by Josh Young » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:29 am
I can only guess at this point.
assuming it is old Shaolin, it may be a descendant of something influenced by Dao Mo. However there are some major differences, without more information I would venture to propose 3 possibilities in relation to Indian arts.
1 it descends from them, making Indian arts ancestral to this Shaolin.
2 they descend from it, making the Shaolin art ancestral to the Indian
3 they are totally unrelated and the similarities in linguistic terms and stances are totally coincidental.
Problems with each:
3 is virtually untenable due to the statistical likelihood of so many coincidences in combination with the historical record of Bhodidharma in both India and China.
2 Shaolin arts (as we know them) do not date back 3000 years like the indian arts.
1 there is sufficient difference that it is unlikely that the form originated in India, clearly it is a CMA form.
We know that indigenous martial arts in China go back many thousands of years, but documentation is scarce the further back you go. Still archaeological evidence makes it clear that there were weapons and wars, signs of martial arts, for a long time in China.
Whatever Bodhidharma brought to China by way of India was amalgamated, not adopted, rather it was adapted: adapted into existing Chinese martial arts. This is a matter of historical record and several of Dr. Yang's books address this.
However some claim that the line, of spiritual and martial transmissions that Bodhidharma represents was introduced to India by none other than old long ears: Lao Tsu. Who was said by the same traditions to have been a martial artist, practicing Taoist Neijia.
What should become clear to the discerning researcher is first that cultural exchange occurred far more than was recorded in the scholarly record.
Second the objectivity of cultures in regard to their traditions is totally gone, every culture is ethnocentric in its research. To put it simply you cannot trust the history or scholarly research of any people to be an accurate record, rather it is a portrayal, not a record. Also the boundaries of focus in such research are often cultural, so frequently even the best of scholars of a single culture are totally ignorant about the extent to which that culture was influenced by others or even influenced others. Frequently their ability to examine a topic ends at the imaginary lines that we draw on maps, those pretend lines that do not exist and yet we kill each other over.
Third cultural exchange take place not in a one way manner but back and forth.
Those three points add up to indicate that all anyone can really do is present data and draw a conclusion, ergo an opinion. For sure that is an educated guess.
I have no education about this form, where it comes from, who teaches it, where they learned it from etc.
my studies indicate the transmission of martial arts (in a very rough one way manner) is as follows:
Africa-->egypt-->levant-->india-->China-->Japan
But there are branches and net like loops in the not so simple version. At no point after an introduction of martial arts into a regional culture did it cease to exist in that culture, ergo lines exist in the different cultures to this day,there was no exclusive transmission.
I might point out that the same is true for the same cultures and areas in terms of religion,and genetic development after the last apex bottleneck in human culture when there were less than a hundred people alive.
Anyway I digress, for my nature is unlimited.
I would love to learn more about the form. Does anyone here know anyone who has access to Shaolin records?