Some Wing Chun and martial arts Historical facts

[hunschuld]

Since some people mistake fantasy for historical reality I thought I would do this thread.

Fact there is no proof or evidence of the burning of the Shaolin temple. It did not happen. there fore all creation stories tied to the burning are bupkis.

There never was a Southern Shaolin temple. There is no historical evidence it existed. So all creation stories that include this temple are bupkis.

No southern temple no evergreen or everlasting hall so all creating myths that say this is where Wing Chun started are bupkis.

Many famous early wing chun practitioners such as Leung Jan, Chan Wah,Fung Wa ,Lo Kwai learned wing chun in adulthood and probably had knowledge of other martial arts so it should not be a surprise that different families of wing chun contain different influences.

Wing Chun came out of the anti-Ching movement. Many Wing Chun people were killed in the boxer rebellion . Wing Chun by accident became the art of the middle and upper middle class so it is not a surprise that they gravitated to the Nationalists . Many died fighting the Japanese and the Communists. Many fled China after 1948. Many records were destroyed in the wars. After 1948 mainland wing chun went underground and just taught to friends and family.
The cultural revolution of the 60s targeted martial arts. Many masters were killed and more documents were lost. Lai Hip Chi is an example. In the 1970's China realized there was western interest in Kung Fu so the govenment started the current Shaolin temple and paid people to return to China and teach kung fu. Wing Chun got poplular in Fatshan in the 80's and 90sdue to people wanting to get to Yip Mans roots. Many stories popped up at this time for marketing reasons. Many families kept their wing chun to themselves and did not teach. Because of all the historical conflict and death there is no way to really get to the roots of wing chun because so few verifiable written records are available to the public and when records do come out if they hurt someones rice bowl the records are attacked as untrue so families don't bother trying to correct the record.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Fact there is no proof or evidence of the burning of the Shaolin temple.

Fact there is no proof or evidence of the burning of the Shaolin temple. It did not happen. therefor all creation stories tied to the burning are bupkis.

There never was a Southern Shaolin temple. There is no historical evidence it existed.

Patrick McCarthy, Hanshi, student of Master Richard Kim, and translator of the Bubishi into English, cites several Chinese sources referring to the Shaolin temples, which conflict with your statements.

 

[jlq]

Patrick McCarthy, Hanshi, student of Master Richard Kim, and translator of the Bubishi into English, cites several Chinese sources referring to the Shaolin temples, which conflict with your statements.

When talking about Shaolin temples in the context of martial arts, we should always be mndful of which one we are talking about. The real one or the "mythical" one which is referred to in the various origin histories of southern Chinese martial arts? While we can say for sure that the Songshan Shaolin temple surely was and again, after its revival, is real it becomes more problematic when it comes to the mythical one, i.e. the so called "southern Siulam Ji". While it can be documented that there have been many Shaolin temples all over China throughout history, it can not be proven that any of these were THE mythical southern Siulam temple from which most, if not all southern styles sprang. One problem is that the different stories name different locations, and nowadays there are three places in Fujian which lay claim to being that "mythical temple", which are all somewhat problematic, to say the least... Anyway, there are many old manuscrips and books which refer to some Shaolin or Siulam temple, but again, which one are they referring to? It the term Shaolin is in any way connected to some version of a story where the temple was burnt down and 5 elders fled, etc., the temple referred to is the mythical one, which is almost certainly a bastardization of the secret societ creation myth, coopted by martial artists. Thus, even though old documents or books mention a Shaolin temple, it is not actually evidence that such a thing ever existed - it just means that it existed in the stories written down back in the days when the manuscrip was penned..

To give you an example, we can look at the work of the eminent Chinese martial arts scholar, Tang Hau, who wrote a study on the subject of the Shaolin temple and its relation to Chinese Gung Fu. Basically, what he found is that while the Songshan Shaolin temple is real enough, the claims of certain texts linking them to that temple are not (f.ex. "A Study of "The Secrets of Shaolin Boxing").

Best regards

 

[isshinryuronin]

My general understanding is that there were several northern Shaolin temples (Henan province), which over a few centuries, were successively destroyed and rebuilt in same? other? locations. At some point (1675-1730??), a few MA masters fled the warring north and took up residence near the sourthern temple (Fujian province) whose historical location associated with MA remains unknown. I'm definitely not an expert.

I agree that there are significant gaps in the provenance of texts and the historical chain referring to the temples. As jlq mentioned, there are references whose validity cannot be verified. But, as Dirty Dog put it, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is uncertainty in various areas of MA history. There are proven, factual histories. Some stories are probably false, but entertaining, and often providing a positive message. Some likely, but unproven. Some doubtful, but possible. Some definitely untrue, but lingering. There is a whole spectrum of the "truth" scale. I suppose one can blend all these colors as they wish.

IMO, the uncertainties can still be embraced, as long as we recognize them for what they are - perhaps like wayward relatives whose company we nevertheless enjoy.

 

[geezer]

Myths are more than "bupkis". There is factual truth, and then there is the is the non-factual truth of myth, folklore, fables and parables.

The origin stories of Wing Chun and many other Chinese martial arts should not be taken as fact, but regardless, if understood for what they are, they do have value.

 

[Sifu Ken of 8 Tigers]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Beat me to it.

Sounds more like an ax to grind than a logical argument. Troy never existed ... until it was found, like a million other things that were oral tradition.