Shaolin Kung Fu - really fighting?

[doc]

The author claims the original shaolin kung fu wasn't designed for fighting. The system was a matter of grappling in two man forms that induced a meditative state that aided in overcoming our animal instincts and fears. He found the common denominater in most martial arts comes down to a few very similar sets that work much better as grappling sets than as striking and blocking sets. In fact, they don't seem to work at all as striking and blocking sets, which is what led to so much confusion in karate cricles in the past.

Well, if you think back to some of the possible origins of gong fu, some think that there was a large Greek influence, brought to India initially by Alexander the Great (he had some Greeks with him, who did Pankreates, or however you spell it, "nude wrestling"). Initial martial arts in India therefore comprised of these grappling skills. The bow staff, Shaolin's first weapon, most probably came about because of the ubiquity of the stick. The other weapons no doubt came from the various soldiers and such who left the wars and went to the temple to find peace. So, yes, it is possible that initial Shaolin gong fu might have been heavily "grappling" influenced. However, he is wrong that these stiking and blocking sets, such as the thousand year old Shao Hong Chuan, are ineffective. Very wrong. Shao Hong chuan has many, many highly effective fighting techniques within it. In fact, there was a master in Shaolin who knew nothing but Shao Hong Chuan, and he was undefeated throughout his lifetime. In my opinion, your author's statements are not based in fact.

The grappling involves recieving force from the agressor and redirecting it without using force so that they end up putting themselves into locks and falling to the ground. This way, no karma is generated. Touch reaction is also far superior to sight and no pre arranged methods must be memarized. Only the method of redirecting force must be cultivated

Yes, chin na is a very complicated part of Shaolin gong fu. I learned a little of it from Shi Su Gang, Shaolin's chin na master. As for generating karma, I don't think Su Gang really cared about it. His aim, from what I learned, was to get the bastard on the ground (usually me), and then whip the shit out of him with gong fu. Unbelievable little guy he was.

A buddhist monk is not allowed to harm any living creature. The buddhist monk cultivates his mind so that he will not judge any other living person. The premise, i believe, for a monk hurting a murderer is that he is ending his live in order to prevent further accumilation of bad karma and to prevent him hurting anyone else. The problem with this is, the monk would not go that far down the road. He wouldn't judge the karma of the murderer. He might step in between him if he saw an act of violence but the buddhist vows prevent him from hurting this murderer. The monk wouldn't crush an ant if he could help it.

Well, this is all true, but misdirected. There is a difference between following Buddhist tenets and living in reality. Yes, I see these Buddhist attitudes in Decheng et al all the time, but I assure you, that if someone was threatening to kill me in Dengfeng, Decheng would not hesitate to jump in and kick this guy's ass. The monks of yore were living in tough times; the temple was regarded as a wealthy establishment, always under the threat of attack from bandits and other not so nice people, who were starving, poor, etc, looking to get ahead. Your author is preaching these Buddhist things and trying to make them apply to real life, as he sees it. It doesn't work that way. He needs to get out of his little glass bubble and see that reality affects people's actions. Buddhism is a guide, not a rule book. You have to use it as a guide, and apply it to the situation that you find yourself in.

Can you explain to me then why a monk would think scientifically on the matter of striking somones vital points in order to induce death? Can you explain to me why a monk would learn to weild a deadly sharp sword in wickedly violent manner. Why, would a monk, devoted to enlightenment spend so much time developing methods to harm other beings. Why, did buddha not tell his followers to learn self defense methods?

Maybe Buddha wasn't surrounded by assholes. Monks learn these fighting skills for self defense, and, historically, for the defense of the temple and other monks. And, occasionally, villagers and others who requested their help. Again, your author is losing step with the reality of the times. Now, at present, monks train in gong fu for health; spiritual, mental and physical. They don't go through these techniques on a day to day basis with the idea that these are combat techniques. However, when you've done them a thousand times, you start to discover all the various applications that can be found within these maneuvers. It's a matter of priority nowadays; they train in gong fu for the sole purpose of training in gong fu. Not, as you find in our bastardized American martial arts schools, for "self defense". Your approach on this, and quite possibly the author's, is influenced by your perception of gong fu that has been seriously altered by our commercialized "self defense" oriented martial arts school systems.

Break out of the box. Read the site; it's all in there. Somewhere, lol. We've been through these concepts before. The problem is, we're dealing with a perception, given to us by all these Bruce Lee, Jet Li, and Jackie Chan movies, and by all these US martial arts schools. We have trouble seeing the reality.

[arhat]

my post evaporated.

That sucks.

[Maestro]

shaolin

bungles problem is he thinks the 8 fold path and the four noble truths are rules or standards

he doesnt understand chan at all obviously..and he needs a much broader view of buddhism as far as i can tell

but its not like thats going to happen instantly..sooner or later he will read something else about buddhism or whatever

its a shame to

people like him who read books like barefoot zen(which i havent even read, but its already starting to piss me off) go around preaching buddhism as if its the same thing as what hes been brought up with in the western society as if religion is supposed to be this..or no you have to do this if your gonna be a buddhist

nope you cant have this without that...or your not a buddhist!

freaking bullshit

that is one of the biggest things that gets on my nerves..ignorant muther ****in westerners...

makes you wanna wish you werent born whitey

[doc]

OOPS.
Sorry Arhat. I was doing some maintenance repairs to the server.
Oh, to piss off a god. What retribution now comes my way?

[Cheyenne]

(he had some Greeks with him, who did Pankreates, or however you spell it, "nude wrestling"

What they did was Pankration. (Greek word which translated means "all powers" or "all powerful")



Cheye

[arhat]

it was a good one too...

...now I will have to devise some kind of pennance...

Vince basically said what I wrote, in his own way of course...but that was the gist of it.

Some interesting things were said this weekend that sort of have bearing to this discussion- one was at a wedding ceremony we had, and the other took place in class when someone was asked what "Amitabha" means...

[doc]

I shall start by going to temple and praying to the goddesses of the sacred Jackson bill. Oh, PLEASE forgive me....

[arhat]

test

.

[arhat]

this absolutley sucks...

...absolutley.

I type a post, and it says I am not logged in. Then I lose the post.

[Bungle]

Ok guys. I'm stuck in the box with a small slit to look through which has a coloured filter over it. I'm un enlightened and Maestro your the dogs bollocks of zen. Guys, your really no different to me. Yes you too doc. You would hate to think that something you practice and hold so precious could be a load of crap. So i we're all no different. In fact, i'm not overly attached to any idea, it merely occured to me while reading his book and i decided to ask you guys to see if you could counter his arguments.

I have decided though that i do understand buddhism in a basic way but i havn't the knowledge or experience yet for this sort of discussion.

I can see how a monk maybe forced to defend himself. Maestro if a monk rids himself of karma then he would be fully enlightened. So he will create karma from a fight. Fair enough. Have you ever read about how much work monks have to do? They have a lot of cultivation and reading to do. I can't see a monk having time or the inclination to study a deadly form of fighting. Certainly the mental effort and energy required to devise such a system would be great.

I can see the need for energy arts which could lead to martial arts. It is feasible though that the shaolin temple was uniquely in a position to be in much danger. Though why they hold that temple so dear i don't know. It's feasible that they allowed lay monks to practice martial arts as a means to channel youthful energy and for defense of the temple. It's not something i think a full time monk would have much time for though...

It still doesn't wash with me though. I think i'll be back with new ammunition once i've read around a bit. I also think you should read this guys book, so at least you can counter his arguments and not mine.

[doc]

Ok guys. I'm stuck in the box with a small slit to look through which has a coloured filter over it.

Well, you're not alone. We're all struggling with this Buddhism/Martial arts bit. Which is why dealing with this whole concept is difficult; it's not black and white, just a whole bunch of shades of gray, surrounded by smoke and mirrors.

You would hate to think that something you practice and hold so precious could be a load of crap

I don't think anyone is suggesting that either Buddhism or gong fu is a load of crap. Again, putting these two concepts together is just a difficult thing to understand.

Have you ever read about how much work monks have to do? They have a lot of cultivation and reading to do. I can't see a monk having time or the inclination to study a deadly form of fighting

Remember, historically, and at present, there were basically two types of monks; wuseng, (warrior monks, for protection of the temple) and Buddhist monks, for farming and temple stuff.

It is feasible though that the shaolin temple was uniquely in a position to be in much danger. Though why they hold that temple so dear i don't know

The temple was in a position to be in danger because, compared to the rest of the population, it was wealthy in food stuffs and money. The temple got a lot of stuff in donations; it was a target for all the various nasties in the world. And they held the temple dear because it was their home. The monks still hold the temple "dear', even though most of them don't live there anymore.

I'm interested to hear more about what this guy says.

doc

[dave]

good info guys! Doc: thats been my limited experience of Chin Na too - bloomin hurts
Vince - have no idea why you think i went off topic? Bungle said the author believes this and all i was showing was history tells us this??? i dont know much abvout buddhism so how can i talk about 8 fold path and other things?

islam is a bit different in regards to this kind of situaiton.

dave

[doc]

An interpretation of this from the Islam point of view would be interesting.

[pazman]

geez, i just read this thread and man do have tons to say...well, ill just stick to a few...

well, im not gonna debate the ethicality of a "martial monk" though i could till my fingers bleed, but there's been martial monks for a long time, both in and out of china. i suggest looking at pictures from viet nam during the french colonial period, early 1900s. nuns practicing with SWORDS, and monks carrying around GUNS. i live in japan and i can go down the street and see paintings and murals of monks with HALBERDS....martial monks have been around in japan since the 700s, and were the last thorn in nobunaga's side for a while. and these aint the sort of "martial monks" that you see today in china and japan, where the kung fu is entirely a buddhist practice. no, im pretty sure its because these guys were backed into a corner or just happen to be entirely way too zealous in their religion. hell, the knights templar were considered to be somewhat monastic. my point is that theres martial monks.

and then islam...yeah, there's definately nothing wrong about self-defence and fighting oppressors in islam. well, i guess we're seeing now where its got them, but the initial idea was that holy people shouldnt sit in around and be holy while there was oppression and injustice all around them. definately a product of the times. thats why many of the sultans in early islam were exceedingly tolerant and just, and encouraged education and science. but yeah, i guess like the martial monks thing, there's the ideal and then there's reality, and rarely do the two touch.

and im out,
paz

[bhodi]

Confusion?

I used to be very confused about this seeming contradiction as well. Martial monk sounded to me like jumbo shrimp! But after deepening my understanding of Chan Buddhism it is no longer a trap that I fall into. On one hand you are saying that a monk should revere life above all else but then not his own? Doesn't make any sense!! If everything is sacred to the monk then why not his own life? The rules you are applying to the shaolin monks are not really there. This is a problem that I have seen quite a few times. The forms of buddhsim that exist out there are vastly different from one another. They are different in the fundamental beliefs and so the rules that stem from those beliefs are different. Shaolin Chan is the one that seems to close that gap that Doc is talking about between real life and idealistic buddhist tenents. It makes it so that there is no separation between life and buddhism and still makes sense philosophically. It is great to have reverence for all living things but just by standing someplace you are killing millions of things. Forget about martial arts....how do you make that fit into these rules about taking a life. Maybe we should all just take ourselves out of the eco web? My introduction to buddhism was through reading a compilation of Zen stories and koans. This got me interested in buddhsim and so I started reading about buddhsim in books that were more general or that talked about a different branch of buddhism. This confused the bejeezus out of me and I wound up forming all kinds of bizarre concepts in order to formulate some sense out of the contradictions. It was all completely uprooted as I had no real understanding of the concepts that these rules and stories were poor evedince of....I had no confidence in my own understanding because I was no where near the heart of the teachings. The other thing that is very confusing about the whole thing is that words tend to have an english conotation that we americans will it to have in the everyday and then a buddhist meaning that is only known in the buddhist circles of philosophical thought. This is because the word is being used with certain foundation beliefs as a springboard. Beliefs that we were not ever raised to have. An example of this is one that Thich Nhat Hanh uses all the time...."empty". We think that this means there is nothing inside some vessel but this is not how a buddhist imediately interprets that word when it is used in a sutra or in buddhist philosophical discussion. You are involving yourself in the realm of buddhist scholars. There is all kinds of jargon that they are up on that we are not unless we have done some serious homework.

So how do the martial arts fit into monastic life? ???? Why not put your foot in the same trap by asking how martial arts don't fit into monastic life. It is a less popular stance but buddhist philosophy could be found to support why it should be in a monks life. If you can stand up for what is important by choosing not to fight then why not stand up for what is important by choosing to fight? When you start deciding right from wrong then (as has been suggested above) you are stuck in a trap. There is always two sides to things then. how can you ever be understand interbeing? There is good and evil and there is the quest to destroy evil. This is a trap that we fall into. It all needs to be. If you love life and respect life then why are you looking to change the factors that went into the creation of that life? Or should we say the "evil" that also helped to create the beauty of that life that you hold so dear?

Its all a trap that the enlightened being is able to step in and out of at will while the unenlightened is stuck in it.

I used to ask my Shifu questions about things and he would say words to the effect of " Ask me again next saturday." or "ask me again later." This is one of those questions. given enough time I think this question will just go away. Its really not as important right now as some other questions you must have about buddhism. In other words this question shows a lack of understanding in itself of what you are thinking about in your head and is giving away the fact that there are more fundamental questions in your mind that are confusing to you. This question is just one specific manifestation of that confusion.


I hope this is helpful....
Don't try to mix zen with other buddhism. Don't try to have Chan jive with Therevadin.....it just won't work. I would suggest finding a master and practicing for a little while and most of these questions will go away or you will find that buddhsim isn't your path.

Amitabha!
Bhodi