Whenever someone gets into a martial art- Especially attaching to one for namesake, glorified influences, fad, or curiosity, their expectations are high.
With these high expectations, the desire for results, or any progress, is so great. But, given that every individual is different, and that some do not develop like others, only time and hard practice will prevail. Unless, the instructor is not qualified or does not have the knowledge.
To get into a martial art for the sake of performing something specific, or special feats because of seeing others do it, or the namesake of it, has some fallacy and illusion.
This is why I have stated that Shaolin gets to the point of namesake. 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.
Now if this is the case with other systems, per stating that they have a lineage to Shaolin, then for that matter, many other Asian arts, if one is to study the ancient civilization of Asian man, would see that some of theirs had come from other sources like India, for example. (Including Shaolin.) And those others, in the surrounding provinces, can state a lineage to Shaolin.
Authentic Shaolin Kung Fu would be kung fu practiced the same way it was in Shaolin, with the same methods, techniques, etc. What I am trying to say is that if there was "Authentic Shaolin Kung Fu" out there, its still not what many people believe it is. I don’t think Shaolin Kung Fu even older days of Shaolin, is actually what so many people think it is. Given that the term, of its development, martial arts way back then were not called Kung Fu.
Authentic Shaolin is like Authentic Christianity. Everyone wants it, need it, uses it, capitalize off it, without truly “following it in authentic form”. (For sure, Christ had over-turned the tables of money in those temples. Where is it written that he wanted to open a temple and collect like those priestans?). Trade marking it (Shaolin) would find the same difficulties such as trade marking Christianity/Jesus Christ.
Many people get the impression that the Shaolin monks are merely Kung Fu practitioners. These same people fail to realize that Shaolin was built for Buddhist priests.
From Logical Deduction and Questions;
How can they devote so much time (or all their time) to MA's?
What is the connection between MA and their religion?
Shouldn’t they be studying, praying or meditating and not fighting?
If Buddhism opposes violence, would it best be thought that monks don’t fight at all its just exercise, they are free from thoughts of violence
Think of something that is just pure joy without inhibitions, doubt or fear. Think of yourself in your most open and relaxed state and you might understand where monks are at when training or begin.
Martial arts were in China and Asia long before Shaolin. Some scholars believe after Shaolin was established, retired generals and criminals sought refuge there, and brought "Kung Fu"
to the monks.
In order to understand Shaolin, one has to understand its very underlying principals, which were not martial art related. I am very skeptic of those claiming instruction and lineage to something so controversial and lack total concrete evidence. There exists no actual documentation or certification from such a temple devoted to the Ch'an study of Buddhism, to state anyone is authentically Shaolin. Does this mean that he does not have skills or the ability to teach? No. I believe he is an instructor whom has skill, but not a Shaolin instructor.
Now, oh wow, with the popularity and commercialism of martial arts, everyone comes out of the "woodwork" claiming to be a descendant from Shaolin. Archives, records and documentations are fabricated. Obvious-yes to one that "believes". The same as Chi/Ki-God, etc. Denial or truth is painful. Ignorance is bliss. I had even had a Korean instructor whom informed me that the Korean martial arts are not as "ancient" as the Koreans appoint them to be. Again, like my discovery of authentic Shaolin no longer existing, my understanding of Korean martial art history was shattered and painful. As I talk to many Buddhists, including monks, my eyes are continued to be "opened". I have overseas letters, correspondence, and met Buddhist monks and practitioners to understand many things about Buddhism, the foundational soul of Shaolin. A nice Buddhist tale is of the Kalama, any Buddhist/Shaolin monk should know of it. Seek this tale and learn its meaning.
___________________________________________________________
I just have a little strange feeling when I see something worded that is beyond the actual representation. (Like Ultimate Fighting-which has a set of rules and is not truly "ultimate".) So, let it be noted, that I do not intend to bash or discredit any school, or anyone, I think that the term and usage gets way out of proportion.
The Shaolin controversy is evident. Any instructor or school, or any for that matter, should strive to hold true to its own merit than to show a link and usage in the name of Shaolin.
Martial arts, per Shaolin and other problems associated are a controversial subject like trying to convince people that Chi/Ki does or does not exist. In essence to religion, that God does or does not exist. They all are a matter of opinion. Opinions are not totally righteous or wrongful. Opinions are actually individualized beliefs. Despite any given evidence, positive or negative, such beliefs that are strong, individuals will not be swayed away from their beliefs-their opinions.
,one is damo yi jin jing（达摩易筋经）。there is another video showing xin yi ba also by DE JIAN.it's so soft and smooth, quite different from other shaolin forms.
