The Ten Songshan Shaolin Forms

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Royal Dragon
If I understand my history right, the current core ten sets seen at Song Shan Shaolin today represents the really old Song dynasty era Shaolin (although that material has it's roots in the preceding dynasties).

Shaolin ten hand sets (Ky Yu Cheong) on the other had is representing the Ming dynasty era Shaolin material.

Both are the MAJOR variations of Shaolin themple Kung Fu. Those along with the really Old Louhan (which is Tang dynasty all the way back to Shaolin's beginning) are the 3 most over all styles that show Shaolin's most well known and identifying flavors during melenias of its existence.

It is my belief and the belief of my sifu and si hing's that Northern Shaolin had been developed from the Song dynasty through the Ming dynasty, as well as during the Qing dynasty all the way up until the temple was destroyed in the 1700's. It was partly for this reason that my sifu felt that it represents the very best of Shaolin. A library of effective and deadly techniques that were actually battle tested throughout Shaolin's tumultuous history. Now, I'm not saying that some variation of the current Song Shaolin sets weren't practiced there as well. But as far as the traditional history of Bei Shaolin goes, it was originally developed sometime during the Song dynasty (perhaps during the 1100's).

As far as Shaolin Lohan goes, I tend to believe that the Northern Shaolin Lohan style that was taught by an original Shaolin monk known as Yuan Tung T'an (who taught Shun Yu Fung) comes closest to the original style. I say this because it really is quite an effective fighting style (not just some performance art). One teacher of mine thinks it's just as real and practical a fighting method as Hsing Yi. Of course with Lohan kung fu I really don't feel anyone can really lay claims to any high level of authenticity. It was created over a thousand years ago and it was usually kept secret.

originally posted by LFJ
as i've learned it, bak siu lam was created in southern china based on what the founder had learned in the temple up in the north. and so to pay tribute to shaolin he named the style "northern shaolin" in cantonese, bak siu lam.

although, it is by all means a style created in the south which has never been taught or practiced as a curriculum in the shaolin temple.

so, i fail to see how such a style can represent the martial arts in the shaolin temple- having never been there.

Ugg...once again, Kuo Yu Chang learned the ten sets from master Yim Chi Wen in Shantung province in the northeast. Yim Chi Wen was a friend of Kuo's dad and it was Kuo's dad who originally told his son to seek out this old master so that he could learn what was, at the time, termed as the art of Northern Shaolin. There seems to be a schism these days between whether or not Master Kuo "made up" these ten sets. As they are long sets (especially #1, 2, 3, 9, and 10) that seem to have a structure to them that seemingly could only have been developed after generations, I do not think Kuo really tampered with them at all. He may have added a move or two. Who knows since there were no video cameras back then and I don't think there has never been any specific mention of him doing this one way or the other. But he would never have disrespected his master as much as to completely change the ten sets as he learned them.

So you see...there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the ten sets or something very close to them were being taught at Shaolin Temple during antiquity. I think we should just leave it at that since the current temple cannot be trusted when they say they have the original, most authentic Shaolin style that ever existed. Bei Shaolin was considered to be THE original Song Shaolin style before the temple was burned down in 1925 and before the tragic and thoroughly devastating Cultural Revolution. How is somebody going to tell me that all of these more recently "uncovered" records survived all of this. And even if a few books did survive, they're not going to describe the whole history of Shaolin martial arts nor all of the authentic styles that were practiced there. I'm sorry, and I know this is going to sound controversial to some, but the way I see it, the Shaolin Temple is, lock stock and barrel, connected to and a part of the PRC. And since the PRC is a, more or less, out of control, corrupt regime that tortures and beats women and children and was founded by a man who condoned torturing, killing, and enslaving his own people, neither it, as a governing entity, nor it's closely affiliated Shaolin Temple can be trusted. Period

[Sal Canzonieri]

Most of these ten core Shaolin sets are from the Qing Dynasty actually.

Only the Xiao Hong Quan (late Yuan, early Ming) set and Tai Tzu Set (Sung) are older.
The Pao Chui set has material from Sung era, but is mixed with other stuff and was completed during the Qing dynasty.

All the other 7 sets are Qing dynasty finalized sets.


---------------------------------

During the later Yuan Dynasty, Shaolin was completely shut down, there was no one there anymore.
All the people spread into the countryside. By the early Ming there was attempts to reopen the place and people had to go to nearby Luoyang to rediscover the lost Shaolin material. This was the stuff that became the "Five Animals" material of Jue Yuan, Bai Yu feng, Li Su, etc.

Before that time, between the Southern Sung and the later Yuan, Shaolin redeveloped their sets into the Vajra sets, which were 12 sets that most closed looks like the Bei Shaolin sets.
So, yes, the Bei Shaolin sets are based on very old and real Shaolin material.

But the point is that there are more than one group of Shaolin sets, depending on what time period these sets left the temple area.

The only "ancient" sets, as in Song dynasty material, that comes from Shaolin that is still practiced generation by generation in local Henan provinces lineages is the Rou Quan and various Nei Gungs that associated with it.

There are many Luohan lineages all over China that trace back to Shaolin sets, but they developed from material that left Shaolin during different time periods.
It was all called "luohan" if it came from the temple, even if it is not exactly "Luohan" sets, but just Shaolin sets of various origins.

[Qixing Tanglang]

Weird to hear people talk about a traditional Shaolin system and then only make reference to a bunch of sets. Something is missing.

N

[Sal Canzonieri]

Weird to hear people talk about a traditional Shaolin system and then only make reference to a bunch of sets. Something is missing.

N

Well, there are a million other aspects of a system, sets are a small part of them.
If the foundation is not there, from basic body mechanics to breathing methods and energy generation, then the sets are useless dancing routines.

But, the topic here was about just these sets, not about Shaolin based systems, hence . . .

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Shaolin systems are identified, and organized around thier forms. So when discussing a perticular system it is only logical to discuss the forms that comprise them, compared to the forms that comprise other systems. Especially when we are talking about closely related systems.

It's like discussing cars based on thier name plates. For example, if I am talking about a Corvette, you know I am not discussing a Camaro. Yes, there are similarities, but also differences.

In Kung Fu, Shaolin might represent all GM products, but which ones? Well, the forms, or groups of forms tell us which system we are discussing (Corvette form, or Camaro form).

This is especially helpful when we have two systems with the same names, like Hong Quan?

[LFJ]

it was Kuo's dad who originally told his son to seek out this old master so that he could learn what was, at the time, termed as the art of Northern Shaolin.

northern shaolin as in the bak siulam system, or of the art of shaolin temple?

Bei Shaolin was considered to be THE original Song Shaolin style before the temple was burned down in 1925 and before the tragic and thoroughly devastating Cultural Revolution.

considered by whom? thats an interesting thing to say. because all the elder generation monks of shaolin who's masters predated these periods teach the styles we have currently in songshan shaolin.

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about. odd that no bak siulam was known and past on by them. only what we currently have in songshan shaolin.

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

thats not to say that bak siulam is not traditional shaolin wushu though. it just developed and spread outside the temple.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

Reply]
Didn't Sal just say it comes from the Yuan dynasty era Shaolin? Xiao Hong is Sung dynasty.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by LFJ
considered by whom? thats an interesting thing to say. because all the elder generation monks of shaolin who's masters predated these periods teach the styles we have currently in songshan shaolin.

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about. odd that no bak siulam was known and past on by them. only what we currently have in songshan shaolin.

if bak siulam were ever at shaolin temple it would have to be earlier than that, and must not have been THE style of the temple. many things pass through and dont stay.

thats not to say that bak siulam is not traditional shaolin wushu though. it just developed and spread outside the temple.

Considered by the general populace. Other styles like, say, Five Animals were considered to be authentic Shaolin styles but there was only one style called "Northern Shaolin" and it encompassed most of the diverse styles that came through there before the 1700's. Now, it probably wasn't studied there after this time because the temple had supposedly been completely destroyed and any monks who escaped death would have avoided the area. It's true that, throughout the 1800's and the early 20th century there were other styles being practiced there after other monks tried picking up the pieces, but that doesn't prove that Northern Shaolin was never there. Northern Shaolin style was supposedly kept secret through much of it's history so people in the countryside wouldn't have learned it until Gan Fengchi and a few other surviving monks escaped the Qing's wrath. Also, I'm just curious, if Shi Deyang and Shi Decheng's lines predate the periods that I'm talking about, then you're saying that their masters escaped the 1925 destruction and the The Cultural Revolution, correct? And...their masters masters escaped the 1732 destruction as well as all of the other destructions before that, right?

Now, for the sake of reaching some common ground, I can admit that the current Song Shan forms share some similiarities with the Bei Shaolin forms. But the Bei Shaolin forms just seem more explosive to me. They seem more worthy of what the legends say about the famed Shaolin monks of old.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Let's be civil and cooperate and work together to discuss this, instead of what style is superior and more ancient and more authentic and so on, please. I believe that the Bei Shaolin sets are connected to Shaolin at some point in time.

In the spirit of trying to help you out with the possible historical connections between Shaolin and Bei Shaolin:

There's not one piece of historical evidence that the Bei Shaolin sets as practiced today were ever done on Shaolin grounds, other than the similar looking Kan Jia sets of Shaolin Vjara system of Yuan Dynasty (even sharing the same names for the sets).

All of the lineages of monks who left Shaolin during the 1700s and went to Shandong and Shanghai and elsewhere are all either HONG QUAN based or Luohan based.
None of them are even Five Animals based, none.
None of these lineages that can trace person by person all the way back to 1700s Shaolin (such as Wang Zi Peng's Shaolin lineage and Fan Chi Sao's lineage, both in Shandong province) show what they do is anything other than Hong Quan.
The other areas of China that can trace back show Luohan Quan.
None of these independent styles that go back to Shaolin 1700s do anything remotely like Bei Shaolin.

But, in rural areas of Henan province there are very old lineages that do Vajra Shaolin, often called Yuan era Secret Shaolin, and it is similar to Bei Shaolin sets, and again these are Kan Jia sets.

The only other 'secret system" from 1700s Shaolin that still exist and can be documented lineage -wise is the Fu Shou (Monk Hand) system and it looks nothing like any other style around.

The Bei Shaolin sets are closest in mechanics, names for movements, and set names as the Kan Jia sets, which are practiced by people at Shaolin who were students of Su Xi and so on. Whenever you see Vajra Shaolin sets, they are closer looking to Bei Shaolin than any other Shaolin derived style that arose out of the 1700s (lineage-wise).

So, wouldn't you want to investigate the Kan Jia system if it has so many similarities (of course Bei Shaolin evolved over time and absorbed other style's techniques and movements so it is not exactly the same today as Kan Jia - common sense)?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Gan Fengshi left behind evidence of what he actually taught and where he was at certain points in his short life (since he was executed by Qing for being a rebel).

Gen wrote a book, which can still be found, about his personal style, and that was Hua Quan, not the Hua Quan from Hua Mountain area, but meaning Flowery Boxing.
It was based on combining Shaolin long fist with Emei soft fist. This style is still practiced today in the areas he lived and they only do 4 sets. None of them are remotely like Bei Shaolin in anyway. What they do looks mixed with tai chi.

Also, while in Emei, he learned 3 Emperor Pao Chui, there is documentation from lineages there that he learned it and taught it while he was in Emei, which was most of his year after he left Shaolin.

The rebel group he belonged to, it is known that they practiced Plum Flower Boxing, a type of village long fist that is basically Shaolin derived.

The legends about him teaching Shaolin material that Bei Shaolin arose from so far have not been able to be verified because it doesn't match the documentation showing "when he was where".

Now, there was a rebel general, against the Qing, who traveled from the south to the norther east of China and he spread Fanzi and some Shaolin sets to select people. He used a fake name when he was traveling, one of which was GAN FENGSHI - so maybe, maybe, he is the actual person and not the real Gan Feng Shi.

[LFJ]

Didn't Sal just say it comes from the Yuan dynasty era Shaolin? Xiao Hong is Sung dynasty.

i said if baksiulam were ever at the shaolin temple it would have had to have been earlier than the times which before, as "siu lum fighter" claimed, baksiulam was considered THE style of songshan shaolin . based on the fact that none of the monks who's masters predated those times did it. but, anyway i have no reason to believe that it has ever been practiced or taught in the temple at any time. i'm just saying... if it were ever there.

Considered by the general populace.

interesting claim to make....

anyway, it differs with the ideas of monks in shaolin temple.

I'm just curious, if Shi Deyang and Shi Decheng's lines predate the periods that I'm talking about, then you're saying that their masters escaped the 1925 destruction and the The Cultural Revolution, correct? And...their masters masters escaped the 1732 destruction as well as all of the other destructions before that, right?

i was only talking about as far as the cultural revolution and the shi yousan attack, which were the times you mention that before when baksiulam was considered THE style of songshan. because shi suxi and shi suyun (deyang and decheng's masters) predate the cultural revolution and their masters predate the 1928 destruction. and none of them knew baksiulam.

But the Bei Shaolin forms just seem more explosive to me. They seem more worthy of what the legends say about the famed Shaolin monks of old.

explosiveness depends on the practitioner. there are some explosive practitioners of songshan and some rather flowery baksiulam practitioners. and vice versa.

but ideas of worthiness dont change history and put a style in the temple. some thai boxing could be considered worthy. but it was never there either.

the common ground i was making with you is that just because a style was never practiced or taught in the shaolin temple doesnt mean that its not authentic shaolin material. because people spread styles, and styles evolve.

baksiulam in all logic developed and spread outside of the shaolin temple based on the shaolin systems. its authentic shaolin wushu. having never been in the temple does not discredit that fact.

[r.(shaolin)]

northern shaolin as in the bak siulam system, or of the art of shaolin temple?

shi suxi, shi suyun for example. neither of them did bak siulam forms. shi suyun was known for his xiaohongquan. look at shi deyang and shi decheng for what they inherited from these elder generations who's lines predate the periods that you are talking about.

Both shi suxi and shi suyun learned mostly from various lay masters after the destruction of Shaolin in 1928.

r.

[LFJ]

my point is both shi deyang and shi decheng learned from masters who predate the cultural revolution- shi suxi and shi suyun. their master was shi zhenxu who predates the 1928 attack, and who's master shi henglin takes us back to the 1800s. having various lay masters makes no difference. they all predate those eras and none of them did baksiulam style.

[richard sloan]

and many lay masters can claim monastic transmission in their lines...I think the point to recognize here is that there is certainly a corpus of material in Shaolin and surrounding areas that provides unbroken lines...confused perhaps by modern influxes.

even today it is not uncommon for some monks to seek out these lay masters to pick up material...

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Shi Zhenxu's material may predate the 1928 attack, but, like I said, Bak Siu Lum wasn't there after 1732. This is because the Qing army destroyed and ruined the place and they were trying to chase down the monks and rebels who were in the region. The destruction and loss of the temple's records was probably quite extensive.

There a couple of versions of how Northern Shaolin spread once it left the temple. The one that has always seemed more likely, and, therefore, the one that most people believe, goes like this: In 1674, 128 monks went to the aid of the Ching Emperor against foreign invaders. Although they were victorious, when the Emperor asked if they'd join the Ching army, the monks declined. This enraged the Emperor and he had the temple destroyed. Most of the surviving monks fled to countryside and practiced in hiding or led rebel groups to help over throw the Ching government. In the late 1600's– early 1700’s Northern Shaolin had become a set style. Bak Sil Lum or Northern Shaolin was one of the 4 systems taught at the original Hunan Temple. There were 4 so called courts. Each court taught a different style. The 4 different courts were: Bak Sil Lum (Northern Shaolin), Ying Jow (Eagle Claw), My Jung Law Horn (Lost Track of Buddha's Disciples) and Tang Lang (Praying Mantis). There are records (and, yes, I'm sure you haven't seen them) that show the style being passed on to Gan Feng Chi from Shaolin monk Chi Yuan. Records show that Gan Feng Chi gave a demonstration of his Northern Shaolin style to the Emperor at the Imperial court. The Northern Shaolin lineage then continued from Gan Feng Chi.

This story was why there was always so much of a buzz surrounding the Gan Feng Chi story. In my school, this was the story that was accepted back in the 1950's, when my teacher began his studies. Regardless of what details are correct, in China the public history of Bei Shaolin was that Monk Chih Yuan brought Northern Shaolin style out of the temple after the 1732 destruction; that's what most people accepted. I'm of the mind that the Kan Jia sets are perhaps earlier material that made it out of the temple when it was destroyed one of the times before 1732. But it's not the complete system that came out of the temple. The style is very eclectic and covers all of the traditional Chinese weapons. From what I've been taught (and from a little of what I've seen) the five mother styles (Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung) are all represented in there. I know at least the Wah style was standardized much later than the Yuan dynasty (during the Jiaqing reign 1522-1566) so I find it unlikely that the ten sets, as we know them, were completed earlier. Hua style (Flower Style) is obviously in there and was, of course, made famous by Gan Feng Chi when he taught it in Kiangsu and Chekiang provinces from 1662 to 1735. This is another reason why it's likely Northern Shaolin was passed on from him.

This was part of the traditional history of the style before the Cultural Revolution, before the temple was destroyed in 1928, and before all of the more recent research that only started taking place in the 1980's. So to say that it was a style that "was never there" seems a little presumptuous. Just because Shi Henglin and others taught in the 1800's at Shaolin Temple doesn't mean his was the oldest or most representative of the styles that came out of Shaolin.