According to the Luohan Xing Gong Duan Da Tuo Pu ( 罗汉行功短打 - Arhat exercising merit short strike illustrated manuscripts) Shaolin abbot Fuju (福居) invited 18 martial arts masters 3 times for 3 years (9 total) to help improve Shaolin martial arts. However the events of this manual are widely believed to be fiction.

An acquaintance of mine told me about this page that says there are two Shaolin books--"Records of Shao Lin Monastery" and the "Records about Shao Lin Boxing" -- that give a different list of masters, but still claim it was Fuju who did the inviting. (NOTE: Please keep in mind the list provided on the page is from the Luohan Duanda and not the Shaolin books.)

I told this person about Shaolin abbot Fuyu (福裕, 1203-1275) who was a retainer of the Mongols. He went head-to-head with Taoism and built different monasteries. As far as I know, Fuju is a fictional persona of Fuyu. However, the person tells me that Fuju is actually a “nickname” for an abbot that is not listed amongst the religious abbots because he was a “martial abbot”. Is this true? Was there really an historical Fuju?

wow, very interesting topic!

Didn't know Shaolin developed a system of bunting for baseball

joking aside, this would be great investigative project.

I'll let you know if i see something.

ok, regarding to Fu-Yu at Yuan dynasty. Here is a very very detailed Chinese source of the Buddhism Taoism debate hosted by Fu-Yu. This is completely from Buddhism point of view.

http://big5.fjnet.com/gate/big5/magazine.f.../g2k0503f12.htm

Problem with this that that the chief source would be the earliest version we have of the 少林衣缽真傳 (which yes, is just the same thing as Louhan Xinggong Duanda). It contains four chapters. The first chapter already shows that it was a copied version whcih was made during the Qing dynasty. Since it has been known that the �宵�人 made it explicit he changed things in it, nothing from it can be taken as anything historical for pre-Qing times.

Most obvious is the centuries worth of missing time you are talking about. �宵�人 was a man of Quanlong's reign. Fuyu was an administrator for the Kublai Kahn. I fail to see how you can possibly link the two together.

the Chinese buddhism oriented sources is from Yuan Shi and tablets made in era.

One thing to be considered is that Fu-Yu isn't actually a Shaolin monk to begin with. He has the lineage of other schools of Buddhism and therefore might not be considered as a Shaolin lineage.

No, but Fuju was (according to 少林衣缽真傳) and considering how impossible they could have living in the same era, which was why the whole idea of those two being the same person is ridiculous. The question is whether Fuju was Fuyu and I have pointed out with no space of doubt, no chance in hell.

But we don't even know if Fuju was a real person or not.

If he was in fact fictional, he could have been based on the Fuyu historical character.

His actual mode of existance be it ficticious of otherwise is not the matter here
It is the several centuries in between their supposed 'existance' that is the crux of things. If it doesn't even make sense to exist ficticiously, why even as the question if he existed historically ?

haha

I know what you are trying to say. But if Fu-Ju is ficticious based on Fu-Yu, his background doesn't have to exist as Fu-Yu. Fu-Yu could have been used as a template for Fu-Ju's story and removed from his time.

It is not a rare thing in literature or legend creation.

One thing is the Chinese Buddhism names have its first character correspond to their "generation status".

What are the chances that both Shaolin monks have names started with Fu if they are centuries apart?

Are there other Shoalin monks with Fu as the first character of their Buddhism name at Fu-Ju's time?

If not, Fu-Ju is probably ficticious.

That was the main point of my original question. I would like to know if he was real.

Here is a picture of Fuju from the Mantis website.

I don't think you will find a definitive answer to that one.
martial arts history are never 100% reliable

So are you saying Sheng Xiao copied the Shaolin books to create the Luohan Duanda? My Chinese isn't very good, so I've never read either one of them. I've heard the Shaolin books and the Luohan Duanda have different masters listed among the 18. Could someone please post both lists of masters and their skills. I would like to see how much they differ.

You seem to be acquainted with the Shaolin books that supposedly have a different list of the 18 Masters. Could you list the major differences between the text? Where any fictional characters listed in the Shaolin records?

One person I know claims people on another Chinese history forum claim Lin Chong was real. But Lin Chong and Yanqing are fake right? If Fuju lived in the early years of the Song and, according to the fictional Water Margin, Lin lived towards the middle, why are they even put on the same list? Fuju would have died long before the birth of Lin Chong. I don't think Lin Chong is mentioned in the Song Shi.

Because logically and obviously the FICTIONAL book is wrong, and grabbed people's names out of convenience.

Because it is two DIFFERENT chinese characters for Fu being used here, as it the case.

Fu-Ju was not of Shaolin religious order that is now traced down from Fu Yu.
Before Fu Yu's time there was many different sects operating out of Shaolin.

Fu-Ju was a military monk trainer. He was commissioned by Emperor Zhao Kuang Yin to create a standardized set of material to prove that a person had been trained at Shaolin. But, a group of men had been arrested for impersonating Shaolin monks and their kung fu was lousy, as they had been easily beaten up.
Zhao sent over a group of his best military men to help Fu-Ju develop a group of sets.
Hence where the story of the 18 masters comes from.

Or Lin Chong was FICTIONAL and never historically existed.