Hong Quan anyone?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Because the "Three Teachings" was a concept that was associated with the Tang dynasty (618 AD - 907 AD) crediting Qianzai Temple priest Shi Li 十力 (614-741) becomes suspect in my mind. The stone tablet inscriptions provided in Qu’s article I believe are from the the 1700's at the earliest (correct me if I'm wrong). In other words even if collaborated, these 1700 and 1800 document can only be considered legend, not factual history. One would need a variable Tang Dynasty artifact(s) for it to be otherwise. Furthermore it is curious that unlike "Tai Qi" and Chang Sen Fang, which are pervasive, the name "Qianzai Temple priest Shi Li 十力 is rather obscure and not readily associated with other Tai Qi traditions.

Our tradition's legend make no mention of "Chang Sen Fang" aka. Zhang Sanfeng in reference to "13 Postures Gong" but rather, as I said above, to sword methods. These legends say that Zhang Sanfeng learned martial arts from his father Zhang Yiping and his grandfather, who sold medicine, all of whom were experts in the sword.

The Shaolin tradition I practice saying that "high level" sets in Shaolin use 'Wu Xing" (5 shapes) and/or Bagua. In other words in Shaolin 13 gong refers to Wu Xing + Bagua. So you can see that this is not the invention of any one person. This should not surprise since even the layout of Buddhist monasteries and establishments follow the arrangement of the eight trigrams (bagua) in accordance to the pattern of the book of Changes in the tradition of emperor Wen of Chou. You will note that in the Song dynasty octagonal pagodas were on the increase and became the standard type of Buddhist pagoda i the his period, continuing to be build up to the Ming and Qing Dynasties.

Well, Shi Zi is much easier for me to believe (for now at least) as a founder or at least a pervayer of an internal art than all the legendary people, at least he is real, is from a definite place and time, etc. Being right between Shanxi and Henan areas, and the home of ancestral people from Hongdong Shanxi, home of tong bei and hong quan long before Shanxi people were forced to relocate to Henan villages.

Hmm, yes, Wudang based internal martial arts, do indeed share their primary attributes in Sword fighting techniques, especially the Double Swords material. And so do the internal aspects of Shanxi area "tong bei" arise out of the double swords techniques.
So, makes sense that Chang Sen Feng's tradition story has roots in sword as well.
Sword us methodology has traditionally been associated with Taoist people.

The 13 Tong Bei Gong from Qianzi (like Taijiquan) consists of:
The 8 gates (Ba Gua), which are Peng, Lu, Ji, An = Four Primary Hands (Ward Off, Roll Back, Press, and Push) / the 4 straight directions (of Kuan, Li, Zhen, and Dui ).
All together = Grasp the Bird’s Tail. 掤, 履, 挤, 按
and Tsai, Lieh, Chou, Kao = the Four Corner Hands (Pull Down, Split, Elbow, and Shoulder) / the 4 diagonal directions (of Qian, Kun, Gen, and Xun ).
Also, The 5 elements, (aka the 5 shapes, Wu Xing) are Jin, Tui, Gu, Pan, and Ding = stepping forward, backward, to the left – sideway forward, to the right – sideway backwards, and staying in place.
Elements = Water; Fire; Wood, Metal, and Earth.
The first eight are about Shou fa - hand skills; and the last five are about Bu fa - footwork skills.

So too are the Shaolin 13 Gong, correct?

The Luohan 13 Gong are essentially the same concepts as above, for sure, in the execution of its 13 jings.

Still makes me want to research the relationship between Luohan 13 Gong and Shi Li's 13 Tong Bei Gong.

All the Rou Quan material that came out of Luohan 13 Gong (8 Jings + 5 Xings), 6 Harmony Gong (6 Jings), and Chan Yuan Gong (8 jings) are so much like what became known as Chen/Zhao Bao, Yang, Wu (Yang + Zhao Bao), and Woo Taiji Quan styles that it is uncanny!
There is nothing in these Shaolin nei gongs that is not covered in taijiquan and vice versa.
There must be a reason.

[r.(shaolin)]

Hmm, yes, Wudang based internal martial arts, do indeed share their primary attributes in Sword fighting techniques, especially the Double Swords material. And so do the internal aspects of Shanxi area "tong bei" arise out of the double swords techniques.

So, makes sense that Chang Sen Feng's tradition story has roots in sword as well.
Sword us methodology has traditionally been associated with Taoist people.

I would point out that the sword, and sword gestures, are important signifiers within Buddhism and it is therefore not surpising that the sword (劍 jian) is an important weapon within Shaolin, at least in the tradition I practice. Double swords, according to our legends, were brought to Shaolin by Feng Ming 鳳鳴 and subsequently monks called it "鳳鳴雙劍". What has been passed on to our ancestors is that jian 劍 methods came to Shaolin from two sources: Wudang and monk Qiu Yue Chan Shi (秋月禪師). Shaolin Seven Star sword (chin.: Shaolin Qi Xing Jian 少林七星劍) for an example, as evidenced by the name (i.e. seven stars of the big dipper) clearly suggests that this set was absorbed from the outside and as our legends say from Wudang.

The first eight are about Shou fa - hand skills; and the last five are about Bu fa - footwork skills.

The character ‘xing’, as used in Shaolin wu xing (chin.: 少林五形), is not the same as used in “wu xing” (chin.: 五行) which refers to the so called “5 elements” of fire, earth, air (metal) and water. Having said that, because “Wu xing” (chin.: 五行) is a pervasive concept within Chinese thought and Buddhism it is manifest in various elements of Shaolin – not just footwork skills. “Wu xing” (chin.: 五行) is also represensted within “Wu xing” (chin.: 五形) and is even symbolically represented within the opening and closing gestures of all Shaolin sets within the "Shiwuwei Yin" (abhaya mudra) were the five fingers symbolize “Wu xing” (chin.: 五行).

r.

[Royal Dragon]

All the Rou Quan material that came out of Luohan 13 Gong (8 Jings + 5 Xings), 6 Harmony Gong (6 Jings), and Chan Yuan Gong (8 jings) are so much like what became known as Chen/Zhao Bao, Yang, Wu (Yang + Zhao Bao), and Woo Taiji Quan styles that it is uncanny!
There is nothing in these Shaolin nei gongs that is not covered in taijiquan and vice versa.
There must be a reason

Reply]
Sure, they ALL share a common root. Maybe ultimately Tai Tzu shares this root too, and Chen Taiji did not come from Tai Tzu, btut both came from a more primitive forbearer?. Maybe all this related stuff actually came from a much older Taoist tradition?

[r.(shaolin)]

Prior to the Sung dynasty, those styles all were formless, and just collections of loose techniques and their usage.

Hi Royal Dragon,

If I understand what you are saying, at one level this makes sense, that is, on first blush – single techniques and single applications are more 'primitive' or 'elemental ' therefore a earlier development.I believe it is just the opposite, and would suggest that core principles/postures and such as "13 postures" or sets like Tan Toi are a relativity recent developments. More complex choreographed sets pre-date the Song period (although these performances became common among civilians during the Song Dynasty) were based on 'storytelling' (i.e. re-enactments) not core principles.

r.

[Bruce W Sims]

I am probably going to get shouted-down for this, but what I have found is that the sophisticated training material seems to represent an embellished system that over-trains a person to perform the "bread-and-butter" material at a higher level of effectiveness. What I mean is that a form or drill may require a person to strain for years to accomplish some exotic technique. However, its not that the person would actually USE that technique though there might be an outside chance that they might. Rather the idea is that if a person can ultimately accomplish the highly sophisticated material with reasonable effectiveness, then the more fundamental material will come with no thought at all.

Just a thought.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Royal Dragon]

If I understand Shaolin history correctly, Forms were developed in the very beginning of the Sung dynasty.

Prior to that, it was all loose Techniques because function was what mattered in a savage world.

As time rolled on, forms slowly became more popular. By the Ming, they became more wide spread. By the Qing and modern times they became so over loaded that Kung Fu went into a major decline and in may instances is lost and useless today.\

I think back at the inception of Forms, they were a good thing in accordance with thier original intents. Later, they became a bit more useful as a type of a training method, but that is where the use of forms peeked. After that point they became over used and sent Kung Fu into a decline.

[Bruce W Sims]

If I understand Shaolin history correctly, Forms were developed in the very beginning of the Sung dynasty.

Prior to that, it was all loose Techniques because function was what mattered in a savage world.

As time rolled on, forms slowly became more popular. By the Ming, they became more wide spread. By the Qing and modern times they became so over loaded that Kung Fu went into a major decline and in may instances is lost and useless today.\

I think back at the inception of Forms, they were a good thing in accordance with thier original intents. Later, they became a bit more useful as a type of a training method, but that is where the use of forms peeked. After that point they became over used and sent Kung Fu into a decline.

Could be. I would also throw-out another possibility.

Perhaps the individual techniques were found to be relatively easy to remember. However, as systems became larger and more sophisiticated it might be that a page was taken from the folks dances of local communities or culture. In a world where illiteracy was over 90%, being able to pass information from generation to generation in un-written fashion would have been key, yes?

For myself, though, I am still having problems with the transmission across the centuries. We have modern sources telling us that what we are doing has ancient roots. However, I am struck by how little such material is found documented in day-to-day records of the times. For instance, if someone was to survey printed material of the last three hundred years there would be regular mention of Boxing, and Bare-knuckles fighting. I wonder where these references are going back to the 18th century and before. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Sal Canzonieri]

If I understand Shaolin history correctly, Forms were developed in the very beginning of the Sung dynasty.

Prior to that, it was all loose Techniques because function was what mattered in a savage world.

As time rolled on, forms slowly became more popular. By the Ming, they became more wide spread. By the Qing and modern times they became so over loaded that Kung Fu went into a major decline and in may instances is lost and useless today.\

I think back at the inception of Forms, they were a good thing in accordance with thier original intents. Later, they became a bit more useful as a type of a training method, but that is where the use of forms peeked. After that point they became over used and sent Kung Fu into a decline.

I dont' agree that forms (sets, kata, tao lu, etc) became "over used and sent KF into a decline" nor "By the Qing and modern times they became so over loaded that Kung Fu went into a major decline and in may instances is lost and useless today."
That makes no sense, especially during the Qing Dynasty and up into the 70s.

Forms are a memorization device, and each one teaches a different strategy of applying the concepts inside a particular style. Nowhere til the 80s anywhere did KF schools teach forms at the expense of fundamentals.
Forms are the most important part of a system, as long as you know the fundamentals of that system and can do the foundational material, then you can do any forms in that system. What you learned with forms is the strategy of how to apply the ideas. Forms are a way for the founders of the style to speak to you in a lesson from the past. Forms are to be done last, to be used to meditate on what the lessons are from the movements and for their movements to be ingrained in your body so that they flow in and out of you naturally, like you learn to ride a bike or any other skill. Forms help you develop and maintain skills.

Now after 1980s, there are some schools in the Western world and in China that just teach forms.
Mostly because people started not having enough time to spend years on establishing a foundation.

That's not a problem with forms, that's a problem with the teachers.
If KF sucks it's because teachers suck, plain and simple.
You can't blame forms.
That's like blaming guns existing instead of the people who use them to kill others instead of for self defense.

If people don't have proper body mechanics they can't do anything of substance anyways.

And applications are not set in stone. Movements in sets, since all Chinese martial arts movements are both offense and defense simultaneously, can be used in almost all circumstances. There are no exact applications for a movement, there are many many depending on what is happening, so forms movements are about strategy mostly that depend on the fundamentals to make them effective (such as stepping patterns, body positioning, etc)

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

About loose techniques:

Sets became more established during the song and after, but that does not mean that none existed before that.
There were short sets practiced, which were strings of drills, both for weapons like the sword and the spear. Taoists used sets like these way back into 7th century at the least. The Tang military had Red Fist and White Hammer drill sets.

Shaolin created the first long sets for exam purposes.

The military had drills that were used for weapons training that were applied to empty hands if you dropped your weapon. Such as Chin-na applications and takedowns done with the same drill movements for weapons.

Wandering martial artists used their favorite loose techniques that they picked up by sparring with other martial artists.
Some came from military origins and some from village folk origins (from manual labor and farming origins).
Some came from dance origins.

All martial arts from before the 1980s were weapons experts.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Could be. I would also throw-out another possibility.

Perhaps the individual techniques were found to be relatively easy to remember. However, as systems became larger and more sophisiticated it might be that a page was taken from the folks dances of local communities or culture. In a world where illiteracy was over 90%, being able to pass information from generation to generation in un-written fashion would have been key, yes?

For myself, though, I am still having problems with the transmission across the centuries. We have modern sources telling us that what we are doing has ancient roots. However, I am struck by how little such material is found documented in day-to-day records of the times. For instance, if someone was to survey printed material of the last three hundred years there would be regular mention of Boxing, and Bare-knuckles fighting. I wonder where these references are going back to the 18th century and before. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

They came from Quan Bu, manuals that were kept in the family or passed to linage holders of a style. There are quan bu in many styles that have been passed on from person to person that were written way before the 18th century. Many of these are in museums in China because they were taken by the government as national treasures during the 1980s surveys.


Also, from military training manuals. There are people that collect them, there are one from the song dynasty and tang dynasty. One was found hidden underground inside a pig's bladder. One that I read about stated that a Taoist martial art master was brought in to improve the troops efficiency and effectiveness (since Taoists were among the best sword fighters and martial artists).

AND, they came from oral transmissions from one generation to another. You can't discount oral material just because it was not written material. Many of the oral transmissions have data that can be verified historically in local written records (such as gazettes, etc).

[Bruce W Sims]

Thanks, Sal:

Good thoughts to be sure.

Have any authorities surveyed the manuals that you are citing so as to validate their age?

I know that here in the West, if someone were to come up with yet another Guttenberg Bible, there would be a host of tests to verify the authenticity of the work including paper type, ink type, and the nature of the type itself.

For myself, I get concerned when some pivotal work turns up somewhere---like in a Salt Shop ( ) Currently it is astounding how many Ming Era swords are turning up in the markets and on E-BAY with suspiciously uniform patina. Before we start putting too much faith in these manuals shouldn't someone be checking the authenticity? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[r.(shaolin)]

In primitive societies weapon dances were used to simulate, recall, or reenact combat or the moves of combat for both training and ceremonial purposes. This ancient practice is still common in folk ritual in many parts of the world and can be traced back even to ancient Sparta, were weapon dances were used in ritual training for battle. In China of antiquity 11 centuries B.C., it was recorded that King Wu 周武王 (1048 BC) created fighting methods into dance called Xiang Wu 象舞. These dances became the core method of military training. These reenactments were a kind of storytelling. Analytical systemization such as core principles were I believe a later more sophisticated development.

Sword dancing has a very ancient history in China and was directly connected to martial arts. There are even records of a female sword dancer being asked to teach soldiers sword routines 500 B.C. By the Tang Dynasty, sword sets and routines were well established and even described in poetry during this time period.

Story telling is one of the most ancient methods of passing on knowledge from one generation to the next in ancient times. Although primitive and very ancient, this approach has come to be seen some modern trainers as a highly effective approach because it works at a deeper level than just repetition or simplification. Stories make people act; they are a core and compact ways of integrating lots of information. There is a lot of work being done on why mental simulations work. This is why SWAT training involves scenarios. One of the most surprising observations by researches has been that mental simulation can also build skills and in fact mental practice alone produces about two thirds of the benefits of actual physical practice. The story's power, is two fold. It provides simulation (how to act) and emotion (motivation) to act. Basically, the (not so) primitive war dance was very effective training :-)

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That's not a problem with forms, that's a problem with the teachers.
If KF sucks it's because teachers suck, plain and simple.
You can't blame forms

Reply]
I am not saying the forms are at fault, I am saying the over use of them is (which by proxy would make it the teachers fault).

when a large amount of schools spend endless time on forms where you learn *Maybe 3-4* applications of a 54 move set, then on to the next set, learning 10 forms to make black sash in 3 years, that is what I am talking about.

This trend, (From what I can see) started at the advent of commercial schools where more forms=more money. This would place the trend's beginning in the Qing dynasty.

Over all, Kung Fu IS in a decline today, because of the over use of forms, and lack of actual learning of techniques and thier usage in a two man environment. There are a VAST amount of Kung Fu schools that really can't fight well at all. MMA has proven this.

I am not saying there are not still old school lines where the teachings is still good, but that there are so many bad ones now that the forms choreography schools are the norm, and the actual good ones where things are still taught right are the exception.

[Bruce W Sims]

".................Over all, Kung Fu IS in a decline today, because of the over use of forms, and lack of actual learning of techniques and thier usage in a two man environment. There are a VAST amount of Kung Fu schools that really can't fight well at all. MMA has proven this..............."

I tend to agree and I lay the blame at the teacher's doorstep because they do not know how to appropriately integrate forms work with the rest of their material. As a teacher I am finding a number of reasons for this but the biggest one is the student not pulling his weight. What I mean is this.

The students are not practicing the material on their own time.

Conditioning and refreshing "muscle memory" is the responsibility of the student. That is one huge piece of what forms work is about. However, most of my students seem to think they can get everything done in the class. Sorry, it does not work that way. The class is the place where the teacher should be able to spend time focused on the applications and practicality of the art. Instead, what I find is that people are not stretching, working on their strength training, range-of-motion, bags and targets, kicks and so forth. Why is this? Because they think that they can get it all done in class, when every important teacher known has supported the idea that MA is a WAY OF LIFE. As far as I am concerned if a person does not make time each day to work on their material a little bit they would be better off taking up Golf or Soccer. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

.
What you learned with forms is the strategy of how to apply the ideas.

Reply]
Yes and no. That depends on what you mean by "Forms" If you are just talking baout doing the choreography, no. If you are talking about mastering each technique in fighting *outsidfe of the form's standard Choreography", then yes.

When I say forms, I mean strictly the choreography of the set. You can not learn how to use the techniques by perfroming the choreography. If that were true, I'd be unbeatable by now.

The strategy, and how to apply the ideas are learned in the twoman (drills, sparring, competitive fighting etc..) practice of the techniques contained in the form...which one could argue is learning the form, which is why I specify form choreography.

Forms are a way for the founders of the style to speak to you in a lesson from the past. Forms are to be done last, to be used to meditate on what the lessons are from the movements and for their movements to be ingrained in your body so that they flow in and out of you naturally, like you learn to ride a bike or any other skill. Forms help you develop and maintain skills.

Reply]
I agree to an extent. I see them more as ways to record the techniques, refine body mechanics developed by the solo drills, and maintain conditioning. They do contain lessons form the past. I have had moments of clarity where solutions to problems have been found by practicing the choreography, but I have found similar solutions much more often by doing twoman drills and sparring.

Repteady performing the forms choreography over, and over again cannot teach you any fighting skills. Styles today are so over loaded with forms, and form practice that Kung Fu over all (Except for a few rare pockets) is in a major decline.


It is pretty wide spread.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Conditioning and refreshing "muscle memory" is the responsibility of the student. That is one huge piece of what forms work is about. However, most of my students seem to think they can get everything done in the class. Sorry, it does not work that way. The class is the place where the teacher should be able to spend time focused on the applications and practicality of the art. Instead, what I find is that people are not stretching, working on their strength training, range-of-motion, bags and targets, kicks and so forth. Why is this? Because they think that they can get it all done in class, when every important teacher known has supported the idea that MA is a WAY OF LIFE. As far as I am concerned if a person does not make time each day to work on their material a little bit they would be better off taking up Golf or Soccer. FWIW.

Reply]
So, spend the first half of class conditioning, stretching and drilling basics, and the second half working the techniques in partnered pairs and don't teach them the form untill they are getting ready to test for the next level.

Forms were originally like a diploma anyway, use them the way they were originally designed.