I'm aware of differing lineages of southern shaolin hung gar kuen, but I've been reading up on the hung kuen lineage I'm part of, and it mentions Lam Sai Wing, Wong Fei Hung etc, how this school's Hung Kuen was developed in Malaysian, but then it mentions the system comes from a Northern Temple, even though it includes the Taming the Tiger, Iron Wire and Five Animals, which to my knowledge is a Southern thing. Have I gotten confused or does a Northern HK exist outside of the Southern branches?
There's little to no historical evidence to support a southern Shaolin temple. If Cantonese Sil Lum systems did come from Shaolin then it would have been in the north. However the Shaolin myth as we know it appears to be a mish mash of triad recruitment propaganda and wuxia novels from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
No ... No northern Hung Ga. There's one or two northern Hong Quan named styles, but they're totally different things & not related at all to the Southern Hung styles.
It sounds to me like they're saying that it is a descendant style of Shaolin as all the big name southern styles claim to be. It doesn't mean it's a northern style, just that once upon a time it's roots came from a northern style.
I'm generally convinced most kung fu schools don't really know their own history beyond a certain point and just fill in the gaps with legends and stories (often lifted out of Chinese popular fiction of the era).
Wuxia and Triad legends aside... The Songshan Temple was not the only Shaolin "temple" in the religious sense, in fact, the religion spread throughout China and there were many, many, many cloisters all over China, "North" and "South" is just an imaginary line cut by the Yangtze. But, there are two specific locations of all Shaolin/Chan locations associated with the martial arts...Songshan and the mysterious "southern temple". But wherever Shaolin and monk fighting arts were present, there existed a Shaolin temple. There are many fine articles on the discovery of Southern Shaolin shrines/temples/cloisters/relics/history at Kungfumagazine.com and elsewhere. Some of this stuff is biased, some of it appears not so biased. Point: don't get too wrapped up in terms like "north" and "south", or the physical Songshan temple compared to the geographic spread of its influence.
This is a bunch of nonsense. Shaolin was the name of the temple in Henan and that was all. It was named after the place where the temple was located. There are and never were any other shaolin temples. There were other Buddhist temples and some of them may have practiced martial arts but the temple had it's own unique name. The southern shaolin temple was more of a reference name as monks from the north supposedly went there and taught shaolin kung fu which led to several of the shaolin related southern styles. However that temple had it's own unique name as well. Southern shaolin was never the actual literal name of any temple which is why it can never be proved or disproved.
We only know so much history, however it is clear to me that A) 'The Shaolin Temple' in Henan has nothing to do with most Southern systems, and probably not a lot to do with most Northern systems. B) Shaolin is not the only place where monastic violence and martial training occurred in China or East Asia for that matter. C) Shaolin has had a reputation for being a place where martial arts are practiced to a high level for a long time. D) There are written records of famous Chinese generals going to the Shaolin Temple and not being impressed with their martial arts - it seems that even hundreds of years ago the monks went through periods of not pressure testing or using their arts, and therefore allowing them to become more and more like "flowery hands and embroidery kicks". E) There are also records of Shaolin monks aiding in defense against coastal pirates in Eastern China (Fujian province) and leading groups of other, non-Shaolin monks (who are noted as being less well-trained and disciplined than their Shaolin counterparts). F) All of the above (maybe not D) support my feeling that Professor Ben Judkins probably has one of the best explanations why most Southern systems claim connections to Shaolin: http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2013/05/24/fighting-styles-or-martial-brands-an-economic-approach-to-understanding-lost-lineages-in-the-chinese-martial-arts/ http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2014/05/19/the-problem-of-doubt-in-the-traditional-martial-arts/ In short, connections to Shaolin were most likely conscious exercises in branding used to position martial arts in the marketplace for combat training, and/or a way to fill in gaps in flaky style history, cover up the less than savory origins of styles (e.g. Their association with secret societies) and to give them a sense of legitimacy (have no fears, this style is a good one, it came from Shaolin).
What I said is not nonsense unless ironically you choose to be so literal about what "temple" really implies. You even say the same in your second paragraph so I don't know if we agree or disagree. Maybe you desire to be considered an authority on Shaolin in which case, please don't. I certainly do not claim to be an authority, I am simply re-iterating the anthropological research I have found to make an argument against two-dimensional thinking about Shaolin, which pervades discussions on Shaolin wherever the quan fa come up. So, let's take a step back and discuss the spread of Shaolin, vs any one location including the canonical monastery. This is where it gets "real". Shao lin zu was of course the name of a specific place and temple, but its name and influence and philosophy and religious practices and yes, many forms of the martial arts that found their nexus there, traveled far beyond Songshan. Note that across religions temple can be a building, or a place, or a person or anywhere people meet to discuss matters of the spirit. Such is the case with Shaolin Chan. Otherwise you can't explain why Shaolin practices made their way well past the borders to places like Japan and beyond. Is Zen "Shaolin"? Of course it is. It also isn't. To argue otherwise is to get caught up with names and words, which is very un-Chan, so to speak. According to the research I have read from Gene Ching and other sources (Shahar et al), there was never one uniquely named "temple" in the South, in fact as the archeology of the last two decades has shown, there are many sites (with unique names as you say) in the south linked with Shaolin in some way, and apparently like much of China, a lot of relics and archaeology waiting to see the light. We can only draw conclusions based on what's been uncovered and validated to date. Surely, much of the "history" is legend, but there is unquestionably a strong, distinct southern influence of Shaolin. Much of the "evidence" of southern infrastructure related to Shaolin though, is apparently buried under a hundred feet of earth in much of the country (like so much non-Shaolin history, it is waiting to be or may never be found). "Can never be proved or disproved", not sure I agree with this completely, brother. I can agree there was no literal Southern temple, in fact we appear to agree on the fact that the "temple" was instead referential. But they are still finding new dinosaur species in China from many millions of years ago..who knows what cultural artifacts and historical evidence remains buried, and would change/redirect critical minds like yours and mine?
Hmm some GREAT points and supported by evidence (always re-assuring), except this first one A I don't buy, it is an extreme position ("nothing to do" etc.) But please let me try to explain. Maybe you've also read Shahar's work at Harvard on Shaolin? This is considered a canonical work on the subject and goes so far as to tear down some VERY STRONGLY BELIEVED Shaolin history. Some of your points seem to line up with his findings so it's reassuring to find common ground, even as we debate the mysterious "southern temple", which I will continue to argue was more of a network of people and transmission of ideas, than one specific physical location (and the archeology and cultural practices of Shaolin seems to support that idea). But help me understand..how could it be "clear" to you where the history is so muddled and incomplete? This is why I argue about the influence of Shaolin, instead of it's infrastructure, when it comes to the Chinese MA which I only consider a subset of the overall elements. For this reason I find a Shaolin Chan far more interesting subject than Shaolin quan because there is less politics and contention surrounding it compared to the MA, which ironically seem to be about egos, hero worship and of course, attempts to capitalize on Shaolin brand as you very adeptly put it. Whether we're talking martial arts, or more interestingly, philosophy and religion, focusing on specific buildings as being influential is errant. It would be like arguing "true Catholicism" lies with the Vatican, as opposed to the influence of Catholicism, which applies to countless shrines/churches/temples/relics/books/cultures... Now all I have argued is that Shaolin's effects on China in particular the southern religion, philosophy, and martial arts are unmistakeable based on specific elements and not, as some people argue, remaining physical structures. Not only is the modern Songshan temple not the original structure (but a reconstruction), much of Shaolin relicography is, in fact, still buried in the earth. According to scholars of Asiatic anthropology like Meir Shahar, Shaolin is linked to many, many descedent systems, open handed and weapon-based (not all of course, but many) which do trace their history through the *influence* of the monastery itself OR the travels/migrations of not only monks but secularists, which if you take out the martial legends completely, still clearly traveled north, south, east, and west and especially outside greater China. This "not really linked with Shaolin" is a foregone conclusion as unsupported by the archaeology as "is really linked with Shaolin" in the same way archaeology does not necessarily link Chan and Zen, but they are CLEARLY linked. Or put another, less argumentative way, there is no denying Shaolin influence on southern Chinese practices, including but not limited to martial. So why the campaigns to dis-associate Southern chinese arts from Shaolin simply because of the existence of legends, or propaganda? It's almost as if these things are being used to "disprove" things, and as you said yourself "we only know so much history"...that's not a static thing. New archeology and new discoveries persist to this very day throughout China, whether we are talking dinosaur bones or ancient practices. My original point: let's be careful not to draw too many conclusions about what is or is not "Shaolin", or whether something is "North" or "South". These words don't really describe or have the full meaning of what we're even discussing and in this thread, "No Northern Hung ga" suffers the same thing. Of course there was Hung ga in the North at some point. By the 19th century Hung ga had passed the borders of China completely.
No there wasn't,except unrelated systems as Sean noted above.(Nice to see ya,Sean!) You can't say "of course" that specific system existed when there's not even an oral legend of it's existence there. Fu Hok Hung's "history" doesn't even relate that the system came from Shaolin,simply that Hung,Hee-goon was taught by 1 or 2 individuals from Shaolin and he developed the Gung Gee form and what he passed on was known by his name.The Fu Hok Hung of Wong didn't even exist until the 1800s,and the (probably older) 10 Animal type bears NO resemblance to any supposed northern "Shaolin" systems. If Hung existed at some point in the north it's highly unlikely that it would have totally disappeared there while being one of the most common systems in the south. Maybe you desire to be considered an authority on Hung, in which case please don't. I don't understand,what does passing borders have to do with anything? Lots of systems went beyond the borders- still existed within the borders,tho'.
HI Medico, I am going to pick apart some of your answer but hopefully we can keep this a civil conversation. People get emotional discussing Shaolin and Hung ga, I am not one of those people. I am interested in Asian anthropology, part. of China. So unless I can point to something in the academic texts I won't say "yes" or "no", which is a standard I don't often see other people following. My "of course" will always tie back to sources like the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and similar works. My goal is not to argue with folks, but help point out what claims work with academia, and which don't. OK I will soften my own language to be less absolute...good point. I can say it very likely existed there because it's provable that Shaolin's "brand" itself was ubiquitous across China by the time Hung Family style became popular in folklore (later Ming and beyond). It was a "household name" by the Ming era. Likewise, Hung Family Fist style became similarly popular THROUGHOUT China by the 19th century and beyond, and in fact when it was taught by the Hung clan in and around Guandong (Kei Ying and Fei Hung), it was taught as and commonly called "Siu Lum", not "Hung Ga". It is known as "Hung ga" today because of its legendary history, but back two hundred years ago the people of Southern China were the ones who associated it with Siu Lum...later something as SifuBen said was exploited by the Triads, fictional writers etc... this is not something unique to Hung ga. Siu Lum and famous styles like Hung ga found their way into Chinese culture across the board. Po Chi Lam was known in the "north" the same as Shaolin was well known in the South. So, while arguing that Hung ga developed from the South might be accurate I can't see how we can support arguments that it NEVER went north, nor why we need oral legends to support that argument. In fact relying on the oral legends is what creates distance with the historical record (which shows both Shaolin and Hung Ga traveling to every corner of China). This is why I think it's errant to claim that there was no Southern Shaolin influence, or no ties between southern styles containing Shaolin elements and the canonical temple...by the time of Hung Ga, Shaolin influence was pervasive throughout China, north south east west. It was found in many places inside and outside of MA. And, of course, Wong Fei Hung being one of the most famous martial artists and progenitor of Hung Fist style was famous THROUGHOUT China, not just in the South. Again, the whole "this was North, this was South" is a false discrimination that flies in the face of the archaeology and anthropology of China (which I used as my sources, not Hung ga class notes etc). So respectfully, I disagree with your reasoning. Your argument appears to be that there were no practitioners of these styles (and thus no access to those lineages) north of the Yangtze? No, Hung style has never been completely isolated in the South, nor does that make sense given how popular the style became inside and outside of China. There were certainly Hung ga practitioners in the north. I find it funny that nobody argues these kinds of absolutisms with the Taoist arts. Were the Taoist arts similarly "isolated" as you are claiming Hung Fist was? Or do I just misunderstand your reasoning? You are mixing up legends and other bits I don't know where you are getting this information from. What is known is that Hung hei gun is an assumed name taken on by a tea merchant named Jue, from an unrelated royal family's name. Hung hei gun is not to my knowledge associated with creation of Gung Gi *** Fu, which is much older than his time. Taming the Tiger has legendary association with Jee Sin Sim See, a Shaolin Chan master, whose existence is also legend. What are your sources that Jue/Hei Gun created Taming the Tiger? The "Fu Hok Hung" of Wong, assuming you mean Wong Fei Hung's program, contains many "Northern" Shaolin practices. I'm surprised you would claim it has "NO resemblance". It does. Hung ga can to this day be found all across China, north south east and west. SO again, I disagree with that reasoning. As I said, no. But I am sourcing Chinese history and peer-reviewed research, not Hung ga class notes, wuxia fiction, or Triad literature. Be fair and honest is all I ask and challenge your own "conclusions" about Hung ga, Shaolin etc. Folks often build conclusions about these arts based on a combination of fact, history, legend, and inductive reasoning....I simply try to stick with fact, history, and inductive reasoning , combined with the ideas of gentlemen like yourselves! But already I've got some new avenues for research based on this discussion...some ideas maybe I can share with the folks here once I am done. In particular there are ways outside the martial arts to connect Shaolin, other Buddhist temples, and martial arts schools with regards to traditional practices (like deity worship ie Vajrapani vs Guan Gong). So in a nutshell my own theories is that there ARE ways to "connect the dots" between styles without necessarily even looking at martial arts techniques etc. Because arguing that Hung ga was solely found in certain locations in South China from the Ming Dynasty does not compute. You could argue these styles were common and associated with the South, but to argue there was no one practicing them or teaching them north of the Yangtze river at all, is "nonsense". Hung ga can be found in America, Greece, Russia...so how can anyone claim it has never appeared in, been taught in, or used north of the Yangtze?
Ok probably my conclusion is a bit strong. What I mean is that the position I believe to be most likely based on what I know and have read (and yes Shahar is definitely a big influence) is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that any of the Southern systems can trace a lineage back to Shaolin in Henan, via the mythical southern temple or otherwise. I do agree that Shaolin and Chan have definitely influenced Chinese martial culture, particularly in the South, however I don't know if these influences are fundamental or were applied anachronistically to existing combat traditions, perhaps in a related exercise to the one which saw the Southern styles technical lineages linked to a Shaolin temple. Interestingly, this takes me back to the question which started all my curiosity into the history of Chinese martial arts: if the system I study, which is regarded as "Southern Shaolin", descended from Shaolin monks (via a Southern Shaolin Temple), then why does it and other "Southern Shaolin" styles bear almost no resemblance to the styles currently practiced at Shaolin, which do all resemble each other? True, it also seems questionable to me whether or not the styles currently practiced at Shaolin were practiced there several generations ago, or that they have not undergone technical changes, but that just muddies things even more!:dunno:
Thanks, let me clarify myself. I don't think Hung ga "is" Shaolin, but I do think Hung ga seems to have a stronger connection with Shaolin than many other styles because this is a common theme in China...associating Wong Fei Hung's style with the Shaolin. If people thought this way 200 years ago, why was that? Were they wrong? Did they see things that we don't because of different lenses (time, cultural shifts, language, etc)? I think the family styles as they are presented today, are essentially "collections" of ALL SORTS of Northern and Southern material, some Shaolin themed but some Taoist, etc....much like whatever arts went into or came out of Songshan Shaolin were a constant flux of material. Somebody above even pointed out Shaolin has been heavily influenced by militaries of numerous dynasties. And of course Buddhist thought changed over the course of time and heavily influenced things as well. I am not a Buddhist but change is a big part of those philosophies...so we should expect that as arts move, they change. Whatever came into Shaolin, left different, whatever went south, changed and whatever went north, changed. Hung ga, as taught by some (not all as I understand it) lineages, contains Shaolin Chan meditation, Shaolin Qi gong, as well as references to the famous animals and elements etc, as well as what seems to be a huge Buddhist influence. So even if we take the absolute stance that there is "nothing" connecting Shaolin and Hung ga, how do we account for the Buddhist influence, the meditation, the medicine, the qigong practices etc. In my mind this is not a problem at all to reconcile with the record...Hung ga is just a comprehensive collection of some Shaolin influence so it contains a lot of Shaolin hallmarks. But yes, in practice it may not resemble "Shaolinquan" (itself a mish mosh according to Shahar) because it also contains many non-Shaolin things.
Just wanted to say thank you all, this is a great discussion fellows! I'm 100% sure I'm not 100% right about anything (who can be, when so much history is lost or undiscovered), but it really truly helps to discuss all these things with people of varying opinions/conclusions. WE don't have to agree but the conversation is motivational!!! I just read about Tibetan influences in Hung ga in a different thread. This is great it represents a completely new trajectory for me to explore...my background on Tibetan culture is not very good so learning of influence on Hung ga provides some interesting new leads...thanks Martial Arts Planet! Doesn't this imply that "Southern" Hung ga also shared cultural traditions (martial and non) with "Northwestern" Tibetan traditions?..I don't even know what those styles are. So by induction, Hung ga as it became popular due to Wong Fei Hung's fame (building of course on the fame of earlier Hung ga from the legendary Ming period), might have contained not only Shaolin "stuff", but Tibetan "stuff", Taoist "stuff"...what else? Was this why Wong Fei Hung's SPECIFIC version of "Siu Lum" Hung Fist was so famous, arguably the most famous of the five family styles? Was it the "premier blend" of so many famous lineages and traditions? Feel free to assault my positions folks! I will never take it personally. These kinds of productive discussions are really hard to come by on the internet, or worse...in a kung fu class ...which is why I usually stick to books and journals.
I think you have answered this one quite satisfactorily; we both understand that Shaolin and Chan Buddhism (as well as other branches of Buddhism) were both very well known around China for a long time, so I guess it stands to reason that those things have influenced the style and it's practitioners. Like I said earlier, I have no idea how far back those influences go and how much of these practices were bolted on as ideas about Shaolin and its practices became more well known in the collective conscious of Chinese society. While those influences are clear in the particular lineage of Hung Ga we see mostly today, they exist to different extents in other lineages. I also see practitioners today bolting on modern Shaolin ideas and practices which are not "traditional" Hung Ga, due to a feeling that they are indeed a common tradition. I am reminded of some videos I came across of some guy dressed up in typical Shaolin robes, except they were black, doing Hung Ga forms! Talking more specifically about Hung Ga, I think an important yet difficult question (which you have touched upon) is: what is Hung Ga? As you pointed out, the use of the name is a relatively modern phenomenon. It is known Wong Fei Hung called his kung fu "Shaolin" or more specifically "Nam Siu Lam". It is also interesting that there are many types or lineages which call themselves "Hung Ga" and that these can be technically quite different from each other! There is quite a distinct difference between the stuff found on the mainland and stuff which came through Hong Kong. What makes one of these styles Hung Ga rather than something else, given how little they seem to have in common with each other aside from claims to the Shaolin name, a claim shared by many styles which are not Hung Ga? My personal belief is that "Hung Ga" is simply an umbrella term for the many styles which were practiced by various chapters of the Hung Men. The most famous of these styles is the one passed down by Wong Fei Hung, who it is known blended his family style with lots of other things including other Southern "Shaolin" styles (Iron Wire, Fut Ga, probably some Choy Li Fut) and Lama Pai. In fact, it is a little known fact that today's Gung Gee Fok Fu Kyun ("I" shaped taming tiger) is actually two older forms joined together, with modifications! Also, this set (or either of the sets it is made up from) does not seem to appear in the curriculum of many other lines of Hung Ga, particularly those not descended from Wong Kei Ying, which makes me question its supposed age as an original set from the Shaolin temple. :thinking:
I guess this is mainly due to his successful military career, his good luck with finding good disciples (I would argue that Lam Sai Wing did more to grant the style its fame than Wong Fei Hung himself did) and the fact that he and his disciples managed to move to Hong Kong.
Dragging this back to life after finding a guy in manchester here: http://www.chugarhungkuen.co.uk/?page_id=16 mentions of Chu Gar (isnt that a mantis system?) and of a 'red fist' southern style. The gallery suggests some southern influence due to a few very low horse stances and the trademark hung ga hand with the single finger up. Possibly some sort of Hung stew, but first case of me finding a reference to the Red Fist thats not a wiki section
Interesting, most of the stuff I have pulled out of the interwebs (if trustworthy) indicates a 'red fist' hung ga with a northern influence, or alternatively a northern style with a heavy hung influence that goes by the name 'red fist' Well, Ive been looking at possibly trying something mantis related to see what I think of it. Since this is near me and offers Hung and Mantis influence, might be a good comprimise
