Meat, Wine and Fighting Monks [Archive]

richard sloan

06-02-2004, 08:17 AM

I think this was a pretty good article. The only criticism I would have is that some of the meat and wine monks that are mentioned aren't characterized very well- for instance all the ones I know aren't exactly devouring whole cow carcasses at every sitting...they just eat meat from time to time, and so they enjoy a beer. Last time I had dinner with MDY he had a few beers, the admonition is actually against allowing something to have delitrious effects and not a particular *kind* of beverage. For instance if he were addicted to coffee, that would be bad.

The other problem I have is that if YX wants to wrestle the Chinese version of Buddhist orthodoxy back into primacy in the fold, he needs to do it across the board. But there is a problem in that this is the modern world, and people meet and greet and exchange ideas...the Dalai Lama writes books, it's easy to read his wisdom and philosophy. Should he stop eating meet? Should only Chinese Buddhists not eat meat? What about Thich Naht Hahn? Was he wrong to celebrate the Eucharist from Thomas Merton's hand? According to De Cheng and Guolin, yup, he was. But others say it's fine, it was a good thing. There are quite a few monks who are married under YX's banner, so if it's wrong, let it be wrong, not a means of taking pot shots at someone else.

Speaking for myself, I was happy to learn of monks who were engaged in the world and not keeping spiritual treasures locked up and reclused. They have a successful means of delivering people from the dualistic suffering, I feel it is irresponsible to the notion of interbeing to keep that from people.

Of all these different monks, I don't know a single one who can keep all 250 precepts. It would be impossible, from the Dalai Lama to Guolin. Most religious I have met who make a big show of what they do for their religion, aren't quite getting what I feel to be the whole point of human spiritual systems, and that is transcending. Reminds me of the Damo story.

In that regard, I am also happy to see the celibacy thing fall on occassion...much like the Christian reformers who splintered from the Catholic Church, I hope it happens more and more.

Roc Doc

06-02-2004, 09:43 AM

gene,
thanks for including the great article by dr. shahar in the recent kf mag.
it is so good to have academic, objective and intelligent information on the subject we all love. sad though, some would rather not shine a light on the topic but would rather remain in the dark. in the matrix. hmmmmmm...
i know kung fu... nyuk nyuk nyuk :)
doc

bungle

06-02-2004, 11:12 AM

It's obvious to why alcohol is banned. Try drinking it while meditating intensively. No go . It messes up your mind big time. I do sedona and if i drink i cannot do sedona properly for a couple of days.

GeneChing

06-03-2004, 10:06 AM

I'll admit that I'm quite biased toward this article because for me, Dr. Shahar's work is a revelation. His research into Shaolin has resolved many questions I had in my own work on Shaolin. I've read some of the chapters of his upcoming book, and what he postulates may well change the perception of CMA as we know it. Keep in mind that this article, along with Dr. Shahar's other articles, are part of a larger body of research which will be presented in his book....assuming he finishes it.

Now to address both shanghai_kid and richard sloan:

Dr. Shahar sets out to answer a simple question "Did Shaolin Monks Breach Buddhist Dietary Regualtions?" We know that many do today - as Richard mentions, Shi Yanming is an outspoken transgressor. My own shifu, Shi Decheng has eaten meat, which I discuss in the Shaolin Special 2004 cover story (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=501). Now we should sidestep here and state that while vegatarianism is not practiced by all sects of Buddhist monks. There are many schools of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is not vegetarian, but Tibetan Buddhism is not known for vegetarianism to begin with (in fact, there is ritual 'forbidden' meat eating in Tibetan tantric Buddhist schools). However, Chinese Buddhist monks are known for their vegetarianism. So the idea that Shaolin monks may have violated this precept, as one of the foremost temples of China, is very interesting.

Dr. Shahar sets out to answer this question by looking at historical examples. I'm a bit astounded that the sources are brought into question since this is a scholarly article. Admittedly, since we are a popular journal, we don't publish academic bibliographies, but that doesn't mean Dr. Shahar doesn't have them. If you have a specific source in question, I can provide the biobligraphic information.

Now there isn't much documented about Buddhist violations in the Buddhist cannon and literature for obvious reasons. No religion would air it's dirtly laundry so. But there is substantial evidence in historical fictional works and well as government documents, and of course, Shaolin's extensive stele collection, which has dates from which certain implications can be drawn. This record is what Dr. Shahar choses to focus on (and from a scholarly standpoint, there really isn't much else that is valid). In my reading, I find that he presents the film Shaolin Temple more as a contemporary echo of some of the earlier classic fictional sources. Several fascinating Chinese concepts emerge from fiction, ones that most Westerners are unaware, like jiurou heshang, dian seng, ye heshang and feng heshang. Actually, in defense of Yanming, he might fall into one of these catagories, and I truly mean that with respect. The Sengchou story is extremely significant to all Shaolin researchers because of its date, its mention of meat eating and also Vajrapani. That story is so rich and revealing about early Shaolin culture. Then there's the governement stuff. Your comment on the preservationof government records is somewhat true, until the Ming and Qing, which is what is referenced. The Ming and Qing records are very well preserved. In fact, every imperial document of the Qing is extant; the study of these documents is an amazing scholarly pursuit of its own, covering the minutia of daily life for the last 400 years of China. The revelation here is that of fangtou heshang, something that is being echoed today. But all this is gravy, really, rich gravy that provides an astute CMA researcher with a lot of grist for the mill.
Ultimately, the conclusion is simple. Did they trangress? Most probably. The implication is more interesting because if they can trangress forbidden foods, they can transgress violence. That gets at some very interesting questions about our roots. The commonly accepted myth is that Shaolin was the origin of CMA. Talk about myth making. ;) I'm surprised you miss the connections, because to me, they're painfully obvious.

Just a Guy

06-03-2004, 12:11 PM

While it is true that most Chinese Ch'an sects practice vegetarianism, it is unsurprising that Shaolin does not. It is particularly apropos that you mention Tibetans, as Shaolin Ch'an was heavily influenced by Tibetan Buddhism, especially the offshoots of Vajrayana present in the Omei Shan region. To say that Shaolin violates Buddhist dietary regulations seems a little off-base. It would be more accurate to say that Shaolin differs from other Chinese Buddhist traditions. Talk of "violations" of the Vinaya seems to be thinly concealed sensationalism.

Consider: when the Buddha's own cousin challenged him for leadership of the Sangha, pushing for strict vegetarianism (among other things), the Buddha strongly affirmed that vegetarianism was to be an individual, and not a doctrinal, decision - and thoroughly optional.

As an interesting aside, Wes Nisker points out in "Buddha's Nature" that we have to harness the power of the sun *somehow*, and there are only two methods available: eat things that photosynthesize, or eat things that eat things that photosynthesize. Nisker's formulation provides one starting point for thinking about the wheel of karma.

Shahar's article, while a fascinating read (it would be really interesting to find out more about Ch'ing-era documentation on the Shaolin), seems caught up in the paradigm of commandment-style Buddhist precepts. The precepts aren't supposed to be immutable commandments. For instance, what's wrong with life-affirming love-making, even for a Buddhist monk? Sex is not allowed for many Buddhist monks, though, not because there's something wrong with it, but because it is *easier* to be harmless (Right Resolve and all that) and cultivate detachment when you don't have sex. Sex is frequently and easily abused. So we get the precepts, and ultimately the *Theravadin*-created Vinaya (monastic disciplinary code), which provide "commandments to live by", because it's simply too hard for most people to grasp and follow the eightfold path directly.

As a Mahayanin Ch'an school, however, Shaolin is very focused on the eightfold path, and upon personal responsibility and choice. Precepts and discipline imposed from the outside are pretty useless on the path.

Shanghai Kid's points about PRC propaganda are valid in some areas. For instance, this new insistence that monks living in the monastery be celibate and vegetarian is not authentic to Shaolin tradition. It's mostly, I presume, an effort by the PRC to lend credibility to what's currently happening at the Song Shan site. Hmm, mid-1970's: Shaolin Order in ashes. Quick: find some martial artists, and marry them to borrowed Buddhist practices of other Chinese Ch'an schools. Well, I suppose my perspective on the authenticity of the PRC-endorsed Shaolin is apparent.

My sources on Shaolin tradition and philosophy are all pre-PRC, but I'll take my sources any day over historical fiction, Ch'ing imperial documents, and agents of the PRC. (I don't mean this as a condemnation of Shahar's work at all, he is simply doing research with what is available to him. But here's a consideration: think of how hard it would be to do accurate research on Jewish culture in Germany today had the Nazis prevailed in WWII. This isn't meant to be a literal analogy, but it makes my point: Shahar has got a long row to hoe.)

GeneChing

06-03-2004, 03:10 PM

While you've both posed some fine arguments, for you to properly address a scholarly paper, you need to back it with some precedent research citations. Otherwise I'm not sure you can even begin to make these statements that you're making fairly. Here, someone has produced some historical documents, material you can validify. You are countering with hearsay, unless you can produce your sources. This is scholarly research so we should discuss it as such. I know that's a huge leap for a forum, but we like making such leaps around here. So let's at least play with a bit of an academic standard.

Now, despite most westerners belief that the CR destroyed everything and left wushu in its place, there still remains a significant record. I'd direct you to the Wushu in the White House series that we have been running throughout 2004 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/mlist.php?magyr=2004) (actually, the Shaolin special was the only one that we skipped). You find that the 'ban' on martial arts was actually only for a very short period of time, just a few years, and the conversion to wushu was an attempt to preserve traditional that backfired in a weird way. It was an attempt to level the playing field, but that's really hard given the diveristy of traditional styles.

What I find interesting is that Shaolin monks are supposed to abstain from meat, wine and sex, but there's this tradition that implies that they frequently did not. The 1735 report is fascinating, as is the accusations of Wang Shixing (1647-1598)and He Wei (fl. 1830). Clearly we can deduce from these that meat, wine and 'whoring' was forbidden during the Qing. And it makes sense, after all, Shaolin was a Buddhist Temple. Can you authentic source that validly permits Shaolin monks to eat meat and drink wine? That's the challenge here. The common argument is Li Shinmin, but if you believe that, I ask you, then who is learning history from the movies?

GeneChing

06-04-2004, 09:38 AM

In all fairness, I still fail to see your point, shanghai_kid, but I'm in total agreement with you on the fact that it has elicited a nice dialog here. I find Dr. Shahar's work to be some of the most scholarly material done on martial arts so far. He's joining such authors as Henning, Hurst, Wise, and a few others that are doing exemplary work. Have you read some of Shahar's other papers? We've discussed his work on a few previous threads, like this one (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=28397). If Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies isn't scholarly enough for you, well, maybe we need to analyse the defination of scholarly. You're main pont of contention, as I undestand it, is that this is some sort of myth making. I find it to be quite the opposite. It's looking at the myths of Shaolin and trying to verify them with historical sources. Of course, he encouters the historian's problem in that you can only allude from extant documents, so the conclusion is somewhat implied, but you have to read between the lines, like any scholarly paper (at least he is relatively free of jargon.)

As for the connection of fighting and meat eating, the notion of meat for strength is a common myth, but like many common myths, it isn't explicitly codified, it's an implied connection. So Shahar doesn't produce some ancient document that says this, but implies it from other works, mostly historical fictitious accounts. And to make a conclusion that there is a connection without an explicit example would be faulty. Instead, he lets you fill in the gaps. Really, what he is doing is making a historical review and letting the conclusions fall out for the reader. This is not uncommon in academia. In fact, such papers/publications often become the most cited in future research. Keep in mind that the topic of Shaolin has not been approached academically to any depth so far, so the presentation of many of his sources is unprecedented.

Now, FWIW, if you know the academic world, you know that most scholars don't publish in popular newsstand magazines, they only publish in academic journals. I know many will cite Journal of Asian Martial Arts as an academic journal, and it does have that leaning, but it's certainly not on the level of something like the Harvard Journal. Dr. Shahar agreed to publish in our magazine as a personal favor - this is an extraction from a larger work. I'll grant that since I've read the larger work, or the current draft of it, I might be seeing a bigger picture of his research and filling in those gaps better. And wait 'til you see what's in that book. I think many martial artists will reject it, because it explodes a lot of common Shaolin myths with hard evidence.

GeneChing

06-07-2004, 09:26 AM

The field of martial arts scholarship is just opening up, both in English and Chinese (re: Ma Mingda) but it's still very limited. So I personally find any attempt for scholarly work to be of interest and worthy of encouragement, but that's just me. My mission is to promote CMA, and more academic research can onlly improve our understanding. Now, our magazine is a popular journal, not an academic one - if we were academic, we wouldn't be on the newsstand. I hear you guys dissing this piece from an armchair observationalist standpoint, which is certainly within the common rights of the forum here. However, what would be more productive for martial arts as a whole, would be to provide some better resources. Is there some better research on Shaolin Temple that you are privy to? If so, please share (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/about/guidelines.php).

richard sloan

06-07-2004, 09:51 AM

last I checked the mag wasn't a peer reviewed scholarly journal...so I thought the article was more than sufficient for it's purposes and well within the scope of the magazine...and it's certainly open to scholarly debate or rebuttal which if someone would like to do that I am sure Gene would consider publishing it. That is after all how this stuff works...

again, my only real complaint was the mischaracterization, which can be dismissed by observation, that shahar makes when describing the meat and wine consumption- he makes it sound like these guys are walking around munching on joints of beef ripped from a cow's barbecued carcass and I just don't see that as the case...not speaking for all of them, but the few I have been around for any length of time do eat meat *from time to time*, but it's not the norm, normally it's vegetables. And lots and lots of noodles.

Just a Guy

06-07-2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by GeneChing
for you to properly address a scholarly paper, you need to back it with some precedent research citations. Otherwise I'm not sure you can even begin to make these statements that you're making fairly. Here, someone has produced some historical documents, material you can validify. You are countering with hearsay, unless you can produce your sources.

Gene,

My intention is not to counter Dr. Shahar's research, per se, but rather to make some differing perspectives more public. Shahar's biases (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense - everyone has some kind of bias) heavily color his article and lead the reader to certain kinds of conclusions - conclusions which are not inevitable at all.

I hope this point is appreciated, even though I've managed to make it without saying anything very solid. Heh, trademark of an academic, perhaps.

All that aside, your requirement that one can only make telling comments on a scholarly paper by citing sources of one kind or another is based on a logical fallacy. Sound reasoning takes many forms, and argument by appeal to authority (those good ol' citations) is only one of them, and a frequently faulty one at that. Many excellent pieces of research are packed with citations, but the citations are frequently *not* a vital part of the argument. Academics pad their work with references to other academic work for many reasons, including: acknowledgement of their peers, to demonstrate their mastery of the field, etc. Citations of source material are more important in some fields, of course.

I appreciate the work Shahar is doing (and have read his other published work), and wouldn't take the time to even comment on it if I felt it was frivolous or what have you. As I mentioned before, I simply want to bring out some different perspectives. I suppose I could cite the sutras regarding some of my comments about the Dharma, but what I have to say is hardly unique or original. I understand the desire for sources when it comes to my representation of the Shaolin interpretation of the Dharma, however.

On that topic, I am aware of an argument by appeal to authority of the very best kind, which will appear in a book being published this August.

The book is The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text: History, Philosophy, and Gung Fu of Shaolin Ch'an, ISBN 0-9755009-0-2.

The primary author of this manuscript, which has been held in trust for many years (the manuscript, not the author!), was the abbot of the Song Shan Temple from 1882-1901. In 1901, he left China and directed the dispersal of Shaolin's highest level of priests. The Shaolin Order never crumbled as many supposed, but persisted in relative anonymity - yet the village masters in the region of Song Shan and the few Shaolin students left in that region and scraped up by the PRC only represent a peripheral aspect of Shaolin heritage. Wait - the Cultural Revolution saw the demise of many of these people, so really, what has survived in China as "Shaolin" is a small fraction of Shaolin. My source, again, is the above-mentioned tome.

I realize this sounds like a fairy tale, but the reality is truly stranger than any fiction. Also, let me note that I am playing a role in the publication of this text, and so have my own definite bias about Shaolin. I don't pretend to be purely objective - niether am I a moral relativist. There is right and wrong in the world, just as there is truth and falsehood. (Of course, from a Ch'an perspective, I am just referring to worldly truth and worldly morality ;)

GeneChing

06-08-2004, 04:41 PM

...that's sounds like a very interesting book. I'll be looking forward to it. Can you tell us a little more? Of course, you realise that there was no Abbot of Songshan Shaolin from 1882 to 1901. The previous Abbot, Shi Xingzhen, was inaugurated on 12/13/86 and died on 8/27/87. The Abbot before him was Shi Haikuan who reigned from 1662 until his death in 1666. There have been honorary Abbots in the interim like Haideng and Suxi, but no official recognized ones. What's the name of this 1882-1901 Abbot? I'm really interested in the source material. That period was a very exciting time for CMA especially considering the world political theater and it's relationship to China.

Brad

06-08-2004, 07:52 PM

Was there a big reason there was no abbot during this time or do they sometimes just take their time picking a new one?

richard sloan

06-08-2004, 11:46 PM

sounds interesting all right...

I have some surface questions, mind you without benefit of the book...so whatever they are worth....

The book is The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text: History, Philosophy, and Gung Fu of Shaolin Ch'an, ISBN 0-9755009-0-2.

The primary author of this manuscript, which has been held in trust for many years (the manuscript, not the author!), was the abbot of the Song Shan Temple from 1882-1901. In 1901, he left China and directed the dispersal of Shaolin's highest level of priests.

Why would he direct the dispersal of Shaolin's highest level of priests in the 1900s.

I believe it is true that there is a direct transmission of pre 1928 Shaolin with todays monks, despite the PRC emphasis on modern wushu...

The info I have is basically as follows:

Shi Xin Zheng (alt spelling Shing Jen) acted as abbot during and after the Cultural Revolution and until YXs play. The last official gov appointed abbot before him was Shi Pu (maybe Ru) Yi (your abbot?) around 1911, and there was Shi Zhen Xu in the late 1800's or so (or is this your abbot?) Shi Zhen Xu being Shi Su Yuan's master...

I think the section of the poem we are dealing with is:

"Qing jing zhen ru hai

Zhan ji chun zhen su"

to the "Xin" section but let's not forget that Cao Dong was not the only family still playing gong fu at Shaolin so maybe that accounts for the names not adhering to the Cao Dong lineage succession- Wan Heng is not Cao Dong for example but anyway it's phonetics and those are always screwy to the point of making my head hurt sometimes.

The gong fu was thought to be mostly lost because of the loss of the library in 1928. But not only was there a transmission of dharma and gong fu through living vessels but it is not common knowledge that De Qian linked with De Ding who had buried many of the manuscripts and made copies of the others and most of it has been recovered thusly.

Just a Guy

06-09-2004, 12:04 AM

Yes, he is probably better classified as the nominal head. The core of the book was written by him, his assistant at Song Shan (the #2 monk, who was also the Order's head of the Dragon styles), and one of the last Fukien abbots.

For more details, folks will just have to wait for the book. My organization has spent the last 30 years keeping this material to ourselves, but feel that enough time has passed now, and so decided to release it.

To Richard:

Of course there is some direct transmission between pre-1928 Shaolin with today's monks, but much of what I see today in terms of "Shaolin" Ch'an and gung fu is quite remote from my sources.

The dispersal of the highest level of priests occured because it was felt that Shaolin would not survive in China. The Boxer Rebellion and events leading up to it spelled out a grim future to those who were able to recognize the signs. I guess they were right, sadly enough.

richard sloan

06-09-2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Just a Guy
Yes, he is probably better classified as the nominal head. The core of the book was written by him, his assistant at Song Shan (the #2 monk, who was also the Order's head of the Dragon styles), and one of the last Fukien abbots.

I know you said we'd have to wait, but...I always hated Heinz, lol...so is this author from the Southern Fukien Temple? I hope he's not hairy.

Originally posted by Just a Guy

Of course there is some direct transmission between pre-1928 Shaolin with today's monks, but much of what I see today in terms of "Shaolin" Ch'an and gung fu is quite remote from my sources.

Yup.

A rather telling example was YX's attempts at a Vienna Temple.

Originally posted by Just a Guy

The dispersal of the highest level of priests occured because it was felt that Shaolin would not survive in China. The Boxer Rebellion and events leading up to it spelled out a grim future to those who were able to recognize the signs. I guess they were right, sadly enough.

And yet there was quite a bit left to destroy apparently, in 1928. Just speaking for myself, words like "highest" and such usually make my spider sense tingle.

Just a Guy

06-09-2004, 09:09 AM

None of these masters were especially hairy, that I know of.

Regarding "highest" setting off your spider sense, that's prudent. The Buddha more or less recommended that one's spider sense *should* be tingling when reading or hearing something new/different/circumspect. Check out the Kalama Sutra.

GeneChing

06-09-2004, 10:00 AM

Well, now that opens up a huge pandora's box as soon as you mention Fujian. Right now, there are three temples claiming to be the Fujian temple, none that are 'officially' recognised by Songshan. Many scholars are skeptical of the Fujian temples. They may have been, to take a term from Shahar's article, Fangtou, remnents of Shaolin's Anti-piracy campaign (circa. 1550). These remnents may have been inflated by Tiandihui legends. Anyway, the point is that the entire legend has fallen under scrutiny.

Now for Brad's question, Shaolin didn't fare too well in the Qing. Basically, Shaolin supported the Ming, chose the wrong party, so to speak. My suspicion is that this had a large effect upon their leadership, or lack thereof, probably not too different from what we experienced with the 20th century.

r.(shaolin)

06-09-2004, 09:45 PM

Just a Guy, are you saying that according to your tradition, pre-1900's clergy at Shaolin were not celibate nor vegetarians?
..............................................
Originally posted by Just a Guy
". . . that monks living in the monastery be celibate and vegetarian is not authentic to Shaolin tradition . . ."

". . .While it is true that most Chinese Ch'an sects practice vegetarianism, it is unsurprising that Shaolin does not. . . "
..............................................
I'm most interested in seeing even a partial list of form names from your tradition of pre-1900's Song Shan Shaolin martial arts. You mention "Dragon styles" - I'm curious what you meant by that.

r.

GeneChing

06-10-2004, 09:20 AM

Looking again to the paper that Shahar just published with us, we can find evidence that Shaolin monks may well have eaten meat, but that was in violation of the regulations. The Sengchou story is the earliest and provides the foundation of what I like to call the "meat gives strength" idea, albeit Sengchou's violation is divinely inspired. That's a Tang period source. The official condemnations, all Qing dynasty soucres I think, criticized Shaolin monks for eating meat. So by this, we can imply that meat was forbidden during periods of the Tang and the Qing.

Today, meat is still forbidden in the temple, but there are meat vendors right outside the temple still, depsite the great purge of the valley in the last few years. This reminds me of when I was in Rishikesh, India. That's a holy city, the origin of the Ganges river, and meat is banned with in the entire city. Millions of people descend on Rishikesh for certain rituals, like the Kumba Mela, which is defined by many as the largest spiritual gathering in the world. While many of the pilgrims are devout, with such a large base, of course, not all of them are. Such is the nature of any spiritual path - it's hard for humans to be true to the spirit in a carnal world. Even in India, where vegetarism is more common than meat eating, people still sin around holy places. So what's right outside Rishikesh? Meat vendors.

Anyway, enough about diet for now, let's get back to CMA. I completely concur with r.(shaolin) - Just a Guy, do you have a list of forms?

jun_erh

06-11-2004, 02:05 PM

meat eating and wine drinking are seen (by some) as sort of understandable desires if you are living in something as unpredictable as the "world" whereas the guys who mainly have a set pattern of things they do in the temple see themselves as having to live the ideal (vegetarian) way. So they function as a way for the people in the larger society to see that meat and wine are luxuries nt neccesaties.

Just a Guy

06-11-2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
The official condemnations, all Qing dynasty soucres I think, criticized Shaolin monks for eating meat. So by this, we can imply that meat was forbidden during periods of the Tang and the Qing.

Some caution is useful here, I think. The Manchu were ardent supporters of Buddhism, perhaps even more so than the Ming, and it was customary for Buddhist orders in China to be vegetarian. So it makes sense that the Manchu would criticize Shaolin.

But there is a short circuit here in thinking that a secular authority, despite its legal powers (might makes right, and all that), has any sort of moral authority over the conventions of a religious organization. I realize that separation of church and state is primarily a Western legal notion, but consider:

If the EU suddenly decided not to recognize the Pope as the "valid" pontiff, how would the College of Cardinals respond? They might respond in different ways, one of them being to ignore the EU and elect the Pope they intend to elect. Maybe this example is too off base.

Gene brought up the fact that Shaolin did not have an "official" abbot during certain periods. What this means is that the Imperial Court did not appoint anyone to the post, basically as a way of chastising the Shaolin Order. This certainly does *not* mean that Shaolin went without an abbot, however. Again, even though it was Chinese custom that the Court appointed abbots of major temples, a break-down of this process does not mean that censured Buddhist communities fell to pieces!

The whole implication that Shaolin were "bad" Buddhists because they failed to obtain the approval of Manchu emperors is a bit of a stretch, I think - unless you believe that the government is the appropriate body when it comes to deciding spiritual matters.

Regarding detailed information on styles and forms, etc., etc., you'll have to wait for the book (see above). The book also includes detailed information on Shaolin's oral philosophical tradition and interpretation of the Dharma.

If the tone of my posts ever seems abrupt or dismissive, I apologize. I am opting for directness, and "tone" is easily misinterpreted in this medium.

r.(shaolin)

06-11-2004, 05:21 PM

Subversive religious secret societies in the north, such as Hong Jin, Qing Hong Dang, Qing Dang and Wu Fu Tang, etc. (by the way Gene, Tiandi Hui, although it may have had some connections to the above, was really a Southern phenomena) have traditionally made much of their alleged connections to the Shaolin fighting monks - a connection that is suspect at best. The Shaolin tradition I practice makes no mention of anti-governmental activities associated with these heterodox societies in its oral tradition. Furthermore, the background of its founders were monastic, orthodox and loyal to the Imperial government. The indication from our tradition is that during the mid-1800's Shaolin Si, as well as the near by nunneries had good contact with the Imperial administrators in Henan and Beijing. Historical information also supports this. Note as an example, in the early 1700's Qing emperor, Kang Xi wrote a gate inscription for Shaolin's main building which said "Bao shu fang lian". There are a number of other records as well, since this period.

Just a Guy, I agree with you when you say, "The Manchu were ardent supporters of Buddhism." Generally northern Chinese Buddhism cultivated close relations with Imperial governments and vise-versa - in particular with the so-called foreign dynasties. This includes the Qing and Yuan.

Although not all Buddhist monasteries had the same practices or status, Buddhism in great centers like Luoyang, tended to be more orthodox and stable. A further important distinguishing feature of Shaolin was its designation as an official place of worship. The monks (and I'm not talking about Fangtou, which IMO is a bit of a red herring) who resided in these official establishments were selected and ordained by Imperial decree and required higher qualifications. Their supervisory clergy was appointed by the Imperial throne and accountable to it. The older generation of our lineage made it clear that Shaolin took ordination vows and Bodhisattva vows very seriously. However, lay followers did not follow the strict regulations of the clergy.

One further note, generally when government officials became concerned that Buddhists clergy were involved in subversive activities and brought it to their attention, official monasteries tended to became even stricter in their regulations and conduct. Without going into this and beyond the obvious, there were very good reasons why orthodox Buddhist clergy in the north were very quick to condemn heterodox practices.

Just a Guy, your mention of the "the Dragon styles" is most interesting. This is an old term that is connected to Qiu Yue Chan Shi and Wu Xing. I look forward to seeing your book.

r.

GeneChing

06-15-2004, 09:46 AM

True Fangtou is a red herring, sort of the ultimate red herring in Shaolin research, both in modern day and in historical work. Now, many researchers are leaning towards the notion that the southern Shaolin temple may have just been legend based upon Fangtou. Shaolin has Fangtou now, not only around Shaolin, but throughout China, and even internationally. It starts to get into the whole question of what is Shaolin? Where do you draw the line? Some of the Fangtou are completely valid. For example, I find the Shaolin Temple Overseas in Flushing to be quite consistent with Shaolin and Buddhist principles. At the same time, there are schools right around Shaolin that are just martial arts schools, and not even traditional Shaolin. So this is where it gets realy tricky. Shi Guolin calls himself abbot of Shaolin Temple Overseas, and I find that to be a completely valid claim. In contrast, I'm sure there are other headmasters of Shaolin-derived temple-schools today that use the term Abbot and it's more questionable. I'm sure that this existed in the past too. Now today, no one calls himself Abbot in the Shaolin area and gets away with it. In fact, according to hearsay, that is why Shi Wanheng was ejected from the order. But in the past, during the Ming/Qing, who knows? More research is clearly needed here. Now please don't view this as a condemnation of your upcoming book by the Abbot, Just a Guy. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm very much looking forward to this book and hope that you will keep us notified about its publication here.

As for Shaolin under the Manchus, while Buddhism may have thrived, it's a mistake to generalize Shaolin's political standing by the rest of the sangha. Shaolin has always been exceptional - and very different - and still is today, obviously so, or we wouldn't be talking about it here. The main difference is the martial arts. Since Shaolin was known for its military might, it had a different political standing that any other temple. It was allied to the Ming, so it came under scrutiny during the Qing. In fact, it became a symbolic source of many rebellions due to the Yi Lu legend, which of course, we see echoed in so many movies.

This is not the first time that Shaolin was an exception. In fact, it's a critical point to understanding the Li Shinmin legend. If we use the same lens of Dynastic support of Buddhism for Shaolin that was just used here for Shaolin under the Manchus, then Shaolin should have been destroyed under the Tang during it's great purge of Buddhist Temples. Shaolin was very close to the capital geographically and should have been destroyed during that period, but it was spared, probably solely because of the Li Shinmen letter, which had been erected as a stele near the front of the temple. It was like a get-out-of-jail-free card from the frist Tang emperor. In fact, there is a note from a Tang dignatary on the back of another stele noting and dating his visit, which happened to be in the midst of the purge, a clear indication that Shaolin was examined by the government during that time and spared. If you really want, I can dig up the source on that, but it'll take me a bit. The point of all this is that many researchers look at Buddhist history to supplement the lack of valid Shaolin history, and while that's a very useful - in fact, indispensible - tool, we cannot make too many assumptions from that data because of Shaolin's unique status.

r.(shaolin)

06-15-2004, 03:40 PM

Gene wrote:
If we use the same lens of Dynastic support of Buddhism for Shaolin that was just used here for Shaolin under the Manchus, then Shaolin should have been destroyed under the Tang during it's great purge of Buddhist Temples.
.....................
Gene, you will note that the number of great state monasteries, of which Shaolin is one, remained small and fairly stable though out dynastic history. Generally (although not in every case, the great state monasteries, were spared from repressions. I'm not sure I buy the idea that Li Shinmin's letter had anything to do with it. More likely it had to do with Shaolin being a "lin" monastery (Shif-fang tsung-lin).

The principle reason for periodic suppression of Buddhism was economic. The first targets were monasteries built by commoners and then those built by eminent families and nobles (mostly built to evade taxation). When these 'private' institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy, memorials began appearing calling for purges and indeed they periodically occurred.

As I say above, the motive for purges were primarily economic with the common criticisms and reasons felling into two broad categories: first, that Buddhist monks were “unproductive mouths” and “Monks eat without having to work the land and are clothed without having to weave.” The second was tax and corvee evasion. This was done by accusations of either, "wei-lan seng" - fraudulent, unregistered monks or monks not following Buddhist regulation, simply using religious titles to escape taxation or corvee services owed to the state; or accusations that property of the well to do was turned over to 'private' monasteries for the purpose of tax evasion.
..........................
Gene wrote:
Some of the Fangtou are completely valid. . . there are schools right around Shaolin that are just martial arts schools . . . Shi Guolin calls himself abbot of Shaolin Temple Overseas, and I find that to be a completely valid claim. . . today, no one calls himself Abbot in the Shaolin area and gets away with it. In fact . . . that is why Shi Wanheng was ejected from the order. . .
The point of all this is that many researchers look at Buddhist history to supplement the lack of valid Shaolin history,
.........................
My "point" being, it appears that present day Shaolin is spinning history a bit to justify some of their actions and to inflate the role martial arts may have played historically in Buddhism as practiced at Shaolin through out most of its history.

GeneChing

06-15-2004, 05:18 PM

Well, you're right about the economic motivations for the purge. There was also the factor of political clout. This culmiated with Tang Emperor Wuzong (841-846) and was probably the biggest blow the Chinese Buddhism in all history. Some feel the Chinese Buddhism still has yet to recover from that event over 11 centuries ago. Now I'm sure you're familiar with the Li Shinmin stele. In it, Li Shinmin bestows 40 qing of land (560 acres) and a water mill. That's a lot of affluence for a temple during those times. It was common in those times for temples charged rent for their water mill usage as well as rent for land use. What's more, that encompasses the Cypress Valley estate (Baigu) which contains the road between Luoyang (the Tang capital) and Dengfeng - a major tactical holding. Now Li Shinmin was clearly anti-Buddhist. In 629, he ordered the execution of illegally ordained monks. In 631, he forbade monks and nuns from recieving homage from their parents. In 637, he decreed that Taoists had precedence over Buddhist in all state rituals. Now Li Shinmin made hs decree on the stele as a prince, not as the emperor, so there was a lawsuit in 626, only a year after Li donated the land. Shaolin suceeded and that is also on the stele, as you know. Why put that on the stele? It helps reaffirm their ownership, which became critical as the anti-Buddhist purge of the Tang waged on. Some 70 years after the erection of the Li Shinmin stele, the Assistent Magistrate of Dengfeng county reiterated Li's support on another Shaolin stele. In 845, in the midst of Wuzong's purge, the governer of Henan Lu Zhen visited Shaolin which was recorded on the back of that stele. Clearly, if it wasn't for the Li Shinmin stele, Shaolin would not have survived the Tang purge.

As for spinning history, well, everyon has their spin. But I think you're misinterpreting Shaolin. If anything, the current abbot is trying to downplay the CMA and increase the Buddhist aspect. What's more, most scholars are leaning towards deflating the role of martial arts in history, not just with Buddhism, but with any perspective of martial arts as a spiritual pursuit instead of strictly military.

r.(shaolin)

06-15-2004, 09:09 PM

...............................
Gene wrote:
. . .This culminated with Tang Emperor Wuzong (841-846) . . . Now Li Shinmin was clearly anti-Buddhist. . .
...............................
Although Tai Tsung is often portrayed as anti-Buddhist, this is in a sense, a bit misleading of his place in history. In around 645 the famed Buddhist monk Xuan Zang converted Emperor Tai Tsung to acceptance of Buddhism and the Emperor began a patronage of Buddhist institutions which in turn began the acceptance of Buddhism by the Chinese elite. This patronage occurred at the beginning of a two hundred year flowering of Chinese Buddhism which helped shape, one of the culturally richest periods, in Chinese history. This puts the purge that followed into context.

When the purge of Tang Emperor Wuzong began it was short but, as you say, nasty, brutal and extensive.
Now I would like to point out that ancient China at the time was divided into nine main districts and in the order, the destruction of Buddhist establishments had exceptions - in each of the districts one temple was to be preserved. It made sense that under that order Shaolin, which was already famous for over 200 years and was an official Imperial monastery, would be preserved in its district. Furthermore this should not surprise because of the growing popularity of the brand of Buddhism emanating from this monastery.

I would concede that Shaolin's assistance during the early founding of the Tang did not hurt their cause. :-))) By then, that was part of its fame.
r.

GeneChing

06-16-2004, 09:45 AM

It is true that Li Shinmin (Taizong) befriended the pilgrim Xuanzang (596-664) in his later years. For those that aren't familiar, Xuanzang was one of the most famous Chinese Buddhists who travelled to India to retrieve some sutras. The Monkey King is a fantastic version of his journey, but Xuanzang was very real and important to Buddhist history, and Shaolin too. When most people visit Henan, they stop at Baimasi, or White Horse Temple, the oldest Buddhist temple in China and named for Xuanzang's white horse upon which he journeyed 'to the west' to India and back. Also, Xuanzang's native village is about less than 20 miles from Shaolin.

But, it is generally believed that Li Shinmin's interest in Xuanzang was in no way spiritual. He sought Xuanzang's knowledge on foreign affairs. Li Shinmin asked Xuanzang to jion his cabinet, but Xuanzang never did.

It did however set some precendent for Buddhist patronage of the early Tang, like empress Wu Zetian's support of the Loyang grottoes. But even that is kind of funny. There's no denying its magnificence, but it's Empress Wu's face on the biggest Buddha, which I've always found to be one of the most blatent examples of self-centeredness in history, especially ironic given the Buddhist teachings.

But to follow up more on the Shaolin stele being critical in escaped the Tang purge, we can look at the other imperial section of the stele from Emperor Xuanzong (712-756 - not to be confused with Xuanzang) - he reitirates Li Shinmin's praise but, like his ancestor, was not Buddhist in any way. In 714, he ordered ans ban on any new Buddhist temples. In 727, he shut down all village temples. Again, like Li Shinmin, the support of Shaolin was an exception to expansive religious suppression. The logical question is "why?" The most likely answer is military support.

r.(shaolin)

06-29-2004, 10:51 AM

There were significant reasons for imperial patronage which in large measure accounted for Buddhism’s success in China. Fertile land in the low-lying areas was already densely populated before the Tang Dynasty. In order to expand cultivation to regions that were more arid, Imperial governments began a policy of forced colonization by the deportation of farmers. They did this by two principal means. The first was by establishing military farm colonies in these areas. These colonies performed a double duty – guarding the hostile northern borders (which protected trade routes) as well as developing agriculture. Likewise, Buddhist monasteries were established in these same arid areas, granted land and given families who farmed under supervision. In was also not uncommon for military families to be assigned to monasteries as well for the same reasons. Shaolin was situated in a remote but strategically important location and clearly a military presence was intended. Note that the significant stele from Shi-Min is addressed not only to the monks, but also soldiers and commoners that were at Baiguwu.
.........
Gene wrote:
Li Shinmin's praise but, like his ancestor, was not Buddhist in any way. In 714, he ordered ans ban on any new Buddhist temples. In 727, he shut down all village temples.
.........
"When these 'private' institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy." As I say in the above post, much of what is called 'anti-Buddhism" was more a concern about controlling growth of private temples and the withdrawal of labour and resources in the fertile regions.

In the well documented second meeting with XuanZang, the emperor is recorded as saying. "I am delighted that you went to seek for the Law at the risk of your life for the benefit of all the people." In fact it was the Imperial government that provided the resources for Xuan Zang's translation. As he got older and his health deteriorated, Taizang sought out Xuan Zang as his spiritual guide. Taizong's son ( the one who succeeded him as emperor) also supported Xuan Zang's translation work. Although he was not interested in Chan, he did help build 2 important monasteries in Chang'an.

However, for the above reasons, I agree with you that the principle objective for the development of martial arts at Shaolin was military.
I would add for defensive purposes.
r.

GeneChing

07-02-2004, 04:55 PM

"When these 'private' institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy." What is this a quote from? You gotta cite if your goona use quotes, man, otherwise, why use quotes?

But I don't really question that statement so much. It comes back to that 'red herring', eh? Fangtao This is a bit of a grey zone for Chinese Buddhism. What defines one temple as 'official' and another as fangtao? It's a tricky question, especially when you realize that most Chinese religion, like so much of Chinese culture, comes up from folk, not from organized religious or governmental bodies. So who was running said private institutions? Bad Buddhists? Buddhists not in cahoots the Emperor?

Surely it's hard to second guess the heart of Li Shinmin, especially given his stature. He was one of the more heroic emperors, to be sure, a conquerer like they founder of any other dynasty. When a historic figure becomes so legendary, to question his motivations might appear sacreligious. But from a human and governmental standpoint, given his actions, we can't but question. It's clear that he instigated many anti-Buddhist laws. He also befriended Xuanzang, although the motivations of that friendship could easily have been political. And he spared Shaolin, but again, that may have been motivated for military reasons.

r.(shaolin)

07-03-2004, 09:12 AM

......
. . the economy." As I say in the above post, . .
.......

I was quoting one of my other posts above. Clumsy? Ambiguous? Yes :-))) Unread, probably because it wasn't that interesting :-))))

r.

ps.
What defines one temple as 'official' and another as fangtao?

In imperial times, official monasteries, such as Shaolin, received their name via Imperial decree, as well as land, money, servants, subject families, rights to maintain certain industries that generated profits, etc. The number of official monasteries tended to be small throughout dynastic history. The monks in these official monasteries were selected and ordained by Imperial decree and required higher qualifications. Their supervisory clergy was appointed by the Imperial throne and accountable to it. Official monks and monasteries were required to perform ceremonies, such as those for the military dead, on behalf of the government.
Other temples were at times encouraged, marginally excepted, tolerated, or destroyed, depending on the political climate, their connections, who their patrons were, etc.
.................
Gene wrote:
Surely it's hard to second guess the heart of Li Shinmin,
..................
I agree, never-the- less once the civil war was over, Taizong made an obvious effort to heal spiritual wounds and bitterness in the country by enlisting Buddhist clergy to help in this regard. In 628 he held a Buddhist memorial service for all those that had died in battle. He also ordered seven monasteries be built, one on each of the sites of his battles as a gesture of respect for the dead of all sides.
In fact the temple at Hulao, where 3000 men from the opposing side were killed, was named 'Temple of Equality in Commiseration'.

My point in all this: Shaolin had good relations with imperial governments through most of its history. Clearly not always (e.g. 3 Wu Catastrophes), but mostly.

I certainly don't disagree with your point that 'military support' was in Li Shinmin's mind. Even after his major victory at Hulao, he could not be everywhere and in-listed all the local help he could muster. Shaolin's interest on the other hand was survival and self defense given the dangerous, and violent conditions of the region. There is some very convincing evidence that supports this notion.

r.

GeneChing

07-19-2004, 09:51 AM

What defines one temple as 'official' and another as fangtao? Very good question. It's a lot like what defines an official Shaolin monk, yes? Today, what is a fangtao and what is official is very nebulous, especially with three large southern shaolin temples in existence and a northern one on the way. That doesn't even address the dozens of smaller temples opened by monks, like the ones around Shaolin and in the USA. Very tricky question, indeed.

you quoted yourself?

r.(shaolin)

07-21-2004, 07:41 PM

As I wrote above, monks in these official monasteries were selected and ordained by Imperial decree.
............................

Gene wrote:

"It's a lot like what defines an official Shaolin monk (today) . . ."
............................

Gene, if you mean that today's official Shaolin monks are appointed/approved by PRC government officials as they were in the past by Imperial decree, I would tend to agree .

r.

GeneChing

07-26-2004, 05:08 PM

That's not quite what I meant, but that's a fine interpretation so let's go with it. :cool:

Just a Guy

09-03-2004, 07:21 PM

www.shaolintemple.org

The book I mentioned earlier in this thread is now available here.

Best Wishes.

Songshan

09-12-2004, 12:15 AM

My question is what is really the point here? Monks who drink beer/wine and eat meat are evil? Makes them less of a monk unworthy of practicing buddhist mercy? Violating a unwritten code that cannot be confirmed or denied?

Are we talking about martial monks, religious monks or lay disciples? What about the monks who were being killed during the boxers rebellion or the monks in the cultural revolution that were forced back into secular life to avoid death? Some took wives and had children. Should they be kicked for surviving? Scrutinized?

Some of the martial monks of today eat meat and drink alcohol. Is their life devoted to the study of buddhist scriptures and living in a holy temple? Or is their life devoted to the study of Chinese martial arts and spreading the seed of Shaolin Kung Fu? The only one who can answer the question is the one who listens to what their heart tells them. Your true intentions lie in your heart and in your mind.

blooming lotus

09-12-2004, 03:19 AM

look, I had serious hard core issues with this very thing. What I decided was ( and bear in mind the Dalai himself is partial to a t-bone at times) that as buddhists and having this temporary body housing our souls or benti / whatever, and particularly for shaolin buddhists who put away their attatchments to provide path clearance to nirvana for others, ( also remembering not everyone leads aescetic lifestyles and have secular work elsewhere( and how the face and duties of shaolin and its' affectionados changes with time , media and wider exposure) , we believe we have a duty to provide ourselves the best health we can to prolong the body and " do more good deeds " as it were. now if you don't believe me on this, talk to Jet Lis' coach / shifu, sometimes, unfortunately that requires eating meat and doing other things we'd probably rather not.

That aside though, remember that tradition is a huge factor of shaolin which grew in notoriety when a small group of monks saved an Emporor and were "given permission" ( invited and expected to accept ) to dine over a meal containing mostly meats and wine. As a result of accepting this, shaolin enjoyed it's first major foray into secular conciousness. If nothing more than a tributal ( if such word exists) ritual, it has a valid place.

That being said though, and in the spirit of taking only what you need, at Shoalin Si today, I can assure you they dine on little more than fruit, nuts and rice, perhaps some fancied up shcnazzy looking tofu at best, meat being unecessary. I personally don't enjoy meat but if I felt I needed it, I would no doubt put away my attatchment to not wanting or liking it and get myself the health I need to continue an accepabley healthy body for secular life.

Amitopho

Bl

GeneChing

09-17-2004, 09:12 AM

Yesteday, I said goodbye to Dr. Meir Shahar, who just completed his stay at Stanford University as a visiting scholar and is now returning to Tel Aviv. It's amazing how fast that year flew by. I remember when we first met at the Shaolin Academic Symposium last year, and when he asked me if I lived close to Stanford. That was a moment of Shaolin fate - the two of us were in the same area by strange coincidence, and we could share research a lot of research. It was a great year from the moment I picked him up at the airport, to the moment we parted with the promise to meet again, perhaps in China next year. His research accelerated my own exponentially and will greatly elevate Shaolin and CMA in the world of scholarly research where it is frowned upon. I have a draft of his book, shy the last chapter, and it's groundbreaking. I cannot wait until it gets published and that research is shared by both the martial community and the scholarly community. It will be like what CTHD did at the Oscars, only for the universities, setting a precedent for future researchers to follow.

Shaolin is an amazing family, one we should all be very honored to be part of.

Vajramusti

09-17-2004, 02:19 PM

Gene- who will be coming out with the Shahar book.
Any info now or later will be appreciated. Thanks. joy

blooming lotus

09-18-2004, 04:06 AM

Unfortunately, I have read nothing of his to date, but I'll really look forward to reading it myself.

On "the changing face of Shaolin though", what do you think about that? Do you understand what I'm getting at?

GeneChing

09-20-2004, 09:22 AM

vajra - Several publishers are courting his work. I have a strong suspicion that it will be one of the publishers that have publishedd one of his previous efforts, but I can't say which it will be exactly. Speaking as a publisher myself, that would be foolish.

lotus - Changing Shaolin? Shaolin changes everytime I look at it. I you think it is some venerated fixated rigid orthodoxy, I fear you've missed the point.

All things are impermanent. That's the 'horse stance' of Zen.

MasterKiller

09-20-2004, 09:25 AM

Is it going to be another $80 textbook or a more wallet-friendly edition?

GeneChing

09-20-2004, 09:27 AM

Academic presses tend to be more expensive. But who can say? The last chapter isn't even done yet...

patience, y'all, patience...

Serpent

09-20-2004, 07:04 PM

Make sure to keep us informed on this one, Gene.

blooming lotus

09-20-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
vajra - Several publishers are courting his work. I have a strong suspicion that it will be one of the publishers that have publishedd one of his previous efforts, but I can't say which it will be exactly. Speaking as a publisher myself, that would be foolish.

lotus - Changing Shaolin? Shaolin changes everytime I look at it. I you think it is some venerated fixated rigid orthodoxy, I fear you've missed the point.

All things are impermanent. That's the 'horse stance' of Zen.

My point is that, and it becomes more noticable and pronounced while a westerner in China, in the differences in interpretation of both dharma and doctrine. For this reason ( to trade interperetations , if none else, I'd like to take some vows) Westerners previously were not previously privvy to such philosophic views on the scale they are today, and while I smoke cigarettes and drink the occasssion neccessary jiu, local chinese buddhists can't fathom how I even remotely resemble a buddhist , let alone a ch'an one!! I can guarantee you Gene, and you know yourself from our email / pm btws that If I am NOTHING else in this life, a firm and committed ch'an buddhist at min is what I am and will be until the milli -moment I die!!!

Chinese / western interpertation iand progression to is what my paper and research is targeted at??

Any clearer??? Genuinely intested oin your take on this?? Or I'll soldier on . either way, my work is invaluable and in true BL style, original and thought worthy. Back me or not, I'm just going to publish my observations regardless..........

cheers Gene :)