Shaolin Monks

[rickster]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Join the club.

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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 释延明 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]

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, “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

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 theHistory 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 f 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 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–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), 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, “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); 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’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 ork: 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 inian 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 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 &— 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]

"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]

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 释延明 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.

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]

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep this discussion civil.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator

 

[oaktree]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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...

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"....

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.

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.

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.

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.