Yili does have a lot of different forms, all of which teach different skills.
During Baixingquan training there is a form called Sanbaoquan that is very similar in appearance to Wing Chun forms. It teaches extremely close range techniques, the coiling of a hand from one strike into another, using one hand only to block and strike multiple times. Other Baixing forms are for strength, stamina, to develop "drive" (the ability to launch oneself from a point on the ground to a point further away while delivering a strike).
In Xingyiquan training, there are only the Wuxing (the Five Element postures), Lienhuan Wuxing (lit: "Linking the Five Shapes/Elements"), and Shih-er Xingquan (lit: "Twelve Shapes"), though Shih-er Xingquan isn't trained until later.
In Taijiquan training we use the Yang family short form, though the stances have been modified from the way many people train them (though by no means all) to allow for more stability and body action.
In Baguazhang we use the Chang family Bagua set (which is fairly easy to learn and nowhere nearly as complex as some methods of Bagua) and a linear set that practices the Bagua postures on a straight line as opposed to walking the circle.
All along these phases, the Eight Shapes of Yili are being learned and practiced. While we do have many forms to teach, it is expected that a person will naturally gravitate toward some and develop higher skill in those moreso than others. The ultimate goal is to pass beyond the need for forms - they are tools, manuals of techniques. And like college textbooks, when you have absorbed the material the books are no longer needed for your learning. They continue to serve as reference manuals, however, so they are still valuable to go back and "re-read" frequently.
As for the Shaolin thing...
What do monks/priests do? They cloister themselves away from the distractions of the rest of the world so they can focus on their religious pursuits. This is what Shaolin was, right? A Buddhist monatstery?
So along comes Bodhidharma/Da Mo/Daruma. He is an Indian Buddhist monk of great reputation, that allegedly also had training in Yoga and methods of Indian martial combat. When he arrived at Shaolin (as the story goes) he saw the monks were in poor health, lacked physical conditioning, and fell asleep during sermons, lectures and meditation. He felt something needed to be done, and as a visiting VIP he had the clout to make things happen.
So in comes the alleged creation myth of Chinese kung fu.
Perhaps he did teach the monks methods of self-defense. It is much more likely that he taught them yogic methods of fitness and health exercises. But even if the monks
did train in fighting techniques, how much time could they really devote to such training? They were there to pursue their religious devotion, not to learn to kick butt. Hours of meditation, prayer, lecture and study do not allow for a whole lot of free time in which to crank out thousands of alleged fighting styles!
There were, however, lay clergy present on the temple grounds. This is a common occurance in nearly every religion that has a tradition of cloistered clergy.
In monastic living, there are the monks proper that see to the daily running of the monastery (administrative things like paying bills, taking in offerings, etc.; growing food; cooking food; cleaning the temple grounds; performing the logistical support for rites and ceremonies; etc.) as well as pursuing their religious devotional requirements (the aforementioned prayer, meditation, sermons and lectures). There are lay persons who provide different services to the cloistered clergy (i.e. handymen, gardeners, administrative assistants, etc.) and some even reside within the monastery grounds.
If you look at the Buddhist traditions in both China and Japan, you find tales of (alleged) monks that were incredible fighters and killed many opponents in combat. But the whole issue of
killing is part of the problem, since Buddhism is strictly pacifistic. Buddhists are encouraged to become vegetarians both because such a diet is considered healthier and more conducive to spiritual growth and because by not eating meat you
do not take the life of another creature. So who takes care of the defense of the monks and the monastery?
That's where the legend of the "fighting monks" comes in. In Japan, Buddhist temples had "fighting monks" called sohei. They were monks up to a point, but didn't have the same degree of restrictions that the monks proper had. There are tales of sohei being whoring, alcohol swilling fiends. Monks weren't afforded that kind of luxury.
So, I extend that line of thinking, along with the political history of Shaolin as a refuge for fighters who held political views that were less than approved of, and I think it is easy to see that the idea of enrolling in the Shaolin way of life in order to learn 100s of martial arts is absurd. Possible to enter and learn martial arts, yes, but not as a priest. And as far as Shaolin being the origin of martial arts in China (due, I suppose, to the volume of arts titled "Shaolin This" and "Shaolin That," as well as so many others laying claim to a Shaolin lineage) that may well be true, but I suspect it would have more to do with the crosstraining of the "temporary residents" and a possible, though unlikely, residue of that information being left behind when they departed.
Just my theory, anyone can have their own take on the whole thing. I just don't believe the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fantasy of how martial arts in China were once upon a time...
No worries! I don't take offense to folks disagreeing with my ideas... In fact, it is that kind of healthy disagreement that makes me re-evaluate what I think, do and say for errors and inconsistencies. Disagreement, at least for me, spurs growth.
Thanks for helping me grow!
:samurai: :tank:
), but it is fairly common in the Japanese/Okinawan arts as well - just not the standardized modern forms. If you look at some arts, you will see that in a manner similar to FMA they seem to mutate every generation or two into something with a new name, some new techniques, but a similar foundation.
