Jump to content

Talk:Shaolin kung fu/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Styles taught in Shaolin

Hi,

There are currently NO styles taught in Shaolin! There are currently no know Fighting Monks in Shaolin

There is a school outside of Shaolin Temple in the Shaolin village that teaches various styles of Wushu.

Shaolin Temple is now only a Tourist attraction; and although there are some persons living there, there are no true Shaolin Monks there.

Finally, the martial artists churned by the Official Goverment School in Shaolin Village are resonable operators, they usually only train for 2 to 4 years and then achieve 'mastership'. If they are good performers they may be offered movie parts or even be part of the Shaolin Monks tour. If they are good fighters and strong they may be offered to become Body Guards. Although both these are honerable professions and callings to follow, they do not have anything to do with Shaolin or Buddhism.

The above information is factual and from 1st hand experience. It does not take anything away from Shaolin History, Shaolin Spirit or Shaolin Kung Fu; it just seeks to seperate the Marketing of Shaolin Now from the Reality (idiality) of Shaolin Budhist Monks of history (before Shaolin and Kung Fu were forbidden in China)

Marial arts category for Wikipedians

A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians interested in martial arts|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Shawnc 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Shaolin Kung Fu versus Shaolin Wushu

Note, by the Google Test, that the term "Shaolin Kung Fu" in Chinese is actually more widely used than "Shaolin Wushu":

In Simplified Chinese: "少林武術" (Shaolin Wushu) [1]: 256 hits "少林功夫" (Shaolin Kung Fu) [2]: 64,100 hits (250:1)

In Traditional Chinese: "少林武術" (Shaolin Wushu) [3]: 5,650 hits "少林功夫" (Shaolin Kung Fu) [4]: 17,800 hits (3:1)

Also, in English: "Shaolin Wu Shu" OR "Shaolin Wushu" [5]:43,100 hits "Shaolin Kung Fu" OR "Shaolin Kungfu" [6]: 485,000 hits. (11:1)

Shawnc 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Current Temple and Order Origins Suspect

According to the work "The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text" the current order of monks at Shaolin temple, and the martial arts they practice, were in fact creations of the People's Republic of China. The book makes the claim that the last monks of Shaolin had left the country by 1931 following the destruction of their temples during the Civil War (notably, and historically, the Omei Shan temple was used for artillery practice by Mao and Chiang). While this cannot be proven there are certain inconsistencies with the practice of those monks calling themselves Shaolin and the historic practice, i.e. the emphasis on performance, which, in previous times, would have been anathema. The fact that order is restricted to men, and vegetarian, are also both modern inventions at the least -- the older order in fact was female and male, had female abbotts, and had no prohibitions against the eating of meat.

I cannot say for certain that the current order is in fact fake, but there seems to be enough reasonable doubt to include the caveat in the article. There is in fact an organization in the United States known as the Order of Shaolin Ch'an, the publisher of the aforementioned text, that claims to be the true representatives of Shaolin. They do make a compelling argument and from the limited conversations I, as a former practitioner of modern Shaolin martial arts, have found them to have a fuller conception of what Shaolin Ch'an is; not merely a martial art, but a method of standing meditation for achieving enlightenment. In the light they cast the activities of the modern temple come off as a bit absurd -- staging spectacles and endorsing television shows, for instance. unsigned comment byUser:Kronister, December 7, 2005

Its no secret that the current resurection of the Shaolin temple at Shong Shan was heavily influenced by the PRC govt. Although not influence by monetary reasons (the monks tell me they dont get financial support), the martial art influence from modern wushu is there. Of course the beginning of modern wushu were heavily influenced by the traditional forms. Post-Mao PRC government likes the image of the temple as its sign of its lightening up on religious freedom to gain more acceptance in the world. Plus its great for tourism. This explains in some part all the demonstrations of the current monks.
Having been trained in the current curriculum at Shong Shan, its pretty obvious the martial art influence. The monks I know are trained in both traditional, modern Wushu, Sanda or Sanshou, and even taichi, bagua, and xingyi. Alot of the training practices were lost so the current curriculum was created by piecing together what they knew that survived the culture revolution and the modern forms. I have also trained in "traditional" northern shaolin, and i do notice differences & similarities. The absence of Tan Tui form in the current curriculum was the most noticeable. One similarity is the Wu Bu Quan form. Some of the traditional forms of the current curriculum do match up with the traditional forms taught outside of china from pre-revolution lineages. I also know of traditional martial art masters that have incorporated the modern wushu in their curriculum now. The current monks also specialize in certain areas , the fighting monks that is, such as traditional, sanda, wushu, or qigong.
So i guess in summary, the current training at the temple is not the traditional training in terms of curriculum or even type of training. However, the monks ive seen from the current temple still have ridiculous amounts of skill. It still blows me away to see them demonstrate. So while the forms may not be the same, i think they still live up to the shaolin kungfu reputation. In the end, the kung fu isnt the forms or styles or the exact way you train. Its the dedication to practice and developement of skill. sorry for being a lil preachy --Blckavnger 18:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Just the idea that you supposedly don't have to be a man or vegetarian to be a shaolin monk sounds like modern day recruitment tactics for modern day western people. I'm not saying it's not true, but we see this all the time nowadays. "My name is John Wing, I'm the true descendant of the last shaolin monk! Oh no you don't have to be buddhist to be a shaolin monk, you can be christian! Here's a membership discount!";) 74.13.204.192 03:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Phil

This topic is more relevant to religion in China today. While you may practice certain religions in China today (unlike the hardcore days of Mao) it is very limited. For example, Catholicism is a recognized religion in PRC (peoples republic of China) however you cannot acknowledge the Pope or the Holy See as the leading bishop in

the Roman Catholic Church. You must acknowledge the bishop of the Chinese Catholicism (i dont remember the official name off the top of my head) as the leader of the whole "church". A similar thing happens in all religions in China including Buddhism. It is more politics than religion, image if you prefer.

however, there were nuns in budhhism, supposdely. in fact some of the more famous martial arts in China were legendary developed by Buddhist nuns (i.e. Wing Chun). I'm not sure about Shaolin specifically, but in general

theres nothing like sex segregation in Budhhism fundamentally. If im wrong just let me know. I dont have a source, just alot of Buddhist friends, particularly Zen (Chan).

i believe you interprated Kronister wrong. "The fact that order is restricted to men, and vegetarian, are also both modern inventions at the least -- the older order in fact was female and male, had female abbotts, and had no prohibitions against the eating of meat." Other words, the current order has placed restriction for appearance and not tradition.--Blckavnger 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
One of my own personal Shaolin masters (and others have said similar things in various books) states that the older monks pre-cultural-revolution often continued to live nearby after the Shaolin Monastery was burned to the ground by the red guards, and that these individuals, denying their identities if suspected, or simply taking on new ones, would take aside promising new students at the behest of some of the elders during the new CCP-approved Shaolin Monestary as of the 1980's reopening, or would simply approach them, since the monks are often visible practicing outside, and these ex-monks often live on the outskirts of the temple's land. This phenomenon is said to continue today to the extent that these individuals still survive. It is also likely that the more enlightened CCP today may not be interested in eradicating these ex-monks and their legacy of secret lost techniques, since they must know of their existence (to be at Shalin is to be at the heart of CCP tourism efforts) and since that would be messing with an unintentional ingredient in the current recipe for tourism success currently enjoyed by the temple, as this lends the current Shaolin Temple much more authenticity with such a feature than without it. I myself have seen how these techniques are often left out of the schooling of many prominent monks coming out of Song Shan, though that may be fearful masking of hidden techniques which the government would probably officially deny out of keeping face. Some warrior monks at Song Shan have been taught by the previous elders as Shaolin monks in the new monestary, and are carrying on the tradition of lost techniques. As for Wushu...the Chinese government created the contempory system of "Wushu" as a system of "modern" and showy representations of the former Wushu (which was simply Chinese kung fu techniques evolving from Shaolin gongfu in various directions). The students of Wushu do not in any way consider this straight Shaolin or defense-oriented kung fu, as the performance impact aspect is given central importance. Ans as for the wine and meat indulgence, it was Emperor T'ai Tsung during an eroding Ching dynasty rule who gave gifts of wine and meat to Shaolin monks for their defense of his rule against the Manchu attackers (they lost). This is where the tradition and the "myth" originate... in documented historical accuracy. The Chinese government did not make up the myth as suggested above, though the actual temple in Song Shan does not encourage the consumption of wine at the temple, not even by the warrior monks, and this can be confirmed by visiting or reading any of the publicity books the government and the moastery now publish as a tourism incentive. Monks are allowed the indulgence when they are away from the temple, and in the US, often drink wine or other alcoholic beverages as an exception, such as in times of celebration or socializing with valued acquaintences. Wong Kew Kit in Shaolin Kung Fu, has confirmed these facts as an expert in Shaolin practice and history, though he does not referenece them. However, many history books exist that document the plausibility of the claim about the Ching Dynasty Emperor, including...China: Its History and Culture (4th Edition) by W. Scott Morton and Charlton Lewis.TakeMeOnElmo (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is a misconception. Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit does not say that monks can enjoy meat and wine. Shaolin monks are Mahayana monks, which means they follow rules that Mahayana monks follow. They don't eat meat, they don't drink alcohol, they can't look directly at women(for the men) and other things. So what about the modern Shaolin monks? Just putting on the clothes and shaving your head doesn't make you a monk. I believe that the so called modern monks were somehow created with the help of the Chinese government. And what they practice is Wushu, which the Chinese government actually intends to be a demonstrative art; they do not use their forms in real sparring.
Another misconception is about the Temple itself. There were two temples, Northern and Southern. And they weren't "active" at the same time. All the stories about the burning of the temple and Pak Mei helping the Qing Army destroy the temple occurred in the south. The southern temple was created in order to keep Shaolin training and practice secret from the Manchurians(Qing Empire). This would have been near impossible in the Northern Temple because it was a special imperial temple where the emperor went to pray on behalf of the empire(Mount Song is the central of the five great mountains of China). So, although the Northern Temple was burned at least once, notably during the Chinese Civil War in the 20th century, it had already fallen into disuse by the Shaolin Monks by the time of at least the late Qing Dynasty. So, why was the southern temple burned by the Qing Army? The Shaolin Monks became involved in trying to restore the Ming dynasty. I estimate that this occurred sometime around 1850. Markblohm (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Mark
Meir Shahar and other martial arts historians have noted that martial monks did eat meat and drink (see Shahar's Shaolin Monastery (2008)). The location of the so-called southern shaolin temple has never been agreed upon by scholars and practitioners alike. Some scholars believe it was just an idea that developed in Chinese fiction and then was absorbed into the myths of the Chinese triads. I tend to lean towards this view. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The Chinese government discovered the remains of the burnt southern temple and placed a plaque there. The five ancestors escaped from the Soutehrn Shaolin Temple. All the styles that originated from these five ancestors are characteristically Southern Shaolin. They have low stances and footwork typical of the south, not high stances with a lot of kicks as would be characteristic of the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markblohm (talk • contribs)
I can place a plaque at a certain site and claim its the legendary southern Shaolin temple too, but it doesn't make it true. You seem to take a lot of stock in the martial arts legends that have been circulating for the last two hundred years or so. The whole "northern kicks, southern fists" is a bunch of bullocks. See my comment here to see why. Any respected master will tell you the same. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern kicks, southern fists is only a generalization, and should not be taken as a sweeping statement. Southern Shaolin also has a lot of agile movements and subtle kicks, and Northern Shaolin solid stances and powerful punches. Do these scholars practice genuine Kung Fu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markblohm (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of them do, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Practicing some kind of martial arts does not make somebody a better historian. Prof. Meir Shahar has written THE definitive study on the history, religion, and martial arts practices of Shaolin and is not even a practitioner himself. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this

Can someone have a look at this, it's not based on Pinyin, or wade-giles, but just on the way the words sound: User_talk:Dessydes/To_be_sorted_and_worked_on_later#Shaolin. thanks. Dessydes 16:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Someone please fix this

The last paragraph under "Northern and Souther Styles". It uses the word "master" to mean at least two things that very much need to be differentiated for the article to make sense. Having no knowledge of Shaolin, I'm not gonna touch it, but somebody needs to make sense of it. Plus the grammar is pretty weak. Looks like a crappy online translation. Powrtoch 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

16th century

Some scholars believe that martial arts were not practiced at the Shaolin monastery until the 16th century.

I believe you're referring to the work of Stanley Henning, in whch case, his argument is a bit more complicated than that. JFD 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

citation requested for the following material

JFD 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Shoalin Styles

Just an idea: Can we build up a List of Shoalin Styles or something for the See also section of this article? Even if it starts off as a stub. Just a thought. Dessydes 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 2 problems with this:
  • So many styles claim to be Shaolin styles
  • According to some classification systems, any style that is not T'ai Chi, Xingyi or Bagua is, by default, a Shaolin style
JFD 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Could we start with the assumption that not all styles are Shaolin styles. Then perhaps divide said section into "known" and "suspected/claimed" or something? I have a short list of Shaolin styles in their pinyin, translated by you as a matter of fact (wierd 'cos as I was checking to see who wrote them, Voila! There you were. Thanks again for that by the way). Anyway, as I was saying, perhaps we could use that as a starting point. Dessydes 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Although its a nice idea, i think the politics and the discussion of which styles or forms are "shaolin" would be too daunting. Plus, any historical reference to claim lineage to one of the Shaolin temples would be debated too long for encyclopediac information. Some people just refer to Taoist or Buddhist arts. some northern or southern. others by mountains Song Shang, Wudang, Emei, etc.. Plus with all the mixing between arts and even the shaolin monks blending their arts with others (supposdly) i think it would be too hard. i think this wiki should not focus too much on the various styles of shaolin and more of its origins and traditions and perhaps its current state. but thats just my 2 cents --Blckavnger 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wong Kiew Kit

i was just wondering why he is being mentioned. Yes, in print he is very recognized. However, why his school and not others? why him at all? seems to be borderline POV which is not what we should be doing in wikipedia.--Blckavnger 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wong Kiew Kit is widely recognized as an authority on Shaolin Kung Fu by most kung fu masters, so that seems a good place to start.

Not all Kung Fu "masters" would agree. He is popular, but that does not mean he is anymore of an authority than anyone else who claims lineage. As mentioned previously it is almost impossible to track this. Personally his intepretation of moves looks nothing like what I have been taught and more importantly applicably makes no sense. It should be easy to test whether something is authentic by seeing how easy it is to apply against a live opponent.

I just cleaned up the reference section to the correct format and swept out all the external links. I am sure some of the external links should have been kept but am sure the important ones will be added back in. The external links were too much of a link farm and it was near impossible to tell which actually contributed to the article.Peter Rehse 04:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

The part on Bodhidharma in this article is very one-sided. It's weird how touchy everyone is on this subject. If more people would open up a book instead of relying on false impressions and online sources, there wouldn't be any controversy. Although this article proudly says that archaeologists don't believe the legend, it never states the fact that the majority of scholars think that there is some truth in it. Many other styles have legends of their founding but no one is ever as offended as when it comes to Bodhidharma and Shaolin. A lot of Chinese don't like to acknowledge Bodhidharma because they are too proud of their culture to admit that something may not be 100% locally created. Westerners don't believe it because the legend sounds too far fetched. Anyway I'm just saying that if you're going to talk about what archaeologists don't believe, you should also mention what they accept as partly true.Morinae 08:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I would have to say I have yet to meet a chinese person who did not think Darmo was Indian or than Chan Buddism did not have Indian origin. Also the history part is a bit strange as it only shows that there were people who did martials arts before the Shaolin (which no one in their right mind would dispute), but seems to think that is proof that Bodhidarma did not exist. Hopefully someone with referential evidence can fix. 24:00 11 nov 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.85.73 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Bodhidharma has been shown to have no historical link to Shaolin martial arts by many a scholar. Bare-handed fighting did not develop at Shaolin until the Ming Dynasty, centuries after Bodhidharma's time. The monk's historically worshiped the Bodhisattva Vajrapani as the progenitor of their arts. See Prof. Meir Shahar's The Shaolin Monastery (2008) for more detail on the subject. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Empty handed fighting is clearly evident in Shaolin well before the Ming Dynasty. The famous Chinese General Yue Fei was a Shaolin Disciple (as were many of the great Chinese Generals). He developed Eagle Claw for his troops and Xingyi for his commanders from his training at Shaolin during THE SONG DYNASTY. It's amazing how some scholars choose to see what they want and ignore obvious evidence such as this. Markblohm (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mark

This is a common mistake. The idea that Yue Fei had any connection to the Shaolin Monastery came about centuries after his death with the publishing of the 17th century qigong manual Sinew Changing Classic. The second preface of the manual states Yue gained his "divine strength" from learning the exercise from a magical Shaolin monk. Let me ask you something, have you ever read Yue Fei's Song era memoir written by his grandson or his official biography compiled during the Yuan Dynasty? I would think not since neither of these mention the Shaolin monastery, Eagle Claw, or Xingyi at all. I believe you are basing your claim on one of Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming's books. Be forewarned, Dr. Yang is not a historian. Read this section of the article that I wrote about Yue's military arts tutor Zhou Tong (archer) to find out why (and this is only one of many examples). Zhou Tong is only briefly mentioned in the aforementioned historical texts on Yue Fei's life. Neither of them portray him as a Shaolin Monk, only an archer. There have been several fictionalized biographies written about Yue Fei during the Ming and the Qing Dynasties. None of these mention Shaolin either. I would advise that you look into the actual background of ancient historical figures associated with martial arts and not take what certain masters claim at face value. You will find that 9 times out of 10, the association is posthumous. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I value these contributions. It provides for an interesting debate. I do not take any of my information from Dr. Yang. The Shaolin Temple was not just a training center for monks. The top Chinese Generals trained there, which is why they were such elite fighters. Because a text doesn't mention his Shaolin training does not mean he didn't. Shaolin training was elite and secretive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markblohm (talk • contribs) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. What is your source? Please don't tell me its something you heard from a fellow martial artist or one of your masters. Oral traditions are notoriously bad for changing over time. It's like playing that game where you whisper something into someone's ear and they repeat it down the line and when it gets to the last person, it's completely different. Not to mention, they are not even remotely as reliable as contemporary records, of which none exist pertaining to this topic. So then, what possible evidence do you have that concretely links Yue Fei to Shaolin?
It's not just one text that doesn't mention Yue Fei training in Shaolin, it's all of them--His own writings, his many biographies, his five fictionalized novels. Yue's memoir was commissioned by his son and written by his grandson. You are telling me that Yue's own sons, who are stated to have learned martial arts from their father in many legends, would not know about Yue's training in Shaolin and would not include that in his contemporary memoir? Even If this was true, how do we know about it almost 900 years later? I doubt he would keep it a secret from his family and then brag to his soldiers about it. On top of that, when would a busy general have time to create two sophisticated forms of martial arts while in the field? Around the early 1130's, he was rounding up Chinese rebels in the south, instead of facing the "Mongols" (actually the Jurchen) like a prevalent Eagle Claw myth states. Then he moved northward to face the Jin forces. His army was constantly on the move. I don't know if you've ever served in the military (I have), but it takes an immense amount of planning to move a large contingent of soldiers. Complex arts like Xingyi take generations to develop, not a few minutes of down time between battles.
The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument doesn't work here. People have tried that before by comparing Yue's bio to that of the famous Ming general Qi Jiguang. Qi's bio mentions nothing about his interest in martial arts, but he is historically known for compiling various styles into a military training manual. Yue wrote no such manual. The "Yue's Intent Boxing Manual" was actually written in the 19th century by a martial artist named Li Cun Yi. The earliest known mention of Yue Fei in connection with Xingyi boxing is a manual called the Preface to the Six Harmonies written around 1750. The manual states Yue trained in spearplay from an unnamed master and created Xingyi from it. Yue historically trained under a spearmaster named Chen Guang, but the records do not say anything about Xingyi. Scholars note there is strong historical evidence that shows the earliest form of Xingyi was created by a spearplayer named Ji Jike (c. 1651) centuries after Yue's death.
One thing that you have to understand is that the Ming Dynasty, when many martial arts were created, was considered Yue's "golden age." During this time, he was canonized as a Taoist god, no less than four fictionalized dynastic chronologies of his life were written, and the poem "River Awashed in Red" was attributed to him. The Sinew Changing Classic was written during this time. Yue is featured in the second preface of the manual. It states he learned the exercise from an unknown Shaolin monk with magic powers. Both Chinese and western scholars have commented that his mention led to countless styles being attributed to Yue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
So you use just one author's opinion to completely discredit what could have been a legitimate figurehead in creating shaolin style kung fu? One documentary I saw on the discovery channel had the Chief Abbot of the Shaolin temple himself give a detailed description on how shaolin kung fu has had its roots in sharing of knowledge, where Bodhidharma bought his styles and opinions about the art to china and from there it was shared to the eastern asian countries of japan, korea and vietnam. This comes from the personal testimony of the Chief Abbot of the temple in question and not some 'author' who could have misinterpreted old style kanji when gathering his 'evidence' for what anyone can say. Maybe you need to get your biased opinion out of here and stop referring only the kind of 'materials' that try to annul the involvement of anyone other than purist/communist chinese in the origination of kung fu. And if you would consider Discovery channel documentaries a heresy based on self righteous propaganda then I so hope you dont actually say it out loud here and make your self seem like the delusion led bigot that you are.
Just so you do understand what legitimate 'material' might be: Having some author make a book for...well selling a lot of copies of it and making personal monetary gains on supposed 'researched' facts where he misses out on key factors, ie involvement of Bodhidharma in kung fu in this case, just because he got hasty on collecting the facts/he dint understand the facts/he wanted to omit the facts to please the majority of people who would be potential buyers cant really be considered a literary gem. Its more like a literary smudgemark IMHO. And then a few decades after if someone like you would use this exact smudgemarks to cite references on a POV that you want to publicize, then you are making a mockery of what could be considered the concept of History. It goes without saying that history is written by the winners and the losers always end up looking like the bad guys, but keep your bigotry under check considering the fact that you havent really won any war and high chance never would.
I would rather believe what is said by the Chief Abbot who actually runs the shaolin monastery rather than some 3rd party book writter or some 4th party bigot like you for that matter. Its meaningless if you try to write down history in what you personally see it as and completely dismiss the fact that Bodhidharma could have even had the slightest role in the creation of shaolin style kung fu, I mean who are you anyhow to decide to omit out his involvement in kung fu other than some egoistic purist sitting behind a computer screen. I would go include the part about Bodhidharma and what could be his real involvement concenrning kung fu back into this article but knowing that you wouldnt stop at what you(Ghostexorcist) do, I dont have the motivation to keep coming back here and reinstating the facts after you do your works and delete it out. I could cite a dozen or so sites as references, but it would be of no use if egoistic people like you are blind to everything else but your own poor Point of views. Was†ed(Ag@in) ‡ † © 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
There are only a few things I can say since you are clearly relying on hearsay and cable television channels for your support:
1) Please see WP:Civil for you uncivil tone. If you continue to speak in such a manner, your editing privileges can be limited or even removed.
2) The term "Kanji" only applies to Chinese characters used along with the Japanese syllabary in Japan. Most of the time, the Chinese and Japanese renderings have completely different contextual readings. Therefore, I must ask the following question: Why would ancient Shaolin documents have been written in Japanese since that is what Kanji refers to?
3) The Discovery channel is by no means a scholarly source and the chief abbot is simply passing on a legend that dates to no earlier than the 17th century.
4) Prof. Meir Shahar is a credentialed scholar who relied on ancient stelae and pre-modern literary and historical documents to write his book, which has been positively peer-reviewed in scholarly journals. Most importantly, he is not the first to debunk Bodhidharma’s connection to Shaolin. Tang Hao, Xu Zhen, Lin Boyuan, Matsuda Ryuchi, Stan Henning, and Brian Kennedy are among those who have thoroughly disproven the legend.
5) Have you ever consulted the works of the scholars mentioned above or ever looked into the history for yourself? I would guess not since you still cling to the legend wholeheartedly. The random websites you speak of have no academic merit whatsoever since the information is no doubt derived from the classic "this is what my master told me" cruft. And even if the sites rely on pre-modern documentation, none of it will predate the source of the legend, the Sinew-Changing Classic (1624). -- Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Creator and mother style

Prof. Meir Shahar is not the only scholar who has thoroughly disproven Bodhidharma's connection to Shaolin martial arts. Others include Tang Hao, Xu Zhen, Lin Boyuan, Matsuda Ryuchi, Stannely Henning, and Brian Kennedy. Like I've said to several other people on this talk page, I suggest you actually read scholarly material on the subject and not believe whatever your masters, peers, or the discovery/history channel claims. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. All your opinions are just Chinese patriotism. The most important thing of this article is Shaolin tradition tells that Bodhidharma teached his martial arts to Shaolin monks. And Book of Wei shows that shaolin temple was builded by Tuoba Hong for Indian monk who was called Bhad. If you watch the Kalarippayattu's fighting, you would know they have strong connection.--Borvestmino (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Chinese patriotism? I'm not even Chinese. It is clear that you have some innate bias and are therefore not fit to edit this page. Please see WP:NPOV. You have not offered any evidence to support your claims beyond your own opinion. I and the other editor below have given ample evidence to support our views. Since you reverted the page before coming to a consensus (like I stated on your user talk page), I have no other recourse but to contact an admin. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"Shaolin tradition" says nothing of the sort. The notion that Bodhidharma created a physical practice at Shaolin comes from an 17th century forgery (already dismissed by scholars by the 18th century), and the extension of this to martial arts is from a 20th century novel. Much of the Shaolin system is of fairly recent origin (thus your request to "watch" is irrelevant), and many Shaolin techniques were not original, but adopted from other sources (plum flower etc.). Modern historians - such as those mentioned on this page and in the article - have come to these conclusions by extensive study of period documents; nothing supports the idea of Bodhidharma being the founder of these arts. Ergative rlt (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize about the created section but please read The Transmission of the Lamp. The Transmission of the Lamp shows Xǐ Suí Jīng and Yì Jīn Jīng were teached by Bodhidharma and those Xǐ Suí Jīng and Yì Jīn Jīng became the based of Shaolin Kung Fu.--Borvestmino (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The first Transmission of the Lamp text to mention the Yi Jin Jing dates from ~1624 and contains the clear forgery mentioned above - the part that credits Bodhidharma. This is described in great detail in Shahar, and in the various Wikipedia articles relating to Bodhidharma and the Yi Jin Jing. Ergative rlt (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I'm going to be the informal mediator for the dispute about the infobox, and the origins of Shaolin Kung Fu. Could I request that editors wanting to include content such as 'Tamil martial arts and Chinese history' in the parenthood field provide reliable sources? PhilKnight (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Television Series and Bruce Lee

The statement, "Carradine's part was originally to be played by Bruce Lee. Ironically, Lee was pulled at the last minute before airing for looking 'too Chinese' for an American public accustomed to white actors portraying ethnic minority characters for a mainly white audience. However, the character of Caine was supposed to be of mixed Chinese and European ancestry, a fact which may have also had an influence on this decision.", does not jibe with the story told by the producers in the extras on the Kung Fu Season 1 Disc 1 DVD. According to the producers the character was not originally supposed to be of mixed ancestry and Bruce Lee was not pulled at the last minute because he looked "too Chinese" and American audiences were not ready for that, but rather Bruce Lee auditioned but was not chosen for the part because the producers had trouble understanding his English. Also, the producers do not say that Lee was told that he had the part so the contention that the part "was originally to be played by Bruce Lee" also seems inaccurate. If someone can provide a citation of the people who made the decision saying that they made it because of Bruce's looks, then provide it, otherwise, please change the article to be more accurate on this point. See the DVD extras to confirm these facts. 67.233.80.4 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shd108, 13 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Suggest adding Shi Yan Ming to "See also" at bottom of the page, he is one of the most prominent Shaolin monks currently living.

Shd108 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.191.56.125, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} It is evident that the Page has been in the control and edeting of Chinese Government sponsored authors. Although Shaolin is in China, the perpencity of Chinese Officials to change the history to choose the facts rather than facts to understand history is very clearly visable in this Article of Shaolin.

The chosen vocabulary seems very dismissive of styles using Shaolin principles and teachings that are not of or in China/Shaolin. The sentance "refers to a collection of Chinese martial arts that claim affiliation with the Shaolin Monastery" is either delibretly dismissive or ignorant of facts. A style calling it self Shaolin can refer to it's origins from Shaolin, it's practices of Shaolin Principles and/or Teachings.

Also, the use of antiquated views and references to less recognised (but possibly more outspoken) authors in showing irronious facts relating to Shaolin, suggest the the author of the Artical is seeking to create a specific line of thought that does not incorporate the view of lesser vocal but better informed publishers. An example of this method is the reference that Shaolin is not the birth of Chinese kung fu. This has been long established and is only quoted by the most uninformed authors. The use of this minority view in the artical, expecially early on suggest that the author is seeking to create a specific opinion rather than report of facts in evidence.

It need to be noted that successive Chinese Dynasties and even indevidual Emperors like to destroy all and any records of the previous to sure up their power and influence. It also needs to be noted that for most of this time, less than 1% of chinese were literate even in the most basic sense. Further, Shaolin/Buddhism went through some purges where all related records were destroyed. It is almost impossible to relate Shaolin History aside of passed down oral historys, scraps of information and what can be dug up by historians.

It is unfortunate that the current article has absolutly no reference or copy from the original article of Shaolin in the Wikipedia which refered to many such oral family histories including Shaolin and style records showing deriviation from Shaolin Roots; many of which was sourced, written and contributed to by a colabaration of sources including but not limited to Chinese, US, European and Tiwanese. This colleberation ensured a wider view and representation of person who had been stydying the art, each for several decades, without a particular political or commercial conideration.

It is strongly suggested that the earlier version of the Wikipedia articles on Shaolin be included, at least as an alternative or supplimentary to this article.


124.191.56.125 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done. {{edit semi-protected}} is used to request specific changes to a semi-protected page. If you have any specific changes you with to suggest please readd the template with a suggestion such as:
Please change "this section of text" to "this alternative text".
Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

The lisitng of the "Well Know" Shaolin styles seems very much self serving expecially considering that the Shaolin Temple was destroyed in 1645 and not fixed/rebuilt until early 1800's. The only well established facts about Shaolin Kung Fu are that there was a Shaolin 5 Animal Style Kung Fu and that from this we have Hung Gar, Wing Chung and indirectly Choy Lee Fut. There is also evidence to suggest that the triad Hing Kong White Crane may have had significant influences stemming from Shaolin resistance in the 17th Century.

Using the Wiki in this way is really killing it a a source and a starting point for serious reserch and information!

Robert Z 124.191.57.154 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming you are referring to the last sentence of the lead section. That sentence already has a {{fact}} tag on it, which adds the famous "[citation needed]" statement. That tag is an indication that some editor questions the verifiability of that statement. If you would like a specific part of that sentence removed, please indicate which. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

I appreciate the time you put into these posts and i see how it can be taxing; i am refering to the listing of 'Well Established' being used with a style listing of Shaolin. Shaolin only has one 'style' and that is Shaolin. Curently it is Shaolin Wushu, 450 years ago it was Shaolin 5 Animal Kung Fu; before that..... less clear. But no style other than Shaolin can really be attributed to the Shaolin Temple. Whatever else may be derrived from Shaolin may be but not Shaolin. It's like calling a Ford a Rolls Royce because Rolls made a few wing nuts for it.

So my request is to remove the listing of any supposed kung fu style that are Shaolin unless they are Shaolin 5 Animal Style or Shaolin Wushu (possibly Shaolin 170 Moves/Systems and Shaolin 72 Fists/Hands).

Thank you for your time.

Robert Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.3.66 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 June 2013

198.14.240.145 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I would like to point out that Sin Kwang The' is the current 33rd Grandmaster of Shaolin. He is recognized as having been the youngest Grandmaster as in the Northern Temple lineage.

http://www.shaolingrandmaster.com/

Thank you for allowing me to offer this edit recommendation.

Not done: Sin The' is not universally recognized for his supposed connection to Shaolin. There is no reason to add any information about him to the page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 10 July 2013

About the "See Also" links, there is no documentation proving that Yan Ming is a real shaolin monk, so,there should be no link to his page whatsoever.

Thank You

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shaolin_kung_fu/Archive_1&oldid=1184720781"