![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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:
Shawnc 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 by User:Kronister, December 7, 2005
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
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | These styles imitate the movement of these animals for martial applications. The animals are also often compared to various ways of facing a problem/situation. The
Tiger represents the direct and frontal way of approach to a problem. The
Crane is innovative/creative approach combined with a sense of humour. The
Snake waits for the right opportunity before delivering a fatal strike, which is something like waiting till you gain sufficient strength to solve the problem. The
Leopard combines the directness of the Tiger with the fatality of the attack that the
Snake possesses. The
Dragon style represents a state of meditational calm and peace of mind.
However, both the Northern and Southern styles have one similarity uniting them. They both had eighteen different traditional weapons to master, each classified as either a Long weapon or a Short weapon. Each type contributed nine different weapons. The long weapons include: the Shaolin fork (tiger fork), staff, tri-point doubled edged sword, monk's spade, Zhuihun sword, Chunqiu sword, spear, 9 section whip, and sickles. The short weapons include: Chinese straight sword, Shaolin iron pen, Shaolin hand dart, Da Mo cane, flying dart, broad sword, Shaolin thorn, axe, and the iron flute. Being in the Shaolin means to master all weapons. Being a master includes mastering one of the 18 available weapons. And moving up to grandmaster means to master all 18 weapons, and mastering a long, and also a short weapon. Of all the weapons, the sword is the most important, and given the title "the marshall of all weapons" by Shaolin. While the spears, elegant but deadly had been given the name "the king of all weapons". And lastly, the Shaolin sabre had long gotten its reputation as "the monarch of all weapons". At the time of the Song Dynasty (c. 10th-13th century AD) the number of weapons grew to 120.-- Akrylik 12:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
” |
JFD 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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 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)
{{
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:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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:
Shawnc 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 by User:Kronister, December 7, 2005
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
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | These styles imitate the movement of these animals for martial applications. The animals are also often compared to various ways of facing a problem/situation. The
Tiger represents the direct and frontal way of approach to a problem. The
Crane is innovative/creative approach combined with a sense of humour. The
Snake waits for the right opportunity before delivering a fatal strike, which is something like waiting till you gain sufficient strength to solve the problem. The
Leopard combines the directness of the Tiger with the fatality of the attack that the
Snake possesses. The
Dragon style represents a state of meditational calm and peace of mind.
However, both the Northern and Southern styles have one similarity uniting them. They both had eighteen different traditional weapons to master, each classified as either a Long weapon or a Short weapon. Each type contributed nine different weapons. The long weapons include: the Shaolin fork (tiger fork), staff, tri-point doubled edged sword, monk's spade, Zhuihun sword, Chunqiu sword, spear, 9 section whip, and sickles. The short weapons include: Chinese straight sword, Shaolin iron pen, Shaolin hand dart, Da Mo cane, flying dart, broad sword, Shaolin thorn, axe, and the iron flute. Being in the Shaolin means to master all weapons. Being a master includes mastering one of the 18 available weapons. And moving up to grandmaster means to master all 18 weapons, and mastering a long, and also a short weapon. Of all the weapons, the sword is the most important, and given the title "the marshall of all weapons" by Shaolin. While the spears, elegant but deadly had been given the name "the king of all weapons". And lastly, the Shaolin sabre had long gotten its reputation as "the monarch of all weapons". At the time of the Song Dynasty (c. 10th-13th century AD) the number of weapons grew to 120.-- Akrylik 12:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
” |
JFD 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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 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)
{{
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:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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