# Kung Fu was made for self defense or for war?



## rox (Jan 21, 2005)

I've read that many emperors had their armies to learn kung fu, but was the chinese army relying on it? Actually, I guess the chinese, as the mongols, must have used horsery and archery, and kung fu doesn't cover that.

The question is: did the shaolin develop the martial art to fight against their 'political' enemies or against thieves and such?


----------



## clfsean (Jan 21, 2005)

rox said:
			
		

> I've read that many emperors had their armies to learn kung fu, but was the chinese army relying on it? Actually, I guess the chinese, as the mongols, must have used horsery and archery, and kung fu doesn't cover that.


Sure it does. Good kung fu teaches you to stay home & drink tea while archers are out & have quivers full of arrows.

From what I've read, the Chinese relied heavily on archery for long distance fighting, calvary for assaults & infantry for mass melee/wipe up. Many soliders were not much more than conscripts who were given a weapon & said "have at it".

They way I understand the weaponry of "the day" was archers first for distance, then polearms, sabers/swords/individual weapons, flexible weapons then hands.



			
				rox said:
			
		

> The question is: did the shaolin develop the martial art to fight against their 'political' enemies or against thieves and such?


Answer === yes.


----------



## j_m (Jan 21, 2005)

Strange question indeed... but in a nutshell:


From my understanding a lot of kung fu pre-dates shaolin.  And even most kung fu that does not pre-date it had little or nothing to do with shaolin.  Shaolin is just one very small branch of Chinese martial arts.

So did the Buddhist monks create their art for war or for self defense?  I would suspect for self defense since, being Buddhist, war was not of interest to them.  As for the rest of the kung fu in China?  I'd say there was a LOT of war going on and kung fu encompassed all aspects of it (horse riding, archery, pole arms, etc.).


My short 2 cents,




jm


----------



## DarrenJew (Jan 21, 2005)

The Art of War... Sun Tzu
most of you may know of the book... for those who don't it is a book of war written in 2000 bc by Sun Tzu. The book does mention training of troops.

"Whose forces are stronger?"
"Whose officers and troops are better trained?"
"Whose rewards and punishments are clearer?"

But it does not mention "Kung Fu" specifically.

I think the Buddhist monks originally trained for self defense of their Monasteries which were subject to raids from bandits and thieves, Buddhism being such a passive religion would have appeared to be an easy mark to those so inclined.

I think most martial arts as we know it comes from rebellion. When the government oppresses its citizens and makes the ownership of weapons illegal. Many martial arts as we know them today, flourished within Secret Sects of normal citizenry, that may have been politically motivated to overthrow oppression. 

Though the military did have its training, (dont quote me) I believe hearing from somewhere the Eagle Claw style may have been associated with military training at one time. I think the military mostly focused on discipline, following orders and recognizing signals of command such as drums and gongs.

Could you imagine a whole army of men who trained Drunken Man style Kung fu going into battle, or uhmmm should I say staggering into battle.


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Jan 21, 2005)

This discussion seems to be quite Western-minded. Without getting into a lecture about Eastern philosophy, I'd just like to remind people that a basic principle of Buddhism is that of non-violence. From an Eastern perspective, one can't simply run away from a big, strong opponent and proscribe it to non-violence: one has to be strong and capable of meeting the threat, but still decide to withdraw. As I understand it, monks trying to understand this principle made themselves into lethal fighting instruments so that they would never miss an opportunity to be able to practice it. Eventually, martial arts gained a more spiritual focus, turning into a path of sorts, that religious people followed in order to gain enlightenment. Now, this is probably not the origin of all CMA (after all, not everyone was a monk), but it might explain something. Thoughts?


----------



## clfsean (Jan 21, 2005)

Eldritch Knight said:
			
		

> This discussion seems to be quite Western-minded. Without getting into a lecture about Eastern philosophy, I'd just like to remind people that a basic principle of Buddhism is that of non-violence.


Quite true, but the original question dealt with first the army using kung fu & then secondarily the monks of Shaolin. So with that in mind (as a starting point) the Western minded tilt isn't so far off. The second thing is look at many who joined Shaolin. Many who joined the order & "left the world" weren't exactly upstanding citizens. They were ex-soliders, criminals, gangsters, mercenaries, etc... people who were trained or had some training or natural talent in fighting. Just because they joined the monstary doesn't mean they followed its teaching & principles to the letter. A life of luxury & privilege(by hook or by crook) isn't always an easy thing to leave behind for a life of minimalism & abstenence on many things.



			
				Eldritch Knight said:
			
		

> From an Eastern perspective, one can't simply run away from a big, strong opponent and proscribe it to non-violence: one has to be strong and capable of meeting the threat, but still decide to withdraw. As I understand it, monks trying to understand this principle made themselves into lethal fighting instruments so that they would never miss an opportunity to be able to practice it. Eventually, martial arts gained a more spiritual focus, turning into a path of sorts, that religious people followed in order to gain enlightenment. Now, this is probably not the origin of all CMA (after all, not everyone was a monk), but it might explain something. Thoughts?


I woudl suggest looking into the writings of Dr Meir Shahir from Isreal. He's an acknowledged authority on medieval China, specifically Tang through Ming Dynasty China & Shaolin. You may be suprised to find out exactly who did the fighting & dying under the Shaolin banner & why. :supcool:


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 22, 2005)

The following is one of my posts in another forum here, but it is equally applicable to this topic:

I'd just like to touch on the previous points of the origin and relationships of martial arts. I consider myself equally a martial arts scholar and martial artist. In fact, at this point, I'm more of a scholar than a practitioner (mostly because I have limited access to martial arts training).

I hate to say it, and I'm sure I'm going to be flogged for this one, but the fact is very _few_ martial arts actually have any idea of when/where they were actually founded. Most martial artists (especially the originators) either didn't know their lineage, or made it up, or even changed it to make it sound better. This is especially true of the older and Chinese martial arts. Nobody can seem to keep their records straight, so what I do is collect all the information I can about each art, conflicting or not, and assume that part of all of it is true.

From what I've gathered, nearly everyone seems to concur that Bodhidarmha (a.k.a. Daruma, and at least two other names) was the originator of the martial arts. The legend goes that he went to the Shaolin temple to teach the monks about Buddhism, but they were too physically weak to keep up with his meditations. So he developed a conditioning regimine which he called "eight hands", which helped to whip the monks into shape.

From this, they added more techniques in, more and different conditioning excersices, etc., until they finally had created an entirely new art which eventually became Shaolin Gung Fu.

From there, everything branches out into hundreds of different versions, and even the arts which branched off have branches, and so on, and so forth. Even within the orriginal legend, there are various versions of how it happened and why. The version I've written above is the most common (that I've found) and even the versions which differ tend to share most of the important elements.
_______________________________________________________________

So you see, if this-- being the most agreed upon origin of any of the martial arts-- is true, then martial arts (and Shaolin Gung Fu, being the first official one) were created neither for "martial" or self-defence purposes, but instead as a means of meditation and disicpline.

Hope that answered your question.


----------



## rox (Jan 22, 2005)

Thanks for the answers. I don't know how much trust we can put into this, but I found this article interesting, from WIKIPEDIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin

(Excerpt)
"Traditionally, the Shaolin monks developed their martial arts expertise as a defense against aggressors' attacks, as a means to promote health, and as a mental and physical discipline.

The temple's military fame began during the early Tang Dynasty (618 - 907). Records describe Shaolin fighting monks saving the life of the future emperor Li Shimin (in this record, it says that the monks were in and out of the fort before anyone could even raise the alarm) and assisting in his fight against renegade forces. Once enthroned, the gratified emperor enlarged their compound and gave permission for some monks to continue their military training. Shaolin kung fu reached its peak during the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644), when several hundred Shaolin monks were given military status and personally led campaigns against rebels and Japanese bandits. By this time, the Shaolin had developed their own unique style of martial arts, known as Shaolinquan."

It seems true to me. Shaolin, as the birth of "systematized" martial arts, would be seen as perfect teachers or generals for armies. And China was, for sure, full of war.

But yet, I've never read anything about traditional kung fu teaching horse riding or archery.


----------



## Fumanchu (Jan 22, 2005)

Kung fu basically means chinese martial arts. There were some systems that had a military lineage while some were deveoped by civilans such as shaolin monks etc. 

I agree in many branches of the military alot of the fighting is based on weaponary and wearing armour does change the dynamics of how you move. It's also true that chinese military relies on mass numbers - so a person who uses a broad sword or spear in battle would only know 3 or 4 main moves but they'll be deadly because they are fighting in formation. 

However, not all branches of the military use mass numbers or archary. The good kung fu is generally taught to special body guards for officials or situations where you need highly trained troops to operate in small numbers. 

Kung fu in the military wasn't named according to all sorts of different styles we have today, although Baji/piqua and long fist had been taught in the military. Following the take over by the Ching dynasty it would seem that practitioners of these 2 styles left the military and further developed upon the concepts resulting in Tai Chi, Hsing I and mantis. Further evolutions of these systems probably led to Bagua and Mi Zong in the late 1800s to early 1900s.


----------



## j_m (Jan 22, 2005)

RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> From what I've gathered, nearly everyone seems to concur that Bodhidarmha (a.k.a. Daruma, and at least two other names) was the originator of the martial arts.


Aye caramba!!  No offense RD, but as martial arts "scholar" you need to do *a lot* more research on the Chinese martial arts so you can the difference between myth and historical reality.  Or better yet, maybe you should just go back to training and leave the history lessons to the professionals.  Again, no offense... but it's things like this that keep the myths propogating over and over and over ...



jm


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 25, 2005)

I'm sorry if I've offended your sensibilities, JM, but it appears you need to brush up a bit on your history, friend.  If you feel that I am entirely incorrect, please give the information you feel to be correct, please do not just discredit me with a "Nuh-uh".  That is neither helpful nor informed.  If you require sources for this information (which is NOT just legend-- it has plenty of legend formed around it, but it is based in fact), then I will be happy to collect and name them for you.


----------



## brothershaw (Jan 25, 2005)

From my understanding there are some styles that were either practiced by military, and or palace guards. Shaolin was not the genesis for all kung fu.
I guess the difference between chinese martial arts and others is that there isnt generally known to the general public a history/folklore of a military class and how they operated the knights of europe, or japans samurai. The most common martial folklore tends to revolve around monasteries wudan, shaolin. I would imagine showing the different mindset of the people.  
     In addition china went through a period where the govt. suppressed alot of info about the martial arts and suppressed its practioners.

But as someone posted earlier nonone can ever agree on who came first, what came second, and I dont know is on third base.( old joke).


----------



## j_m (Jan 25, 2005)

Oh my tender sensibilities!  Haha.  I'm just trying to help dispell some of the myths that are so widely spread across the internet 

No, I do not feel that you are entirely incorrect... but then again I do.  I took one sentence from your original post (as I quoted) and I was referring to that particular remark.  "Bodhidarmha was the originator of the martial arts"?  Surely you can't believe this?  But maybe you do since you stated it.  I'm here to tell you that there was kung fu before his time, before shaolin, after shaolin, and everywhere in between.  There are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of Chinese martial arts styles whose histories have nothing to do with Bodhidarmha or Shaolin.  On the contrary, Shaolin (and it's branches) are just a very small subset of the numerous styles/systems of kung fu.  Kung fu existed in China centuries before Da Mo was even born.  Find any good Chinese history book and you'll find that to be fact... I shouldn't need to quote referneces on something like that.

Now, for the rest of your post.  I'm not debating whether Bodhidarmha existed or came to Shaolin or taught them Buddhism.  Or maybe he even taught them some form of excersise.  Some say yes, some say no.  But one thing is certain: The Chinese brought kung fu to the Shaolin temple and before that it had already been practice throughout China for hundreds of years.  If you and others wish to keep the _Da Mo myth_ alive then that is up to you.  But at least let it be known that you have now heard otherwise.

Next someone will be telling us Tai Chi Chuan is only for health!



jm


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 25, 2005)

After having posted, I thought about it and realized that you probably will demand sources, etc.  So I took it upon myself to collect some for you, and present further debate in favour of the Bodhidharma theory.

Now, this first source actually _discredits_ the theory of Bodhidharma, but the fact is, it acknowledges his existence, his teachings, and his contributions to the Shaolin Monastery.  Even if the Author doesn't particularly believe that Bodhidharma was the "founder", I use this source to establish Means, Motive, and opportunity.
From: http://www.pastornet.net.au/response/articles/24.htm

"In India there lived a Buddhist monk named Bodhidharma (Japanese: Daruma, Chinese: Ta-mo) who was the son of king Sughanda. Because of his high burden he was educated in martial arts by an old master called Prajhatra. Around 520 AD Daruma went to China where he finally moved in to the Shaolin Monastery in the Honan province. He is generally credited with founding the Zen Buddhism there (Indian: Dhyana, Chinese: Ch'an). Many regard Daruma to be the founder of Chinese boxing, but this is doubtful. More probable is it that the monk's mutual activity over a certain period of time is behind the development. It is presumed that the training in the Shaolin Monastery was divided in four: 

Meditation (Zen is based on long periods of static meditation) 

Fighting styles, brought from China 

Chinese boxing styles 

Three sets of physical exercises from Indian medicine which concentrated on rhythmic breathing and flexibility training. 


It is likely that other monasteries existed under the name of Shaolin, where the martial arts was used as a means of spiritual expansion. Unarmed fighting techniques is mentioned in books from the Chou-dynasty (1066-403 B.C.). Some of the famous terracotta statues from the Qin-dynasty (221-210 B.C.) show the roots of Wu Shu in old Chinese fighting styles. Wu Shu signifies the Japanese term bujutsu (Martial Arts). Kung Fu means time and energy, and was originally used for any skill. Kung Fu describes the degree of skill or insight. The expression is today used more and more as a name for the external or hard forms (schools) of Wu Shu. The Chinese fighting arts are commonly divided into north and south.

Northern China consists mostly of open landscapes where people are used to walk or ride great distances, which made it natural to develop their legs into weapons. The northern style consists of kicks and graceful movements, often open positions. Arms and legs can be stretched in both attack and defense. Fast jumps, turns and sweeping movements are important. They train much in kata, which are long and complicated, and are mostly in lineal motions.

Southern China is crossed by a net of rivers, where people staked and rowed a lot, which made it natural to develop their arms into weapons. In the southern style good balance and solid positions are essential, with sudden and powerful movements. Often attack and defense occur simultaneously - both hands are used simultaneously most of the time. Also southern style is mainly lineal movements, but these are shorter and more compact than in the north. 

Another important difference in Chinese fighting styles are the inner versus the outer, the soft versus the hard. Central in Chinese (Taoistic) mentality are Yin and Yang. These represent the counterparts in all existence; light/dark, positive/negative, day/night, life/death, conscious/subconscious etc. However, Yin and Yang do not represent a distinct difference between two opposites, as one often interfere with the other. Because of that one can not say that there is a distinct difference between soft/passive and hard/active. No style is only soft or only hard. Those styles that are called the outer, hard styles mainly descend from Shaolin, and are most often called kung fu. Five separate styles can be traced to Shaolin; tiger, snake, dragon, crane and leopard. From these five, singular or in combinations, was again created styles we recognize today, like Hung, Praying Mantis, Wing Chun etc. Among those under the name of inner, soft styles are Hsing-i, Pa-Qua and Tai Chi Chuan."

The following are further support of the Bodhidharma theory:
From: http://www.ohioshaolin.com/SHAOLINDO%20Images/ShaolinTemple.htm

"The saga of Shaolin begins with Bodhidharma the third child of Chieftain Sugandha (Brahmin king) of Southern India and a member of the Kshatriya (a warrior caste).  The root of his training was Vajramushti.  He spent his childhood in Conjeeveram (also known as Kanchipuram and Kancheepuram), the small Buddhist province south of Madras.  He received his training in the Dhyana school of Buddhist meditation (which was later transliterated to Ch'an in Chinese, Zen in Japanese and Son in Korean)  from his master, Prajnatara, who was responsible for changing his name from Bodhitara to Bodhidharma. Shaolin arts and Zen thought are inextricably woven."

From: http://martialarts.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-bodhidharma.htm

"Bodhidharma Definition: The name of the man commonly held to have introduced certain exercises to the Shaolin temple which are often regarded as being the origin of the Shaolin martial arts."

Also Known As: Tamo, Damo 

Common Misspellings: Bhodidarma, Bodidarma, Bhodidharma

The following contains some mythological elements. . .  I hope everyone will be mature and intelligent enough to sort the obvious myth from the likely fact:

From: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_of_the_martial_arts/98612

"Almost every book on the history of the Asian Martial Arts begins with a reference to Bodhidharma. Somewhere in time, contact with his teachings has occurred in most of the major branches of these arts. He has been given many names over time. In addition to Bodhidharma, he was Tamo to the Chinese, he is named Pu Tai Ta Mo in Sanskrit and Daruma Daishi in Japanese. In the Buddhist world he is known as the 28th Patriarch of Indian Buddhism or the First Patriarch of the Chinese Zen Lineage.
The history is based upon many legends and stories, complicated by the many names. I have attempted to provide a summary of these stories as a starting point. The dates vary from the 400s to the 500s AD. I have used the most widely accepted dates in this brief history. Recommendations on his history and his Buddhist teachings can be found in the bibliography at the end of this article.
Bodhidharma was born a prince in the southern regions of India and raised as a warrior to succeed his father as king. He had been trained in the Kalaprayat technique of martial arts. Bored with his training Bodhidharma began to study with a Buddhist teacher named Prajnatara. On his deathbed, Prajnatara asked him to go to China to re-awaken the followers of Buddha. Some sources say that almost five percent of the population were Buddhist Monks even before the arrival of Bodhidharma. Legends vary in the method of his arrival, some say he traversed the Himalayan Mountains, others say he rode a ship around the coast. Regardless, he arrived around 526 A.D. 
Upon arriving in China, the Emperor Wu Ti, a Buddhist himself, requested a meeting with Bodhidharma. The Emperor asked him what reward he had received for all of his good works. Bodhidharma answered that he had accrued none. Bodhidharma was unable to convince Wu Ti of the value of the new teachings he brought from India. 
Frustrated, Bodhidharma set out on a northerly direction. He crossed the Tse River, and climbed Bear's Ear Mountain in the Sung Mountain range to where the Shaolin Temple was located. It had been founded forty years before by Buddhist monks and was famous for its translations of the Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. Bodhidharma sought entrance into the Shaolin temple. He was accepted after he was able to prove that he was committed to Buddhism.
When he arrived Boddhidharma was appalled to find the monks fat, and without the ability to even stay awake during his lectures. In addition, the monks were unarmed and easy pray to bandits when they attempted to go out into the world to teach. So they decided to stay in the safety of the monastery. This explained one reason that Buddhism was no longer as widespread as it had been.
Legend has it that Boddhidharma then went to a cave and stared at a wall for seven years. He is said to have cut off his eyelids to stay awake in meditation, and so is usually depicted with bulging eyes. Others say that he cut off his eyelashes and that they fell to the ground and became tea plants. Recognizing the ability of tea to help a person stay awake has made tea a part of the practice of zazen.
Bodhidharma created an exercise program for the monks which involved physical techniques that were efficient, strengthened the body, and eventually, could be used practically in self-defense. When Bodhidharma instituted these practices, his primary concern was to make the monks physically strong enough to withstand both their isolated lifestyle and the deceptively demanding training that meditation requires. It turned out that the techniques served a dual purpose as a very efficient fighting system, which evolved into a marital arts style. 
His system involved dynamic tension exercises. These movements found their way into print as early as 550 A.D. as the Yi Gin Ching, or Changing Muscle/Tendon Classic. We know this system today as the Lohan (Priest-Scholar) 18 Hand Movements, which serves as the basis of Chinese Temple Boxing and the Shaolin Arts. Many of the basic moves of both tai chi chuan and kung fu can be seen in the scenes recorded on the walls of the temple. 
These skills helped the monks to defend themselves against invading warlords and bandits. Bodhidharma taught that martial arts should be used for self-defense, and never to hurt or injure needlessly. In fact, it is one of the oldest Shaolin axioms that "one who engages in combat has already lost the battle." Bodhidharma also taught medicine to the monks and arranged for Chinese doctors to come to share their knowledge with the Shaolin. In three years the monks became so skilled in both the martial arts and medicine that they start to be feared and respected by the bandits. This went a long way toward continuing the spread of Buddhism and Zen thoughout China and the rest of Asia. Even the death of Bodhidharma is shrouded in mystery. Legend has it that he was poisoned by one of his followers disappointed at not being selected as the successor. Regardless of the reason, Bodhidharma died in 539 A.D. at the Shaolin Temple at age 57. They laid him to rest in a tomb there."

In conclusion:

I do not believe (nor am I trying to impress upon anyone else) that Bodhidharma (Daruma, Ta mao, etc.) was the founder of all martial arts.  I think that a lot of the contradiction and contestion about this comes from this misconception.  I believe that Bodhidharma was the founder of SYSTEMIZED, FORMAL martial arts, AS WE KNOW THEM.  

Throughout the history of the world, people have fought and killed eachother, and as such there have always been people teaching other people how to fight and kill.  There has always been war, and people teaching other people how to fight a war.  These were the first "true" martial arts-- but not as we think of them today.

Some people think that Henry Ford was the founder of the automobile-- this is entirely untrue.  The "automobile" is an idea, and as such was probably conceived CENTURIES before Henry Ford was even born.  He WAS, however, the founder of the first company to mass-produce automobiles, as we think of them today-- thus adding to the misconception surrounding him.  The same thing has happened with Bodhidharma.

Looking past the legends, the stories, the outrageous claims, eliminating it all, you leave only fact.  The fact is, Bodhidharma existed, he taught the monks at the Shaolin temple, and (whether this last fact is true or not, it is still a fact) he is believed to have taught the monks at the Shaolin temple the first regimented training, which spawned the martial arts.

Your turn.


----------



## DarrenJew (Jan 25, 2005)

I just wanted to note, taken from Chinas Buried Kingdoms page 51 published 1993, Time-Life Books..

During the "Spring and Autumn" period (770-476 BC) battles were fought primarily by men of noble descent, who unlike commoners were trained as a matter of course in the skills of swordsmanship, archery, and charioteering. Conscripts drawn from the peasantry played only a minor supporting role as foot soldiers. The aristocrats observed certain proprieties in the conduct of war. The fighting of a savage, no-holds-barred battle was considered the mark of a barbarian; among the "civilized" Chinese, a battle was seen as a form of gentlemens duel fought on a larger scale, a test of ones honor, character, and skill. The emergence of generals from the ranks of the shi did not dilute this aristocratic approach to war. The shi had always been taught to maintain proper courtesies in practicing the noble art of combat. (Shi, a class of men below that of the feudal lords. Gentlemen, defendants of nobles who were small landlords or served the lords as stewards, minor officials, or professional warriors.) Prior to combat Polite exchanges would be made by rival commanders before fighting commenced. For example, it is recorded that a Chu general, in 632 BC, challenged the Qin ruler with the words: "Will Your Excellency permit our knights and yours to play a game?" 

I believe we can all easily see the Bushido code originating from this time period.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 26, 2005)

Firstly, to reiterate what has already been said, gong-fu (kung fu) referrs in Chineese to any skill aquired with effort over time, and in the west to *any* Chinese martial art. Since there are an awful lot of them, there is no one answer to your question.

A quick and easy way to guesstimate wheather an art is a war art or a defense art is to look and see who can use it. When you look at the Silat arts, as an example, you see a focus on quick learning, natural stances, and things that work on unconditioned bodies. This is because most Silat's are village arts intended for "everyone to use".

When I look at some of the Chinese temple arts from which modern Wushu (literally "war art") comes, I see arts which focus on a great deal of body conditioning, strength, speed, and power. I also note that most of the weapons of Wushu are not "sticks and knives", but complex war-only weapons (there is a staff, but it's simply spear work without the point).

Add to this that the monistaries were often the refuge of rebels, and it seems likely that the majority of arts we think of when we say "kung fu" were, in fact, arts of professional warriors (soldiers, police, bodyguards, etc), and not self-defense arts of the common man.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm not quite understanding why the distinction? 

7sm


----------



## funnytiger (Jan 26, 2005)

Choosing to stay a bystander in this discussion I just wanted to pipe in and compliment RavenDarkfellow for such a well thought out and articulate post. Very rarely have I seen someone argue their point of view on the Internet in such a forceful yet nonoffensive manner. 

Kudos

:salute:


----------



## Fumanchu (Jan 26, 2005)

RavenDarkfellow:


Quote: "Northern China consists mostly of open landscapes where people are used to walk or ride great distances, which made it natural to develop their legs into weapons. The northern style consists of kicks and graceful movements, often open positions. Arms and legs can be stretched in both attack and defense. Fast jumps, turns and sweeping movements are important. They train much in kata, which are long and complicated, and are mostly in lineal motions.

Southern China is crossed by a net of rivers, where people staked and rowed a lot, which made it natural to develop their arms into weapons. In the southern style good balance and solid positions are essential, with sudden and powerful movements. Often attack and defense occur simultaneously - both hands are used simultaneously most of the time. Also southern style is mainly lineal movements, but these are shorter and more compact than in the north."

Haha. this made me laugh. Does this mean that kung fu is useless to us given that most of us don't walk for days across open landscape or row boats for a living? 

Also, your understanding of how northern kung fu works appears flawed.


----------



## funnytiger (Jan 27, 2005)

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> RavenDarkfellow:
> 
> 
> Quote: "Northern China consists mostly of open landscapes where people are used to walk or ride great distances, which made it natural to develop their legs into weapons. The northern style consists of kicks and graceful movements, often open positions. Arms and legs can be stretched in both attack and defense. Fast jumps, turns and sweeping movements are important. They train much in kata, which are long and complicated, and are mostly in lineal motions.
> ...



But your understanding of Southern Kung Fu is spot on.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 27, 2005)

funnytiger said:
			
		

> But your understanding of Southern Kung Fu is spot on.


I don't think I'd give the "spot on" seal of approval. The linear techniques are matched by just as many rounded techniques... Sow, Pow, Kahp, Chinji, Kum, Heurng, etc... 

The Southern Shorthand falls pretty much within the linear description, but look at Choy Lee Fut. Linear but plenty of circles. Hung Ga I belive has a fair share of circles. I've seen some tournament footage of Jow Ga & saw plenty of strikes that I use in CLF that weren't linear.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 27, 2005)

Yeah, its really hard to "label" a style as "so and so" because its "northern" or "southern". Most systems dont really fit in that box is the problem.

7sm


----------



## funnytiger (Jan 27, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> I don't think I'd give the "spot on" seal of approval. The linear techniques are matched by just as many rounded techniques... Sow, Pow, Kahp, Chinji, Kum, Heurng, etc...
> 
> The Southern Shorthand falls pretty much within the linear description, but look at Choy Lee Fut. Linear but plenty of circles. Hung Ga I belive has a fair share of circles. I've seen some tournament footage of Jow Ga & saw plenty of strikes that I use in CLF that weren't linear.



In my experience with Southern Kung Fu (which admittedly is mostly Jow Ga) I would still agree with RD description of Southern Kung Fu. But again, I've only had 2 years to observe and practice the art. I've also noticed that some Jow Ga schools have non-traditional Jow Ga movements and techniques. Often adopted from other styles to make the style "more rounded". 

:salute:


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 27, 2005)

Jerry>> Great response, I agree 100% !

Fumanchu>> *sighs*  You obviously didn't even read my post.  You started in some arbitrary place, and decided you didn't like what you saw, and thus decided it would be a good idea to insult me.  How do I know this?  You obviously didn't even read the beginning because if you had, you'd have known that what you "quoted from me", was ACTUALLY quoted from another website, which I listed above that particular portion.  Those weren't even my words, and had nothing to do with the point I was making in the argument-- so even if I had said them, your point would be moot.  If you want to debate with me, take some time and effort, put thought and attention into your arguments, don't decide to insult me on some triffling matter.

Funnytiger>> Thank you for the compliment.


----------



## Trainwreck (Jan 28, 2005)

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the fact that the Shaolin monks developed a martial art in large part because their strict monastic vows forbade them from carrying any weapons.


----------



## j_m (Jan 29, 2005)

RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> I do not believe (nor am I trying to impress upon anyone else) that Bodhidharma (Daruma, Ta mao, etc.) was the founder of all martial arts.


Really? Even if that's what you meant you still wrote this :



			
				RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> From what I've gathered, nearly everyone seems to concur that Bodhidarmha (a.k.a. Daruma, and at least two other names) was the originator of the martial arts.


 


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not quite understanding why the distinction?
> 
> 7sm


Point taken... it doesn't really matter. I, and I 'm assuming the rest, will train as we already do regardless of any historical debate. I'm not hear to try to convice anyone of anything... I was stating an alternate point of view to, what I believe to be, just one of the many many myths still circulating the internet and some "smaller" martial arts circles. My sources are teachers I've had, Chinese history books they let me look through, and a couple of Chinese martial arts and history books I have on my shelf. If you're really a martail arts history buff I highly recommend *The Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts-5000 Years* by Professor Kang Ge-Wu.

But, for those that like to read stuff on the internet I ran across a few articles for you:

http://martialarts.about.com/od/history/a/ShaolinMyth.htm

"There are a lot of mythical, mystical, misunderstood and misrepresented aspects of the martial arts. The Shaolin Temple is possibly the biggest...
There is much debate about whether Damo/Bhodidharma existed. The evidence thus far seems to lean in the direction that Damo did exist, did travel to the Shaolin Temple, and did pass on some teachings to the monks there. There is also little doubt that the Shaolin Temple did spend some significant part of its history linked with the practice of the martial arts. However, there is little actual evidence to suggest that Damo taught the monks anything directly to do with fighting, despite the oft-repeated claims. "


http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/holcom.htm

"Students of the Chinese martial arts like to repeat the legend of
Bodhidharma. [20] The story goes that in the early sixth century the Indian
monk Bodhidharma founded the outer school--one of the two major divisions
in the Chinese martial arts--at the Shao-lin monastery in Honan. The other
major division, T'ai-chi ch'uan, is said to have spun off from this later.
[21] If true, this would make Shao-lin the oldest such school in China, and
Bodhidharma the father of the Chinese martial arts. The martial arts,
however, existed long before this time, and it is now clear that this
legend is spurious.

Some recent scholars have expressed doubt that Bodhidharma ever lived at
all, and the infrequency with which legitimate early historical sources
mention him is worthy of note. "


http://www.hungkuen.net/history%2Ddamo.htm

"Damo: Conspiracy of Ignorance

Many martial artists will have heard the story of Bodhidharma or Damo. In the story, this Indian monk arrived in China, eventually making his way to Shaolin temple on Mt. Songshan. There he found the monks' physical condition poor and so unable to sit in prolonged meditation. At first he was so disgusted that he retired to a cave to sit in meditation for nine years. Then a monk named Hui Ke cut off his own arm to show that he had grasped Damo's deepest teachings. Damo then agreed to teach the "Marrow Washing" and "Tendon Changing" classics as well as the 18 Lohan stances, a series of exercises meant to improve the monks' ability to meditate. Many tellers add that these exercises were derived from martial routines familiar to Damo from his youth in a warrior caste family. In any case, the story concludes that these exercises were to blossom into Shaolin kung fu and are therefore the root of kung fu. It's a good story. What a pity it is a fake. ... "


http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showexcerpt.cfm?isbn=0736045686&excerpt_id=3398

"*Myth 1*
*Damo (Bodhidharma) invented Shaolin Kung Fu.*

*Fact*
_Damo_ did not invent Shaolin Kung Fu. The Eighteen postures of Arhat represent health exercises based on yoga. Collective masters and missionaries were referred to as Bodhidharma. Their true contributions to the temple were Chan Buddhism and renewed impetus for health development.

*Fact*
Many of the monks present in the temple at the time of _Damos_ arrival already possessed martial skills from previous military and private backgrounds and, by the temples own admission, were freely trading kung fu knowledge with one another.

*Fact*
The tolerant environment and self-sufficient attitude of the Shaolin Temple set it apart from other Buddhist temples. The method of Hou Chuen San Sau (mind understanding through bodily experience) was the key component to stimulate the growth of martial skills within the Shaolin Temple. Their environment and attitude permitted ready absorption of military and martial knowledge from the best of Chinese culture and leadership. Ample evidence exists to suggest that the monks received as much kung fu as they gave in the first few centuries of the temples existence. 150 years after _Damos_ death, the Shaolin warrior monks had already earned a reputation as formidable fighters.

*Myth 2*
*All Chinese Kung Fu comes from Shaolin.*
..."


http://www.ryukyukenpo.org/About%20Ryukyu%20Kenpo.htm

"One thing we can be certain of is: Bodhidharma (Ta Mo, Da Mo, Daruma) *did not* bring Chinese Boxing to the Shaolin monks, from India, in 649CE. This is a modern 20th century myth, brought about by a widely popular Chinese novel _The Travels of Lao Ts__an_, first published in Illustrated Fiction Magazine between 1904 - 1907. In the book the fictional character Liu Jen-fu learns boxing from a monk he met on Omei Mountain. When he asks his teacher for the source of his art he is told The Taitsu style that you have learned from me was handed down from the Dharma. There is* no *written reference concerning his involvement with anything other than introducing Chan (Zen) Buddhismto China. All else is pure fabrication. On a secondary note: It has often been claimed that a second Shaolin monastery was built in Chiu-Lien-Shan, Pu-Tien-Hsien, Fu-Chou-Fu, Fukien province. There is no evidence that this temple ever existed, and in fact the Chiu-Lien-Shan is located in Kwantung province. A Chinese scholar named Hsu Ko wrote the Ching Pai Lei Chao in 1917. This work is a 48 volume collection of folk tales and fables which includes stories of the Heaven and Earth Society [Triads] which refer to the legendary Fukien Shaolin Temple. Unfortunately some martial arts historians have regarded Hsu Kos work as history and have used it as a source."


http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html

"
While Shaolin was the ideal symbol to represent the more numerous, popular styles of boxing, this gave rise to serious misunderstandings and, as a result, later works, beginning with Zhang Kongzhao's boxing manual (1784),[7] attributed the origins of Chinese boxing to Shaolin Monastery, (there is no mention of Bodhidharma until much later - c. 1900). At the same time, the mythical Zhang Sanfeng, blessed with sainthood by a Ming emperor, provided the ideal counterpoint to Shaolin boxing. After all, since Zhang himself could not be proven to have ever existed let alone anything he was claimed to have done, it could not hurt to claim he also invented a style of boxing.

Why does there appear to be such concern to associate Taijiquan with the Zhang Sanfeng legend between 1912 and 1921, over 60 years after the style of boxing practiced in Chenjiagou village had been given the name "Taijiquan" and exposed to the big city? The answer may lie in a combination of events which began with the earliest reference to "The Dharma" or Bodhidharma as the originator of Shaolin boxing in a widely popular novel, _The Travels of Lao Ts'an_ first published in _Illustrated Fiction Magazine_ between 1904-1907.[23] This was soon followed by a book titled _Shaolin School Methods_, which appeared as a series in a Shanghai newspaper in 1910.[24] This book, of unknown origin but written in an anti-Manchu secret society tone, expanded on the Bodhidharma story and, in 1915, was altered further and published as _Secrets of Shaolin Boxing _under the pseudonym, Master of the Study of Self Respect (probably an allusion to anti-Manchu and anti-imperialist feelings).[25] According to Tang Hao, this book was so popular that nearly 30 printings had flooded the market by 1919, and it has influenced other authors ever since, beginning with Guo Shaoyu's_ History of Chinese Physical Culture _(1919), which was the first popular Chinese book on this subject.[26] It is not difficult to see how Taijiquan masters may have felt hard pressed to compete for popularity against such a publicity blitz in an increasingly commercialized environment. Under these conditions, Zhang Sanfeng was a made-to-order counterpoint to Bodhidharma."


http://www.shindotrust.com/directory_essays/shinseido_essays/bodhidharma_myth.htm

"
*Two persistent and popular myths*

"The Chinese martial arts, or _Wushu_ as they are called in China today, are a fascinating yet little understood and inadequately researched aspect of Chinese history. Now comprising Chinese boxing and various weapons techniques practised in China primarily as a form of exercise and sport, they are all too often wrongly associated outside of China with mystic, martial monks in their mountain monasteries, and called by the non too descriptive term _Kung Fu_. This misunderstanding has arisen as a result of two widely accepted, deeply ingrained, and hard to quash myths. The first one attributing the origins of Chinese boxing to the Indian Monk, *Bodhidharma*, who, according to tradition, is said to have resided in the famous Shaolin Monastery around 525 AD. The other myth attributes the origins of _Taijiquan_, or Chinese shadow boxing as it is sometimes called in the West, to the mythical Taoist hermit, *Zhang Sanfeng*, whose dates have never been confirmed, but who is variously said to have lived during the Song, Yuan, or Ming Dynasties, sometime between the tenth and fourteenth centuries AD. The groundless nature of these myths was exposed as early as the 1930s by the pioneer martial arts historian, *Tang Hao* (1897-1959), and his contemporary, *Xu Jedong*; however, their persistence to the present continues to be revealed in numerous books published on the subject in Chinese as well as other languages... (H)"





			
				RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> Your turn.


There you go buddy... enjoy some more "scholarly" readings.


As for me... I'm done with this thread... I'd rather be training anyway :jedi1: 





jm


----------



## clfsean (Jan 29, 2005)

JM... well done.


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 29, 2005)

JM>> THANK YOU.  That, is at least, a respectable argument which I will consider, and can appreciate.  I'm still a little frustrated that you're still taking:

Originally Posted by *RavenDarkfellow*
_From what I've gathered, nearly everyone seems to concur that Bodhidarmha (a.k.a. Daruma, and at least two other names) was the originator of the martial arts. _


_(Please forgive the italics, they won't turn off since having copied-and-pasted the above)_

_ so literally.  I said "NEARLY EVERYONE" which in hind-sight is apparently not entirely true.  It would have been more accurate to say "Many People", I concur.  Also, I already explained that I didn't mean ALL martial arts ever, concerning what he founded.  _

_I do appreciate your research, however, and we will have to just agree to disagree.  I don't mind being disagreed with, I just don't like empty criticisms and insults with nothing to back them up.  _


----------



## j_m (Jan 29, 2005)

I guess this will be an addendum to my last post 



			
				RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> JM>>
> 
> _I do appreciate your research, however, and we will have to just agree to disagree. _


Agreed :supcool: 

And if any of my posts came across as an insult I apologize... as that was not my intent.




jm


----------



## Trainwreck (Jan 29, 2005)

Bravo, bravo to all sides of this debate for maintaining civility and good scholarship!


----------



## rox (Jan 30, 2005)

j_m said:
			
		

> *Fact*
> Many of the monks present in the temple at the time of _Damos_ arrival already possessed martial skills from previous military and private backgrounds and, by the temples own admission, were freely trading kung fu knowledge with one another.



The Shaolin monastery WAS indeed a martial 'university', then? If monks could join freely and share martial arts...


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 30, 2005)

JM>> No hard feelings!  Ja Ne!


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 2, 2005)

rox,

It doesn't make sense that a temple is the university of martial arts. If there were a university, it would have been the military.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 2, 2005)

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> rox,
> 
> It doesn't make sense that a temple is the university of martial arts. If there were a university, it would have been the military.


 Why is that?

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 3, 2005)

Because the military is purely in the business of fighting while a temple is in the business of worship / religeon. The threats faced by the military is far greater than that faced by the temple. 

The temple only has to guard it's temple grounds while the military had to guard its borders.

If the threats faced by the temple had been severe, you would have seen huge walls constructed around the temples like medieval cities in Europe or in the middle east. But we see nothing of that sort at shaolin temple. 

The chinese had been good at constructing walls for defence to protect it's borders if there's a justifiable threat. 

The palace / ruling authoristies are a lot richer than monks at the temple. Who do you think has the cash to hire the best body guards / fighters or trainers. Look at sports clubs today, where do the top players and good coaches go to? Look at the military today, isn't it the rich nations that have the best weapons and training?


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 3, 2005)

That makes very good sense on the surface. While I'm not saying the military wasn't a great place MA were cultivated, you can't rule out other places simply because the military has high need or usage for MA. Threat doesn't equal solarity in MA training.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 6, 2005)

7starmantis,

I understand what you're saying and I agree that the military is not the only place that uses martial arts. 

What I'm saying is the most effective martial arts would be found in the military because of what they had to face. 

Various towns or say Shaolin temple would have their own fighters to deal with bandits and the like, but they do not need to face professional fighters or a serious invading force.

Whilst shaolin has kung fu, I do not think they are a university for kung fu.


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 6, 2005)

I would thikn the military would be the place for specialized martial arts training not among the common soldiers but the special forces of the time, security details etc. THe common soldier just like today would get minimal training.   
On an interesting website the author believes that the best martial arts to train in would have come from bodyguards ( palace), they would probably have trained the most, and tested thier stuff quite often. Thier is some validity to this theory.


----------



## rox (Feb 6, 2005)

I don't see real need for hand combat in the military. They would probably center their training in long range weapons, archery and such, right?

I personally think that, in a battlefield, shields make a great difference.


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 10, 2005)

Rox,

What Brothershaw said is quite correct. It depends on what part of the military you're referring to. Some soldiers are only taught afew moves to fight in formation, but not all aspects in the military is to fight in formation. The palace body guards are highly trained in unarmed combat as well. And not all missions you can overwhelm with superior numbers. 

Bottom line is the military needs to excel at all aspects of combat and the need is greater than other centres outside the military.


----------



## rox (Feb 10, 2005)

Hmmm, thanks. I'll see what I can find on WIKIPEDIA


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 10, 2005)

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Bottom line is the military needs to excel at all aspects of combat and the need is greater than other centres outside the military.


 Thats a generalization and not neccessarily true. You are comparing different skill sets. The military will use MA or "kung fu" for different purposes, or in different ways then "other centres outside the military". That doesn't prove greater need or greater skill.

 7sm


----------



## dmax999 (Feb 10, 2005)

General Yueh Fuei is credited with creating Xing-I and Eagle Claw (Probably along with another style or two) and teaching his troops.  He dominated battlefields because of the advantage of better trained troops and and tactical abilities. 

Wing-Chun, and Tai-Chi, for example, have histories that have nothing to do with the military.

So it depends on the style really if invented for military purposes or others.

If talking about "original" kung-fu, it is my understanding that most Chinese Kung-Fu developed starting with a kicking style called Tam-Tui.  Tam-Tui is a "martial art" from the middle east and has nothing to do with asians or Indians of any type.  It was supposedely brought to China before Da Mo, making all previous arguments about him irrelevent to answering the original question.

Never looked to see if what I was told about Tam Tui is real or not, just relating what my understanding is.  I do know that Tam Tui is still a part of most CMA to this day.


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 11, 2005)

Stories aside, Hsing I is by far a more recent system than eagle claw. Tai Chi is derived from tam tui and is developed in the same province as Hsing I. The developers of them wrere from the military and were credited as experienced fighters.

You're right, Wing Chun's background was not from the military.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 11, 2005)

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Stories aside, Hsing I is by far a more recent system than eagle claw. Tai Chi is derived from tam tui and is developed in the same province as Hsing I. The developers of them wrere from the military and were credited as experienced fighters.
> 
> You're right, Wing Chun's background was not from the military.


Ummmm.... what???

You may want to spend sometime reading Jarek's site .... http://www.chinafrominside.com & the history of xingyi & its parent... xinyi. 

Taiji developed in largely in Chenjiaguo, Henan province, about 60 miles from Shaolin & before the advent of what's now called xingyi. There's no tan tui in Taiji.


----------



## Bod (Feb 11, 2005)

From what I have seen of CMA there seem to be many influences in the 'Kung Fu' arts.

Bodyguards especially on the road seem to have been involved in the training and evolution of the Martial Arts.

Secret societies, Triads, gangsters and revolutionaries have influenced the growth of Southern Styles especially.

The use of the spear as 'King of the Weapons' in Chinese Martial arts seems to point to village defence and the battlefield being a strong influence.

Still, it is patently obvious that Indian stretching and breathing techniques are at the core of many Chinese styles. 

The Chinese seem to take great pride in their myths, even if they don't believe a word of them. In the west everybody knows that Prometheus took fire from the gods. No-one believes it, but the stories seem to tell us about ourselves. So, if the Damo story helps your training good. If not then forget it.


----------



## dmax999 (Feb 11, 2005)

Fumanchu, I think your idea of what Tam Tui is and mine are, is completely different.  Tai Chi is one of the few CMA not based on Tam Tui, couldn't be furthur from the truth.  You are probably thinking something else there with possibly a similar name.

Here is the point I think everyone is attempting to make about DaMo.  Before him, there was martial arts in China, no real doubt there.  DaMo brought meditation and yoga type knowledge to China.  The Chinese over time turned his teachings into their current belief of chi and developed chi-gong exercises from this.  They then learned to use chi and chi-gong to improve the power of their martial arts.  In this way DaMo was the first step towards China developing "internal" martial arts.

Yoga is not a fighting art, but its principles could be used to make an existing MA stronger.  Similarly, DaMo was not a martial artist or a fighter, but his teachings can easily be applied to fighting arts.


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 14, 2005)

dmax999,

Tam Tui from what I understand is one of the beginner forms of long fist. Tai Chi is more advanced but is built on that foundation. 

The power behind martial arts was already there. Chi was their way of explaning how it worked. No, they didn't learn about chi and made martial arts more powerful.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 14, 2005)

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> dmax999,
> 
> Tam Tui from what I understand is one of the beginner forms of long fist. Tai Chi is more advanced but is built on that foundation.


Well I'm afraid you've been a little mis-informed. Tan Tui isn't a form. It's a stand alone long fist system. It gained notarity with the Hui Chinese minorities & their use of it. Most people only see the Road Routines (10,12,14) as exercises & that one aspect of Tan Tui was absored into other systems to teach basic long fist ideas & techniques. 

About as close to a match with your statement is that some Taiji people have also practiced Tan Tui (or even still do) & that both are Northern in origin & nature. The two are independantly different.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The power behind martial arts was already there. Chi was their way of explaning how it worked. No, they didn't learn about chi and made martial arts more powerful.


I'll agree with that one mostly. They start with Zhuang Zhan & build from there with other exercises like Chan Si Gong & lots of repetative form practice to build the internal strength needed to properly perform taiji & apply it's principles.


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 14, 2005)

I have heard on more than one occasion ( true or not i dont know) is that the internal styles are also called internal because they were developed internally within china. Where as other arts had outside influences. Which would imply that if you believe in buddha or however you choose to call him he added internal breathing techniques and exercises to shaolin that didnt necessarily have those qualitiies. Also if you look at the movements of shaolin styles or long range or long fist type styles or other northern styles movements they have a different quality to them than the movements of tai chi,xingyi or bagua.

And if you are sending general grunts out to war to be "bullet catchers" or "arrow and spear catchers" in that time period, you are not going to waste too much time teaching them complex martial arts. More specialized troops and officers will always get the best training, they are more committed time wise and loyalty wise. So I would say 50/50 some from military some from civilan.


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 15, 2005)

brothershaw,

I would think that the northern systems would have plenty of influence outside china but they are classified as internal. Particualy the styles were used along the silk roads which could span from Mongolia to Turkey. 

Civilians in terms of body guards for rich merchants yes! The body guards can be very well trained. But alot of them come from a military background or their lineage comes from the military. But do you all them civilains or mercineries?

Yes, the average grunt is trained mostly to fight in formation. It might mean that they don't cover a 360 degree of movement as they would have their peers beside them to cover that angle. But the 3 or 4 moves say with the spear is drilled over and over again. What I would say is they can be very good at what they do.


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 15, 2005)

to Fumanchu  

"Civilians in terms of body guards for rich merchants yes! The body guards can be very well trained. But alot of them come from a military background or their lineage comes from the military. But do you all them civilains or mercineries?"

I do recall thier being alot of well trained bodyguards who could fight in the Shaw Brothers movies( kid with the golden arms being a great example) , so you may be right!!   Just kidding

Seriously though good points,

kungfu if made for war you would think it would very aggressive in nature ( strike first once its decided or necessary to strike). Not to mention the emphasis on killing the enemy.

self-defense is almost the opposite.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 15, 2005)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> kungfu if made for war you would think it would very aggressive in nature ( strike first once its decided or necessary to strike). Not to mention the emphasis on killing the enemy.
> 
> self-defense is almost the opposite.


  I dont know that I agree with this statement. Kung Fu is *very* aggressive once your committed to fighting. What makes it seem non agressive is the amount of time or issue to get to the point of fighting, but once attacked, at least my training is very, very agressive. There is actually heavy emphasis on killing the opponent, but I dont think this shows all kung fu was made for war. War is most assuredly not the only time it may be neccessary to kill, especially hundreds of years ago. Killing and serious injury are heavy points in most kung fu, thats simply the basis of self defense in my opinion. If I'm attacked with a knife or even stabbed, my self defense is to do as much damage as possible to the opponent in as little time as I can in order to secure my chances of survival. 

  7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 16, 2005)

7star - maybe   maybe not- 

Armies dont have time for the enlightenment, and all the other aspects that add to and also increase your training time to proficiency 
NOt to mention usually saving the weapons stuff for close to the end of your training while in a war situation hand to hand tends to be your last not first option. 
 Unless like jujitsu after the modern era things were drastically  changed.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 16, 2005)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> 7star - maybe   maybe not-
> 
> Armies dont have time for the enlightenment, and all the other aspects that add to and also increase your training time to proficiency
> NOt to mention usually saving the weapons stuff for close to the end of your training while in a war situation hand to hand tends to be your last not first option.
> Unless like jujitsu after the modern era things were drastically  changed.


 I dont think I understood your point. ??

 7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 17, 2005)

7 star -
 My point was that alot of kungfu has alot of material that comes with it, some philosophy, esoteric concepts, internalization and so on in addition to the physical aspects. The military doesnt really have the time for all of that unless they are a warrior type society where they are training the soldiers from a very young age, and even then the grunts ( bullet catchers ) wont get that stuff just the basics. 
In japan it is generally acknowledged that after the end of the feudal or samurai period ( i forget the correct term) alot ( not all ) of the jujitsu styles began to die out, also partially due to japans loss in ww2.( getting to be a long story). Anyway unarmed jujitsu was a backup to a samurai losing his sword, after the modern era, most people japan or anywhere learn unarmed jujitsu not kenjitsu.  After the warroir stage passes remaining arts if any also change to reflect the times.
  So bottom line if kung fu came from the military it  changed just like japanese jujitsu has changed ( with some exceptions).


----------



## brothershaw (Feb 17, 2005)

To simplify this thread even more- look at the history of your particular style
how many styles actually claim to have come from the military? In kungfu you everybody and their brother claims such style came from shaoling, wudang, some mysterious monk on a mountain, some guy watching an animal , but few claim such and such general, or military branch created this. And most styles claim at least a hundred years history and are meticulous about who taught who.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree, I'm not of the belief that all or even most kung fu came from military.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu (Feb 19, 2005)

brothershaw,

Enlightenment, some philosophy, esoteric concepts, internalization. The reason why in the military those thongs are not dealt with is because it doesn't help soildiers in what they do. It was in times of peace where martial arts became more of a cultural 'event that' that these became part of the cirriculum - eg. lion dancing. 

It's true that not all styles came from a military background. You don't have to do weapons training at the end of your training, its just that this is the way some schools teach nowadays.


----------

