The Shaolin Grandmasters Text

[GeneChing]

Right. That's the one. Anybody got anything more on that? I've never tracked down more on the 'abbot Henglin'. The date is just before the fire. That picture is a bit of a riddle.

[Just a Guy]

Richard,

As one of the non-ordained, I don't really have any juicy details to share. My apologies.

With respect to colored sashes, it is understood that they are simply a useful tool to help students set goals. Students are allowed to simply wear a white sash so long as they are students, if they wish.

I think there is an important difference between traditionalism and a more rigid orthodoxy. I believe that we can respect our traditions without being caged by them.

[richard sloan]

just interested in seeing where the idea of priesthood comes from, what it's traditional roots are, and what the process is or actually means to be "ordained."

if your priesthood is cut loose from the traditions which created it, you may as well start banging Kpalogo and Djembes, in my opinion, with some moon chanting.

plus it would obviously go a long way towards establishing your legitimacy would it not?

[Just a Guy]

There is some information on ordination in The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text, but I'm not going to reprise all of that information here. I can tell you that there is both a martial exam and an oral exam on the tenets of Buddhism, as well as other formal elements. We are not "cut loose" from our historical tradition, which has been continuous.

Establishing legitimacy is a strange thing in itself, and not at all what we are setting out to accomplish. That is something for others to judge, if they feel so inclined. In releasing this book, our primary goal is to share Shaolin Ch'an philosophy, and secondarily to help support our sangha (with the *meager* income associated with publishing a book).

To those who insist on badgering, "But I need to establish your 'lineal' or 'historical' legitimacy before I can accept your philosophy," let me refer you to the story of Tamo, or better yet, the story of Shakyamuni Buddha.

[richard sloan]

Well I am not trying to badger you. This is your thread after all, posted in a Shaolin forum, headed up I might add by a Shaolin disciple, and in which other disciples sometimes peak their heads in, and I think it is a safe assumption you are putting your info out there for discussion. Discussion is not attack.

So just give us some highlights. It will help place your offer and claims and I don't see anything wrong with that. So far it seems that your tradition is a separate one from Henan Shaolin. I don't think that is any big deal really. Half the monks today at Henan don't seem to know their traditions!

Making claims as you do, you should be prepared to speak about them.

You are seeking to share information, but then you seem to complain about being asked to do so.

You might not be setting out to establish legitimacy or historical ties to legitimacy, but people who are interested in hearing what you have to say will be, and they will be looking to see if any variations from the known are logical progressions.

Pointing to Damo or Gotom aren't going to do much more than garner a chuckle, unfortunately, if that is the only basis you can provide to establish yourselves. Any whacko can do the same.

My grandma can make up a "Shaolin Grand Order of Ch'an Kung Fu" if she wanted to, then cite Gotom- that doesn't mean she knows the first thing about any of it. Still a Buddha...

[Just a Guy]

Hi Richard,

I *do* appreciate your concerns - yet the point about the Buddha still stands. Any sadness I feel stems from the recognition that no matter what I say, there will still be people who demand more. It is like someone saying, "I will believe in God, or the Toothfairy, or whomever, if only you can give me incontravertible proof," and then not accepting anything as proof. Every miracle will have a scientific explanation, etc. If you aren't willing to accept *anything* as proof of God's existence, then you aren't really being open-minded. You are begging the question - assuming *your* answer is the correct answer before even asking the question. I am using "you" in a general sense here, and not referring to you, Richard.

If you are saying that we are a separate tradition than the current tradition at Honan, that is true. The priests in our tradition left China 70-100 years ago. They were led by the then-abbot of Honan temple (and the entire Shaolin Order), and included a handful of priests and a larger number of masters. Some people say, "But Shaolin didn't have an abbot then!" What, because the emperor failed to appoint one? Assuming the Shaolin were without leadership because of Imperial politics would be like assuming that the College of Cardinals wouldn't elect a Pope if the secular authorities in Italy didn't endorse the Vatican.

Many high-ranking Shaolin left China between 1900 and 1935, coming to America. In many cities, they helped establish and run the early tongs, before many of those organizations turned towards the criminal. Back then, the tongs were mutual aid societies, helping Chinese adapt to life in North America. Between 1925 and 1945, the priests in our tradition gathered in NYC, where they taught rather discretely until the mid-1970s. They maintained the Shaolin traditions they felt were essential, and as this group included the last two Fukien abbots, and both the last abbot and his assistant from the Song Shan temple, they didn't see the remnants/resurrection of Shaolin in China as being part of the same tradition. As a matter of fact, they felt that Maoism was antithetical to Shaolin Ch'an Buddhism.

Instructions were given to priests in the Order in China in the early 1900s to disperse, and many went to Hong Kong and SE Asia. It is around this time that Shaolin priests are teaching Dragon to Lam Yiu Kwai, T'ai Chi Praying Mantis to Chiu Chuk Kai, and aspects of Northern Dragon to Ha Hon Hung (and so on). Why, between 1895 and 1910, do you think Shaolin priests suddenly began teaching their arts to laymen outside the temple environment? The Order was dispersing, and these priests were concerned that their arts may not survive all the chaos in China at the time - so they tried to buy some insurance by teaching laymen. And fortunately, these styles have survived, evolved, and proliferated - to the benefit of their practitioners.

Looking at the actual martial practices (at Honan today) is informative, but I do not wish to draw comparisons that many will interpret as disparaging. I am not speaking here of martial skill (which is present in all traditions), but rather of the styles practiced, and the relative depth of those practices. For those that are interested in more details in this area, I suggest acquiring a copy of The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text.

I hope talking about these things is helpful and/or interesting. Also, if your grandma has good gung fu and the ability to share it with others, I would be honored to learn from her - even if it all came to her in a dream.

[mickey]

Hello Just a Guy,

While you are here. Have you heard of the Shaolin Master who sopposedly held the number two position in the Shaolin hierarchy in New York City? His name (I only heard so please bear with me) was Chan Tai Sen; ironically, pronounced similarly to the recently past Lama Pai Grandmaster.

Have you heard of him? And do you have any info on him? And, no, this is not a test.

Thank you,

mickey

P.S. Do you still have pre-Tuttle books? I ask because I do not like their products. They SUCK!!!!

[Just a Guy]

Haven't heard of him, no.

I wonder why you do not like Tuttle as a publisher? We sought them out to act as our distributor because we felt that they strove to put high quality products on the market.

Our books are published by the Order of Shaolin Ch'an, not Tuttle - so your reasons for liking/disliking Tuttle should not apply. They are our distributor only, and responsible for getting books to the shelf.

[Sal Canzonieri]

In my opinion this book is a fabrication.

Shaolin was closed down in 1928.
the monks kept a small order going on in the neighboring countryside.

During the 10 years of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 70s, the few remaining monks and nuns were forced to end their vows and marry each other and become layman.
Other the few old monks that were around in 1928 and who are still alive, there were no more new monks ordained.
So, how could there be any monks in NYC?

And Black crane is a new style, that David Chow does (maybe)
it is not an ancient style, though it might be based on some white crane and other stuff.

This book is a thinly veiled book of the erroneous stuff from the previously mentioned psuedo-Shaolin wesbite from Seattle area.

The Fukien temple was LONG gone by a few hundred years by the time range these people are using.

Also, they say the people were ABBOTS, abbots!
The abbots are carefully documented in Shaolin and there is only one at a time til he dies.
How can these people all be abbots from Fukien and Songshan Shoalin when both places were long gone already?

Maybe the writers are just repeating what they were told by others, but what they were told is easy to debunk since all this stuff is well documented in China.

I won't buy the book, it's a fake as far as I am concerned, based on sound research that is easy to find.

I know the Chinese KF grandmasters from NYC chinatown during the 60s and 70s, most are still alive and none of them has heard anything about what this book claims.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

You come off sounding like an authority on the matter, but like you said, it's just your opinion.

I'm curious what your sources are for such factual sounding statements.

-GenKwan

[Seven]

I think we need to here from some people that has read the book, and see what they say. I would go and by it, but it to much for my liking!

7

[Sal Canzonieri]

My sources are twenty years worth of articles and books written in China by their most renowned researchers.
And most of the stuff I said is common knowledge to anyone that has studied martial arts history.

People can get away with making up stuff in this country cause barely anyone here has access to material from China, reads any historical research either in Chinese or english, knows anything more than the most rudimentary legends.

People in China have been documenting and researching martial arts history for the last 500 years.
They teach the stuff in university degrees in China and Taiwan, if you major in history and martial arts.

Much of it is no great mystery.
The average person with a degree with such a background would laugh out loud at the stuff often repeated or told by some schools.
The joke of it all is that this stuff is well documented, I have many Chinese language martial arts encyclopedies from the last 20 years that have discussed this stuff long long ago.

[GenKwan]

Sal,

What I gather from your response is that your sources, which you did not list, are all from the PRC.

Taking you on your word for the moment that these sources exist and contain the information you claim, have you considered that these PRC sources may be incomplete, biased, and/or not factual given the source?

Also, an agrument from concensus (it's common knowledge, the average person...etc.), even if it is acurate it doesn't make for a sound argument (i.e. fallacy of argumentum ad populum).

-GenKwan

[Brad]

The way I've heard it (from a wushu expert with close ties to the Beijing Wushu Team) is that a number of documents relating to Shaolin were forged by the PRC government to give legitimacy to some of the "monks" brought in the repopulate the temple after the cultural revolution. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to ask my teacher about it since he was actually a researcher/historian, university prof. and wushu coach in China.

[Sal Canzonieri]

PRC? I have no contact with PRC members or sources.

It's a bunch of silly drivel, you can believe it all you want, like Santa Claus.
I'll stick to books and documents and research that are legitmate.