on what makes a weapon form such as this weapon’s traditional or contemporary?
I’m not sure, one way or another. I know in our school, we teach two different chain forms.
One is done with a light-weight 9-link chain, and has a butterfly kick and ground work (bouncing over the chain, etc…)
The other form we teach is done with a much heavier six-link chain. This form doesn’t have the double head-wraps, ground technqiues, or butterfly kicks.
Are they wushu or traditional…I dunno. But to my understanding, there are no butterfly kicks or aerials in traditional forms. I know when we compete at Taiji legacy, if your traditional forms have these moves, you will be disqualified from the “traditional” category. One of my fellow classmated learned this the hard way.
The double-chain form I have on VCD looks very much like other double-chain forms I’ve seen in wushu competetions, that’s why I drew the comparison. Of course, I’m sure there are a limited number of technqiues you can do with 2 chains zipping about your head.
Traditional vs non traditional
Actually the more advance traditional weapon sets do contain butterfly kicks and ground work. I do not know exactly what the term ‘aerials’ means so I’m assuming these are spinning moves like a barrel roll in Wu Shu sets.
The longer one practices in traditional CMA, one learns how to tell the differences between what are real old traditional sets from the modern ones.
For example, one can reconize real martial techniques from non martial moves which are plenty in Wu Shu sets. Traditional sets will contain more martial techniques per lineral footage than a typical Wu Shu sets. There are a lot of running (non martial moves) before applying a move where as traditional sets will quickly move right into various techniques continiously without wasting time.
Hence, one of the main principals in CMA is the concept of time and energy. Typical Wu Shu sets do not contain the time and energy principle that traditional sets have. If you reconize this simple concept then you can tell the difference between the two type of sets.
In addition, China has determined that their original Wu Shu sets created in the 1950’s are now classified as ‘Traditional Wu Shu sets’ and therefore, in some large tournaments, the old traditional kung fu sets are grouped together with the traditional Wu Shu sets. There exist some strong feelings in the USA about classifying these sets together as one group.
An ariel is usually just refering to a cartwheel with no hands. We have butterfly kicks in our traditional forms though (not in succession, and with no twists).
aerials
Thanks norther practitioner for the clarification.
Then ‘aerials’ are just an extention or a different expression of the traditional move of ‘one hand cartwheels’ which do have martial value.
Therefore, the difference between a traditional set and a Wu Shu set would be a matter of how the person excutes the aerial or one hand cartwheel. Does the person take a running start before going into the technique or from a standing positions?
This is only one example of how one can differentiate between Wu Shu sets and Traditional sets.
NP: That is a pretty good definition for traditional vs. contemporary. I have a whip chain video from tigerclaw by the Jiangsu wushu team. It’s a great video and I’d say nearly every movement on it I’ve seen in other whip chain forms (including Shi De Cheng’s). In fact De Cheng’s has multiple butterfly kicks. The Jiangshu tape doesn’t have much for wasted movement. It also has a great double whip chain form on it as well. I understand what your saying, and I agree, but I’ve yet to see a good example of a contemporary wushu whip chain form or traditonal whip chain form. I’ve seen plenty cont. wushu staff, broadsword, and straight sword forms, but not whip chain. Empty hand is also pretty obvious. My question is are there tradtional whip chain forms left? (or rope dart for that matter) I learned a rope dart form from Jinheng Li’s (Mr Wushu) video and there aren’t any wasted movements there either. Perhaps because of the nature of these weapons, there aren’t a lot of “wasted” movements you can do.
Well, I guess it also comes down to the fact we are now discussing “soft” weapons (my chain whip isn’t too soft, you should see the knot I’ve got from trying to teach myself some moves).
Rope dart, meteor hammer, chain whips, etc are usually for the most part kept spinning or moving giving it a “flashier” look which would be akin to more of a wushu type flavour. There are traditional forms out there still, however, I have to say, there are some traditional forms that have prob. been given a more wushu flavor via adding things and such. Ala, the fan set I am learning is a “wushu” set because it has a lot of stuff “added” into it, not making it the traditional, and not really fitting into traditional catagories any more. But they are definitely still out there.
wushu vs. traditional
First of all, we have to distinguish semantically between what the PRC calls “wushu” and what the US calls “wushu.” I usually draw the line at sport performance. To me, wushu forms are ones that are compsoed with the idea of performance in mind, so they are more flashy and external. This certainly encompasses the compulsory “official” wushu taolu, but also covers a lot of the new stuff you see being busted out at the mixed ma tournaments, crowd pleasing flash & dazzle. Traditional forms are not really meant to be shown. It’s more for practice. But stagehogs that we are, we show them like performance anyway.
As for my Shaolin master Decheng’s chain whip, that was wushu. He competed in wushu when he was young, specializing in chain and drunken, but he also trained traditional shaolin and is known for his traditional mantis.