Wikipedia doubting the lineage of Sigung

[Tekka]

Dear All,

I was reading up on Wing Chun seminar that will be taught by Sigung next year and came across the wikipedia article about Sigung.
I was apalled to see that Sigung's lineage is in doubt.

It states that, "His affiliation with the historical Shaolin is questionable, as two other temples claim the same lineage and the abbot of the northern temple (most commonly referred to as the Shaolin Temple) denies any connection with Wong Kiew Kit's Southern Shaolin monastery. [12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kiew_Kit

I am afraid that my writing skills and knowledge may not do enough justice to honour Sigung Wong properly. Dear Shaolin Wahnam sifu's, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters, can you help do justice and improve upon this article?

Tekka from Shaolin Wahnam Japan

[Omar]

Wikipedia is a great source of information, but it also contains a lot of nonsense. I would never for example, quote a Wikipedia article in a academic paper or other work that would require a certain degree of source credibility.

the abbot of the northern temple (most commonly referred to as the Shaolin Temple) denies any connection with Wong Kiew Kit's Southern Shaolin monastery

This did actually make me chuckle. I have no reason to think the abbot harbors ill will against Sifu, and his statement is true, if we consider the fact that the current abbot or others in the restored Shaolin temple in Henan province have very little to do with the traditional Shaolin order of old, before the temple's decline in the early 20th century.

Anyone who have read Sifu's books, and especially those that have met and learned from him personally will know through experience what Shaolin is and that it is quite different from the practice in the Henan temple and its surrounding Wushu schools today.

I find it amusing that the abbot in the restored temple by default is quoted as the Shaolin authority, though this is understandable if the article was written by someone without the historical information, or another motive then providing genuine information.

Though I agree, it would be good if someone with a wikipedia account could improve this article.

[Tekka]

I totally agree

Dear Omar,

I totally agree with you that wikipedia is a good place to start a general search. That is why I really hope that the wikipedia article can be improved upon. I have only trained in Japan but I was wondering if there is someone in charge of PR globally?

Tekka

[Charles David]

Following the link (footnote twelve) to the article cited, we read:

Meanwhile, claims to the title of "Southern Shaolin Temple" are being disputed between the three Buddhist temples of Quanzhou, Putian and Fuqing of Fujian Province. However, Shi Yong Xin refuses to endorse them, claiming "as the abbot of the Shaolin Temple, I'm not fit to comment on the "Southern Shaolin" issue. But I would say I've never seen the phrase "Southern Shaolin" in the archives or books stored at our temple."

(bold mine).

The author of the wiki section in question is incorrect in claiming the abbot

denies any connection with Wong Kiew Kit's Southern Shaolin monastery.

when the abbot is simply refraining from comment.

Certainly, one wonders about the depth of the Abbot's scholarship and understanding if he feels he is "not fit to comment."


Still,


Chas.

[Chiahua]

I suppose it's not too surprising that he wouldn't find any historical documents regarding the Southern temple given how many times this temple and the southern temple have been burned to the ground, give or take a few cultural revolutions....

[Cragget]

...give or take a few cultural revolutions....

Hilarious!!

That's exactly the point. What's going to be proven or disproven in the light of such extensive cultural reform?? It's pointless...

[Dave]

Hi all,

regarding the current abbot, I refer you all to this old thread...

http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4782

...nuff said

Dave.

[Ronny]

Well, fact is (yes it really is fact) that there were several Southern Shaolin Monasteries and Temples during the Qing Dynasty (1644 -1911), branches and affiliates. A few of them used the name Shaolin, most not because it was too dangerous, bearing in mind that during the Qing Dynasty, China was foreign ruled by the Manchus and the Shaolin Warriors (some monks but mostly laymen) where a treating source of resistance against the Manchu, so it would be unwise to use the name Shaolin as it is connected with "Anti-Manchu!".

Years ago the orginial sight of one of the Southern Shaolin Monastries with the orginal written plate "Shaolin" was discovered. So, there is no doubt about the Southern Shaolin Monastery.

[Tekka]

Updated the Wikipedia page

Hello All,

Today I made my first attempt at editing in Wikipedia. Althought I do not have enough knowledge about the Southern Shaolin temple, I inserted material from Sigung's "The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu" that explains Sigung's lineage from the the Southern Shaolin Monastery.

I also added a little more information that Sigung Also teaches, Shaolin Qigong, Tai Chai Chuan and Lion dance. I was not sure how much editing we are allowed to do so just added material that could be cited.
Cheers,

Tekka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kiew_Kit#Lineage

Lineage

Wong claims to be the fourth generation successor of Jiang Nan from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in China who after 50 years of wandering, with the sole aim of finding a suitable successor, reached southern Thailand to teach a young Kung Fu master, Yang Fa Kun.
About 50 years later, Yang Fa Kun taught the Shaolin arts to Ho Fatt Nam.[13]Wong states his legacy is over 150 years old and can be traced through two patriarchs Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam.[14] His affiliation with the historical Shaolin is questionable, as two other temples claim the same lineage and the abbot of the northern temple (most commonly referred to as the Shaolin Temple) denies any connection with Wong Kiew Kit's Southern Shaolin monastery. [15]

[Jim Redfern]

Dear all,

Regarding the statement from the wiki article:

His affiliation with the historical Shaolin is questionable, as two other temples claim the same lineage and the abbot of the northern temple (most commonly referred to as the Shaolin Temple) denies any connection with Wong Kiew Kit's Southern Shaolin monastery. [15]

The reference 15 is to an interview with the abbot of the current North Shaolin temple. He denies any knowledge of the existance of a Southern Shaolin temple, discrediting Sitaigung's affiliation with it. I've discovered an article in Kungfu Magazine 2003 July/August entitled "Southern Shaolin Temple - The Holy Land of Martial Arts" By Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen, which has also been available online. Recently the article has gone offline but can still be read using google's cache.

In the article the following is stated:

Due to existing material objects, folk legend and historical literature all pointing to the existence of a Southern Shaolin Temple, the Putian Southern Shaolin Research Association was the first to apply for Government permission to engage in formal archaeological studies for the Southern Shaolin Temple. From Dec. 1, 1990 to May 25, 1991, approved by National Cultural Affairs Bureau, the Fujian Provincial Archeology Team also set out to do the same by excavating 1325 square meters of a total 30,000 square meters of Lin Quan Yuan. This represented the first phase of the recovery of the Southern Shaolin Temple. The initial dig unearthed many precious historical relics of dynasties ranging from the Tang to the Qing.

In June, 1991, the Northern Shaolin Temple sent their Martial Monks to teach martial arts at Putian. Hand in hand with the Putian Southern Shaolin Research Association, they started to rebuild the "Southern Boxing and Northern Kicking" magnificent martial arts era. The Putian Southern Shaolin Research Institute was further invited to make a horizontal inscribed board with the words on it saying "World's No. 1 Temple" on August 21st, 1991. The board has been hung at the top of the gate of Tian Wang Dian of Song San Shaolin Temple signifying the unity of the two temples as one Shaolin identity. The reconstructed Southern Shaolin Temple has been a very effective driving force for propagating and developing Chinese traditional martial arts, while simultaneously strengthening relations with the Chan Grandmaster of the Northern Shaolin Temple.

On Sept. 14, 1991, the Chinese Martial Arts Association, the Fujian Sport Committee, and the Fujian Martial Arts Association co-organized a conference to expound and prove the existence of the Southern Shaolin Temple. More than 30 experts in martial arts, history, religion and archeology firmly asserted that the central temple Lin Quan Yuan of Southern Shaolin Temple was built around 557 A.D during the Nan (South) Dynasty. This is only 61 years later than the Song San Shaolin Temple and even one year earlier than the most famous Guan Hua Temple at Putian. Therefore it is the earliest temple built in Fujian. According to the above referenced research teams, it was ultimately ordered burned by Kang Xi of the Qing Dynasty because of its participation and leadership in revolutionary activities. The Chinese Buddhism Association council member, De Chan, who is also the 29th grandmaster of Song San Shaolin Temple, confirmed these facts via historical literature maintained in the Northern Temple. In recognition, he granted an inscription for the reconstructed Southern Shaolin Temple. The meaning of the inscription is, "At the foot of "Jiu Lian Mountain", there exists a Southern Shaolin Temple".

On April 25th, 1992, the Southern Shaolin Temple confirmation conference was held in the Beijing People's Conference Hall. The conference officially approved the reconstruction of the Southern Shaolin Temple. After the press conference, the Xin Hua News Agency distributed press releases to the world announcing that the Southern Shaolin Temple was to be rebuilt at Fujian Putian. The Central News Agency also carried an article on April 26th stating, "Experts revealed the historically secret Southern Shaolin Temple to be rebuilt at Fujian". The article asserted that the controversy over the location of the ruins of the Southern Shaolin Temple had been resolved.

This would seem to invalidate the wiki article's casting of doubt onto Sitaigung's affiliation with the Southern temple. It would be good to find further sources for the information in Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen's article to strengthen this, and modify the wiki article.

Also there's a "discussion" page with wiki article on which some discussion has been made about this, but seems to have stopped.

Best wishes,
Jim

[AlexBaranosky]

As a different perspective I'd like to ask, does it really matter? Yes of course we should set the official account straight, but whether the Shaolin temple actually existed or not is largely irrelevant to the benefits our art gives us. To me, that is the whole point of why I practice. Not because of some lineage (though that is fascinating to me, and I do respect the past masters), but because of what the art can do for me with regards to my own personal Aims and Objectives for my life.

• Does refutation of a lineage take away the happiness our arts have given many of us?
• Does it take away the good health our arts have given many of us?
• Does it take away the internal force?
• Or combat ability?
• Mental freshness?
• Etc on ad infinitum...

Yes, let's promote what we know to be true. But let's not lose site of the reason we train

[Jim Redfern]

Well said Alex

[Markus Kahila]

As a different perspective I'd like to ask, does it really matter?

- From a practitioner's perspective, no. From an academical perspective, yes.


Our schools aim is to preserve the genuine Shaolin arts; and, as scholar warriors, we should never be afraid to tell the truth. I think everyone here is doing a valuable job upholding the Shaolin name and the good values of our school.


.


Wikipedia's perspective, consistently reliable or not, is an academical one. Information should be presented as neutrally as possible, preferrably backed by sources (like the one Jim has kindly provided here). If sources are not available, expressions like "according to" can be used to highlight the authors unbiased perspective.

Unconfirmed information deemed as biased can be refuted and removed easily. Unbiasedly presented information backed by sources is much harder to refute outright, but it can be debated. This is why there are often "criticizm", "debate" or "differing views" -sections under a wider topic.

Using basic ground rules for academic discussion, it is much easier to post on Wikipedia and make it stick. When our perspective is also out there, people have more opportunities to find out about things for themselves.


Keep up the good work!


Best wishes,

[Harumi]

Dear Tekka,

Thank you for updating the Wikipedia.
You're brave!

I'm honestly pround of you as a member of Shaolin Wahnam Japan.

with gratitude,
Harumi

[AlexBaranosky]

Markus,

I agree whole-heartedly. My purpose in making my post was to offer a different perspective, not to invalidate the original message of the thread.

It seems the Wikipedia doubts the entire Southern Shaolin Temple even existed so it isn't doubting JUST Sifu's lineage but the lineage of many many kungfu masters.