The Shaolin Workout by Shi Yan Ming

[rickyscaggs]

Now the question is that if yan ming is against learning from written materials/videos etc. then why does he have several articles and a video published?

I also heard he was not pleased with the video and wishes they are all out of circulation and is highly against them.

Is it the motive behind it? Most articles are soley for informational purposes. If a book is written in the same spirit is it then ok?

His motive is what I question. He puts on a show acting like he's Bodhidharma trying to spread Chan to the western world, yet he hardly even lives like a lay Buddhist but milks the "monk" title for all it's worth.

So then is it only "unethical" to publish material if you give the impression that you can learn from it without assistance?

I think so, if first of all you are against it and think no one should learn from it, then you publish material giving the impression people can learn from it. What the heck is that? Money money money.

Or is it the fact that YM is a "monk" that makes it worng for him to be successful?

He's not a monk. As I said he hardly lives like a lay Buddhist. He does things for money not for spreading Chan and MA. That's a show. He's full of it. There are many things he could do to spread it with the money he already has, but he won't unless it gets him more money.

[Shaolindynasty]

I notice that you say "I heard" allot. Do you know SYM? Are you a former student? I'm just curious about your background because you seem to feel very strongly about this.

[GeneChing]

In my home, we have this hanging that says "Buddhism is passed from warm hand to warm hand." It's a familiar adage to practitioners. Regardless, there is a tremendous library of Buddhist books, a small portion of which I have in my own library. I learn from them all the time.

In the martial arts, people are always going on about how 'you can't learn from a book or video'. What they are really saying is that you can't become a master just by a book or a video. Of course you can learn from different sources other than a live teacher. It's totally absurd to say you can't. In fact, I don't think you can even claim that your a serious student of the martial arts if you don't read books and watch videos. They just can't be your only road to mastery; they're just stepping stones. It's a long road to mastery and you need to step on every stone - leave no stone unturned - to get there. What's more, not all of us have the ambition to be masters. I'm no master and the more I get into this, the more skeptical I become about ever being one. There's plenty of room in the martial arts for Shaolin soccer moms. If you're just dabbling, or doing it as a hobby, martial arts books and videos are an easy and low cost way to get some exercise. Even a little martial practice, even taebo, is beneficial if only for the cardiovascular. These days, in our toxic world, every little bit of samsara-burning workout helps.

As for the other issue of Shi Yanming and his validity as a monk, clearly he is the most controversial of the American immigrants. A carniverous father who hangs out with bling-toting rap stars certainly doesn't qualify as a fully indoctrinated Buddhist monk, but Shaolin has this special class of warrior monks, and Yanming has yet to be formally ejected from that order. In contrast, Shi Wanheng, a senior warrior monk, was formally ejected, but he was still at Shaolin part time. Yanming has only gone back twice I beleive, and both times he ran into some trouble, but I haven't heard that he's been officially black-balled yet. Every order has their black sheep and loose cannons. Personally, I find Yanming a fascinating character study and I wish his success with this new book effort.

[Banjos_dad]

I am sorry Gene. I had not made the distinction. In the statement you made about Yanming and Wanheng: "A carniverous father who hangs out with bling-toting rap stars certainly doesn't qualify as a fully indoctrinated Buddhist monk, but Shaolin has this special class of warrior monks, and Yanming has yet to be formally ejected from that order. In contrast, Shi Wanheng, a senior warrior monk, was formally ejected, but he was still at Shaolin part time. Yanming has only gone back twice I beleive, and both times he ran into some trouble, but I haven't heard that he's been officially black-balled yet...," their status seems cloudy, perhaps even to the temple walls themselves.
Here i am making statements from a center of ignorance again! I am hungry for material from Shaolin though, so i will most likely get the book regardless of Shi Yanming's official status

I just wanted to apologize, but i can't resist saying that books are a valid way of gaining insight, when they lead your mind to turn in ways it hadn't done before. Maybe the content shifts the focus of your attention onto things it had overlooked. There is no substitute for the hard exertion of kung fu training, for more than one reason, including the way that your body chemistry is altered and shiftfs your frame of perception. Learning to perform difficult movements well over time can deliver abstract lessons somehow... dharma. A big problem with books is that the illustrations can only capture a fraction of the form. Martial arts techniques most often involve specific body motions or a series of motions, which is the opposite of a book's static mode of transmission. DVD's and videos trade a book's capacity for hundreds of pages of insights and step-by-step explanation for the advantage of being able to see the movements in precise detail, but share the book's non-interactive limitation so at best one is just mimicking the actor. I do regular training with a sifu and a class because it seem obvious that that is the only way to develop beyond a very limited point. The recorded material is like "elective" training for fun, or because I want to explore the dynamics of a different style's forms.

Just the Shaolin conditioning and warm-up techniques are so beneficial over time, that i will be glad to see some jibengong techniques that aren't included in our school.
to me conditioning etc. like arm or leg striking, iron bridge training, ring training, is just added insurance. a lot of people wouls skip this part and go along to something 'sexier' like forms or something showy. this is something that could be easily overlooked by someone who tried only learning from videos & books...
it would also be easy to learn this from the dharma of doing fingertip pushups without even consciously realizing it. Or stance training. At first you're like:'....this sucks....this sucks.....please tell us to switch.......awww this really sucks......' Then later you look around one day and say, wow, i am one of the good ones now. Look at the hard time other people are having with this. They need to learn how to just go ahead and take that low stance before sifu tells you to, and just hold it until he says switch, even if you're legs are shaking like the proverbial dog eliminating a peach pit
that is something you can't learn so easily from a book.

anyway, sorry for making unqualified statements about Shaolin, and now for the epic post.

--wes

[GeneChing]

...and extra kudos for plugging our forum sponsor . Shaolin is seriously complicated, the most complicated manifestation of martial arts in the modern era. Frankly, that's why it interests me so. And I'd be the last person to cap on anyone for 'epic' posts. Maybe a troll post is worthy of some capping, but honest opinions fuel the discussion. After all, isn't discussion exact what the forum here is all about?

[richard sloan]

as usual, these kinds of threads contain a lot of verbage that amounts to so much hooey by a lot of faceless characters who wouldn't have a clue if they stumbled over a clue root in a clue forest full of clue trees- and yes I mean you ricky. what did you read a few diss threads in a forum and now you are a chan master, lol.

you remind me of some tool I met out at Apt. Shifu was wearing a nice watch, and he bought a round of drinks- it was someone's birthday. And some tool goes, wow nice watch, no wonder he is buying drinks. An easy conclusion to jump to, but Shifu didn't buy the watch, it was a gift...

on the former video- he doesn't like the way they came out, he didn't like the lack of control he had or the way the project was executed. he felt it was stale and typical. that is what you"heard" but you are misrepresenting it here and expanding it. if he was against video or book learning he wouldn't have done any articles at all- yet there are a few and they are very good ones too. i'm particularly fond of the black belt punching article.

in general, he doesn't approve of people burying themselves in books to learn or videos as single source instruction- especially because many of the authors don't know what they are talking about. one spark for this particular book was the DeMasco stuff that's being pushed out there right now- we just couldn't believe some of the wrong info that made it to press, I mean really silly stuff that anyone calling themselves a "disciple" should know. looking through the website and some of the pages of the book he just shook his head, looked away, and said "we should make a book. give people right information and accept the responsibility to share authentic history."

as to shi yan ming loving money- that really makes me laugh. few people know the internal workings of the usast but that suggestion is ludicrous to me considering I know much of the finances. he is far from rolling in it the way people think. most of the money the temple makes goes back into taking care of the disciples, the ny temple, and the needs of some of the other temples- you know we have 4 now, and have embarked on a capital campaign to raise funds for a full blown facility in NY just like he has always dreamed...which is one reason why we have the book project. We now have over 150,000 raised and are looking to engage an architect and are continually scouting land.

http://usashaolintemple.org/index.ph...shop&Itemid=71

shi yan ming suffers/benefits from a portrayal that is not very accurate- he does not hide the fact that he eats meat, but that does not mean he is at Lugers at his personal table every night and a custom cut of meat. In point of fact he usually eats noodles and vegetables, continuously because he is constantly training. But he is not like a lot of others who do hide the fact they eat meat or dissemble about it. He's also usually slammed for drinking a beer every now and then, which he will consume openly but then again it's not like he is hitting every happy hour on w3rd st. The way some people make it sound we have a keg next to the sink or he has a flask stashed in his sash. I remember eating lunch in DC with him and De Yang and the waiter brought over a couple of Tsing Tao's- De Yang had just seen Bush's motorcade, and he was giddy like a kid, and guess what, when he drank the beer his robes did not burn up, his beads did not all split asunder, the altar at Shaolin did not crack apart to a massive earthquake and when he put his head down at night to sleep on his pillow he was still a shaolin monk, despite havinghad a beer and eating a crab- shell and all.

when it comes to ch'an sym is serious as a heart attack, but he is not representing a prc hegemony or orthodoxy- he didn't need to go to the beijing university, his dharma master was Shi Yong Chen who still lives in the temple, and the senior monks all spoke highly of him and his accomplishments- especially proud of him bringing his disciples home, in particular the recently passed Shi Su Xi who not only defied expectations to come sit with us, but even laboriously spoke for about a half hour before he grew too tired. Still he made sure to spend the better part of our time there with us. So since they still consider him a part of the order, I think it is hilarious when someone like ricky spews.

about the family, I have literally zero problem with that, and there really isn't a lot many other people can say, and not just because celibacy is a lark and against a nature ch'an should embellish. when the 14 returned with their families, and kept them, and were considered monks, the monkeys were let out of that barrel, weren't they, and if your masters sons became monks, and ch'an buddhism didn't turn into a pumpkin or come crashing down, well why shouldn't you raise up some kids and enjoy the sharing of love. That's part of life.

far from expelled, he is well loved by Su Xi's "side" if you will, and even many on Yong Xin's- there's a lot more that could be said about that trust me.

consider this record corrected.

[shaolinboxer]

I'm sure all of his "disciples" will treat this book like the bible.

Well, I'll pick one up just to remember my basic wushu. Too bad I have to pay for it...maybe I'll wait until they start falling into used book stores.

[GeneChing]

You know, personally I've always liked Yanming. He's extremely charismatic, very skilled and a great motivator, which is all you really need from an instructor. And I think his crossover work (for lack of a better term) is extraordinary, which is why I brought up his book here in the first place. But, with all due respect, the family issue is bothersome. Celibacy is not a 'lark' in Chan Buddhism. It's part of the teachings and if you explore those, you can understand the motivations behind them. Surely, there have been those who have broken celibacy vows and there always will be. However, they all fly in the face of doctrine, and that's philosophically very difficult to negotiate. If you discard the doctrines of Chan, you essentially throw the baby out with the bath water, sort of like Victoria's Zen At War. The heart of the celibacy issue, like any issue in Chan, is attachment. You can counter with something like "well, obviously you're attached to the doctrines" but that opens up a whole mess of philosophical baggage.

Anyway, in regards to shaolinboxer's comment, Yanming's new book could never be the Shaolin bible. It's too short. It looks like a fine introduction to Shaolin - very Yanming style with all the "beautiful!" "awesome!" "amitoufo!" and "train harder!" comments that you'd expect from him. I'm curious how that will translate to written word. Knowing Yanming, I can hear him saying that when I read his book, but I'm not sure that others will. We shall see.

[shaolinboxer]

It doesn't matter what the content of his book is. The cult of personality that revolves around him will ensure at least a modest success.

And all of his ex-students will get to roll their eyes every time they visit barnes & noble.

[richard sloan]

gene- many things find their way into doctrine.

few monastics can follow all their precepts and I think Buddha himself was rather reluctant to adopt globally what was for personal consideration- I've known several and not a single one of them from De Yang, to Yan Ming, to Guolin to the Dalai Lama or Thich Nat Hahn follow them all. Some are just silly and obviously made to illustrate that exact point. Are we really not to eat onions and garlic because of hovering hungry ghosts? Does eating an onion instantly remove your enlightenment club card?

my views on celibacy come first from the Catholic side, where it is indeed a lark- nowadays it is couched in rather grandiose terms, married to christ etc, when the reality is that church (communal) property was passing to sons who were not following their fathers footsteps by becoming ordained priests. Even today several Rites allow for married priests within Catholicism but how few Catholics and how few Catholic priests know this.

Sameway I am happy that when the monks began to return to the Shaolin temple they brought back their families with them- so then if your master is married, a monk, and obviously a functioning one, how do you put the cork back in the bottle, when the refutation is alive and well right before you. Yan ming catches flack because unlike others who hide he is open. At the end of the day he is working for the betterment of others, is achieving monumental results- you should have seen our recent trip to Trinidad- and that is more important than if he is carefully avoiding onions and hovering ghosts.

doctrines are important but not the ends and in some cases not even necessary as the means. I guess I like the illiterate woodchoppers of Ch'an.

I had a much longer post but it went kablooie into cyberspace, I guess my Jamaica connection doesn't like long times between reply and post button pushing.

[GeneChing]

If it was all about onions and garlic, that would totally bum me out. I've never heard the hungry ghosts thing. My understanding of that prohibition is that it seeks to cut the attachment to foods that are too stimulating. I'm not going to completely disregard that at this point, because my own personal alchemical changes in diet have produced some surprising results, so who knows? Maybe I'll have to give them up someday to reach nirvana. Not today, tho. Clearly, there are effects of what you put into your body. Again, it's all about severing attachment.

It's difficult to follow all the precepts. You must remember that Buddhism was not originally developed for lay people like us. It was developed as a science to harness the mind, strictly for ascetics. So denial of attachments is key. We call them attachments for a reason. Many of them are hard to give up. We all fall from the path sometimes. It's a difficult path. But saying 'others fall from the path' is a weak argument. The pursuit of Chan does not lie in comparison of your personal practice to others. You can certainly make valid claims that others fail at keeping vows and hide those failures, but that skirts the real issue.

Yanming's case raises some interesting questions. His break from the tenets can be intellectualized as revolutionary or ****ed as heresy. It's denial of denials, which could actually work in a recursive philosophical way, although like with any recursive logic, it can get real sticky. Personally, I could beleive everything he says - that he's risen above the attachments of liquor, meat, and sex - if he could also rise above the attachment of being a monk. Do you think he's attached to his monk title? I have the utmost respect for those that have walked away from it. Ironically, that can show more resolve, sort of like in Hesse's Sidhartha.

Like I said earlier, I've always liked Yanming. We had a great relationship in the past, and despite a past professional split, I support him as much as I can support any of the monks. I'm not trying to bash him here at all. There are plenty of others here who would be happy to do that. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to promote his book because I think being published by Rodale is very exciting. At the same time, any mention of Yanming on a Shaolin forum is bound to elicit such a discussion and I'm eager to see how this plays out, especially now with the book imminent.

[wall]

I have never met YanMing ...

... however I have met many times his disciples Heng Xin (Austrian guy who spent 10 years with YanMing at the Manhattan Temple) and Heng Yi (Chinese guy who grew up at the WuShu Guan) ... both of whom now run the Austrian Temple affiliated with NYC.

They are great guys, animated by truly positive spirit and passion for Shaolin Wu and Chan, teaching a solid mix of traditional and modern Shaolin martial arts with a good base of philosophy too. They don't have the ego-drive or Shifu-worship that many Shaolin disciples unfortunately display, but just a healthy respect for their Master and a healthy bond with their students.

So, if the mark of a Master is the teachers he "produces", well then YanMing in my opinion must be a great Master with great spirit.

On the technical side the only things I'd "add" to what these two disciples do, and I don't know if that's something lacking also in NYC, are applications and some combat training: they don't do any practical application of techniques, even for more advanced students.

Wall

[rickyscaggs]

(Firstly, I may respect Yanming's philosophy as he is a lay Buddhist, but not as a monk.)

All you do is make excuses? Do you know the point of monkhood? Not "Shaolin monkhood" but Buddhist monkhood? What monastic code says you can have children while a monk or even have more than one family? If you want to live like this you're called a layperson. That is if you at least try to follow the 5 precepts for the laity. Yanming doesn't live as a monk under any monastic code but is sure attached to the 'Shaolin monk' title. Why all the excuses and as Gene pointed out, comparing and pointing at others? The Buddha did things with reason. There is no making babies in any "beautiful" monastic code and Shaolin is the only one that allows alcohol and meat eating. Probably because of modern times do they continue to allow it but it defeats the purpose of monkhood. An emporer has more say than the Buddha who set forth the vinaya? Shaolin monasticism has become a joke and is quickly passing away with the old masters. Buddhism is becoming poluted and will eventually die out. There should still be another 2500 years until it's completely gone as predicted by the Buddha, but it's going downhill from here and Shaolin is far ahead of the rest. It's also interesting to consider the fact the Buddha also predicted the end of Buddhism will be due to Buddhist themselves and no one else. Could it even start with less and lack of a true monastic sangha to teach us? Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. The sangha dies out, the Dharma is lost and the Buddha is forgotten.

[Brad]

I think the others have a good point about being attached to titles. He has sex, gets married/divorced, makes money for himself, eats meat, and gets hammered like everyone else. As far as I can tell, his martial arts isn't much different than many other modern wushu athletes either. What makes Yan Ming a monk?

[richard sloan]

If it was all about onions and garlic, that would totally bum me out. I've never heard the hungry ghosts thing. My understanding of that prohibition is that it seeks to cut the attachment to foods that are too stimulating. I'm not going to completely disregard that at this point, because my own personal alchemical changes in diet have produced some surprising results, so who knows? Maybe I'll have to give them up someday to reach nirvana. Not today, tho. Clearly, there are effects of what you put into your body. Again, it's all about severing attachment.

I'll tell you a brief anecdotal story. I grew up in the hardcore scene. No booze, smoke, boom boom- eventually one day at a big family dinner- I am half sicilian- my nonna poured me a glass of wine. I must have explained to her what hardcore was about a zillion times, but you know nonnas. Then it hit me. What was honestly the big deal. Could alcohol lead to disaster? If I did not consume alcohol because of it's effects, then where does the line get drawn. Tea? Coffee? Soda? Chocolate Milk? Should it just be water? I suppose it could lead to disaster, and it has- but then it also has not. So I drank the glass of wine, which I used to enjoy with dinner before I became hardcore. It was pleasant. And the sky did not fall. Some people said I broke my edge. Actually it was something quite different.

And you know what? My head did not explode either. I did not become a drunkard. That's the thing, for many people a prohibition against booze is a good thing. But too many people focus on the hammer and nail and not the house.

The pursuit of Chan does not lie in comparison of your personal practice to others.

There you have it. That's why we can have an illiterate wood chopper as a lineage holder and patriarch. do you think if Hui Neng ate garlic he would not have been passed the robe and bowl? Adhering to precepts had nothing to do with his attainment. Here was man who was not a monk who was more of a monk than those who later tried to kill him.

Let's face it- everyone has attachments. Is he attached to the title "monk?" I think it is a big part of what he is. Like a painter saying, I am an artist, and now because you do not like the art you say "oh he calls himself a painter but he is not." Well he shows his work, has peers who acknowledge him as an artist so...my question is who are you to define them and what have you done to lend weight to your opinion? He's got paint under his finger nails. As far as I am concerned, Shi Yan Ming is in the trenches the way a lot of other monks should be, and I am glad for the opportunity to make a difference in this way.

Usually if people press him on a definition of what he is, he dissembles and says I am whatever you want me to be. Other times he is adamant about what he is. It depends.

Personally, I could beleive everything he says - that he's risen above the attachments of liquor, meat, and sex - if he could also rise above the attachment of being a monk.

But that's the thing- it's not something you "rise" above. You are in this world. You are a part of it. Sometimes he eats meat. Sometimes.

That's the breakdown point of Buddha's teachings- the transcendental signifier if you will. "Attachments" are part of the bag. It's like wondering, did Buddha rise above taking pleasure in a good dump. Hence the dichotomy- you see this kind of spiritual structure in pretty much all transcendental spiritual processes- buddhism is not unique in this regard- it's just another convenient spiritual label we can use in conversation to point to a recognized process- but without this kind of cross wiring in the process and structure of the system you can not break down and experience directly. It's not what goes into a man that makes him impure, but what comes out.

Gene I hope my tone is conversational- I appreciate you bringing the book up- I think it is an important small step in getting some accurate stuff out there.

My purpose in bringing up other monks is simply to provide contextual examples of monks who do basically the same thing as Yan Ming- both within and without his system. Prominent, in the spotlight monks- like the Dalai Lama, Thich Nat Hahn.

What do you think about the transmitters after the CR who came back to Shaolin with family in tow? Whose sons became monks? If I were a young monk and I saw that these men were still monks, doing their work, their families with them....well then why not me? And if I were a Catholic priest, and learned the truth about my celibacy you can bet I would start to really wonder.

Ricky-
Frankly- I don't feel the need to make "excuses" for anyone- you say something about someone who is not here to speak on their own behalf, and you run your mouth off spitting tripe about things you don't know, then yes I will open mine. I'm supposed to sit here and stay quiet, lol, while you get your digs in. Let's get something straight- there isn't a thing you could say or think that will change the good works being done by him and his disciples- and I'm one of them. That continues despite all the negative posts in all the forums, and the reason why is that you're wrong, and now I have corrected you, and when that is done in defense- suddenly people are making "excuses" etc. Your big beef Ricky is adherence to the precepts and that you heard and think- baselessly- that he's got a lot of dough. LOL!!

Yet the fact remains, no monastic follows all the precepts, and he is not banking mad cash to retire in Rio in 5 years. And some of the precepts have been added in to no benefit or detraction to their actual purpose of attainment. Please don't try and tell me about monastics, because I have been around them in one way or another pretty much my whole life.

Ricky- I would say you need to learn more about the world of Buddhism in general, and monastics in particular. You're ignorant on more than a few things, the meat issue a big one- some even have to eat bugs for their meals.