talking about hypocracy in kung fu: shaolin monks in america banging sexy white women

[bawang]

hay guys

i remember hearing from china a shaolin monk runaway banged up a bald lesbian, another guy married a white woman. i didnt think it was true but now i find out it really is true.

a lot of their students on the internet articles say its ok, they can eat meat and drink wine and bang women, but im confused. i think its dishonest to advertise yourself as a monk and not be a monk

i remember my hometown had a story that some shaolin monks came visiting yangzhou and gangbanged some prostitutes in the qing dynasty and there was sound coming from the house quack quack quack like a duck the entire neighborhood was laughing, so this problem goes way back, not just modern times

there is hypocracy in many other kung fu and martial arts. the hong men turned into gangsters. the black flag army helped fight the french in vietnam but then started robbing people.

lets discuss this problem pls

[Yum Cha]

3.2

asdfghjkl;

[Lucas]

not only did he marry a white woman, shes catholic :eek:

and they have a baby. but to be fair, he advertises himself as Ex Monk Li Peng, since he defected.

i also agree that its not right to advertise something that is not right. this also comes down to the mis truths many people have been a victim of in regards to regular martial arts teachers.

the monks were allowed to eat meat under the pretence that they needed the nutrition from meat to be able to actually fight on a regular basis, healing and having the proteins etc.... i believe this was part of the reason they became allowed to eat meat. wasnt it an emporial decree or something?

[diego]

not only did he marry a white woman, shes catholic :eek:

and they have a baby. but to be fair, he advertises himself as Ex Monk Li Peng, since he defected.

i also agree that its not right to advertise something that is not right. this also comes down to the mis truths many people have been a victim of in regards to regular martial arts teachers.

the monks were allowed to eat meat under the pretence that they needed the nutrition from meat to be able to actually fight on a regular basis, healing and having the proteins etc.... i believe this was part of the reason they became allowed to eat meat. wasnt it an emporial decree or something?

lol at the Emperor calling the monks hippies and telling them to eat red meat and beer like a Canadian red neck trucker to beef up for the strength of the nation...

[bawang]

the monks were allowed to eat meat under the pretence that they needed the nutrition from meat to be able to actually fight on a regular basis, healing and having the proteins etc.... i believe this was part of the reason they became allowed to eat meat. wasnt it an emporial decree or something?
no

thats from the movie shaolin temple starring jet li. shaolin monks never saved the tang emperor

in order to appease the warlord li shimin the shaolin monks ambushed and killed a rival warlord m in order to gain political favours with him.
li shiming had a signature on a rock but i never heard of him saying shaolin monks can eat meat
imperial order in song dynasty is if a soldier gets injured during training he is awarded 10 pounds of tofu

[bawang]

in the end of ming dynasty the rebel hero li zhicheng completely destroyed the guards at shaolin temple

if shaolin temple guards were killed by farmers then you have to wonder how good shaolin kung fu really is, is it truth or lie

after meeting many people who do northern kung fu i dont see anything unique about shaolin kung fu other than combining chan buddhism with martial arts. if you abandon the chan buddhism i dont see anything good about shaolin kung fu


my opninio is ok, you dont believe in buddhism, but you cant fight either, and your form comes from nearby villages and is common northern kung fu, i dont see any value to what is remained of shaolin kung fu

[bawang]

if you look at the painting at bai yi tang at shaolin, it shows shaolin monks sparringvfrom very recent qing dynasty

you see almost everybody with small stances and small punches
people wrestling
when you see people kicking its always below the waist
very few people using wide stances and big punches

it look nothing like the shaolin kung fu today
if they still train like that by themselves then they are scamming thousands of western students worldwide, teaching wrong forms and sanda

if your shaolin kung fu is nothing like the original one, you cant fight, you dont believe in chan buddhism, how are you shaolin

[Hebrew Hammer]

Can't a Shaolin Brotha get a little white meat? No problem.

No this would make a fantastic reality show....

[AdrianK]

hay guys

i remember hearing from china a shaolin monk runaway banged up a bald lesbian, another guy married a white woman. i didnt think it was true but now i find out it really is true.

a lot of their students on the internet articles say its ok, they can eat meat and drink wine and bang women, but im confused. i think its dishonest to advertise yourself as a monk and not be a monk

i remember my hometown had a story that some shaolin monks came visiting yangzhou and gangbanged some prostitutes in the qing dynasty and there was sound coming from the house quack quack quack like a duck the entire neighborhood was laughing, so this problem goes way back, not just modern times

there is hypocracy in many other kung fu and martial arts. the hong men turned into gangsters. the black flag army helped fight the french in vietnam but then started robbing people.

lets discuss this problem pls


Who gives a s*. Archaic belief systems related to sex and what you should or should not eat should be left behind in the past, where they belong.

Human nature is what it is and you are what you are. You can only change it so much.

These beliefs only give way to prejudice and elitism.

Unless someone can explain the science behind how or why you shouldn't do this, or that, to be a "Monk".

Which'll be difficult cause there isn't any.

Its time to update our belief systems with modern day science and understanding of human psychology.

[Jimbo]

hay guys

i remember hearing from china a shaolin monk runaway banged up a bald lesbian, another guy married a white woman. i didnt think it was true but now i find out it really is true.

a lot of their students on the internet articles say its ok, they can eat meat and drink wine and bang women, but im confused. i think its dishonest to advertise yourself as a monk and not be a monk

i remember my hometown had a story that some shaolin monks came visiting yangzhou and gangbanged some prostitutes in the qing dynasty and there was sound coming from the house quack quack quack like a duck the entire neighborhood was laughing, so this problem goes way back, not just modern times

there is hypocracy in many other kung fu and martial arts. the hong men turned into gangsters. the black flag army helped fight the french in vietnam but then started robbing people.

lets discuss this problem pls

So who was quacking, the monks or the prostitutes?

On one hand, I agree that if someone claims to be something, he/she should represent what they claim to be.

On the other hand, I agree with AdrianK that you can't change human nature, esp. regarding the sex drive, one of the strongest. I personally cannot see how a forced lifelong celibacy helps one to become more spiritually enlightened. Maybe a few have achieved it, but in most cases, repression creates obsession.

[uki]

a shaolin is not required to remain celibate... nor are they to refrain from eating meat, drinking wine(beer) or growing their hair long - the hypocrisy is in the promoted tourist version of the shaolin. :)

[Dragonzbane76]

nah the hypocrisy is that people actually believe the crap that is stated about them. In reality we will never actually know much about them because of all the misinformation that is out there.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

The day people stop believing in fairy tales such as organized religion will be a true day of peace and tranquility the world over. Unfortunately, the past 25,000 years has proven that no matter how much we evolve intellectually, we hang on to dated traditions that not only make no sense, but take away the pure essence of what being human is all about. In other words, never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.;)

[taai gihk yahn]

The day people stop believing in fairy tales such as organized religion will be a true day of peace and tranquility the world over.
Can I get an Ah-men? Oh, wait...

[taai gihk yahn]

a shaolin is not required to remain celibate... nor are they to refrain from eating meat, drinking wine(beer) or growing their hair long - the hypocrisy is in the promoted tourist version of the shaolin. :)

I think that you should start an Uki Temple at your crib...

[Ray Pina]

I don't have a problem with these "monks" banging chicks or getting loaded, eating meat or playing XBOX. I have a problem with them being full of ****.

A monk visited my master a few years back, threw his prayer beads in the corner before demonstrating like it was a dirty old hat. In these magazines, in articles and advertisements, you see these kooks standing ontop of pagodas posing. Could they have any less respect? Their entire identity -- holy man/warrior -- is a lie.

Nothing is sacred anymore. Thank God their are still great men and martial artists out there who live quietly. Their actions are an example to others. No need for self promotion. And their luxuries remain private.

[bawang]

The day people stop believing in fairy tales such as organized religion will be a true day of peace and tranquility the world over.

like communism.
they took my grandfathers boat and all our gold. my precious gold :(

I don't have a problem with these "monks" banging chicks or getting loaded, eating meat or playing XBOX. I have a problem with them being full of ****.



hi, i do have a problem because of hypocrisy, theyre supposed to represent the best in kung fu. what happened to martial virtue "wu de". its more like "wu de" no virtue (they sound the saem)

i think the big cities swallowed them

i feel scammed because shaolin kung fu was never really famous in the past, its onnly because of the jet li movie combined with people just coming off the cultural revolution

[David Jamieson]

if you stop looking for fictitious character from wuxia novels, I'll stop lookin for superman. lol

they are mere men. they have worked to develop a skill set.

like anyone else, we all have our pecadillos.

no big deal. in my opinion.

[Lokhopkuen]

if you stop looking for fictitious character from wuxia novels, I'll stop lookin for superman. lol

they are mere men. they have worked to develop a skill set.

like anyone else, we all have our pecadillos.

no big deal. in my opinion.

Munks need poosie too my friend:D
Don't hate, meditate:p

[TenTigers]

hi, i do have a problem because of hypocrisy, theyre supposed to represent the best in kung fu. what happened to martial virtue "wu de". its more like "wu de" no virtue (they sound the saem)


Many people like to speak of honor, morality, etc -when it suits their needs.

[David Jamieson]

Many people like to speak of honor, morality, etc -when it suits their needs.

Many have an air of sanctimony.
Few are actually righteous.

Very few...

Ok, pretty much no one. lol

That's why we look for gurus anyway isn't it?
We look for that human being that is what we wish ourselves to be?

Self defeating. :)

[taai gihk yahn]

That's why we look for gurus anyway isn't it?
We look for that human being that is what we wish ourselves to be?

Self defeating. :)

i would suggest that most people look for gurus who validate their own internal projections of themselves; when the guru agrees to participate in that because they teach out of a need for their own ego validation then everyone is happy; but if the guru refuses to be coopted in that way then eitherthe student will leave if the guru is not skillfully enough or if the guru is skilled then there is a possibility that the student may be able to see more clearly...although this may not be as pleasant of
an experience as most people think so called spiritual
practice is supposed to be ;)

[David Jamieson]

i would suggest that most people look for gurus who validate their own internal projections of themselves; when the guru agrees to participate in that because they teach out of a need for their own ego validation then everyone is happy; but if the guru refuses to be coopted in that way then eitherthe student will leave if the guru is not skillfully enough or if the guru is skilled then there is a possibility that the student may be able to see more clearly...although this may not be as pleasant of
an experience as most people think so called spiritual
practice is supposed to be ;)

I have found through personal experience that teh best teachers are the ones who lead you to a mirror that allows you to see yourself for what you really are.

It's up to you to look of course.

But the very important lessons and the most valuable lessons are the least likely to be well received.

Being rejected is a great lesson for instance. But who learns from it and who is only bruised by it? lol

[taai gihk yahn]

I have found through personal experience that teh best teachers are the ones who lead you to a mirror that allows you to see yourself for what you really are.

It's up to you to look of course.

But the very important lessons and the most valuable lessons are the least likely to be well received.

Being rejected is a great lesson for instance. But who learns from it and who is only bruised by it? lol

eating bitter does not just refer to holding horse stance, lol

yes, the teacher is the mirror - of course anything can be the
mirror some of us just need that particular type of
mirror - of course ultimately no mirror no dust and all that

[SPJ]

hay guys

i remember hearing from china a shaolin monk runaway banged up a bald lesbian, another guy married a white woman. i didnt think it was true but now i find out it really is true.

lets discuss this problem pls

talking about buddhism

1. if you are a monk for one day, you have to recite the sutra for one day.

zuo yi tian he shang; qiao yi tian zhong.

you have to follow the doctrines.

2. and of course, since ancient time, heroes never pass the gate of the beauty.

zhi gu yin xiong nan guo mei ren guan.

--

[sanjuro_ronin]

It all started so innocently...
http://www.kungfusky.com/upkungfu/2007/11/miss-world-and-the-shaolin-monks.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then it escalated:
http://www.chinese-tools.com/jdd/public/documents/cc/olive/20090817-shaolin-mode.4.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some where not happy about his:
http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2009/04/shaolin-steel.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

But the view was vastly improved
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/1138837701_dd6ae04df6.jpg

[SPJ]

talking about buddhism again

ji gong was a drinking wine and eating meat living buddha. but no girls.

he was the desciple of guan yin.

why? if you are really into buddhism, you are neutral.

you many be a guy this reincarnation, and a woman the next reincarnation such as guan yi bodhi sahvat.

you have to transcend or overcome the guy and girl thing.

--

of course, if you are in a different branch of buddhism, actually that is allowed.

---

:eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Greatly improved...
http://img1.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/2980882.jpg

[Lucas]

no

thats from the movie shaolin temple starring jet li. shaolin monks never saved the tang emperor

in order to appease the warlord li shimin the shaolin monks ambushed and killed a rival warlord m in order to gain political favours with him.
li shiming had a signature on a rock but i never heard of him saying shaolin monks can eat meat
imperial order in song dynasty is if a soldier gets injured during training he is awarded 10 pounds of tofu

oh i dont know. ive never seen that movie. this is just what i learned watching the shaolin wheel of time show, and reading books. i should watch that movie though, i hear its good.

[SPJ]

Shaolin is an over 1000 year old temple.

sometimes flourished, sometimes perished.

it is the place where chan buddhism started. then migrated to korea, japan, vietnam, and now north america.

kung fu is a side show. the spread of chan buddhism is the main thing.

it can also be a cultual theme.

---

[SPJ]

all the beauty pageant and wushu schools nearby

are really side shows to attract tourism.

--

cough" spread of chan buddhism" cough

is the real theme.

:)

[SPJ]

Shaolin most recent destruction was by a warlord.

the temple was used as headquarter to fight among warlords.

---

[David Jamieson]

Ch'an has spread and is practiced worldwide.

I don't think the purpose of Shaolin is any longer to spread Ch'an.

It is definitely not their focus. :) And in modern day terms, it was certainly not the Shaolin who have actively been spreading zen.

Ironically that honour belongs to the japanese. :)

[SanHeChuan]

I have found through personal experience that teh best teachers are the ones who lead you to a mirror that allows you to see yourself for what you really are.


Psychological studies show Depressed people have a more accurate view of themselves. Ignorance is bliss.

[David Jamieson]

Psychological studies show Depressed people have a more accurate view of themselves. Ignorance is bliss.

well, depressed people are more aware of objective reality as well.


So, it follows that they would be depressed after a better understanding of that reality in context to modern living. :)

who wouldn't be a little depressed about it?

[bawang]

if you stop looking for fictitious character from wuxia novels, I'll stop lookin for superman. lol



what u read ancient wuxia novels

[David Jamieson]

what u read ancient wuxia novels

I am saying that the idea you are putting out is blurry.

there are no martial heroes who are righteous and upright.

there are only humans, who have their failings no matter who they are.

[bawang]

I am saying that the idea you are putting out is blurry.

there are no martial heroes who are righteous and upright.


sry i made a typo i meant to type have u read ancient wuxia novels

this isnt about if its right or wrong its about being honest

if you claim ur a buddhist monk and you bang women thats dumb, im just sick of hearing people trying to justify it

[Iron_Eagle_76]

I am saying that the idea you are putting out is blurry.

there are no martial heroes who are righteous and upright.

there are only humans, who have their failings no matter who they are.

Agreed. Film and novels do not tell the real story of the shaolin because it would not be nearly as interesting. One of the major problems that plagues our society is that we like to look through jaded lenses and see what we want to rather than what is really there. If you watch any cheap reality show on television now, it is all the same formula. Crappy and sappy drama written to look real even though anyone with a working brain can figure out it's not.

I think this is a problem not only in Kung Fu, but other traditional arts as well. A martial art should not teach you self control, discipline, manners, and above all morals. This is the job of parenting. Too often people put stock in how enlightened and moral a Kung Fu practioner or any other martial artist is, seemingly forgetting this person is human. Ignorant teachings and false dogma produce arrogance and elitism, which ironically, is completley the opposite of what the perceived notion of a TMA practioner should be. We as humans do what we do out of instinct and impulse, nothing more, nothing less.

[GeneChing]

...not that we haven't had our share of flame wars there lately. :rolleyes:

More wood for the fire, I say. :D

[bawang]

hey geneching

ur bald

lol

i think a lot of people in china join shaolin to make money and is focused on money only

[GeneChing]

You'd think people would be more clever. If I wanted to make money, I'd go into banking, not Shaolin. :rolleyes:

[bawang]

i dont know if u like to make monies
but i know many people in china go to wushu schools to try to be movies stars or bodyguards


i just dont get if you cant fight, modern wushu looks better for performance, and u arent buddhist, whats the point

[Lucas]

martial art should not teach you self control, discipline, manners, and above all morals. This is the job of parenting.

this is something i partially agree with. however, this is not always the case. i personally did not get my morals or my ethical code from my parents. if that were the case i would be in prison right now. these i developed on my own, through observation of reality and common sense and a general understanding of what is 'right and wrong'.

however, neither did i get them from martial arts, i was developed mentally and spiritually before i began my studies.

for some kids, i can see having a positive role model coming from your martial arts teacher, school teacher, gym teacher, baseball coach, etc.. someone to look up to. there are a lot of kids coming from broken homes, or from abusive homes who may not have a positive reinforcement in their lives.

we dont all fit the same cookie cutter mold.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

this is something i partially agree with. however, this is not always the case. i personally did not get my morals or my ethical code from my parents. if that were the case i would be in prison right now. these i developed on my own, through observation of reality and common sense and a general understanding of what is 'right and wrong'.

however, neither did i get them from martial arts, i was developed mentally and spiritually before i began my studies.

for some kids, i can see having a positive role model coming from your martial arts teacher, school teacher, gym teacher, baseball coach, etc.. someone to look up to. there are a lot of kids coming from broken homes, or from abusive homes who may not have a positive reinforcement in their lives.

we dont all fit the same cookie cutter mold.

Perhaps what I should have said is ideally we get our morals from our parents. I was fortunate enough to have that, others, like yourself, unfortunately were not. My biggest gripe is with people using the martial arts as a catalyst to purport something they believe which may not be what others believe or why they chose to learn martial arts. Not all of us want to learn Kung Fu to be a harmonious being who walks the earth trying to make the wrong things rights. Many of us like the combat and athletic aspect of it. I agree that martial arts can certainly play a positive role in someone's life, it did with mine. I just don't believe it can take the place of good parenting and good socialization.

[Lucas]

Perhaps what I should have said is ideally we get our morals from our parents. I was fortunate enough to have that, others, like yourself, unfortunately were not. My biggest gripe is with people using the martial arts as a catalyst to purport something they believe which may not be what others believe or why they chose to learn martial arts. Not all of us want to learn Kung Fu to be a harmonious being who walks the earth trying to make the wrong things rights. Many of us like the combat and athletic aspect of it. I agree that martial arts can certainly play a positive role in someone's life, it did with mine. I just don't believe it can take the place of good parenting and good socialization.

i agree completely with that statement. i think its absurd to use the moral or ethical standpoint of martial arts to try and sell a product. its a wonderful by product of being in a healthy environment, which not all ma gyms are going to be either. also, most kids are in a public school somewhere, which have councellors and other outlets that can be a better approach to develop a positive environment.

of course we generally see this mostly in the 'mcdojo realm'.

[bawang]

if you like the combat side of kung fu youre still going to fight like kickboxing 99% of the tiem. modern mixed martial arts is 100 times better
im just saying in the general state of kung fu, most people cant fight, but they dont learn good morals either. theyre just learning to dance very badly so whats the point. i just dont get it
i was just disappointed because i know we r all human but i thought maybe shaolin monks would be different. i just think its dishonest for shaolin monks to advertise themself as mystical holy man

[sanjuro_ronin]

This thread was about shaolin monks chi blasting white women, where did all this kung fu crap talk come from :confused:

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Many people have their own opinion on what real Kung Fu is, and most of the time, it is hard to make them change that opinion. I recently had a conversation with a Kung Fu practioner and talked to him about San Shou. He made the comment to me that San Shou was not real Kung Fu.

I asked him to elaborate on why it was not real Kung Fu, and he replied that competitors wear boxing gloves, head gear, and shin guards. In his opinion, this took away from the true nature of Kung Fu being a deadly fighting art. I told him that the great thing about San Shou and other combat sports was that you can fight a fully resistant opponent with protective gear and see how your skills match with another equally trained opponent.

His response, "All that will do is give you bad habits in a real fight, since you wear all that protective gear and stuff".:rolleyes:

But he was quick to say that Kung Fu taught things like honor, discipline, and morals. To which he added, "None of which can be found in combat sports".:confused:;):rolleyes:

I look at many so called traditional Kung Fu practioners like this guy the same way I do religious fanatics. They are imbeciles who follow a dogma of thought by men who did not even know the earth was round. Are these really the best people to form a core set of beliefs from.:confused:

[Iron_Eagle_76]

In keeping with the thread, here is my contribution to hot women, in Kung Fu, or martial arts, or jiu jitsu, or, ahh Fu**ck it:

http://uminomukougawa-br.up.seesaa.net/image/KYRA20GRACIE202.jpg

She is my dream grappling partner:)

[David Jamieson]

hey geneching

ur bald

lol

i think a lot of people in china join shaolin to make money and is focused on money only

not all buddhist monks are celibate. usually, it's the old men who can't get their johnson fired up anyway, so why not burn the dots into the head? lol

are you implying that a good buddhist doesn't partake in the pleasure of life?

I can safely say, that that perspective is entirely wrong, ergo my comment about the fantasy novels.

There is nothing unrighteous about banging a sweety. lol
There is nothing unrighteous about being drunk.

Old saying time: "It's not what goes in a man that defiles him, it's what comes out"

:)

[yutyeesam]

not all buddhist monks are celibate. usually, it's the old men who can't get their johnson fired up anyway, so why not burn the dots into the head? lol


LMMFAO!!

carry on.

[uki]

Perhaps what I should have said is ideally we get our morals from our parents.har har mate - you can be sure my children will be a chip off the ole block here. :D

[mawali]

Not that far fetched!
The shaolin monks are practicing kungfu (perfection) in the bedroom! That is a good thing!

[GeneChing]

Don't think otherwise. If you're going to be a Shaolin monk, you should behave like one. All Shaolin monks are supposed to be celibate. There's ambiguity on meat eating and liquor drinking, due to that old Li Shinmin myth, but that's only with the wuseng. Fully indoctrinated Buddhist monks, and this includes the Shaolin wenseng, are supposed to be vegetarian and sober. The wuseng verses wenseng thing is complicated, even more so with most of us since, being martial artists, we tend to only associate with the wuseng. Some of the wuseng have taken up vegetarianism and given up liquor just because their Buddhist practice has deepened. If you're going to claim to be Buddhist, Shaolin or otherwise, vegetarianism and abstinence are typically part of your taking refuge vows.

We put the monks up on a pedestal and there are those who fall from the faith, just like any other faith. Sexy white women, or women of any color (why white bawang?), can be the daughters of Mara. But just because a few fall, we can't toss out the whole lot of them. We'd have to junk all religions if that were the case. Those that maintain their monk status should maintain a certain decorum.

There are also those that leave, like Lipeng or my current teacher Yan Fei, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's the honorable thing to do. All Buddhist monks, Shaolin or otherwise, have an option to 'disrobe' and return to the common world. More Shaolin wuseng should observe this.

[Sal Canzonieri]

1 - Bawang, almost all you've posted is all convaluted information that you could have found the actual facts with just a big of effort.

2 - How are performance artists all of a sudden now Monks?
If someone doesn't take vows then they are not ordained and aren't Monks.
They are free to do what adults do: eat drink and have s e x.

3. li zhicheng was far from a hero, he was most hated by the general populace that he and his army of thieves had raped and ransacked.
And, get your history straight if you are going to use it as an example.
Li set up camp across the mountain from Shaolin temple and spend months watching them and learning their daily rituals. When he was sure that they would be in a ceremonial mass and prostrate in prayer, he has amassed an armored cadre of armed troops of horse - who were far from farmers but mercenaries - and the monks were caught unwares and were massacred indoors. 250 men rode in on horse back while the monks were lying on the ground in prayer, there was barely enough room to react at all.
The lookout guards were diverted earlier to another area.

[LFJ]

Nothing is sacred anymore.

The emperor spoke of all the money he had donated to Buddhist temples and of all the statues he had erected in the name of Buddha. He asked Damo what good merit he, the emperor, had earned through his generosity. Damo replied; "no merit".

This surprised the emperor but they continued talking. Eventually, the emperor asked if there was Buddha in this world. Damo replied; "no". Startled, the Emperor asked Damo the supreme truth of the Dharma. "Vast emptiness; nothing holy," he replied. Finally, the Emperor asked; "Who are you?" "I know not," said Damo.

[GeneChing]

That brings up the other class of monks, the biaoyanseng. These are the monks that go on the 'official' Shaolin tours. Technically, they are a subset of wuseng, although they tend to be contracted strictly for the Shaolin stage shows. Now, what delineates an official show is delicate. Abbot Shi Yongxin has been trying to clamp down on all shows that bear the Shaolin name, and rightly so. However, that's not a simple task, and another subject entirely.

The rise of the biaoyanseng as such has been relatively recent. The first generation of touring wuseng had to be pretty hardcore because Shaolin was harder then. They had to answer challenges and live with greater hardships than the newer generations. The biaoyenseng are much less committed. They're really just wushu performers at heart. The 'official' ones do take vows, usually under Abbot Yongxin so they're usually Yan generation, but the vows are only of a honorary nature and the title should be discarded after the tour is done. Of course, they don't necessarily do that.

Anyone who's done any Chandong Shaolin can separate the biaoyanseng out pretty easily. However, they usually have all the traditional forms. They might not know the applications, but they have the forms.

[LFJ]

i remember hearing from china a shaolin monk runaway banged up a bald lesbian, another guy married a white woman. i didnt think it was true but now i find out it really is true.

a lot of their students on the internet articles say its ok, they can eat meat and drink wine and bang women, but im confused. i think its dishonest to advertise yourself as a monk and not be a monk

perhaps educating yourself on shaolin monasticism and discipleship (http://shaolinchancity.blogspot.com/2008/12/shaolin-monasticism-discipleship_944.html) will help clear your confusion. :)

[Sal Canzonieri]

That brings up the other class of monks, the biaoyanseng. These are the monks that go on the 'official' Shaolin tours. Technically, they are a subset of wuseng, although they tend to be contracted strictly for the Shaolin stage shows. Now, what delineates an official show is delicate. Abbot Shi Yongxin has been trying to clamp down on all shows that bear the Shaolin name, and rightly so. However, that's not a simple task, and another subject entirely.

The rise of the biaoyanseng as such has been relatively recent. The first generation of touring wuseng had to be pretty hardcore because Shaolin was harder then. They had to answer challenges and live with greater hardships than the newer generations. The biaoyenseng are much less committed. They're really just wushu performers at heart. The 'official' ones do take vows, usually under Abbot Yongxin so they're usually Yan generation, but the vows are only of a honorary nature and the title should be discarded after the tour is done. Of course, they don't necessarily do that.

Anyone who's done any Chandong Shaolin can separate the biaoyanseng out pretty easily. However, they usually have all the traditional forms. They might not know the applications, but they have the forms.

Thanks for further clarifying this point, cool.

[Sal Canzonieri]

if you like the combat side of kung fu youre still going to fight like kickboxing 99% of the tiem. modern mixed martial arts is 100 times better
im just saying in the general state of kung fu, most people cant fight, but they dont learn good morals either. theyre just learning to dance very badly so whats the point. i just dont get it
i was just disappointed because i know we r all human but i thought maybe shaolin monks would be different. i just think its dishonest for shaolin monks to advertise themself as mystical holy man

That's not true about CMA at all, I've fought since 1970s on the streets and in the gym (I'm 49 now and still have had to use it for self defense and in friendly matches all around the world, and have beaten MMA trained people) and funny thing is that what I learned on the streets (I had to fight to get to school and back and to just go anywhere often times) was very much like what I later learned in CMA classes when doing applications. So, seeing that CMA was useful, whenever I had to use self defense, I always used movements from the sets I learned, and they always worked and fast, all over the world.
I also had learned american boxing (world champ Tony Canzonieri was a famous relative), but the timing and bobbing and weaving and so on, was also done in my CMA training. We learned to get out of the way and then clobber the opponent.

I just gave some lessons when my band played in Chicago on october 31 to Royaldragon and, abdominal stitches and all, I showed him applications to the TZ Chang Quan routine that he studies. I knocked him down over and over just using direct efficient and effective movements from the actual routine, not once did I have to resort to using kickboxing, as he can vouch.
I was able to use correct body mechanics from my CMA training and do the routines and the applications without hurting myself even though I was only 3 weeks out of the hospital and had deep surgery that removed a section of my internal organs, doing the KF lesson with a long row of abdominal stitches from the top of my belly to the very bottom.
I sincerly DOUBT any MMA person could do that, fresh out of the hospital and still sporting stitches. But my neigong and routines practice of correct, efficent, and effective CMA certainly allowed to do it. In fact, I was supposed to die all year and the surgeon said my martial art training made me strong enough, even preventing organ bursting that they were afraid of.

About the Shaolin Monks thing that is bothering you.

It's all relative to what an adult feels he needs to do.
Many famous martial artists, great ones, from the 1800s and 1900s were known to frequent prostitues. Never did it make them lesser martial artists.
Like I said before, not all performs that do Shaolin routines are ordained monks and so they can do what they feel like doing, and face the consequences or not, like any adult does.

What about Taoist Priests, having sex as part of their energy training is part of their religion.
Many an old Taoist is having sex with young women as part of their rituals, and is all cool.
Why not?

[GeneChing]

Taoist sex rituals and prostitute-using masters aside, a Shaolin monk is by definition, a Buddhist ascetic. That's quite different. If they intend to be authentic in their Buddhist practice, they need to observe their abstinence. Therein lies the rub.

LFJ's Chan City post above was accurate for the post-CR generation, but you've got to keep in mind that Shaolin took some huge hits during the last century. From the ROC to the PRC, Shaolin was literally decimated. So there were a lot of compromises made. Shi Suyun's situation (who is technically my Sigong, although I only met him once) is often cited because Suyun was so well respected. He survived the CR. Most monks in China were forced back into civilian life, literally forced to marry during the CR. Many compromises were made. That was when Suyun married and had kids. But times are different now. Shaolin is very affluent, one of the richest temples in China. They can now afford to be picky. They can afford to enforce the doctrines of Buddhism on all their monks. In my conversations with Abbot Yongxin, it's clear that he's trying to move in this direction, however, it's not so simple. He can't just kick out all those meat-eating, booze-drinking, hoochie-chasing wuseng without reprisals. After all, they did help to maintain the order during some very dark times. So Shaolin is in transition.

My beef, and there is a pun in there, comes from being a practicing Buddhist prior to becoming a Shaolin disciple. If you're going to be authentic in your Shaolin practice as a member of the order, you've got to follow Buddhist precepts. Now, this doesn't mean that anyone that practices Shaolin must be Buddhist. Not at all. That's like saying I have to be Jewish to enjoy a bagel. But anyone claiming to be disciple of Shaolin should be working on being Buddhist, on keeping those vows.

Why bother taking vows if your not going to keep them?

[Boston Bagua]

quoted for truth, Gene

[bawang]

hey doctor canzonierir, thanx for the reply, u know a lot of cool info
i only heard stories in my hometown about li zhicheng, also hong xiquan and the yihe tuan. you know the chinese saying the winner is king the loser is scum. whatever they did or didnt do let the sky judge them and not men

ther isnt a unified information or opninio in china about those types of past people. some people see heros some say theyre criminals.

i just wanted to discuss people joining shaolin temple because of kung fu and not buddhism, and some monks giving in to temptation of glamorous america. i cried when i saw shaolin temple movie when i was a kid because i didnt know china looked so beatiful so many years ago with strong people. the movie seemed like a beautiful dream to me.shaolin represented to me a piece of the past. i just feel disappointed finding out the truth many years later

[uki]

Why bother taking vows if your not going to keep them?yet are not "vows" just another form of attachment? this is the paradox of the whole point right here - approaching this buddhist concept with a taoist approach is what has truly been discovered and put into practice. it is laughable that one take a vow of celibacy in order to achieve the state of enlightenment, when in truth, producing children is what ensures that truth and understanding, to be discovered on the path, is passed along for future generations. a wise father will have a wise child. :)

many useless rituals were installed by many useless men...

[LFJ]

yet are not "vows" just another form of attachment?

no. when it becomes integrated into your way of life, it takes no effort. focus is laid elsewhere in practice. even at the beginning of training when it takes conscious effort to uphold a precept, if it becomes an attachment it is a wholesome one. not all attachment is unwholesome, mind you.


it is laughable that one take a vow of celibacy in order to achieve the state of enlightenment, when in truth, producing children is what ensures that truth and understanding, to be discovered on the path, is passed along for future generations.

no its not.

[Royal Dragon]

if you like the combat side of kung fu youre still going to fight like kickboxing 99% of the tiem. modern mixed martial arts is 100 times better
im just saying in the general state of kung fu, most people cant fight, but they dont learn good morals either. theyre just learning to dance very badly so whats the point. i just dont get it
i was just disappointed because i know we r all human but i thought maybe shaolin monks would be different. i just think its dishonest for shaolin monks to advertise themself as mystical holy man

Reply]
That is a bunch of nonsense. Last weekend I spent time with Sal Canzonieri. We did a lot of applications to his Shaolin (Tai Tzu in particular). It looked nothing like Kick boxing. It more closely resembles Shui Jiao, or closer still to Silat, but it's not even that. It is it's own thing.

As for modern MMA, I still fail to see what good about it. After 15 years of watching it grow and evolve, it's still just old arts mixed together. There is nothing superior about it at all.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

As for modern MMA, I still fail to see what good about it. After 15 years of watching it grow and evolve, it's still just old arts mixed together. There is nothing superior about it at all.


It's funny to see traditional kung fu guys continue to put down MMA and constantly chest puff about how much better their training and style are, and make statements such as "it's just old arts mixed together". Ironically enough, the same can be said for most traditional Kung Fu styles. Yet that is ok, because, you know, it's Kung Fu:rolleyes:. Why is it that Kung Fu stylists are so threatened by MMA? Please tell me, I would love to know.

[David Jamieson]

The emperor spoke of all the money he had donated to Buddhist temples and of all the statues he had erected in the name of Buddha. He asked Damo what good merit he, the emperor, had earned through his generosity. Damo replied; "no merit".

This surprised the emperor but they continued talking. Eventually, the emperor asked if there was Buddha in this world. Damo replied; "no". Startled, the Emperor asked Damo the supreme truth of the Dharma. "Vast emptiness; nothing holy," he replied. Finally, the Emperor asked; "Who are you?" "I know not," said Damo.

It's talk like that that probably got his ass executed on the river bank. :)

Anyway, declarations of celibacy are one thing, actually adhering to them when you are outside the monastic life is another thing entirely.

It's easy to be austere in a monastery. It's easy to be righteous where there is little in the way of temptation. It's easy to walk upright were nothing presses you down.

Ask for nothing, expect nothing and mind your own ways of being. If you can live with yourself, you are doing great!

There is still something to be learned from the least of us, and taint to be found with the greatest of us. It's easy to look outside and see beauty and fault. You wanna take the difficult path, then look at those things within yourself first and be mindful of them first before you cast aspersion and judgment outside yourself. :)

But if something really sucks and ticks you off, there's always the internet, where we can all ***** endlessly about the unfairness of life! :D

[mawali]

1. Generally speaking, the MMA guys will always come out ahead
2. Generally speaking, the CMA guys will always be downed by everybody else
3. The few like Sal are an exception and not the rule.

[sha0lin1]

if you like the combat side of kung fu youre still going to fight like kickboxing 99% of the tiem. modern mixed martial arts is 100 times better
im just saying in the general state of kung fu, most people cant fight, but they dont learn good morals either. theyre just learning to dance very badly so whats the point. i just dont get it
i was just disappointed because i know we r all human but i thought maybe shaolin monks would be different. i just think its dishonest for shaolin monks to advertise themself as mystical holy man

You have just stated exactly what the movies portray the monks as. I don't know any monks who portray or advertise themselves as "mystical holy men." I thought that was just the kung fu T.V. series.

I have to give you props for the title of this thread though. It makes it sound like that is the desire of all the monks in America. But here we are again discussing a stereotype of what a Shaolin Monk should be. Most people see them all as a venerable Master Po. Who practice kung fu, meditate and spit out truisms all day long to their students. Lets remember that there are several types of Shaolin. The lay disciples, the martial monks, and the fully ordained monks. The martial monks are not all ordained monks who live up to the buddhist precepts and not all the ordained monks are martial monks.

[uki]

not all attachment is unwholesome, mind you.of course, one must find the symbiotic natures of attachments and shun the parasitic ones.


no its not.yes it is. :p

[Sal Canzonieri]

1. Generally speaking, the MMA guys will always come out ahead
2. Generally speaking, the CMA guys will always be downed by everybody else
3. The few like Sal are an exception and not the rule.

Well I am certainly glad to give seminars and lessons anytime, I already go to Spain once a year doing so, on effectively and efficiently doing CMA so that it works.

Agree that most of the time CMA people stink at it. I know exactly why and can show people why and how to fix it. By fix it, I mean doing things the way they were originally intended so that they work always.

Try it, you'll like it!
CMA that really works is a beautiful think to behold!

[Sal Canzonieri]

well the catholic church already went through this and hence we have the protestant church.

And, the catholic church goes through this still today, hence they have priests that break their vows.

[uki]

well the catholic church already went through this and hence we have the protestant church.

And, the catholic church goes through this still today, hence they have priests that break their vows.this is fundamentally because these systems of control have outlived their intended purpose... it's like attempting to dam a tsunami. rules, regulations, and vows are self-imposed restrictions on ones spiritual evolution... these traditions and rituals perpetuated thru-out the ages as a mechanism of controlling mass consciousness are at and end. religions and systems of control are based on negative energy and fear... transcending fear and ignorance entails becoming enlightened - to be filled with light... light = information. the reason vows and restrictions are set in place is to hinder ones own spiritual advancement... planting the seeds of guilt, consequence, and punishment. :)

[Royal Dragon]

It's funny to see traditional kung fu guys continue to put down MMA and constantly chest puff about how much better their training and style are, and make statements such as "it's just old arts mixed together". Ironically enough, the same can be said for most traditional Kung Fu styles. Yet that is ok, because, you know, it's Kung Fu:rolleyes:. Why is it that Kung Fu stylists are so threatened by MMA? Please tell me, I would love to know.

Reply]
See, here is the thing, I DON'T feel threatened by MMA. My point, is that despite all of the MMA grandstanding, and constant claims of superiority, ultimately, they are not any better than good Kung Fu players with the same hours of training.

When I met with Sal, he was easily able to throw me around at will. I have however crossed hands with MMA players (there are several in the Silat group I work with)and they could not. Sure they could get me sometimes, but I have the upper hand just as much, and generally exert less effort.

They sure don't hit harder, or throw better. The only area I saw anything better, was in the ground grappling...but then I have almost zero experience with that. Still, I have prevented them from succeeding on me, and infact once made one guy tap with a pressure point application ON THE GROUND.

The reality of the situation is that they are there in the group BECAUSE of my teacher's exempletory skills in CMA and Silat. The ones who have adopted his methods, are down right scary fighters now.

So, when MMA people stop boasting unbeatable superhuman superiority, I will stop calling them on the BS. It's all about how you train, and how much effort you put in to getting good at your art.

[GeneChing]

Practicing authentic Zen, now that's hard. Like uki pointed out above, to a shallow mind (and I'm not pointing fingers, uki :p) Zen is filled with paradox. We make a study of it. Koan Zen is all about paradox and metaphor. And it's really hard because your logical mind will try to override it with a simple and incorrect response. Letting go of being sexual, being carnivorous and abusing intoxicants comes quite naturally when you progress down the path of Zen. At a certain point, you realize how distracting they can be, how they can divert you from the practice.

Honestly, despite the fact that wuseng are not required to take all of the full monastic vows, it's something that they should aspire to if they claim to be authentic Zennists. The same goes for all Zennsts, frankly. You've got to remember that Buddhism was not originally a religion for the masses. It was a code for monastic ascetics. And Zen is a streamlined version of Buddhism. If you are truly practicing Zen *and* representing yourself as a Shaolin disciple, why wouldn't you want to work on following all the precepts.

That being said (and getting back to bawang's original post) if a monk ran away from the temple to bang "up a bald lesbian" (and who knows wtf bawang pulled that rumor out) that says nothing against the institution. Shaolin is hard and many fail. If someone ran away, that's to be expected. As for the bald lesbian, wtf bawang wtf? As for the other that married, Lipeng has been addressed. He officially disrobed. And as I said before, there's no dishonor in disrobing. The dishonor only lies in remaining a man of the cloth when the lifestyle has changed to a point that he should really disrobe.

[David Jamieson]

yes, i'd like to know more of the bald lesbian.

that is too weird to pass up! lol

:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

First of all, let me just say how hard it is to find a G RATED pic of a bald lesbian !!!
http://cozyfetish.com/blog/35744_blogpost_1181944692612_bab10_bald_pin_up.jpg

[David Jamieson]

First of all, let me just say how hard it is to find a G RATED pic of a bald lesbian !!!
http://cozyfetish.com/blog/35744_blogpost_1181944692612_bab10_bald_pin_up.jpg

Keep working on it, we know you can't fail us in these types of endeavours.

;D

this one is G, although, i like it a litle more sr style in bareness...meh

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3607355228_b3905b958b.jpg

[Iron_Eagle_76]

See, here is the thing, I DON'T feel threatened by MMA. My point, is that despite all of the MMA grandstanding, and constant claims of superiority, ultimately, they are not any better than good Kung Fu players with the same hours of training.

It depends on the level and method of training a Kung Fu player has, and what your definition of good is. A person's natural athletic ability and size are often more indicitive of their skills than their style, but training methods are the most important aspect.


They sure don't hit harder, or throw better. The only area I saw anything better, was in the ground grappling...but then I have almost zero experience with that. Still, I have prevented them from succeeding on me, and infact once made one guy tap with a pressure point application ON THE GROUND.

Training methods are more important than style, I repeat, training methods are more important than style. Also, unless the guy you tapped was Rickson Gracie, tapping one person, one time is not a whole lot to brag about.:p


So, when MMA people stop boasting unbeatable superhuman superiority, I will stop calling them on the BS. It's all about how you train, and how much effort you put in to getting good at your art.

I completely agree with your last statement, but the problem is I generally do not see MMA players boasting superhuman superiority, quite the opposite actually. Most are realistic and know thier skills and limitations because they have tested them in the cage, ring, and on the mats. Many Kung Fu players do this as well, through San Shou, Shuai Jiao, and MMA. The problem is with Kung Fu players who have not ever tested what they have learned and preach the gospel of how deadly they are.

If you and your instructor are that good, good for you. But as I said, seldom do I hear MMA peeps talking superhuman BS. I wish I could say the same for Kung Fu, but often that is not the case. Anyway, I am hoping that more Kung Fu makes it into the mainstream of combat sports. I truly believe there are treasures found within CMA that can help continue the progression of martial arts, or Kung Fu, or MMA, or whatever they call it these days.:D

[Royal Dragon]

seldom do I hear MMA peeps talking superhuman BS. I wish I could say the same for Kung Fu, but often that is not the case.

Reply]
That is a load too. MMA people, thier fans,and their supporters are constantly online spouting the supposed superiority of MMA, and in the same breath downing traditional arts, especially Kung Fu. THAT is why you see a back lash from traditional people. You trash Kung Fu, hold yourself up as better, then never show anything that is better. You MMA riders are generating the backlash yourselves.

[sanjuro_ronin]

seldom do I hear MMA peeps talking superhuman BS. I wish I could say the same for Kung Fu, but often that is not the case.

Reply]
That is a load too. MMA people, thier fans,and their supporters are constantly online spouting the supposed superiority of MMA, and in the same breath downing traditional arts, especially Kung Fu. THAT is why you see a back lash from traditional people. You trash Kung Fu, hold yourself up as better, then never show anything that is better. You MMA riders are generating the backlash yourselves.

Dude, MMA fans are, typically, a bunch of idiots with the combined IQ of a turnip.
Just like any other rabid sport fan that is living out their faded dreams of "uber awesomeness" through the accomplishments of others.
Just like TMA guys nutriding the accomplishments of some ancient MA that died 200 years ago.

[richard sloan]

but we also know how buddhism developed.

I always say the dharma is self evidentiary in nature. eventually something's nature, the manner of it's arising, the causes and conditions, become clear- that is one of the major points of the practice- to achieve that state.

finding its already there is a process.

Gene you bring up Su Yun and that is one of my favorite examples when this topic comes up, because for the life of me I can not imagine Gotama putting away his family and the evidence is he did not.

Likewise there is enough evidence that Su Yun, and his kid who also became a monk, did not cause the altars to topple or sacred sutras to burn at his touch. many zen temples in Japan function just fine with abbots who have families.

now people can speak to tradition- that is something that evolves. people can speak to other examples of buddhist monastics- and there I would say the bigger problem is martial arts. yet shaolin resolve THAT particular 'paradox' to successful conclusion rather handily.

all I'm really saying, is it depends. and that things change. we may be uncomfortable with change, and in fact maybe even members of the same sect might fight against it, but we already know that things change. just look at recent shaolin history and several of you guys know what I am talking about.

As fightin Joe Campbell once said, and I paraphrase: People are eating the picture of a steak thinking it is the steak.

He was of course, discussing literal fundamentalism against metaphoric intuitive understanding of the archetypal issues with which we use things like buddhism or christianity to get a grip on.

One thing is for sure, you have to live it. If anything can be mindfully done, then anything can be distractive. That is why the precepts were crafted for individuals, and that is why so many traditions rely on the ascetic motivator or spark.

Was not the Buddha uncomfortable applying them to the whole community...are we not relying on mostly oral traditions as remembered by fellow humans.

It's not like Buddha or God or whatever planted a giant flat screen in the desert with a constant looping video with the instructions of living.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

That is a load too. MMA people, thier fans,and their supporters are constantly online spouting the supposed superiority of MMA, and in the same breath downing traditional arts, especially Kung Fu. THAT is why you see a back lash from traditional people

I have a great big tissue with your name on it.:p


You trash Kung Fu, hold yourself up as better, then never show anything that is better. You MMA riders are generating the backlash yourselves.

Yeah, because all the Kung Fu stylists winning in combat sports today is astounding:rolleyes:

Dude, you don't like MMA. I don't care. I do like traditional Kung Fu and believe there are many useful tools in CMA, but believe in cross training in other areas where Kung Fu is weak. You can call that MMA, cross training, ragin in the cage:eek:, or whatever other generic label you can use to diminish this training method. But the true irony is trying to have a conversation with an idiot like yourself who can't take their blinders off and see another point of view, then likes to accuse others of spouting garbage and putting another art down. Oh, the irony.:rolleyes:

[Royal Dragon]

I have a great big tissue with your name on it.:p



Yeah, because all the Kung Fu stylists winning in combat sports today is astounding:rolleyes:

Dude, you don't like MMA. I don't care. I do like traditional Kung Fu and believe there are many useful tools in CMA, but believe in cross training in other areas where Kung Fu is weak. You can call that MMA, cross training, ragin in the cage:eek:, or whatever other generic label you can use to diminish this training method. But the true irony is trying to have a conversation with an idiot like yourself who can't take their blinders off and see another point of view, then likes to accuse others of spouting garbage and putting another art down. Oh, the irony.:rolleyes:

Reply]
I never actually put down MMA, reread.

What i said, is it is not the superhuman uber art it is made out to be, and it is certianly not superior to Kung Fu, no matter how much those like you profess it to be.

[Sal Canzonieri]

this is fundamentally because these systems of control have outlived their intended purpose... it's like attempting to dam a tsunami. rules, regulations, and vows are self-imposed restrictions on ones spiritual evolution... these traditions and rituals perpetuated thru-out the ages as a mechanism of controlling mass consciousness are at and end. religions and systems of control are based on negative energy and fear... transcending fear and ignorance entails becoming enlightened - to be filled with light... light = information. the reason vows and restrictions are set in place is to hinder ones own spiritual advancement... planting the seeds of guilt, consequence, and punishment. :)

Agreed, for sure.

Why do you think that Zen / Chan Buddhism (which has incorporated much from Taoism over time) says "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him", yes?

[Sal Canzonieri]

I have a great big tissue with your name on it.:p



Yeah, because all the Kung Fu stylists winning in combat sports today is astounding:rolleyes:

Dude, you don't like MMA. I don't care. I do like traditional Kung Fu and believe there are many useful tools in CMA, but believe in cross training in other areas where Kung Fu is weak. You can call that MMA, cross training, ragin in the cage:eek:, or whatever other generic label you can use to diminish this training method.:

Sure, of course, that's been my experience in dealing with most KF and karate dabblers (can't call them experts).
But, the clear point is, there's not areas where KF is weak, a complete education in CMA covers all areas. But there is instruction that has been weak and incomplete for a very long time.
Just about every master of renown that was known about was well rounded in that they were expert in Shuai Jiao, Long Fist, Weapons, XY, TJQ, and / or Bagua Zhang, and also in conditioning and Qi / Nei Gong. Not to mention some sort of meditation. And even medicine and bone setting arts.

Some of my oldest (in age) and best teachers were also black belts in karate, judo, jujitsu, and aikido in their teens and 20s, alongside their CMA (which they later mastered). So, being MMA (where the first M means Mixed rather than Modern) was always around.

I have a boxing and karate background as well.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Practicing authentic Zen, now that's hard. Like uki pointed out above, to a shallow mind (and I'm not pointing fingers, uki :p) Zen is filled with paradox. We make a study of it. Koan Zen is all about paradox and metaphor. And it's really hard because your logical mind will try to override it with a simple and incorrect response. Letting go of being sexual, being carnivorous and abusing intoxicants comes quite naturally when you progress down the path of Zen. At a certain point, you realize how distracting they can be, how they can divert you from the practice.

Honestly, despite the fact that wuseng are not required to take all of the full monastic vows, it's something that they should aspire to if they claim to be authentic Zennists. The same goes for all Zennsts, frankly. You've got to remember that Buddhism was not originally a religion for the masses. It was a code for monastic ascetics. And Zen is a streamlined version of Buddhism. If you are truly practicing Zen *and* representing yourself as a Shaolin disciple, why wouldn't you want to work on following all the precepts.

That being said (and getting back to bawang's original post) if a monk ran away from the temple to bang "up a bald lesbian" (and who knows wtf bawang pulled that rumor out) that says nothing against the institution. Shaolin is hard and many fail. If someone ran away, that's to be expected. As for the bald lesbian, wtf bawang wtf? As for the other that married, Lipeng has been addressed. He officially disrobed. And as I said before, there's no dishonor in disrobing. The dishonor only lies in remaining a man of the cloth when the lifestyle has changed to a point that he should really disrobe.

heh heh, reminds me of the chan story of the two monks going out looking for firewood. They come upon a young woman afraid to cross a river. One of them goes to her, puts her on his back and carries her across to the other side of the river bank.
Later the one monks says to this monk `i am shocked that you broke the prohibition to not touch women`. The monk responded `I left her on the river bank, but you are still carrying her`.

[GeneChing]

But you know what they say 'those who are good at making excuses aren't good for much else'. ;)

Austerities don't hinder spirituality, uki. Why do you think they would? You're just flush with guilt and really do need to be punished. Don't fear that punishment. It'll do you good. You'll be a much better man for it. :p

Seriously, austerities are very powerful mojo, more powerful than sex, drugs or a good prime cut steak with all the trimmings. When you cut out all those distractions, you can really focus. Once you get a taste of what austerities practice can bring, that pure stuff, you'll totally get what I'm saying and be coming back for more.

And Richard, be careful because your treading on that old beginner's mind trap - to paraphrase, 'if there's no distinction, then upholding vows doesn't matter.' Therein lies the most dangerous liability of zen. We nickname that the Herrigal error. As we all know, Eugen Herrigal authored the pioneering English work on zen, Zen in the art of Archery. And, using that very excuse, he went on to become a card-carrying nazi.

[uki]

zen/chan is just a raft... once it's served it's purpose, it's left on the river bank.

as the mass consciousness leaps forward, spirituality will come much easier than sitting for 30 years in the lotus position retaining your semen on a mountaintop somewhere - these practices have served their purpose in the long run, but they are obsolete in the overall scheme of things at this particular stage in human development. :)

[LFJ]

it is laughable that one take a vow of celibacy in order to achieve the state of enlightenment, when in truth, producing children is what ensures that truth and understanding, to be discovered on the path, is passed along for future generations. a wise father will have a wise child. :)

basically what you are doing is making awakening dependent upon teaching and tradition. if that were so, then if the lineage was somehow broken, no one would ever awaken again.

any awakening dependent upon teaching is false awakening. why? because by nature and definition, nirvana is unconditioned. a finger pointing to the moon does not condition the moon's "existence".

also "a wise father will have a wise child" is not necessarily the case. everyone has their own unique karmic history regardless of heredity or fatherly instruction.


zen/chan is just a raft... once it's served it's purpose, it's left on the river bank.

as the mass consciousness leaps forward, spirituality will come much easier than sitting for 30 years in the lotus position retaining your semen on a mountaintop somewhere - these practices have served their purpose in the long run, but they are obsolete in the overall scheme of things at this particular stage in human development. :)

the accurate statement would be "the dharma"/ the doctrine/ the buddhist teaching, is to be likened unto a raft, not zen/chan.

this analogy comes from the diamond sutra, chapter six (http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamond6-10.htm).

an excerpt:


Diamond Sutra, Chapter 6: "Rare is True Faith"

"Because if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold on to anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Good Law is to be likened unto a raft. [Does a man who has safely crossed a flood upon a raft continue his journey carrying that raft upon his head?] The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!"


金刚经-第六品：“真信希有分”

“是诸众生若心取相，则为著我人众生寿者。若取法相，即著我人众生寿者。何以故？若取非法相，即著我人众生 寿者，是故不应取法，不应取非法。以是义故，如来常说：‘汝等比丘，知我说法，如筏喻者；法尚应舍，何况非 法。’”

this statement does not mean one should abandon the raft while still in the middle of a flood!

if you have not safely crossed the flood you cannot make it without the raft, of course without already being a high level bodhisattva. but most of us are not. regular folks need it. thats why the dharma is one of the three gems beyond measurable value. make no mistake. :)

[richard sloan]

And Richard, be careful because your treading on that old beginner's mind trap - to paraphrase, 'if there's no distinction, then upholding vows doesn't matter.' Therein lies the most dangerous liability of zen. We nickname that the Herrigal error. As we all know, Eugen Herrigal authored the pioneering English work on zen, Zen in the art of Archery. And, using that very excuse, he went on to become a card-carrying nazi.

Come now bredren, that's not what I am saying, at all. We're well beyond beginner **** here. It's more like the stick. There's only one answer in fact and it's not verbal.

I'm also saying we can come to understand the process of mythologizing and the dangers when that process is superceded by literalism and fundamentalism. You can see that now in Rastafarianism, you can see that in what the hard core scene went through. I'm sure you've seen Muta on Religious Hard Talk, where he dresses down the exact same subject dealing with Haile Selassie. Look at all the shows cancelled by ****sexual fury against Buju. Why? Because Buju places importance on one cherry picked set of scriptures. He is eating the menu just like many others.

NO MONK FOLLOWS ALL THE PRECEPTS ALL THE TIME.

None of them. Neither are they all given the same weight of importance. Which ones you choose to think are the deal breakers is dependent. Usually on what you perceive. It's obvious that many precepts were not derived from direct experience of the dharma and are for other purposes. I eat garlic to no ill effect. For example.

This isn't something we can dance around with words and essays, a duel of gongans or dharma battles, this is the hot ball of lead you have to swallow and figure out what to do with on your own, because in the end it is you, and for all that is known we just have this one try. At any moment, we can any of us get taken out, so it's not academic when you live the dharma. Jung said those who look outside just dream....you know the rest. That is what we are dealing with, at any moment we can awake.

There are many Buddhists who don't accept Shaolin, not because of meat or wine or women, but because of gong fu being practiced as Ch'an. That's really at the heart of my larger point. To these Buddhists, we're already heretics. But you and I know we are not, according to our understanding, they are looking outside and have established a set of inflexible proofs.

There are concrete examples all over the place of how people cherry pick themselves into being comfortable with an identity to which they want to be attached.

Think back to how many times our own root of Ch'an was almost extinguished, our early history and how Ch'an was perceived then. Hui Neng fled for his life. Masters constantly beat their students and disciples, against the precept, even to this very day. Yet nobody speaks out about the violence against little kids, screaming at the top of their lungs for another example, or beating yourself to smithereens so you can accept violent blows to no ill effect, at least nowhere near the level of flubbery you hear about meat and wine monks. Which you and I both know there is historical precedent in Shaolin for that, as well as Buddhist, and now there is historical precedent for married monks too.

That's really what I am getting at- these systems are about process. Groups change, even ours. New criteria are set, new things accepted within the family and yet the dharma transmission remains in tact. How many monks took new names under our new abbot, erasing lineages and rewriting history. No outcry, no loss of dharma.

What if Damo's female disciple had attained at the great interview. That would have turned everything on it's ear and sometimes I wish she had been the one to bow. It's entirely plausible that she *could* have done it, which begs the question what then. Hui Neng thought he had issues!

We shouldn't be so hard of understanding, or inflexible. It depends.

[Tao Of The Fist]

Come now bredren, that's not what I am saying, at all. We're well beyond beginner **** here. It's more like the stick. There's only one answer in fact and it's not verbal.

I'm also saying we can come to understand the process of mythologizing and the dangers when that process is superceded by literalism and fundamentalism. You can see that now in Rastafarianism, you can see that in what the hard core scene went through. I'm sure you've seen Muta on Religious Hard Talk, where he dresses down the exact same subject dealing with Haile Selassie. Look at all the shows cancelled by ****sexual fury against Buju. Why? Because Buju places importance on one cherry picked set of scriptures. He is eating the menu just like many others.

NO MONK FOLLOWS ALL THE PRECEPTS ALL THE TIME.

None of them. Neither are they all given the same weight of importance. Which ones you choose to think are the deal breakers is dependent. Usually on what you perceive. It's obvious that many precepts were not derived from direct experience of the dharma and are for other purposes. I eat garlic to no ill effect. For example.

This isn't something we can dance around with words and essays, a duel of gongans or dharma battles, this is the hot ball of lead you have to swallow and figure out what to do with on your own, because in the end it is you, and for all that is known we just have this one try. At any moment, we can any of us get taken out, so it's not academic when you live the dharma. Jung said those who look outside just dream....you know the rest. That is what we are dealing with, at any moment we can awake.

There are many Buddhists who don't accept Shaolin, not because of meat or wine or women, but because of gong fu being practiced as Ch'an. That's really at the heart of my larger point. To these Buddhists, we're already heretics. But you and I know we are not, according to our understanding, they are looking outside and have established a set of inflexible proofs.

There are concrete examples all over the place of how people cherry pick themselves into being comfortable with an identity to which they want to be attached.

Think back to how many times our own root of Ch'an was almost extinguished, our early history and how Ch'an was perceived then. Hui Neng fled for his life. Masters constantly beat their students and disciples, against the precept, even to this very day. Yet nobody speaks out about the violence against little kids, screaming at the top of their lungs for another example, or beating yourself to smithereens so you can accept violent blows to no ill effect, at least nowhere near the level of flubbery you hear about meat and wine monks. Which you and I both know there is historical precedent in Shaolin for that, as well as Buddhist, and now there is historical precedent for married monks too.

That's really what I am getting at- these systems are about process. Groups change, even ours. New criteria are set, new things accepted within the family and yet the dharma transmission remains in tact. How many monks took new names under our new abbot, erasing lineages and rewriting history. No outcry, no loss of dharma.

What if Damo's female disciple had attained at the great interview. That would have turned everything on it's ear and sometimes I wish she had been the one to bow. It's entirely plausible that she *could* have done it, which begs the question what then. Hui Neng thought he had issues!

We shouldn't be so hard of understanding, or inflexible. It depends.

Oh, you silly intellectuals... you make me laugh so. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Richard,

Well stated!

Here is an excerpt from the oldest known Ch’an texts that were found in the Tun-huang caves in the early 1900’s. The following is from Record I:

Question: “What is bodhisattva practice?” Answer: “It is not the practice of the worthies and sages. It is not the practice of the common man. It is the practice of the bodhisattva. If one is training to be a bodhisattva, one neither seizes worldly dharmas nor rejects worldly dharmas. If you can enter the path with thought and the consciousneses [as they are], there will be no common men or hearers capable of taking your measure. As is said, every locus of events, every locus of forms, and every locus of evil karma is used by the bodhisattva, and they all are made into Buddha events. They are all made into nirvana. They are all the great path. Every locus is without locus. This is the locus of Dharma. This is the locus of the path. The bodhisattva does not reject any locus, does not seize any locus, does not select any locus, and makes all of them into Buddha events. Birth and death is made into a Buddha event, and delusion is made into a Buddha event.’

Question: “All dharmas are without dharma. How is it that they are made into Buddha events?” Answer: ‘The locus of making [every locus into a Buddha event] is not a locus of making. There are no dharmas of making, and so in all places good or otherwise, [the bodhisattvas] see the Buddhas.’

Question: “What is ‘seeing the Buddhas?’” Answer: “To see no characteristics of greed in greed is to see the greed dharma. To see no characteristics of suffering in suffering is the suffering dharma. To see no characteristics of dream in dream is the dream dharma. This is called ‘in every locus seeing the Buddhas.’ If you see characteristics then in every locus you will see demons.”

Question: “Where is the essence of the Dharma Realm?” Answer: “Every locus is the locus of the Dharma Realm.”

Question: “Within the essence of the Dharma Realm are there such things as holding the precepts or breaking the precepts?” Answer: “Within the essence of the Dharma Realm there exist neither the common nor the sagely. Heavenly mansions and hells also do not exist, Is and is-not, suffering and joy, and so forth are constant like space.”

Question: “What is the locus of enlightenment?” Answer” “The locus you are walking on is the locus of enlightenment, the locus you are lying on is the locus of enlightenment. The locus you are sitting on is the locus of enlightenment. The locus you are standing on is the locus of enlightenment. Wherever you lift your feet or put them down is the locus of enlightenment.”

Question: Please explain the realm of all the Buddhas.” Answer” “Dharmas neither exist nor inexist. Not seizing the understanding that they neither exist nor inexist is called the realm of the Buddhas.

The Three Treasures are expedient means only. They are neither necessary, nor not necessary. One may follow them or not follow them. It matters not in the end.

As long as characteristics are seized and “treasured” they bind us to the illusion that they are necessary. It is clinging that creates confusion in our mind. If one wishes to follow the precepts that is fine; if anther does not follow the precepts that too is fine. However, once one insists following the precepts are necessary or that others are in error when they do not adhere to the precepts they have bound themselves to an illusion, they have created for themselves the chains of their own misunderstanding.

[uki]

basically what you are doing is making awakening dependent upon teaching and tradition.no... i am painting the naturally acceptable way to justify having children regardless of silly little limitations placed on you by silly little traditions and rituals...


if that were so, then if the lineage was somehow broken, no one would ever awaken again.there is no lineage - everyone has the wellspring of wisdom and understanding within themselves.


any awakening dependent upon teaching is false awakening.hahaha!!! probably because we all have that divine seed nestled in our hearts... teachings are like water and hearts the soil.

why?i already told you why.


because by nature and definition, nirvana is unconditioned.so nivarna has definition yet it is not conditioned?? LOL... very interesting...

a finger pointing to the moon does not condition the moon's "existence".bruce lee paraphrasing is ridiculous anymore... :rolleyes:


also "a wise father will have a wise child" is not necessarily the case.after i posted this i realized the subtle flaw in that statement, but hence i hate having that annoying "edit" in my posts... my point is that having children is a natural part of ones life experience, without having children, it would be hard to have this conversation, or any for the matter after a period of time. :p


everyone has their own unique karmic history regardless of heredity or fatherly instruction.correct - although i believe that each of us chooses our parents inbetween incarnations here on the earth plane... and some of us here today are simply sticking around to watch the outcome of it all climax before moving on - having cleared up our debt and are outside the karmic cycle, which again is another form of attachment to be broken.


the accurate statement would be "the dharma"/ the doctrine/ the buddhist teaching, is to be likened unto a raft, not zen/chan.yet we are discussing chan/zen here... the same metaphor can be applied to anything we strive to accomplish in life. once we reach our goal, the means of how one arrived becomes discarded. :)


this statement does not mean one should abandon the raft while still in the middle of a flood! when you are in sycnch with the nature of the way, you will not find yourself in a flood to begin with.


if you have not safely crossed the flood you cannot make it without the raft, of course without already being a high level bodhisattva.LMAO!! bingo.

but most of us are not.there is a mass awakening across the globe, but yes, you are still correct here... most folks are not.

regular folks need it.and you regular folks can still cling to it and use it... when you're done, don't forget to discard it. :p

thats why the dharma is one of the three gems beyond measurable value. gems don't sparkle in the darkness.

make no mistake.there are no mistakes, only lessons. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Oh, you silly intellectuals... you make me laugh so. :p

Dharma Master Chih saw Dharma Master Yuan on the street of butchers and asked: “Do you see the butchers slaughtering the sheep?” Dharma Master Yuan said: “My eyes are not blind. How could I not see them?” Dharma Master Chih said: “Master Yuan, you are saying you see it!”* Master Yuan said: “You’re seeing on top of seeing it!”

*Butchering of sheep is the first of twelve wicked things listed in the Vinaya disciplinary code.

[uki]

*Butchering of sheep is the first of twelve wicked things listed in the Vinaya disciplinary code.ouch... i hope this not an analogy in regards to the people being the sheep. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

ouch... i hope this not an analogy in regards to the people being the sheep. :p

I think it is a metaphor referring to the butchering of all dairy products!:eek:

:D

[uki]

Why do you think that Zen / Chan Buddhism says "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him"?maybe they say this because he is blocking the road... :p

[Leto]

Just splitting one more hair, but the finger pointing to the moon analogy was not Bruce Lee's idea. He was paraphrasing a sutra, shurangama I think. In a group of folks who have studied the sutras, I wouldn't assume they got it from Bruce Lee. But I guess we shouldn't assume anything at all. Maybe Bruce Lee was a manifestation of a bodhisattva who needed to spread that little piece of dharma to some people ;)
I'll quote another sutra, Lankavatara, Bodhidharma's preferred.
"But no beings are left outside by the will of the Tathagatas; some day each and every one will be influenced by the wisdom and love of the Tathagatas of Transformation to lay up stock of merit and ascend the stages. But if they only realized it, they are already in the Tathagata's Nirvana for, in Noble Wisdom, all things are in Nirvana from the beginning."

[Scott R. Brown]

It would be fair to say that Bruce Lee brought it to the attention of the general public however so perhaps assuming either way is equally risky!

[uki]

Just splitting one more hair, but the finger pointing to the moon analogy was not Bruce Lee's idea. He was paraphrasing a sutra, shurangama I think. In a group of folks who have studied the sutras, I wouldn't assume they got it from Bruce Lee. LOL... i realize it was a paraphrase, but out of all of the bodhisattva sayings out there on the market in this age, that one is the most seen and heard... ugh... it reminds me of when they used to play that hootie and the blowfish song "i wanna be with you" on the radio all the time - it was almost enough to drive a man to commit suicide. :D

But I guess we shouldn't assume anything at all. yes. it is better to understand things.

Maybe Bruce Lee was a manifestation of a bodhisattva who needed to spread that little piece of dharma to some peoplei think you are correct here. :)

[David Jamieson]

the saying regarding killing the buddha on the road is about tempering your own ego. Not getting rid of your ego, tempering it and avoiding the cult of personality.

the teachings are more important than the teacher.

:)

You should also kill your family (the same "kill" as the buddha road kill) :D

If we attach ourselves, we lose site of our own buddha nature.

[uki]

the saying regarding killing the buddha on the road is about tempering your own ego. Not getting rid of your ego, tempering it and avoiding the cult of personality.

the teachings are more important than the teacher.

You should also kill your family (the same "kill" as the buddha road kill)

If we attach ourselves, we lose site of our own buddha nature.this is the same principle taught by jesus when he says that those who love their wives, husbands, children, brothers, and sisters more than himself, that they could not be his disciple... same principle, different method of presentation when teaching it. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

I'd kill you both if it wouldn't kill ME in the process!:D

[LFJ]

no... i am painting the naturally acceptable way to justify having children regardless of silly little limitations placed on you by silly little traditions and rituals...
there is no lineage - everyone has the wellspring of wisdom and understanding within themselves.
hahaha!!! probably because we all have that divine seed nestled in our hearts... teachings are like water and hearts the soil.
i already told you why.
so nivarna has definition yet it is not conditioned?? LOL... very interesting...

what you are saying now contradicts your previous statement of having children being the factor for awakening to continue through generations. you seem to agree now this is not true.


bruce lee paraphrasing is ridiculous anymore... :rolleyes:

bruce lee??

as mentioned, this finger pointing to the moon comes from the shurangama sutra, chapter two (http://www.fodian.net/world/shurangama.html):

the excerpt:

Shurangama Sutra- Chapter Two:

The Buddha told Ananda, "You and others like you still listen to the Dharma with the conditioned mind, and so the Dharma becomes conditioned as well, and you do not obtain the Dharma-nature. This is similar to a person pointing his finger at the moon to show it to someone else. Guided by the finger, the other person should see the moon. If he looks at the finger instead and mistakes it for the moon, he loses not only the moon but the finger also. Why? Because he mistakes the pointing finger for the bright moon. Not only does he lose the finger, but he also fails to recognize light and darkness. Why? He mistakes the solid matter of the finger for the bright nature of the moon, and so he does not understand the two natures of light and darkness. The same is true of you.


yet we are discussing chan/zen here... the same metaphor can be applied to anything we strive to accomplish in life. once we reach our goal, the means of how one arrived becomes discarded. :)

chan/zen is not something to be accomplished in life. its neither a goal nor a means to arrive some place. the buddha, bodhidharma, nor any other important buddhist figure ever suggested "discarding" chan/zen, or likened it unto a raft. you've confused the metaphor, which i've quoted from the diamond sutra. much like you were unaware that bruce lee paraphrased the shurangama sutra.

[Scott R. Brown]

chan/zen is not something to be accomplished in life. its neither a goal nor a means to arrive some place. the buddha, bodhidharma, nor any other important buddhist figure ever suggested "discarding" chan/zen, or likened it unto a raft. you've confused the metaphor, which i've quoted from the diamond sutra. much like you were unaware that bruce lee paraphrased the shurangama sutra.

Ch'an/Zen is an expedient means, a method, a tool. As such it is non-existent once one gains insight, that is, once the other shore is reached, there is no expedient means, method or tool.

uki's understanding is not askew, your understanding of what he is trying to say is askew, that is all.;)

[LFJ]

Ch'an/Zen is an expedient means, a method, a tool. As such it is non-existent once one gains insight, that is, once the other shore is reached, there is no expedient means, method or tool.

uki's understanding is not askew, your understanding of what he is trying to say is askew, that is all.;)

i think you are both confusing chan/zen with the dharma, the buddhist-teaching, or some sort of meditation technique.

[LFJ]

from bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon (http://zencast.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/bodhidarma-to-america-the-bloodstream-sermon/):


The Bloodstream Sermon- excerpt:

Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.

[Scott R. Brown]

i think you are both confusing chan/zen with the dharma, the buddhist-teaching, or some sort of meditation technique.

I don't think so.

Dharma is a method, an expedient means. Inherently it is formless, Ch'an is one expression of Dharma use as an expedient means of a different color, so to speak, used to guide one to a direct perception of Buddha Nature, which itself is formless.

It does appear we have a difference in definition of what constitutes a method or expedient means. I would be happy to read your opinion on the matter.:)

[Scott R. Brown]

from bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon (http://zencast.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/bodhidarma-to-america-the-bloodstream-sermon/):

Thank you for that excerpt. I cannot disagree; however, Zen is only a path when one is stuck on this shore. Once one is on the opposite shore, there is no Zen.

As long as Zen is considered a “path" it participates in distinction and characteristics, which are expedient means on this shore and do not exis,t yet do exist, on the opposite shore. On the opposite shore there are distinctions without distinctness! Therefore to borrow from Nagarjuna, Zen neither IS, nor Is-not, it is not both, nor is it neither!

[David Jamieson]

this is the same principle taught by jesus when he says that those who love their wives, husbands, children, brothers, and sisters more than himself, that they could not be his disciple... same principle, different method of presentation when teaching it. :)

There are many parallels between the teachings of the Buddha Gautama and the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus lived and worked around Sepphoris (a fairly large roman city within Galilee).
Historians are aware of this as are scholars, but it is not really mentioned at all except as the birthplace of Mary.

Anyway, this city had access to the silk road as did everyone in the first century and they would have been exposed in some way shape or form to the religion of Buddhism which had been established for centuries at the time of Jesus.

There are some who would argue that Jesus could have been fully taught in Buddhist practices during the time of his life that is least recorded (14yrs -30 yrs)

Much remains hidden....for now. :)

Knowledge isn't worth much when it's thrown on you, but when you strain to find it, you'll value it more.

[sanjuro_ronin]

the saying regarding killing the buddha on the road is about tempering your own ego. Not getting rid of your ego, tempering it and avoiding the cult of personality.

the teachings are more important than the teacher.

:)

You should also kill your family (the same "kill" as the buddha road kill) :D

If we attach ourselves, we lose site of our own buddha nature.

Ogami Itto killed the Buddha.

[sanjuro_ronin]

this is the same principle taught by jesus when he says that those who love their wives, husbands, children, brothers, and sisters more than himself, that they could not be his disciple... same principle, different method of presentation when teaching it. :)

While one can certainly view Jesus's teachings that way, even more so if they are trying to view it through "zen coloured glasses", that is inconsistent with the WHOLE of Jesus's teachings.
What Jesus probably meant, was that someone one that couldn't/didn't love him ( Jesus) who was the personification of Love ( The love that God has for Us), they could hardly be able to love others.
If one can't love those that love us unconditionally, how can we ever hope to truly love those that loves us conditionally?

[David Jamieson]

Ogami Itto killed the Buddha.

Get him!!!!

[David Jamieson]

While one can certainly view Jesus's teachings that way, even more so if they are trying to view it through "zen coloured glasses", that is inconsistent with the WHOLE of Jesus's teachings.
What Jesus probably meant, was that someone one that couldn't/didn't love him ( Jesus) who was the personification of Love ( The love that God has for Us), they could hardly be able to love others.
If one can't love those that love us unconditionally, how can we ever hope to truly love those that loves us conditionally?

Truth has a way of manifesting itself to us regardless of doctrine or dogma.

All we have to do is look, listen and think for a moment.

the projections we cast upon truth fall away from it and we are only left with it in it's pure form. we can either look away or continue to project upon it like a horde of Sisyphus like individuals blind to each other and focused on our folly. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Truth has a way of manifesting itself to us regardless of doctrine or dogma.

All we have to do is look, listen and think for a moment.

the projections we cast upon truth fall away from it and we are only left with it in it's pure form. we can either look away or continue to project upon it like a horde of Sisyphus like individuals blind to each other and focused on our folly. :)

Not sure what you are talking about here, but I think you mean this:
http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/jesus-demotivational-poster.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Remember this:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_0qzqOhL55MM/Rx5JmlYFQ5I/AAAAAAAAADk/cLxsqX-1NLU/s1600/jesus_rides_a_dinosaur.jpg

[Royal Dragon]

zen/chan is just a raft... once it's served it's purpose, it's left on the river bank.

as the mass consciousness leaps forward, spirituality will come much easier than sitting for 30 years in the lotus position retaining your semen on a mountaintop somewhere - these practices have served their purpose in the long run, but they are obsolete in the overall scheme of things at this particular stage in human development. :)

Reply]
Personally, I do not believe this. I think that Chan is an irreplaceable path to spiritual awakening. There are also others that work well too, but over all, I just do not see how the ancient methods can be replaced by anything modern.

Some things were perfected before written history, and I think the persuites of the spiritual paths fall in this category.

[uki]

what you are saying now contradicts your previous statement of having children being the factor for awakening to continue through generations. you seem to agree now this is not true.children are not the factor in awakening... they are simply a part of life - to declare celibacy as a means to find enlightenment is a fallacy and silly little tradition passed along by silly little impotent men. :p


chan/zen is not something to be accomplished in life. its neither a goal nor a means to arrive some place. the buddha, bodhidharma, nor any other important buddhist figure ever suggested "discarding" chan/zen, or likened it unto a raft. you've confused the metaphor, which i've quoted from the diamond sutra. much like you were unaware that bruce lee paraphrased the shurangama sutra.blah... you are tangling yourself with too many things - cut the net a free the dolphins already. :D

uki's understanding is not askew, your understanding of what he is trying to say is askew, that is all.sometimes i wonder if i would've read the fine print, that i would have reconsidered volunteering my time and energy here. :D


i think you are both confusing chan/zen with the dharma, the buddhist-teaching, or some sort of meditation technique.i think you are just confused period. :)

While one can certainly view Jesus's teachings that way, even more so if they are trying to view it through "zen coloured glasses", that is inconsistent with the WHOLE of Jesus's teachings.
What Jesus probably meant, was that someone one that couldn't/didn't love him ( Jesus) who was the personification of Love ( The love that God has for Us), they could hardly be able to love others.
If one can't love those that love us unconditionally, how can we ever hope to truly love those that loves us conditionally?i wonder if jesus loved those money-changers he drove out of the temple with a bullwhip after flipping over their tables?? probably, but being angry and kicking someones a$$ does not mean you do not love them... remember, religion is a method of control - it is truth presented as a puzzle in order to keep the masses scrambled... as long as people are too busy fighting amongst themselves, they are easily controlled.


Truth has a way of manifesting itself to us regardless of doctrine or dogma.the truth cannot be hidden - this is a principle of the cosmos... it must be in plain sight, thus it is not that the truth is manifesting itself to us, but rather that we are manifesting our understanding of it that is directly in front of us.



Personally, I do not believe this. I think that Chan is an irreplaceable path to spiritual awakening. and much like the spokes of roads at the mouth of an ant colony, there are many roads that lead away from the source; just because the road has been polished by the footsteps of countless others does not mean that it is the only or best route to follow - some folks do better bushwhacking and using their intra-dimensional spacial skills. :D


There are also others that work well too, but over all, I just do not see how the ancient methods can be replaced by anything modern.and the planet is re-discovering this now as it descends into madness...


Some things were perfected before written history, and I think the persuites of the spiritual paths fall in this category.this is because at one point we were all spiritually pure... once you fall down and get all muddy, there are steps in the process of cleaning up - apply this to ages of mass consciousness and you'll see an acceleration to the pattern of awakening... what took the ancients 50 years to discover is happening in the twinkling of an eye these days... the ancients were the wayshowers into the future that leads us directly back to the past.

it truly is a wonderful time to be alive... the history that is in the making now will reverberate thru-out the universe. :)

[Royal Dragon]

I think you are confusing spiritual persuites with technological advancement.

Spiritual persiutes are not happening in the blink of an eye today. If anything they are occurring slower, and slower, and less and less the faster our technology progresses.

[uki]

Spiritual persiutes are not happening in the blink of an eye today. If anything they are occurring slower, and slower, and less and less the faster our technology progresses.hmmmm... for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - this too is another principle law of nature... spontaneous awakenings are happening en-masse compared to ancient levels of the human populance. technology is keeping up with the evolution of human consciousness, not the other way around... the reason there are soooo many technological distractions is simply that, to attempt to keep the people distracted from the divine order of change. the technological advancements of today are the result of our spiritual evolution as a species. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

i wonder if jesus loved those money-changers he drove out of the temple with a bullwhip after flipping over their tables?? probably, but being angry and kicking someones a$$ does not mean you do not love them... remember, religion is a method of control - it is truth presented as a puzzle in order to keep the masses scrambled... as long as people are too busy fighting amongst themselves, they are easily controlled.



Religion can indeed be a form of mind control, just as trends and "popular culture" can be/are.
Funny thing is when Jesus said , "the truth will set you free", he was referring to the freedom from organized religion.
There was no other religious figure of note so against the organized religion of the time then Jesus.

[uki]

Religion can indeed be a form of mind control, just as trends and "popular culture" can be/are.*cough* MMA *cough*


Funny thing is when Jesus said , "the truth will set you free", he was referring to the freedom from organized religion.exactly... the pharisees wanted him dead because his teaching was a threat to organized control of the population. the ability to think for yourself and make up your own mind is not in the best interest of those who wish to control you.


There was no other religious figure of note so against the organized religion of the time then Jesus.just in his neck of the woods that is... each region had their own first-fruit of what people would become...

[sanjuro_ronin]

*cough* MMA *cough*


*cough* TMA *cough*

:D

[Royal Dragon]

hmmmm... for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - this too is another principle law of nature... spontaneous awakenings are happening en-masse compared to ancient levels of the human populance. technology is keeping up with the evolution of human consciousness, not the other way around... the reason there are soooo many technological distractions is simply that, to attempt to keep the people distracted from the divine order of change. the technological advancements of today are the result of our spiritual evolution as a species. :)


Reply]
I beg to differ. think we are more spiritually deprived, materialistically focused than any other time in our existence. I mean, Opera and American Idol of all things matter more to people than anything else. We live in an age where buying kids tier video games is more important than teaching them right from wrong, or even having honest one on one relationships with them.

Just where do you see this supposed "Awakening?"

[bawang]

i think the view of a lot of people is caused by this materialism and cutting links with the past

people today are changing and compromising ancient beliefs not to be better people but to follow their animal instincts.

[GeneChing]

You know, this all reminds me of one of my shidi, who was a brilliant fighter. He was a hardcore TMA guy and even did a little MMA before it became that so fashionable. He was also Catholic and one day he came up to me all pale "I'm so tired, so weak..." so of course, I was curious what kind of kryptonite had rendered him so. It was Lent. He had given up meat for lent and just couldn't make it. I was all "dude, I've gone for months without eating meat. What's your beef?" :p

Abstaining from meat, sex, intoxicants really isn't that hard. It's just your own weakness that's making you think so. I used to be a hardcore meat eater. Seriously, I was raised Chinese, so I ate all kinds of stunt meats - pork fatback, brains, sea anemone, scorpions, dog, turtle, snake, you name it. I thought I could never give that up. But I did. Well, not the scorpions. I still would eat those if they were well prepared.

What fascinates me about all this is how much effort people will put into making up excuses. Don't try to offer some scriptural defense or some justification because others don't follow it. Just say 'I'm too weak'. :rolleyes:

[uki]

I beg to differ. there is no need to beg... i understand.


think we are more spiritually deprived, materialistically focused than any other time in our existence. of course, mankind as a whole had to reach the breaking point of ignorance, yet this has facilitated the seperation of the wheat from the tares... the lines are being drawn in the sand.


I mean, Opera and American Idol of all things matter more to people than anything else.so do you deny that there are other individuals such as myself that have been without commercial, satellite, cable, or digital television?? just because the sea appears endless does not mean that dry land is not on the horizon...


We live in an age where buying kids tier video games is more important than teaching them right from wrong, or even having honest one on one relationships with them.this is another reason it is profitable for wise men to raise their own children(which only naturally comes thru having sex with a woman). you'd think these so called enlightened zen masters of celibacy would have discerned that it is the best interest for wise people to raise and rear wise children in order to perpetuate subtle change in the underlying foundations of society.


Just where do you see this supposed "Awakening?"just where do you see it not? :)

[bawang]

i like to have sex with small animals
wow nice

hey gene ching, i agree with what u said. i think a lot of times we in the western world have a distorted view of human nature because of technology, post modern culture and non stop influence by media

[uki]

Abstaining from meat, sex, intoxicants really isn't that hard.yet the fundementual point is that eating meat, having sex, and using intoxicants is not detrimental to ones spiritual evolution.

It's just your own weakness that's making you think so. no. it's your own weakness when you deny experience. i smoke marijuana daily, i eat magical mushrooms yearly, i drink beer at meals... this is part of who i am - i will not give the pleasure to someone else for denying myself what has been freely given for us to moderately enjoy while incarnated on this rock here called earth.


What fascinates me about all this is how much effort people will put into making up excuses. excuses into justifying the fear of what they know nothing about.


Don't try to offer some scriptural defense or some justification because others don't follow it. why on earth not?? if you change the truth to suit the people, you are only encouraging delusional experience.

Just say 'I'm too weak'.best to remember the power of words - if i were to do what you suggest, i would be establishing something that i do not desire... i am not weak. i am strong. i have no fear to be who i am. it's best to find the narrow path between evil and good in a dualistic universe - without harmony there is no balance... i wonder why this is a fundamentually key principle in a freewill universe... :)

[GeneChing]

...no self restraint. ;)

What makes you think I deny those experiences? Actually, Buddhism doesn't deny them necessarily. To some degree, that's the path of Tantric Buddhism. But if you're going to go Tantric, you should be a Dub Dub warrior monk, not a Shaolin warrior monk.

uki, you're free to pursue whatever path you choose for your spirituality. But that "what has been freely given for us to moderately enjoy' argument is absurd. How do you judge what is free? Am I free to eat your dog? What about cannibalism? But don't deny others their path and expect them not to reciprocate. When you point that finger, some one else is judging you.

And you forget. I used to work for the Grateful Dead (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=469). In my day, I could have put you under the table with all those intoxicants. I could probably still give you a good run for your money. But you couldn't beat me in abstinence. Therefore - WEAK :p ;)

[uki]

...no self restraint. no reason to restrain the self from becoming...


What makes you think I deny those experiences?what makes you believe i ever thought you didn't?


Actually, Buddhism doesn't deny them necessarily. To some degree, that's the path of Tantric Buddhism. But if you're going to go Tantric, you should be a Dub Dub warrior monk, not a Shaolin warrior monk. there is no such thing as a "warrior monk" in shaolin...


uki, you're free to pursue whatever path you choose for your spirituality.why thank you very much... thank you for bringing that to my attention. :)

But that "what has been freely given for us to moderately enjoy' argument is absurd.why?


How do you judge what is free? i dunno... how do you judge what is free?? is not "free" a universal concept?

Am I free to eat your dog?i suppose that if you were to raid my property and kill my dog before i was able to react that yes, you are free to eat my dog. :D

What about cannibalism?if i am inferiour enough that allow your monkey a$$ to eat me, yes... you are free to eat me. :p

But don't deny others their path and expect them not to reciprocate. When you point that finger, some one else is judging you. agreed, yet it's nice to know how strong the roots are of others... if i have to base my continued existence on the symbiotic nature of something else, i want to make sure its not parasitic in the end.


And you forget. I used to work for the Grateful Dead (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=469). yeah and??? i have eaten my fair share loose pages of blotters...


In my day, I could have put you under the table with all those intoxicants. perhaps, but as long as you believe it's not your day, it will always be someone elses.


I could probably still give you a good run for your money. perhaps... i'd love a good challenge though. :D

But you couldn't beat me in abstinence. Therefore - WEAKLOL... there are no absolutes in life my squiggly little wyrm. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

Reply]
I beg to differ. think we are more spiritually deprived, materialistically focused than any other time in our existence. I mean, Opera and American Idol of all things matter more to people than anything else. We live in an age where buying kids tier video games is more important than teaching them right from wrong, or even having honest one on one relationships with them.

Just where do you see this supposed "Awakening?"

I would refer you to the imperial Romans as well as Byzantine Islam and imperial China!

I doubt we surpass these cultures in decadence!


You know, this all reminds me of one of my shidi, who was a brilliant fighter. He was a hardcore TMA guy and even did a little MMA before it became that so fashionable. He was also Catholic and one day he came up to me all pale "I'm so tired, so weak..." so of course, I was curious what kind of kryptonite had rendered him so. It was Lent. He had given up meat for lent and just couldn't make it. I was all "dude, I've gone for months without eating meat. What's your beef?" :p

Abstaining from meat, sex, intoxicants really isn't that hard. It's just your own weakness that's making you think so.

What fascinates me about all this is how much effort people will put into making up excuses. Don't try to offer some scriptural defense or some justification because others don't follow it. Just say 'I'm too weak'. :rolleyes:

Come on Gene, this is one of the stupidest thing you have ever said. I am going to presume, for the time being, you are saying this tongue in cheek in order to tweak others, because this is out of character for you!:confused: :)

First of all, if a person is going to be a vegetarian, it takes time to learn how to combine different foods in a healthy manner in order to provide the individual with balanced nutrients.

Secondly, once one goes off of meat there is an adjustment time necessary for the body to adapt to the new combination of foods. The same thing applies if a person were to go off of carbohydrates, and eats mostly fats and proteins. There is a period of feeling weak and physically “just not right”!

Your friend felt weak during Lent because he was not eating properly, NOT because he was “weak”. The change in his diet made him feel that way. It was biochemical NOT psychological!


...no self restraint. ;)….But you couldn't beat me in abstinence. Therefore - WEAK :p ;)

Some abstain, some indulge; all paths are Dharma paths to the bodhisattva! It is just as possible for abstinence to be another form of indulgence. Especially if one gains a sense of spiritual pride from their abstinence! Abstinence is merely an expedient means. When abstinence leads to clinging to abstinence, abstinence loses it expediency!

When eating meat, eat meat, when eating vegetables eat vegetables! When having sex, have sex, when not having sex, don’t have sex. They are all the same and all Dharma acts. There is only abstinence when one views abstinence as abstinence! It is not abstinence when one merely does what one does when one does it and doesn’t do what one doesn’t do when one doesn’t do it!

Therefore abstinence is only abstinence when one would rather not abstain!:)

Since you choose to abstain from certain things, it really isn't abstinence.

I choose not to drink alcohol. I have never been drunk in my life! I do not consider this abstaining from alcohol. I feel no sense of loss or sacrifice due to my choice. I do not feel better of more spiritual than others who do drink alcohol. I don't drink alcohol because that is my choice.

There is nothing lost and nothing gained, that is all!

[uki]

I have never been drunk in my life!we definitely need to hang out at some point then...

[Scott R. Brown]

we definitely need to hang out at some point then...

Good luck getting me drunk then! LOL!!:D

[Lucas]

Good luck getting me drunk then! LOL!!:D

lol thats how it is with me. only one thing can get me to drink. cute girls. but thats a choice i made a long time ago. only cute girls can get me to drink.

likewise im celibate but not for any sort of religious purposes. not to try and be enlightened. but because i chose to live a portion of my life like this, for the experience, which ive decided to extend for one more year. then ill be done being celebate, i may remain abstinent for some time, who knows. but then thats the difference between celebacy and abstinence....;)

i did nearly break my personal vow, but i ended up turning away from that situation.

[LFJ]

i think you are both confusing chan/zen with the dharma, the buddhist-teaching, or some sort of meditation technique.

I don't think so.

Dharma is a method, an expedient means. Inherently it is formless, Ch'an is one expression of Dharma use as an expedient means of a different color, so to speak, used to guide one to a direct perception of Buddha Nature, which itself is formless.

It does appear we have a difference in definition of what constitutes a method or expedient means. I would be happy to read your opinion on the matter.

i'm not really talking about a method or expedient means.

basically, i dont see how chan can lead one to a direct perception of buddha nature, since the bodhidharma quote makes no distinction between chan and buddha nature to begin with.

see below.



from bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon:Thank you for that excerpt. I cannot disagree; however, Zen is only a path when one is stuck on this shore. Once one is on the opposite shore, there is no Zen.

As long as Zen is considered a “path" it participates in distinction and characteristics, which are expedient means on this shore and do not exis,t yet do exist, on the opposite shore. On the opposite shore there are distinctions without distinctness! Therefore to borrow from Nagarjuna, Zen neither IS, nor Is-not, it is not both, nor is it neither!

the quote reads;


And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.

"unless you see your nature, it's not zen/chan".

so how can there be chan guiding one to direct perception of buddha nature? if you dont see your nature, it's not chan.

as bodhidharma says; "the way is basically perfect. It doesn’t require perfecting. The Way has no form or sound. It’s subtle and hard to perceive."

basically the terms "nature", "mind", "buddha", "path", "chan" all refer to the same thing. it is just name and words about that name that differ.

there is a difference between the true path (spontaneity) and the teaching about the path (dharma, sutra, etc.). in fact it is not a path at all. its called many things. nature, mind, buddha, chan, etc., but it is none of these things.

just like when uki didnt understand when i said the moon is not created by the finger that points to it. likewise when i said nirvana is unconditioned by definition, he understood that to actually be a condition.

actually, nirvana is not conditioned by the definition assigned to it. the moon is not created by the finger pointing to it. the true path is not a detailed teaching on progressive practice.

chan is the same way. it is not the words written on the water bottle that relieve one's dry throat. read as you may. chan does not lead to perception of nature. if you dont perceive your nature, it's not chan.

chan is the drinking. and in that instant that is your nature, your mind, your buddha, the path etc..

i really cant choose one single block quote, just start reading from the beginning of the bloodstream sermon. it is so direct. bodhidharma just runs with it straight to the point.. although still he says "a buddha cant be found in words or anywhere in the twelvefold canon", "words are illusions", so...

"but if they don’t define it, what do they mean by mind? you ask. that’s your mind. i answer. that’s my mind.":
http://zencast.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/bodhidarma-to-america-the-bloodstream-sermon/

[LFJ]

scott,

do you by chance read chinese? i like to study the sutras in different languages to insure that i at least know what they are actually saying in words.

the line:
"this nature is the mind. and the mind is the buddha. and the buddha is the path. and the path is zen. but the word zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. seeing your nature is zen. unless you see your nature, it’s not zen."

in chinese is:
"性即是心，心即是佛，佛即是道，道即是禅。禅之一字，非凡圣所测。又云：见本性为禅。若不见性 ，即非禅也。"

the characters in red 即是 are like modern chinese 就是 meaning "is exactly", "is just", etc.. they are the same characters used in the heart sutra where it reads "emptiness itself is form, form itself is emptiness, etc..". it again uses 即是 in chinese. (色即是空，空即是色)

that means here, the nature itself is exactly the mind, the mind itself is exactly the buddha, the buddha itself is exactly the path, the path itself is exactly zen/chan.

so, zen/chan itself is exactly the nature, the nature itself is exactly zen/chan.

one doesnt lead to the other. therefore, zen/chan cannot be discarded. otherwise that means the nature, the mind, etc. is discarded. by whom? to what? whats left?

only the words "chan", "nature", and all the sutras are rafts ultimately to be discarded.

so chan/nature/path/mind/buddha is the drinking. not the words of the marketing on the bottled water that "helps" you understand and leads you to drink. water is wet. so what? is it wet because i say so?

sip.. "ahh" :)

[Royal Dragon]

Some abstain, some indulge; all paths are Dharma paths to the bodhisattva! It is just as possible for abstinence to be another form of indulgence. Especially if one gains a sense of spiritual pride from their abstinence! Abstinence is merely an expedient means. When abstinence leads to clinging to abstinence, abstinence loses it expediency!

When eating meat, eat meat, when eating vegetables eat vegetables! When having sex, have sex, when not having sex, don’t have sex. They are all the same and all Dharma acts. There is only abstinence when one views abstinence as abstinence! It is not abstinence when one merely does what one does when one does it and doesn’t do what one doesn’t do when one doesn’t do it!

Therefore abstinence is only abstinence when one would rather not abstain!

Reply]
Holy Cr@P!!! I completely understood that!! :eek:

[Scott R. Brown]

i'm not really talking about a method or expedient means.

basically, i dont see how chan can lead one to a direct perception of buddha nature, since the bodhidharma quote makes no distinction between chan and buddha nature to begin with.

I agree with you Ch'an IS the direct perception/experience of Buddha Nature, however to the general public it is the method to get there, not the THERE so we must distinguish our context during a discussion about Ch'an.

Ch'an is not a process or a method it is a state of being so to speak, however most people do not understand this about Ch'an.

I think you have explained it very well. I just think you are presuming incorrectly about uki. I think you are both approaching the topic from two different perspectives. If you do not distinguish between the two contexts then misunderstandings occur.:)

[LFJ]

Reply]
Holy Cr@P!!! I completely understood that!! :eek:

hey, what the heck? i didnt say any of that. you're quoting someone else. :D

[Scott R. Brown]

I do not read Chinese. I try to compensate by reading as many translations as possible, but in the end it is direct experience that should provide one with knowledge/understanding/experience/perception/etc, so I do not rely on the texts. I rely on my direct experience.

In my experience the text primarily confirm for me what I have already perceived directly.

[Scott R. Brown]

Reply]
Holy Cr@P!!! I completely understood that!! :eek:

That was ME:D!!

[LFJ]

I agree with you Ch'an IS the direct perception/experience of Buddha Nature, however to the general public it is the method to get there, not the THERE so we must distinguish our context during a discussion about Ch'an.

Ch'an is not a process or a method it is a state of being so to speak, however most people do not understand this about Ch'an.

i dont think the chan school should be understood through another buddhist tradition, much less through external paths, otherwise that changes everything.

if one is interested in understanding chan, chan masters dont make exceptions or compromise.

[GeneChing]

Far be it from me to proselytize asceticism to you lot. :rolleyes:

But you should all really stand back and listen to yourselves.

all paths are Dharma paths to the bodhisattva!
I can think of many paths that don't go anywhere near the bodhisattva.


i suppose that if you were to raid my property and kill my dog before i was able to react that yes, you are free to eat my dog.
Well you got me there. I don't eat dog anymore. :o

No wonder people dis Shaolin for inauthenticity. It's not the wuseng. It's the defensive followers. :rolleyes:

[Scott R. Brown]

i dont think the chan school should be understood through another buddhist tradition, much less through external paths, otherwise that changes everything.

if one is interested in understanding chan, chan masters dont make exceptions or compromise.

If one accepts this view they must discard expedient means, and this is not the teaching of Hui-neng and others.

If you read my excerpt from the Tun-huang texts which are the oldest known Ch'an texts, everything is acceptable as Dharma!

[MasterKiller]

http://208.116.9.205/10/content/9224/1.jpg

[Scott R. Brown]

I can think of many paths that don't go anywhere near the bodhisattva.

It isn't what you do, it is that attitude or frame of mind one has when one does it.

The point is not to make distinctions. As the Tun_huang text said,

Question: “What is ‘seeing the Buddhas?’” Answer: “To see no characteristics of greed in greed is to see the greed dharma. To see no characteristics of suffering in suffering is the suffering dharma. To see no characteristics of dream in dream is the dream dharma. This is called ‘in every locus seeing the Buddhas.’ If you see characteristics then in every locus you will see demons.”

This is not saying one should be greedy etc, but that by seeing greed as GREED one sees on top of seeing as Master Yuan put it!

Dharma Master Chih saw Dharma Master Yuan on the street of butchers and asked: “Do you see the butchers slaughtering the sheep?” Dharma Master Yuan said: “My eyes are not blind. How could I not see them?” Dharma Master Chih said: “Master Yuan, you are saying you see it!” Master Yuan said: “You’re seeing on top of seeing it!”

It is about having the experiences of the world, but not being of those experiences! It isn't what we do, it is attachment/clinging that binds us to the illusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

all paths are Dharma paths to the bodhisattva!


I can think of many paths that don't go anywhere near the bodhisattva.

Tun-huang texts, Record I:

Question: “What is bodhisattva practice?” Answer: “It is not the practice of the worthies and sages. It is not the practice of the common man. It is the practice of the bodhisattva. If one is training to be a bodhisattva, one neither seizes worldly dharmas nor rejects worldly dharmas.

“Where is the essence of the Dharma Realm?” Answer: “Every locus is the locus of the Dharma Realm.”

[bawang]

No wonder people dis Shaolin for inauthenticity. It's not the wuseng. It's the defensive followers. :rolleyes:

i agree wit u 100%

i dont know why people have to twist and distort chinese culture to suit their own western lifestyle and mindset. theres lots of other exotic religions out there

instead of trying to make ancient cultures submit to your superiority why not respect it

[Scott R. Brown]

i agree wit u 100%

i dont know why people have to twist and distort chinese culture to suit their own western lifestyle and mindset. theres lots of other exotic religions out there

instead of trying to make ancient cultures submit to your superiority why not respect it

You mean like how the Chinese respected Buddhism by modifying it into Ch'an?

[uki]

instead of trying to make ancient cultures submit to your superiority why not respect ityou mean ancient cultures like ummmm... tibet? how about the practice of falun gong? wow. :rolleyes:


I can think of many paths that don't go anywhere near the bodhisattva.yet a bodhisattva can walk on all paths.



Well you got me there. I don't eat dog anymore.too bad... i have three royal pekingese that i am sure are the reincarnations of some ancient and arrogant emperors... :p


No wonder people dis Shaolin for inauthenticity. It's not the wuseng. It's the defensive followers.no... it's the tourist brochures. :)


You mean like how the Chinese respected Buddhism by modifying it into Ch'an?i am sure the dali lama has a few words to say about respecting peoples beliefs...

[bawang]

You mean like how the Chinese respected Buddhism by modifying it into Ch'an?

yes
noe one is forced to be a monk. if ur a monk and u dont separate from worldly life whats the point. tha defeates the purpose of being a monk
next thing u know u will be saying its ok for monks to sodomize each other

i have sexual relations with my sister
wow nice

[uki]

bawang... are you like an effing kid or something?? LOL... sneaky time on mommy computer to write funny tings for people to read wit eyes.

LOL wow.

[bawang]

my heads hurts when i read ur post

[uki]

my heads hurts when i read ur postthat's because you're weak. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

yes
noe one is forced to be a monk. if ur a monk and u dont separate from worldly life whats the point. tha defeates the purpose of being a monk
next thing u know u will be saying its ok for monks to sodomize each other

wow nice

I didn't know you were chosen to be the final word on what makes a monk a monk! Maybe you should apply for the job of Master of the Universe!:eek:

I don't care what adults do in privacy, but next time please keep your little diversions to yourself!

What you and your monk friends do to entertain yourselves is between you and them, I'm not going to "see on top of seeing!"


my heads hurts when i read ur post

Your head hurts a lot then!:eek:


that's because you're weak. :p

Maybe he should abstain from judging others who do not live up to his arbitrary expectations!

[uki]

Your head hurts a lot then!he must enjoy the pleasure of the pain they bring...


Maybe he should abstain from judging others who do not live up to his arbitrary expectations!i wasn't aware that he had any expectations aside from talking with well placed hock-choppy words... he seem like silly dishwasher who watch too many local gang members be too cool with money, guns, and girl.

*strokes beard*

:D

[Lokhopkuen]

Dude, MMA fans are, typically, a bunch of idiots with the combined IQ of a turnip.
Just like any other rabid sport fan that is living out their faded dreams of "uber awesomeness" through the accomplishments of others.
Just like TMA guys nutriding the accomplishments of some ancient MA that died 200 years ago.

You silver tongued devil you:cool:

[Lokhopkuen]

I have a great big tissue with your name on it.:p



Yeah, because all the Kung Fu stylists winning in combat sports today is astounding:rolleyes:

Dude, you don't like MMA. I don't care. I do like traditional Kung Fu and believe there are many useful tools in CMA, but believe in cross training in other areas where Kung Fu is weak. You can call that MMA, cross training, ragin in the cage:eek:, or whatever other generic label you can use to diminish this training method. But the true irony is trying to have a conversation with an idiot like yourself who can't take their blinders off and see another point of view, then likes to accuse others of spouting garbage and putting another art down. Oh, the irony.:rolleyes:

I respect any human being that pursues a path towards cultivating martial art skills no matter what brand name you'd care to apply. My impetus for any past negative statements about MMA have nothing to do with it's practitioners, methodology or intent. Instead it rises from proclaimed disciples of it coming on to a discussion forum about CMA babbling about the superior nature of their practice.

You'd never catch me on an MMA forum talking trash about MMA.
I mean, I'd look kindda stoopid wouldn't I?

No instead I say more power to MMA, go go go, yay yay yay!

With that said:

Kung Fu = time +practice +patience coupled with hard work.

You get out of it what you put into it?

Any supposed weakness would rest in one's opinion of a target individual and not the concept of dedicated self cultivation focused on the higher standard.

Peace;)

[bawang]

u still need to critisize kung fu if u find something wrong
if its ok for shaolin wuseng to break his vow then its ok for me to sneak behind your house at 3 in the morning and bang your dog
if buddha is in your heart then its ok

[Scott R. Brown]

u still need to critisize kung fu if u find something wrong
if its ok for shaolin wuseng to break his vow then its ok for me to sneak behind your house at 3 in the morning and bang your dog
if buddha is in your heart then its ok

Perhaps you should find a different metaphor to illustrate your point bawang!

The two options you are using for your metaphor are not the same classification of action.

Sex between two consenting adults is not equal to you raping a dog!

Sex between two consenting people involves a free will action on the part of both participants.

Raping a dog involves you imposing your personal perversion upon an innocent animal that cannot say "NO"!

Sex between two consenting adults is a "legal" behavior.

Sex between you and a dog is an "illegal" behavior.

If you don't like the rules at Shaolin, or how they enforce them, what you need to do is:

1) Join Shaolin,
2) Become a monk,
3) Rise up in the organization until you are of sufficient authority to change the rules,
4) Change the rules!
5) In about 50 years of so, post on this BB to let us know how it all went!

[uki]

me yui no me no yui... we all no nun. :D

[Lokhopkuen]

u still need to critisize kung fu if u find something wrong
if its ok for shaolin wuseng to break his vow then its ok for me to sneak behind your house at 3 in the morning and bang your dog
if buddha is in your heart then its ok

If my dog lets you then rock out:D

[taai gihk yahn]

1) Join Shaolin,
2) Become a monk,
3) Rise up in the organization until you are of sufficient authority to change the rules,
4) Change the rules!
5) In about 50 years of so, post on this BB to let us know how it all went!

fantastic plan!

I'll get bak to you guys post haste...

[zhugeliang]

I thought Chinese guys in general don't find white women attractive.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You silver tongued devil you:cool:

The russian beauty queens have been dispatched to your kwoon to help with your chi cultivation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thought Chinese guys in general don't find white women attractive.

Yeah, who'd wanna hit this ?
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc250/jvantilburg/cody-milo-hot-blonde-006.jpg

[Hebrew Hammer]

If my dog lets you then rock out:D


LOLOLOL...Bawang do you sniff his butt first or just skip the foreplay and go for the full mount?

[Hebrew Hammer]

Speaking of pilfering...I think I'm going to quote you....

[GeneChing]

Y'all should research the Tibetan Dub Dubs a little more. They're another Buddhist warrior monk class and it would give you much more grist for the mill here. uki, you'd make a better Dub Dub than a Shaolin monk. ;) They are attributed to Hop Gar - see Keeping Secrets: Grandmaster David Chin's Legacy of Hop Gar Rebels and Guang Ping Tai Chi Revolutionaries (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=661). As for your thought that 'zen/chan is just a raft' (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969120&postcount=95) well mine's just a bamboo reed. ;)

Back to Scott's exclamation about the stupidest thing I've ever said (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969249&postcount=139) (and I'm sure he's wrong, I'm sure I've said stupider stuff) when I was first dabbling in dietary manipulation, I never felt weaker from it. I felt some cravings, but I went cold turkey, or maybe I should say tofurky. :p He wasn't really that weak. He was just under the delusion that he was. When I've done full on fasts, I've felt weak, but that's a whole different subject.

But back to the case at hand, it's still Herrigal errors. You can quote the sutras all you like, but that won't amount to three catties of hemp in Tamo's way of thinking. :D

[Lokhopkuen]

The russian beauty queens have been dispatched to your kwoon to help with your chi cultivation.

Ahh Angels of mercy;)

[Lokhopkuen]

LOLOLOL...Bawang do you sniff his butt first or just skip the foreplay and go for the full mount?

Does the meaness ever end? Bwaaaaaahahahahaaaa!:D

[uki]

i drank a handle of scotch with david chin once... i learned the technique behind the tai chi water bowl the same night... ahhhh, the memories... good stuff. :D

[Lokhopkuen]

<SNIP>

But back to the case at hand, it's still Herrigal errors. You can quote the sutras all you like, but that won't amount to three catties of hemp in Tamo's way of thinking. :D

Unless you got sum, don't be talkin' 'bout it Willis:D

[GeneChing]

And for Lhk, it always comes back to hemp (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=622873#post622873). :D

[David Jamieson]

How much hemp in a catty?

no googling!

:p

[GeneChing]

Click my link above.
Read the following post.

[David Jamieson]

hmmmn.

58 ounces of hemp to achieve zen buddha mind. (theoretically based on one interpretation of a koan)

Get cracking on the research ~G :D

try not to write it all in crayon either.

lol

[LaterthanNever]

"talking about hypocracy in kung fu: shaolin monks in america banging sexy white women "

Are monks not human beings also? If you had waited..lets pick a number..45 years in a place which insisted on celibacy and you came to the good ole USA..where you were not on a mandate..and you had less restrictions, wouldn't you be inclined to maybe want to test the waters?

[Scott R. Brown]

But back to the case at hand, it's still Herrigal errors. You can quote the sutras all you like, but that won't amount to three catties of hemp in Tamo's way of thinking. :D

Only if you just read them, but don't put the teachings into practice.

Just as with Lao-tzu, who stated,

Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know

and then went on to write an entire treatise about Tao, Tamo, and his descendants also used words and quotes from the sutras to teach and make their point!

It isn't the quotes, it is what they teach that is important. It isn't that we know them, it is that we practice them, that is important.

As Hui-neng taught, does the Sutra turn you, or do you turn the Sutra?

[punchdrunk]

I was hoping for a pic of a dude in an orange robe banging a blonde chick in a stars and stripes gi!! I hate misleading threads. :mad:

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/13324-paris_hilton_spotted_wandering_la_buddhist_monk_sp ot_real_educator.jpg

[LFJ]

i dont think the chan school should be understood through another buddhist tradition, much less through external paths, otherwise that changes everything.

if one is interested in understanding chan, chan masters dont make exceptions or compromise.

If one accepts this view they must discard expedient means, and this is not the teaching of Hui-neng and others.

If you read my excerpt from the Tun-huang texts which are the oldest known Ch'an texts, everything is acceptable as Dharma!

it isnt discarding expedient means. all teaching is expedient means.

but chan masters, huineng or others, dont teach small vehicle doctrine, much less external paths. it is even against the bodhisattva precepts to do so.

[LFJ]

But back to the case at hand, it's still Herrigal errors. You can quote the sutras all you like, but that won't amount to three catties of hemp in Tamo's way of thinking.

Only if you just read them, but don't put the teachings into practice.

Just as with Lao-tzu, who stated,

Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know

and then went on to write an entire treatise about Tao, Tamo, and his descendants also used words and quotes from the sutras to teach and make their point!

It isn't the quotes, it is what they teach that is important. It isn't that we know them, it is that we practice them, that is important.

As Hui-neng taught, does the Sutra turn you, or do you turn the Sutra?

agree. to be accurate, damo never said studying sutras, chanting, lighting incense etc.. are useless.

it is only so if you do not see your nature. they will result in good rebirth, good memory, etc., but no buddha.

its important here to remember that damo himself taught from sutras, specifically the lankavatara sutra. so he himself quoted sutras.

but... he knew his mind.

[GeneChing]

punchdrunk said a stars and stripes gi (http://www.martialartsmart.com/11-33.html), not an orange robe (http://www.martialartsmart.com/45-001.html). Extra points for Paris tho...;)

LFJ's comment about Tamo knowing his mind is key here. Sure, there's plenty of contradictions in any multiple source doctrine, made worse by translation variation and highly subject to interpretation. That begs the 'cherry picking' idea we discussed earlier. But how to pick the right cherries to make the satori cherry pie? Because I know that if I put my mind to it, I can easily pick sour cherries and go down the wrong path. That gets back to vows of abstinence. If we take Scott's option, we can just do as we please as long as we experience it directly. Killing someone is Chan as long as we have direct experience of it. I know, that's absurd, but it's just to make the point more extreme, just for discussion's sake (but worthy of note that Tamo did advocate killing icchantikas, a concept later refuted by most Buddhist thinkers). It comes back to what LFJ says about knowing your own mind. And here's the trickiest part, if you're deluded, you probably think you know your own mind. That's the most commonly abused delusion. Just look at uki. :p

[punchdrunk]

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/13324-paris_hilton_spotted_wandering_la_buddhist_monk_sp ot_real_educator.jpg

I bet she put a starts and stripes gi on in the hotel room.:D

[uki]

And here's the trickiest part, if you're deluded, you probably think you know your own mind. That's the most commonly abused delusion. Just look at uki.98% of the earths population live in a deluded state of existence... i am not deluded, i am just being myself. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

it isnt discarding expedient means. all teaching is expedient means.

but chan masters, huineng or others, dont teach small vehicle doctrine, much less external paths. it is even against the bodhisattva precepts to do so.


if one is interested in understanding chan, chan masters dont make exceptions or compromise.

I am not sure anyone should, or even could, say with certainty what a master would do or wouldn’t do, for doing so is a result of a mind clinging to concepts. In other words, it seems inadvisable for a limited mind to categorize or artificially limit an unlimited mind and presume what an unlimited mind would or wouldn’t do!

However, if a teacher were to “not make exceptions”, as you propose, “not making exceptions” defines a limit the teacher is not willing to go beyond, thus a limit is artificially imposed. Since we both agree that “all teaching is expedient means” then one is limiting their expedient means if they are unwilling to make exceptions or compromise. One cannot use expedient means designed for each individual’s needs if they impose “artificial” limitations and ALL limitations are artificial.

Since all teaching is expedient means that means all methods are expedient means because methods ARE teachings. Therefore small vehicle is an expedient means as well and just as valid as any other limited method.

Small vehicle is criticized because it is not complete teaching; it fails to take one all the way across, so to speak, because it tends to lead to the clinging to concepts. However, all teachings tend to lead to the clinging to concepts. The small vehicle is just one rung on a ladder that will eventually lead one to complete realization and therefore is just a valid expedient means as any other expedient means.

All teachings of any kind, including gestures and actions are merely expedient means, they are limited and therefore equal in that none of them can take anyone all the way across to the other shore. We can only do that for ourselves.

It is clinging of any kind that binds us to delusion, not actions or methods.


its important here to remember that damo himself taught from sutras, specifically the lankavatara sutra. so he himself quoted sutras.

but... he knew his mind.


LFJ's comment about Tamo knowing his mind is key here. Sure, there's plenty of contradictions in any multiple source doctrine, made worse by translation variation and highly subject to interpretation. That begs the 'cherry picking' idea we discussed earlier. But how to pick the right cherries to make the satori cherry pie? Because I know that if I put my mind to it, I can easily pick sour cherries and go down the wrong path. That gets back to vows of abstinence. :p

Hi Gene,

There are “plenty of contradictions” not just because of translations, etc, there are “plenty of contradictions” because they are inherent within a system of teaching that recommends the use of “expedient means”. When teachings are tailored to the individual what is appropriate for one is not necessarily appropriate for another, so “seeming” contradictions will be apparent to those caught within the web of conceptual thinking.

Pointing directly to mind, to those caught within the web of conceptual thinking, creates contradictions within the world of concepts and distinctions, the world in which most of us live. The way to get beyond those contradictions is by directly perceiving WITHOUT conceptual interference. Once this occurs contradictions resolve themselves.

You prefer to practice “austerities” or “abstinence” that is fine for you, but they are not required nor are they necessary. Neither is abstinence from eating meat, killing, or any other of the precepts taught within Buddhism. These practices are expedient means only and none of them produce a mind free of conceptual thinking. This is because they are actions, not Mind. In fact clinging to them, as is clinging to any teachings, practices, or anything at all, creates a hindrance to obtaining a mind free of conceptual thinking. That is not to say that one would not benefit psychologically or physically from such practices, but they are not necessary or required when addressing a clinging mind. Clinging is a condition of mind that is dealt with through/with/by Mind. All other behaviors and actions are window dressing and unnecessary!


If we take Scott's option, we can just do as we please as long as we experience it directly. Killing someone is Chan as long as we have direct experience of it. I know, that's absurd, but it's just to make the point more extreme, just for discussion's sake (but worthy of note that Tamo did advocate killing icchantikas, a concept later refuted by most Buddhist thinkers). It comes back to what LFJ says about knowing your own mind. And here's the trickiest part, if you're deluded, you probably think you know your own mind. That's the most commonly abused delusion. Just look at uki.

In fact a realized one COULD do whatever they pleased even to the point of killing others, but that does NOT mean they WOULD do it, and herein lies the error of those who make statements such as yours. There is a difference between COULD and WOULD! Just because someone COULD do something does not mean they WOULD do something. I COULD drink alcohol, but I do not do so, therefore I COULD do it, but that doesn’t mean I WOULD do it. You COULD eat meat, even though you are a Buddhist, but that doesn’t mean you WOULD do it.

The question of whether a realized one could murder and rape without accruing karma is “specifically” addressed within the Tun-huang Texts, which I remind readers are the oldest known Ch'an writings. And the question of killing is addressed within the Bhagavad-Gita as well. I don’t have my copy of the Tun-huang texts with me, but this principle is addressed in either Record I or Record II I believe.

It isn’t that one would have a “direct experience of it” that would make it acceptable, it is that karma is created a by clinging mind, not by performing actions. Karmic consequences are created as a result of mind, not of action! Further, just because a Master performed such an action does not mean he would not, or should not, accrue world-system consequences for that action. We still live within a world system that does not approve of such behavior.

Herrigel’s error was in using reason/conceptual means to justify practicing a behavior outside of its intended context, a principle he did not understand.

[LFJ]

I am not sure anyone should, or even could, say with certainty what a master would do or wouldn’t do, for doing so is a result of a mind clinging to concepts. In other words, it seems inadvisable for a limited mind to categorize or artificially limit an unlimited mind and presume what an unlimited mind would or wouldn’t do!

However, if a teacher were to “not make exceptions”, as you propose, “not making exceptions” defines a limit the teacher is not willing to go beyond, thus a limit is artificially imposed. Since we both agree that “all teaching is expedient means” then one is limiting their expedient means if they are unwilling to make exceptions or compromise. One cannot use expedient means designed for each individual’s needs if they impose “artificial” limitations and ALL limitations are artificial.

expedient means in the chan school is unlimited so long as it is leading one to attain true mind, not to continue clinging to self or dharmas.

dont attach to the concept of "expedient means" here.


In fact a realized one COULD do whatever they pleased even to the point of killing others, but that does NOT mean they WOULD do it, and herein lies the error of those who make statements such as yours. There is a difference between COULD and WOULD! Just because someone COULD do something does not mean they WOULD do something. I COULD drink alcohol, but I do not do so, therefore I COULD do it, but that doesn’t mean I WOULD do it. You COULD eat meat, even though you are a Buddhist, but that doesn’t mean you WOULD do it.


same with teaching small vehicle doctrine, or even that of an external path.

do you have an example of a master in the chan school teaching someone to follow one of these paths rather than attain their nature?

[mawali]

Small Vehicle or Large Vehicle, if you get hit and just be prepared to get and go the distance!

[David Jamieson]

I thought Chinese guys in general don't find white women attractive.

No dude, it's the other way round. Have you been to a nightclub lately? lol

[David Jamieson]

98% of the earths population live in a deluded state of existence... i am not deluded, i am just being myself. :)

quit pulling meaningless numbers out of your ass.

they're not the right numbers + they are covered with shyte.

:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

quit pulling meaningless numbers out of your ass.

they're not the right numbers + they are covered with shyte.

:D

Numbers aren't meaningless, 86% of people know that !

[uki]

quit pulling meaningless numbers out of your ass.actually this was the percentage given by my custody conciliation conference lawyer a few years ago... she said "i don't know what to do with you, you live unlike 98% of the population." again this number was brought up when a friend of mine says to me that i live better than 98% of the population... so technically i didn't pull the number out of my a$$ - two entirely different people used the same percentile when talking SPECIFICALLY about me in relation to everyone else. :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

numbers and butts go together:
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/10/13/633909898788469780-three.jpg

[uki]

numbers and butts go together:
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/10/13/633909898788469780-three.jpgthere are also 3 sets of boobs to go with those three sets of beautiful a$$-cheeks...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Next stop for the shaolin monks: Brasil and its not for the BJJ !

http://www.0funny.com/wp-content/uploads/images/round_asses/1-best_ass_11.jpg

[uki]

brazil seems to be too hot for the forums... :p

[Scott R. Brown]

expedient means in the chan school is unlimited so long as it is leading one to attain true mind, not to continue clinging to self or dharmas.

dont attach to the concept of "expedient means" here.

Hi LFJ,

If all teachings are Dharma, which IS a Ch'an teaching, every teaching and action leads one to realization, some just take longer than others.

Let us not confuse an understanding of "expedient means" with attachment to "expedient means". One may understand water is wet, however to insist that water is wet does not imply an attachment to the "wetness" of water, only an understanding that "wetness" is the nature of water!


same with teaching small vehicle doctrine, or even that of an external path.

Lets not compare apples and oranges here. My following comments will explain in more detail.


do you have an example of a master in the chan school teaching someone to follow one of these paths rather than attain their nature?

An example is not needed. If one understands that ** put together with ** will give you ****, then one understands the concept of simple addition. When one fully understands the concept, it is easy to understand that ** put together with *** gives one ***** or that if one has ****** and *** is taken away *** remains.

These all follow from the same principles of addition and subtraction and understanding of the underlying principles provides one with an understanding of addition and subtraction in all their forms.

This understanding is different than merely repeating 2+2=4, 6-3=3! These may be repeated without a full understanding of the principles of addition and subtraction, therefore mere the repetition of a truth these does not necessarily reflect an understanding of that truth.

So, how does this apply to our discussion?

Buddhism is not the final word on realization. Mystics of all religious traditions, including what has been labeled nature religions, have all reported the same realization. The "slight" variations in description may be explained by the religious and social context within which the individual lived as well as the native intelligence and literacy level of the individual.

This is because the understanding that ** put together with ** will give you **** is a universal experience. If one understands it in English one will also understand it in Chinese, Lithuanian, French, Swahili, etc. regardless of whether one can communicate them within those languages or not.

Buddhism itself, with all of its varied expressions, is merely an "expedient means"! If a Ch'an master truly understands his nature, then he will also understand that this nature is universal to all men at all times in all conditions and is not limited to a time, culture or religious tradition.

Just as wetness is the nature of water, this is the nature of Mind!

[LFJ]

If all teachings are Dharma, which IS a Ch'an teaching, every teaching and action leads one to realization, some just take longer than others.

but it is not true that all teachings are dharma.


Let us not confuse an understanding of "expedient means" with attachment to "expedient means". One may understand water is wet, however to insist that water is wet does not imply an attachment to the "wetness" of water, only an understanding that "wetness" is the nature of water!

earlier you were saying it is okay to talk about chan in a certain way because ordinarily people dont know about it. so you say it is something it is not, because they are familiar with that idea.

my point is that if you use teachings of an external path or even small vehicle buddhist doctrine to understand chan, then it is not chan and certainly wont arrive there.

after one attains arhatship following the sravaka vehicle they will only turn toward the mahayana and give rise to bodhicitta if they are encouraged by a buddha. their small vehicle doctrine doesnt continue on past that point.

but you keep bringing up "expedient means", "expedient means". why do i call this attachment to the concept?

expedient means, as far as chan is concerned, is only so if it leads one to know their mind. if you do not see your nature it is not chan.

if a teaching leads one further into clinging to self or phenomena, then this is an expedient means of nothing. it only turns the wheel, as bodhidharma says. as long as you are subject to birth and death you will never attain enlightenment.

that is the reason i say chan masters dont make exceptions. they dont let someone who is fooling themselves fool them too. if chan teachings are made to compromise with the ignorance of fools, then it is anything but chan, and certainly no expedient means.

[taai gihk yahn]

that if someone could explain to me how reading anything Scott writes could be defined as "expediant", I'm all ears...:D:D:D


as far as killing someone as expediant means - the thing that this does not allow for is the continuation of free choice of the individual being killed, so not at all expediant for them, which strikes me as very anti-Ch'an...

besides, I think "kiling" in Ch'an is metaphorical...

[Scott R. Brown]

but it is not true that all teachings are dharma.

If you believe this than you do not understand what it means when it is said that "all phenomena are dharma"!

All phenomena are reflections of Mind. They are created by Mind and are manifestations of Mind. Therefore they may be used as a means to directly point to Mind. But in the end it isn’t teachings or the direct pointing actions of others that do anything at all, it is Mind that obtains realization through itself.

All teachings are dharma is widely taught. I recommend reading the Tun-huang texts and Huang-po if you are unable to perceive this truth directly for yourself!


earlier you were saying it is okay to talk about chan in a certain way because ordinarily people dont know about it. so you say it is something it is not, because they are familiar with that idea.

my point is that if you use teachings of an external path or even small vehicle buddhist doctrine to understand chan, then it is not chan and certainly wont arrive there.

after one attains arhatship following the sravaka vehicle they will only turn toward the mahayana and give rise to bodhicitta if they are encouraged by a buddha. their small vehicle doctrine doesnt continue on past that point.

but you keep bringing up "expedient means", "expedient means". why do i call this attachment to the concept?

expedient means, as far as chan is concerned, is only so if it leads one to know their mind. if you do not see your nature it is not chan.

if a teaching leads one further into clinging to self or phenomena, then this is an expedient means of nothing. it only turns the wheel, as bodhidharma says. as long as you are subject to birth and death you will never attain enlightenment.

that is the reason i say chan masters dont make exceptions. they dont let someone who is fooling themselves fool them too. if chan teachings are made to compromise with the ignorance of fools, then it is anything but chan, and certainly no expedient means.

You are speaking about Ch’an specifically, while I am speaking about a direct experience of Mind that is not dependent upon the tradition of Ch’an. Ch’an is built upon a foundation of Buddhism, but Ch'an is NOT Buddhism, it is a universal experience independent of any tradition used to communicate it to others. Even though Ch’an is communicated to others by indicating universal truths using Buddhist terminology and traditions one cannot be limited to the traditions of Buddhism to point to Mind.

This is what I mean when I speak of “expedient means”. Teaching is to occur according to the audience’s ability to understand. If you try to teach geometry to someone who has no foundation of arithmetic they will not be able to comprehend what you are saying because they have no foundation for it. Thus all religious traditions have mystics who teach direct experience of Mind, even though they directly perceive and speak of their experience through a different traditional foundation. This is “expedient means”, the teachings of the various mystics while, similar, are also different according to the culture, historical period and ability of the teacher. So if speaking to a Muslim one speaks according to his ability to understand, if one speaks to a Christian one speaks according to their ability to understand and the same for Atheists, etc. Each individual has a different foundational belief system and level of personal insight. If you speak beyond a person’s ability to understand the benefit gained is less than optimal.

Direct pointing through actions and verbal teachings are not IT! At best we use words and direct pointing to indicate and/or describe a direct experience. Ch’an masters teach through dialogues and lectures as well as through actions that directly point. Direct pointing can only be direct pointing, however lectures and dialogues are a different matter. One requires a foundation of understanding when verbal indications are used. Thus any and all teachings are meant to point one to that direct experience for themselves. It isn’t the teachings that are important it is direct experience they are pointing to that is important, but if one is adhering to a method of indicating that is alien to the seeker that "expedient means" is of lesser benefit and is not very expedient at all.

ALL teachings, including direct pointing through actions may lead to clinging, but that does not mean they are not "expedient means". "Expedient means" are the only method available to discuss and point to that which cannot be communicated, which is direct experience. The understanding one obtains is a result of their own mind, NOT any teaching, but that doesn’t mean teachings, "expedient means" are not used.

[Scott R. Brown]

that if someone could explain to me how reading anything Scott writes could be defined as "expediant", I'm all ears...:D:D:D

Said the pot calling the kettle black!:p :D


as far as killing someone as expediant means - the thing that this does not allow for is the continuation of free choice of the individual being killed, so not at all expediant for them, which strikes me as very anti-Ch'an...

besides, I think "kiling" in Ch'an is metaphorical...

LOL!! No one said killing another person was "expedient means" although I would personally make an exception in your case!:D

I was speaking to the fact that no karma is accrued when an action is performed absent a clinging mind. This means any action at all, because all actions are empty and do not in and of themselves create karma, it is the clinging mind that creates karma!

Who is to say that dead person did not choose to die! If all phenomena are empty and the egoic “I” is a delusion, who dies? Who kills whom?

Nothing does nothing to nothing at all, from the perspective of Absolute, however from the perspective of the world system, the land of conceptualization, both killer and killed are in a world of hurt!;)

[LFJ]

If you believe this than you do not understand what it means when it is said that "all phenomena are dharma"!

all teachings are not dharma teachings. thats fairly obvious. most teachings are that of mara. regardless of their origin being mind, they cannot help us.


You are speaking about Ch’an specifically, while I am speaking about a direct experience of Mind that is not dependent upon the tradition of Ch’an.

what is the difference?


This is what I mean when I speak of “expedient means”. Teaching is to occur according to the audience’s ability to understand.

if the teaching is incorrect and it sends others in the wrong direction, how is it expedient means? means of what?


ALL teachings, including direct pointing through actions may lead to clinging, but that does not mean they are not "expedient means". "Expedient means" are the only method available to discuss and point to that which cannot be communicated, which is direct experience. The understanding one obtains is a result of their own mind, NOT any teaching, but that doesn’t mean teachings, "expedient means" are not used.

right, but you're not following. if a certain teaching is directly pointing you in the wrong direction, it is not the expedient means of any buddha.

"expedient means" is not just a neat sounding term that can be applied to any teaching.

[Scott R. Brown]

all teachings are not dharma teachings. thats fairly obvious. most teachings are that of mara. regardless of their origin being mind, they cannot help us.

I would say just the opposite; it is obvious that all teaching are dharma teachings. It is likely the disagreement springs from our different approaches to the concept "dharma teachings". I will explain in more detail below.


what is the difference?

I explained this previously, Ch’an implies a Buddhist tradition to those both inside and outside the tradition. Most dialogues and teachings within Ch'an use Buddhist concepts. Ch'an masters generally surround themselves with traditional Buddhist accoutrements. Direct experience favors no such concepts!


if the teaching is incorrect and it sends others in the wrong direction, how is it expedient means? means of what?

All teaching is incorrect and has the potential to encourage a clinging mind because all aspirants inherently have a clinging mind, otherwise they would not be aspirants.

A mind that clings does not perceive the teachings correctly and therefore is lead "in the wrong direction"! One could state also that all teachings, (phenomena) point to Mind and it is merely the egoic mind that creates the delusion through its clinging. Both perspectives are correct depending upon one's perspective.

To the realized Mind it is the mind that obstructs itself, but from the perspective of the obstructed mind, it is the teachings that obstruct since they are the object to which the mind clings!

All phenomena (actions, teachings etc.) are empty; they are all reflections of Mind, which is empty. While all phenomena are delusion they come from Mind, meaning without Mind there would be no phenomena. Phenomena and Mind are the same thing, the same substance. It is like saying ice IS water. Ice is manifested differently than liquid water, but they are of the same substance.

There is nothing that is not the substance of Mind, therefore Mind IS everything. If everything is Mind, then all phenomena may lead one to Mind, because everything IS Mind. Therefore, Mind may be directly perceived no matter what action or teaching does the pointing!


right, but you're not following. if a certain teaching is directly pointing you in the wrong direction, it is not the expedient means of any buddha.

"expedient means" is not just a neat sounding term that can be applied to any teaching.

Actually “expedient means” can be applied to any teaching if the pointing is truly an “expedient means”.

The “wrong direction” is a conceptualization of a deluded mind, a mind that clings to directions. Inherently there is no direction so there can be no direction that is "wrong". If this was not true then Buddha could not say he did not attain a single thing!

All phenomena, objects, actions and teaching point directly. This is because of what I stated above. All phenomena ARE Mind! It is delusion caused by clinging to concepts that conceals this realization. But since every person is different, different ways of pointing have different levels of efficacy depending upon the understanding, insight and foundational beliefs held by each individual. So what is “expedient means” for one may not be “expedient means” for another!

[uki]

everything is a state of mind... mind is the path. i'd be laughing my a$$ of if i were damo reading this thread. LMAO!!! :p

[Scott R. Brown]

everything is a state of mind... mind is the path. i'd be laughing my a$$ of if i were damo reading this thread. LMAO!!! :p

He'd probably slap us all silly!! LOL!

[LFJ]

scott, you really dont follow. you're talking way too much. who is teaching? who is learning?

[uki]

scott, you really dont follow.a highly subjective statement... err... assumption.


you're talking way too much. you have a few windy posts yourself there bub.


who is teaching? who is learning?i can tell you that i am learning nothing from your words, so that is a direct manifestation of your not teaching. :D

[Scott R. Brown]

scott, you really dont follow. you're talking way too much. who is teaching? who is learning?

Uh huh, sure!:rolleyes:

[GeneChing]

I'm sure if you all gave up meat, sex and intoxicants, everything would be clear. :p

[LFJ]

scott, you really dont follow. you're talking way too much. who is teaching? who is learning?Uh huh, sure!:rolleyes:

i'm not trying to be smart with that, scott.

what i mean is you keep going on and on about everything being "expedient means" but miss my point which is very simple. it is this:

from bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon (http://zencast.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/bodhidarma-to-america-the-bloodstream-sermon/):

Bodhidharma:
Even if you can explain thousands of sutras and shastras, unless you see your own nature yours is the teaching of a sentient being, not a Buddha.

replace "sutras" and "shastras" with any other religious or philosophical teaching or method.


Bodhidharma:
If you don’t understand by yourself, you’ll have to find a teacher to get to the bottom of life and death. But unless he sees his nature, such a person isn’t a teacher. Even if he can recite the Twelvefold Canon he can’t escape the Wheel of Birth and Death. He suffers in the three realms without hope of release.

more:

Bodhidharma:
People who don’t understand and think they can do so without study are no different from those deluded souls who can’t tell white from black.” Falsely proclaiming the Buddha-Dharma, such persons in fact blaspheme the Buddha and subvert the Dharma. They preach as if they were bringing rain. But theirs is the preaching of devils not of Buddhas. Their teacher is the King of Devils and their disciples are the Devil’s minions. Deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the Sea of Birth and Death. Unless they see their nature, how can people call themselves Buddhas? They’re liars who deceive others into entering the realm of devils. Unless they see their nature, their preaching of the Twelvefold Canon is nothing but the preaching of devils. Their allegiance is to Mara, not to the Buddha. Unable to distinguish white from black, how can they escape birth and death?

how can such teachers and teachings be considered "expedient means" or teachings of dharma?

these are external paths, small vehicle doctrine, etc.. "deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the sea of birth and death."

so as i say, chan masters dont let people who fool themselves fool them as well. chan masters dont make exceptions.

at least bodhidharma is very clear.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/6/22/633812665537249135-vagina.jpg

[Lucas]

lol omg thats hillarious.

[taai gihk yahn]

Said the pot calling the kettle black!:p :D

"Unhappy day!" laughed Ebenezer. "I've no skill in any craft or trade
whatever. I cannot even play Flow My Tears on the guitar. I can do noth-
ing."
"Then 'tis plain you'll be a teacher, like myself."
"'Sheart! Twould be the blind leading the blind!"
"Aye," smiled Burlingame. "Who better grasps the trials of sightlessness
than he whose eyes are gone?"
"But what teach? I know something of many things, and enough of
naught."
"I'faith, then the field is open, and you may graze where you list."
"Teach a thing I know naught of?" exclaimed Ebenezer.
"And raise thy fee for't," replied Burlingame, "inasmuch as 'tis no chore
to teach what you know, but to teach what you know naught of requires a
certain application."
- John Barth, "Sot Weed Factor", pp.38



LOL!! No one said killing another person was "expedient means" although I would personally make an exception in your case!:D

I was speaking to the fact that no karma is accrued when an action is performed absent a clinging mind. This means any action at all, because all actions are empty and do not in and of themselves create karma, it is the clinging mind that creates karma!

Who is to say that dead person did not choose to die! If all phenomena are empty and the egoic “I” is a delusion, who dies? Who kills whom?

Nothing does nothing to nothing at all, from the perspective of Absolute, however from the perspective of the world system, the land of conceptualization, both killer and killed are in a world of hurt!;)
well, duh!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi LFJ,

Your point is granted and has been granted.

A person is not realized until they are realized, and no one can point directly to mind unless they know Mind, that is clear.

…..there is no argument there......

I am addressing something completely different!

You don't slap someone, give them a koan, give a Dharma Talk on the principles of Buddhism or Ch'an, etc to a person who has no foundation or context for those forms of teaching. They would not understand. Teaching is tailored to the context and understanding of the aspirant.

You are taking the teaching of the Blood Sermon out of context.

Have you forgotten Hui-neng discussing turning the Sutra rather than having the Sutra turn you?

“Fada said, “If this is so, then should one just understand the meaning and not bother to recite the sutras?” The master said, “Can the sutras be in error? How could they impede your mindfulness? It is just that delusion and enlightenment are in the person, that harm and benefit depend on oneself. To recite with the mouth and practice in the mind is to turn the sutra. To recite with the mouth without practicing in the mind is to be turned by the sutra.”

Hui-neng did not tell the Fada NOT to read the Sutra, he told him to put what the Sutra says into practice. Sutras are just one form of expedient means. Sutras are teaching that were taught by teachers.

Not everyone is ready for direct pointing, on the other hand "everything" is a form of direct pointing because all things are Mind and therefore point to Mind.

Again from Hui-neng;

“There is only the one buddha vehicle and no other vehicle? Whether there might be two or three or an infinite number of expedient means, with various stories, metaphors, and sayings, these teachings all constitute the one buddha vehicle”

So, expedient means are Dharma, that is the Buddha vehicle, and they are used according to the context of the needs of the aspirant.


how can such teachers and teachings be considered "expedient means" or teachings of dharma?

You do not understand the context here.

If there were no teachings there would be no sutras, dialogues, direct pointing actions to begin with and these were and are produced by teachers. The point is NOT that teachings may only come from the realized or all teachers MUST be realized; the point is the teachings and teachers are not IT! They point towards IT! That is all!

I am specifically talking about effective teaching principles. Any teacher knows that effective teaching is tailored to the needs and abilities of the student. You don’t teach over the students’ head. When you do so it is the same as not teaching anything at all!

But the teachings are NOT Buddha Mind, they point to Buddha Mind. What happens is there are people like Fada in Hui-neng’s Sutra who think that just reciting Sutras, or memorizing Sutras, or doing good works, or performing rites, or meditating, or following the precepts will allow one to attain Buddha Mind. While these may bring good karma they do NOT produce Buddha Mind!

From Hui-neng:

“Should they [those who seek enlightenment] fail to enlighten themselves, they should ask the pious and learned Buddhists who understand the teaching the teaching of the highest school to show them the right way.” – He says “pious and learned Buddhists” NOT realized persons! Teachers are teachers, Buddhas are Buddhas, but both and all ARE Buddha Mind!

“….but in case we fail to enlighten ourselves, we have to seek the guidance of the pious and learned ones. One the other hand, those who enlighten themselves need no extraneous help. It is wrong to insist that without the advice of the pious and learned we cannot obtain liberation. Why? Because it is by our innate wisdom that we enlighten ourselves and even the extraneous help and instruction of a pious and learned friend would be of no use if we were deluded by false doctrines and erroneous views.“ – This is because the teachings are not IT, they merely point the way. Teachers and teachings do not enlighten us, we enlighten ourselves.


these are external paths, small vehicle doctrine, etc.. "deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the sea of birth and death."

Again you are misunderstanding the proper context of these comments.

Here is a quote from Hui-neng:

“…all sutras and scriptures of the Mahayana and Hinayana schools, as well as the twelve sections of the canonical writings, were provided to suit the different needs and temperaments of various people.” - Expedient Means

Once again, while teachings and teachers exist, the error people fall into is thinking the teachings are IT. It matters not how many teachings one learns, teachings are not IT!

Non-attachment from objects and concepts is Buddha Mind, everything else, while not necessary, may be helpful to the aspirant.

Here is something from Huang-po:

“If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything.”

Again from Huang-po:

“Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours, since it was first transmitted, it has never taught that men should seek for learning or form concepts. ‘Studying the Way’ is just a figure of speech. It is a method of arousing people’s interest in the early stages of their development.”

So a “figure of speech” is used for those in the “early stages of their development”, this IS using expedient means for the purpose of helping beginners according to their level and ability to understand.

While “Studying the Way” is not actually “Studying the Way”, “Studying the Way” is taught as a concept even though there are no concepts! This is using concept to point to that which is no-concept!

Object, concepts, teachings, teachers, etc “appears” to not be Buddha Mind to those in delusion and have the potential to sink one “into the sea of birth and death”, however, all phenomena ARE Buddha Mind.

From Huang-po:

“That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete.”

From Master Hung in the Tun-huang texts:

“All behavior and activity are Thusness. Seeing forms and hearing sound are also Thusness, In fact, all dharmas are Thusness. Why? Because there is no transformation or variation. When eyes see forms, eyes have no locus of variation. This is Thusness of mind. If you understand the Thusness of all dharmas then you are a Tathagata. The sutra says [Vimalakirti-nirdesa], ‘Sentient beings are Thusness. Worthies and sages are also Thusness. All dharmas are also Thusness.’”

All things point to Buddha Mind, because all things ARE Buddha Mind!

[Scott R. Brown]

well, duh!

Us "refined" people say, "Er Bizgiz!":cool:

[LFJ]

A person is not realized until they are realized, and no one can point directly to mind unless they know Mind, that is clear.

…..there is no argument there......


The point is NOT that teachings may only come from the realized or all teachers MUST be realized; the point is the teachings and teachers are not IT! They point towards IT! That is all!

of course they themselves arent it, but if a teacher has not at least tasted their nature, how can they point toward "it"? and if a student does not have such good roots, how can they know "all things come from mind, and therefore point to mind"?


From Hui-neng:

“Should they [those who seek enlightenment] fail to enlighten themselves, they should ask the pious and learned Buddhists who understand the teaching the teaching of the highest school to show them the right way.” – He says “pious and learned Buddhists” NOT realized persons! Teachers are teachers, Buddhas are Buddhas, but both and all ARE Buddha Mind!

i'd have to check the translation of the line to be sure, but "pious and learned buddhists" sounds like a translation attempt at 善知识, which literally means "good and knowledeable", and refers to a spiritual friend/teacher. this term is used all over in the platform sutra.

and as bodhidharma said:

"If you don't understand by yourself, you'll have to find a teacher to know the root of births and deaths. But unless he sees his nature, such a person isn't a teacher."

the translation here for "teacher" is the same 善知识. so he is saying they must see their nature. otherwise neither they themselves nor those they instruct will ever be free from birth and death.




“….but in case we fail to enlighten ourselves, we have to seek the guidance of the pious and learned ones.


this is basically the exact quote from bodhidharma that huineng is using here. it says the same thing.


“…all sutras and scriptures of the Mahayana and Hinayana schools, as well as the twelve sections of the canonical writings, were provided to suit the different needs and temperaments of various people.” - Expedient Means

yes, and who taught the small vehicle doctrine? the buddha. who taught mahayana? the buddha. one who saw his nature. expedient means is only so in the proper hands, unless a student has the capacity to realize by themselves- which is usually one in a million.

[taai gihk yahn]

it's basically like when I do PT w/people, I introduce them to the "secret" of good PT, or as I like to call it, the Goldilocks Principle: not too hard, not too easy, just right; the funny thing is, is that while it's very easy to find "too hard" and "too easy", finding "just right" is a bit more difficult - in a way, it's defined more by what it's NOT (too hard / easy) than what it is...

in a more classical sense, teacher and student when they come together meet like two arrows meeting in mid-flight - when the arrows meet, there is teaching / learning; when they miss, both the teacher and the student are "dead"
<sites Scott, draws bow...>

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi LFJ,

Thank you for continuing our stimulating conversation!


of course they themselves arent it, but if a teacher has not at least tasted their nature, how can they point toward "it"? and if a student does not have such good roots, how can they know "all things come from mind, and therefore point to mind"?

There is nothing that is not IT. All phenomena are IT. All phenomena are Buddha Mind therefore all phenomena point to Buddha Mind! No teacher is necessary, yet all teachers, even the incompetent ones demonstrate Buddha Nature whether they do so intentionally or not.

Master Chih says, “All behaviors and activities are enlightenment.” – Tun-huang texts, Record III, #87

“Mind is the Buddha, while the cessation of conceptual thought is the Way.” - The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Wan Ling Record, #2

Master Hung says: “All behavior and activity are Thusness. Seeing forms and hearing sound are also Thusness. In fact, all dharmas are Thusness… If you understand the Thusness of all dharmas, then you are a Tathagata. The sutra says: ‘Sentient beings are Thusness. Worthies and sages are also Thusness. All dharmas are also Thusness.’” – Tun-huang texts, Record III, #73

“Enter deeply into it , in all its fullness, [B]by awakening to it yourself. That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete.

It is pure Mind, which is the source of everything…– The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Chun Chou Record, #8

“He who, without relying one the teaching of a master, sees Dharma from events is called one of sharp abilities. He who understands from the spoken teachings of a master is called one of dull abilities. – Tun-huang texts, Record I, #24

“It is wrong to insist that without the advice of the pious and learned we cannot obtain liberation.” – Hui-neng

“…the Way of the Buddhas is as dangerous to you as the way of demons...Those who seek Dharma must not seek from the Buddha, nor from the Dharma, nor from the Sangha. They should seek from nowhere. When the Buddha is not sought, there is no Buddha to be found! When the Dharma is not sought, there is no Dharma to be found! When the Sangha is not sought, there is no Sangha to be found!” - The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Wan Ling Record, #9

When one conceives the “need” for a teacher one creates obstruction to direct perception of Buddha Mind!

“’Buddha’ and ‘sentient beings’ are both your own false conceptions. It is because you do not know real Mind that you delude yourselves with such objective concepts. If you WILL conceive a Buddha YOU WILL BE OBSTRUCTED BY THAT BUDDHA!!! And when you conceive of sentient beings, you will be obstructed by those beings. All such dualistic concepts as ’ignorant’ and ‘Enlightened’, ‘pure’ and impure’ are obstructions.” - The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Wan Ling Record, #5

“Because false views are the same as correct views, the bodhisattva is immobile... and it is unnecessary to reject the false to seek the correct….because it is unnecessary for him to reject the false to enter the correct…" – Tun-huang texts, Record I, #29

“You do not see that THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE OF THE DHARMA IS THAT THERE ARE NO DHARMAS, YET THAT THIS DOCTRINE OF NO-DHARMA IS IN ITSELF A DHARMA; AND NOW THAT THE NO-DHARMA DOCTRINE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED, HOW CAN THE DOCTRINE OF THE DHARMA BE A DHARMA?” – The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Chun Chou Record, #36



yes, and who taught the small vehicle doctrine? the buddha. who taught mahayana? the buddha. one who saw his nature. expedient means is only so in the proper hands, unless a student has the capacity to realize by themselves- which is usually one in a million.

Actually "expedient means" is entirely within the eye of the beholder. When any phenomena awakens one to Buddha Mind, or stimulates deeper insight, it is an "expedient means". It need not even come from a teacher, for since all phenomena are Buddha Mind, all phenomena IS the Buddha and all phenomena reflect Buddha. Since we awaken ourselves, it is Buddha awakening Buddha to Buddha. In essence nothing occurs and nothing is attained.

This conversation IS Dharma, this conversation is Buddha Mind playing with Buddha Mind, but no one can GIVE anyone else that realization. Even pointing to it is useless if one is not able to perceive it for themselves. Yet that "not" perceiving it, is the same as perceiving it because Buddha mind does not hold to distinctions.

So as I mentioned to TGY previously, it is "Nothing doing nothing to nothing!" Nothing is gained, nothing is lost, nothing happened, and no one experienced it!

One in a million is an exaggeration for effect, and means it is rare, but also admits it is NOT impossible. However, even if we accepted it as a statistical fact that means there are nearly 7,000 of these individuals alive today!

We should also be very cautious not to take any specific teaching too literally!

“Above all it is essential not to select some particular teaching suited to a certain occasion, and being impressed by its forming part of the written canon, regard it as an immutable concept. Why so? Because in truth there is no unalterable Dharma which the Tathagata could have preached.” – The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Chun Chou Record, #30

“If you only rid yourselves of the concepts of ordinary and Enlightened, you would find there is no other Buddha than the Buddha in your own Mind.” – The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, The Chun Chou Record, #31

[Scott R. Brown]

it's basically like when I do PT w/people, I introduce them to the "secret" of good PT, or as I like to call it, the Goldilocks Principle: not too hard, not too easy, just right; the funny thing is, is that while it's very easy to find "too hard" and "too easy", finding "just right" is a bit more difficult - in a way, it's defined more by what it's NOT (too hard / easy) than what it is...

It is not quite the same because when you assist someone in therapy they are gaining something they cannot provide for themselves. And these actions are conditional actions that rely upon other conditional phenomena in order for anything to actually happen.

With Buddha Mind, there is inherently no teacher and no student, and therefore no teaching and no learning. Each of these are just distinctions made by deluded minds or rather as I prefer to view it, as Mind at play. I do not consider delusion a negative condition, merely a condition with no positive or negative value attached.

Inherently deluded and enlightened do not exist, they are just a game Buddha Mind plays. I do not like the general implication of some Buddhist thought, that delusion is somehow a lesser state of being. Delusion is Buddha Mind playing with itself, that is all.

It is like a computer RPG. The player is not really a super secret invincible ninja. They are merely "playing" one. How much they identify with the "pretend character" determines their level of delusion within that game. If they completely forget they are playing a character, they are so immersed within the game, they are totally deluded. But when they come to themselves and remember they are just playing a temporary, artifically constructed character within an artificially constructed game, they are enlightened to the truth and are able to play the game with more freedom and enjoyment.

Within the game players and NPC's die, but in "reality" no one truly dies. Only an artificially constructed, temporary character dies. If your character dies, he either respawns or you start a new game. The "character" dies NOT the player!

Within the game, some win and some lose, but in reality no one loses anything and winning only occurs within the context of the artificially constructed rules of that particular game.


in a more classical sense, teacher and student when they come together meet like two arrows meeting in mid-flight - when the arrows meet, there is teaching / learning; when they miss, both the teacher and the student are "dead"

On the one hand I know of the existence of no teachers, on the other hand, everything is a teacher, because everything is Buddha Mind! You are my teacher, I am your teacher, my job, the sun, the rain, the grass, etc. are all my teachers because they are all constructions of my mind.

But it is up to each one of us to learn for ourselves what we are teaching ourselves. Inherently it is fairly easy to do once one learns that all perceptions are reflections of our own mind and that our own mind is a reflection of Buddha Mind. So, what I think of you, of life, of LFJ, of my wife, my children, my boss, my work, my life, etc so on and so forth is all a reflection of my own Mind. what I experience and perceive and how I choose to interpret it tells me very little about anything OUT THERE, since it is all inherently an illusion constructed by my own mind. But since it is an illusion constructed by my own ind it does tell me a whole lot about what is IN HERE, in my mind, so to speak!


<sites Scott, draws bow...>

Can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man!:p

[BoulderDawg]

It is not quite the same because when you assist someone in therapy they are gaining something they cannot provide for themselves. And these actions are conditional actions that rely upon other conditional phenomena in order for anything to actually happen.

With Buddha Mind, there is inherently no teacher and no student, and therefore no teaching and no learning. Each of these are just distinctions made by deluded minds or rather as I prefer to view it, as Mind at play. I do not consider delusion a negative condition, merely a condition with no positive or negative value attached.

Inherently deluded and enlightened do not exist, they are just a game Buddha Mind plays. I do not like the general implication of some Buddhist thought, that delusion is somehow a lesser state of being. Delusion is Buddha Mind playing with itself, that is all.

It is like a computer RPG. The player is not really a super secret invincible ninja. They are merely "playing" one. How much they identify with the "pretend character" determines their level of delusion within that game. If they completely forget they are playing a character, they are so immersed within the game, they are totally deluded. But when they come to themselves and remember they are just playing a temporary, artifically constructed character within an artificially constructed game, they are enlightened to the truth and are able to play the game with more freedom and enjoyment.

Within the game players and NPC's die, but in "reality" no one truly dies. Only an artificially constructed, temporary character dies. If your character dies, he either respawns or you start a new game. The "character" dies NOT the player!

Within the game, some win and some lose, but in reality no one loses anything and winning only occurs within the context of the artificially constructed rules of that particular game.



On the one hand I know of the existence of no teachers, on the other hand, everything is a teacher, because everything is Buddha Mind! You are my teacher, I am your teacher, my job, the sun, the rain, the grass, etc. are all my teachers because they are all constructions of my mind.

But it is up to each one of us to learn for ourselves what we are teaching ourselves. Inherently it is fairly easy to do once one learns that all perceptions are reflections of our own mind and that our own mind is a reflection of Buddha Mind. So, what I think of you, of life, of LFJ, of my wife, my children, my boss, my work, my life, etc so on and so forth is all a reflection of my own Mind. what I experience and perceive and how I choose to interpret it tells me very little about anything OUT THERE, since it is all inherently an illusion constructed by my own mind. But since it is an illusion constructed by my own ind it does tell me a whole lot about what is IN HERE, in my mind, so to speak!

Can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man!:p

What does all of that have to do with banging hot white women?:eek:

[Lucas]

Banging hot white women is in accordance with the way as long as you arent caught up on banging hot white women. when you bang a hot white women simply because the act of banging is what is happening at that time, and the fact of her being a hot white women is not a concern, then you are truly banging hot white women along the path of truth!

[Scott R. Brown]

What does all of that have to do with banging hot white women?:eek:

I don't know a thing about banging white women, my wife is Asian! :D

[LFJ]

There is nothing that is not IT. All phenomena are IT. All phenomena are Buddha Mind therefore all phenomena point to Buddha Mind! No teacher is necessary, yet all teachers, even the incompetent ones demonstrate Buddha Nature whether they do so intentionally or not.

i cant disagree with that, or any of your supporting quotes. and i dont think i have.

my point is only that those who dont see their nature but teach as if they do calling it "expedient means", even though their very act of teaching (actually any action) is buddha, not only gain no benefit from it but also do not benefit others who are equally as unaware that their own mind is buddha. unless that person has very strong roots, they are both sitting in the dark and only sink.

so while expedient means is unlimited, clearly not everything amounts to it at all times. the requirement as you stated is that it awakens one to buddha mind, or stimulates deeper insight- which is what i've been trying to say.


One in a million is an exaggeration for effect, and means it is rare, but also admits it is NOT impossible.

right, its funny we both used the exact same quote. i from bodhidharma. you from huineng. they both said if we fail to understand by ourselves we'll have to find a teacher. also, they both used the same word for "teacher"- which defined by bodhidharma is one who sees their nature. it is indeed rare that one should be able to understand by themselves, but never impossible.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi LFJ,

It is clinging that causes delusion/ignorance. This means clinging of any kind, including clinging to ideas, concepts and teachings.

If this is true, then it cannot be said that anything is "necessary", including teachers. All teachings are provisional and conditionally based.

Remember, Hui-neng said:

"...it is by our innate wisdom that we enlighten ourselves and even the extraneous help and instruction of a pious and learned friend would be of no use if we were deluded by false doctrines and erroneous views."

While teachers may be helpful, this comment implies that teachers, and thereby teachings, are also useless, because we are enlightened by "our innate wisdom".

By clinging to the idea of "the requirement” or “need" for a teacher, or even a teaching, we create that need. That need does not exist, if we do not create it through our conceptualization.

All concepts and ideas are conditionally based, that is, their reality is founded upon dependent arising. When “hot” arises, “cold” mutually arises, when “teachers” arise, “students” mutually arises. When we do not recognize “hot” as “hot”, “cold” too disappears. When we do not recognize “teachers” as “teachers”, “students" too disappear. Thus when we do not recognize wise as “wise”, “ignorance” disappears.

Teachers are only teachers if we decide they are teachers. That is, teachers are part of a conditionally based duality. By insisting/clinging to the idea of a necessity for a teacher then we create their need and existence. By neither acknowledging, nor negating, the need, requirement, or presence of a teacher, we take one more step towards freeing our minds from the bondage of conceptualization.

We are to free ourselves of clinging, that is “holding on to” anything at all. No one can do that for us. If you are holding a flower in your hand, in order for YOU to let go of it, YOU must let go of it. If another takes if from you, YOU did not let it go, and conversely, if someone hands it to you, YOU must grasp it in order for you to HAVE it.

We create our own delusion/ignorance by our own clinging, and no one can let it go for us. We must let go ourselves!

[uki]

We must let go ourselves!let go and float away like a wittle itsy-bitsy teeny weenie dandelion seed in a hurricane...

[Scott R. Brown]

let go and float away like a wittle itsy-bitsy teeny weenie dandelion seed in a hurricane...

Or "Dust in the Wind"!

[uki]

Or "Dust in the Wind"!yeah, but dust doesn't sprout into the weedy little flowers of dharma... :p

[Scott R. Brown]

yeah, but dust doesn't sprout into the weedy little flowers of dharma... :p

You mean those beautiful little yellow flowers, whose leaves may be used in salads and roots for medicinal tea? Whose seeds children all over the world find joy in blowing in the wind? Those beautiful little yellow dharma flowers?:)

[uki]

You mean those beautiful little yellow flowers, whose leaves may be used in salads and roots for medicinal tea? Whose seeds children all over the world find joy in blowing in the wind? Those beautiful little yellow dharma flowers?yep... they're the ones. :D

[LFJ]

It is clinging that causes delusion/ignorance. This means clinging of any kind, including clinging to ideas, concepts and teachings.

If this is true, then it cannot be said that anything is "necessary", including teachers. All teachings are provisional and conditionally based.

Remember, Hui-neng said:

"...it is by our innate wisdom that we enlighten ourselves and even the extraneous help and instruction of a pious and learned friend would be of no use if we were deluded by false doctrines and erroneous views."

While teachers may be helpful, this comment implies that teachers, and thereby teachings, are also useless, because we are enlightened by "our innate wisdom".

By clinging to the idea of "the requirement” or “need" for a teacher, or even a teaching, we create that need. That need does not exist, if we do not create it through our conceptualization.

..............

its not so necessary to overanalyze this. it is very simple. this quote by huineng basically follows what was said before.

bodhidharma/ huineng make three main points here:

1) if one fails to understand by themselves, they must find a good teacher.

2) that teacher must see their nature, otherwise they are no good teacher.

and now;

3) if we dont follow that teacher's instruction, it is completely useless.

this third point is only saying that just hearing it is not enough if we continue with our previous habits. we must do it. we must make the effort. the teaching is only useless if we dont follow it.

the korean seon master seung sahn was once asked by his students;

"teacher, you always say the same thing. you always teach the same thing. always the.. same.. teaching. why do you always say the.. same.. thing?"

master seung sahn replied;

"yes, i always say the same thing. but nobody ever really hears it or follows it."

[uki]

the true teacher is found within ourselves...

[Drake]

Uki, did you happen to write the script for the last two Matrix movies?

Or did you know what you must know, as knowing will be what leads you to know... WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW!

[uki]

Or did you know what you must know, as knowing will be what leads you to know... WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW!all i know is that each of us has all the answers we seek in life. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi LFJ,

Well I would say that you are the one that is over-analyzing. It is clear you are trying very hard to make the quote say what you want it to say, because it does not agree with The Blood Sutra. There is no need to resolve the conflicts in these sutras. All Sutras and teachings are merely provisional and by being provisional they will of necessity teach what appears to be opposing principles. Provisional means not set in stone, not firmly established. Each of them is an expedient means and each one is subject to the clinging of readers who overly attach themselves to their teachings. No teaching is indispensable.

Understanding does not come from the sutras or teachers it comes from direct perception.

I am certainly not trying to insist that anyone should NOT have a teacher. However, attachment to ANYTHING binds us to delusion. That includes attachment to the need for a teacher or any particular teaching. Reinterpreting any teaching to say what we want it to say is indicative of attachment.

I am only using quotes here because it appears you appreciate them, for referring to sutras and teachings are unnecessary where there is direct perception/experience. I would not expect anyone to fully understand anything until they have direct perception/experience.

Teachings should not be taken too literally or they lead to further clinging. When we attach ourselves to teachers and teachings we mistake the finger for the moon, which is why they are considered provisional. There are many ways to point, which is expedient means. Fixed teachings of any kind bind the mind to delusion.

There are no teachings! There are no teachers. Until this is understood one is bound by the teachings and by teachers.

One of the salient points of the Diamond Sutra is that phenomena are NOT the labels we use to designate them. Thus, teachers are not teachers, they are just CALLED teachers! Teachings are not teachings, they are just CALLED teachings.

The Diamond Sutra:

“….there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the consummation of incomparable enlightenment.”

“…there is actually no formula for the attainment of the consummation of incomparable enlightenment.”

Fixed teachings are formulas. The Blood Sutra is a formula; The Sutra of Hui-neng is a formula; The Diamond Sutra is a formula. Stating a teaching or teacher is necessary is a formula.

Lin Chi:

"Outside the mind there is no Dharma, and even inside the mind it cannot be grasped. So what is there to seek for?"

"Seeking Buddha, seeking Dharma - that's just creating karma that leads to hell. Seeking the bodhisattva - that too is creating karma. Studying sutras, studying doctrine - that too is creating karma."

“Students don’t have enough faith in themselves, and so they rush around looking for something outside themselves. But even if they get something, all it will be is words and phrases, pretty appearances.”

“If you want to be no different from the patriarchs and the Buddhas, then never look for something outside yourselves.”

“A true student of the Way never concerns himself with the Buddha, never concerns himself with bodhisattvas or arhats…..”

“Neither in this world nor in any other world is there any Buddha or any Dharma.”

“Followers of the Way, don’t be too taken with my pronouncements either. Why? Because pronouncements are without basis or underpinning, something painted for a time on empty sky, as in the simile of the painter with his colors.”

“Bodhisattvas and arhats are all so many cangues and chains, things for fettering people.”

Followers of the Way, don’t search for anything in written words.”

“Seek the Buddha and you’ll lose the Buddha. Seek the Way and you’ll lose the Way. Seek the patriarchs and you’ll lose the patriarchs.”

[uki]

Understanding does not come from the sutras or teachers it comes from direct perception.it's amazing how many people fail to understand this...

[Scott R. Brown]

it's amazing how many people fail to understand this...

Well I think LFJ will need to speak to that for himself, but it appears to me he understands that, he just believes that one must have a teacher point it out for them, or at least that most people need it pointed out to them.

This appears to be a very prevalent belief amongst followers of the Ch'an tradition.

It is absolutely unnecessary, but you can't convince people of this. They must learn it for themselves. But then this is true of any direct knowledge experience. I can tell you what an orange tastes like, but that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.

Until you taste an orange for yourself, at best you can be an expert on what others have said about the taste of an orange. But even then, once you taste an orange, your ability to communicate that experience to others will be limited by your ability to communicate. And no communication ability supersedes that actual taste of an orange!

[uki]

well i am glad i know what this orange tastes like. :D

[David Jamieson]

it's amazing how many people fail to understand this...

How many people fail to understand it?

I personally don't find it amazing at all. People don't want to apply these principles to their own living.

Why do you think they don't want to be able to do that?
Why do people not want to heal themselves and be better people?

That's what is more amazing to me. People know they have answers within, but many don't bother to go looking there. :)

It's normal I think. Many simply want to be loved and taken care of. They want to be brought back into the safety of their childhood to some extent and not take responsibility for themselves or their lives in general.

It's too hard I guess. no ego stroke, no gummy bear reward, just more fetch wood carry water.

Actually, I am more understanding of why people are intellectually, spiritually and philosophically lazy than why they aren't.

people who take on the burden of sustaining themselves are few and far between.

[LFJ]

Hi LFJ,

Well I would say that you are the one that is over-analyzing. It is clear you are trying very hard to make the quote say what you want it to say, because it does not agree with The Blood Sutra. There is no need to resolve the conflicts in these sutras.

actually the previous quote was also said by huineng.

first, if we fail to understand by ourselves we will have to find a teacher. and then later, that their instruction would be useless if we remain attached to our false views.

what conflict do you see in this? all i see is that you must do it. there's nothing the teacher can give you.

thats the first thing my teacher said to me meeting before chan class. he said "what do you want to learn?" "there is nothing i have that i can give you."

i understand his point. so no, i dont see a conflict between the two statements.


Understanding does not come from the sutras or teachers it comes from direct perception.

which is why it doesnt stop with just the first quote, that if we fail to understand on our own we will need to find a teacher. but also that their instruction is useless if we dont use it to point at our practice, to look at what we are.


Well I think LFJ will need to speak to that for himself, but it appears to me he understands that, he just believes that one must have a teacher point it out for them, or at least that most people need it pointed out to them.

i only said if one fails to understand on their own, which is the quote of bodhidharma and huineng.

but that most people need it pointed out to them, that comes from an observation of most religious practitioners i meet. whether buddhist or other. many times its all about accumulation of knowledge- from the study of their religious texts or whatever it is. in most traditions people make a habit of turning it into an intellectual pursuit. but thats a human.

how many people do you know that really live like that? david jamieson makes a point here.


This appears to be a very prevalent belief amongst followers of the Ch'an tradition.

It is absolutely unnecessary, but you can't convince people of this. They must learn it for themselves. But then this is true of any direct knowledge experience. I can tell you what an orange tastes like, but that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.

in my experience of the chan tradition, i've never had a teacher try to explain to me what an orange tastes like. have you?

all they ever do is bite into it and smile. so they encourage our practice and show us a direction. but thats all. and that in itself is not interesting.

anyhow, as you say: that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.

you've restated the quote and same explanation. but still you want to say we are somehow in disagreement, or that there is some "conflict" there. ?

[Scott R. Brown]

Well I guess I owe you an apology LFJ! Apparently I have misunderstood you. I appreciate your patience re-explaining to me your opinion!

My apologies to you!:)