Shaolin Literature

[rik]

Gene wrote:
Jinnaluo is Shaolin specific while Bodhidharma is far more famous because of Chan.
....................
That's a pretty fuzzy statement. The Jinnaluo myth appears to be based on Narayana, a Buddhist guardian-deity/warrior associated with Dharmaspalas (guardians of Buddhist sanctuaries.) Basically Jinnaluo is associated with defense; Bodhidharma with Chan.
r.

[oasis]

Any good refferences to look at for this on Gene? You planning or have you done an article on this. I think it would be a great article, just 'cause of the fact you don't here about him too much (or ever).

Dr. Shahar's Ming Paper actually discusses this figure in good detail. Here's the reference again if you can look up the journal in a college library:

“Ming-Period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 61.2 (December 2001):359-413.

by Dr. Meir Shahar

[norther practitioner]

Thanks....

[rik]

Gene wrote:
"if you look at the historic record, Bodhidharma doesn't play a significant role as a Shaolin icon until the Ming. Prior to Bodhidharma, the patron of Shaolin is Jinnaluo."
................................................

What "historic record" are you talking about????
To say that Bodhidharma didn't play a significant role at Shoalin is the same thing as saying Shaolin was was not a Chan Monastery when in fact it was. The Chan school remained a robust movement during the Song Dynasty and Yuan dynasties.
Chan, Bodhidharma and Shaolin were deeply connected long before the Ming Dynasty.
When Kublai Khan first arrived in China, he became very interested in Chan Buddhism after being introduce to it by two important Chan monks. One was Hai Yun the other was Venerable Fu Yu, Abbot of Shaolin. In 1245 Kublai Khan, as military governer, and his army stayed at Shaolin Si (this is before he became the first Yuan emperor.) To show their gratitude, Kublai and his army helped re-built the monastery, offered land, material support and rice to the Buddhist households . Between 1251 and 1260 Venerable Fu Yu of Shaolin was appointed Director of Buddhism by the Yuan government. In this role he was asked to lead the Buddhists in the famous Buddhist-Taoist controversies debates. The point of all this being that Shaolin was a important state Chan monastery, well before the Ming period, and that it would be incredible if Bodhidharma did not play an important role at Shaolin during that time.

r.

[GeneChing]

Finally, a rise out of you guys. I think a lot of you are reading Dr. Shahar's research and not fully understanding it. Perhaps that's unfair, since I'm privy to more given that I meet with Dr. Shahar every week, but let's have a go at this. Shahar's research may rock our world in terms of self perception - I think those who aren't students of history will be shocked, possibly even dishaeartened, to find that many of our basic assumptions lack any significant evidence and in fact, most ot eh evidence is to the contrary. But then again, anyone who has a basic understanding of history, we will be reaffirmed.

I discussed Jinnaluo in my article The Scholars of Shaolin in the Nov Dec 2003 Shaolin Special, but I also discussed Jinnaluo in a piece I did for Black Belt in Sep 98. to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that Jinnaluo was ever discussed in the Western martial arts. I aslo discussed the Yuan reunification and Fu Yue in a translation that Gigi Oh and I did with Shi Deqian, Meet the Abbots, our Spring 2000 Shaolin Special.

canglong alluded to it well - prior to the Ming, Huineng was considered more of the patriarch of Chan. To some degree, he still is. His platform sutra is more read than Tamo's works. Tamo was clearly the first, but Huineng made more fo an impact and really distilled the teachings of Chan. Now Shaolin certainly venerated Tamo, but he didn't play a significant role until later. FWIW, Dr. Shahar found the earliest extant document of Tamo Yijinjing, and it was 16th century. Apparently you see Tamo Yijinjing in the Taoist traditions earlier, as ironic as that may seem, but you don't see it associated with Shaolin until the 16th. He postulates that the idea of what he is terming quan - the fusion of martial skills with internal and spiritual development - doesn't appear until the Ming. At that time, many of the texts claimed heritage, although those claims were questionable. For example, that 16th century yijinjing has a forward by General Nui Gao (of Yue Fei fame) which is quite obviously forged. When the heritage claims arose, this is quite possibly when the attribution to Tamo starts to appear more significantly at Shaolin.

[rik]

"Shahar's research may rock our world in terms of self perception "

Actually it has been my opinion that the martial arts / defensive art at Shaolin monastery ( and there is good indication that martial arts were trained at other monasteries) was connected to Narayhan and Kapila (both associated with Dharmapalas in China) and the protecting deities. During the Tang Dynasty these guardians became more ferocious.

Having said that, I am not convinced that Jinnaluo was considered more important than Bodhidharma by monks of Shaolin. If that were the case more would have been heard of him; more folklore retained in the various northern traditions, as well as more historical documents would be around.
On the other hand, Bodhidharma's importance to northern Chan Buddhism during the Song and Yuan is supported by significant 12 c. documents. Given Shaolin's status as an orthodox Imperial monastery, it makes sense that Bodhidharma would have been considered important there as well. Although Yijinjing, may well have been developed during the 16th century, assigning it to Bodhidharma simply reinforces his importance. Keep in mind, Chinese records often contained a mixture of pseudo-historical, fictive material and folklore. Folkloric myths, containing miraculous stories and individuals who possessed superhuman qualities, were often included to persuade or to underline some didactic purpose. These literary devices were even employed in official Chinese historical narratives.

[blooming lotus]

I haven't read the articles but what evidence is there that jinnaluo was the innitiating martial inflluence at shaolin...as for Ch'an being seperate, someone back here made reference to bodhidarmas' initiating influence there, yet Ch'an embodies martial artistry ( amongst other things) by definition. ????

[canglong]

He postulates that the idea of what he is terming quan - the fusion of martial skills with internal and spiritual development - doesn't appear until the Ming.

Clearly Tamo had some experience with Yoga and his entire reason for undertaking his journey was spiritual thus he had some expereince with hei gung and spiritual development. Secondly the appearance of any fighting monks previous to the Ming is physical evidence that this statement may very well be incorrect. Evidence of Qi gung, hei gung, and spiritual awreness wouldn't even have to exist just establish the beginning of a pattern which one might be able to facilitate with evidence derived from things posted on this very forum.

Gene, next week please ask Dr. Shahar why he didn't respond to my email preferably before he reads this...

[oasis]

Gene, next week please ask Dr. Shahar why he didn't respond to my email preferably before he reads this...

i emailed Dr. Shahar about his article in Feb and he responded 2 weeks later. I'm sure he's in the middle of travelling, lecturing, researching, or even relaxing and will respond when he gets a chance

[canglong]

from the looks of things I emailed the good Doctor before you did, but then again who is counting days

[GeneChing]

...it's an odd quirk, but such is the nature of his personality. We were over there yesterday for lunch (at's always fun to spend Easter with a Jew) and I'll see him again tomorrow. Then he's off to give a talk in Boston, so if you're near there, check it out.

Ok, I should qualify some things here, because I can tell that some of you are still working with some very old notions of what is real and what is history. As rik said, there is often fictative material in alleged historic accounts of China, especially where martial arts is concerned. There's a tradition of attributing lineage to mythic figures. What makes things additionally complicated is that martial artists weren't particularly literate, so there's almost no record of martial arts history. According to Dr. Shahar's research, Bodhidharma doesn't figure into Shaolin martial arts until the 16th or so. Prior to that, it was attributed to Jinnaluo. Now his findings are based on written records - archived documents, steles, and such. I think where we are splitting, rik, is that I'm talking about Shaolin martial arts and you're talking about Buddhism in general. Of course, there is overlap, in fact, as they say at Shaolin chan quan yi qi, but I think a distinction can be made here for acedemic purposes.

As for the Bodhidharma yoga connection, I've never felt that was particularly significant, mostly because asana as we know it is relatively new. It's more like trying to make a connection as some sort of parallel reaffirmation, when the fundamental question of 'did Tamo even create yijinjing?' has yet to be answered. Personally, I don't beleive that he did, but spiritually, I do. It's kind of like Noah in the bible. Do you disregard the moral of the ark just because you're skeptical of it's existence or do you take the teachings and their associated myths for their face value? In truth, there's no way to prove that Tamo created yijinjing - you have to take it on faith. Now, I really enjoy my yijinjing practice and even if I'm skeptical of it's creation, well, that doesn't detract from it. Nor do I complete disregard the myth because it is such a part of the tradition.

[norther practitioner]

Very well said Gene...

It sounds almost identical to my entire schpiel on religion. Take it all with a grain of salt if you are looking for the "truth"..

To me the truth is what I can learn.

[blooming lotus]

I'm always open to considering new information, so I'll be wrapped to hear anything either of you has to add

[mickey]

Greetings,

This thread really kills in the worst way. All I see is a Western approach to the verification of history based on extant written documents. Oral tradition is just as important. It is one thing to read about, e.g., the five ancestors of Shaolin; but through oral tradition, I got to know them as people-- with personality flaws and excellent kung fu.

All I can say is light your incense and connect to your ancestors. THE INFORMATION IS THERE WAITING FOR YOU!!!! It always has been.

mickey

P.S. Gene: "it's always fun to spend Easter with a Jew" That was really golden. If you put that on a T shirt, I would buy it -- seriously.

[blooming lotus]

that's why this forum is such a good place to spend some time..it might take only one word to initiate a search and some serious study....there are so many true and dedicated martial artists here and it's just absurdly grandiose to think that anyone of us has all the information.....don't quote me..but besides sharing war stories I think the info - trade is why we're all here