hi gene.
the master's name is sifu sam sing wong of
toronto canada. The name of the style is
mudong, also the name of my school.
mudong gungfu academy.
“when you expect your oppoent to yield/you also should avoid hurting him”
If you think of Shaolin, you probably are…
I don’t often check this board so I am suprised at the “this is” or “is not” shaolin attitudes.
KFO really needs an accurate FAQ regarding learning CMAs in the US.
I have met incompetent teachers–avoid them.
I have also met partially trained disciples–they have something to offer.
I have met masters–they have a lot to offer.
Above all, be a student! Take a look at what the teacher has to offer and internally analyze, criticize, and evaluate. If it seems worth learning at the time put 100% commitment into learning and development.
If you don’t understand what is being taught, stick with it until you find a meaning or a new teacher.
“Everything is training, Training is everything”
Real Shaolin is impossible to verify. Is it even possible to historically verify that it is the best? No.
At heart today, “Shaolin” is marketing. Not the school or the temple, but the word is marketing.
If you break your a55 everyday, you will get better. Period. Work. Contemplate your failures. Correct your training. Work. Kung fu never ends except if you quit.
Just a rant…
“To the Buddhist, “To
be or not to be” is not
the question. The
question is whether or
not you can transcend
these notions.”
Thich Nhat Hanh
Gene’s article
Hi Gene interesting article, when I get a moment I well read it more thoroughly. From my first read it does not appear to reveal any new information. From short list of Songshan forms you present, it is my gut feel that the the traditional forms at t he present day Shaolin Temple are more of a compilation that is new, and not the pre-1900 curriculum. Apart from Xiao hong quan and Da hong quan which are listed together, the other forms seem to be arbitrarily listed.
You say that
>Songshan Sh aolin k u ngfu claims around 200 sets sum total<
and that it is
>rare for a single practitioner to know them all.<
According to our tradition Songshan Shaolin wushu included 273 forms. Agreed, few if any one person learned or mastered t hat may forms.
Altho u gh a num ber of things reeml claims about his Shaolin is inconsistent with what I have been taught, I have to agree with him that Shaolin is not just a arbitrary compilation of forms but is are grouped into a number sub- syst em s that coll ectiv ely could be c a lled Songshan Shaolin Wushu.
On another point, although the past generation acknowledges Ku Yu Cheong as a Songshan Shaolin student, he added a number of forms from other schools.
That is why it is Ku Yu Cheong’s first stud ents that are ca lled - first generati on students. In other words that lineage really starts with him.
You say that,
>It’s hard to imagine what it’s like to make your living in the martial arts if you don’t do so. When you do it for a hobby, it’s one thing. But wh e n yo u do it for your food, clothes and shelter, everything changes…<
Agreed, but I would add that teaching professionally and doing demos was not the
traditional core function of Shaolin wushu. If it is, that changes everything . . . . .
[This message was edited by R. on 05-10-01 at 07:58 PM.]
Original Shaolin
The subject of an original Shaolin style, meaning a curriculum for martial training in the Songshan temple, is contentious to say the least. Adam Hsu claims that in Ming documents listing and discussing the famous styles of kung fu, there are NO Shaolin styles.
This seems very likely to me. There were martial training in the temple, but most “Shaolin” styles have taken their names to honour and draw honour and respect from the myths of Shaolin.
But then again, people should focus less on who’s style is original, and try to perfect their own kung fu with time and effort.
digressions
Good to hear your insights everyone. This thread has become more of a discussion of my article than what I had intended, but that’s cool. I was actually hoping to hook up with other monk students and swap notes. But this is fine too.
md1: Can you translate mudong? Just curious.
longquan: My intentional thrust of the article was not really to define real shaolin (although I did use that as an intentional literary device, in hopes of sparking the very dialog we are all having here now.) Actually, my intention was a comparison between two major interpretations of Shaolin. Personally, I lean towards Northstar’s comment about the Shaolin name - I don’t think it’s as much marketing as it is honoring. However, the skeptical side of me tends to agree with you.
r.: My piece was meant to be a historical review, so nothing “new” was really offered, but just to call you on your comment (in a good natured way) can you name my research sources? If it’s not new to you, where did you read it before?
I’m still working at sorting out the subsystem theory. The folk tradition jams it up, so it’s really hard to validate, typified by the different number of total sets. I’d love to see your (and reemul’s) subcategories. Have you published them anywhere?
I also agree that modern BSL starts with Ku, but most attribute the lineage back to Gan. BTW, next week I’ll post some more research on Gan.
As for teaching and demos not being the core of Shaolin, well, demos definately not. Something I forgot to include in the BSL vs. Shaolin article was records from the Wanli’s reign in the Ming states that Shaolin monks were already demonstrating for tourists at that time. Wanli was in 1573-1620. So it’s not the core, but it been the tradition for quite some time. As for teaching, a huge portion of Shaolin dharma is kungfu, so I do think that is part of the core.
northstar: I’ll have to read Hsu again. Can you point me to the exact page? I lent that book to someone and it never came back, so it will take me sometime to get back to you on this one (plus I just built some new bookshelves (YES!) so my library is a mess.)
Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com
Hsu, who does not practice Shaolin I might add, has been sawing that log since the early 80’s. I think the first article he wrote on that subject was in the Nov. 1983 issue of Black Belt Mag. I am not sure if he holds that opinion now, as new refe ren ce mat erial has become available since. If I recall correctly, his opinion then was that the Shaolin Temple was not famous prior to the romantic stories of the Qing Dynasty and that Shaolin was largely a myth. This is, and was then, a misinformed opi nio n.
The idea that Shaolin was just a name and used / borrowed to honour (I’m not sure what, if not the martial arts that was once practiced there, which really did not exist : -))) as you suggust, is why
IMO that the PRC can do a survey for traditional f orms
compile them and call call this, Traditional Shaolin Wushu. Why do they not just call a spade, a spade. Its the PRC version of Shaolin Wushu.
Let them come clean about this versions true history, which is the product of a committee.<<
gene.
mudong-wudang. I've heard alot of times on
this forum that wudang can’t be the name of
the style, but that’s all my sifu ever called
the style mudong. He would say wudang is the
trunk of the tree and the other style’s came
from it.
He said that when the communist took power
they burned the temple he studied at and that
you never heard anything about the mudong because
they did not side with government. He said so
much history has been changed. this is one of
the first time’s I’ve chance to talk about this
thank you for the questions.
“when you expect your oppoent to yield/you also should avoid hurting him”
.A
Gene wrote
>As for teaching and demos not being the core of Shaolin, well, demos definitely not. Something I forgot to include in the BSL vs. Shaolin article was
records from the Wanli’s reign in the Ming states that Shaolin monks were already demonstrat ing for tour ists at that time. Wanli was in 1573-1620. <
That at lest supports the fact that not only were there martial arts at Shaolin but the monks were accomplished at it 
As for the tradition of demonstrating of martial arts well, that has been around in China
far earlier than the 1500s. Early examples of military dances and rituals can be found at lest as far back as the Shang and Han dynasty. The Han Emperor, Liu Pang even brought them into his court as (Pa-yu) performances. However it also has been observed that there are negative aspects that seem to plague excessive concentration on demonstration. Concentration on demonstrations has a tendency to encourage those same arts into becoming performance arts making them useless in combat, which is something they were designed for. Criticisms of this type are not new but have been part of the history of Chinese martial arts.ˇ
[This message was edited by R. on 05-11-01 at 04:42 PM.]
my pop!
my father was in shaolin a while back(wish i could have gone but i had school) his friend who studied at shaolin for five year on and off in the summers new a few of the monks and got a performence of real chinese gung fu my father (who has a few pics i wish i had a scanner to show you but i have to wait till next week to get one)told me he seen some good ma and alot of fah ching in the forms won of the monks did a demo of tiger claw called tiger crush(gene i’m sure you saw this) he pick up a brick and had my father and his friend check it to see if it was fake this he formed a tiger claw with his hand then he graped the brick shuck his body (bringing energy to his hand)a little and crushed the brick. my dad said it was the best thing he ever saw. and if he had the time he would train in shaolin gung fu under master shi yan ming.
To Gene
I dont think you addressed my question at all in the article however I did notice some interresting points.
For one it seems of late that, Everyone wants to train with “Shaolin” monks, however in your article you point out that the Temple of today does not practice Shaolin Kungfu, but practice contemporary Wushu. I inferred by your article that you recognize that there is a difference between them. By that rationale, they are not Shaolin Monks, but contemporary Wushu “monks” if monks at all, which the later I could careless to dispute.
Another point of interrest was that you said Bak Sil Lum up until recent years referred to Shaolin kungfu outside China, and yet so many members of this forum have trouble believing we our lagit because I’m in the States. Also as I have pointed out, as 1928-1933 the Shaolin masters went into exile which could be interpreted as the foundation of the referrence to Shaolin outside of China.
You inquired our take on subcategories of Shoalin, well for those who think there were none, you are either smokin dope, or pushing PRC propaganda. Some of the animal systems(not forms) of Northern Shaolin kungfu were the first martial arts systems developed. The monastary only served to formally institutionalize MA into a systematic process of training. I can see why the Neo-temple would push propaganda saying others wise, because they don’t have them anymore.
Reemul,
If someone is a monk at the Shaolin Temple then they are a Shaolin monk no matter what style of martial art is practiced.
uh huh
Thats your opinion anyway.
reemul
Yes, that is his opinion, and you should respect it like everyone is respecting your opinion. You seem so ready to put forth your opinion as the correct one, and simply to disregard other people’s opinions as wrong.
You have no chance to survive - make your time.
There was no disrespect
So Chill.
So easily are typed words taken out of context.
performance vs. kungfu
md1: gotcha - mu most be like the Cantonese for wu. wu de wushu, mo de mo i.
r.: Actually there is a great tradition of performance of kungfu, not only as military demos, but as street performers, opera, and acrobatics. The critics of wushu should really take this into consideration - kungfu as a perfomance art has a long standing tradition. While it may lack ‘pure’ combat applications, performance is one aspect of kungfu that has allowed it to excel, even today in movies. Karate, TKD, BJJ, whatever, it just ain’t as showy, so in performance, kungfu/wushu rules.
reemul: I really don’t want to get into the shaolin/wushu/fake monk debate again. Been there, done that.
I think you mis-read my article. I did not say they don’t practice Shaolin Kungfu at the temple. I did say they practice wushu. They practice both. If you practice everyday, all the time, practicing both is no problem. Really all wushu is is a performance version of kungfu - it’s exaggerated, but it’s built on the same foundation as traditional.
A major point I was presenting was about the politics of kungfu. Westerners are quick to jump on the PRC for being propagandist because it is what our propagnad has told us. But in fact, everyone has their own propaganda and agenda. For every bit of PRC propaganda, there is something from HK, Taiwan and here. There is a lot of nationalism in kungfu and if you study recent history and undertand your lineage (its context in China this last century) you know where you stand. Nothing worse than one propaganda attacking another for being propagandist. It’s a straw man argument, an embarrasingly hypocritical one at that.
Also, I don’t deny subcategories of Shaolin at all. In fact, there are more than can be accurately categorize, especially with all the variations. There is no universal standard - if there was, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s all interpretative, which is why I ask your interpretation. Such is the nature of arts such as kungfu. It’s like folktales - no version is wrong, but some are more meaningful than others, especially in context of current events.
Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com
gene - great article. keep up the research!
reemul
OK. Obviously when I read your posts I read them in the wrong way. I will just not reply to anything you say.
You have no chance to survive - make your time.
Gene wrote:
> Nothing worse than one propaganda attacking another
> for being propagandist. It’s a straw man argument,
> an embarrassingly hypocritical one at that.
Gene I don’t think it is about political propaganda at all. To drag in politics would most certainly muddly the waters. It’s about the misrepresentation of wushu from the PRC Shaolin Temple.
Most teaching monks are claiming to be 34th Generation Shaolin Temple Fighting Monk.
The implication, I could only assume, is they knows traditional Shaolin that is traced through lineage all the way to Abbot Fu Yu.
If things are to be put into traditional terms these monks are really 1st generation PRC Shaolin Kung-fu students. The curriculum they studied was designed and complied only recently. I t may contain some or even many traditional forms
but from a variety of sources not from any one lineage and certainly not for the lineage of Fu Yu). For the same reason that Ku Yu Cheong is the founder of his lineage of Shaolin - The Committee - should identify themselves as the founders of their lineage of Shaolin.
However, I have to add, there is much good work the PRC has done and are doing on the history of Chinese martial arts and they should be applauded for it.
kind regards
re