The Ten Songshan Shaolin Forms

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Mantis was there, as early as Sung dynasty. There are records of Wang Lang being one of the 18 master's who helped develop Shaolin's first forms.

[r.(shaolin)]

I'd love to sit down with you some time and review all of the various 10 line and 12 line sets of Tan Tui out there. Out of all of the styles I've seen and learned (this includes Kuo Lien Ying's style which I felt was pretty unrelated to all of the more popular sets) I've never seen one to be absolutely nothing like another one. Maybe quite different, but never with completely different moves throughout the whole drill.
Everything's correct except the part about no monks ever having practiced it.

Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路 was not just an invention from the early 1900's, nor is it a generic term, but an older Shaolin Si set. According to our tradition, Shaolin Monks adapted an even older northern 10 section set however added 2 sections to it. Our version of it is similar to what was practiced at Jingwu Tiyu Hui; 精武體育會 but comes from a different Shaolin lineage than theirs. If one carefully compares these two sets to the 10 section Cha Quan version it is clear that the 12 section Shaolin version is based on it.
r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Ok, fine, let's discuss this, without being mean to each other, just a normal conversation:

I think you are mixing together all different styles that have the same names, though, they are from different regions and time periods.

All your information is quite familiar and has been proven incorrect in many articles in China. There have been many people looking at this catagorization of the various long fist styles and their relationship to Shaolin.

What researchers have shown is that the source of this story about Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong and Shaolin was Zi Ren/Luohan master Wan Lai Sheng, and people misunderstood what he said.
He said that they were all long fist styles and he categorized them as being related - BUT HE MEANT BY FUNCTION OF THE MOVEMENTS, not related historically. There is not one place in history that mentions these styles had any contact with each other or that they were taught in Shaolin before 1980s.

Many many people have researched where he got this information, which spread everywhere as fact very fast because of his reputation. It was proven that he created this idea and it was his own invention.
No historical data exists anywhere that shows that Shaolin did teach these sets from the Moslem styles of Cha, Wah, Hong, and Pao.

Everything's correct except the part about no monks ever having practiced it. From the information I have (and this is post 1980's research), when the Shaolin Monastery in Honan Province was burned and destroyed in 1732, the Ch'a Style disappeared. Many historians believed that the style was lost along with many other styles when the Ching soldiers killed the monks and destroyed the monastery. It was not until approximately two hundred years later with the official grand opening of the Ching Wu Physical Association in 1911 that Ch'a style again reappeared. The survival of Ch'a style was then credited to the visiting Chinese Moslems who had practiced martial arts in the Shaolin Monastery before it was destroyed. They had learned two styles, the Ch'a style and the Ten Rows of Tan T'ui Style.

Again, this comes from an embellishment over time on Wan Lai Sheng's statement.
First of all, it is in dispute that the place was burned down and monks were killed in 1732. The place was closed down but that's all. It had been rebuilt during the Yuan Dynasty after long years of neglect when it had been shut down due to the northern invasion.
Professor Mohair can tell you that, he did all the deepest research on Shaolin. This story came about because the stories of the southern Shaolin temple being burned down and then eventually it became that the northern place was burned down too.
And, they didn't practice Cha Quan there during the Ming Dynasty. There is nothing out there showing that Moslems from Shandong come to Shaolin and taught them their Cha Quan.

The Moslems of Shandong, quanzhu, and other reigions have been doing their Cha Quan system, which has their own Pao Quan, Hong Quan, Wah (the actual Chinese character means "slippery") sets. I have every single Cha Quan history book written in Chinese.
They've been doing it since the Tang Dynasty.
They have had many famous (in China) practitioners of it from many time periods.
It's simply not true that no one (in China) had heard about Cha Quan again from 1732 to 1911.
Why would these "visiting Chinese Moslems" have to go to Shaolin to learn their own Cha Quan style, a style which was FORBIDDEN to be taught to non-Moslems until 1911, when they were already famous for practicing it for centuries.

Wang Zi Peng is the most famous Cha Quan master of them all.
His lineage is well known and it traces back to the 1700s. He in fact has two lineages, both Shaolin and Moslem Long Fist. Both lineages are known name by name back to the 1700s.

So..what, I guess this never happened? There are records to corroborate this.
No, I'm not talking about Hua Chuan, I'm talking about Wah Style. The one that Ts'ai Mao made popular when he killed his enemy and gained notoriety during the Tang Dynasty (713-741). Four hundred years later Ts'ai Tai and Ts'ai Kang became the leading exponents of the style. Ts'ai Wan Chi standardized the style during the Jiaqing reign (1522-1566). It later became known as "Wah Style of the Taoists".

But that Wah style is a different style than the Wah meant when Wan Lei Shan wrote "cha, wah, pao, hong, and Shaolin". This Wah is not the same Wah as that which is related to Cha Quan. Cha and Wah (not the one you mean) were both one style originally, Jiazi, and then they were split into Cha and Wah (really it is romanized as HUA) later.

Ya, but that doesn't make any sense, because by the 1800's these styles weren't the most popular styles in Shandong Province. Why would somebody just concoct a style out of five styles that were mostly lost to posterity by the 1800's. It doesn't make any sense. If one were to review these styles as they are practiced today, you can see many of the same techniques in the ten sets. The 1800's was not known for it's Ch'a, Hua, Wah, P'ao, or Hung practitioners so why would these particular styles have been chosen?

I don't know where you get this about what was most popularly known or not during the 1800s. They certainly were NOT lost whatsoever during that time. Wang Zi Peng was getting famous then.

O.K., with P'ao are we talking about the same "Three Emperors Cannon Fist"? Cause the P'ao I'm talking about was learned by Monk Puz Hao from a Taoist Priest at Mount Emei. Monk Puz Hao passed the style to Qiao San Xiu and Kan Feng Chi.

Again, this 3 Emperor's is from Emei, (yes Kan (Gan) Feng Shi (Chi) learned there) is not the same Pao Quan meant when the "pao, cha, wah, hong, and Shaolin" statement was made.
And it is not the same Pao Chuan as that practiced in Shaolin, other than 3 movements, they share nothing in their sets.

And by Hung I mean the style developed by Sun Wu Tzu based on Tsung Tai Jo Style. It was developed in the Yellow River Valley. It was taught to the common people in the valley and later found its way to the Shaolin Monastery. Today, the Hung style I'm referring to is recorded in text and consists of four sets. They are listed in the text, China's Ch'a Fist, by Chang (1985), as Hung Fist numbers 1, 3, 4, and 7. There is evidence that Hung Style expanded to at least ten sets, but sets numbers 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 have been lost to posterity.

Ok, you are mixing together completely different hong quan styles.
The Yellow River hong quan is an ancient military style practiced in the Henan and neighboring area and it is not the same at all whatsoever as the Hong sets from Cha Quan system in that book, I have that book and I have learned both the Cha and the Shaolin hong and they are not the same at all.
The hong sets in that book are just a name for an advanced group of sets of the Moslem style. they don't look any different than any of the famous 10 sets of Cha Quan. And Hong in that book means SLIPPERY, the character stands for SLIPPERY, not "red" or "flowing" as the character Hong for the Yellow River Valley ancient style.
You are mixing together unrelated material.

In my lineage it has always been accepted that these five mother styles contributed to the development of Northern Shaolin. In general, each of these five styles are of the "long" fist type. Elements of each of these five styles can be seen in the ten forms of the Northern Shaolin system, so again, why would obscure styles that had partly been lost to posterity by the 1800's be synthesized into such a large and complete system like Northern Shaolin?

yeah, that's the modern times statement made by Wan Lai Sheng, and many people took it for fact, but it was just meaning long fist functionality, not historically relationship.
Gee, ask anyone who reads Chinese martial art history, everyone knows that this statement goes no further back than Wan Lei Sheng in 1900s modern times.

Here's a question: If Bei Shaolin was never there, were Ying Jow (Eagle Claw), My Jung Law Horn (Lost Track of Buddha's Disciples) and Tang Lang (Praying Mantis) ever practiced there? I know that at least the Eagle Claw and Mantis people would beg to differ if anyone said they weren't.

Eagle CLAW sets of the Fanzi Eagle Claw style was never practiced at Shaolin, we already had a thread about that, people from that style know that. It was developed in Beijing area.
Shaolin did have their own eagle system, it is another yuan dynasty style.
I wrote the whole history of who taught who when already on another thread. People from that style know it, no one refutes it.

My Jung Law Horn is from the Jing Wu association, they combined two old Shaolin styles into one new one. The sets that they do are post 1900s and not done at Shaolin ever, though based on material from ancient Mitsung and Louhan sets that were once done there in the distant past. The Jing Wu people changed them and made new sets.

Tang Lang, well, some say it was done there, but if you ask the people in the Northern Mantis forum here, they will say no. their sets are from Shandong and were developed separately, even if they might have had one or two sets that were BROUGHT to Shaolin from Wang Lang, their founder.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

What researchers have shown is that the source of this story about Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong and Shaolin was Zi Ren/Luohan master Wan Lai Sheng, and people misunderstood what he said.
He said that they were all long fist styles and he categorized them as being related - BUT HE MEANT BY FUNCTION OF THE MOVEMENTS, not related historically. There is not one place in history that mentions these styles had any contact with each other or that they were taught in Shaolin before 1980s.

Where's the proof that that is really what he meant? So, you and all of these researchers are suggesting that Wan Lai Sheng didn't know what he was talking about when there was no reason to disbelieve him at the time and there were no records to dispute his claims. I love how, all of a sudden, there are records to disprove everything all of the older generation masters said. And I'm not talking about the slight handful of old masters that began to be promoted by the PRC or the Shaolin Temple when the government finally decided to bring back CMA (after they'd done so much damage to it). Master Wan Lai Sheng was known to be honest, persistent and kind, especially to his students.

Again, this comes from an embellishment over time on Wan Lai Sheng's statement.
First of all, it is in dispute that the place was burned down and monks were killed in 1732. The place was closed down but that's all. It had been rebuilt during the Yuan Dynasty after long years of neglect when it had been shut down due to the northern invasion.
Professor Mohair can tell you that, he did all the deepest research on Shaolin. This story came about because the stories of the southern Shaolin temple being burned down and then eventually it became that the northern place was burned down too.
And, they didn't practice Cha Quan there during the Ming Dynasty. There is nothing out there showing that Moslems from Shandong come to Shaolin and taught them their Cha Quan.

Even if the place didn't burn down in 1732, the library burned down in 1928. Only as many books as a few monks could carry were saved. Out of all of the hundreds of years of invasions as well as the Japanese invasion and the ensuing holocaust you're going to tell me it's impossible that this information in its written form could have been lost. And how bout the fact that most people were illiterate and that the monks wouldn't have copied down all of their manuals. Who would have read them? And why would they share secret knowledge with just anyone. When the library at Alexandria was burned down, there were no books to replace all of the volumes that were in there. Just because there aren't any doesn't mean that all of the history that they described didn't happen. When we're talking about martial traditions, the oral history from master to student is just as important as any old book. Students of any given lineage aren't just going to "forget" what their teacher told them. It's bothersome to me that all of these old masters are being painted out as not knowing where there own styles came from or as believing false information all their lives just because there isn't an old enough book to show it. As far as Shaolin never having been destroyed, it's still disputed as to whether or not there was even a southern temple to burn down. They "think" they know the site now, but I believe this was just an excuse to set up a tourist attraction.

The Moslems of Shandong, quanzhu, and other regions have been doing their Cha Quan system, which has their own Pao Quan, Hong Quan, Wah (the actual Chinese character means "slippery") sets. I have every single Cha Quan history book written in Chinese.
They've been doing it since the Tang Dynasty.
They have had many famous (in China) practitioners of it from many time periods.
It's simply not true that no one (in China) had heard about Cha Quan again from 1732 to 1911.
Why would these "visiting Chinese Moslems" have to go to Shaolin to learn their own Cha Quan style, a style which was FORBIDDEN to be taught to non-Moslems until 1911, when they were already famous for practicing it for centuries.

Wang Zi Peng is the most famous Cha Quan master of them all.
His lineage is well known and it traces back to the 1700s. He in fact has two lineages, both Shaolin and Moslem Long Fist. Both lineages are known name by name back to the 1700s.

I'm not disputing whether or not it was practiced from 1732 to 1911. It was said to be obscure and uncommon. This is believable since Shandong went through so many invasions that resulted in huge losses of life and property over time. I think it's certainly possible the martial monks may have absorbed this style since they were all about learning the best styles. It's also possible the local Moslems may have lost some of their system and they went to Shaolin Temple because, let's face it, if anyone would have been good about preserving the material, it would have been the monks. As far as I know there were three branches since the 1700's. There was the Chang, the Yang, and the Li branches. Wang Zi Peng represented the Yang branch.

But that Wah style is a different style than the Wah meant when Wan Lei Shan wrote "cha, wah, pao, hong, and Shaolin". This Wah is not the same Wah as that which is related to Cha Quan. Cha and Wah (not the one you mean) were both one style originally, Jiazi, and then they were split into Cha and Wah (really it is romanized as HUA) later.

I know it's not. I'm pretty sure it was a Taoist art. Did Wan Lei Shan actually say it was the Moslem related style? I've never heard that he did.

I don't know where you get this about what was most popularly known or not during the 1800s. They certainly were NOT lost whatsoever during that time. Wang Zi Peng was getting famous then.

Again, this 3 Emperor's is from Emei, (yes Kan (Gan) Feng Shi (Chi) learned there) is not the same Pao Quan meant when the "pao, cha, wah, hong, and Shaolin" statement was made.
And it is not the same Pao Chuan as that practiced in Shaolin, other than 3 movements, they share nothing in their sets.

For the Wah Style: (not the Cha related) the names of the sets have all been lost, only 1-6 exist in text but, out of 48, 12 are said to exist in China.
For the Hua Style: In your book, China's Ch'a Fist, by Chang (1985) only four sets are documented. The rest have been lost.
For the P'ao Style: the names have been lost and the only numbered sets known are 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9.
For the Hung Style: Only the four listed in the above mentioned book survive. These are 1, 3, 4, and 7. Again, these styles were already being lost to posterity when Northern Shaolin, according to some, was being formulated. Why would someone use these obscure, and, at the time, incomplete systems to create such a complete and comprehensive system like Northern Shaolin. The sets as they are presented in the Chang book do appear to be related to BSL. Isn't there a possibility that the versions of these styles that are being done at the current temple aren't historically accurate? And how do you know that Wan Lai Sheng was talking about a different P'ao style, I would like to know?

Ok, you are mixing together completely different hong quan styles.
The Yellow River hong quan is an ancient military style practiced in the Henan and neighboring area and it is not the same at all whatsoever as the Hong sets from Cha Quan system in that book, I have that book and I have learned both the Cha and the Shaolin hong and they are not the same at all.
The hong sets in that book are just a name for an advanced group of sets of the Moslem style. they don't look any different than any of the famous 10 sets of Cha Quan. And Hong in that book means SLIPPERY, the character stands for SLIPPERY, not "red" or "flowing" as the character Hong for the Yellow River Valley ancient style.
You are mixing together unrelated material.

As far as the character goes there shouldn't be any dispute since it was also known as "Red" style. And are you saying that the current Shaolin Hong is related to the ancient military style? Even so, how do the current monks know that their "Shaolin Hong" is the one from antiquity?

Of course, they don't seem to accept any non-government condoned research or explanations. Recently some South American BSL people found one of Kuo Yu Chang's disciples just outside of Bejing. He was about 90 something years old. (He just passed away 2 years ago) and he was saying that he attempted to teach BSL secretly but the PRC kept stopping him from teaching the traditional way. They wanted him to wushuize the style and he refused, so they banned him from teaching. If he was caught teaching the traditional way, he would be arrested. It's this type of thing that prevents us from knowing the truth.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Let's let someone else beside me respond about this stuff.

By the way, I agree that the PRC didn't let people teach the traditional way, but they aren't doing that now, far as I heard. Now westerners demand the traditional way, so they are bowing to money that westerners will bring if they can get traditional teachings. That's why they are giving money to people to film all the many traditional vcds that are coming out. Westerners have a strong demand for them.

Wan Lei Sheng is not being branded a lier, etc. Only that nowhere else can this categorization story be traced to, that it begins and ends with his statement, which people popularly distorted over time. Meaning that it is an idea that he had, and from his time period in origin. Same as people distorted the information about Southern Shaolin 5 elders monks origins that were written in comic book type novels and by the 1800s believed it as truth, when it was only fictional novels.

Who said ALL the monks were illiterate? Most in fact that were involved with the library and the scriptures, etc there were not at all. Do you know how many written items came out of Shaolin over the centuries? Tons.
Martial monks who had military backgrounds shouldn't be confused with Religious monks there. Both practiced DIFFERENT martial arts for self defense, with their own chi gung works.

Fact is that many of the books were hand copied for preservation over the many centuries before the 1920s burning, and these books are found now in museum collections (gathering during the 1980s surveys) in China or as family heirlooms passed on for generations.
Quite a few people have traveled all over China and South East Asia to look at and compare these hand copied old books, for the last 50 years. They have matched with each other very closely.

For the rest of your statements, again you are mixing together unrelated styles that are from different regions and time periods.

You bring up the Cha Quan book, one of many I have, and you don't even know that the character for Hong being used in that book stands for SLIPPERY instead of Flowing (by the way it is only in modern times do people mistakenly label that character as "red" when in fact it means Flowing. Red Hong Quan is only modern times used. Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Can you see for yourself that there is a Pao, Hong, Wah, and Cha quan series of sets in these MOSLEM martial arts books?
I have Wang Zi Peng's books, he explains it the way that I do, these are Moslem sets based on Cha Quan and unrelated to the Shaolin sets of the same name.

Wang Zi Peng also did Shaolin Hong Quan that comes from monks that left Shaolin in the 1700s, you can see their names here: http://www.swyi.com/masters.htm
Scroll down and you will see Wang's lineage teacher by teacher back to the 1700s.

It is unrelated to the Moslem Cha Quan Hong sets that he learned from a different lineage.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Reply]
I thought that was all Sung dynasty Shaolin derived? Like the Seven Star Fist that came from a Tai Tzu influence, and then migrated to Shanxi growing in size as it migrated?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Also, Shanxi Hong Quan is sometimes written as Red character, a style from the 1800s in origin.

Reply]
I thought that was all Sung dynasty Shaolin derived? Like the Seven Star Fist that came from a Tai Tzu influence, and then migrated to Shanxi growing in size as it migrated?

The sets were taught in Emei first (how far back? No one knows exactly), named in Zhau Men in honor of the Sung Dynasty where the moves in the sets came from first, and eventually reached Shanxi during the early 1800s, when an Emei Zhou Men school was opened there. This school did both emei sets and shanxi sets from various styles.

[Royal Dragon]

I see. I thought the set had migrated much sooner than that.

So it's really an Emei set done in Shanxi.

[r.(shaolin)]

whoooyaaa! Where to begin? Here is some background.

Ok. First re: Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong as being the basis of Shaolin issue.

During the last years of the Qing Dynasty in the late 1800s and the early years of the Republic two clear factions developed among martial arts associations – the modernists who basically rejected old Imperial values and what they saw as factional traditions. They proposed reforms by way of standardization. Resisting these changes were the conservatives who hoped to preserve China’s old ways. In the 1930s, there were over 560 independent martial arts organizations operating in China – a huge number and this was counting only the ones that were documented – each vying for attention and survival. The vast majority have since disappeared.

By the mid 1920s the reformers had clearly taken the leadership in presenting CMA to the public and the political leadership of the time. The two main groups to survive were the Jingwu Tiyu Hui; 精武體育會 and the Goumindang Central Academy. Generally the Jingwu did not create new forms but rather used existing sets to compose their core introductory curriculum. Once becoming competent in the basics students then went on to study what were traditional systems of their choice.

The Goumindang Central Academy on the other hand was created to eradicate diversity and factionalism through a national organizational structure. They began grouping different lineages and, to their minds, related arts, into sub-divisions. This entailed combining forms from different lineages and even unrelated styles, under their newly devised sub-divisions. In some cases this was accomplished by designing entirely new martial arts routines in order to create a common progressive curriculum. At first the school was organized into two school Shaolin and Wudong. Cha, Wah, Pao, and Hong were grouped to represent the 'Shaolin Style'. These similar looking systems however came from unrelated lineages each with there own varied basics.

Never the less, inspite of this I do believe that Northern long fist styles, many of which by tradition connect themselves to Zhao Kuangyin 趙匡胤, the first emperor of the Song Dynasty did have important influence on Shaolin's Hong Quan 大洪拳 and 小洪拳 and Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路. Although Cha Quan is not mentioned in our tradition it has clearly influence some on Shaolin sets during imperial times and at least some of these military sets were absorbed and adopted in Shaolin during antiquity.

Before getting to other matters, the so called "family, hand copied books records" mostly have very little academic credibility when it come to authenticating a "Shaolin" source – even if they repeat the same information. Shaolin was a famous brand by that time and many local villagers hitched their proverbial wagons to it. In spite of what many people believe that the Qing was hostile to Shaolin, (mainly because during Yongzheng's reign, 1727, people were not allowed to practice martial arts), the Qing Dynasty was mostly supportive of Shaolin. Emperor Qianlong (乾隆) in fact was very supportive of Shaolin. It is well known that he even stayed at Shaolin and was instrumental in up grading Shaolin and its compound. Emperor Qianlong was a great supporter of culture, education and a advocated of academic research. He ruled for over 60 years and was the longest reigning monarch in Chinese history. Many military officers and other dignitaries stayed and practiced at Shaolin during the Qing and Ming Dynasty. However, our tradition tells that monks as rule did not go around teaching the local population martial arts. Monks of Shaolin generally were careful not to teach the locals because of their special relationship with the imperial government and because of political sensitivities.


r.

[Royal Dragon]

I do believe that Northern long fist styles, many of which by tradition connect themselves to Zhao Kuangyin 趙匡胤,

Reply]
Yes. however there are only 3 known sets at Shaolin with direct documented personal transmission from him...one is still sort of questionable. The questionable one id the first road of the Shaolin Tai Tzu Chang Chaun.

That set was developed from a joint effort of 18 masters *Starting* with Zhao Kuang Yin's material. 3 Roads are documented, but I suspect there are actually 18. It is generally assumed that the first road of the form is from Zhao himself, either left previously, or through one of his closer people that he sent there. It's not actually known for sure, the wording of the Shaolin records is not clear enough to be certain. The other 2 are Lao Hong Quan, and his Monkey set. The records are said to be quite clear about those being direct person to person transmission.

the first emperor of the Song Dynasty did have important influence on Shaolin's Hong Quan 大洪拳 and 小洪拳

Reply]
The Xiao Hong Quan and Da Hong Quan sets were compiled from his notes that he left there. It wasn't direct person to person transmission like the other 3. Also, I am told the Cannon Fist is in part built on the same frame work.

There are a number of other Long Fist styles called Tai Tzu, like the material seen in Shandong, These Tai Tzu Long Fists are only called that in an honorary sense because Zhao Kuang yin not only taught his Long Fist to Shaolin, but also sent his Generals and other top masters there to teach (this pretty much amounted to military Hong Quan and Tong Bei mostly).

None of it is his material exactly. A few of his techniques are seen in those systems, but who knows if they came from him, or the Tong Bei. Zhao's Long Fist is really just Taoist Tong Bei mixed with military Hong Quan common in the pre Sung Era; only it has more refined internals from the teachings of Chen Hsi I, and the Taiji Ruler (IE., More like the Rou Quan sets). Oral traditions say he taught Zhao during his youth. There is some debate on this because there is no direct written documentation, only oral accounts. There is documentation, however, that Chen Hsi I was also summoned to the Imperial Palace to continue teaching, but he declined. The deal was settled over a Chess game.

This means any techniques that "Look" Like they came from Zhao, could have just come from his source arts directly, and not actually him or his personal brand of martial arts.


and Shaolin Tan Tui Shi Er Lu 譚腿十二路. Although Cha Quan is not mentioned in our tradition it has clearly influence some of Shaolin sets and at least some of these military sets were absorbed and adopted.

Reply]
Maybe, but I think you are seeing the results of Shaolin Hong Quan mixing with Shandong Moslem styles AFTER the Monks left Shaolin and migrated to Shandong in the 1700's A lot of Cha Fist shows up in those lines.

[Royal Dragon]

However, our tradition tells that monks as rule did not go around teaching the local population martial arts. Monks of Shaolin generally were careful not to teach the locals because of their special relationship with the imperial government and political sensitivities.

Reply]
As I understand it, the Monks would open up and teach during times the temple had been shut down or destroyed, so all thier core important defining material got spread to the lay families and villagers around Henan. This is why we still have them today.

[Sal Canzonieri]

wasn't the Shaolin division at the Central Academy (and elsewhere) made from a combination of Moslem and Shaolin long fists, MOSTLY because Wang Zi Ping was from both lineages and was the most popularly known?
I think so from what i have read and heard from his daughter (when she was alive).

[r.(shaolin)]

wasn't the Shaolin division at the Central Academy (and elsewhere) made from a combination of Moslem and Shaolin long fists, MOSTLY because Wang Zi Ping was from both lineages and was the most popularly known?

Early in the Academy's history, for a short time when it was two separate schools - Wudang and Shaolin, Wang Ziping was the executive director of Shaolin and that may be the case at first. The teaching director of the Shaolin section at that point was actually Ma Yufu. In 1928 even the two schools idea was eliminated and new staff came in.

By the way have you seen Wang Ziping's Shaolin Hong Quan?

r.