Please help, bit contraversial but i'd like honest opinions

[bungle]

Hi
I'm new here and i have a few niggling doubts about modern day shaolin i'd like to sort out in my head. I don't currently practice a martial art but i have been considering shaolin merely because of what i have read about it. Up until recently i thought shaolin must be the dogs bollocks. Movies, fan sites and certain info on the web all point to shaolin as being truly spectacular. Even my teachers at lau gar traced their roots to the shaolin temple.

I began to doubt modern views on shaolin after reading "barefoot zen". This made me look into buddhism more deeply. That hasn't helped either. I wonder if you guys encountered similar problems and convinced your self otherwise?

The questions are:
1. What do you guys think of barefoot zen?
2. Buddhists, arn't they supposed to be non violent and yet they train with weapons etc...
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?
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?
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?

Thanks for any help. I am a bit of a beginner when it comes to shaolin knowledge so please go easy. I really don't have a fixed point of view, even though it seems like it some of the time.

One last thing. Please try to be objective and honest. I know it is hard to be objective about things you love and dedicate your life to.

[bodhitree]

The way I understand it (which may not count for much) is that the first thing developed at shaolin was Yi Jin Jing. It was created to improve the health of the monks, however they discovered the side effects that it made them stronger. At that time in China there were warlords, outlaws and bandits, so the Kung Fu was practiced not by all the monks, but by some and there goal was altruistic defence and not defence of self. I have read some monks then left the temple and used there fighting skills for selfish reasons, so they became more discriminant in the moral qualities of the monks they chose to teach to. As for the rest I don't know

[wall]

1. don't know too much about it.

2. yes, however Shaolin developed somewhat detached, as it permitted a number of teachings, and adopted a number of rules, which were/are not completely aligned with mainstream Buddism. Such as combat training, weapons, eating meat, etc.
Combat training and weapons were however dispensed in a very "Buddist" way, meaning they were to be used solely for defense and to protect the weak, not for aggression or to exert control.

3. no, in fact Shaolin today seems to be quite embroiled in serious corruption, ranging from dilution of content to government control to tourist interests shaping Shaolin evolution. Fear not however, in the current generations of monks there are still quite a few "true" Shaolin monks, possessing substantial traditional martial arts knowledge and skill.

4. can't say, but Shaolin was there long before and has survived long after.

5. Shaolin martial arts started as physical exercises for standing meditation and post-meditation recovery and health, but gradually evolved towards total control of the body, for the purpose of meditation, fortitude, and defense of the temple against bandits and other assorted nasties which were rather common back then.

Hope that helps

[bungle]

thanks. I like the way your put that. The main niggling doubt is the evidence from barefoot zen. The author looked at some core sets from karate and white crane kung fu and realised they worked much better as grappling sets. He basically says the sets contained techniques for two man meditation using sticky hands. He goes into some lovely detail on why and how this exercise is beneficial for zen monks.

I have asked people about this book before though and i realised it is best not to judge the book until you have read it.

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?

[bungle]

that first reply was to bodhitree. thanks wall.

Good points. It seems that the current shaolin monks could be under the illusion that they are practicing genuine shaolin kung fu. The author seems to think the corruption goes all the way back to the first burning of the temple.

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?

http://www.zenshorindo.com/
It's not as good as the book but still, things are explained to an extent here for those who havn't read the book. Vids are interesting...

[wall]

Bungle,

I believe there is written (manuscripts) and artistic (as in mural paintings and sculptures/engravings) evidence of the monks practicing martial arts and engaging in combat, dating to well before the first burning of the temple.

I cannot recall exact dates and I'm at work (thus away from books right now ) but I'm quite sure some manuscripts and paintings survived the burning(s) and are therefore much older.
Thus I guess that there is unrefutable evidence of the monks genuine martial studies and their accomplishments in that field, beyond the anecdotal evidence.

Weather what we see today is a gradual "corruption" of the original ..... well I think noone could truly tell us that: after all, the line itself between 'corruption' and 'natural change' is very blurred when we are talking about something that has evolved for many centuries under drastically evolving times, regimes, lifestyles, politics, etc.

Certainly the monks at Shaolin developed amazing physical disciplines, firstly for meditation and recovery, then for fortitude of body and mind, and subsequently for defense.
Certainly they achieved amazing prowess, successfully engaging in combat to defend themselves and others (including an emperor), and introducing a discipline which then spread through the population, reaching all corners of Asia (in various modified forms).
Certainly this disciplines survived and evolved over many centuries, sometimes promoted others repressed, sometimes improved others corrupted. And they made it to today, perhaps somewhat altered but certainly alive and never more globally popular.

I guess anything else other than the above certainties will be forever a source of speculation, controversy, debate and uncertainty. Like a lot of things in martial arts, and like a lot of things which are thousands of years old

Wall

[bungle]

yeah, i wouldn't mind training in shaolin kung fu. I read the book though and it left me in doubt. I decided i had a choice to make between the two. That's why i'm on these forums looking for answers. I would love to hear from someone who has read the book and who could refute all the author has said. The next best thing would be a simple opinion from someone who has also read the book.

For those who havn't read the book, do you think these murals could of depicted the sticky hand sets? Any links to evidence of martial art activity before the first burning? If any of you are interested i could write the authors points straight out of his book for you to refute. It would take a while...Depends if you guys are really interested. I guess most of you have little doubt and are pretty content.

[MasterKiller]

As far as I know, the first major burning was in 845 A.D.

In 621 A.D., however, 13 monks rescued Emperor Li ShiMin, the proof of which is a carved tablet from the emperor located at Shaolin giving the monks certain rights, such as drinking wine and eating meat.

If my dates are correct, then Martial Arts were present at Shaolin at least 200 years before the first destruction.

At the end of the day...what difference does it make?

Studying kung fu makes me more complete, more healthy, and more intune with myself.

Even if smurfs from Uzbakistan invented Shaolin Kung Fu in 1973, it still does not take diminish the effects I feel through practice.

As for your original questions:

1. Never read barefoot zen.

2. The Shaolin monks kill in battle to "send the souls of their enemies to heaven"; that is, to kill them before they do evil to others and corrupt themselves. One must chose between the lesser of two evils. As a Buddhist, you are also responsible for what you don't do. That is, if you don't try to stop a bad thing from occurring you are also responsible for it's consequences.

3. Did the shaolin temple escape this corruption? I don't think every monk who ever donned a robe had good intentions. Do a search for Pak Mei.

4. It's possible.

5. In the West, we tend to think of meditation as a devotional exercise in contemplation of spirituality. Ch'an simplifies this concept considerably. Meditation simply means to be fully aware of the moment. This is not as easy as it appears. Your mind is always processing your sense perceptions, constantly contributing to mental noise. We all have that internal dialog, which inhibits our complete awareness of the moment with a head filled with presumptions and distractions. To be in the moment, all of these delusions dissolve and what remains is what it is. This is why doing nothing and practicing kung fu (in a sense doing everything) can both be acts of meditation. To a Ch'an Buddhist, any act can be meditation if you are in the moment. Although these paths may seem totally different, ultimately they are one and the same.

[weightvest]

Hi, I am quite new to this forum and I 'd like to answer these questions. I have so often seen people connect kungfu with violence of Shaolin. The key is working out EXACTLY what kungfu is/was for us and them.

1. What do you guys think of barefoot zen?

I have no idea what that is.

2. Buddhists, arn't they supposed to be non violent and yet they train with weapons etc...

The key to buddhism is that you can't be buddhist and call yourself buddhist. That is a contradiciton. The way of buddhism is to understand to "be" and that life just "is" - to call yourself a Buddhist is to label and therefore no longer just "be". The other part is then understanding what is a "fight"? To me a fight is anything that is a conflict: an argument, paying bills on time (the hardest fight of all!), the general hardships of life. Kungfu as practised by the Shaolin was a discpline. They lived by it day and night. It was their way. It was discipline in getting up at 5am (ouch!) and not being grmpuy about it, it was labouring all day long, using the forms and movements as best how to workout achieving success in "life". For example, in our world getting a parking ticket could be expressed as a punch. It is a punch we cannot defeat by physical strength, but by mental/emotional strength... in modern combat, if a good hit is coming and you know it, and you know you aren't strong enough to defeat it, what do you do? Move out of the way. So, upon getting the parking ticket, how not to get angry? Strength of mind and emotion to just be able to "let it go", to let the pain of getting the ticket go past you and forget about it. this is the way Shaolin used kungfu. By becoming adept in these arts, they could shed the biggest burdens we as humans have - fear, guilt, anger, sadness. When we reach emotional harmony, we don't cause harm to others anyway, so these four emotions are simply products. All emotions that cause us problems every day - yet how many schools have you seen that encourage anger and fear, practsing screaming, angry face, smash plank HOMER MAAAD! yet we all know deep inside not one of the master we ever see becomes agry or fearful. Instead he remains calm, almost emotionless. This then must be what a true master is, one who has mastered HIMSELF (or herself, excet my woman's a bit moody so good luck to her!) - has mastered his emotions.

Therefore, Shaolin now have two skills: emotional mastery and in your question "weapons" mastery. They could then make the decision to handle any situation as necessary.

Did they just jump in and cut off peoples heads? Not likely (unlike now when every Shaolin teacher i meet screams "I am Wong Fei Hung... DIIEEEEEEEE")

So they could then give time to decide the purest action to take for the given circumstance. In life, good and evil do not physically exist, everything lives in perpective.

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?

Not all of them. They were human afterall, just as prone to weakness as the next man. However, as you probably know, those that escaped the final corruption (burning) went underground to become our modern day Triads.

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?

Of course. What doesn't effect Shaolin? I haven't met a single Shaolin teacher who doesn't think he's immune to bullets. Plus we all percieve Shaolin to be some supreme art intended only for beating the daylights out of someone. It wasn't and is not, when studied correctly (see above bit).

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?

Haven't read barefoot zen, but again excercise in kungfu is buddhism: perspective. It depends on what you want. fopr example, a long distance runner needs to work aeorbically; a sprinter needs to work anaerobically (is that the right way round?). While the art has some reflection on level of fitness, you can practise any art for the purpose you so desire: e.g The forms in Chin Woo can be practised for performance, therefore you need to practise fitness in them for competition. you may, on the toher hand, want it for burst fighting, in which case you can practsie it hard and fast (not being technically correct, just giving example).

Hope this helps in some shape or form.

[bungle]

yes thanks guys. You cleared a lot of things up. Looks like i'll give the old shaolin a go. See what i think. Only problem is, i'm in leicester, UK and shi Yanzi is in London UK which makes a little bit difficult...

Thanks guys. Oh and if you guys happen to read barefoot zen if you could post a review, i'd be grateful.

[weightvest]

Geeze-Louise you got it easy! I have to fly out from Australia to UK twice a year to get my lessons!

[sweaty_dog]

"In 621 A.D., however, 13 monks rescued Emperor Li ShiMin, the proof of which is a carved tablet from the emperor located at Shaolin giving the monks certain rights, such as drinking wine and eating meat."

I have heard this as well. The thing is, if some Catholic priests rescue the president from terrorists, and he says they can ignore their vows of chastity, does that mean it's OK with God for all the priests from their seminary to sleep around? Eating meat, drinking and fighting seem pretty **** "un Buddhist" to me. As far as I can tell Shaolin monks were like the Christian priests that used to go into battle, but used clubs to kill people so they weren't technically "drawing blood". You can try to bend religious teaching however you like, but priests are still not meant to do that stuff.

[MasterKiller]

Eating meat, drinking and fighting seem pretty **** "un Buddhist" to me.

The Buddha died from eating bad meat. Was he being un-buddhist when he ate it?

Meat and wine should be avoided, but you're not going to burn in hell for doing it, whether you are a priest or not. Even Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, it's what comes out. It's not like they were given permission to screw little boys....that would make them Catholics.

And even though killing is wrong, you have a right to protect yourself from danger.

[GeneChing]

I'll address those original questions.

1. I haven't read barefoot zen, but I remember Zen Shaolin Karate - it was such an odd title mixing Japanese and Chinese, kind of like alfredo teriyaki ravioli. I'll take a look at it as soon as someone kicks me down a free copy.

2. The violent/nonviolent paradox is always tricky for the Shaolin sect or any sect of monastic warriors (there are many others beyond Shaolin.) The easy out is taking Bodhidharma literally. The reason we are supposed to kill is because all sentient being possess Buddha nature, but Bodhidharma beleived in icchantikas - beings that were so wrapped up in illusion that they couldn't attain Buddha nature - they could be killed. Of course, this is the easy out and it's completely wrong. A more palpable solution is the warrior as a metaphor. A more mythic solution is manifestations of Manjushri.

3. There is a lot of corruption in all religions. The spiritual path is the razors edge, and many of us get cut along the way. Shaolin certainly has not escaped that. But corruption does not invalidate a religion or we'd have nothing left to beleive in.

4. The Qing was actually pretty anti-Shaolin. Actually, it was against any organized group that was not their own, so all sorts of religions fell prey to their domination. If anything, the influence of the Qing exhalted Shaolin as a righteous rebel.

5. Again, I haven't read barefoot zen. Perhaps I should. It sounds funny.

[bungle]

Thanks guys. Gene in your answer to the qing question. I was reffering to the underground nationalists that formed such groups as the triads and white lotus.

I'd be very interested to know what you thought of barefoot zen. Take a quick look at the site, it explains the basics. They do three sets. Originally the sets were thought to be block strike sets but the author believes they're grappling sets. His book is a lot more convincing however. He does seem to know what he's talking about...

http://www.zenshorindo.com/

You can see the three sets they use and how they use them in the vid section.

If any of you are interested maybe we could start a new thread where we can look at the authors arguments. At the end of the day he is in directly saying shaolin kung fu today has gone way off track and isn't really in line with buddhism.