I know this is a sticky subject but could someone please give me some info with some historical backing?
I am wondering if there is an actual Northern Shaolin Manual that covers a good cross section of what was traditionally taught at the Northern Shaolin Temple, in the early 1900's or earlier? And in print and translated to English.
This can go in three directions:
1) Assuming that what is taught at the temple today is not what was taught in the early 1900's and before (I have no idea, just heard this today actually), then an early 1900's or earlier manual or at least a compilation of material from this time frame, ruling out modern works written by contemporary monks or others about contemporary practice. A work that is historically verifiable to have come from Northern Shaolin and that covers their practices.
2) A modern work by contemporary monks or others directly studying Northern Shaolin Temple that scholars agree is what was taught at least before the late early 1900's. For example if a modern monk wrote a manual and showed historical references to older documents to make it clear that, if he is presenting modern exercises, that they have their roots in the early 1900's, or earlier, Northern Shaolin Temple.
3) A modern work by modern monks or others that presents contemporary practices but who can prove using historical references that what is taught today is the same as what was taught in the early 1900's and before.
I trained in Southern Shaolin (and I know that's an even stickier topic) for a while and loved it so much but I have always been curious about the northern teachings.
I know that they existed as many are referenced in "The Shaolin Monastery" by Meir Shahar, a very well researched work.
The only one I can find is "Authentic Shaolin Heritage: Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin". It is purported to be written with the direct input of a Shaolin monk and was written in the early 1900's. Does anyone know if this book in particular is authentic? The word "Shaolin" is thrown around so much that I really never assume until I get some kind of scholarly verification and with this work I have none thus far.
I am wondering if there is an actual Northern Shaolin Manual that covers a good cross section of what was traditionally taught at the Northern Shaolin Temple, in the early 1900's or earlier? And in print and translated to English.
This can go in three directions:
1) Assuming that what is taught at the temple today is not what was taught in the early 1900's and before (I have no idea, just heard this today actually), then an early 1900's or earlier manual or at least a compilation of material from this time frame, ruling out modern works written by contemporary monks or others about contemporary practice. A work that is historically verifiable to have come from Northern Shaolin and that covers their practices.
2) A modern work by contemporary monks or others directly studying Northern Shaolin Temple that scholars agree is what was taught at least before the late early 1900's. For example if a modern monk wrote a manual and showed historical references to older documents to make it clear that, if he is presenting modern exercises, that they have their roots in the early 1900's, or earlier, Northern Shaolin Temple.
3) A modern work by modern monks or others that presents contemporary practices but who can prove using historical references that what is taught today is the same as what was taught in the early 1900's and before.
I trained in Southern Shaolin (and I know that's an even stickier topic) for a while and loved it so much but I have always been curious about the northern teachings.
I know that they existed as many are referenced in "The Shaolin Monastery" by Meir Shahar, a very well researched work.
The only one I can find is "Authentic Shaolin Heritage: Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin". It is purported to be written with the direct input of a Shaolin monk and was written in the early 1900's. Does anyone know if this book in particular is authentic? The word "Shaolin" is thrown around so much that I really never assume until I get some kind of scholarly verification and with this work I have none thus far.
