MA only for fighting?

[Laughing Cow]

Hi All.

Discovery Channel is currently running a lot of programs about China and the culture there.

From what it seems like that in Chinese Culture there is NEVER only one side to anything. The same is true for many other Asian countries too.

Example:
The Mandarin were basscially Chan Buddhist, but also followed Taoist philosophies. These are normally represented in their private works and paintings.
Their daily work was very controlled and rigit, but in their private lifes they developed a lot of new concepts and methods.

I have often found this type of opposing influences/requirements in many asian Arts and in their culture.

This leads me to think that MA should contain and be more than just about fighting from their point of view.
And thus any complete system needs to train and develop all aspects.

Any opinions??

[TaoBoy]

I think it's pretty obvious that there's more to MA that fighting. Otherwise, we'd all just do boxing.

:eek:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by TaoBoy
I think it's pretty obvious that there's more to MA that fighting. Otherwise, we'd all just do boxing.

:eek:

I agree with you.

But many people kinda shy away from the philosophical side and call it new-age addition, added rubbish, etc.

Many people are of the Opinion that "martial" is more important than "arts" and are only interested in the fighting aspect of the arts.

Seen many comments on KFO and other Boards that the arts were solely designed for fighting, that the founders and masters of old were the toughest bad-asses out there, killed people and fought at the drop of a head, trained full-time, etc.

Overlooking naturally many things like laws, police, daily jobs and other aspects of daily life now and than.

Just my Opinion naturally.

[neito]

i think that most diciplines are more than their initial purpose.

[DragonzRage]

Practicing martial arts can be about whatever you want it to be about, IMO. You can do it as a way to keep in touch with your culture, you can do it to stay healthy, you can do it cuz you want to be a proficient fighter, you can do it because you want to compete (whether it be in fighting or demonstration), etc. What is important is that you keep your true goals clear, and that you tailor your practice and training towards those goals.

In other words, just keep it real! Like if you do karate because your dojo is a good social atmosphere and its a good workout and you like doing the forms, that's fine. But then don't try to tell yourself that you're a fighter when you're not. Do what you have to do to meet your goals.

[dezhen2001]

i think its very diverse, and again depends on the practitioners perspective.

for me, the more i train, the reasons i am still training keep on changing... first was to fight and prove myself (as i was bullied)... then the more i got in to it, its to understand how my body can move and work, as well as develop myself. Now i basically train for enjoyment and health. Of course i am trying to learn and understand my systems principles and skills... already i can see its like an onion and there are many different layers.

does that take away from the fighting side? i dont think so. i think that if you trian hard in your chosen skill, no matter the reason you will develop fighting skill. Maybe not like someone who competes regularly or whatever, but skill is skill.

Also theres nothing more enlightening than getting smacked upside the head repeatedly :D

dawood

[yenhoi]

How can "Martial Arts" be about anything else but fighting?

Art doesnt mean philosophy or spirituality, it means individual skill.


Are CMA just about fighting?

Obviously not for everyone.

Great thread about this on the Southern Forum, called 'The origins of the shaolin temple..." something or other.

Its just plain silly to automatically link Martial Arts with anything else then skill vs other people, when fighting.

:eek:

[Arhat of Fury]

Hence, Yin and Yang my friend.

[joedoe]

How about this:

Martial arts are for developing the attributes needed for fighting, but those attributes are often useful for other areas in life.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
How about this:

Martial arts are for developing the attributes needed for fighting, but those attributes are often useful for other areas in life.

I agree with this more than to say that KF/MA teaches you how to fight.

[joedoe]

Fighting is the only thing that will teach you how to fight. Training MAs is supposed to teach you some skills that may help you to fight better. The ability to fight is still up to the person.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Fighting is the only thing that will teach you how to fight. Training MAs is supposed to teach you some skills that may help you to fight better. The ability to fight is still up to the person.

100% in agreement.

[Oso]

It's all about the fighting.

It's what you do with that knowledge that makes the difference.

[Cheese Dog]

Joedoe: Two great posts. YOU ROCK! :cool::cool:

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Cheese Dog
Joedoe: Two great posts. YOU ROCK! :cool::cool:

Awww Geee. Thanks man :)

Don't say that too often otherwise I will get a big head :D

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by joedoe
How about this:

Martial arts are for developing the attributes needed for fighting, but those attributes are often useful for other areas in life.

agreed. You will learn things that are applicable in other facets of life, but those things come as part of the training. I think what many of the people here typically disagree with (myself included) is that to be a "complete martial art" it HAS to teach spirituality, which is simply not true, IMO.

[joedoe]

I would agree with you there.

[Laughing Cow]

One entry found for spirituality.
Main Entry: spir·i·tu·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "spir-i-ch&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 15th century
1 : something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2 : CLERGY
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4 : the quality or state of being spiritual

MA can't give you spirituality as this is a CHRISTIAN concept.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But MA can make you a better and more peaceful person that is more in tune with his/her surroundings. ;)

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by DragonzRage
Practicing martial arts can be about whatever you want it to be about, IMO. You can do it as a way to keep in touch with your culture, you can do it to stay healthy, you can do it cuz you want to be a proficient fighter, you can do it because you want to compete (whether it be in fighting or demonstration), etc. What is important is that you keep your true goals clear, and that you tailor your practice and training towards those goals.

In other words, just keep it real! Like if you do karate because your dojo is a good social atmosphere and its a good workout and you like doing the forms, that's fine. But then don't try to tell yourself that you're a fighter when you're not. Do what you have to do to meet your goals.

nice. really nice. well said, dragonzrage.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by yenhoi
How can "Martial Arts" be about anything else but fighting?

Art doesnt mean philosophy or spirituality, it means individual skill.


Are CMA just about fighting?

Obviously not for everyone.

Great thread about this on the Southern Forum, called 'The origins of the shaolin temple..." something or other.

Its just plain silly to automatically link Martial Arts with anything else then skill vs other people, when fighting.

:eek:

for once, i disagree with you. :)

the definitions of art are myriad. and they extend well past 'individual skill' into more esoteric areas. people don't just react to a great piece of art because of the individual skill reflected. they respond because it hits a nerve. that hits as close to philosophy as to skill.

but that's semantics anyway. and this question shouldn't really be resolved simply by semantics. people can point at the word 'martial' all they want, show me the root derivations, spoon feed me the story of mars god of war, and cut and paste as much of the new collegiate dictionary as they want. that still doesn't really answer the question in any meaningful sense.

like dragonzrage said, martial arts are what you want them to be. they're shaped as much by you as you are by them. (at least, that's how i choose for it to be) and nobody's going to tell me that i didn't gain my love of philosophy and spirituality through martial arts simply because the word means 'war.'

my problem with it is the shortcuts we always imply. the codification. "martial arts are about philosophy as well." what the h-ll does that mean, though?!! we say it (or rail against it) as if it inherently meant something. and it doesn't.

what's so philosophical or spiritual about martial arts? i can tell anyone that cares to know what part martial arts played in my own spiritual and philosophical 'development.' but i think that people need to stop treating it like magic. (not the people here. generally, KFOers seem to be pretty common sensical. i'm talking the community as a whole here.)

do we learn self confidence from martial arts? yeah, probably. but leaving it at that is about as useful as a cat flap in an elephant house. the question is how and why we develop self confidence. that's a simple one. the bigger questions (philosophy, spirituality, blah, blah, blah) follow the same process though. what do you mean by spirituality? how did you experience it? what role did martial arts play in that? what role did other variables play in that?

ask enough questions, and i think any one of us will see how martial arts played a role in our development beyond kicking arse. honestly, how could anything that we devote this much time and effort to not carry a profound impact on our lives? something that pits us up against ourselves and others is bound to teach us things about our character, our fears, our hopes...

and if that isn't philosophy and spirituality, i don't know what is. (idiotically limited dictionary definitions about clergy aside, that is)


stuart b.

[red5angel]

It's a loaded question of sorts. Someone has already said it really is about what you make it. CMA had many levels, and I think that stemmed from different places.
For instance, supposedly it began as a set of excecises to keep buddhist monks healthy. Starting from a religious point of view it was bound to gain spiritual aspects (LC, uh, whatever your book say sthe dictionary defnition of "spirituality" is, it's by far not just a Christian ideal :rolleyes: ).
I believe it carries some philisophical aspects with it. If you learn to hurt a man, or kill a man then you at some point probably start to question what gives you the right to do either of these things.
Ultimately, I don't think it matters what you use it for, only that if you want to go out and represent it publicly, you better keep it real as someone said and represent yourself correctly.
If you have only learned taichi as an exercise, don't go teaching it to people who want to learn to use it to fight.

[Xebsball]

Its for fighting

[apoweyn]

I believe it carries some philisophical aspects with it. If you learn to hurt a man, or kill a man then you at some point probably start to question what gives you the right to do either of these things.


wow. i dearly wish i'd thought to say that. it's brilliant.

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,

that's precisely what i was talking about in terms of codification. no offense to you or your beliefs. if you believe in buddha, then power to you. honestly. but to my mind, that's not what makes martial arts capable of holding spirituality. a stock, culture-specific answer isn't it. in my opinion, it's the necessity of asking these sorts of questions that make it potentially spiritual. and the consequent need to answer them. just like red5angel pointed out.


stuart b.

[MightyB]

The spirituality of Martial Arts is comes from the Chan concept of "No Mind."


On the most basic level, when you are focused on practicing, and have practiced so much that you do not need to think about the next move or technique, your mind becomes clear and uncluttered. Your movements flow without thought, without conscious direction from your mind.


my problem with it is the shortcuts we always imply. the codification. "martial arts are about philosophy as well." what the h-ll does that mean, though?!! we say it (or rail against it) as if it inherently meant something. and it doesn't.


but i think that people need to stop treating it like magic.


Martial arts are for developing the attributes needed for fighting, but those attributes are often useful for other areas in life.


It's all about the fighting. It's what you do with that knowledge that makes the difference.


Its for fighting.

:D

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[red5angel]

Ap - why do you think I have been posting so much as of late on how far people would take self defense etc? I am in that phase now, basically trying to establish what I would do with the skills I have if ever it came to it. Happened to me in the marine corp too.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

yeah, i'm sure it did. that's a really tough question to answer. in fact, i wonder if you ever answer it unequivocably. i don't know.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,


Originally posted by ghthomason
The spirituality of Martial Arts is comes from the Chan concept of "No Mind."

On the most basic level, when you are focused on practicing, and have practiced so much that you do not need to think about the next move or technique, your mind becomes clear and uncluttered. Your movements flow without thought, without conscious direction from your mind.

For a few momets, there is no mortagage, no screaming kids, no wife, no friends, no work, no boss, etc. to cause you suffering. When practice is over, you return to those things, but during practice, you can remove yourself from them.


From a Chan point of view, Kung Fu is moving meditation.

this is a great explanation. i agree with this wholeheartedly. as i mentioned before, i'm not crazy about the specific spiritual frameworks. but this is a concept that, i think, transcends buddhism in particular.

nicely said.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

I don't think you really do Ap. I think you just come to the conclusion that you can establish a boundary you think you are comfortable with, and then if something happens, you will know if you were right or not.

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,

i'm sorry. i don't believe that.


I don't think you can remove the cultural context and still find the spirituality. Kung Fu and Buddhism are meshed, and if you remove one from the other and try to replace Eastern concepts of spirituality with Western ones, you will create a great big set of ontological problems.

yeah. and i think the analysis and resolution of such ontological problems is a big part of how spirituality develops.


You can't find Jesus in Kung Fu; just as you can't find Buddha in Kung Fu.

i don't believe that. both buddha and jesus are representatives of a body of ideals, morals, and ideas about the infinite. it's those things that people reflect on. not the representation. i believe that people reflect on the ideas and represent them as they see fit. with that in mind, a person's ideas, beliefs, and spiritual leanings can be embodied just as readily by one representation as another.


However, you can learn to calm your mind, even if for brief periods of time, through constant and dedicated practice.

but what, in that practice, is specific to china? to asia? if it's culturally specific, are we westerners even capable of 'getting it'? how? by dressing up in asian clothes? using asian terminology?

i don't accept that. i don't think that's the idea. i think that quieting the mind is a universal concept. addressed very explicitly in asian culture, certainly. but not particular to it. meditation is common to a wide variety of cultural traditions. gnostics, sufi, native american shaman...


Spirituality attained from practice is not the same thing as martial morality, which Red5 seems to be weighing. Whether or not it's right or wrong to break someone's neck in combat has nothing to do with the fact that practice brings peace of mind to the practitoner.

i disagree with you. i think they're connected. spirituality and morality are connected in a great many spiritual traditions. from christianity's ten commandments to buddhism's eightfold path. (right action, for example) even daoism, with it's emphasis on amorality, addresses the issue.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by red5angel
I don't think you really do Ap. I think you just come to the conclusion that you can establish a boundary you think you are comfortable with, and then if something happens, you will know if you were right or not.

again, nicely said.

[ZIM]

Philosophy & spirituality is kinda the gutter ball of CMAs in a sense, isn't it? I maen, if thats what you're after, cool. This is not entirely different from other movement disciplines like yoga, so it's a part of it if you look for it.

But there's also the intellectual stimulation of it all to look at as well. I was sort of looking at Dezhen's post with that in mind. Its almost like a puzzle to put together, how the system works as a whole, how to move effectively/efficiently, cultural connotations, language, etc.

When you take it that way, CMAs become an education on their own. And I'm thinking thats precisely what they were originally...'sound mind, sound body, chinese style.' Otherwise the arts would only occur in temples, not villages and families, as they so often do.

FWIW, therre was an article on bullshido.tv from an anonymous author. He was talking about this. His point was that when a fight occurs, any art is no longer art, but technique. When practising tho, thats the artistic part.

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,


Originally posted by ghthomason
Right Action simply means that you must consider, once you decide on a task, if your procedure is well-thought out, or if is it haphazard. It has little to do with morality.

Right Views, on the other hand, forces one to ask "why do I do what I do?" Examine your motives, your goals. No action should be mindless. Here, the morality of your actions is questioned.

okay. so i identified the wrong 'fold' of the path. mea culpa.


However, you must also consider that Buddha considered humans to be part of the natural order, and because of such, humans, as any other animal, have a right to defend themselves from harm. In such case, it would be immoral to not defend yourself because you would be countering your natural instincts.

okay. so now i know what buddha thought. but i still don't believe that to be a substitute for what i think. why do i think it's acceptable or not acceptable to cause harm to another human being? if i don't ask myself these questions, then (in my opinion) i'm not practicing spirituality or philosophy. i'm practicing scholarship. familiarizing myself with someone else's beliefs.


But Kung Fu pratice, in itself, is not a moral question. Just as practicing archery does not mean you will eventually shoot someone through the head with a bow, practicing kung fu does not imply that one day I will maim another person.

nope. but what it does do is place you in a context where it's logical to ask such questions. for my mother to ask, "what are my moral views on trying to cripple someone with a rattan stick?" is kinda meaningless. she's not physically capable and she makes d-mn well sure that she's not in situations where that question would come up. but for a person learning to fight with a rattan stick, mimicking techniques designed to cripple, it's a fairly logical question to ask. it doesn't mean you're going to cripple someone with a rattan stick, no. but from a self-defense standpoint, the whole rationale for training is this: it's unlikely that i'll need this. but if it do, it's there. same is true of that sort of moral questioning. it's unlikely that you'll ever need the answer. but what if you do?


I was being very broad here, and perhaps a little short-sighted. I simply meant that I do not believe mainstream Christianity and Islam define spirituality the same way as Chan Buddhism, and looking at kung fu, which is heavily flavored with Buddhism and Taoism, through a Western lense sometimes distorts the original intent.

and you could argue that we'll never have any choice but to look at chan buddhism through a western lense. i was born in western culture. i've lived in western culture for 31 years. so how completely could i ever really parse the cultural specificities of chan buddhism? but the idea, that's universal. that, i can address. when i do, it's likely to be an odd reconciliation of a number of different influences (my parents, my hodgepodge of asian philosophy, my interest in psychology, whatever christianity has leaked through my status as a lapsed anglican, etc.). but it'll still be my answer. based on my experiences and my thought processes. not on second-hand (and potentially culturally inaccessible) accounts.


Buddha said it was impossible to know what happens after death, so one should not dwell on it. He was not concerned with the infinite, but rather believed attention should be focused on the present. On the Here and Now.

and yet buddhism does maintain the belief in reincarnation.


Basically, this is what I was referring to in my previous post on "no mind." No mind is the only spiritual aspect of Kung Fu IMO, but it is not specific to Kung Fu. Gardening, cooking, etc. can also be a means to this end.

well, i disagree that it's the only one. but i wholeheartedly agree that it's there.


stuart b.

[Braden]

ghthomason

"I simply meant that I do not believe mainstream Christianity and Islam define spirituality the same way as Chan Buddhism..."

How so?

"For a few momets, there is no mortagage, no screaming kids, no wife, no friends, no work, no boss, etc. to cause you suffering. When practice is over, you return to those things, but during practice, you can remove yourself from them."

Your main argument seems to be that a fundamental spirituality exists in kungfu practice solely as the form of a no-mind doctrine as elaborated above.

That may be fine for Buddhists or those inspired by Buddhist thought, but what about the rest of us?

I don't accept your position that Buddhist thought is intractable from kungfu practice. There are certainly many kungfu styles not much influenced by it, and many influenced heavily by other schools of thought.

So is kungfu spirituality invalid for people practicing these styles?

[Braden]

But Buddhism isn't the only source of eastern spirituality.

For instance, as someone more influenced by Taoism than Buddhism, I'd disagree strongly with your description of no mind.

I'm still curious about your distinction between Christainity/Islam and Buddhism...

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,


Originally posted by ghthomason
Exactly. Do not accept authority merely because it comes from a great man, or is written in a sacred book, for truth is different for each man and woman.

So, our argument is moot. I believe one thing, you believe another. I wish you well on your journey.

likewise, mate. i hope you don't take my debate for anything more than debate.


Depends on who you ask, and what you're definition of reincarnation is. There are different schools of Buddhism. If you mean that my soul remains intact and is reborn again, then I would say Buddha did not argue this point. If you mean my energy is reintegrated into the universe from which it sprung, and is dispersed into a million different flowers, stars, and gophers, then I would say the Buddha did argue this point. Before Einstein said it, Buddha said matter could not be created or destroyed--it can merely change states.

sounds like the infinite to me. that's not to say that i, stuart b., am infinite. just that buddhism does acknowledge and attempt to address the idea. just as most people and belief systems do at some point. h-ll, the first time it dawned on you that you're going to die, that was a question about the infinite. it was a realization that you and i aren't it.


Well, basically I'm saying you can't. I don't see how anyone can obtain spiritual direction from Kung Fu unless you look at it from an Eastern perspective. Kung Fu is an Eastern practice, sprung from Eastern ideas and philiosophies and entrenched in Eastern thinking. If you want to truely understand it, and gain any kind of spiritual significance from it, I think you have to start with understanding the culture from which it sprung.

well, i think that the eastern viewpoint might act as a springboard. certainly, there was a time when i was all about yin and yang, wu wei, pu, and countless other culturally specific ideas. but that's like being fascinated with something because it's shiney. are you fascinated with the thing or with the shine? for me, i was fascinated with both. but the shine wore off. and the thing itself remained. that process didn't require an extensive knowledge of asian culture. only enough to serve as inspiration.

you could, of course, make the argument that i 'just don't get it.' and there would really be no arguing it. [shrug]


Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert here, and I readily admit I have a lot to learn about everything.

likewise.


It's like taking American Football to England. Sure, they like watching it sometimes, and they may even understand the rules, but fundamentally they just don't get it the same way we do because we were brought up with football and raised in a culture submerged in football. Americans think football. English people don't. And please, let's not get carried away with Soccer vs Football sematics.

well, you could argue that there's some meaning to football that appeals to something deep within the american psyche. in that case, i'd point out that whatever that something is can be reached through soccer or rugby as well. making the thing itself culturally unspecific. and the springboard to get to it somewhat culturally specific.

of course, having lived in both countries, i don't really get into either sport. so surely, i'm doomed.


stuart b.

[yenhoi]

Ap!

Martial Artists dont study war! Well most dont. As to the aspects of art you mentioned - sure, all those things can be present, but are not in everyones practice, and are not necessary for a martial artist to be kickass, or 'complete.' Its not necessary to have some philosophical or spiritual direction or focus or influence to gain martial skill, use it, or deal with its possible consequences.

When was the last time a Martial Artist 'touched you' with his art? I dout it had much to do with that guys level of enlightenment, or how many extra eyes he has opened through meditation - it was probably his overall skill in our common realm of physical beatdown, the rest is fluff, detail work - for some that is. Spirituality and philosophy etc are just as much a function of the individual as his martial skill, but they obviously not tied to each other through any sort of anything

Last time a competent martial artist reached out and touched me with his art, he gave me some good dit da jow afterwords to heal the bruises. What he didnt give me was a lecture on morality or how the universe outside his Kwoon works.

I think this is one of those things where you have the people that say, you must accept and believe in god to goto heaven or else goto hell, and then there are people staring right back saying - well if you dont believe in god, how can you goto hell.

[apoweyn]

i hear ya. i'm the only guy in my department. makes for a very short social hour.

yeah, i think i understand the buddhist concept of reincarnation. and it's an answer to the same question that gets answered over and over again. i think it stems from that perception that we aren't going to be as we are now forever.

so what happens then?

well, supernovas and c-ckroaches, perhaps. sod all, maybe. life everlasting in heaven (valhalla, the happy hunting grounds... ), possibly.

[shrug]


stuart b.

[yenhoi]

Well ghthomason: if I ever find the buddha, I will kill him.

:eek:

[Braden]

"However, do you feel that you can remove Taoism from Taoists arts and still get the same affect?"

You can't remove the Taoist-influence from Taoist arts and get the same effect - it's hard-coded in there as it helped develop, historically, what the art has become.

Is this the same as Taoism? Depends on your viewpoint. Do you have to explicitly study Taoism to get the effect from Taoist arts? No.

I'm simply making a case against the idea that kungfu is intractably related to Buddhism. Moreover, that once you open up to the possibility that non-Buddhist interpretations of chinese martial practice are valid, it becomes more difficult to draw a strict line as to which apply and which don't.

"The goal of each is to become a better person, but fundamentally, there are differences in application."

Do you think they're that different?

I know alot of Buddhists who spend alot of time in meditation on dieties. And Taoists who believe in a fundamental order to reality to which they return.

Catholics who walk the labrynth and meditate on the rosary... Orthodox hesychast meditation... and then there's Islamic sufi mysticism.

[yenhoi]

Well certainly Im not THE buddha?

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ghthomason


All you have to do is look in the mirror. You will be puzzled by the Buddha inside you looking back. While distracted by his visage, quickly slash your wrists and watch the Buddha in the mirror slowly and painfully die. For good measure, punch yourself a couple of times in the head just before losing consciousness. That way, you know you got him good.

i probably shouldn't be laughing at that.

...

but i am. :D

[Braden]

"But can you really grasp Taoist concepts without understanding Taoist doctrine? If you try, you are looking at your finger, and not at the moon."

Not if what you're doing is a living practice of the doctrine.

"Who knows? I think people concentrate so much on ritual that they lose sight of the goal. Again, like fingers pointing at the moon."

Ah, I only brought it up because you mentioned you thought the application was different; and I'm trying to figure out what the real difference may be. :)

[yenhoi]

Do I need to use a mirror to get the immortals and ancestors as well?

:D

[apoweyn]

But can you really grasp Taoist concepts without understanding Taoist doctrine? If you try, you are looking at your finger, and not at the moon.

i think that's backward. as unfond as i am of analogies in general and this one in particular, i think the doctrine is the finger in that it serves to illustrate a point. that point, or concept, is the moon.

and the cow... i don't know what the h-ll the cow is all about.


stuart b.

[ZIM]

and the cow... i don't know what the h-ll the cow is all about.

If the cow keeps looking at the moon, she gets mutilated by the alien who keeps telling her to watch his finger. Or something like that, anyway...:D

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ZIM


If the cow keeps looking at the moon, she gets mutilated by the alien who keeps telling her to watch his finger. Or something like that, anyway...:D

yeah. it's not enough that mars wants our women. now they gotta have the cows too?! :)

[Braden]

ghthomason

"it's only infinite in that you realize your body and mind are made of stuff, that will become other stuff when you die. The point is really to show that everything is connected. The same molecules that are in your body are in Super Novas and ****roaches. You should not consider yourself lower or higher than either."

What you're describing here sounds like materialism to me.

I've always thought of Buddhist thought as neutral monism - that humans, supernovas, ****roaches are but one aspect of a single underlying reality (rather than them actually being that single underlying reality).

Is this what you mean to say?

If you don't wanna discuss it, I understand; I just thought it was interesting. :)

[Braden]

Right. But the crude matter and the earthly mind-soul are but different aspects of the ultimate real-soul, which is all that truely is?

[red5angel]

"Well most dont"

Thanks for adding that Yenhoi. ;)

[Braden]

Of course, but that's never stopped people from talking metaphysics cause it amuses them. :D

[ZIM]

To quote Yoda for the third time, "We are luminous beings, not this crude matter."

Not me! I'm ALL Dark Matter!

[Braden]

You must be a spherical horse then.

[ZIM]

LMAO. Time for a new avatar!!!

[ZIM]

But I think the real point of Chan Buddhism is that it doesn't really matter. As long as you keep your mind on where you are and what you are doing right now, the rest will work itself out.

Wasn't there some story [hafta find it] regarding a monk who achieved enlightenment when watching the bubbles formed by his urination? Scatological, yes, but the realization of Zen is all-pervading & present if you can see it, is what I find in that.

The Buddha-reality is reflected in garbage, just as in a quiet pool of water... So logically, fighting can be a route to it too, but you don't need it to fight, per se.

To split hairs: I tend to view the MAs as more properly the yogic path than the monk's path towards it all.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ghthomason


Fighting is antithetical to enlightment because it means you have an attachment to living. That being said, we are programmed to survive, and fighting to survive is allowed.

It does create quite a dilemma, though.

well yeah, it creates an enormous dilemma. if the legend is to be believed, why would the monks have chosen to strengthen their bodies at all if it was all so transitory? but more to the point, why do so by learning to fight if fighting was so antithetical to their cause?

you mentioned that buddha viewed us as part of a chain of being. and that we had the right (or responsibility) to protect ourselves. but isn't that just another type of attachment?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ghthomason
Because of the mind/body connection. You see, they were so weak that they could not concentrate. And any good buddhist will tell you, faulty concentration is a fatal flaw.

And it's not that they initially began learning to fight. Bodhidharma taught the monks 4 things:

1) 18 lohan movements based off the poses of the lohan statues
2) 5 animals exercises
3) Muscle and tendon exchange
4) Bone marrow washing

These exercises are more like Yoga than Kung Fu. Eventually, as soldiers and criminals came to Shaolin, the monks learned to incoporate new techniques into their repetoire, which would eventually lead to the formation of hard, kung fu forms and fighting techniques.

yeah, but that's exactly my point. yogic exercises make sense for strengthening the body to facilitate meditation. but the influx of soldiers and criminals resulting in the development of kung fu seems antithetical to me. why weren't these things rejected?

the answer, to my mind, is pretty simple. reality still holds sway to some degree. regardless of how much a spiritual tradition refutes attachment to life, there are going to be a substancial number of adherents who like living just fine. there's nothing really heretical about that either, in my opinion. virtually any established spiritual tradition is filled with this sort of contradiction.


Any animal has the right to defend itself. However, only people have the knoweldge and reason to become enlightened.

and the capacity to bugger up their own chances of enlightenment, by the sounds of it. if we're supposed to shirk our attachment to life, and still maintain that we have the right to defend it, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot. now, we're attached to life and to our rights.


stuart b.

[ZIM]

if we're supposed to shirk our attachment to life, and still maintain that we have the right to defend it, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot. now, we're attached to life and to our rights.

Solving the issue is hard, to be sure, but maybe esp. so IF you're approaching MAs in the Buddhist tradition. Again, I'd have to say, if thats the approach you take, look towards yoga to solve dilemmas.

Within that tradition, there's 2 terms which go hand in glove: abhyasa [persevering practice] and vairagya [nonattachment]. You're supposed to cultivate both at the same time.

I'm bringing these up because they relate to larger issues. You have to act according to your intention, which comes from values and first principles, never from the effects you want to achieve [ends]. Ends=ego-driven, intention is developed thru abhyasa & vairagya.

So, you can defend yourself & others and still be nonattached to the outcome depending on the nature of your practice.

Needless to say, this all quite complex and there's no way I can do these justice w/in a paltry post. If you get a chance to talk with a yogi, do so- its an interesting POV. :)

[apoweyn]

word.

i'm a big fan of hindu thought on the subject. the bhagavad gita saw to that. arjuna is a prime example of what you're talking about, i think.


stuart b.