Shaolin Kung Fu - Special Shaolin Training Methods

Special Shaolin Training Methods

Further information: List of the 72 Shaolin martial arts

In 1934, Jin Jing Zhong published a book variously known in English as Shaolin 72 Shaolin Arts Practice Method or Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin. This work lists what are alleged to be authentic Shaolin training methods that can produce extraordinary skills and abilities; examples of these skills include iron body techniques (both offensive and defensive), jumping and wall scaling techniques, pole-top leaping dexterity training, pressure-point and nerve manipulation, and a host of other feats. Most of these skills require anywhere from three to ten years to master, according to the author. Jin claims to have witnessed many of these skills himself or to have learned of them from a scroll given to him by Shaolin Abbot Miao Xing, though the work tends to exaggerate and embellish.

Read more about this topic:  Shaolin Kung Fu

Famous quotes containing the words special, training and/or methods:

    “It is surely a matter of common observation that a man who knows no one thing intimately has no views worth hearing on things in general. The farmer philosophizes in terms of crops, soils, markets, and implements, the mechanic generalizes his experiences of wood and iron, the seaman reaches similar conclusions by his own special road; and if the scholar keeps pace with these it must be by an equally virile productivity.”
    —Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)

    “The triumphs of peace have been in some proximity to war. Whilst the hand was still familiar with the sword-hilt, whilst the habits of the camp were still visible in the port and complexion of the gentleman, his intellectual power culminated; the compression and tension of these stern conditions is a training for the finest and softest arts, and can rarely be compensated in tranquil times, except by some analogous vigor drawn from occupations as hardy as war.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
    —Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)