MA only for fighting?

[apoweyn]

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

again, nicely said.

[ZIM]

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

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

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

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

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and yet buddhism does maintain the belief in reincarnation.

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

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


stuart b.

[Braden]

ghthomason

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

So is kungfu spirituality invalid for people practicing these styles?

[Braden]

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

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

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

[apoweyn]

ghthomason,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

likewise.

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

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

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


stuart b.

[yenhoi]

Ap!

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

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

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

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

[apoweyn]

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

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

so what happens then?

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

[shrug]


stuart b.

[yenhoi]

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

[Braden]

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think they're that different?

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

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

[yenhoi]

Well certainly Im not THE buddha?

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ghthomason


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

i probably shouldn't be laughing at that.

...

but i am.

[Braden]

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

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

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

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

[yenhoi]

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

[apoweyn]

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

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

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


stuart b.