Zhou Tong - Teacher of Gen. Yue Fei

[QUOTE=mantis108;712847]I believe you are talking about the “Luohan Xinggong Duan Da” Manual which has many versions available. It is a “folk” martial arts manuscript as oppose to “government” sanctioned ones such as the Ming dynasty “Ji Xiao Xin Shu”.

The manuscript is said to be edited by Shengxiao Daoren who claimed to have “learned” from Fuju (fortune resides) not Fuyu (fortune afluent). Fuju is more than likely a fictional character as with the many fictional characters in “18 families” sonnet or it’s a character based on the historical Fuyu. At least 5 to 6 characters (1/3) amongst the 18 are fictional characters from different novels: 3 - 4 from Fei Long Quan Zhuan (a tale of Song Taizu) and 2 from the water margin.

The purpose of the 18 families is to “introduce” the so called Tanglang Shou Fa (mantis techniques) of Wanglang, which would seem to have been based on the indigeneous Kung Fu of Shandong - Luohan Xinggong Duanda. Further explanations of the Tanglang Shou Fa is echoed by the paragraphes such as the “Shou Fa Zhong Lun” that follow. So the manuscript is really well put together despite some borrowing of fictional material.

BTW, Tanglang Quanpu is another manuscript date 1935 by a famous Tanglang master named Cui Shoushan. Tanglang Quanpu is rather a semi private manuscript.

Regards

Mantis108[/QUOTE]

I knew the difference between the Fuju and Fuyu abbots. I put Fuyu because I knew it was more historically correct. I guess I should change it to Fuju and comment how he is a fictionalized persona of the historical Fuyu.

Also, I’ve read about the other “Tanglang Quanpu” from 1935 as well. However, I didn’t realize the one from 1794 went under a different name. All of my English sources call it the Tanglang Quanpu. What are the Chinese characters for “Luohan Xinggong Duan Da”? Could you send me a link to a Chinese page so I can use it as a source? Thanks.

(Luohan Xinggong Duan Da)

ISSN 1671-1572

JOURNAL OF SPORT HISTORY AND CULTURE
2001 No.1 P.36-37,9

[QUOTE=Shaolin Master;712942] (Luohan Xinggong Duan Da)

ISSN 1671-1572

JOURNAL OF SPORT HISTORY AND CULTURE
2001 No.1 P.36-37,9[/QUOTE]

Thanks. How would you translate that? I know what each individual character means, but I’m afraid I would butcher it into a “herky-jerky” english sentence.

[QUOTE=mantis108;712847]The purpose of the 18 families is to “introduce” the so called Tanglang Shou Fa (mantis techniques) of Wanglang, which would seem to have been based on the indigeneous Kung Fu of Shandong - Luohan Xinggong Duanda. Further explanations of the Tanglang Shou Fa is echoed by the paragraphes such as the “Shou Fa Zhong Lun” that follow. So the manuscript is really well put together despite some borrowing of fictional material. manuscript.
[/QUOTE]

Can someone direct me to a martial arts page that actually states the intended use of the “18 families” legend?

Clarification…

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;713026]Can someone direct me to a martial arts page that actually states the intended use of the “18 families” legend?[/QUOTE]

I should clarify that this view is straightly my own coming from a praying mantis stylist of the Greater Meihwa Line tradition that began with Liang Xuexiang (1810 - ?) who happened to have written private manuscripts of his own.

I know of an article or two in Chinese that talks about the manuscript. Those are the insight of particular people who have worked on the manuscript in recent years but I don’t know what qualification they have if any. So…

Regards

Mantis108

[SIZE=“2”]My article is currently rated as “B-class” on the quality scale by the military history wiki project. There are six classes: Stub, Start, B-class, Good Article (GA), A-class, and Featured. Featured articles are shown on the main home page of English Wikipedia for all new comers and veterans to see. B-class and Good article are pretty much the same thing. The only difference is “usefulness to all readers” and a few other points.

The reason my article will NEVER progress beyond the B or GA class is because of its scant material. Overall, the length of my article is good, but I don’t have enough “meat and potatoes” if you will in reference to his life and other matters. There is just too little written on Zhou Tong.

I sure could use A LOT more Chinese sources, even if they attribute to a fictional legend about him. All areas involving the myth or history of Zhou Tong should be covered.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Shaolin Master;712641]Imitation Boxing.

Regarding , that is correct in the water margin there is ample depiction of that skill (like the shuttleball game that we played in high school)…[/QUOTE]

I see. But was it a depiction of a game or a martial art (jiuzhizi)? It’s not clear to me. Thanks

Hi taaigihk,

In the story it was a game.

For us it is also the name of just a single technique . …it is in our Raomatui form (Wentangzi)…the technique is in fact exactly as when playing the game…

Regards
Wu Chanlong

PS: Please join our forum, I have not released it yet (only have some test posts) but it should be ready to use…http://wugong.satirio.com/phpBB/

[SIZE=“2”]I’ve added a few more things to the page and I have cleaned it up to make it easier to read. Before, it looked too “busy”.[/SIZE]

The Tang Lang legend from the 1700s comes from Shaolin history saying that Abbott Fu Yu during the time he was at Shaolin, over the span of some years, at least 3, maybe 5 invited many masters to come to Shaolin and help him revamp the system.
They did create a book with over 300 forms, and some new systems, such as
the Jin Gang style and the Protect the Home style, Kan Jia Quan.
These forms are still done by the oldest generations still around from Shaolin.

I guess that by the 1700s this factual stuff (?) changed into the legendary story.

But, what about Ilya’s site talking about a book from Shaolin that was from the Song Dynasty that also mentions the 18 masters and was his 'proof" that Wang Lang was really from Song period and not Qing? Was that book really from the Song dynasty?

For some reason, the story is that this Fu Yu went to Shandong after Shaolin got shut down by the Yuan Dynasty.

Wasn’t Fu Yu appointed by the Mongolians?
That’s what I read in a history book once.

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;713987]The Tang Lang legend from the 1700s comes from Shaolin history saying that Abbott Fu Yu during the time he was at Shaolin, over the span of some years, at least 3, maybe 5 invited many masters to come to Shaolin and help him revamp the system.
They did create a book with over 300 forms, and some new systems, such as
the Jin Gang style and the Protect the Home style, Kan Jia Quan.
These forms are still done by the oldest generations still around from Shaolin.

I guess that by the 1700s this factual stuff (?) changed into the legendary story.

But, what about Ilya’s site talking about a book from Shaolin that was from the Song Dynasty that also mentions the 18 masters and was his 'proof" that Wang Lang was really from Song period and not Qing? Was that book really from the Song dynasty?

For some reason, the story is that this Fu Yu went to Shandong after Shaolin got shut down by the Yuan Dynasty.

Wasn’t Fu Yu appointed by the Mongolians?
That’s what I read in a history book once.[/QUOTE]
He was appointed by Kublai Khan in the late Southern Song Dynasty. But all of the legends I have read say that it was Abbot Fu Ju (), who lived during the early Northern Song, who invited the 18 masters. This Fu Ju is a legendary person of the “historical” Fu Yu () (1203-1275) from the late Southern Song Dynasty. Both are spelled with different characters.

Fu Yu was the 1st Abbot of the 3rd Lineage. The 2nd lineage ended with Abbot Hui Neng in the early 8th century (or so I read).

I have heard of this manual on several websites. But there is plenty of conflicting information that might lead someone to believe the “list” in the manual is full of legendary people. For instance, it counts Lin Chong and Yan Qing among the masters. The historical uprising that spawned the “Water Margin” happened in 1120 or so. But the legend says the masters gathered in the early northern song. They wouldn’t even have been born yet. Plus, the historical abbot lived well after the Northern Song. Even if he did hold a gathering, Lin Chong and Yan Qing would have been long dead of old age by this time.

Here goes History …

First a recap from old threads:

I found this piece of info on the KFO about the rivalry between Chinese Buddhist and Taoist monks. It might relate to the Mantis since ithis is where the 18 styles (including a version of Mantis) were supposedly taught in Shaolin. A caveat - this is raw material so please don’t draw any hasty conclusion.

<<<It is a point that touchs on our collective Songshan Shaolin history and a series of events that go back to the dying days of the northern Song Dynasty. It begins with the Jurchens and their 120 year ‘alien’ rule over the north parts which included the areas where Shaolin Si stood and following by the Mongolian conquest that swept from the north pushing the Jin out of the region. These conquests created great havoc not only in the population at large but in the monastic world.

It is important to point out that a large number of monasteries in the north were either destroyed or abandoned. The Mongol invasion was a time of great tribulation. There were even proposals by some Mongol leaders to turn northern China into a great pasture land by killing every single Chinese person in the regions. It would have been the greatest slaughter of human beings in the history man. This did not happen largely because of a few Chinese Buddhist leaders that held sway over the Mongol court.

Of these giants among men, the greatest was a Chan monk by the name of Hai-yun. A number of Taoist monks were involved in this great work of defending the and saving the population as well. The most notable was Qui Chuji (aka. Ch’ang-ch’un chen-jen). At that time he was the patriarch of Quanzhen sect of Taoism. Early in the Mongol campaign into Central Asia, Qui Chuji befriended Genghis Khan and subsequently was appointed as administrator of all religious communities including the Buddhist ones. He further gave Qiu Chuji an edict exempting all clergy in China from taxes and labor service obligations. Armed with this power, the Taoists immediately began leveraging their position to take over Buddhist monasteries which had been neglected because of the many military campaigns and even more boldly forcefully, seizing temples and monastery that were occupied.

The Chan monk Hai-yun had become very influential with the Mongolian military government as well and eventually was appointed superintendent of Buddhist Affairs in north China. Earlier on Hai-yun recommended Fu-yu being appointed Abbot (Fang-chang) of Shaolin Si. At his recommendation Fu-yu was appointed to lead the Buddhists in denouncing Taoist appropriation of Buddhist monasteries as well as other misrepresentations in front of the Mongol military governor. After arguments from both sides, Kublai Kan declared the Buddhist as winners and ordered that all seized property be returned. It was under the directions of Fang-chang, Venerable Fu-yu and Shaolin monks had the onerous task of taking these temples back. It appears that the training and development of a defensive force was the direct result of these events as there was a great resistance on the part of the Taoists to comply. Buddhist historical records document this debate with the Taoists but not the Buddhist defensive martial initiative under his direction. That comes to us from marital traditions of various Shaolin Lohan lineages. But they do make sense and are relatively consistent.

To summarize what Fu-yu did, was to invite 18 martial experts over a 9 year period, each staying for a three year period to train Shaolin monks and record martial methods, creating a defensive system at Songshan Shaolin Si - the ‘muscle’ so to speak, to accomplish the task of rebuilding Buddhism in the Mongol territories. . The result was that there was a great depository of highly effective martial methods at Shaolin Si but not necessarily a coherent system.

No it is not folklore, but what is fabrication is that Shaolin Kung fu is sect of Chan Buddhism with martial arts as its core and that Fu-yu founded a style of martial arts at Shaolin.

Actual the Buddhist Taoist debates and controversies go back to the Han Dynasty. By the 1200’s it was already a thousand year old controversy. A controvery that was end by Fu-yu in 1258. This final ‘show down’ took place after the long standing bickering took a particularly nasty turn with the Taoist appropriating over 500 Buddhist monasteries and temples and destroying statues notably of Buddha and Kuan-yin. Furthermore their campaign included misleading Buddhist converts through what were essential two fabricated Taoist apocrypha. Although these texts were ancient, they were simply copies of very old fabrications that were part of the controversy for centuries. Although these controversies were framed in doctrinal matters, they, as I mention above, were essentially political power struggles. It was Fu-yu that is given credit for putting this 1000 year old debate to rest and discrediting the claim by the Taoists, that Buddha was but a manifestations of Lao-tzu. The Taoist were claiming that Lao-tzu appeared as Buddha for the expressed purpose of converting the ‘barbarians.’

Fu yu headed the debate on 3 occasions in 1255, in 1256 ( the Taoist refused to attend that meeting), and finely in 1258 where he lead 300 Buddhist and faced 200 Taoist. This grand assembly a K’ai-p’ing took place at the order of Qubilai Kan with the intention to settle the matter once and for all. At that time the Taoists lost much property as well as influence with the Mongol court. Apparently, however, Taoist did not rollover easily in giving up any property. I believe this was the principle reason why Fu-yu re-established a formal marital organization and martial arm at Shaolin.>>>

…

This is posted by R, a KFO member. I copied it here. Some food for thoughts

And I echo this point “No it is not folklore, but what is fabrication is that Shaolin Kung fu is sect of Chan Buddhism with martial arts as its core and that Fu-yu founded a style of martial arts at Shaolin.”, although I have to say that it is in fact folklore because of this statement " Buddhist historical records document this debate with the Taoists but not the Buddhist defensive martial initiative under his direction. That comes to us from marital traditions of various Shaolin Lohan lineages. But they do make sense and are relatively consistent."

By the end of Yuan dynasty (1206-1368 CE) roughly around 1360s Henan Shaolin was invaded by the Red Turban (White Lotus cult). As legend goes, it was almost destroyed but a Kitchen aid, later identified as Jin-Nalou Diety, used “magics” to defeat the Red Turban. Now, if there was great “martial tradition or defense” then why would the temple be in trouble. Furthermore, where the hack was the “Luohan” practitioners? They weren’t there because the Luohan style NEVER existed then! However, we see a similar retelling of the story in Qing dynasty with the Southern Shaolin particularly in the (Yongchun, Red Boat Wing Chun, Hung Gar - another Buddhist/Luohan exponent) with the burning of the Southern Shaolin and the Abbot Gee Sim escape and hide in the Red Boat as a (drum rolls…) kitchen aid who came to the rescue of the Red Boat when they got into trouble. There is an intimate relationship between Luohan style and White Lotus cult which had its power base in the southern regions (ie Henan, Zhejiang, Suzhou, Fujian) and North Eastern region (Shandong).

Luohan style is a product of cult militia IMHO. It was developed based on the southern method of Fanziquan which was synonomous with Duan Da (short strikes) otherwise known as Nei Nien Shou (inner curtain hands). If look at the references and synoptics of the Luohan Xinggong Duanda manuscripts (where the 18 families sonnet originated), we know that it used a lot of Yuan dynasty Opera material (ie Xi Xiang Ji), Ming dynasty chapter Novels (water margin, Fei Long Chuan Zhuan, etc), Neo-Confucianism concepts and theories (Song dynasty), Ming dynasty martial art manuscripts, etc. All these points to the manuscripts can not be possibly a work of early Song dynasty and least of all Buddhist in origin (no actual Buddhist terminology is used ever).

Regards

Mantis108

[QUOTE=mantis108;714088]First a recap from old threads:

By the end of Yuan dynasty (1206-1368 CE) roughly around 1360s Henan Shaolin was invaded by the Red Turban (White Lotus cult). As legend goes, it was almost destroyed but a Kitchen aid, later identified as Jin-Nalou Diety, used “magics” to defeat the Red Turban. Now, if there was great “martial tradition or defense” then why would the temple be in trouble. Furthermore, where the hack was the “Luohan” practitioners? They weren’t there because the Luohan style NEVER existed then! However, we see a similar retelling of the story in Qing dynasty with the Southern Shaolin particularly in the (Yongchun, Red Boat Wing Chun, Hung Gar - another Buddhist/Luohan exponent) with the burning of the Southern Shaolin and the Abbot Gee Sim escape and hide in the Red Boat as a (drum rolls…) kitchen aid who came to the rescue of the Red Boat when they got into trouble. There is an intimate relationship between Luohan style and White Lotus cult which had its power base in the southern regions (ie Henan, Zhejiang, Suzhou, Fujian) and North Eastern region (Shandong).

Luohan style is a product of cult militia IMHO. It was developed based on the southern method of Fanziquan which was synonomous with Duan Da (short strikes) otherwise known as Nei Nien Shou (inner curtain hands). If look at the references and synoptics of the Luohan Xinggong Duanda manuscripts (where the 18 families sonnet originated), we know that it used a lot of Yuan dynasty Opera material (ie Xi Xiang Ji), Ming dynasty chapter Novels (water margin, Fei Long Chuan Zhuan, etc), Neo-Confucianism concepts and theories (Song dynasty), Ming dynasty martial art manuscripts, etc. All these points to the manuscripts can not be possibly a work of early Song dynasty and least of all Buddhist in origin (no actual Buddhist terminology is used ever).

Regards

Mantis108[/QUOTE]

Great, thanks for posting that all!!!

So the conclusion is that Abbott Fu Yu, after 1256(?) had help from people to collect a bunch of martial art stuff and document this stuff, and it was used as necessary to fight taoists?

Thus, the legends are all “playing telephone” distorted reflections of this time period, correct? The legends by the time of the Ming Dynasty added in all kinds of people to make the story look cool.

Skipping all the legend styff.

What about the story of Jue Yuan meeting up with Bai Yu Feng, and Li Su and his son?

If that is factual, it would have to have happened at the tail end of the Yuan, when Shaolin was at a lowpoint, after the Red Turban invasion, yes?

If he and they re-worked whatever Louhan quan was there at the time, it would follow that this Louhan quan was whatever remained of the forms that Fu Yu collected?

(also can someone please tell of the Wah Quan controversy, that supposedly Bai Yu Feng eased and reintroduced Wah Quan into Shaolin martial arts, he being the librarian at the temple?)

(Also, can someone help me trace Fantzi being spread in Henan province, by when, by whom, etc.?)

I agree the Louhan shares a lot with Fantzi, Fantzi has Louhan forms, even a 32 Tai Tzu Quan form.

So, pre-song dynasty, what Shaolin had was: whatever loose boxing and grappling methods people picked up and did for exercise and self defense, as necessary. This stuff was just what techniques people picked up here and there, or vistors brought in.

Then at start of Song Dynasty, Emperor Chao gives them a gift of his Tai Tzu Chang Quan. His books and notes of his martial art theories and training.

Then, because of Jin and Mongol invasions, the place is pretty dead for martial arts.

Somewhere around 1250 Abbott Fu Yu gathers martial art stuff from various masters, and he makes a book showing the “forms”, etc, whatever.
Somewhere in here Louhan Quan is developed.

Then Shaolin dies out again not too long after, there there is the Red Turban invasion, etc and near end of the Yuan Dynasty
Jue Yuan and friends develop a new system starting from what was left of Luohan and adding in internal MA ideas from Louyang White Horse temple.

Then Shaolin martial arts becomes more stable and established during the Ming Dynasty, where many forms and substyles of Shaolin Martial arts developed.

Finally, during Qing dynasty various Shaolion styles become standardized there and spread all over China.

Is this rough timeline correct?

How does the Xin Yi Ba fit in?
When was it created? by whom?

About southern Fantzi and Luohan.

From what I see so far, Fantzi/Chuojiao spread into Henan
and south after the 1860s, when Zhao Canyi brought it there.

So, how/when can southern fantzi become a forerunner to Luohan Quan?

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;714122]Great, thanks for posting that all!!![/quote]

You are most welcome.

So the conclusion is that Abbott Fu Yu, after 1256(?) had help from people to collect a bunch of martial art stuff and document this stuff, and it was used as necessary to fight taoists?

Well, not a conclusion and no one can draw conclusion without seeing the ACTUAL manuscript that is signed and sealed by Fu Yu if he really did that. All else are just speculations. Now, there is another way of getting to the bottom of things which is to examin the financial journals of Henan Shaolin (not necessarily the balance sheet) that’s around that time. But then good luck with that. No one can lie in those kind of records. How much money was spent on what? If there’s a huge event such as the debate of doctrain or tournament/seminar of martial arts there had to be records indicating these stuffs. So…

Personally, I don’t buy the Fu Yu put together a secret manuscript with drawing story.

Thus, the legends are all “playing telephone” distorted reflections of this time period, correct? The legends by the time of the Ming Dynasty added in all kinds of people to make the story look cool.

More or less. I would think it’s rather in lat Ming and early Qing dynasty when the cult movement coupling with resurgance was at its peak.

Skipping all the legend styff.

What about the story of Jue Yuan meeting up with Bai Yu Feng, and Li Su and his son?

If that is factual, it would have to have happened at the tail end of the Yuan, when Shaolin was at a lowpoint, after the Red Turban invasion, yes?

No, it was rather before the Red Turban incident (1361 CE). It is believed that Bai Yu Feng lived sometime around Jin/Southern Song (1115-1234 CE) and Yuan (1260-1368 CE). So he would have lived during late 1100s to early 1200s which means he would be more or less the same era as Fu Yu. Now, 1258 was the last debate that was presided by Fu Yu. Bai Yu Feng couldn’t have been there otherwise there would be some kind of written record by Fu Yu about him. Nothing about Bai’s 5 animal or anything Bodhidharma’s 18 Luohan hands were ever mentioned in the LHXGDD manuscript or other manuscripts of Shaolin during or close to that period. Conveniently, Bai was said to have been invited to shaolin by Jue yuan who travelled for a period of time. So… timeline wise something is not right.

If he and they re-worked whatever Louhan quan was there at the time, it would follow that this Louhan quan was whatever remained of the forms that Fu Yu collected?

There’s no proof nor evidence at this point that form training already existed by that time. Form training might have been a Qing dynasty phenonemon IMHO. Also Luohan Quan couldn’t have been created yet at least not by Fu Yu. That’s almost an impossibility…

(also can someone please tell of the Wah Quan controversy, that supposedly Bai Yu Feng eased and reintroduced Wah Quan into Shaolin martial arts, he being the librarian at the temple?)

Bai Yu Feng was said to be originally from Shanxi Taiyuan where Hongdong Tongbi (otherwise known as Xi Chang Quan) had a strong following possibly since early Song. He was resided in Luoyang at the time Jue Yuan and Li Shou found him. Jue Yuan was said to have travelled westward from Shaolin into Xian Xi and even Szechuan. Hua Shan being the western mountain of the 5 mountains of China (martial tradition). It’s not hard to “imagine” a connection was made in order to claim “Tian Xia Gong Fu Chu Shaolin”. Personally, it’s questionable that Bai knew Hua Quan.

(Also, can someone help me trace Fantzi being spread in Henan province, by when, by whom, etc.?)[/quote

Yeah, it would be great too.

[quote]I agree the Louhan shares a lot with Fantzi, Fantzi has Louhan forms, even a 32 Tai Tzu Quan form.

The style of Fanzi that I know of don’t have 32 Taizu Quan nor Luohan forms. So…

So, pre-song dynasty, what Shaolin had was: whatever loose boxing and grappling methods people picked up and did for exercise and self defense, as necessary. This stuff was just what techniques people picked up here and there, or vistors brought in.

I don’t think form training started that early.

Then at start of Song Dynasty, Emperor Chao gives them a gift of his Tai Tzu Chang Quan. His books and notes of his martial art theories and training.

That’s another myth. No proof of that in existence.

Then, because of Jin and Mongol invasions, the place is pretty dead for martial arts.

That’s quite possible.

Somewhere around 1250 Abbott Fu Yu gathers martial art stuff from various masters, and he makes a book showing the “forms”, etc, whatever.
Somewhere in here Louhan Quan is developed.

Where is this book?

Then Shaolin dies out again not too long after, there there is the Red Turban invasion, etc and near end of the Yuan Dynasty
Jue Yuan and friends develop a new system starting from what was left of Luohan and adding in internal MA ideas from Louyang White Horse temple.

Jue Yuan was Jin-Southern Song era which is way before the Red Turban. No evidence of a Luohan Quan system in the confines of Henan Shaolin temple existed prior to Ming dynasty. The earliest possible of anything related to luohan is from a line in a sonnet of Fanziquan that mentioned Iron Luohan. Now the Fanzi style was mentioned in General Qi’s work around mid 1500s. We don’t know when the sonnet was made. So there’s no way to date that precisely.

Then Shaolin martial arts becomes more stable and established during the Ming Dynasty, where many forms and substyles of Shaolin Martial arts developed.

We can only find that General Yu Dayou reintroduced stick and staff fighting method to Henan Shaolin around mid 1500. By 1600, Shaolin had some kind of expensive training program for people to learn their method which again is not exactly what General Yu taught.

Finally, during Qing dynasty various Shaolion styles become standardized there and spread all over China.

Is this rough timeline correct?

We will have to revise quite a bit.

How does the Xin Yi Ba fit in?
When was it created? by whom?

Well, that’s a recent development and a money grabber if you ask me. So…

Regards

Mantis108

"It is believed that Bai Yu Feng lived sometime around Jin/Southern Song (1115-1234 CE) and Yuan (1260-1368 CE). So he would have lived during late 1100s to early 1200s which means he would be more or less the same era as Fu Yu. "

That’s a big spread of time.

Why couldn’t he have lived before Fu Yu? or long after? in that big spread of time.

If Jue Yuan is from Jin-Southern Song era, then this is all before Fu Yu, not after as I had always thought.
So, it is possible that Jue Yuan found not much happening at Shaolin and brought in their own ideas.

Bei Yu Feng being from an area of Shanxi where Hongtong bi was popular is interesting, since there seems to be so much of Tong Bi in shaolin forms today.

As far as the 5 animals thing, there is no need for that story to be part of things. It shouldn’t effect wether Bai Yu Feng and Jue Yuan had anything to do with Shaolin arts. There is no need to care about the southern shaolin 5 animals legend to date these people and their actions.
From what I could find, person with the surname of Chao, later Choy/Choi, went from henan to south area and brought his Shaolin martial arts ideas there, during the early Qing dynasty. All the 5 animals stuff comes after this. This person was once an officer in the Ming army, and an uncle to the heir apparent of the Chao family.

There are a few forms from Shaolin that are attributed to Bai Yu Feng, not the 5 animals stuff at all, but a 13 Claws forms (which is very long pile of loose techniques),
and a Xin Yi Quan that he and Jue Yuan made, and a Luohan form and a Hong Quan form that comes from Li Su. These two forms are unlike any other Luohan or Hong Quan forms that Shaolin has.

One thing:

The Chen tai ji Yi lu form is pretty much an extended version of the Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Quan 32 move form (with 54 postures). I have mapped them both out in a one to one correspondance in an upcoming issue of Gene’s Kung Fu magazine.
So, there is some real connection to Shaolin and Tai Tzu, maybe they picked it up from the local populace, as Tai Tzu was popular in Henan, as elsewhere; but regardless, the Chen Yi Lu form was developed during the early 1600s, so this
Shaolin Tai Tzu form is logically older than that, plus the same form is also done by other tai tzu lines that are not in henan province, so somebody brought this form into Shaolin in time for Chen family to pick it up along with Hong Quan and Pao Chui forms from Shaolin.

About the Fan tzi Luohan and tai Tzu forms.

I have a big fat Chuo Jiao Fan Tzi forms book (in Chinese) in my hand right now,
that shows forms from all the different sub styles.
ISBN 7-5009-2366-X

It shows the Khao Zen forms, which it says are actually Luohan Quan postures.

Also, it lists the moves (but no photos) of a form that is part of Cun (wrist) Fan tzi
called Tai Tzu Quan, and it has 32 postures.

[SIZE=“2”]Can someone translate the following for me?

• “”

It’s about the Chicken-Saber Sickle. I just recently created an article for it on wikipedia. I came across this information sometime back while doing research on the connection between Zhou Tong and Xinyi. I found one master whose page commented that Zhou tong taught Yue Fei the Five Animals and thought the spear was the “most divine of all weapons”. However, I can’t use it since the information came from an unpublished interview between the master and his xinyi master. He did point me in the direction of a xinyi book that might hold some of this info.

I know historically this info doesn’t match up with the “Yue Fei Biography”, but I would still like to use it. Thanks in advance to whoever translates the above paragraph.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=“2”]I have heard that Zhou Tong was a Fanzi master. However, I have not been able to find any reputable English pages that actually say this. I can’t use info from forum pages. It must be published in a book or in a website that is in someway linked to a noted master or, again, a book.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=“2”]I also need the following translated:

“”“”

and

“”“”“……”1750“”“”“”

http://www.dlwsw.com/bhtm/ws11.htm

This has to do with Zhou Tong’s connection with Xingyi.[/SIZE]