Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Authenticity of monks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I know, I know... I say monk 'cause he wasn't dressed in the orange. He was wearing brown and blues while acting super revrent doing the right hand salute, Amituofo, thing. So I called him a monk. For all I know he just took the money back out of the box, split it with the "monk" next to him, and had a good laugh at the stupid rich foriegner. I just didn't want to start screaming at him in Chinese about how he was trying to rip me off, in the Wushuguan. They probably could have kicked me off the temple grounds. I thought it would be better to just pay and get the hell out of there.

    Damn "monk"y lookin little people.... I never had Goofy try to take a picture without me askin and then try to sell it back to me.... Scheme'ing ass monk'y lookin little people.
    "Winners turn to losers, losers are forgotten..." - A Tribe Called Quest

    Comment


    • Originally posted by baiwanxi
      Damn "monk"y lookin little people.... I never had Goofy try to take a picture without me askin and then try to sell it back to me.... Scheme'ing ass monk'y lookin little people.
      Then again, lately Goofy gets his kicks out of feeling up little girls. So, all in all, you didn't do too badly with the scheming little monk peeps.
      Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

      "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

      (more comments in my User Profile)
      russbo.com


      Comment


      • Originally posted by LFJ
        arhat-

        this guy was originally ordained at baimasi, as i said, but was later accepted as a monk in shaolinsi.
        If he were ordained at BaiMaSi, then he would not be ordained again- "accepted" is something all (most) temples do as a courtesy, as you mention later in your post...unless by "accepted" you really mean he went further along his monastic journey at Shaolin. If he were just a resident visitor, his experience would probably be relatively generic. Have you verified his authenticity, lol, or do you just accept it on face value.

        That is why someone like Guolin keeps their non Shaolin dharma name. My point is simple- there are more than enough genuine inheritors, direct inheritors, within Shaolin itself that should be used as your source material- at the very least whatever you come up with should be cross referenced. This is only obvious, as Shaolin as an institution bears several unique markers. It's like people who have a problem with eating different living things, but have no problem passing on training martial arts as a qualifier for how buddhist something is. People tend to see what they want to see, and take umbrage at what they want to. Similar to not seeing a forest for the trees. And the argument is academic, because it's conclusions are not always practical, practically some people have feet in more than one stream and the stream has different currents.

        Sometimes an Abbot is invited to witness or conduct from outside the Temple conducting the ceremony, or other prominent monks attend, I'm surprised you never found Xing Zhen's bio which haas some details about the process, so yes there is a certain degree of familiarity, but also there is closed door, and what always seems to be forgotten is that monasticism is a process...sometimes this process is arrested, paused, taken back up, or finished. As far as I am personally concerned, I don't respect the precepts because of themselves, nobody should, and if people, in their application shed some of the more ridiculous ones, that to me is more Buddhist than accepting them because they are Buddhist or offer people outside a transmission a means of discussing and defining that tradition. I think this is what SYM is pointing at when he brings up He Shang and it's meaning.

        As to what I know or do not know, what I reveal is according to my own personal motivations. IF the forum were as it used to be, I probably would not have any issue with sharing some things- other things are not for public consumption- sorry that's just how it is. If you want to know you go through the hoops like everyone before you. But I am not enlightened, and yeah I can be a condescending sarcastic bastard, especially when I know you are not a fool but see you on a fool's errand. And I'm not in the habit of spoonfeeding chum to sharks, I don't care what insults the forum members throw at me, or what any of them think of me either, I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am, I've seen and experienced first hand more than enough "proof" to convince a born skeptic three times over as to the veracity of the tradition I've joined, how it is applied, what it's results are and what it's goals are, and what's more, the proof is in the pudding according to how I (mostly) conduct my life, lol, so sue me.

        What I have realized lately is that this forum is not representative anymore of a genuine search for knowledge about Shaolin so yeah, I will keep to myself, over time posters like Lu will just fade away and hang themselves with their own rope- that's obviously the only way he will learn jack shit- and if you think this forum can "attack" or "hurt" or "bash" my Shifu you have another thing coming. The truth is, I never post to defend my Shifu- you are only presented one specious side but man can dog hunt- I only post to illustrate a different view, one which is often opposed to fallacious or specious ad hominem attacks such as lodged by someone like Lu. In fact, the web and this forum are basically a giant waste of time, at best it provides the armchair enthusiast a hard on. the opinions expressed here matter little in the grand scheme of things and certainly will not build a school or stop one from being built. I mean some of the shit people say- it's unreal. Cross finds the negative in every goddamn thing- he posits, insultingly, what is so Buddhist or compassionate- I say well we are involved in performing charity, prison work, he says there are people who do it better. As if he would even know. So I guess we should stop? That makes so much sense. All the charities should dry up and just let the one that does it "best" to work it all. If you are not Picasso, no need to take up a paintbrush. This is the tone here now, and you have all created it. I don't want a part of it anymore, I don't want to feed into it when it is pointless.

        So call it allocation of resources. I could either spend my time here going point for point for 5 people unconcerned with constructive much less logical argument, or be about my business in the world and make significant, real differences. Case in point, you want to do a case study about Shaolin using one external source, and you want to consider that difinitive. Okey Dokey, that's perfect for internet PhDs, but instead of getting insulted and all in a huff, why don't you follow my advice and try and conduct some real research.

        all i hear from you is "there was a thing called the CR" or "one day you'll find out" or other equally meaningless and condescending points, as it clears nothing up whatsoever.
        I would suggest you check the condescension and take a look at the manner of questioning and tone and perhaps you will better understand why I am testy in my replies. A failure on the readers part to understand the scope of the effect of the CR, or an understanding that traditions and sects adapt and change over time due to influences of various sorts, modify traditions or what is acceptable within the group, does not invalidate the scope and effect of the CR or the results of the influences. You don't want to accept that monks- even members of the Four Olds, returned with families and that this would not have an effect on the rest of the monks and how they came to see things...I mean Wan Heng has a kid, and you owe him the survival of the tradition you seem to want to be a part of- well I find that incredulous. Wan Heng was kicked out, but not because of the family, because YX's ego got bunched up. Interesting to note where he came for refuge. De Cheng, whom you have trained with, no longer lives in the temple, should he now be restricted from using the term monk in self referral? Was Doc wrong to call XW and advertise him as a monk? If YX finally succeeds in shoving out De Yang, will he be allowed to use the term? What if he makes a call on his cell phone, or wears a pair of Nikes like you or me? Or teaches a woman face to face without another person present. The point is definitions are objects of convenience to convey meanings. And yes, they change and shift over time.

        Context, especially when dealing with subject matters based on ineffables, must be taken into consideration or your case will have more holes than a seive.

        You are making a big deal out of divisions that are practically artificial. You are trying to take the color red and use it to figure out the color blue.
        "Arhat, I am your father..."
        -the Dark Lord Cod

        Comment


        • Originally posted by doc
          Have you ever thought that the keepers of Shaolin really don't care what these guys do? Nor does Shaolin have any control over them; they don't originally belong to Shaolin (except Guolin), so, Shaolin can't do anything with them.

          Herein lies the other problem. The connectivity that everyone thinks exists, does not exist in some cases.

          Again, any student from any school, gets to wear orange robes with a "shi" name and go on tour, if they're good enough. Leave them in another country, and they become some idolized Shaolin temple monk. This is the current state of affairs.
          The thought that shaolin doesn't care about what these guys do has crossed my mind. Why should we? Interesting that you mention the word control. When there is too much control there is always some type of rebellion of some sort. The "connectivity" issue is always going to be under scrutiny. Connectivity is always in question with any martial art. You may have one monk who has spent 14 years at shaolin while another spent only 5 years before venturing out and going their way. Does time spent at shaolin make a difference as oppose to how much knowledge and ability any particular "monk" has? Or because they are not affiliated with anyone in particular?

          It's just unfortunate that there has been so much support lost by many but then again these issues have been around for years and will probably be around in years ahead.
          http://americanshaolinkungfu.org/3.html

          Comment


          • arhat-

            i dont want to base my conclusions on one source. but i have a pretty good idea that its correct. it matches the only possibility that i have found in doing my own search and discussion with other heshang, wuseng, and sujiadizi. i have two more trips planned to china within the next six months, in which i plan more study than training anyhow.

            my point here with you is that i want to pry the knowledge out of you because i know you are knowledgeable about shaolin history with some points. but it usually only comes out in one sentence buried in a long post of condescending babble. you make points with that babble sometimes, but nothing becomes of it. and i think the knowledge that you do share is most times not whats necessary or helpful to the point of the conversation.

            i wouldnt call the internet a waste of time. its quite a powerful place. its where many people may come to know things like shaolin and even the good work of usast. but there are so many trash talkers or innocent ignorants that dont have the opportunity to learn. yanming wrote a book. what for? all the people online are just people in the world like the ones reading that book. if they can be helped through a book in their hands, why not words on their screen? my point is you shouldnt just hold back knowledge that would clear up a lot of disrespect to shaolin just because you think its a waste of time. it certainly isnt.

            or because you think you had to go through some long suffering road to learn those things so now you are too possessive to share that knowledge with others and save them the trouble. that just seems like ego to me. not the true spirit of spreading shaolin. the shakyamuni for example could have chosen to be a silent buddha and let the rest of us go through that long suffering road. but we owe our shaolin lineages to him long before it even began. long before any of the four olds. if we're always so stingy, sooner or later the knowledge will die out. just like most of the old masters have. and what will that leave the future with? what are we left with now?

            the problem is the only part of this discussion you want to talk about is how the rules of a heshang are not important and have been adapted. and this is your argument for the behavior of wuseng. or you take a wuseng or sujiadizi and look back at the rules for a heshang once again. you're mixing sides here.

            if shi yanming is not a heshang, his opinion on their rules simply doesnt matter. if he doesnt like them, thats cool. no need to become a heshang- for him. but if he wants all heshang to start acting like him then, thats the end of monasticism. because he is a layman. and whoops, causing a monk or nun to disrobe is big trouble. even in the bodhisattva precepts.

            but anyway, i think the main problem is reading the pratimoksha precepts word for word and not understanding or knowing the purpose they are to serve. yeah, some of them look completely silly when you just read it. but reading it isnt learning it. and if you have no interest in becoming a heshang, there's no reason for you to have an opinion on it, or speak that opinion as if its the way things should be, and not just an opinion. learning it would be good though, because it helps understand the venerable monks and nuns who have upheld the vinaya in order to keep the dharma alive for nearly 2600 years. if the rules were really something so idiotic that should be altered, i think there were plenty of other things that could have done the trick in this time than a cultural revolution just last century.

            but still, this is talking about the heshang and their pratimoksha precepts- which dont even apply to the wuseng or sujiadizi. so why is this the center of your or shi yanming's crusade? be yourself and teach according to your position. if you are not a heshang and clearly dont understand their rules, dont tell others not to respect them. heshang have been around since the beginning. clearly longer than wuseng. it wasnt wuseng who have kept the dharma alive for 2600 years. and their appearance hasnt changed the tradition of heshang. and certainly shouldnt. they are still laity anyway.

            so, leave the heshang and their pratimoksha out of it for now. we're looking into the tradition of wuseng, their ordination, precepts, and role- which doesnt apply.

            and as for shi yongxin, there have been countless things he has done that can be considered negative. but the good he has done for shaolin can be counted off as well.

            shi wanheng's being kicked out doesnt surprise me though. its only disappointing.

            Comment


            • Do not mind Arhat for he is an idiot, he was trained wrong on purpose as a joke...
              The essential point in science it not a complicated mathematical formalism or a ritualized experimentation. Rather the heart of science is a kind of shrewd honesty the springs from really wanting to know what the hell is going on!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by arhat
                As far as I am personally concerned, I don't respect the precepts because of themselves, nobody should, and if people, in their application shed some of the more ridiculous ones, that to me is more Buddhist than accepting them because they are Buddhist or offer people outside a transmission a means of discussing and defining that tradition. I think this is what SYM is pointing at when he brings up He Shang and it's meaning.
                Another interesting, and very telling comment by Arhat. Does anyone wonder why YM teaches, and finds, changing very old and commonly believed Buddhist concepts to his liking, acceptable? And, this always seems to be a common concept here...
                Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                (more comments in my User Profile)
                russbo.com


                Comment


                • Originally posted by arhat

                  Was Doc wrong to call XW and advertise him as a monk?
                  Yes. Very wrong. Doc discovered that XW knew virtually nothing about Buddhism, its concepts or ideals. And, in the process, learned a lot about these other guys too.

                  It was quite the education.
                  Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                  "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                  (more comments in my User Profile)
                  russbo.com


                  Comment


                  • the biggest problems i see here are:

                    1) a lack of understanding the purpose of those pratimoksha precepts that apparently have only been read and not learned. (and dont even apply to ones own or ones masters level) if you'd like to throw some out there to be discussed, be my guest.

                    2) using the ideal of a wuseng (layman) to judge how a heshang (fully ordained) should act.

                    3) born of this lack of understanding, disrespect follows.

                    and from this ignorance and disrespect for ones own tradition, just as predicted by the buddha, the dharma ending age is given momentum from buddhists themselves. the more the ordained stop following the vinaya, and the more the laity disrespect it, the more the dharma fades. and it only adds momentum when the masters and disciples teach others not to respect and uphold it.

                    and further, the more a joke shaolin becomes seen to the world.

                    wonderful work for shaolin.

                    i'd say, if you are not a heshang and your master is not a heshang, neither of you should be concerned with them and their precepts. "everyone has a different way to express" right, sym? "be yourself". and especially, or at least, you shouldnt be teaching others not to respect the tradition of heshang upholding the precepts that has safeguarded the dharma through transmission nearly 2600 years, and have allowed you to taste that. at least.....

                    its just the same as discrediting the paths of people who follow other religions. because its a group you are not a part of. yet you are telling people not to respect it and that they should change what they do because you know a better way. how ridiculous is that. but even more ridiculous is that you are doing it to the ordained in your own tradition who are responsible for bringing the dharma to you. such gratitude, its overwhelming.

                    Comment


                    • Problem with a lot of these arguements about what a Shaolin Warrior Monk should be like, is that well Chan Buddhism is about finding enlightenment from within and not from following tradition or academic learning.

                      I suspect this is why the Shaolin don't think its at all serious that they don't know their tradition, or that whatever they are practising or teaching is considered traditional or learned... because well they already know that that isn't Chan.

                      I think this is why there are so few yardsticks in Shaolin and that nobody ever seems to hold them up against one. In fact yardsticks are probably very not Chan, and the fact that we are effectively drawing one up here (trying to make sense of it so we can find some way of qualifing the warriors is probably also very not Chan.

                      I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, as from an academic point of view its most interesting to see how far deviated they are from what could be percieved as where they are supposed to be. Only we shouldn't do it thinking that its bringing us any enlightenment, all it is is defining a hedgemony... all of which again isn't very Chan.

                      Chicken

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by doc
                        Yes. Very wrong. Doc discovered that XW knew virtually nothing about Buddhism, its concepts or ideals. And, in the process, learned a lot about these other guys too.

                        It was quite the education.
                        Doc, would you still think the same if XW stayed and the school turned out well? Or do you believe this only because of what happened?

                        I think you learned a lot about the "other guys" only because of such a bad incident. Again the whole fake monk debate is separate in itself than the actions of certain individuals. I think it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the modern monks are "unbuddhist hustlers/frauds" after experiencing what you did doc and perhaps hearing about other various incidents with some of the other monks. I had an eye opening experience a few years ago when I was faced with a decision of "making a choice" on who's school I was going to follow when several shaolin schools were suddenly opening up. Why was it difficult? Well when you devote yourself to something you have a strong passion for and suddenly it's jeopardized you take a deep hit. I thought to myself this isn't how it should be but I came to the realization that these guys are human too and subjected to everyday life flaws. I could have easily jumped on the anti-shaolin bandwagon on the way I felt but I didn't. I focused on the positve side rather than the negative.

                        I think the problem is that there are too many people that have their own ideas, thoughts and molds on what buddhism should be, on what monks should be, how they should behave/live their lives and what the black and white definitions are on all this stuff. In reality no one gives room for error. I also think some people "idolize" things like buddhism and what not....and any variations are not acceptable to some. I don't believe there are perfect priests, monks, or key religious figures. Everyone at some point has done something they shouldn't have or done something that wasnt good for what they represented. It's just interesting to see how people behave because you have masses that say "he shouldn't do this or she shouldn't do that" but when it comes down to the individuals themselves you would be suprised on what really comes to surface. I have seen this through sociology, criminal profiling classes, and even on lots of jury trials. I have seen one person in particular who sat on a jury trial, throw the book at someone who was charged with speeding. This jury foreman turned out to get a speeding ticket a few days later. He turned around and said that it wasn't fair for him to receive a speeding ticket made a huge issue out of it, after he got the same fine. I know the references are corny but as a law enforcement officer, I deal with people everyday and learn some of their habits. I have seen the best people at their worst and the worst people at their best. There are a lot of hippocrits out there just as I feel there are some here who post garbage. I see a few that work a job 8-5, get off learn some kung fu and then turn around and post what the perfect buddhist is or what a real monk is. As I said, these debates are nothing new. If nothing else they are dug up again from time to time by the new people that decide to learn shaolin or its history.
                        http://americanshaolinkungfu.org/3.html

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chicken
                          I suspect this is why the Shaolin don't think its at all serious that they don't know their tradition
                          interesting you say "the shaolin" as if that includes all who have ever ordained in that tradition- which i'd say is a huge misjudgment.

                          i get what you're saying about the chan school though. but its not off the mark to say the heshang and nigu of all chinese chan traditions are still in practice of chan while living in accordance to the pratimoksha precepts.

                          because if you learn the precepts rather than just read them, you'll come to know that the focus is on liberation and lasting happiness- which is the reason you would ordain in the first place.

                          all the ordinates who follow the pratimoksha precepts (that i have come in contact with- chan, pureland, theravada, tibetan or other) have embraced them and see them as a great blessing.

                          and as i've said before, chan may seem a more free tradition. but it isnt and never has been a less strict tradition for the monastics. it has always been very orthodox. to those who havent learned the precepts, only read them, it may seem very restricting, ridiculous, and un-chan. but ordination is not for everyone. neither is it understood by everyone. apparently not. especially not to those who remain unopened. but thats fine. to those who have ordained and received these precepts they dont feel it to be restricting in the least. in fact, as i said, they find it quite the blessing and definitely not un-chan.

                          the final point is:

                          if its chan for someone to ordain with the pratimoksha precepts, find them as a blessing, and live in accordance just through simple chan practice. thats their chan.

                          if its chan for someone to remain a layman with the five precepts, find them as a blessing, and live in accordance just through simple chan practice. thats their chan.

                          discrediting one or the other, and persuading others to drop it, is neither anyone's chan nor chan at all.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by arhat
                            As far as I am personally concerned, I don't respect the precepts because of themselves, nobody should, and if people, in their application shed some of the more ridiculous ones, that to me is more Buddhist than accepting them because they are Buddhist or offer people outside a transmission a means of discussing and defining that tradition. I think this is what SYM is pointing at when he brings up He Shang and it's meaning.
                            dont forget, this tradition is of heshang. shi yanming is also outside the transmission. he defines that tradition based on his own understanding from outside the transmission. and then teaches others according to his opinion of it.

                            is it more buddhist to learn the precepts before speaking on them or to simply read them and set your conclusion in stone that they are ridiculous and not worthy of anyone's respect? and then spread that.

                            i remember a while back you were talking down about how "stupid" the pureland people were for following such a ridiculous path, which again you only read but didnt learn. and there, you were using chan ideals and definitions to judge their school.

                            but worse yet, instead of saying fellow dharma farers (purelanders) should stop following such a stupid path, now you're saying nobody should respect the ridiculous precepts of the monastics that brought your own tradition to you.

                            there seems to be a trend.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SongshanMonk
                              Doc, would you still think the same if XW stayed and the school turned out well? Or do you believe this only because of what happened?

                              I think you learned a lot about the "other guys" only because of such a bad incident.
                              Yes, I would have. And I did, even when the school was still functioning. Little things started to happen that made us all wonder. One of the wing chun teachers asked my why my monk didn't know how to clean the budda dedication area we had set up; he also wondered, as did I, why he used that same table as an area to put shit. It was that, and many, many more things. I really started to notice a big difference between him and Decheng, even though Decheng had raised him and had "taught" him. Even the students could see the differences, they were that distinct. A lot of questions were starting to be raised after a while; the lies, deceit, greed and other activities then started to rear their ugly heads and I was faced with the position of trying to explain away certain behaviors to some students and others.

                              I learned a lot, before the "bad incident" occurred. The unraveling of the school and the relationships within happened later, and, in and of itself, was an education non pareil. You have to remember that I started this process back in 1999; the individual that I had helped bring up had changed quite a bit, or, as some have mentioned, just eventually showed his true colors with time.

                              My comments do not arise solely because of this experience. I have done a lot of research during my times in Shaolin, and have spoken with many, many people, most of whom are of older generations, and because of their own personal successes, have had no reason to deceive me. These have been people both in and out of the whole monk family. I've learned more than I want to discuss, at least, at this time.
                              Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                              "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                              (more comments in my User Profile)
                              russbo.com


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by LFJ

                                i remember a while back you were talking down about how "stupid" the pureland people were for following such a ridiculous path, which again you only read but didnt learn. and there, you were using chan ideals and definitions to judge their school.

                                but worse yet, instead of saying fellow dharma farers (purelanders) should stop following such a stupid path, now you're saying nobody should respect the ridiculous precepts of the monastics that brought your own tradition to you.

                                there seems to be a trend.
                                I'm Bored..

                                Isn't Amita Buddha part of the Pureland buddhism? My knowledge in Pureland Buddhism sucks....

                                In regards to what Arhat said....

                                I don't think what Iron Cross says its completely negative since he obviously experiencd negative things from going there. There should be conflicts in these forums because the internet is filled with advertisements and promotional information rather than real experiences from people. If you google USAST, you'll find 99% good things about the school mostly things in publications or endorsements of books, events, etc, which I guess the school helps to put together. So it is so difficult to really know how good a school or whether the school is for you. But I know there are many former students who were dissatisfied there and had their heart (and body) broken by that school. There are many more students than Iron Cross who have gotten "kicked out" of the school. These people who have devoted endless amounts of their free time to the school only to be shun away. There are many students at the school, mainly the ones who have been there for 4-5 years, who are starting to question their training and their loyalty to that school. So I think it is only good to have a place where students and former students can make some sense of their previous and blind devotion to SYM.

                                Ok hate me if you must.... it seems like any negative thing people say about USAST ends in some sort of banishment... *tear*

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X