# Shaolin Monks



## Dan Hobson (May 5, 2012)

I should probably know this: but why do Shaolin Monks wear orange?


----------



## Chris Parker (May 5, 2012)

Saffron is used as a dye for the robes. It turns them orange. The reason for the usage of saffron is that it was a fairly easily found dye source, suitable for poor monks to use for their robes, which traditionally came from discarded rags, making them uniform in colour. Additionally, the range from yellow to brown are thought to represent the earth (dirt), and not show stains from the ground.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 5, 2012)

Also they are technically Buddhist and you will find orange robes used in several Buddhist sects


----------



## Chris Parker (May 5, 2012)

Yep, same thing for the same reasons there.


----------



## mook jong man (May 6, 2012)

Dan Hobson said:


> I should probably know this: but why do Shaolin Monks wear orange?



It makes them more visible as a pedestrian in the heavy traffic , so they don't get run over when crossing the road.


----------



## WingChunIan (May 8, 2012)

They were all wearing grey and white when I went to Shaolin last year, orange is so out dated......


----------



## rickster (May 17, 2012)

They were wearing grey and white because they were not Shaolin Monks

In fact, there arent any "real shaolin monks" these days


----------



## WingChunIan (May 17, 2012)

rickster said:


> They were wearing grey and white because they were not Shaolin Monks
> 
> In fact, there arent any "real shaolin monks" these days



Ah such pearls of wisdom, I'm sure that the abbot of shaolin xi would be chuffed to know that he's not a proper monk. So they are monks and they live, pray, train (in shaolin martial arts) etc in the shaolin temple but they aren't "real" shaolin monks? lol
For what its worth there were a range of colour robes on display from white, and grey through to yellow, orange and red or maybe they were all just figments of my imagination, I'll have to go and check the video camera to make sure it wasn't just me and the wife experiencing a joint hallucination.


----------



## rickster (May 17, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> Ah such pearls of wisdom, I'm sure that the abbot of shaolin xi would be chuffed to know that he's not a proper monk. So they are monks and they live, pray, train (in shaolin martial arts) etc in the shaolin temple but they aren't "real" shaolin monks? lol
> For what its worth there were a range of colour robes on display from white, and grey through to yellow, orange and red or maybe they were all just figments of my imagination, I'll have to go and check the video camera to make sure it wasn't just me and the wife experiencing a joint hallucination.



Yes. The halluncination was they were dressed to play a part.

A yet totally controlled by the communist government.

Shaolin is big business.

They have to put in a abbot and other monks with all of the fixings.


----------



## lklawson (May 18, 2012)

rickster said:


> Yes. The halluncination was they were dressed to play a part.
> 
> A yet totally controlled by the communist government.
> 
> ...


I know I'm going to regret asking but...

Why are you an expert in Shaolin and why should anyone trust what you say instead of the evidence of their own eyes?  I'm not saying you're not right, mind you, I'm asking for you to give us some more reason to accept your statements beyond the word of a more-or-less anonymous internet poster.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I know I'm going to regret asking but...
> 
> Why are you an expert in Shaolin and why should anyone trust what you say instead of the evidence of their own eyes?  I'm not saying you're not right, mind you, I'm asking for you to give us some more reason to accept your statements beyond the word of a more-or-less anonymous internet poster.
> 
> ...



Fair enough...nice post.

Like anything, research goes a long way.

It would be up to the reader/researcher to accept the data;

Myth
When using the terms &#8220;I heard&#8221;, &#8220;Its been rumored&#8221;, or any type of belief which had not been proven or in other cases, unproven, is a myth. A simple explanation of a myth is a story told by raconteurs, which becomes tradition, and then written history, that explains or to give credibility to the unknown.  Countless myths continue like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, by Parson Wems. This was proven to never actually happen. But perhaps used to epitomize Washington&#8217;s moral character. Such stories are told, recorded or written about many famous people making them heroes or larger than life. Myths are often stories told to entertain, impress, or persuade others without deductive or tangible reason to think otherwise. A myth relies on acceptance or rejection of the person. Simply; &#8220;You can lead a horse to water but you can&#8217;t make it drink.&#8221; Such acceptance or rejection can have a biased, prejudiced, personal conflict, clash of culture, etc.  Part of the promulgation of myths, per martial arts, is to blame upon many martial artists themselves who hold dearly onto what they cherish by keeping intrigue, curiosity, and biased attention. Other factors of martial art myths have been cultural tendencies stemming from cultural protocol that nothing derogatory should be said about seniors or the deceased. Also, there is the etiquette of not challenging authority, causing disrespect, or not wanting to offend the interviewer. Furthermore, holding onto a belief or past knowledge per even not having a convincingly answer when a simple; &#8220;I&#8217;m sorry, I don&#8217;t know" would suffice, holding on to self pride. Reputable, audacious scholars or historians and science, can dispel many myths.


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

Reflect upon this:

Buddhist monks consider giving up possessions is the way to Nirvana. And that shaving their heads is a sign of doing so. Shaving the head signifies renunciation and detachment from worldly pleasures. From the Buddhist viewpoint, hair represents impurity. Giving up hair is while most people spend lots of time and money on their hair, Buddhist monks and nuns shave their heads. They are no longer concerned with outward beauty, but with developing their spiritual lives. The shaven head is a reminder that the monks and nuns have renounced the home life and are a part of the Sangha.

It would be logical to assume that such disciplines of no desires of possessions are evident. Therefore, Buddhist monks would not have money in the sense to be robbed. Monks would not partake in a fighting method to prevent from being robbed if they had nothing of value.

Having said that, a ex Buddhist nun, once told me it was a issue of hygeine-lice


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

In addition, the monasteries were a haven and sanctuary for rebels of the era. The government thought it to be sacrilegious to openly intrude. It would seem that such fighter monks were the rebels incognito to protect their hosts, ultimately protecting their haven and themselves.

Shaolin Gong Fu (Kung Fu) is not an authenticated martial art system. What people are misled by is that Shaolin was built to study the Chen study of Buddhism. It was built in a remote region for that specific purpose.

Bodhidarma only taught them 3 Natas (translated by some as Katas) to help their health for long hours of meditation.  Bodhidharma, has a short, but scant detailed existence and teachings. The oldest of these tomes are now historically preserved in Japan, of all places.

Shaolin was a sanctuary for rebellious fighting barons. Since these people were in there, they had to dress as monks. Note worthy to also protect the temple - their sanctuary.

Because Shaolin was a Buddhist monastery, any monk or teacher of Shaolin would know about Buddhist Teachings such as the number and types of Mandelas, Noble Truths, Sutras, The Three Jewels, other Buddhist schools/practices, Indian (India) practices, etc.

Although Buddhist monks or priests seek charitable donations, they would never receive a monetary compensation to teach a fighting method. The major belief is not to capitalize on a situation that becomes violent if not taught to someone already disciplined in the study of Buddhism. In other words, it is against their principles to commercialize themselves just to teach someone how to fight.

Asian households that have a martial art master, are not so readily or eager to teach it to non-family members.  Besides family, only closest friends to the family could be instructed.  To them, there can be no monetary compensation for their family &#8220;secret&#8221; to be exposed.  These practitioners are sworn to secrecy for the family art to preserve its authenticity.  Thus, in analogy to that of a famous restaurant chef will certainly not reveal his most favorite and famous recipes.  If someone else should discover and use them, his recipe would no longer hold its authenticity.  (Although the chef has something else to loose.)

Such the case of Shaolin Kung Fu, which a person is taught or subjected to believing that they are being taught.  And, at a later time, they will also state and claim to teach Shaolin Kung Fu onto others.  The dilemma is that while true: A.) Shaolin did exist.  B.) Some monks, per Anti-Government rebels and outlaws, of Shaolin did practice defensive or fighting methods.  And for someone to make claim of being a martial art instructor or fighting monk of that monastery is totally having fallacy as to its real function. Senior monks and/or instructors should have knowledge and practice of Buddhist principles and disciplines.

If one states that they teach or study Shaolin Kung Fu, for that matter, then every martial artist practices it also.  For the claim is not one to represent an actual martial art, but to point out that the person making the claim, studies a martial art.  Also, that the claimant want others to recognize that making such claim to support that their own art is authentic, better, or more intriguing.

A person claiming to teach Shaolin would never award different color of belts/sashes per level of study.

Buddhism has but one desired level of accomplishment. Ranking portrays materialistic properties that a true Buddhist monk (Shaolin) would never consider and implement. Most Mainland Chinese Chuan Fa Masters up in age and skill dismiss the term, along with the &#8220;Shaolin Bandwagon&#8221; altogether. Quan Fa (Chuan Fa) is the correct Chinese term for old Chinese Martial Arts. Another name given is Chinese Boxing. In fact family Chinese arts are known by the family name followed by the word Chuan (Kuyhn or Kuen). Example: Lee Gar Chuan-Lee Family Fist.

The very nature of its writing or other form of conveyance, the term/name Shaolin Kung Fu being so inaccurate and ignominious, that any serious thought on it could become chagrin.  Often it is heard or discovered that someone teaches or studies Shaolin Kung Fu, or Shaolin Style (Martial Arts). Just because a person is Asian or of Asian decent, does not mean they are martial art masters.  Nor does it hold true that they all can make such claim.  Asian people, like any others could falsify or exaggerate such information for monetary compensation.  This is not to boldly state that all Asians are compulsive prevaricators.  This is just to point out there exists charlatans by any person regardless of race, age, sex, or other.  In addition, because of media sources, non-Asians believe that any Asian could have some type of martial art skill.  This is a subconscious and stereotype depiction that had stemmed from many such sources.  A good reference is a movie named &#8220;They Call Me Bruce&#8221;, starring the Asian comedian, Johnny Yune.

It's hard enough to get the history straight for the past half-century, let along thousands of years ago! The only means to pass information was through a raconteur. Oral tradition just doesn't cut it&#8212;it takes almost no time at all for things to get garbled beyond recognition.


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

bumped-


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

As for myths, it has now been logically discussed that Vsing Tsun/Wing Chun, is more probable of NOT being created by a woman
Benny Meng and Alfredo Delbrocco 
(Although writing about Wing Chun, Shaolin information revealed)
_The Secret History of Wing Chun: The Truth Revealed _&#8211;  http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/truthrevealed.php



The truth is out there, just disguised and actively hidden.

_All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis..., which is supported by no appearance of probability._
&#8212;from _Dialogues concerning Natural Religion_, Part XI, by David Hume (1711&#8211;1776)


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

[h=5]Stan Henning
[/h]_Classical Fighting Arts_ 12 (#35), 

_The Imaginary World of Buddhism & East Asian Martial Arts _

_*______________________________*_

[h=3]Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo[/h]_Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals-A Historical Survey_

__________________________________

[h=5]J.D. Brown[/h]In his book, China-The 50 Most Memorable Trips, good observation of Shaolin from the perspective of a non-biased, non-martial artist 1999-2000

__________________________________
*
Tang/Tung Hao;*
China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
_University of Hawaiis Press __Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts_ 1999
_History of Physical Culture in China _(1919)
_Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan _(ca. 1669), 
_Travels of Lao Tsan _(ca. 1907), Liu
_Science and Civilisation in China ,Needham

_Stanley E. Henning
_Stanley E. Henning is an independent scholar in Honolulu, Hawaii; he studied Chinese_
_martial arts in Taiwan between 1970 and 1972, and has spent nearly 30 years_
_studying their history._

*1.* Gu Shi __, ed., _Hanshu yiwenzhi jiangshu ________ (Annotated Han history
bibliographies) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji, 1987), p. 205.
*2.* Qi Jiguang ___, _Jixiao xinshu _____ (New book of effective discipline) (1561; ed.
Ma Mingda _____, Beijing: Renmin Tiyu, 1988), _juanshou_, p. 17, _juan _6, p. 90; Qi Jiguang
___, _Lianbing shiji _____ (Actual record of military training) (1571; Zhang Haipeng __
_, _Mohai jinhu _____, vol. 23 [Taibei: Wenyou, 1969], _juan _4, p. 13949).
*3.* Gu Shi, _Hanshu yiwenzhi_, editors introduction, p. 1.
*4.* James R. Ware, trans. and ed., _Alchemy, Medicine and Religion in the China of A.D. 320:_
_The Nei Pien of Ko Hung (Pao-pu tzu) _(New York: Dover Publications, 1981), pp. 1819; Wang
Ming __, _Baopuzi neipian jiaoshi_, _______ (Interpretations of the Baopuzi inner
chapters) (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), p. 377: ________&'__*. Also, see Wang
Saishi ___, Gudai wushizhong di tou zhi ________ (Throwing and tossing
among ancient martial activities), _Tiyu wenshi _____, no. 5 (1990): 5961.
*5. *Herbert A. Giles, The Home of _Jiujitsu_, in _Adversaria Sinica _(Shanghai: Kelly and
Walsh) 1, no. 5 (1906): 132138.
*6.* Joseph Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1956), p. 145.
*7.* Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 145146; vol. 5, pt. 3 (1976), p. 209; vol. 5, pt. 5 (1983), pp. 169170; vol. 5,
pt. 6 (1994), pp. 28 n. _e_, 87 n. _b_.
*8.* Zhang Jue __, trans. and ed., _Wu-Yue Chunqiu quanyi _______ (Complete
translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue) (Guiyang: Guizhou Renmin
Chubanshe, 1994), pp. 367370.
*9.* Xu Fang __, _Du Fu shi jinyi ______ (A modern translation of Du Fus poems)
(Beijing: Renmin Ribao, 1985), pp. 392399.
*10.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 2, pp. 145146.
*11.* Michal B. Poliakoff, _Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture_
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 5463; Rachel S. Robinson, _Sources for the_
_History of Greek Athletics in English Translation _(Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1955), pp. 214216; E.
Norman Gardiner, _Athletics of the Ancient World _(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 212221.
*12.* Chen Menglei ___, _Gujin tushu jicheng _______ (Encyclopedia of ancient and
modern literature), _juan _309 (1726; Taibei: Dingwen, 1977), vol. 71, p. 2961.
*13.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 3, p. 209 n. _f_.
*14.* Stanley E. Henning, Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan, _Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan_
_Research Association of Hawaii _2, no. 3 (Autumn/Winter 1994): 45.
*15.* Ibid.
*16.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 169.
330 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
© 1999 _by University_
_of Hawaii Press_
*17. *Tiao Luzi ___, _Jueli ji ____ (Record of wrestling) (ca. 960; Hu Ting __, _Linlang_
_mishi congshu _______ [1815]).
*18. *Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 169170; Giles, The Home
of _Jiujitsu_, pp. 137138; Qi Jiguang, _Jixiao xinshu_, p. 307.
*19.* Shen Shou __, _Taijiquanfa yanjiu _______ (Taijiquan methods research)
(Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin Tiyu, 1984), p. 131: ________&'______*__
__
*20.* Imamura Yoshio ____, _Nihon taikushi ______ (Japanese physical culture
history) (Tokyo: Fumido Shuppan, 1970), pp. 157158.
*21.* Zheng Ruozeng ___, _Jiangnan jinglue _____ (Strategic situation in Jiangnan),
_juan _8 _shang_, pp. 3b4a, in _Qinding sikuquanshu _______, vols. 179181 (ca. 1568; Taibei:
Taiwan Shangwu, 1971); Liu Shuangsong ___, ed., _Xinban zengbu tianxia bianyong wenlin_
_miaojin wanbao quanshu _________&'__*___ (New, revised, easy-to-use . . .
complete book of miscellany), Songlin Anzhengtang Liu Shuangsong Engraved Edition ___
_______ (1612; Harvard-Yenching Library), _juan _7, 1a9b; _Zhu mingjia hexuan zengbu_
_wanbao quanshu _________&'_ (Revised complete book of miscellany: Combined
selections made by famous persons) (1746; Harvard-Yenching Library), _juan _13, pp. 4a9a.
*22.* Wu Yu __ and Jiang An __, Chen Yuanyun, Shaolin quanfa, Riben roudao __
_________&' (Chen Yuanyun, Shaolin boxing, and Japanese jûdô), _Wuhun ___
(1986): 1719.
*23.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 170; Zhang Kongzhao __
_, _Quanjing quanfa beiyao _______ (Boxing classic: Essential boxing methods), Miaoyuan
congshu ____ (1784; Taibei: Academia Sinica, Fu Sinian Library, 1900).
*24.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 6, p. 28 n. _a_.
*25. *Ibid., p. 87 n. _b_.
*26.* Charles Holcombe, The Daoist Origins of the Chinese Martial Arts, _Journal of Asian_
_Martial Arts _3, no. 1 (January 1993): 1025.
*27.* Lu Gwei-Djen and Joseph Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 302 n. _c_.
*28.* Ibid., p. 307 n. _c_.
*29.* Ibid. Their main sources are
Bruce A. Haines, _Karates History and Traditions _(Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1968), pp. 305 n. _c_, 306 n. _h_, 307 nn. _b_, _d_);
Robert W. Smith, _Secrets of Shaolin Temple Boxing _(Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1964),p. 305 nn. _b_, _c_; and Huang Wen-Shan,
_Fundamentals of Tai Chi Chuan _(South Sky BookCompany, 1974), pp. 306 n. _a_, 307 n. 
*30.* Ibid., p. 305;
 Tang Hao __, _Shaolin Wudang kao ______ (Shaolin Wudangresearch) (1930; Hong Kong: Unicorn Publishers, 1968).
*31.* Liu Tieh-yun (Liu E), _The Travels of Lao Tsan_, trans. Harold Shadick (reprint,
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986), pp. 73, 247248 nn. 3, 4; Li Yingang ___,
ed., _Guben Shaolin zongfa tushuo _________ (Old volume illustrated explanation of
Shaolin boxing methods) (n.d.; Hong Kong: Unicorn, 1968); Zun Wozhai Zhuren _____
(Master of the Studio of Self-respect), _Shaolin quanshu mijue _______ (Secrets of Shaolin
boxing) (1915; 1936; reprint, Taibei: Zhonghua Wushu, 1971), critiques by Tang Hao and Xu
Zhen (1936) appended.
32. Jonathan Kolatch and Jonathan David, _Sports, Politics and Ideology in China _(New York:
Middle Village, 1972).
*33.* Ibid., p. xvi; Jiang Shengzhang, ed., _Book of Poetry_, trans. Xu Yuanchong (Changsha:
Hunan Press, 1995), p. 424: _________ (Who is that knave on rivers border, Nor
_strong _nor brave, Root of disorder).
*34.* Huang zongxi ___, _Nanlei wending _____ (Nanleis definitive works) (Shanghai:
Zhonghua, 1936), _qianji _8, pp. 5a6b; Stanley E. Henning, Chinese Boxing: The Internal Versus
External Schools in the Light of History and Theory, _Journal of Asian Martial Arts _6, no. 3
(1997): 1019.
*35.* Lu and Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_, p. 306 n. _e_.
*36.* Ibid., p. 306.
*37.* Zhang Jue, _Wu-Yue Chunqiu quanyi_; Wu Shu __, _Shoubei lu ____ (Record of the
arm) (ca. 1662), _fujuan xia_, p. 9a, in _Zhihai ___ (1846), vols. 3340 (Dadong Shuju, 1935).
*38.* Anna Seidel, A Taoist Immortal of the Late Ming Dynasty: Chang San-feng, in William
T. de Bary and The Conference on Ming Thought, _Self and Society in Ming Thought _(New
York: Columbia University Press, 1970), p. 505.
*39.* Ibid., p. 517 n. 6; Henning, Chinese Boxing, pp. 1019.
*40.* In Susan Naquin and Chun-fang Yu, eds., _Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China _(Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992), see John Lagerwey, The Pilgrimage to Wu-tang Shan, pp.
293332 at p. 303, and Bernard Faure, Relics and Flesh Bodies, pp. 150189.
*41.* Lu and Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, p. 303, fig. 78.
*42. *Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, _The Rise of Modern China_, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1995), p. 128.
*43. *Qin Baoqi ___, _Fujian, Yunxiao GaoqiTiandihui de faxiangdi _________
_____ (Fujian, Yunxiao, GaoqiThe Heaven and Earth Societys place of origin), _Qingshi_
_yanjiu _____ 11, no. 3 (1993): 3646; Dian H. Murray and Qin Baoqi, _The Origins of the_
_Tiandihui: The Chinese Triads in Legend and History _(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994).
*44.* Susan Naquin, _Millenarian Rebellion in China _(New Haven: Yale University Press,
1976), _Shantung Rebellion: The Wang Lun Uprising of 1774 _(New Haven: Yale University Press,
1981), and The Transmission of White Lotus Sectarianism in Late Imperial China, in David
Johnson, Andrew J. Nathan, and Evelyn S. Rawski, _Popular Culture in Late Imperial China_
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 255291; Joseph W. Esherick, _The Origins of_
_the Boxer Uprising _(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 357 n. 25.
*45.* Frederic Wakeman, Jr., _Policing Shanghai 1927__1937 _(Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1995), p. 334 n. 78; Guojia Tiwei Wushu Yanjiuyuan, ed., ________&'_
(National Physical Culture and Sports Commission Martial Arts Research Institute), _Zhongguo_
_wushu shi ______ (Chinese martial arts history) (Beijing: Renmin Tiyu, 1997), pp. 332336.
332 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
*46.* Douglas Wile, _Lost Tai-chi Classics from the Ching Dynasty _(Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1996).
*47. *Stanley E. Henning, review of _Lost Tai Chi Classics of the Late Ching Dynasty _by Douglas
Wile, _China Review International _4, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 572577.
*48.* Lu and Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_, p. 306 n. _e_.
a. Qi Jiguang ___, _Jixiao xinshu _____ [New book of effective discipline] [ca. 1561;
1805], _ji _10, _juan _14, 3b; Zhang Haipeng ___, _Xuejin taoyuan _____.
b. Liu Shuangsong ___, ed., _Xinban zengbu tianxia bianyong wenlin miaojin wanbao_
_quanshu _________&'__*___ [New, revised easy-to-use . . . complete book
of miscellany], Songlin Anzhengtang Liu Shuangsong Engraved Edition (1612; Harvard-
Yenching Library), _juan _7, 8b.
c. Zhang Kongzhao ___, _Quanjing quanfa beiyao _______ [Boxing classic: Essential
boxing methods], Miaoyuan congshu ____ [ca. 1784; Taibei: Academia Sinica, Fu
Sinian Library, 1900], _juan _1, 1a). This is the earliest extant reference to Shaolin Monastery as
Chinese boxings place of origin, an exaggerated and unsubstantiated claim typical of what
might be expected in a preface. However, this does not deny the possibility that some of the material
in this manual may actually have originated in the monastery (the manual was handwritten
by Cao Huandou based on the oral transmission of Zhang Kongzhao, and the material likely
comes from multiple sources over several generations).
notes to the figures


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

Shaolin Temple Scriptures(Vol 1, pg 8):

_The fighting techniques were not originated during the era of the Six dynasties. There were some grand masters in the era of the Chou and Chin dynasties _*[1122BCE-206BCE, for those of you not up on the history of Chinese Dynasties]*_ but they were more proficient in the fencing techniques rather than the barehanded fighting techniques._

_Since the Era of the Han, Jin, Sue, and Tan dynasty the martial arts were more popular. It was told in the story of the travelling swordsman of Tai Si Gong, ad the story of the Occultist of Han book. Some masters were famous for their sword techniques._

_....._*[skipping it a bit because I'm tired]*


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

_The fighting techniques have been developed sophistically even in the year of the Song Yuen Dynasty. And so Da Mo, who introduced the original techniques of the Shaolin, can not be credited as the patriarch of the martial arts. Also at the time most of the famous masters were regular people. Monks were never heard of as to having good fighting techniques._


So, in short, the Shaolin don't even claim such nonsense. It seems to me that the claims usually come from people who do Shaolin or "Shaolin" forms, who have no real connection to the Shaolin temple, grasping vainly for credibilty.

_Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts

Bodhistava Warriors, Dukes
_ 

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/truthrevealed.php 

http://www.alljujitsu.com/kungfu.html

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72925

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77769&page=3

Shaolin-Part 1 - SpiritualMinds.com

Shaolin-Part 2 - SpiritualMinds.com

Shaolin Kung Fu: The Truth about Kung Fu History

Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan 

http://www.spiritualminds.com/articles.asp?articleid=1886

http://www.spiritualminds.com/articles.asp?articleid=1833

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5090

http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/mythsofshaolin.pdf

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...3/06/09/51.asp

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...09/51.asp?t=dp

Commentary, October 17, 2003 & Falun Gong on PBS, Yellow Bamboo Analysis, Treasure Scope Challenge, Quackery In Med School, Scientific American Questions Encyclopedia Britannica, Vortex Relief, and SkepDic Is Out...

Independent Lens . SHAOLIN ULYSSES: Kungfu Monks in America . Talkback | PBS

realbeer.com.au

Shaolin Temple Perspective - russbo Forum / Library

Dept. of Celebration: Drunk Monk : The New Yorker

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2003/06/09/51.asp

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...2&IssueNum=113

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...bcpblog/?p=521

Shaolin Spear Monk [Archive] - JREF Forum

Beijingwushuteam.com: Shaolin Tour

Deng Feng Village, China
(Where tourist put $200 in book to learn)

Shaolin Abbot Fights Back Against Critics

History @ Shaolin.com

Shaolin Monk Suicide Shocks New York Chinese Community - NAM

Martial Arts Supply, Samurai Swords, Nunchakus, Escrima Sticks & Karate Equipment
(Robes for sale-where anyone can purchased, shave their heads, and mislead people)


----------



## Gentle Fist (May 18, 2012)

Is there any reason that could not have all went in one post?


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

Myths are often created to simplify something or to disguise the true  nature of the subject to make it more palatable to the mind.  Consequently, sometimes people want to believe the myths despite  scientific or historical evidence to the contrary. A fiction can be more  comforting than the truth; a fairytale easier to grasp than a treatise

The thing is, I really believe people would rather subscribe to all this  phony-heroic legendary nonsense than try to critically examine what  relatively few reliable facts we have about the TMAs, ancient _or_ recent. It's not just that everyone loves a good story, it's that a lot of people would _prefer_ a good story to a historically well-supported account of the facts. (Although some facts can be "stretched")

And the old saying;

_"You can lead a horse to water...."_

I am not one to quote movies, however, Trinity from the Matrix said it  best;&#8221; The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and it  will find you if you want it to.

I conjecture that many haven&#8217;t taken  the "red pill" as of yet.


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

Gentle Fist said:


> Is there any reason that could not have all went in one post?



Because, who would want to sit there and read it all in one post?

For sure, it did not take me one day, one writing, one method to research all of this.

This has been ongoing for me for decades.


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I know I'm going to regret asking but...
> 
> Why are you an expert in Shaolin and why should anyone trust what you say instead of the evidence of their own eyes?  I'm not saying you're not right, mind you, I'm asking for you to give us *some more *reason to accept your statements *beyond the word* of a more-or-less anonymous internet poster.
> 
> ...



Thanks Kirk

You have proven my point

Strange that you post this.

Because this is *EXACTLY* what people *HAVE* been doing for *DECADES!
*
(Caps are not shouting but for emphasis)


----------



## Gentle Fist (May 18, 2012)

rickster said:


> Because, who would want to sit there and read it all in one post?
> 
> For sure, it did not take me one day, one writing, one method to research all of this.
> 
> This has been ongoing for me for decades.



Not trying to be sarcastic but spreading it out in multiple posts, that are all in order uninterrupted by any other user; is no different than one long post...


----------



## rickster (May 18, 2012)

Gentle Fist said:


> Not trying to be sarcastic but spreading it out in multiple posts, that are all in order uninterrupted by any other user; is no different than one long post...


*Noted*


That would be a matter of opinion.

For some, who may have a short attention span, it would be easier to digest it from multiple.


----------



## Tames D (May 18, 2012)

Gentle Fist said:


> Is there any reason that could not have all went in one post?



Doe's it really matter?


----------



## Tames D (May 18, 2012)

Gentle Fist said:


> Not trying to be sarcastic but spreading it out in multiple posts, that are all in order uninterrupted by any other user; is no different than one long post...



Again... doe's it really matter?


----------



## clfsean (May 19, 2012)

So Rickster... you cut & paste... a lot. You say a lot... but it's been said before.

What's your background in CMA's?


----------



## rickster (May 19, 2012)

clfsean said:


> So Rickster... you cut & paste... a lot. You say a lot... but it's been said before.
> 
> What's your background in CMA's?



Yes. I had cut & paste. It is from writings and research of this subject for sometime.

My background in CMA is from a family art that many have not heard of

My overall martial art background spans over 40 years.

That said, information about Shaolin takes a little research from a unbiased approach


----------



## lklawson (May 19, 2012)

rickster said:


> That said, information about Shaolin takes a little research from a unbiased approach


You might find a way to re-phrase that because stated that way, it sounds a lot like, "any disagreement with this is because it's biased."

As to whether or not anyone has heard of that "family art," go ahead and post the name and lineage.  The internet is big and someone, somewhere, knows about it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## clfsean (May 19, 2012)

rickster said:


> Yes. I had cut & paste. It is from writings and research of this subject for sometime.
> 
> My background in CMA is from a family art that many have not heard of
> 
> ...



That's cool. I've been around the block a while & a few times. In fact I'm still making my way down the block taking notes as I go. Who're from again?

Siu Lum doesn't earn nut riding status around here for most folks, so you might be suprised if you ease up from the great debunker posture. The majority of folks on here aren't rookies.


----------



## rickster (May 19, 2012)

lklawson said:


> You might find a way to re-phrase that because stated that way, it sounds a lot like, "any disagreement with this is because it's biased."
> 
> As to whether or not anyone has heard of that "family art," go ahead and post the name and lineage. The internet is big and someone, somewhere, knows about it.
> 
> ...



Indeed

However, I am not looking for a disagreement.

Therefore, you had posted/asked about my status of knowledge or accumulaton thereof.

I was big with the Idea of Shaolin.

In other words, so "into it", that I was "biased".

Then, as I started to research without a biased approached, I discovered other opposing information.

If you see my starting approach (post #11) it starts off with;

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept* the data;_

Therefore, like Chi, God or Religion, it is up to reader/person to accept or reject in accordance to their belief.

Which in some cases, a belief is borderline of a opinion

(AND if you read my beginning post of my long "cut and paste", i.e. explaining myth, and so forth, give reasons why I formed such a belief or opinion.)

As I stated before;

_You can lead a horse to water..........



_As for researching a family martial art lineage, I have tried, the internet isn't that vast. But vast enough to find more opposing views of Shaolin monks_

Even those in CMA, although they can point a lineage, that lineage/history is also skeptical and shakey as well.

Especially if it leads back to some sort of Shaolin connection.
(As I pointed out for Vsing Tsun and a link)
_


----------



## rickster (May 19, 2012)

clfsean said:


> That's cool. I've been around the block a while & a few times. In fact I'm still making my way down the block taking notes as I go. Who're from again?
> 
> Siu Lum doesn't earn nut riding status around here for most folks, so you might be surprised if you ease up from the great debunker posture. The majority of folks on here aren't rookies.


 
Great, when there are some that have &#8220;been around the block&#8221;

But that does not totally stand forth of why such a person should remain in a gray area of complacency.

The core issue of the entire martial art history or lineage is shrouded and much of it is asking for followers to be complacent.

Japanese can hold dearly onto their culture from a sense of complacency and pride, regardless of them not owning up to some data that they actually received some knowledge from outside source. For example, renaming Tode to Karate. And as well as many industrial advances from other countries.

Not to &#8220;single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well.

The Chinese can milk Shaolin (why the government allows such exposure)

Koreans can knock people off horses and refer to their TKD as centuries old.

And so forth in martial arts history/lineage

The &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221; of martial art history/lineage can approach a level of fantasy.

People like to hold onto their fantasy and do not consider such complacency as delusional. They would rather believe in an unproven chain of history/lineage than face the possibility that someone created something during a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching facts

I can agree about what you stated about a &#8220;great debunking posture&#8221;, however,
I could choose to tread lightly on someone&#8217;s  &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221;.
As I had such the same level of  &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221;, but I choose to review all data. Therefore, why I started my opening piece with the examination of &#8220;myth&#8221;

I am not trying to rain on someone&#8217;s parade, like a horse to water, I cannot make them carry a umbrella if I see dark clouds and they do not.

Ignorance is bliss, and there are a lot of happy people out there.
*
The most important thing to note is; believe in what you will and enjoy what you like....
*
_Just don't try to urinate on me and tell me its raining_


----------



## Chris Parker (May 20, 2012)

Okay, I'll have a go at spelling this out to you, Rickster....

Ease up. You're presenting the attitude that what you believe is the one, true, pure, only truth, and everyone else is running around with their eyes closed and their ears covered. You're actually using almost the exact same rhetoric that another member does to defend his training under the auspices of some of the most well-known frauds in existance.. but when that's pointed out to him, he says we should look at the "evidence" without "bias"... and offers no actual backup whatsoever.

You're not the only one who's been there, or done that. In fact, you might not be the most informed person on the board, even in this area. After all, this post of yours has a number of issues.... 



rickster said:


> Great, when there are some that have &#8220;been around the block&#8221;
> 
> But that does not totally stand forth of why such a person should remain in a gray area of complacency.



So now the reason that there is confusion about true history is that people are lazy? There's quite a difference between believing one take on history and being too lazy to search out contradictory stories.



rickster said:


> The core issue of the entire martial art history or lineage is shrouded and much of it is asking for followers to be complacent.



Really? Hmm.... maybe in some of what you do. 



rickster said:


> Japanese can hold dearly onto their culture from a sense of complacency and pride, regardless of them not owning up to some data that they actually received some knowledge from outside source. For example, renaming Tode to Karate. And as well as many industrial advances from other countries.
> 
> Not to &#8220;single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well.



I'm sorry, complacency and pride? Lazy, but proud of it? Are you sure you're not being a little biased yourself in your take on other peoples takes on things here?

As far as the rest of that, can you provide any actual evidence whatsoever? I'm not familiar with the Japanese ever claiming what you seem to say they have... Tode (Te) was the Okinawan art that was popularly re-named Karate (ostensibly for the Japanese market, really) in the 1930's, and there's never been any claim otherwise. As far as industrial advances, huh? You're really not getting things close to right there.... 



rickster said:


> The Chinese can milk Shaolin (why the government allows such exposure)



So the government uses the Shaolin temple for a tourist trap... okay. And that means what, exactly? Is it still a temple? Is it still a monastery? Does that mean that there are monks there? Wouldn't that make them Shaolin monks? Hmm...

When it comes to the martial history of said monks (leaving off for the minute some issues with your cut-and-paste articles), there is a difference between passing along a story which is symbolic, and claiming that to be the actual historical occurances, which I don't think has happened. I think you once took them as such, though, which has lead to you looking to debunking it wherever you can.



rickster said:


> Koreans can knock people off horses and refer to their TKD as centuries old.



Oh, there's huge numbers of discussions on that... how realistic do you think it is to believe that TKD practitioners believe such ideas? 



rickster said:


> And so forth in martial arts history/lineage
> 
> The &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221; of martial art history/lineage can approach a level of fantasy.
> 
> People like to hold onto their fantasy and do not consider such complacency as delusional. They would rather believe in an unproven chain of history/lineage than face the possibility that someone created something during a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching facts



So you think that you've gotten the "real deal" from a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching facts...? Hmm.... 



rickster said:


> I can agree about what you stated about a &#8220;great debunking posture&#8221;, however,
> I could choose to tread lightly on someone&#8217;s  &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221;.
> As I had such the same level of  &#8220;accepted complacency&#8221;, but I choose to review all data. Therefore, why I started my opening piece with the examination of &#8220;myth&#8221;



Hmm, you really do love that word... "accepted complacency" (accepted laziness?), "false complacency" in another thread (false laziness... is that industriousness?). Not sure if you really get it's meaning.

And as far as reviewing "all data"... hmm, perhaps all that you've come across so far would be a little more accurate.

Oh, and your take on what a myth is is way out, by the way. You're talking about a few different concepts, such as cultural legends, and apocryphal stories.



rickster said:


> I am not trying to rain on someone&#8217;s parade, like a horse to water, I cannot make them carry a umbrella if I see dark clouds and they do not.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss, and there are a lot of happy people out there.
> *
> ...



Yeah... that's the attitude we're talking about.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> Great, when there are some that have been around the block
> 
> But that does not totally stand forth of why such a person should remain in a gray area of complacency.
> 
> ...



Amazing. You spent the time to think(?) that out, put it on the board & still skip the basic question. 

With this new found outlook & need to to do something meaningful to help get rid of "accepted complacency" (I think... at least that's what I'm picking up on)... you're still able to not answer my question that should help shed light maybe to your position.

Who are you from? Where did you come across this fountain of knowledge that allowed you to see past the marketing veil of the PRC & the shroud of time with the history and (wait for it!!)... lore & legends... surrounding the temple & her two divisons of monks.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> They were wearing grey and white because they were not Shaolin MonksIn fact, there arent any "real shaolin monks" these days


Pardon me, but could you please tell me where you are from, your ethnicity, and whether or not you self-identify as a Budist?Peace favor your sword, Kirk (mobile)


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Ease up. You're presenting the attitude that what you believe is the one, true, pure, only truth, and everyone else is running around with their eyes closed and their ears covered. You're actually using almost the exact same rhetoric that another member does to defend his training under the auspices of some of the most well-known frauds in existance.. but when that's pointed out to him, he says we should look at the "evidence" without "bias"... and offers no actual backup whatsoever.
> 
> You're not the only one who's been there, or done that. In fact, you might not be the most informed person on the board, even in this area. After all, this post of yours has a number of issues....


Yep, I "spelled it out". Whenever someone comes along with opposing data from what they had cherished, they do get offensive. As for "back-up" I gave resources. I guess you had not read the opening statement from the first passage:
_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept* the data;_





Chris Parker said:


> So now the reason that there is confusion about true history is that people are lazy? There's quite a difference between believing one take on history and being too lazy to search out contradictory stories.Really? Hmm.... maybe in some of what you do.


Lazy? Nah, it is about holding onto, or cherishing a idea. People take offense whenever something goes against this.




Chris Parker said:


> I'm sorry, complacency and pride? Lazy, but proud of it? Are you sure you're not being a little biased yourself in your take on other peoples takes on things here?


All cultures have this, if you had READ;
_Not to &#8220;single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well._





Chris Parker said:


> As far as the rest of that, can you provide any actual evidence whatsoever? I'm not familiar with the Japanese ever claiming what you seem to say they have... Tode (Te) was the Okinawan art that was popularly re-named Karate (ostensibly for the Japanese market, really) in the 1930's, and there's never been any claim otherwise. As far as industrial advances, huh? You're really not getting things close to right there....


Not sure what you are saying here. But the Japanese took a martial art from Okinawa and gave it their own name reference because they had invaded and tried to de-culutrized it. They had tried to  do this to Korea and China as well. It was extreme Asian pride and bullying. The turn of modernization and industrialization bought forced changes to Japan. They did not desire it, but knew they needed it. It was a "matter of face", A.K.A./"pride", to not show this so openingly. Pre WWII, the US gave Japan many industrial things, especially raw material like metal-steel. Post WWII, after Japan's "unconditional" surrender, the US gave Japan latest industrial advances to help them. Almost everything Japan has created since modernization era, was copied or burrowed from somewhere else, and Japan tried to keep a national "pride" on it. From guns/military, motorcycles, steel, etc., if it weren't from outside sources, Japan would not have been included in modern era. As I stated, they did not desire non-Japanese ideas, but they knew they needed it. They have a aura of ***Asian pride to not give in to how they came to receive any out sources. Another reference to complacency is vainglory, and certainly Japan has this

That said, I have to reiterate;
_****Not to &#8220;single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well._




Chris Parker said:


> So the government uses the Shaolin temple for a tourist trap... okay. And that means what, exactly? Is it still a temple? Is it still a monastery? Does that mean that there are monks there? Wouldn't that make them Shaolin monks? Hmm...


Ok, so I make a Katana Sword in the US using modern steel (say I purchased the steel from Japan) and called it a Katana.   I market it as a Japanese sword and sell thousands of it to people whom think its the real deal. Is it still a authentic Katana sword? According to your statement, it has to be, because it is still a sword, it looks like a Katana and I call it that.





Chris Parker said:


> When it comes to the martial history of said monks (leaving off for the minute some issues with your cut-and-paste articles), there is a difference between passing along a story which is symbolic, and claiming that to be the actual historical occurances, which I don't think has happened. I think you once took them as such, though, which has lead to you looking to debunking it wherever you can.


Yes. You are hitting it. As I had stated, Complacency at its finest. _
***** People like to hold onto their fantasy and do not consider such  complacency as delusional. They would rather believe in an unproven  chain of history/lineage than face the possibility that someone created  something during a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching  facts_







Chris Parker said:


> Oh, there's huge numbers of discussions on that... how realistic do you think it is to believe that TKD practitioners believe such ideas?


Ditto on ***, ****, *****
I could post a whole thread on this and disturb another ant pile there.





Chris Parker said:


> So you think that you've gotten the "real deal" from a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching facts...? Hmm....


Nope. I think others try to remain complacent than face opposing data. So much they cherish, that they take offense





Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, you really do love that word... "accepted complacency" (accepted laziness?), "false complacency" in another thread (false laziness... is that industriousness?). Not sure if you really get it's meaning.
> 
> And as far as reviewing "all data"... hmm, perhaps all that you've come across so far would be a little more accurate.


Complacency may not mean lazy. It could also mean a lot of other things. Complacent people may not be lazy, but they tend to get offensive when there is opposing data/views, upon things they cherish.

Accurate? I gave resources and I had stated, since the beginning;




Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and your take on what a myth is is way out, by the way. You're talking about a few different concepts, such as cultural legends, and apocryphal stories.


Yes. You have proven my point. THANK YOU. This IS exactly how martial art history and lineage is....
"cultural legends, and apocryphal stories"





Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... that's the attitude we're talking about.


Yeah. Complacent people taking offense to opposing data


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

clfsean said:


> Amazing. You spent the time to think(?) that out, put it on the board & still skip the basic question.
> 
> With this new found outlook & need to to do something meaningful to help get rid of "accepted complacency" (I think... at least that's what I'm picking up on)... you're still able to not answer my question that should help shed light maybe to your position.
> 
> ...


So, if I had studied in Korea, China, or Japan under known lineages, does this make a big difference?

Hmmmn, *perhaps* I took on this position because, *perhaps* I have and soon realized how "complacent" I was.


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Pardon me, but could you please tell me where you are from, your ethnicity, and whether or not you self-identify as a Budist?Peace favor your sword, Kirk (mobile)


Please read post #37

Buddhist?

 *Perhaps* by chance, being exposed to Buddhists and Buddhism which open my eyes from complacency.

Go ahead and read the Kalama Suttra and try to understand its underlying meaning.
This can apply to martial arts (as well as religion) in a crude, but accurate manner


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

The ant pile has been disturbed;

Like the subjects of Religion, Chi, and Politics.

I have to stand upon this position;

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


----------



## jks9199 (May 20, 2012)

Hey, everybody, let's try to debate the issues, not attack each other.  It's important to realize that, in text, you lose the nuances that come from facial expression and tone of voice.  Sometimes, your message can get lost due to the delivery style.  Remember, MartialTalk is supposed to a friendly place... Attacks at each other kind of get in the way of that, y'know?


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Hey, everybody, let's try to debate the issues, not attack each other.  It's important to realize that, in text, you lose the nuances that come from facial expression and tone of voice.  Sometimes, your message can get lost due to the delivery style.  Remember, MartialTalk is supposed to a friendly place... Attacks at each other kind of get in the way of that, y'know?



Thank you.

But I have to re-iterate, that any time there are controversial subjects, people whom cherish something, *take offense* to a opposing view. It is a natural human response.

What *could be* considered as offensive to me, (could be, but not) is that anytime I post a controversial-touchy subject upon a cherished belief/opinion, I get ridiculed and people ask for my "martial art credentials", despite giving resources of a large magnitude.

I could be friends with, a student of, or a protege of a well-known history author, martial art lineage, etc. This is not going to make a difference when I post something giving out resources/references.

Last, but not least, I sincerely apologize if I had caused any personal offense.


----------



## clfsean (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> So, if I had studied in Korea, China, or Japan under known lineages, does this make a big difference?



Not particularly. You could be no different than me... or totally different than me. We don't know. All we know is you're kinda grumpy, kinda jaded, have collected a large amount of links to backup your grumpiness & jaded stance... and you avoid questions.

But what it would help to show is why you've chosen to basically kinda "show up" with no preamble to who you are, what you've done & with whom, where it's been done, for how long, etc... basically a polite introduction with background to provide a jumping off point. 



rickster said:


> Hmmmn, *perhaps* I took on this position because, *perhaps* I have and soon realized how "complacent" I was.



That's lovely. If it's only taken you "X" long, lovely. The majority of people here have long made that same jump. We don't tend to preach it from the mount, as you have appeared to do. If asked, generally it's pretty concise & to the point. Not a multitude of links & the appearance of a fairly poor attitude.


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

clfsean said:


> Not particularly. You could be no different than me... or totally different than me. We don't know. All we know is you're kinda grumpy, kinda jaded, have collected a large amount of links to backup your grumpiness & jaded stance... and you avoid questions.
> 
> But what it would help to show is why you've chosen to basically kinda "show up" with no preamble to who you are, what you've done & with whom, where it's been done, for how long, etc... basically a polite introduction with background to provide a jumping off point.
> 
> ...



Grumpy? Jaded? So that's what people call it when opposing data against their cherished "complacency"?

The basic thing is this;
Whenever there are controversial subjects, people will get offense, (or defense) 




A polite introduction?

Upon many forums, whenever someone has this and if they should post something that another does not like, the first thing that is attacked, is their background.

I can PM a select few my MA background in confidentiality, I am sure it would suit.
This brings me right back to my point-
So, if I had studied in Korea, China, or Japan under known lineages, does this make a big difference?
I could be friends with, a student of, or a protege of a well-known  history author, martial art lineage, etc.

This is not going to make a  difference when I post something giving out resources/references.

I am not biased upon martial art styles, heck I have studied a few.

I rather discuss the "ENTIRE" background of ALL martial arts, along with ALL of the flaws, short comings, hype, and complacency.

So, if it should be that you think I am grumpy or jaded, I rather be this because of my research and my unbiased acceptance, then to remain in a state of complacency


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> Please read post #37
> 
> Buddhist?


I hope you'll forgive the issues surrounding my post from an older phone.



> *Perhaps* by chance, being exposed to Buddhists and Buddhism which open my eyes from complacency.
> 
> Go ahead and read the Kalama Suttra and try to understand its underlying meaning.
> This can apply to martial arts (as well as religion) in a crude, but accurate manner


I have several friends who are practicing Buddhists and I currently have a much highlighted and dogeared copy of "The Gospel of Buddha" sitting on my bookshelf.  I've read some other texts, but that's the only one I kept.

But you really haven't answered my questions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> What *could be* considered as offensive to me, (could be, but not) is that anytime I post a controversial-touchy subject upon a cherished belief/opinion, I get ridiculed and people ask for my "martial art credentials", despite giving resources of a large magnitude.


Not by me.  I've never studied, nor do I ever intend to study ANY Chinese martial art, much less anything represented as Shaolin Kung Fu.  I was just interested in why you seem to have a such an all-fired death-grip on your opinion which, coincidentally, is 180 degrees opposite that of the vast majority of folks that I generally trust.  That's why I asked why we should give your conclusion any weight.  So far, I really haven't seen any good reason why we should give your opinion that weight.  You've cut-n-pasted a lot an had two separate rants, one about the nature of Myths (which was unnecessary because everyone knows what myths are and Shaolin Kung Fu doesn't do anything to attempt to explain the natural world) and anther rant which, in abbreviated form is, "anyone who disagrees with me is biased and guilty of accepted complacency, but heck, I think I can make it sound less offensive by also saying that no one has to accept my facts."  Seriously.

So, again, why should we accept your opinion on this? There's an old phrase, "When extra-ordinary claims are made, extra-ordinary proof is required."  Still waiting on the extra-ordinary proof.



> I could be friends with, a student of, or a protege of a well-known history author, martial art lineage, etc. This is not going to make a difference when I post something giving out resources/references.


Um... actually, yeah, it would make a difference.  Experts have expertise in a given subject.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

lklawson said:


> But you really haven't answered my questions.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I once has a student, who is a collegiate professor of Eastern religion, especially Buddhism.

I taught him martial arts, he taught me to open my mind on Buddhism.

Unfortunately for me, he switch/moved from the University in my area to another far away.

From there he moves around a bit, but we still chat via the internet from time to time.

Because of him, I sought out Buddhist and Buddhism.

Sorry, again, what were your specific questions?


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> Upon many forums, whenever someone has this and if they should post something that another does not like, the first thing that is attacked, is their background.


That's because it's the Internet.  Lots of people who have no expertise or credibility on any given topic feel free to expound at length despite their lack of expertise.  

If someone is going to make controversial statements then having some recognizable expertise on the subject is kinda important to their credibility.  That's how it works in Academia too.



> I can PM a select few my MA background in confidentiality, I am sure it would suit.


I don't see how maintaining anonymity would help your credibility.



> This brings me right back to my point-
> So, if I had studied in Korea, China, or Japan under known lineages, does this make a big difference?


A difference to what?  If you were opining on martial arts from those lineages, then yes.  If you studied martial arts, from a known lineage, in Korea, the question would still remain as to how that qualifies you to speak on the veracity of any specific sect of Buddhism.  



> I could be friends with, a student of, or a protege of a well-known  history author, martial art lineage, etc.


And you might be.  But 1) you've been reluctant to give that information which might be helpful to your credibility and 2) I'm unsure how a particular martial arts lineage would qualify you to speak to the veracity of any specific sect of Buddhism.



> This is not going to make a  difference when I post something giving out resources/references.


Ummm... yes, it will make a difference.  It might not be a difference which is beneficial to your position, but it *will* make a difference.



> I am not biased upon martial art styles, heck I have studied a few.


Join the club.



> I rather discuss the "ENTIRE" background of ALL martial arts, along with ALL of the flaws, short comings, hype, and complacency.
> 
> So, if it should be that you think I am grumpy or jaded, I rather be this because of my research and my unbiased acceptance, then to remain in a state of complacency


But that's not what you were speaking to in this thread.  You made specific claims about a specific sect of Buddhism, to whit that there are no real Shaolin Monks.  I'm still waiting for you to actually defend that statement.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> Sorry, again, what were your specific questions?


You specifically said, "there arent any 'real shaolin monks' these days."

So, I specifically asked, why are you an expert in Shaolin and why should anyone trust what you say instead of the evidence of their own eyes?

I'm still waiting for evidence that these folks who claim they're Buddhist Monks living at Shaolin really aren't and I'm still waiting for solid reason why anyone should take your say so.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Not by me.  I've never studied, nor do I ever intend to study ANY Chinese martial art, much less anything represented as Shaolin Kung Fu.  I was just interested in why you seem to have a such an all-fired death-grip on your opinion which, coincidentally, is 180 degrees opposite that of the vast majority of folks that I generally trust.  That's why I asked why we should give your conclusion any weight.  So far, I really haven't seen any good reason why we should give your opinion that weight.  You've cut-n-pasted a lot an had two separate rants, one about the nature of Myths (which was unnecessary because everyone knows what myths are and Shaolin Kung Fu doesn't do anything to attempt to explain the natural world) and anther rant which, in abbreviated form is, "anyone who disagrees with me is biased and guilty of accepted complacency, but heck, I think I can make it sound less offensive by also saying that no one has to accept my facts."  Seriously.
> 
> So, again, why should we accept your opinion on this? There's an old phrase, "When extra-ordinary claims are made, extra-ordinary proof is required."  Still waiting on the extra-ordinary proof.
> 
> ...


You seem to forget.

 It "my conclusion", that those who focus on me, instead of the resources/references I gave, as complacent.
(It is like a finger pointing to the moon...and people keep concentrating on the finger)

I am not looking for anyone to agree/disagree with me

 I gave *resources* and *reference* for those to *research* and come to their own conclusions 

I mention complacency and biased, because most who are quick to become *offensive,* never take the time to actually "approach" a opposing view, no matter how much data is given.
Hence a perfect point, why people rather focus on me, than to go and look upon said resources and references I gave.

As for extra-ordinary proof...I gave references and resources..... 
Go out and ask or examine those.

What part of the references and resources are you not willing to further examine?

Think of these references/resources I had listed as a motion picture or a book. 

Think of me as a film or book critic.

Then, it is up to you, to either accept or reject my reflections.

Or, *more importantly*, it is up to you, to look at the movie or book (those references/resources)

Again, I have to continue to reiterate;

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

lklawson said:


> That's because it's the Internet.  Lots of people who have no expertise or credibility on any given topic feel free to expound at length despite their lack of expertise.
> 
> If someone is going to make controversial statements then having some recognizable expertise on the subject is kinda important to their credibility.  That's how it works in Academia too.
> 
> ...



I am not asking for credibility.

I gave references and resources for YOU to examine.

Examine those

Examining me, will not get you those answers you seek


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

lklawson said:


> You specifically said, "there arent any 'real shaolin monks' these days."
> 
> So, I specifically asked, why are you an expert in Shaolin and why should anyone trust what you say instead of the evidence of their own eyes?
> 
> ...



Ok. Round and round we go;  

Look upon those resources and references I gave.

Pick some. Pick one. And go research.

Again, I have to continue to reiterate;

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2012)

rickster said:


> Ok. Round and round we go;


No we don't.  I'm done.

I really wish you would have answered, but I guess you won't.  I see no purpose in going further.  It'll just piss people off.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## oaktree (May 20, 2012)

Have those who are practicing at Xiaolin temple taken their vows thatBuddhist monks are required to take? If they have taken their vows then they are Buddhist monks. 
  I suppose Rickster you can ask Shi Yan Ming &#37322;&#24310;&#26126; if he is a real monk or not or if he took his vows since he says he is a Xiaolin monk who stayed at Xiaolin temple.
Here's his line:
http://usashaolintemple.org/shiyanming-lineage/
Here's his contact information:
http://usashaolintemple.org/contact/

Let us know what he says. He also speaks from what I heard very little english so you may have to type or talk in Mandarin which for an expert on Xiaolin you should have no problem with.


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

Answers?

Think of these references/resources I had listed as a motion picture or a book. 

Think of me as a film or book critic.

Then, it is up to you, to either accept or reject my reflections.

Or, *more importantly*, it is up to you, to look at the movie or book (those references/resources)

Again, I have to continue to reiterate;

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


*Stan Henning*

_Classical Fighting Arts_ 12 (#35),
_The Imaginary World of Buddhism & East Asian Martial Arts _

*______________________________*

*Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo*

_Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals-A Historical Survey_

__________________________________

*J.D. Brown*

In his book, &#8220;China-The 50 Most Memorable Trips&#8221;, good observation of Shaolin from the perspective of a non-biased, non-martial artist 1999-2000

__________________________________

*Tang/Tung Hao;*
China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
_University of Hawaii&#8217;s Press Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts_ 1999
_History of Physical Culture in China _(1919)
_Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan _(ca. 1669),
_Travels of Lao Ts&#8217;an _(ca. 1907), Liu
_Science and Civilisation in China ,Needham_

*1.* Gu Shi ed., _Hanshu yiwenzhi jiangshu _(Annotated Han history bibliographies) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji, 1987), p. 205.
*2.* Qi Jiguang , _Jixiao xinshu _(New book of effective discipline) (1561; ed. Ma Mingda , Beijing: Renmin Tiyu, 1988), _juanshou_, p. 17, _juan _6, p. 90; Qi Jiguang, _Lianbing shiji _(Actual record of military training) (1571; Zhang Haipeng, _Mohai jinhu _, vol. 23 [Taibei: Wenyou, 1969], _juan _4, p. 13949).
*3.* Gu Shi, _Hanshu yiwenzhi_, editor&#8217;s introduction, p. 1.
*4.* James R. Ware, trans. and ed., _Alchemy, Medicine and Religion in the China of A.D. 320:The Nei P&#8217;ien of Ko Hung (Pao-p&#8217;u tzu) _(New York: Dover Publications, 1981), pp. 18&#8211;19; Wang Ming, _Baopuzi neipian jiaoshi_, (Interpretations of the Baopuzi inner chapters) (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), p. 377 Also, see Wang Saishi , &#8220;Gudai wushizhong di tou zhi&#8221; (Throwing and tossing among ancient martial activities), _Tiyu wenshi _, no. 5 (1990): 59&#8211;61.
*5. *Herbert A. Giles, &#8220;The Home of _Jiujitsu_,&#8221; in _Adversaria Sinica _(Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh) 1, no. 5 (1906): 132&#8211;138.
*6.* Joseph Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), p. 145.
*7.* Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 145&#8211;146; vol. 5, pt. 3 (1976), p. 209; vol. 5, pt. 5 (1983), pp. 169&#8211;170; vol. 5, pt. 6 (1994), pp. 28 n. _e_, 87 n. _b_.
*8.* Zhang Jue ,trans. and ed., _Wu-Yue Chunqiu quanyi _______ (Complete translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue) (Guiyang: Guizhou Renmin Chubanshe, 1994), pp. 367&#8211;370.
*9.* Xu Fang __, _Du Fu shi jinyi_ (A modern translation of Du Fu&#8217;s poems) (Beijing: Renmin Ribao, 1985), pp. 392&#8211;399.
*10.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 2, pp. 145&#8211;146.
*11.* Michal B. Poliakoff, _Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture_(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 54&#8211;63; Rachel S. Robinson, _Sources for theHistory of Greek Athletics in English Translation _(Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1955), pp. 214&#8211;216; E. Norman Gardiner, _Athletics of the Ancient World _(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 212&#8211;221.
*12.* Chen Menglei _, Gujin tushu jicheng _ (Encyclopedia of ancient and modern literature), _juan _309 (1726; Taibei: Dingwen, 1977), vol. 71, p. 2961.
*13.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 3, p. 209 n. _f_.
*14.* Stanley E. Henning, &#8220;Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan,&#8221; _Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan_ R_esearch Association of Hawaii _2, no. 3 (Autumn/Winter 1994): 4&#8211;5.
*15.* Ibid.
*16.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 169.330 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
© 1999 _by University of Hawai&#8216;i Press_
*17. *Tiao Luzi ___, _Jueli ji ____ (Record of wrestling) (ca. 960; Hu Ting __, _Linlang_ _mishi congshu _______ [1815]).
*18. *Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 169&#8211;170; Giles, &#8220;The Home f _Jiujitsu_,&#8221; pp. 137&#8211;138; Qi Jiguang, _Jixiao xinshu_, p. 307.
*19.* Shen Shou __, _Taijiquanfa yanjiu _______ (Taijiquan methods research) (Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin Tiyu, 1984), p. 131: __&#8221;
*20.* Imamura Yoshio ____, _Nihon taikushi ______ (Japanese physical culture history) (Tokyo: Fumido Shuppan, 1970), pp. 157&#8211;158.
*21.* Zheng Ruozeng ___, _Jiangnan jinglue _____ (Strategic situation in Jiangnan), _juan _8 _shang_, pp. 3b&#8211;4a, in _Qinding sikuquanshu _______, vols. 179&#8211;181 (ca. 1568; Taibei: Taiwan Shangwu, 1971); Liu Shuangsong  _, ed., _Xinban zengbu tianxia bianyong wenlin_ _iaojin wanbao quanshu _  (New, revised, easy-to-use . . .
complete book of miscellany), Songlin Anzhengtang Liu Shuangsong Engraved Edition
_(1612; Harvard-Yenching Library), _juan _7, 1a&#8211;9b; _Zhu mingjia hexuan zengbu_
_wanbao quanshu_(Revised complete book of miscellany: Combined selections made by famous persons) (1746; Harvard-Yenching Library), _juan _13, pp. 4a&#8211;9a.
*22.* Wu Yu and Jiang An __, &#8220;Chen Yuanyun, Shaolin quanfa, Riben roudao&#8221; __
(Chen Yuanyun, Shaolin boxing, and Japanese jûdô), _Wuhun _(1986): 17&#8211;19.
*23.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 170; Zhang Kongzhao _, _Quanjing quanfa beiyao _______ (Boxing classic: Essential boxing methods), Miaoyuancongshu ____ (1784; Taibei: Academia Sinica, Fu Sinian Library, 1900).
*24.* Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, vol. 5, pt. 6, p. 28 n. _a_.
*25. *Ibid., p. 87 n. _b_.
*26.* Charles Holcombe, &#8220;The Daoist Origins of the Chinese Martial Arts,&#8221; _Journal of Asian Martial Arts _3, no. 1 (January 1993): 10&#8211;25. *27.* Lu Gwei-Djen and Joseph Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 302 n. _c_.
*28.* Ibid., p. 307 n. _c_.
*29.* Ibid. Their main sources are Bruce A. Haines, _Karate&#8217;s History and Traditions _(Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1968), pp. 305 n. _c_, 306 n. _h_, 307 nn. _b_, _d_); obert W. Smith, _Secrets of Shaolin Temple Boxing _(Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1964),p. 305 nn. _b_, _c_; and Huang Wen-Shan, _Fundamentals of Tai Chi Ch&#8217;uan _(South Sky BookCompany, 1974), pp. 306 n. _a_, 307 n.
*30.* Ibid., p. 305; Tang Hao __, _Shaolin Wudang kao ______ (Shaolin Wudangresearch) (1930; Hong Kong: Unicorn Publishers, 1968).
*31.* Liu T&#8217;ieh-yun (Liu E), _The Travels of Lao Ts&#8217;an_, trans. Harold Shadick (reprint, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986), pp. 73, 247&#8211;248 nn. 3, 4; Li Ying&#8217;ang ed., _Guben Shaolin zongfa tushuo _________ (Old volume illustrated explanation of Shaolin boxing methods) (n.d.; Hong Kong: Unicorn, 1968); Zun Wozhai Zhuren _____
(Master of the Studio of Self-respect), _Shaolin quanshu mijue _______ (Secrets of Shaolin boxing) (1915; 1936; reprint, Taibei: Zhonghua Wushu, 1971), critiques by Tang Hao and Xu Zhen (1936) appended.
*32*. Jonathan Kolatch and Jonathan David, _Sports, Politics and Ideology in China _(New York: Middle Village, 1972).
*33.* Ibid., p. xvi; Jiang Shengzhang, ed., _Book of Poetry_, trans. Xu Yuanchong (Changsha: Hunan Press, 1995), p. 424:  (Who is that knave on river&#8217;s border, Nor _strong _nor brave, Root of disorder).
*34.* Huang zongxi ___, _Nanlei wending _____ (Nanlei&#8217;s definitive works) (Shanghai:
Zhonghua, 1936), _qianji _8, pp. 5a&#8211;6b; Stanley E. Henning, &#8220;Chinese Boxing: The Internal Versus External Schools in the Light of History and Theory,&#8221; _Journal of Asian Martial Arts _6, no. 3 (1997): 10&#8211;19.
*35.* Lu and Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_, p. 306 n. _e_.
*36.* Ibid., p. 306.
*37.* Zhang Jue, _Wu-Yue Chunqiu quanyi_; Wu Shu __, _Shoubei lu ____ (Record of the
arm) (ca. 1662), _fujuan xia_, p. 9a, in _Zhihai ___ (1846), vols. 33&#8211;40 (Dadong Shuju, 1935).
*38.* Anna Seidel, &#8220;A Taoist Immortal of the Late Ming Dynasty: Chang San-feng,&#8221; in William T. de Bary and The Conference on Ming Thought, _Self and Society in Ming Thought _(New ork: Columbia University Press, 1970), p. 505.
*39.* Ibid., p. 517 n. 6; Henning, &#8220;Chinese Boxing,&#8221; pp. 10&#8211;19.
*40.* In Susan Naquin and Chun-fang Yu, eds., _Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China _(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), see John Lagerwey, &#8220;The Pilgrimage to Wu-tang Shan,&#8221; pp.293&#8211;332 at p. 303, and Bernard Faure, &#8220;Relics and Flesh Bodies,&#8221; pp. 150&#8211;189.
*41.* Lu and Needham, _Science and Civilisation in China_, p. 303, fig. 78.
*42. *Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, _The Rise of Modern China_, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 128.
*43. *Qin Baoqi ___, _Fujian, Yunxiao Gaoqi&#8212;Tiandihui de faxiangdi _(Fujian, Yunxiao, Gaoqi&#8212;The Heaven and Earth Society&#8217;s place of origin), _Qingshi yanjiu___ 11, no. 3 (1993): 36&#8211;46; Dian H. Murray and Qin Baoqi, _The Origins of the_ _Tiandihui: The Chinese Triads in Legend and History _(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994).
*44.* Susan Naquin, _Millenarian Rebellion in China _(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), _Shantung Rebellion: The Wang Lun Uprising of 1774 _(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), and &#8220;The Transmission of White Lotus Sectarianism in Late Imperial China,&#8221; in David Johnson, Andrew J. Nathan, and Evelyn S. Rawski, _Popular Culture in Late Imperial China _(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 255&#8211;291; Joseph W. Esherick, _The Origins of the Boxer Uprising _(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 357 n. 25.
*45.* Frederic Wakeman, Jr., _Policing Shanghai 1927_&#8211;_1937 _(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 334 n. 78; Guojia Tiwei Wushu Yanjiuyuan, ed., (National Physical Culture and Sports Commission Martial Arts Research Institute), _Zhongguo wushu shi __ (Chinese martial arts history) (Beijing: Renmin Tiyu, 1997), pp. 332&#8211;336. 332 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 1999
*46.* Douglas Wile, _Lost T&#8217;ai-chi Classics from the Ch&#8217;ing Dynasty _(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).
*47. *Stanley E. Henning, review of _Lost T&#8217;ai Chi Classics of the Late Ch&#8217;ing Dynasty _by Douglas Wile, _China Review International _4, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 572&#8211;577.
*48.* Lu and Needham, _Celestial Lancets: Acupuncture and Moxibustion_, p. 306 n. _e_.a. Qi Jiguang ___, _Jixiao xinshu _____ [New book of effective discipline] [ca. 1561;1805], _ji _10, _juan _14, 3b; Zhang Haipeng ___, _Xuejin taoyuan _____.
b. Liu Shuangsong ___, ed., _Xinban zengbu tianxia bianyong wenlin miaojin wanbao_ _quanshu _________&'__*___ [New, revised easy-to-use . . . complete book of miscellany], Songlin Anzhengtang Liu Shuangsong Engraved Edition (1612; Harvard-Yenching Library), _juan _7, 8b. c. Zhang Kongzhao ___, _Quanjing quanfa beiyao _______ [Boxing classic: Essential boxing methods], Miaoyuan congshu ____ [ca. 1784; Taibei: Academia Sinica, Fu inian Library, 1900], _juan _1, 1a). This is the earliest extant reference to Shaolin Monastery as Chinese boxing&#8217;s place of origin, an exaggerated and unsubstantiated claim typical of what ight be expected in a preface. However, this does not deny the possibility that some of the material in this manual may actually have originated in the monastery (the manual was handwritten by Cao Huandou based on the oral transmission of Zhang Kongzhao, and the material likely comes from multiple sources over several generations).
*49.* _Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts_
*50*_. Bodhistava Warriors, Dukes_


http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/truthrevealed.php

http://www.alljujitsu.com/kungfu.html

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72925

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77769&page=3

Shaolin-Part 1 - SpiritualMinds.com

Shaolin-Part 2 - SpiritualMinds.com

Shaolin Kung Fu: The Truth about Kung Fu History

Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan

http://www.spiritualminds.com/articles.asp?articleid=1886

http://www.spiritualminds.com/articles.asp?articleid=1833

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5090

http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/mythsofshaolin.pdf

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...3/06/09/51.asp

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...09/51.asp?t=dp

Commentary, October 17, 2003 &&#8212; Falun Gong on PBS, Yellow Bamboo Analysis, Treasure Scope Challenge, Quackery In Med School, Scientific American Questions Encyclopedia Britannica, Vortex Relief, and SkepDic Is Out...

Independent Lens . SHAOLIN ULYSSES: Kungfu Monks in America . Talkback | PBS

realbeer.com.au

Shaolin Temple Perspective - russbo Forum / Library

Dept. of Celebration: Drunk Monk : The New Yorker

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2003/06/09/51.asp

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...2&IssueNum=113

http://10.202.6.30/pub/block.mp?sess...bcpblog/?p=521

Shaolin Spear Monk [Archive] - JREF Forum

Beijingwushuteam.com: Shaolin Tour

Deng Feng Village, China
(Where tourist put $200 in book to learn)

Shaolin Abbot Fights Back Against Critics

History @ Shaolin.com

Shaolin Monk Suicide Shocks New York Chinese Community - NAM

Martial Arts Supply, Samurai Swords, Nunchakus, Escrima Sticks & Karate Equipment
(Robes for sale-where anyone can purchased, shave their heads, and mislead people)


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

"Authentic Shaolin Monk" 

I would rather (not completely) entertain the idea that some stopped a charging bull and bare-handedly snapped off its horn.

Or that breaking was a combat tradition used against armor

Or that peasants developed and unarmed fighting system to defeat a well-armed invading adversary.

Many people do not know why monks have dots on their heads, why some do not eat meat nor drink alcohol, especially the so-called "Touring Shaolin Monks"


----------



## rickster (May 20, 2012)

oaktree said:


> Have those who are practicing at Xiaolin temple taken their vows thatBuddhist monks are required to take? If they have taken their vows then they are Buddhist monks.
> I suppose Rickster you can ask Shi Yan Ming &#37322;&#24310;&#26126; if he is a real monk or not or if he took his vows since he says he is a Xiaolin monk who stayed at Xiaolin temple.
> Here's his line:
> http://usashaolintemple.org/shiyanming-lineage/
> ...



Woo hoo. 

USA Shaolin Temple-The most Biased/Complacent web site about Shaolin out there.

He popped up after WWII and shows lineage after all of this time.

Where was he in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975 ?

He vowed to the Communist regime to play his part.

Taking a Buddhist vow is not the same as being a Shaolin monk.

Yep. He has a lot to gain and a lot of followers

I'm convinced, he is "from" Shaolin;

Although someone had stated that Shaolin, per its Buddhist practice, is not separated from its martial art one-it is definitely recognized for martial arts first and foremost. Therefore for its martial art namesake. Therefore, people are lead by namesake/fame instead of the wholeness or full aspect of it.

Everyone that states that they teach or learn "Authentic Shaolin Kung Fu", I find disturbing. Even those that state they teach or learn Shaolin Kung Fu, are curtailing on the name for namesake. Something to be recognized or gained.

Presently around the temple there is a large number of private wushu schools, some of who claim they teach authentic Shaolin , but many of them also feature contemporary wushu (ie 'competition sport wushu'). Even if the people running these schools were Buddhist monks (which many of them, of course are not), they would not be Shaolin Temple Monks (they would be "Monks who live down the street from the Shaolin Temple"). But then, are Buddhist monks supposed to be running a private martial arts school? Despite this fact, for many of these schools, their student's attire during wushu performances (if not practice) is the robes of Buddhist monks - kind of like dressing up like a Catholic priest during Halloween, somewhat sacrilegious if you ask me. 

But what about the people that live and train IN the Temple? Well either way, we know they aren't direct, uninterrupted descendents from the historical monks. But still, you can ask the question: Are they true Buddhist monks? By that I mean they have taken the vows of a Buddhist monk (the same Buddhist vows that any monk, Shaolin or not must take and follow). There is a difference between a Buddhist and a Buddhist monk, just like there is a difference between a Catholic and a Catholic Priest, the standards of behavior within the religion are different, Monks and Priest are held too much higher standards of behavior than laymen. The behavior of the "monks" in the news and on these tours would lead you to believe that these people are not living up to those standards . There very well may be true devote Buddhist Monks out there practicing Wushu, but I'm afraid these people are a very small minority and out of those, aren't looking for "Shaolin Fame". A Buddhist monk "placed" into the positon of Shaolin Abbot, is not the same as being a "Authentic Shaolin Monk"

As Jet Li alluded to, and anyone who has traveled to the temple and surrounding village can attest to, The Shaolin Temple and surrounding areas have been transformed into more of a 'tourist trap' by the Chinese and local governments and the local villagers in the years since the dawn of the film industry. Dozens of martial arts schools popped up, some now quite large, with hundreds or thousands of students. Often times the instructors at these schools claim great pedigrees of martial arts knowledge ('Thirty-something generation disciple of Shaolin Kungfu', for example) But here did these people come from? Where were they hiding from 1960 through 1980? Some journalists would lead us to believe that the government forced the monks to break their vows, leave the temple and assimilate into society, although I don't understand how the Red Guard can FORCE someone to get married and have children. Others mention that these monks may have been in hiding in the mountains during the Cultural Revolution, either way they certainly weren't living in the Temple and their sudden appearance in such great numbers lead one to be very suspicious. (Three non-martial monks in 1980 to hundreds within a decade or two).


----------



## clfsean (May 21, 2012)

So... Rickster... all you're admitting to is... collecting a bunch of links & feeling that you're out to point out complacency as you see it based on your research. 

Yet ...
-- You give no background as to the skills/experience necessary to begin your research. 
-- You answer no questions when directed at you because you feel it doesn't matter what you say, you will be attacked out of hand.
-- You expect us to go through & review those tons of links because you say that will prove your point.

So... with all that in mind... I dub thee Sir Troll of No Experience. And you've made my ignore list. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:trollsign


----------



## Grenadier (May 21, 2012)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this discussion civil.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## oaktree (May 21, 2012)

Hi Rickster,

Until you bring these topics up with Shi Yan Ming or any of the other monks and they share their side we won't have the whole story.
 I noticed that you presented some works in Chinese can you read,write and speak it?


----------



## Chris Parker (May 21, 2012)

Oh boy.

Rickster, please try to see how you're coming across here, it's highly confrontational with little actual backup. In this post, for instance, you have missed what I said last time. Let's recap.



rickster said:


> Yep, I "spelled it out". Whenever someone comes along with opposing data from what they had cherished, they do get offensive. As for "back-up" I gave resources. I guess you had not read the opening statement from the first passage:
> _Like anything, research goes a long way.
> 
> It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept* the data;_




Please. Even with the pages that you've cut-and-pasted (a couple times now), I read it. And I'm all for questioning things. However you haven't really presented an argument as much as told everyone that you know better but refused to actually back it up with anything that shows you know how to do anything more than cut-and-paste. And honestly, the only person getting offensive when their ideas and ideals are challenged here is you, mate. Might want to look to that.



rickster said:


> Lazy? Nah, it is about holding onto, or cherishing a idea. People take offense whenever something goes against this.


 
Er, you do know what "complacency" means, don't you? After all, you use it often enough.



rickster said:


> All cultures have this, if you had READ;
> _Not to single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well._




Yeah, I read it. Assuming I didn't is rather arrogant, isn't it? Especially when I dealt with the other cultures and mistakes you made there as well.... 



rickster said:


> Not sure what you are saying here. But the Japanese took a martial art from Okinawa and gave it their own name reference because they had invaded and tried to de-culutrized it. They had tried to  do this to Korea and China as well. It was extreme Asian pride and bullying. The turn of modernization and industrialization bought forced changes to Japan. They did not desire it, but knew they needed it. It was a "matter of face", A.K.A./"pride", to not show this so openingly. Pre WWII, the US gave Japan many industrial things, especially raw material like metal-steel. Post WWII, after Japan's "unconditional" surrender, the US gave Japan latest industrial advances to help them. Almost everything Japan has created since modernization era, was copied or burrowed from somewhere else, and Japan tried to keep a national "pride" on it. From guns/military, motorcycles, steel, etc., if it weren't from outside sources, Japan would not have been included in modern era. As I stated, they did not desire non-Japanese ideas, but they knew they needed it. They have a aura of ***Asian pride to not give in to how they came to receive any out sources. Another reference to complacency is vainglory, and certainly Japan has this
> 
> That said, I have to reiterate;
> _****Not to single-out the Japanese, but other cultures do this as well._




Then I'll reiterate a little more bluntly.

What you're stating is not the reality. There has never been any belief that karate wasn't originally from Okinawa. It was not given a new name due to any invasion or "attempt to de-culturise" it, whatever that wonderfully invented word might mean.... There is nothing in your list that is correct, really. As a result, Japan really doesn't work as an example for what you're trying to use it for, which is what I was saying in the first place.



rickster said:


> Ok, so I make a Katana Sword in the US using modern steel (say I purchased the steel from Japan) and called it a Katana.   I market it as a Japanese sword and sell thousands of it to people whom think its the real deal. Is it still a authentic Katana sword? According to your statement, it has to be, because it is still a sword, it looks like a Katana and I call it that.



And this shows that you don't have any experience in Japanese arts, history, or anything similar, so trying to defend your usage of Japanese culture as an example really doesn't work.



rickster said:


> Yes. You are hitting it. As I had stated, Complacency at its finest. _
> ***** People like to hold onto their fantasy and do not consider such  complacency as delusional. They would rather believe in an unproven  chain of history/lineage than face the possibility that someone created  something during a time of chaos and poor record keeping, stretching  facts_




Er, are you saying that I got it right when I suggested that you believed the stories as correct, true histories, and feel horribly bitter and betrayed after hearing an alternative version? Uh, okay... 



rickster said:


> Ditto on ***, ****, *****
> I could post a whole thread on this and disturb another ant pile there.


 
Ha, I doubt you'd cause anywhere near the disturbance you seem to think you would... mate, it's been covered there time and time again, it's very old news to the KMA guys. You're hardly bringing anything new to the table other than the arrogant belief that you are the only one to "see the truth"....



rickster said:


> Nope. I think others try to remain complacent than face opposing data. So much they cherish, that they take offense


 
Firstly, I think you've misjudged your readership here... but second, and more importantly, you don't seem to have understood what I wrote.

You're saying that the stories come from a time of poor record keeping and chaos, but your version of things is accurate... I'm asking where your data shows itself to be more reliable, if it's also from the same time of poor records and chaos... and if it's from later in history, how can you trust it, as it can't be a first-hand source, and is therefore highly likely to be incomplete at best.



rickster said:


> Complacency may not mean lazy. It could also mean a lot of other things. Complacent people may not be lazy, but they tend to get offensive when there is opposing data/views, upon things they cherish.
> 
> Accurate? I gave resources and I had stated, since the beginning;



Yeah... that's not complacency. It's a case of being caught up with ego. Very different.

Oh, and your sources aren't really all that good, frankly. They all agree with you, but that's not the same as them being great sources.



rickster said:


> Yes. You have proven my point. THANK YOU. This IS exactly how martial art history and lineage is....
> "cultural legends, and apocryphal stories"


 
Hmm, you were asking if I read your post... did you read mine? That's not what I was saying, you know. And, as with everything, that would only be true on a case-by-case basis. It does not apply across the board.



rickster said:


> Yeah. Complacent people taking offense to opposing data



No, Rickster. Your attitude. Again, try to see how you're coming across, because you might find your return short lived. You've already prompted one warning here, and that means that this thread is on the Moderators watch now.


----------



## rickster (May 21, 2012)

Whenever there are subjects of controversy, it is expected to see how offensive some are.

And, with this, those to finger point towards others for bringing up the controversy.

Yes. the data is overwhelming on "one side"

But, again I have to reiterate;

Think of these references/resources I had listed as a motion picture or a book. 

Think of me as a film or book critic.

Then, it is up to you, to either accept or reject my reflections.

Or, *more importantly*, it is up to you, to look at the movie or book (those references/resources)

_Like anything, research goes a long way.

It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


----------



## oaktree (May 21, 2012)

Hi Rickster,
You do bring quite alot of material to read and I think you are truly passionate or deeply interested in the subject.
  I wouldn't completely reject the sources you listed and maybe Xiaolin monks are not the same as in the Song dynasty but I'd like to think not everyone or everything
 with Xiaolin is involved in a great conspiracy to rake in profits.

I like to quote words from the Abott: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/09/lunch_with_the_abbot_of_the_shaolin_temple.html


> dozen million renminbi" in annual income comes from tickets sold to the roughly 2 million tourists that visit the site every year. The temple keeps 30 percent of the ticket revenues and hands 70 percent over to the local government.


Xiaolin makes about 2 million usd in which 70% is about $1,400,000 given to government, Xiaolin keep 30% $600,000 annually 50,000 a month 12,500 a week $1,786 a day. So lets say they have 500 people that means each person a day gets 21rmb($3.50) a day. Its not really rich but its not that poor you can get a decent life on it. 

-&#21335;&#26080;&#38463;&#24357;&#38464;&#20315;


----------



## Big Don (May 21, 2012)

Late to the party and to lazy to read the whole thread, but, "Why do bikers wear leather?" 
Because Chiffon wrinkles...


----------



## rickster (May 21, 2012)

oaktree said:


> Hi Rickster,
> You do bring quite alot of material to read and I think you are truly passionate or deeply interested in the subject.
> I wouldn't completely reject the sources you listed and maybe Xiaolin monks are not the same as in the Song dynasty but I'd like to think not everyone or everything
> with Xiaolin is involved in a great conspiracy to rake in profits.
> ...


Well I would not go out on a limb and state the current abbot is on a profit conspiracy;






The current abbot is not a "Authentic Shaolin Monk" because he is more a figure head controlled by the government. (One of the many reasons why the Dalai Lama of Tibet hasn&#8217;t returned-controlled figure head)

Now, before people get more upset, I shall explain further.

Yes, the current abbot shall very well be a Buddhist.

Speaking to other Buddhists from many sects including Chan/Chen/Zen, there is nothing inheritably wrong in receiving donations for a good cause. After all, Buddhists have been known to carry in their possession and item called the patra/patta, or the &#8220;begging bowl&#8221; for centuries

Notice how I said a &#8220;good cause&#8221;.

Shaolin, as well as Chinese martial arts, are under tight control by the PRC. So much under control, that people are forced to use the term Guoshou/Koushou (in some places, &#8220;Wu Shu&#8221. Hence, even current martial artists, per not of Shaolin, are equally controlled (Which is why many masters fled mainland China and ended up in places like Tawain, the Philippines, etc.)

The term I use &#8220;Authentic&#8221; is thus explained;

Because of &#8220;control&#8221; by the PRC, Shaolin can never, once again be along its authentic state.

Shaolin&#8217;s beginning was isolation and beyond government control. Why do you think it was built in a remote mountain region instead of near any city? In its earliest times, the Chinese government had an Asian thing about not treading on religions or religious associations. Welcoming all types of religion could have been a way for high officials to think they can cover all bases going to heaven.

Therefore, Shaolin was not controlled or forced by any other outside influences. It was like a deity all upon its own. This is &#8220;Authentic Shaolin&#8221;. Pure, simple, not to be hindered, nor controlled, by anyone.

And thus, was the demised of &#8220;Authentic Shaolin&#8221;. The Chinese had to destroy it and other temples of &#8220;self-reliance&#8221;. And they did so by getting &#8220;inside help&#8221;. Thus, governments could save face. (I state governments-plural, per era/regimes constantly destroying and others regimes constantly had it rebuilt to a point, it was left in destitution/desolation)

Then bam! With an upsurge in interest, the recent regime nearly ¾ of a century going strong, realized it had marketing/profit potential.

So yes, I do believe the current abbot isn&#8217;t getting a profit-the PRC is.
This is not a good cause, this is exploitation.
("Authentic Shaolin", was never intended to be "exploited in such a way)

Current &#8220;Shaolin Performers&#8221;, er monks do train hard and acquire skill. But this is controlled skill by the PRC, thus can never be considered &#8220;authentic&#8221;

For example, if anyone should make a Katana sword using the latest steel, or any synthetic material, then the sword, is a sword, but never could be a &#8220;Authentic Katana&#8221; (BTW, there exists a rare few craftsmen in Japan which uses the old manufacturing methods, thus these could be considered as &#8220;Authentic&#8221;, but not &#8220;Antiquity&#8221

But, again I have to reiterate;

Think of these references/resources I had listed as a motion picture or a book.

Think of me as a film or book critic.

Then, it is up to you, to either accept or reject my reflections.

Or, *more importantly*, it is up to you, to look at the movie or book (those references/resources)

_Like anything, research goes a long way._

_It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_


----------



## chinto (May 22, 2012)

I would have to agree that with the PRC control of the personnel and grounds that it is not what it is claimed to be, but a money maker for that government. 

as to what is taught, I would say it is suspect for the same reason.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2012)

well, my first sifu told me that when he first went to Shaolin and demonstrated a form that he learned from Sifu Wong Jack Man, and afterwards one of the old monks said privately to him, "I remember when we USED TO do that here..."  All my first sifu saw there was modern wushu.


----------



## rickster (May 22, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> well, my first sifu told me that when he first went to Shaolin and demonstrated a form that he learned from Sifu Wong Jack Man, and afterwards one of the old monks said privately to him, "I remember when we USED TO do that here..."  All my first sifu saw there was modern wushu.


How quaint that those monks ad lied to him.

They might have been impressed or surprised by him, and did not say it.

Thus they wanted him to think they had the same skills.


----------



## clfsean (May 22, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> well, my first sifu told me that when he first went to Shaolin and demonstrated a form that he learned from Sifu Wong Jack Man, and afterwards one of the old monks said privately to him, "I remember when we USED TO do that here..."  All my first sifu saw there was modern wushu.



You oughta talk to Gene Ching over at Kung Fu magazine &amp; forum. He was one of the early on's going to Shaolin. He went not long after Matt Polly got back. He was also one of Wing Lam's senior BSL people at the time. He can provide first hand experiences about living/visiting &amp; learning there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD. Please excuse typos &amp; brevity of posts.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 23, 2012)

rickster said:


> How quaint that those monks ad lied to him.
> 
> They might have been impressed or surprised by him, and did not say it.
> 
> Thus they wanted him to think they had the same skills.



I'm not sure you understood the message of what I just said. 

 The old monk (I think this might have been back in the late 1980s or so) was saying that, back before the government took over Shaolin, they used to practice viable martial arts, and he remembered those days from when he was young.  Now that the government has taken over, nobody at Shaolin practices viable martial arts anymore, they only practice modern wushu.  Which itself was closer to being a viable martial art back in the 1950s thru 1970s, but has become less so over time.


----------



## lklawson (May 23, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure you understood the message of what I just said.
> 
> The old monk (I think this might have been back in the late 1980s or so) was saying that, back before the government took over Shaolin, they used to practice viable martial arts, and he remembered those days from when he was young.  Now that the government has taken over, nobody at Shaolin practices viable martial arts anymore, they only practice modern wushu.  Which itself was closer to being a viable martial art back in the 1950s thru 1970s, but has become less so over time.


Of course, that doesn't mean that the gent was not a Buddhist monk.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane (May 23, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Of course, that doesn't mean that the gent was not a Buddhist monk.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



no, I never suggested he is or is not a buddhist monk.  I only say that I don't take it as a lie that the man told my sifu that he remembers the days when they practiced viable martial arts.  Whether or not he remembers that specific form, I think is kinda beside the point.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 23, 2012)

rickster said:


> _Like anything, research goes a long way.
> 
> It *would be up to the* reader/researcher *to accept (or reject)* the data;_



And like anything when researching things Chinese it is best to do it in the written Chinese language and better yet in the written traditional chinese language...

Do you read either of those?


----------



## WingChunIan (May 25, 2012)

This thread has really given me a good laugh, some folks need to watch less TV and get out more. The shaolin temple today has two very contrasting parts, the tourist centre and the old monastry (adjacent to the burial grounds). The demonstrations are given by what can only be described as children (teenagers at best), however there are still monks there and the monastry part is still a practising monastry. If we leave behind the realms of fantasy and movies and dwell in reality for a second, shaolin is not a religion, it is a name given to a monastry / temple because of its location. The religion observed at the temple as far back as is recorded is buddhism. Therefore any buddhist monk emmanating from the temple is a shaolin monk. The temple itself has been destroyed and rebuilt many times in its history, the monks today like clerics of any religion come in all shapes and sizes with different levels of devotion and yes there is a heavy government influence over the public display area, do the monks all behave like grasshopper - of course not, did they ever? Martial arts practice has been a part of the history of the temple for a long time and the arts practised have evolved and changed over time, what is practised today in public is very much Wu Shu but equally I saw groups practising animal styles. One can of course challenge whether the martial arts on show are authentic shaolin martial arts and I am not in a position to comment, but questioning the authenticity of the monks themselves?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 25, 2012)

yeah yeah yeah....Shaolin is mostly show these days..... it is mostly modern Wushu.... and any fighting they do is sports sanshou....nothing new here.... this is old news.....

Yup Buddhism was the religion at Shaolin but just because you are at Shaolin it does not make you Buddhist.... there are all sorts of people at shaolin for various reasons for various lengths of time..... some are there because the feel it will give them a better chance at getting into the military others are there because they want to eat, some to move to America and bilk as many Americans as the can out of $$$ and there are multiple reasons in between.... Kwai Chan Caine is not there and as a matter of fact likely would have never been there...he was not 100% Chinese.

This is not new, this is not shocking, and this is not breaking news.....we know this.... Wudang is well on its way to being just like it and it looks like Chenjiagou may be next on the PRC hit parade

Do you speak Chinese and if so what dialect?
Do you read Chinese, if so simplified and/or traditional?

EDIT

and if this helps....w&#466; huì shu&#333; yìdi&#462;n p&#468;t&#333;nghuà...... yeah I know, its not Chinese characters


----------



## rickster (May 29, 2012)

Yeah Yeah Yeah...Pose with Mickey and Goofy..afterall when you go to Disney Land, its where all your fantasies come true.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 30, 2012)

Rickster, go back and re-read this thread. You are saying that everyone can make up their own mind, based on the evidence they see and research... but if anyone disagrees with you, or comes to a different understanding, they're living in a fantasy world with Mickey Mouse and Goofy?!?! 

You have your take on things, based on what you choose to believe. Cool. But your information seems as biased as anything else, frankly. So perhaps you could back up a bit, and either follow your own advice, or simply get over it. And yourself. You sound like you could have a lot to offer, but at the moment, no-one really wants to listen to you.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2012)

rickster said:


> Yeah Yeah Yeah...Pose with Mickey and Goofy..afterall when you go to Disney Land, its where all your fantasies come true.



Can you read English? Or is it you just trying to avoid answering the question which will seriously undermine you credibility

You are apparently not reading anything I wrote or just being argumentative to avoid answering the question. And let me say this and then agree with CLF on his assessment of you

You keep yelling research and you keep talking about the fantasy of Shaolin..... I pretty much agreed with you but you then tell me to go to Disneyland to get my picture taken with Mickey and Goofy so I am at this point fairly certain you are at least 85% troll

Now since you are telling everyone to do the research lets discuss research for a minute..... Unless you can read Chinese and speak Chinese virtually any SERIOUS research is not possible. So then you are basing your research on hear say and the belief in what others are translating.

Now I will ask this make the font a bit bigger and make it red so it is hard to miss, in a hope to get an answer to this question that I have asked 2 times already and I know has been asked of you by someone else at least 2 times as well.

If you want to be taken seriously stop acting like a troll and answer the questions

1) Do you speak Chinese?
2) If you speak Chinese what Dialect?
3) Do you read Chinese characters?
4) If so simplified, traditional or both?

But then if in fact you cannot understand English (and I am pretty sure you can) then you will again give an inflammatory answer or is that just because you are avoiding answering the question

Now lets see if you can read Chinese

&#24744;&#35762;&#24503;&#35821;
Now what does that say?

Not that it really matters at this point because I am pretty sure

Ni bu hui shuo putong hua
Now.... 

Any serious research into things Chinese history, especially things Chinese Martial arts, you need to be able to read Chinese or have access to someone you trust that can or have damn good sources in translation and generally more than one.

So if you can&#8217;t read or speak Chinese then the next best thing to ask is 

What or who are your sources?


----------



## chinto (May 31, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure you understood the message of what I just said.
> 
> The old monk (I think this might have been back in the late 1980s or so) was saying that, back before the government took over Shaolin, they used to practice viable martial arts, and he remembered those days from when he was young.  Now that the government has taken over, nobody at Shaolin practices viable martial arts anymore, they only practice modern wushu.  Which itself was closer to being a viable martial art back in the 1950s thru 1970s, but has become less so over time.



considering the efforts to maintain control and the Chinese people in " their place" by the PRC's communist government for many years, as in since their revolution in the late 1940's, I would be very surprised if they allowed the monks to teach "real efficient effective versions of the Shaolin arts to people! They have gone to some pretty long lengths to gain control of what martial arts and how they are taught in the PRC!! they now spend more money then on their military to maintain that control!!! and they spend more then we do on their military!


----------

