Buddhism is NOT a religion
I saw you all discussing about what are "sins" in Buddhism. The true study of Buddhism is not a religion at all, it cannot have "sins".
True Buddhism is the reality that life just "is". Buddhism has no sins, it has no label, and is most certainly not a religion.
Buddhism defines the state that we are, to just "be". The moment you classify Busshism, or even if someone were to call themselves a Buddhist, then the entire purpose and what Buddhism means goes out the window.
A brilliant book to read is "Sermon on the Mount" by Emmet Fox. He goes in depth about how Chrisitanity and Buddhism in their true states cannot be defined, as they are formless, and so most certaionly cannot be contained in any definition of what they are.
Untouched, raw human emotion has no desire to hurt or kill. The only reason these things are required is because of "fear", out instinct to survive. Buddhism is about losing "unnatural" desires, to find our core emotion, which when unaffected sees no cause for fear, therefore no cause for violence.
Yet at the same time, Buddhism absolutely accepts things we consider as "bad". Why? Because life just is.
I believe kungfu is hindered so much in our day and age because we are always trying to "define" things, to give it "meaning" or "purpose". We fear not having things to hold on to. Take a look at what man has done to religion over time, he was so afraid of not having anything, that suddenly religions were over-run with rules, regulations, definitions. And to what effect? We as true being cannot live by rules, and because of this self-inflicted prison we have put ourselves in, we have become restless, violent, trapped.
And the vicous cycle continues, because the more trapped we feel, the bigger the prison we make for ourselves. Once we realise and accept our own responsibility, the ket ot the prison door, then and only then can we be free.
Kungfu was a tool to express freedom, form from formlessness, formlessness from form.
If you are still looking for thoughts
"1. What do you guys think of barefoot zen?"
I think it has a cute cover that I saw.
"2. Buddhists, arn't they supposed to be non violent and yet they train with weapons etc..."
I heard something relevant to this aren't they, do not kill? The death of many who would kill a hundred times more is saving the lives of those who surely would have died. Thus preserving life.
There was a mention in a talkie, run before hurting. Hurt before maiming. Maim before killing. And if you have to kill...That's terrible, terrible...ah mi to fu~ The talkie this gist might be from is "Kung Fu."
Use a Three-section-staff constantly moving without thinking and without getting hurt. Weapons require attention of the thoughts and improve coordination, perhaps even logical processes.
"3. I'm currently reading an article called the 7 worlds of chan. So far the author made it pretty clear there was a hell a lot of buddhist corruption within china. Did the shaolin temple escape this corruption?"
Even if there was corruption there corruption is lead by few who use good~ principles to get gains. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"4. It makes sense that many of our ideas about shaolin could stem from the nationlistic propaganda of the qing dynasty. Do you think this had any effect on modern day shaolin?"
The Qing dynasty broke the stem of Kung-Fu in China and watched Shao-lin. It seemingly restricted development.
"5. I can see how martial arts can give benefit as a form of physical exercise but the exercises described in barefoot zen seem even more suited to this goal of moving meditation. What do you think?"
"He seemed to think current shaolin is a distortion of the truth which has been promoted by nationalistic chinese. In some ways it is all too easy to understand how and why this might happen too. Can anyone counter his arguments?"
Counter not matter. His arguements might not matter. It is what it is. It was what it was. It is what it was. Propaganda and original intent. Even if both are referred to with a same name they are seperate. You have to listen to the propaganda, yet you can understand the truth~ and deal with that. No matter what is being promoted.
Both could be true, so (needle and thread) there's no refuting and it doesn't matter. This point you bring might not be anything.-ish
"Bandits and the like seems to be the usual reason for the monks to develop a martial art. Although it seems slightly inadequate for some reason. If shaolin was rich why couldn't they hire guards? If they were poor and self suffficient, why the target of bandits?"
Shao lin was not the target of bandits as to why learn defense/fighting. Everyone was subject to bandits. And the monks were pick-off-able when they went Outside the temple~ for alms~ or supplies or whatever monks might be doing outside the monesyary/ temple. And if the monks get killed, then their beliefs practices can't spread~. Therefore dealing with bandit types is within promotion of perhaps almost whatever thoughts they were interested in sharing.
People can be delusional. The greedy and desperate can speculate where to get gains and hard to convince otherwise. Monks are secretive. Some might feel only the rich keep to seclusion to hide their money. They see monks begging and think they scam a lot of money from begging and donations. Idols of gold... symbolic objects (jewel encrusted...)stereotypically people seemed to put more faith/belief value into whatever had great material value. (christian stuff made of gold...using precious jewels and metals people thought of it moreso as special-ish).
Philosophies drove the country. Literature house strategies. Shao-lin perhaps had libraries -ish. People might have paid for these informations.
If monks went wanderiung or even out of the monestary~ they might have to cross into highway person zones of ambush...no passage without payment...And people were killed because there were no immediate consequences and is caused people to be loyal by fear....theoretically perhaps.
Borders: looked at the pictures and read some
I think the author spoke of Kung-Fu and showed Karate. I think that the author wanted to sell a fresh perspective of Karate of the Push-hands claims.
I don't think it looked like T'ai Chi Ch'uan push hands, which is the most common use of which I might be aware.
I saw no White Crane Kung-Fu-ish. A Kata called related to White crane is not necessarily Kung-Fu White Crane (Perhaps it once resembled the Kata but something about being in China it got more fluid/picturesqe--the Japanese prefer Staight basics use now/looks menacing. Those forms seemd Japanese. Japanese is Not Chinese-ish. Shorin-Ryu might be Shaolin. But it's a Snap-shot--one fram in a progressive movie. Barefoot Zen seems to me so far, promotional/position gaining/recognition seeking-ish.
Kara-te Is basics-ish of Chinese works at the time~ perhaps. Japan is an Island. China is a major portion of Half a continent~.
The Japanese take a little information and look at it's parts an study libraries worth on All the little parts-ish. Karate did not have the leisure of China to advance the basics. The author is mixing things up. Saying Shao-lin as if Shaolin for all time when actually merely Shaolin for a Wee Small Point in The totality of Shao-lin.
The hands were not Chinese named. A page with six hands in the book and four in the website. The ones called dragon are in Chinese Mantis or Crane. All the hands refer to grappling (breaking grabs--a juijitsu thing (jujitsu is a Japanese training--again Not Kung-Fu as with which I was baited-ish).
He talks of these Japanese things it seems, wants to include push hands in Shori-Ryu Karate, and names the hands that have Chinese callings something I have not ever heard them called.
I hope the slight redundancy gets across at least some of what about which you might have been wondering.
I should look again at the specific questions you mentioned (that I didn't address~) and others you might have at least as a result of this post. He had a lot to say and it was informational, biased in some way (perhaps),...
I mentioned the inconsistancies to me. I hope I was somewhat on target with at least some of your wonder.~