26 replies to this topic

[jinmo]

the shaolin temple is often ridiculed as being nothing more than a tourist attraction and that the kung fu goings on are nothing more that performance style pseudo kung fu.

having never been there myself i can't really comment on the temple itself but i do have some experience of their kung fu. my teacher is a graduate of shaolin monastery and former member of one of their show teams.

is he a monk? no not by any means, infact one of our frequent topics of conversation is the chinese stock market.

could he kick my a**? yes

could he kick your a**? yes

would he? no, he is the least violent person i know.

so is his kung fu real? in my opinion, yes very much so.

i think the whole shaolin thing recieves far too much attention and criticism without people looking too carefully into what really comes out of the place.

so is it real or fake...any opinions?

wow this board automatically censors the word a**. impressive.

[JohnD]

Of course it is real. I would imagine the training at the monastery is more intense than the many schools near the monastery teaching Shaolin kung fu though. There are plenty of videos on Youtube of the monks training. It's pretty hardcore.

[WangGeon]

Well, you could go to Shaolin temple yourself, ask/taunt the monks there and let them "instruct" you themselves, but I'd rather take the monks' word for it.

On a more serious note, Shaolin seems to be a legit serious martial arts to me. I've taken 7 years of martial arts myself, but there's no way I can do anything Shaolin masters are capable of.

Edited by WangGeon, 19 September 2009 - 12:25 PM.

[TiYiJian]

It depends on what you're looking for. Hardness doesn't imply that it's real. Shaolin mantain the characteristics of Changquan in his prime, but it's becoming more like modern wushu. If you want to show some spectacular feats of strength or acrobatics, let's begin shaolin, otherwise, if you want some real MARTIAL thing, then go to more traditional schools, or try sanda to spar from the beginning.

[ghostexorcist]

There is a huge thread dedicated to this very same question on the Kung Fu Magazine Forum called "Is Shaolin-Do for real?". And by huge I do mean it. It was started back in 2004 and the thread is still going strong with 810 pages of discussions and almost 12,200 replies! You can check it out here: http://forum.kungfum...ead.php?t=32782

I am of the opinion that modern Shaolin is little more than a Disney Land for sinophiles and martial arts buffs. I had lost faith in the monastery long before the abbot tried copyrighting the Shaolin name. The monastery and its surrounding sister schools supposedly pump out a regular flow of "performance" wushu champions, stunt men, and body guards, but this does not necessarily imply "real" kung fu is still alive there. A person is more likely to find a real master far from the monastery in the countryside, some back alley in a ghetto, or outside China, lets say Singapore for example.

There are many people, especially westerners (myself included at one time), who believe every mythical thing they have been told about the monastery. One prevalent myth is that "unarmed" martial arts was well in practice during the Song Dynasty. One example that is commonly given is the myth that Yue Fei trained in Shaolin as a child. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this in his many biographies. Here is a discussion that I had on a wikipedia talk page a year ago regarding Bodhidharma. The quoted comments were towards the end of a larger section:

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 noted qigong 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)

Needless to say, I never heard another thing from them. There have been other chaps with similar notions, one of which called my claims "chinese patriotism". This is because they wholeheartedly believed Shaolin was descended from the Indian art of Kalarippayattu. This is based the legend of Bodhidharma bringing martial arts to the temple. The person in question couldn't back up their claims with any reliable textual evidence.

[SpinningBlades]

I trained in the Shaolin temple for 1 year. Not a long time I know (Ran out of money to pay for tuition....), but anyway it's a watered down version of real Shaolinquan. It's contemporary wushu. However, the "monks" that train in it do train with great intensity. That I can vouch for.

[TiYiJian]

I trained in the Shaolin temple for 1 year. Not a long time I know (Ran out of money to pay for tuition....), but anyway it's a watered down version of real Shaolinquan. It's contemporary wushu. However, the "monks" that train in it do train with great intensity. That I can vouch for.

No doubt they train very hard in what they do. But the real question is: is that really useful for combat purpose?
Call it neither shaolin kung fu (cause it's not) nor wushu 武术 (cause it's not martial, but at leas more martial than "modern wushu"); it seems more like gymnastics or circus-like stuff.....

[simpleboxer]

That depends, especially if ur talking about the ones there. The existance of the fighting monks there have only been in existance at most for the last 20 years. Since The release of jet li's shaolin temple movie reviatalized interest in it again. The recustructions they used are based of style that would have been taugh there and they are trying to look like the fighting monks painted on the temple walls. by my opinion they have all the tool and concepts for fighting but most of them are just taught how its suppose to look like and not how its supposed to be used(not demonstrated but used under stress via 2 man drills.) When Jet li made his film he noted that there were no fighing monks there.The truth is i would have to write alot more for u to understand the circumstance which plague the modern misconceptions of it but if u want to know more just reply. Right now i have to go study for an accounting quiz, and coming here was a really bad and time consumming tangent.

watch this if u like hes probably one of the few teacher form the temple tha drills his studnets too fight.

There is a huge thread dedicated to this very same question on the Kung Fu Magazine Forum called "Is Shaolin-Do for real?". And by huge I do mean it. It was started back in 2004 and the thread is still going strong with 810 pages of discussions and almost 12,200 replies! You can check it out here: http://forum.kungfum...ead.php?t=32782

I am of the opinion that modern Shaolin is little more than a Disney Land for sinophiles and martial arts buffs. I had lost faith in the monastery long before the abbot tried copyrighting the Shaolin name. The monastery and its surrounding sister schools supposedly pump out a regular flow of "performance" wushu champions, stunt men, and body guards, but this does not necessarily imply "real" kung fu is still alive there. A person is more likely to find a real master far from the monastery in the countryside, some back alley in a ghetto, or outside China, lets say Singapore for example.

There are many people, especially westerners (myself included at one time), who believe every mythical thing they have been told about the monastery. One prevalent myth is that "unarmed" martial arts was well in practice during the Song Dynasty. One example that is commonly given is the myth that Yue Fei trained in Shaolin as a child. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this in his many biographies. Here is a discussion that I had on a wikipedia talk page a year ago regarding Bodhidharma. The quoted comments were towards the end of a larger section:



Needless to say, I never heard another thing from them. There have been other chaps with similar notions, one of which called my claims "chinese patriotism". This is because they wholeheartedly believed Shaolin was descended from the Indian art of Kalarippayattu. This is based the legend of Bodhidharma bringing martial arts to the temple. The person in question couldn't back up their claims with any reliable textual evidence.

the funny thing is most zen buddhist agree that Bohdidarma was proabbly a myth. As well as the fact that through obsevations of presently existing arts one can easily trace the evolution

[simpleboxer]

No doubt they train very hard in what they do. But the real question is: is that really useful for combat purpose?
Call it neither shaolin kung fu (cause it's not) nor wushu 武术 (cause it's not martial, but at leas more martial than "modern wushu"); it seems more like gymnastics or circus-like stuff.....

I can right u an essay about this and it can be up to your own deduction oif they can fight or not. My conclusion is they can but they puposly divised and traing course were the student is force to spend year and years to be and effective fighter. remeber they spend a hella lot of time conditoning and the truth is u can train a studnet to be adequate in the smae amount of time a boxing coach could for a amature boxer. There is a lot of problems to address if u want to know the extent to which they cat take on brawlerss, figthers, and attacks. But all in all the system is flawed and u would probably one become a proficient fighter by spending years and years become a full fledge master because of the time consuming system. Alos most of them only spar in forms of modern Sanda and Sanshou. but a few teacher do theach the science of fight.

[ghostexorcist]

[...] The truth is i would have to write alot more for u to understand the circumstance which plague the modern misconceptions of it but if u want to know more just reply. Right now i have to go study for an accounting quiz, and coming here was a really bad and time consumming tangent.

Sure, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject. By the way, Gene Ching's book Shaolin Trips (2010) is a marvelous source for modern Shaolin culture and history. It's more of a personal narrative than an academic reference book.

Edited by ghostexorcist, 17 November 2010 - 10:59 PM.

[ctrlsave]

I think shaolin martial arts are real and there's a good reason why it is so well respected
throughout history. But it is true that shaolin has been behaving like a disneyland
thanks to the abbot over commercializing shaolin temple. Why?

The other reason why it is being seriously debated on how useful shaolin martial arts
or rather cma is also because of the rise of martial arts tournaments like ufc, pride( now defunct),
k1 etc etc and shaolin had no part of this.

[llwk1990]

In my opinion (and similar to a couple of replies here), Shaolin Kung Fu is heavily commercialised. Although no doubt, the monks or students train very hard and they are physically tough, their current styles of fighting are too flashy and flowery. I'm aware that a lot of modern Shaolin schools have Sanda/Sanshou. However, I think it's pretty much modern kickboxing with throws. Although modern kickboxing is certainly effective (within a sport fighting context), it's quite different to the hundreds of traditional CMAs out there, and it's a lot different from the flashy forms they demonstrate.

It's currently a mere shadow of its former glory. So in conclusion, although their physical prowess is still up to par, their combat prowess has diluted significantly.

[X `]

Combat has evolved. Traditionally most of the "martial art masters" where not "fighting monks," but rather warlords/criminals/peasants with the need to train themselves in a violent method of combat to resolve confrontation.

Today what are the chances of getting into a street fight? Quite low, in all honesty.

Furthermore the realities of combat has changed. Traditional Chinese martial arts (especially imperial-based systems or military-based like Xing Yi/Bajiquan) were also heavily based on weapons, such as how to best impale someone with your spear or chop them up with a big blade.

People today don't do that kind of things anymore. As far as hand-to-hand combat is concerned, what is "best" is quite debatable... I have done and researched in various qigong style of practices, "internal" and "external" systems and in my honest opinion, to learn how to "fight" is quite simple. You need certain attributes, and those are 1) toughness, 2) speed, 3) power, 4) technique, and 5) luck. As far as training methodology goes, well, any system that strives to achieve competent fighting ability over a short period of time (doesn't mean it's easy to master) seems to be the most effective.

As such you can say Chinese martial art are effective, just as any other martial art. If all you do is shadowboxing all day, even western boxing will fail when put up to the test.

What does all this have to do with "Shaolin?" Well, the term "Shaolin Kung Fu" doesn't really specify ANYTHING. It's just a generic term like "martial art." The "Chinese" martial art being taught, or at least the ones that we can see PUBLICLY are mostly modern Wushu adaptations, changed without the traditional combat essence. However they do have Sanda programs and real-fighting programs, and combined with all of the athletic and physiological development methods, I have full certainty that most Shaolin Monks can fight quite adequately. Whether they are up to part with a mixed-martial art or kickboxing champion is irrelevent. These guys are not, and have never claimed to be professional fighters.

My final thoughts on this matter is that times have changed greatly and it is just a matter of being honest, to understand what Shaolin REPRESENTS, and the differences between the martial arts being practiced there now as opposed to the "classical systems." It is generally accepted knowledge regardless that most of the "classical systems" do not ORIGINATE from the Shaolin Temptes (or Wudang or wherever) but rather from families (Chen family for example), villages, regions, or peoples (Muslim Bajiquan, example).

And once again, unsavory people, governmental refugees, bandits, criminals, former criminals hiding out in the temples, or revolutionaries hiding ALL contributed to the fable and prestige of the "Shaolin Kung Fu." In the end, you must understand that much of the real "traditional combative Chinese martial arts" are preserved amongst the civilian population, and very commmonly, the unsavory ones. My shibogong (sibakgong), or the teacher of my teacher's elder brother for example is a 14K triad boss in HK. His day job is a bone-settling clinic.

Edited by X `, 09 July 2011 - 01:52 AM.

[shunyadragon]

I have been to shaolin while living in China for nine years, and took some training. It is an intense physical martial arts school, and good to teach someone to kick a$$, but it is state controlled business oriented, and in some ways a shame for profit of the history of the arts of China.

[X `]

I have been to shaolin while living in China for nine years, and took some training. It is an intense physical martial arts school, and good to teach someone to kick a$$, but it is state controlled business oriented, and in some ways a shame for profit of the history of the arts of China.

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.