Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

shaolin kung fu. real or fake?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16 shunyadragon

shunyadragon

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 460 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hillsborough, NC
  • Interests:Jade, Arts of the Way (Martial Arts), Oriental Gargens, Chinese culture and history, Chess (international, Chinese, Indian, Mongul, Korean, Turkish and Japanese). Artist
  • Languages spoken:English, Spanish, and marginal Chinese
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Caucasian (Irish descent)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Jade Culture of the Orient, Oriental Gardens, poetry and Martial Arts

Posted 09 July 2011 - 10:30 PM

Martial Arts are DEFINITELY not what I would consider the "height" or "pinnacle" of Chinese culture.

Actually martial arts are quite the antithesis.

All of the "traditional" Chinese martial art focused on combat is excessively violent and cruel in application and conception. Does that strike you as something virtuous or commendable?

Chinese martial arts were developed and evolved out of necessity. If they government makes some profit off of the myths surrounding Shaolin on susceptible Westerners (and some Chinese) then well, that is not really the fault of the Chinese. Chinese people have always been quite adaptable and will take advantage of similar situations, at least that is a trait I find common throughout Chinese history (neither commending nor condoning), so take it for what it's worth.

As such I do not find it a "selling-out" of any amazing Chinese cultural treasure or heritage, because Chinese martial arts, UNLIKE the fantastial Wuxia movies and books, are NOT something where you should look to study morality or ethics from. That would be the works of Confucius, Xunzi, and the likes..... scholars, not warriors.


Respectfully disagree. What is called 'Martial Arts' in China and other eastern countries has a long and varied history, and cannot reasonably be called excessively violent and cruel, definitely not cruel. Warfare in China was violent and cruel like virtually all warfare in history. What is called Martial Arts today evolved from several traditional disciplines. First, the primitive practical hunting and combat techniques exemplified in the animals forms. Forms mimicing different animals, and others basic hunting and combat techniques. Second, the next lineage of these arts can be traced to the Vedic spiritual traditions of India primarily through Buddhism. With these spiritual disciplines came meditation and spiritual elements of non-violence, ethics and discipline of the Arts. As Tang dynasty Chinese Culture went to Japan it became the way of the Budo there. Yes at times it has been corrupted and used unethical and immorally for violent purposes, but this is true of most disciplines and religions of the world, as with Christianity and Islam in the West. A non-violent spiritual discipline has remained in some traditions of the Arts throughout its history.

I studied various forms of the Arts in the parks in China, such as Wushi Taiqi for nine years, Aikido, Iado and Kendo from Japan for 8ight years, Kamiza (A mixed form Art) in Durham, NC for six years, and others going back to when I was 15, including Japanese Gardening, Poetry and Banzai Trees as a teenager. These traditions have roots in the Orient going back over 2000 years and non of them are violent and cruel by their nature.

Edited by shunyadragon, 09 July 2011 - 10:38 PM.

Frank

Go with the flow the river knows.

化干戈为玉帛 Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk.

www.shunyadragon.com

#17 X `

X `

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Martial Arts, Chinese History, Japanese History from Bakufu - Meiji Japan

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:07 AM

Respectfully disagree. What is called 'Martial Arts' in China and other eastern countries has a long and varied history, and cannot reasonably be called excessively violent and cruel, definitely not cruel. Warfare in China was violent and cruel like virtually all warfare in history. What is called Martial Arts today evolved from several traditional disciplines. First, the primitive practical hunting and combat techniques exemplified in the animals forms. Forms mimicing different animals, and others basic hunting and combat techniques. Second, the next lineage of these arts can be traced to the Vedic spiritual traditions of India primarily through Buddhism. With these spiritual disciplines came meditation and spiritual elements of non-violence, ethics and discipline of the Arts. As Tang dynasty Chinese Culture went to Japan it became the way of the Budo there. Yes at times it has been corrupted and used unethical and immorally for violent purposes, but this is true of most disciplines and religions of the world, as with Christianity and Islam in the West. A non-violent spiritual discipline has remained in some traditions of the Arts throughout its history.

I studied various forms of the Arts in the parks in China, such as Wushi Taiqi for nine years, Aikido, Iado and Kendo from Japan for 8ight years, Kamiza (A mixed form Art) in Durham, NC for six years, and others going back to when I was 15, including Japanese Gardening, Poetry and Banzai Trees as a teenager. These traditions have roots in the Orient going back over 2000 years and non of them are violent and cruel by their nature.


Then we must have a very different perception of what constitutes a "martial art." In my opinion martial arts is ultimately about maximum efficiency and a method of using violence and force to necessitate a positive outcome for you over your enemy (or enemies) in a physical altercation, whether in war, in everyday life, or in the ring.

Everything regarding spirituality, morality, ethics, and wu de are not something I consider an intrinsic aspect of martial art - they are all extraneous additions which were created or added on under times of peace or non-violence. It is not the "pure" essence of martial arts. You may like it, love it, or drown yourself in it, but I am sorry that I do not share your view that the quintessential essence of "martial arts" have ANYTHING to do with poetry, zen gardening, or banzai trees. The QUINTESSENTIAL ESSENCE of martial arts is rooted in warfare, turmoil, and violence. Do not be so naive to think otherwise.

I love martial arts, especially Chinese martial arts, but I do not have a sort of fantastical notion regarding them. The founder of my system was a Ming revolutionary with his history shrouded in the development of the Tian Di Hui/San He Hui/Triads. The founder of the Bak Mei (White Eyebrow) system was a traitorous monk that sold out his comrades to Qing anti-insurrection forces, leading to their execution. Chen Taijiquan was POLLUTED by Yang Luchan after he learned the Chen Family boxing (originally known as cannon boxing, or Chen Taiji today) as he failed the imperial military entrance examination, and in response uses his connections and friends to join the house of certain Manchu prince, making Taijiquan into a fad, sort of "spiritual" or "worthwhile" endeavour for the rich, wealthy, and people with little connection to warfare/military/combat. The systems of Lung Ying Mor Kiu (Dragon Shape Grinding Bridges) and Southern Praying Mantis were created by the Hakka people as a method of protection against prejudice and persecution.

Do you know the story one of the most respected (and feared) martial art masters of the previous generation? His name was Li Shuwen, and he was a master of the Bajiquan school (Eight Extremes Boxing). He was an extremely serious martial artist who fought challenge matches to the death and killed his enemies without hesitation. He was so hated and feared that he died from being poisoned by the family members of someone he had killed, because they could not do it in the open (of course, he would kill them instead).

His disciple Liu Yun Qiao was members of the secret police of the KMT, while Zhang Xiang Wu was a general/warlord in mainland china.

All of the niceties are NOT related to martial arts - they may be related to philosophy, art, or any aspect of Chinese (or East Asian) culture, but in terms of purity of essence, it is NOT born intrinsically out of the "martial arts."
"When you strike a blow, do not let your mind dally on it, not concerning yourself with whether or not it is a telling blow; you should strike again and again, over and over, even four or five times. The thing is not to let your opponent even raise his head." - Yagyū Munenori (柳生宗矩)

#18 Loong

Loong

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History

Posted 10 July 2011 - 05:58 AM

X, I fully agree with you. A kindred spirit.

Finally, someone that understands why I use martial art to beat my barber into a pulp and smash the till on his head.

Philosophy to treat the wise, religion to treat yourself and martial arts to treat all the other idiots in your life.

#19 llwk1990

llwk1990

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 12 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 10 July 2011 - 09:58 AM

Then we must have a very different perception of what constitutes a "martial art." In my opinion martial arts is ultimately about maximum efficiency and a method of using violence and force to necessitate a positive outcome for you over your enemy (or enemies) in a physical altercation, whether in war, in everyday life, or in the ring.

Everything regarding spirituality, morality, ethics, and wu de are not something I consider an intrinsic aspect of martial art - they are all extraneous additions which were created or added on under times of peace or non-violence. It is not the "pure" essence of martial arts. You may like it, love it, or drown yourself in it, but I am sorry that I do not share your view that the quintessential essence of "martial arts" have ANYTHING to do with poetry, zen gardening, or banzai trees. The QUINTESSENTIAL ESSENCE of martial arts is rooted in warfare, turmoil, and violence. Do not be so naive to think otherwise.

I love martial arts, especially Chinese martial arts, but I do not have a sort of fantastical notion regarding them. The founder of my system was a Ming revolutionary with his history shrouded in the development of the Tian Di Hui/San He Hui/Triads. The founder of the Bak Mei (White Eyebrow) system was a traitorous monk that sold out his comrades to Qing anti-insurrection forces, leading to their execution. Chen Taijiquan was POLLUTED by Yang Luchan after he learned the Chen Family boxing (originally known as cannon boxing, or Chen Taiji today) as he failed the imperial military entrance examination, and in response uses his connections and friends to join the house of certain Manchu prince, making Taijiquan into a fad, sort of "spiritual" or "worthwhile" endeavour for the rich, wealthy, and people with little connection to warfare/military/combat. The systems of Lung Ying Mor Kiu (Dragon Shape Grinding Bridges) and Southern Praying Mantis were created by the Hakka people as a method of protection against prejudice and persecution.

Do you know the story one of the most respected (and feared) martial art masters of the previous generation? His name was Li Shuwen, and he was a master of the Bajiquan school (Eight Extremes Boxing). He was an extremely serious martial artist who fought challenge matches to the death and killed his enemies without hesitation. He was so hated and feared that he died from being poisoned by the family members of someone he had killed, because they could not do it in the open (of course, he would kill them instead).

His disciple Liu Yun Qiao was members of the secret police of the KMT, while Zhang Xiang Wu was a general/warlord in mainland china.

All of the niceties are NOT related to martial arts - they may be related to philosophy, art, or any aspect of Chinese (or East Asian) culture, but in terms of purity of essence, it is NOT born intrinsically out of the "martial arts."


Let me start by saying that I agree with a lot of your points. Yes, most Chinese martial arts were born from the battlefield or in life and death situations, and that physical combatives is one of the primary purposes of martial arts.

However, that does not mean that philosophy, morals and ethics cannot eventually be significantly incorporated to the point where it can also become one of the primary aspects of the martial arts. General reasons and goals can change, the same goes for martial arts.

Every style you have mentioned will have schools that will teach morals and philosophy along with physical combatives.

Once again, yes, the quintessential essence of most Chinese martial arts might have originally been just about PHYSICAL combat, however, especially in the modern era, that has changed. My definition of the martial arts now is ultimately 'self-cultivation of 'BOTH' the physical and metaphysical through combat'. Now, this does not mean that the applications/physical combatives side should be neglected. It should continually progress and improve. However, one cannot deny the change that has taken place regarding the current essence of Chinese martial arts.

#20 X `

X `

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Martial Arts, Chinese History, Japanese History from Bakufu - Meiji Japan

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:37 AM

Then don't make the claim that martial arts is what encompasses any sort of higher philosophical or moral virtues. I don't attribute any moral cultivation as born out of my MARTIAL ART. I attribute the sense of moral cultivation as something born out of Chinese scholarly work, treatises, and dialectics.

So we are now back at square one, when I made the claim that Chinese martial arts are NOT what I would consider the pinnacle or height of Chinese culture, because the original development of these martial arts necessitated the NEGLECT of things such as philosophy, morality, and rational debate for the focus on full and complete training of violent techniques to kill or maim.

Therefore what I attribute as positive and shining examples of Chinese cultural superiority are SCHOLARLY pursuits and works from various scholars/officials, primarily of the Confucian and Legalist schools.

I am not religious and therefore I DO NOT consider Buddhism to be as intrinsically valuable or worthy of being labeled the "height" of Chinese culture, although I am very well aware of its impact on the development of Chinese thought in addition to Confucianism and Legalist thinking.

Once again to make things simple:

A ) Chinese Martial Arts DO NOT represent the pinnacle of Chinese wisdom/philosophical developments.

B ) Chinese Scholarly Works DO represent the pinnacle of Chinese wisdom/philsophical developments, and as a result Chinese martial arts have ADOPTED these concepts or ideologies into its folds but they are ultimately FOREIGN to the original nature of Chinese martial arts.

Edited by X `, 11 July 2011 - 02:37 AM.

"When you strike a blow, do not let your mind dally on it, not concerning yourself with whether or not it is a telling blow; you should strike again and again, over and over, even four or five times. The thing is not to let your opponent even raise his head." - Yagyū Munenori (柳生宗矩)

#21 llwk1990

llwk1990

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 12 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:26 AM

Then don't make the claim that martial arts is what encompasses any sort of higher philosophical or moral virtues. I don't attribute any moral cultivation as born out of my MARTIAL ART. I attribute the sense of moral cultivation as something born out of Chinese scholarly work, treatises, and dialectics.

So we are now back at square one, when I made the claim that Chinese martial arts are NOT what I would consider the pinnacle or height of Chinese culture, because the original development of these martial arts necessitated the NEGLECT of things such as philosophy, morality, and rational debate for the focus on full and complete training of violent techniques to kill or maim.

Therefore what I attribute as positive and shining examples of Chinese cultural superiority are SCHOLARLY pursuits and works from various scholars/officials, primarily of the Confucian and Legalist schools.

I am not religious and therefore I DO NOT consider Buddhism to be as intrinsically valuable or worthy of being labeled the "height" of Chinese culture, although I am very well aware of its impact on the development of Chinese thought in addition to Confucianism and Legalist thinking.

Once again to make things simple:

A ) Chinese Martial Arts DO NOT represent the pinnacle of Chinese wisdom/philosophical developments.

B ) Chinese Scholarly Works DO represent the pinnacle of Chinese wisdom/philsophical developments, and as a result Chinese martial arts have ADOPTED these concepts or ideologies into its folds but they are ultimately FOREIGN to the original nature of Chinese martial arts.


I never made the claim that Chinese Martial Arts represent the pinnacle of Chinese wisdom/philosophical developments. Just because I said that a lot of Chinese Martial Arts styles have incorporated morality and ethics into its curriculum over time does not mean I believe it to be equal to the level of Confucianism and Taoism. Furthermore, I consider Sun Tzu's works to be philosophical/mental in nature, yet it focuses entirely on combat.

Let's put aside the philosophical issues for now. You cannot simply consider Chinese culture in terms of its wisdom/philosophical developments. The Chinese Martial Arts, over thousands of years, through constant application and pressure testing in life and death combat, have eventually developed into hundreds of styles, with a wide variety of combat theories, concepts, techniques and strategies. How many countries or cultures in the world can claim this? Isn't this a great achievement in itself?

Then these Shaolin 'warriors' come around and start commercialising it, butchering the deadly beauty and technical marvel of many of these styles into flashy performance arts. They claim themselves as martial artists, yet the best they've got is Sanshou, which is hardly representative of the myriad of styles available in the Chinese Martial Arts world. From my perspective, this is a sell-out. A sell-out of styles we've developed, cultivated and tested over hundreds of years.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding. Something tells me we are very close to agreeing with each other. I agree with you in many of your points.

#22 attal

attal

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 29 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 09:47 PM

Martial Arts are DEFINITELY not what I would consider the "height" or "pinnacle" of Chinese culture.

Actually martial arts are quite the antithesis.

All of the "traditional" Chinese martial art focused on combat is excessively violent and cruel in application and conception. Does that strike you as something virtuous or commendable?

Chinese martial arts were developed and evolved out of necessity. If they government makes some profit off of the myths surrounding Shaolin on susceptible Westerners (and some Chinese) then well, that is not really the fault of the Chinese. Chinese people have always been quite adaptable and will take advantage of similar situations, at least that is a trait I find common throughout Chinese history (neither commending nor condoning), so take it for what it's worth.

As such I do not find it a "selling-out" of any amazing Chinese cultural treasure or heritage, because Chinese martial arts, UNLIKE the fantastial Wuxia movies and books, are NOT something where you should look to study morality or ethics from. That would be the works of Confucius, Xunzi, and the likes..... scholars, not warriors.


So what IS the "height" of Chinese culture. Martial arts are definitely part of it. I take it you've never been to China, or at least trained under a Chinese (from China) martial artist, where martial demos take the place of rodeos, basketball, etc., here in the States. Yes, Chinese martial arts were developed out of necessity and were very effective when they were necessary, which isn't necessarily true in the present era of nuclear and projectile weapons. I'm not sure how you became so confused, as the traditional Chinese virtue is the scholar/warrior, not one or the other. And the "fantastical" movies and books are part of the Chinese tradition. You shouldn't try to apply your own cultural values to the Chinese. Please note that this is a "Chinese forum", not a "What I imagine is Chinese" forum. And rather than criticize me for criticizing you, go to Chinatown and immerse yourself in Chinese culture.

#23 ghostexorcist

ghostexorcist

    Ape Immortal (Yuanxian 猿仙)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:America
  • Interests:Asian and Judeo-Islamic cultures, evolutionary biology, art, folklore, martial arts, drawing, historical research
  • Languages spoken:English and a little Chinese (emphasis on little)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese-Jews, Yue Fei, Shaolin

Posted 12 July 2011 - 11:40 PM

So what IS the "height" of Chinese culture. Martial arts are definitely part of it. I take it you've never been to China, or at least trained under a Chinese (from China) martial artist, where martial demos take the place of rodeos, basketball, etc., here in the States. Yes, Chinese martial arts were developed out of necessity and were very effective when they were necessary, which isn't necessarily true in the present era of nuclear and projectile weapons. I'm not sure how you became so confused, as the traditional Chinese virtue is the scholar/warrior, not one or the other. And the "fantastical" movies and books are part of the Chinese tradition. You shouldn't try to apply your own cultural values to the Chinese. Please note that this is a "Chinese forum", not a "What I imagine is Chinese" forum. And rather than criticize me for criticizing you, go to Chinatown and immerse yourself in Chinese culture.

You need to calm down. I quote form the CHF "Core Values":

In CHF, "friendliness", "politeness" and "humbleness" are considered the highest core values treasured by all members. As such, it's also our highest goal to make sure CHF has a 'friendly', 'polite' and 'humble' environment. Such Confucian etiquette and mannerism is of utmost importance within the community, as it helps to ensure social harmony within CHF.

Friendliness generally allows people to easily make friends with one another and prevent people from becoming 'hostile'. Friendliness also lead to happiness.

Politeness generally allows people to act in a proper manner and prevent people from becoming 'rude'.

Humbleness generally allows members to respect other people's view, share knowledge and prevent people from becoming 'arrogant' and belittling others.


Please follow these in the future.

#24 X `

X `

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Martial Arts, Chinese History, Japanese History from Bakufu - Meiji Japan

Posted 13 July 2011 - 06:33 PM

Mr. Ghostexorcist - no need to reprimand him, as everything he stated was wrong and I will kindly show him why he is in fact, WRONG.

So what IS the "height" of Chinese culture. Martial arts are definitely part of it. I take it you've never been to China, or at least trained under a Chinese (from China) martial artist, where martial demos take the place of rodeos, basketball, etc., here in the States. Yes, Chinese martial arts were developed out of necessity and were very effective when they were necessary, which isn't necessarily true in the present era of nuclear and projectile weapons. I'm not sure how you became so confused, as the traditional Chinese virtue is the scholar/warrior, not one or the other. And the "fantastical" movies and books are part of the Chinese tradition. You shouldn't try to apply your own cultural values to the Chinese. Please note that this is a "Chinese forum", not a "What I imagine is Chinese" forum. And rather than criticize me for criticizing you, go to Chinatown and immerse yourself in Chinese culture.


Before I slowly deconstruct your post point by point, let me kindly point out the fact that you should look at another's profile before making condescending comments.

First, I was born in Shenyang, Liaoning, and emigrated to the United States when I was around ten years old. I am Han Chinese and I am *very* well acquainted with my own culture, thank you very much.

Second, my major in university IS East Asian History, specifically Chinese history (and Japanese history as well). I'm not going to get into the senseless ego-laden argument of who knows more about what, but I'm very comfortable and confident of what I personally know regarding Chinese culture and history, from pre-history to modern times. I have studied and written exhaustive research papers on Chinese cultural and historical development all the way up to the modernization of the present-day realities. But hey, this is not a place I am promoting myself. I don't have any hard credentials, I'm not a professor, but I'll still kindly point out to where you are wrong.

I take it you've never been to China, or at least trained under a Chinese (from China) martial artist, where martial demos take the place of rodeos, basketball, etc., here in the States.


Again, I was born in China. The MAJORITY of martial arts currently being taught in the mainland now is modern Wushu, and barring that, northern systems are more prevalent. Traditional systems and teachers do still exist and do teach, but it is quite rarer to find. Second, my shifu (teacher) was a Hong Kong born full-blooded Chinese that emigrated to North America for his university studies in his 20's. I am *VERY* familiar with martial art demonstrations. In fact this is where the Beishaolin (northern shaolin) influence came about in my own system, our Zhu Shi and the famous Beishaolin master, Gu Ruzhang, became acquainted AFTER Gu Ruzhang came into Guangzhou from the North (this even was known as "Five Tigers descending the Mountain, as master Gu came with four other masters). He held a large (or maybe someone else held it, my memory fades) demonstration festival and afterwards greeted my Zhu Shi, Tan San, and they became friends and later exchanged students to learn each other's respective systems. I've been to and witnessed many Chinese martial art demonstrations in parks, in city halls, in convention centers, in competitions..... to the point where I am quite bored of them (forms competitions are boring to me, after all).

Yes, Chinese martial arts were developed out of necessity and were very effective when they were necessary, which isn't necessarily true in the present era of nuclear and projectile weapons.



Nobody made the claim that Chinese martial arts are more effective than nuclear and projectile weapons. Are ANY martial arts necessary then? We are discussing the original ESSENCE of Chinese martial arts, NOT whether they are more or less deadly than firearms and explosives.

I'm not sure how you became so confused, as the traditional Chinese virtue is the scholar/warrior, not one or the other.


This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE and shows how much of a limited knowledge you have regarding historical Chinese realities or traditional Chinese culture. I don't care if you are Chinese or a Westerner, because if you think this, if someone "taught" you this then both you and them are naive and ignorant.

Historically speaking ever since the development of Confucianism (even before that really) there has been ZERO development in the ways of what you label a "warrior-scholar." Confucian scholars largely condemned violence and due to the development of Confucianism, the Imperial Examination and the huge emphasis placed upon learning and education the NATURE of the soldier, military arts or martial arts (e.g. violence) was EXTREMELY looked down upon in ancient China. Having your son join the military ranks was akin to admitting he failed in terms of education and was/is incapable of passing the imperial examination. Of course there are far more intricate problems involved such as nepotism/wealth/socio-cultural status BUT these are extraneous things and doesn't undermine the fact that being a "warrior" is something that is looked upon with DISDAIN because it is the ANTITHESIS of being a "scholar" in the eyes of the Chinese scholar-official class.

I would also like to highlight the fact that the concept of the "warrior-scholar" is a very specifically a JAPANESE tradition that arose out of the Edo-period (or Bakufu) Japan, ESPECIALLY toward the middle and late Tokugawa periods where the Samurai order and the Daimyo lords (they are distinct bodies as well, as Samurai =/= Daimyo) were given more and more ADMINISTRATIVE and BUREAUCRATIC duties because with the reduction of clan/border wars and the centralization of Japan as well as the development of Neo-Confucianism in Japan with the heavy influence of Chinese culture, philosophy and literature lead to the development/evolution of the Samurai order as FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR to the CHINESE SCHOLAR OFFICIAL order. Men such as Hayashi Razan (Neo-Confucian scholar) made it his life's goal to assist Tokugawa Ieyasu, a man of war, to become a man of peace as well, and to crown his military success with achievement of an enduring social order based on Confucian ethical ideals.

The development of the Samurai as WARRIOR-SCHOLARS was out of NECESSITY and the based on the REALITIES OF JAPAN. Such realities were never existent in ANY of the Chinese dynasties and that includes war-torn periods such as pre-Qin, Spring & Autumn, or the Three Kingdoms.

To those interested I can expand on the historical reasons for Japan's development of the warrior social order, but since this is not a Japanese history discussion I will leave it at this. But I must ask Mr. "Attal," the one who had the audacity to flame me for no good reason this question. Did you confuse Japanese history with Chinese history? Because you are essentially making the claim that the warrior-scholar amalgamation was a Chinese creation when it is blatantly not, and when the notion of the "warrior" was never even PRESENT in Chinese history.

You shouldn't try to apply your own cultural values to the Chinese. Please note that this is a "Chinese forum", not a "What I imagine is Chinese" forum. And rather than criticize me for criticizing you, go to Chinatown and immerse yourself in Chinese culture.


Yes, because I am 100% white, right? :rolleyes: In fact, what does ethnicity even have anything to do with historical knowledge? Most of my professors in East Asian history are white, and they know FAR more than the average Chinese person on the street. In fact most of the Chinese professors here teach economics.

As far as going to Chinatown, well, that only represents a tiny segment of Chinese culture, and even then it mostly represents the realities of OVERSEAS CHINESE CULTURE, primarily from a Cantonese/Southern-based origin and is not very indicative of Northern Chinese culture.

I think YOU need to go pick up a book or enroll in a class dedicated to the study of Chinese history FAR more than I need to go "immerse myself" in my local Chinatown.

Edited by X `, 13 July 2011 - 06:37 PM.

"When you strike a blow, do not let your mind dally on it, not concerning yourself with whether or not it is a telling blow; you should strike again and again, over and over, even four or five times. The thing is not to let your opponent even raise his head." - Yagyū Munenori (柳生宗矩)

#25 attal

attal

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 29 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:44 PM

Yes, Shaolin kung fu is both real and fake.

#26 Yari

Yari

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, United States of America
  • Interests:Traditional Chinese martial arts, Chinese philosophy, Buddhism, ancient Chinese etiquette, oriental Chinese legends, myths, and fantasies, Chinese history, Chinese dialects, oriental Chinese music (Chinese wind music), literature, art, mathematics, computer science, and gaming.
  • Languages spoken:Cantonese, English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:46 AM

I believe all forms of gongfu is real. It is a different matter at hand if we're talking about traditional Chinese martial arts and the commercial "modern wushu."

I've read that mainland China's government is the creator of "modern wushu" and is also the successful force of the promotion of the Shaolin Temple. The Shaolin Temple's performances contains too much acrobatic and other Western gymnastics, and the traditional wushu in it is small. Because of this, the west has an altered image of traditional Chinese martial arts.

#27 richroberts972

richroberts972

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 15 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Vietnamese history
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:39 AM

i think shaolin kungfu is real. i have never been there, but my teacher is one of the student of shaolin monastery, too. he is really calm, but he is a good fighter. he helped me one.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users