Shaolin Kung Fu - really fighting?

[Maestro]

bodhi..

bodhi use some damn spacing

and...i wouldnt say hed just give up on buddhism because of his lack of obvious understanding like i said above..

maybe he will just read a little more or something..that wont neccesarily make his understanding better, but it might give him so more bullshit to talk about and atleast keep him interested

and what bungle said about monks reading all the time and what not..

i read all the time..i read books..these forums..magazines etc

i train almost everyday, i work 40 hours a week, i hang with my friends, post here, go to the movies etc etc

you think monks didnt have time to do the things they were said to have done?

oh 1500 years or so isnt enough for ya huh?

oh ok i see..

yea..see were all misguided..he knows what he believes..were all just not seeing clearly

thats it

heheheheh

sorry its my azzhole nature to say stuff like that..i think ill get rid of it after i start having some more sex...

either way its still funny

and thic nat han..you two guys sure like quoting and reffering to him alot..i guess ill have to buy one of his many books i got on my wish list..

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Bungle]

You can mix buddhism because fundamentally, where it counts, it IS all the same. I, like you, started reading about zen. I have branched out and i am currently reading about other sorts of buddhism. It is all connected and it is great to see how it all fits and how it all works together and supports each other. The zen buddhism seems to have stressed one aspect of buddhism but it is in perfect sink with the original buddhism.

The buddha gave the people many methods of cultivation to suit the varying personalities and levels of the populace. Zen seems to stress insight meditation and koans. It's obvious that like all forms of buddhism that the local religions blend with budhism to form new unique blends. The thing is, because budhism has core prinicples, this means that all buddhism is basically the same. The differences are meaningless.

I can see how a martial monk tradition that was previously in china might blend with the new buddhist religion. Like the monks in tibet who eat meat because there is little other food.

Stop with this real world bollocks, monks knew religious life would be difficult, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

The problem i have is this:
All fighting is karmic. If you were void of karma you would be blissfully standing still as your head rolls to the floor from a brigands murderous blow.

The action of fighting relies on judgment (dualistic) and the act of striking sentient beings shows lack of compassion and is opposed to the budhist dharma.

It doesn't make sense that a monk who avoids treading on ants and who practices compasion every day practices the art of slashing somone with a broadsword. The same monk who does not fear and works to remove delusion. The same monk who knows that nothing is permanent and everything, including life is transitory. The same monk who knows if they died then they would be reborn, and with so much good karma, reborn into a great life. The same monk who knew what the monastic life involved when he joined and what sacrifices were to be made.

Can any of you explain to me, why a buddhist monk would take up a sword and slash a brigand to death. Can you explain how this is in line with the compassionate buddhist dharma?

Doc, The monk who develops a fighting system. What are his reasons for creating the system? Are these reasons in line with the non-delusional, compasionate, fearless, non-dualistic buddhist dharma. If not, can you explain to me why they became a monk if they weren't prepared to cultivate these qualities which are inherent in budhism?

The monks in japan. quote from barefoot zen , " According to Arthur Braverman in Warrior of zen, during most of the 16th century, Zen practice in Japan became so formalized, and ritualised, that the true zen experience was rarely seen. In fact, as early as the 12th and 13th centuries in the Nara and Kyoto regions of Japan, there existed private armies of so called warrior monks, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one."

Quote from "Becoming your own therapist" by ven. Thubten Yeshe. "Q. What do you feel about killing another person in self-defense? Do you think people have the right to protect themselves, even at the expense of the agressor's life?

Lama. In most cases of killing in self-defense, it's still done out of uncontrolled anger. You should protect yourself as best you can without killing the other. For example, if you attack me, i'm reponsible to protect myself, but without killing you.

Q. If killing me was the only way you could stop me, would you do it?

Lama. Then it would be better you kill me.
"

Finally, please read "Barefoot zen" . I think it's only reasonable for anyone with an interest in this subject to view both sides of the argument fully.

[cassius]

good point Bungle.

[Uwe]

Buddism and Fighting

Bungle,


in response to your question concerning the contradiction of Buddism and harming things, I would like to insert a brief section, of the Shaolin History manual I wrote (In the book section, its in the introduction). This might shed some light on the issue.

Here it goes:

Many say that Buddhism and boxing don't combine. This is true and it is not true at the same time. Buddhism forbids damaging all living beings, but this is contradicted by an edict that teaches tolerance. Tolerance has been one of the biggest strengths of Buddhism for centuries. And this tolerance let to the fact that the martial arts training of the Shaolin temple, including weapontraining, was accepted for over a thousand years.

Although the annals talk about many famous martial monks, its very likely that they were boxers first and lived between the temple monks, like so many other laymen. But still it is strange that Buddhism, know for it's peaceful character, accepted the martial arts and that the Shaolin temple, birthplace of Chan Buddhism, is best known
for its martial arts. The temple was, and still is, located on the countryside and is was important that one could defend oneself in remote areas. Only if you're healthy and strong could you survive; meditation alone was not enough to survive!

The monks went so far as to use weapons to defend themselves. How can they train themselves in killing human beings, when generally speaking monks lead an peaceful and quite life? Some say that the ones that were killed by the monks weren't humans, but demons in the shape of human beings. In many Buddhist legends, monks, or Buddhists kill dozens and dozens of demons, and they use martial arts to do this. In one story the Heavenly Prince Dharmapala kills demons and monsters with his powerful pestle. If one looks it at it that way, than the monks of the Shaolin temple are doing nothing wrong and are the martial arts for them just as important as practicing Chan, some say they ARE one.


Uwe

[wooden dummy]

Man, i wish I'd caught this thread earlier... had a lot of reading to get through until I could post a reply... even so, if I go over something that's already been said, please excuse me.

Bungle, you just sound like someone who knows a *bit* about Buddhism, but not really enough to enter into a discussion like this with the "definitive" Buddhist point of view. The fact is, there is no definitive Buddhist point of view. It is impossible for you to accurately say things like "The Buddha taught this or that, and taught us not to do so-and-so"... because nobody on this earth has any freakin' idea what the Buddha said, exactly. Why else do you think there are so many different schools of Buddhism? Not a word of anything the Buddha said or did was written down until several hundred years after Buddha was dead, and it was written down by people who had to rely on word-of-mouth teachings, subject to a hell of a lot of stuff being forgotten (quite selectively forgotten, in many cases), twisted and edited so as not to go against any political goings-on at the time, etc etc ad infinitum. Add to this the fact that most of Buddha's immediate students couldn't agree on a damn thing the guy ever told them, and you've got one hell of a melting pot of disagreeance.

Most... no, strike that, ALL of modern Buddhism is in some way affected by the philosophies and existing religions of the regions Buddhism was exported to. There is no such thing in existence as pure Buddhism. In India, it's actually mostly a rewritten form of Hinduism (in fact, the whole thing about being careful to not step on any ants, etc, is actually a leftover from Jaina Hinduism, if I remember correctly, and you can be damn sure there's not a hint of that anywhere in China, especially around Shaolin), whereas in China and Japan, it is largely adapted to existing Taoist beliefs at the time when Buddhism was brought to South China. In fact, in many forms of Buddhism (particularly in China), karma doesn't even exist, because there is no such thing as a concept of "good" or "bad" (though I'm not sure whether this applies to Shaolin Ch'an these days... the modern version, at least, might be somewhat different. Any help here?). In fact, karma and reincarnation are originally a Hindu concept (probably injected into a later version of Buddhism, which then flourished) and the chances are that they weren't actually part of the Buddha's individual teaching... though obviously, we can't really be 100% sure.

As far as Buddhism and the martial arts, I've never really questioned it beyond the fact that MA training is considered, in Shalolin, to be a form of meditation- something I've found to be extremely true. In training with the Shaolin monks, we are taught that Ch'an Buddhism and Gong fu are inextricably attached, and while you don't actually have to practice one to be efficient in the other, you must at least acknowledge that they are connected. Then there is the obvious fact of many wuseng being generals and military men, and the necessity for constant self-protection at the monastery -most monasteries were very rich, because in most cases they were exempt from paying taxes, but NOT exempt from begging and accepting donations (begging was normally outlawed or discouraged in Confucius-based North Chinese society)- this meant that many "monasteries" were actually elaboate money-laundering operations set up by high-class merchants and aristocrats to get out of paying taxes. Coupled with the fact that many emperors and important figures would constantly make donations and build statues/temples to improve their public image, and the monasteries actually contained a majority of China's wealth. Thus, a constant target for attack by mountain bandits and raiders.

There's an e-Book called "Seventh World of Chan Buddhism". I recommend it to anyone even slightly interested in Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy in general, or even religion in general, since in the early chapters it deals with the origins of basically every major eastern religion, and all the corruptions and misrepresentations thereof. It's by... um... some guy.... Ming Zhen Shakya, I think his name is... he's from the Ch'an lineage of Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng. It's extremely well written, and I think you can get it from http://www.hsuyun.org .

By the way, if I sound preachy or self-righteous, I'm sorry and that's not my intention. I'm not saying I've got the definitive, irrevocable facts or anything, but I'm just giving my opinions based on what I know, or think I know. After all, that's all anyone can really do, isn't it?

[arhat]

at the parlor...

...I had 3 scoops, one each of mint chocolate chip, crushed oreo, and also vanilla fudge swirl...they all tasted the same?

[doc]

The gods of the internet must be pleased. Arhat can post again. Rejoice!

[wooden dummy]

Yeah, now he just has to start making some sense.

...I had 3 scoops, one each of mint chocolate chip, crushed oreo, and also vanilla fudge swirl...they all tasted the same?

Now THAT'S Zen, lol

[doc]

He's a russbo.com god.

He doesn't have to make sense no mo.

[arhat]

okay that went through

I think we are missing something here- I really don't think monks train to fight. Maybe this is a conceptual trick of linguistics. Maybe you could argue they train self defense, and in training self defense the defense of others too. maybe you could say some do train to fight. I know one of the Houston monks has made it clear he just trains gong fu and does not teach Ch'an. But monks for the most parts are not training to be fighters. Fighters train to engage other people in fights and silly fantastical encounters- you know, they enter a bar, there's a hot chick being harassed, in steps the dark stranger and the fighter wrecks shop and leaves a wake of badly beaten assailants. If they were training to fight, then I think they'd be complete fuçking assholes. They'd poke out your eye and scramble it to jelly for bumping into them in the street. God forbid you exposed your crotch to them, even if it is covered, when you sat down because they'd bust your kidney. They would roam in packs, and if they did get into it with people you'd know about it because they'd all be in jail for murder.

One of the things which caused a big giant robot to come racing out of stage left, waving big coiled rubber arms, with red lights flashing, when we were discussing things with WKK, was the emphasis on "combat" skills. This is ludicrous to think if anyone has even a remote understanding of 'combat' skills. Combat means army. Think of an army. What do they train? I guarantee you it is mostly how to shoot, and beuarocratic bullshit like how to move hundreds of people from place to place- NOT how to fight hand to hand. Maybe they spend a week on that? Elite forces maybe more, but still, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority is NOT personal individual combat. So why place so much emphasis on unreal fighting conditions. In any case, Shaolin Gong Fu has always been presented to me as a spiritual exercise. In fact, it's training achieves exactly that which is necessary to *avoid* fights. Training in gong fu, Shaolin gong fu, puts one on the path to eradicate EGO. EGO is the *one* thing which drives people to FIGHT. Everyone I ever knew who was a fighter, like a scrapper or street boxer, was a total and complete asshole who had no concerns over anything but themselves. They were totally egocentric and were only friends with you if they felt they could get something from you, like a ride home from the bar, steal your chick, and often they'd turn on you just as soon as look at you. They were badasses and they were also major league assholes. I was probably one in certain circumstances as well, because there was a time I was getting into a lot of fights, and I willingly placed myself into the kinds of conditions where fights happened. To be honest, a lot of people thought me and my friends were in a gang, and I didn't mind the association.

So anyway, to say that the monks train to fight, I don't think is accurate. Is their gong fu deadly? I believe they think they are a force of good in the world. They tend to engage the world whereas the recluse of other monastic orders seems to distance themselves from the world. If you engage the world and do not hide from it, then you must participate in it to an extent, whch means you are subject to the concepts of right and wrong- the reverse engineering I was talking about. It doesn't really exist, but the concepts are useful to engage. We are dealing with Low concepts and High concepts, which I will define later. But Low concepts, like literal interpretations, dogma, etc. are limiting, while High concepts are liberating, like the spirit of the law, and expedient means of practice.

We recently had a wedding. The ceremony was held at a former Catholic church. During the ceremony, it was remarked upon that, "Probably, many people confuse themselves. Probably many Buddhist monks, they can not go to Church (here makes attempt at the Sign of the Cross) and probably many Christians, they can not go to see Buddha.

This is not our way.

We are fortunate, because we understand these things can be good. So we can come here, and we can celebrate. It's very wonderful. We understand that religion- religion can teach people to do good things. We understand this because our hearts are not narrow, not limited, but are open. Like we train our gong fu- we learn to express our selves, we express our hearts- this makes us better people, it helps us to respect ourselves, and others, and this is doing good."

This is a heretical statement, on it's face, to orthodoxy, both Buddhist and Christian. I know plenty of people who have taken refuge, and most if not all were admonished that going to Church was now a big NO NO. Why? I often wonder how my priests would feel if they knew my Dharma name, when I went to receive communion. To me, my Confirmation name, Andrew, sits at ease with my Dharma name, Heng Fa. I am in good company, because Thich Naht Hahn (there's that name again Vince) and Thomas Merton often shared Mass. Hahn was never baptized, nor did he celebrate his First Communion, nor Confirmation. But the truth is, the first time it rained on him, he was bathed in the river Jordan, just as Merton was given Holy Ablutions in the Ganges. Is this not so?

Here is a selection of the Daimond Sutra, which I have cut out and saved.

"If you hold on to the idea that there is a dharma, you are caught in the notion of an ego, a self, a personality and a separated individuality. If you hold on to the idea that there is no dharma, you are caught in the notion of an ego, a self, a personality and a separated individuality."

So there is always this seeming contradiction in Ch'an. Speaking out about this can get you slapped or whacked with a stick! Now why would a man who would step out of the way of an ant slap anybody.

Now back to the concept of gong fu in Buddhism. I know that many of the gong fu forms that came through Shaolin were somewhat "changed" to reflect Buddhist principles of non violence. The monks I know seek to end confrontation as fast as possible. That's self defense. They don't care about long winded, orchestrated complicated movements- quick, fast, unerring- these things are dangerous. The forms do contain these long complicated movements, but if forced, I tend to think they don't need them. A fight can be stopped very quickly. Especially if there is no ego.

More importantly, the training teaches to you to understand opposites, to understand change, push while pull, move forward, move back, non violence through violence- these are things which create understanding, which create a unity, a singularity of mind, body, and spirit, an acceptance. Like Hui Ke on Drum mountain- he dug four wells, and in each the water was different- for four years he lived off of each well, the water was bitter, sour, spicy, and finally sweet. When he realized what Damo had taught him, he attained. Only wisdom can allow for one to perceive what is right from wrong. Fighting is not what is important. It is more important that training fosters understanding. From training you gain knowledge of your own psychological ability, your own mental state- your place. You gain focus and control of how you express yourself, and how you place yourself in the universe. The clash of opposites teaches that everything is as it should be. Both things are necessary to be a whole. Like the pictograph of the old woman. Or is it a young lady? It is both. It depends on the causes and conditions of it's arising. Both answers are right. When you attain a state of Ch'an in gong fu, there is no gong fu form, there is no concept of you- no old lady and no young lady, no thing, there is just being- no mental formations, no obstructions, no thoughts or mind objects are held to, there is no attachment- this is just a glimpse, a fleeting moment, of attainment. There is no escape to a heaven, or winking out of a nirvana. Those concepts express a duality. By training gong fu we achieve a singularity of expression.

[arhat]

wooden dummy!

It makes perfect sense- all three scoops were ice cream. Nobody can deny it. But they don't taste the same.

Just like Buddhism, no?

That's why I wondered why Bungle didn't like ice cream. It's very refreshing and tasty.

[dave]

islamic perspective

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

ok ummm... this is as far as i can understand right now.

the basic idea is "like for like but it is better to forgive". Quran is very clear on that. Of course you cant ALWAYS forgive and hope it goes away, in which case "fight the evil-doers but DONT transgress the boundaries set by God", again from Quran. So basically, you can do up until a like level of threat, but shouldnt go overboard 0 i gues skinda like reasonable force? From what i have read in Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammed, it seems to be rather "different" to what is happening nowadays. It basically tells us NOT to destroy property (including other religious places), harm non-combatants ESPECIALLY women, elderly and children, and religious people. it even tells us not to pollute the water supply, and to treat captives the same as we would treat ourselves. Again a bit different to the political splurge now.

it also tells us, if there is no other option but to fight, then be decisive and swift until the oppression/regime or whatever is under control. These are the parts that are taken out of context for the most case by people with their own agenda. But again Quran also says "but if they incline to peace, then make peace". One part cant be taken without the other. Really fighting is the last resort - when the muslims moved from Mecca to Medina that was because of the threat on their lives and the torturous things done to oppress them. So fighting was the last option.

Again its similar to what Arhat mentioned about the Chan and other forms of Buddhism. Based in real life. Really theres no real concept (traditionally) of "holy people" in islam - everyone is. i mean right now its kinda ironic, but "islam" comes from the root word "salam" which means peace... but again, it cant always be so. Technically, we believe ALL things were created by God, and WE have to look after them (like Noah and the Ark), even the word "khalifah" which is used too much nowadays means like a "protector" or "viceroy" who looks after things. Were ALL meant to be that.

anyway, rambling

So yup, peace is all find and dandy, but the ideal not always happens. and again whatever happens here happens - technically its all for the "next life" but that doesnt mean we should just give this one up so easily!

Also its about the ideal and what happens due to human nature. There is a difference!

hope that was clear as mud,
dave

[jeffpeg]

Food for thought...hope it applies,

I'm clearly far less knowledgeable about Buddhism then most here but it seems to me that each religions/philosophies have an "ideal" and most who struggle to reach it. People talk about the Shaolin monks as if each has attained enlightenment and a perfect state of being. That, to my way of thinking, is a completely ludicrous assumption. It's not too far a stretch to imagine that most monks are human and have typical human failings. It's been my experience that people have a way of balancing their inequities in their own mind and adjusting certain teachings to suit their lives. Just look at the prevalence of cults both in western and Asian cultures and how they use religion to propagate their strange behaviors and sometimes completely evil actions. How can a Buddhist monk fight? How can a Christian church exist in a white supremacy culture like the KKK (which is a "Christian" organization)?

[dave]

very true - i guess thats where the "middle path" comes in. Between facing real life and living the ideal.

dave

[shaolinstylee]

Dave, thats funny, idealism versus realism....when they meet, that usually results in some very positive feelings. Whether political, religious, or well just about anything I guess. This is a topic that has come up a few time lately with my friends. Results in some very different, but all interesting conversations.....