Shaolin Boxing before 1780

[wenshu]

Ren was using Contradictio in Adjecto.

fixed

But he did supply a more valid hypothesis on to how he came up with his position. Not that I'm willing to agree with him, but I can agree that the basis for his assumption makes sense to him.

[GeneChing]

I think there's this sanctification of monastics, which stems from a total misunderstanding of what it means to be a monastic. If the argument is that Shaolin Kung Fu was strictly something distinct from the civilian world, that's absurd. At the same time, to invalidate Shaolin because it had significant outside influence is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By that same notion, any academic progress happening in our universities (keeping in mind that the Western university system descends from the European monastic system) is invalid because there's outside influence.

I am pretty sure you mentioned the influence of local martial arts, and/or the absorption of local martial arts into the shaolin curriculum and told me you discussed it in your book

maybe it's the meth talking?

PS: tell us more about Hai Deng... I know a little more, but what I know suggests there is a LOT MORE

Okay, sure, I have always said that there's significant outside influence, but such is my point above. There's no meth to my knowledge. As for Hai Deng, well, there is a lot more than what has been published, but it's not that scandalous really. It's more about Buddhism and his impact therein. I may go back for more someday but that would be some work that I would sell in the mag, not offer for free via posts and PM. Gotta pay the bills to keep the lights on here, doncha know?

Now Game On
(Gene and Lucas - bring me some of that beer and popcorn, yes I know I came late to this party! )

What?! Who are we, your god**** waitresses?

its your world that is weird.

It's karmic retribution, fo sho.

[MightyB]

It is also not de facto proof that any village styles practiced today even remotely resemble what was actually trained in the temple during the Ming dynasty.

If you dig too much, it's hard to find anything predating what we know as TCMA prior to much more than 1900.

Sooo much Tom Foolery and Schenaningans... everything had to be "old" or "ancient" when in reality most is fairly modern with a real inventor who didn't take credit for marketing reasons.

[wenshu]

IMO - and the theme of the paper - it was no secret that martial arts predate Shaolin and Bhodhidharma by thousands of years. As Bawang said, thugs, revolutionaries, criminals took refuge in the temple. Some monks had nefarious backgrounds - they liked martial arts - they exchanged and practiced ideas. The biggest influence Shaolin had was incorporating the spirituality and mysticism into the village and soldier arts that were being exchanged there. They added Zen/Chan and it's they who gave TCMA the quasi Jedi aspects that probably shouldn't be in it at all if you're serious about martial ability... *clarification - the quasi spiritual aspects can distract you from real martial skills for self defense leaving you to focus on IMO the wrong things.

Reading this paragraph is like watching a grade schooler wander into a graduate combinatorics lecture and start scribbling long division on the blackboard.

[lkfmdc]

As for Hai Deng, well, there is a lot more than what has been published, but it's not that scandalous really. It's more about Buddhism and his impact therein. I may go back for more someday but that would be some work that I would sell in the mag, not offer for free via posts and PM. Gotta pay the bills to keep the lights on here, doncha know?

publish it and I'll be the first to buy th magazine....

[lkfmdc]

NOW, the debate remains on whether Shaolin quan is something special or not, i mean, whether it has its profound stylistic base or not. yes it does, Shaolin kung fu, whether practiced in the temple or in any other area, no matter where, has very clear and obvious Shaolin concepts. it has a highly unique shenfa (bodywork/body movements/body mechanics), highly unique Qigong (breathing&conditioning), and obviously unique basics (warmup, endurance exercises, stretching&balance postures and exercises), and obviously unique fighting teachings.

If you believe all this, you need to get out more, seriously

[MightyB]

I think there's this sanctification of monastics, which stems from a total misunderstanding of what it means to be a monastic. If the argument is that Shaolin Kung Fu was strictly something distinct from the civilian world, that's absurd. At the same time, to invalidate Shaolin because it had significant outside influence is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By that same notion, any academic progress happening in our universities (keeping in mind that the Western university system descends from the European monastic system) is invalid because there's outside influence.

Okay, sure, I have always said that there's significant outside influence, but such is my point above. There's no meth to my knowledge. As for Hai Deng, well, there is a lot more than what has been published, but it's not that scandalous really. It's more about Buddhism and his impact therein. I may go back for more someday but that would be some work that I would sell in the mag, not offer for free via posts and PM. Gotta pay the bills to keep the lights on here, doncha know?

The cool thing about Shaolin was that it was a point where all these martial traditions converged... much like the internet and they were able to incorporate the strongest techs and discard the rest.

It might explain why so many MA's look the same.

What?! Who are we, your god**** waitresses?

You are wearing crop tops and short shorts.

[MightyB]

Reading this paragraph is like watching a grade schooler wander into a graduate combinatorics lecture and start scribbling long division on the blackboard.

I hate math.

You do realize you're now dumber for having read it

[lkfmdc]

The cool thing about Shaolin was that it was a point where all these martial traditions converged... much like the internet

why, YES! Shaolin is a LOT like the internet

[wenshu]

I think there's this sanctification of monastics, which stems from a total misunderstanding of what it means to be a monastic. If the argument is that Shaolin Kung Fu was strictly something distinct from the civilian world, that's absurd. At the same time, to invalidate Shaolin because it had significant outside influence is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By that same notion, any academic progress happening in our universities (keeping in mind that the Western university system descends from the European monastic system) is invalid because there's outside influence.

Thats not really how I frame the argument.

Religious influence has nothing to do with it; with what if any level of certainty and to what degree can someone claim that martial arts practiced today even remotely resembles martial arts practiced 500 years ago?

Its not about validity or outside influence, I think village Hong quan is perfectly valid, I think modern Shaolin forms reconstituted from those village forms is perfectly valid.

But there is absolutely nothing presented thus far that lends one iota of historical verisimilitude to the claim any of the above mentioned are representative of martial arts practiced in Shaolin 500 years ago.

All these pages and the only argument anyone has made thus far amounts to "someone told me so", it's like arguing with religious fanatics. As soon as they get pressured to present anything more concrete it's "i'm taking my toys and going home".

[wenshu]

If you dig too much, it's hard to find anything predating what we know as TCMA prior to much more than 1900.

Do you even KungFuMagazine?

[lkfmdc]

with what if any level of certainty and to what degree can someone claim that martial arts practiced today even remotely resembles martial arts practiced 500 years ago?

As I have said many times so far, on the very face of it it is nonsense. Things inevitably change. They change in a decade. How could they NOT change over 500 years?

MORE IMPORTANTLY... who would CARE that it changes? For those village defense forces, local militia, and the less savory elements of society it was about fighting , ie COMBAT... people interested in combat are not interested in "purity" they are interested in getting better (an arms race)

It's a no go from the start

Its not about validity or outside influence, I think village Hong quan is perfectly valid, I think modern Shaolin forms reconstituted from those village forms is perfectly valid.

There might be some argument about "valid". "valid" for what? but essentially, YES, they are all martial arts, they are all TCMA...

All these pages and the only argument anyone has made thus far amounts to "someone told me so", it's like arguing with religious fanatics. As soon as they get pressured to present anything more concrete it's "i'm taking my toys and going home".

I already said this, it's a religion for these guys

[wenshu]

I hate math.

You do realize you're now dumber for having read it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62apspN-6-U

[lkfmdc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62apspN-6-U

this just raises another of the things that drives me nuts

I spent a very long time studying staff fighting in DETAIL... I have also read a lot of the old manuals on staff...

Do people really think this is authentic staff technque?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNfd3fPF6e8

[lkfmdc]

it's not so strange to understand! just like southern and northern kung fu styles are different from each other and have their unique characteristics, Shaolin is neither northern nor southern, it's so different from them both and has its own characteristics! i may describe them one by one if needed!

You remind me of a person I met at one of Jeff Bolt's events. He insisted "art X" was completely unique. I showed him 5 movements and he said "oh, you know my art!" and I said "NO, those five movements are from five different systems but share the so called unique features of your system"

He gave me a funny look