The debate i'm going to try and start here is inspired by a book, "barefoot zen". The idea behind the book is that after the first burning of the shaolin temple the real reason for shaolin became distorted and turned into the street performance inspired martial art we have today that is far removed from its original buddhist ideals.
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.
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.
Basically though, you need to read the book to understand fully. The foundation of his argument however, lies in his knowledge of buddhism. This is in fact the spark that triggered him to study the arts in a new and different way. This is also what i'd like to debate.
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.
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?
Fighting of this sort induces karma. Karma is generated by your thoughts and your actions. It is carried out by your sub concious. Why would a monk, trying to free him self from karma purposely cultivate methods to induce bad karma? There were no reasons to? Walking meditation? Meditative sets? Fine, but methods of striking and killing living creatures? Sorry, i don't believe it. What's your view?
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.
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.
Basically though, you need to read the book to understand fully. The foundation of his argument however, lies in his knowledge of buddhism. This is in fact the spark that triggered him to study the arts in a new and different way. This is also what i'd like to debate.
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.
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?
Fighting of this sort induces karma. Karma is generated by your thoughts and your actions. It is carried out by your sub concious. Why would a monk, trying to free him self from karma purposely cultivate methods to induce bad karma? There were no reasons to? Walking meditation? Meditative sets? Fine, but methods of striking and killing living creatures? Sorry, i don't believe it. What's your view?
Comment