Qigong's Buddhist Origins

[RenDaHai]

Come on, use some logic here. That evidence says little. Because all we can use is SURVIVING records. Where did the 'new' information come from? You think 1500 years ago all they had to go on were the 'Record of buddhist monasteries in Luoyang'? Off course not. 1500 years ago they probably had 1500 other sources of information that are not around today.

Imagine in 1500 years time a load of professors are writing history based on the only surviving magazine which happens to be 'Playboy'...... How close to the truth could they construct?

Does the Luoyang record mention shaolin temple at all? If not it may just be a record of the monasteries within Luoyang City rather than the whole prefecture. In which case it shouldn't say he was in Mt. Song really should it? If anything the fact that it is recorded that Damo WAS in Luoyang dramatically adds to the evidence that Damo was at shaolin, it doesn't take away from it at all. How and why would that myth appear in the 160 years after that first record? More likely it is taken from more detailed sources.

Notice how NONE of those records are in any way conflicting? That is important.

When analysing history you can only base it on surviving records. The person who wrote the first record may not have thought it necessary to put down the whole life story. Or may not have known it. Only that he came to luoyang. The Fact that only 165 years later the entire story as it is known today is complete adds a great deal of credit. Since back then they had access to a great deal more info than we have now. The second record just 100 years later actually says Mt. Song and at the time Shaolin would have been one of the largest monasteries, and the closest of song shan to Luoyang.

[ghostexorcist]

Here is another quote from Shahar:

“For our purpose here, the significance of the Bodhidharma myth is its association with Mt. Song. During the last decades of the seventh century, this mountain became an important center of Chan learning, as eminent masters such as Faru (638-689) and Huian (?-709) took up residence at the Shaolin Monastery. These early Chan practitioners were probably responsible for connecting Bodhidharma to the Central Holy Peak” (p. 13).

Shahar noted prior to this that “the attribution of the [Chan] school to him is considered a legend by most historians” (Ibid). Therefore, you can see the progression of the myth. As quoted above, The Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang (547) only has him in the city of Luoyang. But with the rise of Chan in the 7th century on Mt. Song, this “poster boy” for the sect was associated with that mountain. Then, in the early 8th century, he was finally associated with Shaolin. Another important thing to note is that the Monastery itself didn’t attest to his presence there until the raising of a stele in 728. This is no doubt connected to the Precious Record of the Dharma's Transmission (710), which is the first source to connect him to the monastery. This all comes from a book written by someone who is far more qualified than both of us. You have to accept the fact that he had nothing to do with the monastery during his supposed time in China.

[RenDaHai]

Look, Damo is a legendary character, a great deal that is said about him is obviously not true. Never the less there was probably a real man who inspired this legend. And there is nothing in the evidence that suggests he was not at shaolin temple.

1. Why did Faru and Huian go to shaolin in the first place, unless it was already associated heavily with Chan?

2. Obviously a Stele written about him was going to be put up a long time after his death, they wouldn't have put one up while he was still alive now would they. Many masters are unapreciated in their own lifetimes.

3. Later accounts didn't just make stuff up. They would have been copying info from earlier written accounts. Ones which wouldn't necesserily have survived till today.

4. Another contempary account, by Tanlin, mentions wall gazing and says that Damo roamed about teaching. If his base was Luoyang and he went about teaching then there is no chance he didn't go to shaolin at some point. Maybe not for 10 years but still.

5. People only bother reading a historians work when he says something controversial. All Historians ever do is try to say something controversial. Plenty enough equally and more qualified people disagree with him.

6. From when he arrived in China he stayed there till his Death. Most accounts put him in Luoyang. He stayed for certainly more than 10 years maybe even 30 or more. Think he didn't go to song shan in this time? Really? The central sacred mountain with numerous buddhist temples? Off course he would have. And to come to Song Shan from luoyang you literally have to walk past the gate of Shaolin. Its only a days ride from luoyang anyway.

Maybe he didn't really resurrect after death, maybe he didn't really live 150 years, maybe he didn't spend 10 years in the cave at shaolin, but did he go there and inspire people? I think so.

[Scott R. Brown]

Maybe he didn't really resurrect after death, maybe he didn't really live 150 years, maybe he didn't spend 10 years in the cave at shaolin, but did he go there and inspire people? I think so.

Well one thing we do know for sure..,...

He DID cut off his eye lids and throw them away, or we wouldn't have tea to drink.

[wenshu]

3. Later accounts didn't just make stuff up. They would have been copying info from earlier written accounts. Ones which wouldn't necesserily have survived till today.

Why not? Fabricated historical narratives are a long and well documented tradition in China.

The Song Confucian texts that formed the basis of the Imperial civil service examination system were proven to be inaccurate almost to the point of forgeries by kaozheng scholars. If the very foundation of the Imperial civil bureaucracy can be based upon forgeries what does that tell you about religious hagiography?

Documents found at the Dunhuang caverns have been interpreted to suggest that the Chan school was nascent in the early Tang during a period of increased sectarianism among the already established schools of Buddhism. Inventing a patriarchal lineage that could be traced back to shijiamonifo was common practice among competing schools of practice.

[wenshu]

I say we bring back the cult of Jin na luo!

What do you mean "bring it back"?

[ghostexorcist]

1. Early adherents of Chan set up shop on Mt. Song because it was a holy mountain. That is why Faru and Huian went there. Just because a legend associated Bodhidharma with the mountain doesn’t mean he went there. As I stated above, historians don’t believe he was the historical progenitor of Chan.

2. Point taken. But the records do not point to him being disliked. Why then wouldn’t they mention him sooner? You said that they may have been using older records that are no longer extant. Are you telling me that every single contemporary record mentioning him going to Shaolin before the 8th century disappeared? I’ll concede that he may have been a historical person (shahar even says this), but the oldest records only attest to him being in Luoyang. And even if he went to Shaolin, again, he didn’t introduce Chan.

3. Can you prove this? Wenshu makes a good point. What I stated earlier about the records talking about his origins as a Persian, South Indian Prince, and a Brahman is another good example of embellishment. Brahmans and Kshatriyas are two different social castes. How could he have been all of these? Which is correct?

4. Again, too many IFs. And where did he meditate for those 9 years? Today there is one place designated as “Damo’s cave,” however, historically there were at least 4 different places claimed to have been where he made his hermitage (Bush, Susan H. and Mair, Victor H. "Some Buddhist Portraits and Images of the Lu and Ch'an Sects in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century China," Archives of Asian Art 31 (1977-78): 32-51.). This is just another example of proliferation of the legend.

5. I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Labeling his work under “controversy for the sake of sales” is one common fallacy that I’ve seen others use to try to discredit Shahar’s work. Many of the people who have made such statements had never actually read the book, they were just objecting to the information because it conflicted with what they had been told in the martial arts community. So, have you read his book? If so, you would know that the material is supported by the work of other credentialed scholars like himself.

[RenDaHai]

1. Yeah, so holy was it that it is number 1 of the 5 sacred mountains in China. So holy that if a holy man spent 3 years walking to China, then the rest of his life in Luoyang, he would definately have gone their to visit. He wasn't gonna be spending his days working in the local noodlery for cash. Some places he would have gone. A contempary record says he roamed about teaching (TanLin).... Song Shan would have been the perfect place. Its not too many 'If's its logic. He spent years to get to china, you don't think he would go a days travel from luoyang to visit such a palce as songshan, in the many years he stayed there?

2. Well, there are only 2 contempary records that say anything at all. So, yeah If only two survived at all then yeah, it is entirely possible every shaolin record was destroyed. Shaolin has few written records left because of several serious fires in its past. Outside Shaolin, why would they record a random person visiting shaolin? Remember in his own time, before he is recognised as a saint, he is just a random person. there wouldn't have been so many records. He didn't actually have magical powers.

'Even if he went to shaolin, he didn't introduce Chan' Well, yeah. He didn't go there and say 'This is Chan' a disseminate wisdom. He probably did things a little differently, then people who came after him created Chan. But as is the custom to attribute your successes to your master, they probably did that. Never the less his journey and different methods inspired Chan. A contempary account (TanLin) does mention his practice of 'Wall Gazing' which is the inspirational practice. So he is credited as the founder.

3. Why would a bunch of random Chinese guys know and understand the indian Caste system? I live in China, I know the way they think. One guy once asked a black friend of mine if he was from 'HeiGuo' Lit. Blackland. To them at the time Persia, India etc. were all the same place.

4. Its not too many ifs. 30 years in luoyang roaming around teaching and you DON'T go to SOngShan? Couldn't happen. The contempary account doens't mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don't have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn't do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.

5. I didn't say 'for the money'. I mean to have any point in writing stuff at all you have to say something different otherwise there is no point in writing something new. Professors aren't superhuman. Lots of people make an opinion then when they analyse evidence they see it interms of their opinion. None of the evidence we have talked about precludes Damo going to shaolin. In fact they do the opposite. I.e a stele actually saying he was at shaolin.....To see this as evidence against him going to shaolin....well that takes a strong opinion.

Things aren't as simple as we would like them. No he didn't come to shaolin and invent Zen then teach the monks the 18 hands of Luohan. Off course not. But I think he was some guy. He went there, his meditation practice inspired the monks (probably only a few of them) then the influence of these practices took 100 years or more to work themselves out. He may have inspired many people in many places.

[Vajramusti]

1. Yeah, so holy was it that it is number 1 of the 5 sacred mountains in China. So holy that if a holy man spent 3 years walking to China, then the rest of his life in Luoyang, he would definately have gone their to visit. He wasn't gonna be spending his days working in the local noodlery for cash. Some places he would have gone. A contempary record says he roamed about teaching (TanLin).... Song Shan would have been the perfect place. Its not too many 'If's its logic. He spent years to get to china, you don't think he would go a days travel from luoyang to visit such a palce as songshan, in the many years he stayed there?

2. Well, there are only 2 contempary records that say anything at all. So, yeah If only two survived at all then yeah, it is entirely possible every shaolin record was destroyed. Shaolin has few written records left because of several serious fires in its past. Outside Shaolin, why would they record a random person visiting shaolin? Remember in his own time, before he is recognised as a saint, he is just a random person. there wouldn't have been so many records. He didn't actually have magical powers.

'Even if he went to shaolin, he didn't introduce Chan' Well, yeah. He didn't go there and say 'This is Chan' a disseminate wisdom. He probably did things a little differently, then people who came after him created Chan. But as is the custom to attribute your successes to your master, they probably did that. Never the less his journey and different methods inspired Chan. A contempary account (TanLin) does mention his practice of 'Wall Gazing' which is the inspirational practice. So he is credited as the founder.

3. Why would a bunch of random Chinese guys know and understand the indian Caste system? I live in China, I know the way they think. One guy once asked a black friend of mine if he was from 'HeiGuo' Lit. Blackland. To them at the time Persia, India etc. were all the same place.

4. Its not too many ifs. 30 years in luoyang roaming around teaching and you DON'T go to SOngShan? Couldn't happen. The contempary account doens't mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don't have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn't do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.

5. I didn't say 'for the money'. I mean to have any point in writing stuff at all you have to say something different otherwise there is no point in writing something new. Professors aren't superhuman. Lots of people make an opinion then when they analyse evidence they see it interms of their opinion. None of the evidence we have talked about precludes Damo going to shaolin. In fact they do the opposite. I.e a stele actually saying he was at shaolin.....To see this as evidence against him going to shaolin....well that takes a strong opinion.

Things aren't as simple as we would like them. No he didn't come to shaolin and invent Zen then teach the monks the 18 hands of Luohan. Off course not. But I think he was some guy. He went there, his meditation practice inspired the monks (probably only a few of them) then the influence of these practices took 100 years or more to work themselves out. He may have inspired many people in many places.

-----A good well reasoned and sensoble post.

Thanks for taking the time.

joy chaudhuri

[rett]

You can see both on the altar in the background. As I understand it they represtent Wu and Chan respectively, both of which are considered intimately connected in the Shaolin culture. "Chan and Wu return to one origin"



(this is a pic I took, but which is now open to public viewing on another person's FB account. I'll take the link here down if anyone in the picture objects)

If the embedded picture breaks, try here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

[rett]

This is just one example of the kind of speculation that I find very well justified in your take on this question. I think it's important to use common sense and not just rely on the fragmentary records, just as you suggest.

4.The contempary account doens't mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don't have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn't do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.

An obvious pattern of hagiography is that religious figures accrete more and more miracles after their deaths. So what could have been, for example, 3 solitary three-year mountain retreats (a common enough practice) was turned into a legendary account of a single 9-year period of never even getting up to go the toilet or eat.

A reason for this pattern could be that living religious teachers are inspiring by their presence. After their deaths, they can't win hearts just through their dignity and bearing, so followers invent miracles of a sort that would seem credible to folks at the time.

Meir Shahar's book is very interesting but IMO you can't draw the conclusion that Damo didn't exist from what he presents. On the whole, proving a negative like that is pretty much impossible.

[wenshu]

This is just one example of the kind of speculation that I find very well justified in your take on this question. I think it's important to use common sense and not just rely on the fragmentary records, just as you suggest.



An obvious pattern of hagiography is that religious figures accrete more and more miracles after their deaths. So what could have been, for example, 3 solitary three-year mountain retreats (a common enough practice) was turned into a legendary account of a single 9-year period of never even getting up to go the toilet or eat.

A reason for this pattern could be that living religious teachers are inspiring by their presence. After their deaths, they can't win hearts just through their dignity and bearing, so followers invent miracles of a sort that would seem credible to folks at the time.

Meir Shahar's book is very interesting but IMO you can't draw the conclusion that Damo didn't exist from what he presents. On the whole, proving a negative like that is pretty much impossible.

If I remember correctly Prof. Shahar didn't offer any original research or draw any specific conclusions about the Damo legend in his book. The Damo legend was ancillary to his main theses and he simply summarizes current historical understanding. I don't recall him claiming Damo did or did not exist rather that the issue is somewhat controversial among historians.

Common sense indicates that the Chinese like to make shit up. They are also fond of metaphors and oftentimes something that begins as a metaphor gets reinterpreted a century or two later as having actually happened (9 years spent facing the wall).

[Scott R. Brown]

There are those who also believe that "wall gazing" itself is a metaphor and not to be taken literally!

Also:

If I said I spent 9 years training in Kung Fu, how many people would think that means I spent 9 years of non-stop, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year training.

China does have its austerity nuts too just like India and the middle east; people who do strange things thinking they will gain some kind of spiritual insight, but Buddha emphasized that that sort of thing is a waste of time. If Bodhidharma did do something on a regular basis it should not be considered something taken to the extreme, but something exercised moderately according to circumstance.

[rett]

There are those who also believe that "wall gazing" itself is a metaphor and not to be taken literally!

Also:

If I said I spent 9 years training in Kung Fu, how many people would think that means I spent 9 years of non-stop, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year training.

If it's anything like the Buddhist hermits shown in the film Amongst White Clouds, then a three-year period of solitary "wall gazing" (壁观? ≈ retreat?) could involve some daily chanting, sutra reading, meditation, preparing meals, gardening, getting water, cleaning up, making minor repairs on the hut, making major repairs on the hut, perhaps meeting other monks on a fortnightly basis to chant the precepts, perhaps occasionally receiving visitors. But the meditation part could very well involve literally facing a wall. I'm not even sure if all sects focus that much on sitting meditation. Some could do more chanting, for example, or integrate the cultivation into daily activities.

Just some impressions, ideas... happy to be corrected by anyone with more insight into this culture.

[ghostexorcist]

Tanlin's hagiography of Bodhidharma appears in the preface to a book attributed to the Indian (or Persian) monk, The Two Entrances and Four Practices. Based off of an analysis of different Buddhist texts, Jeff Broughton thinks that Tanlin was actually the author of the work. On top of this, the hagiography of Bodhidharma is suspiciously similar to that of the historical Buddha. John Jørgensen writes, “Buddha and Bodhidharma were both princes, brought up in luxury, which they renounced; both died through poisoning, and both defeated six ‘heretical’ teachers” (Jørgensen, Inventing Hui-Neng, p. 184). Most importantly, Huineng, who was considered to be the 6th patriarch of Chan, was the victim of hagiographic embellishment. The Brill description of Jørgensen’s book Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch'an states:

“It was through the propaganda of Shen-hui (684-758) that Hui-neng (d. 710) became the also today still towering figure of sixth patriarch of Ch’an/Zen Buddhism, and accepted as the ancestor or founder of all subsequent Ch’an lineages . . using the life of Confucius as a template for its structure, Shen-hui invented a hagiography for the then highly obscure Hui-neng. At the same time, Shen-hui forged a lineage of patriarchs of Ch’an back to the Buddha using ideas from Indian Buddhism and Chinese ancestor worship.”

When I asked you the question about extant records being lost, I wasn’t just talking about those of Shaolin, I was also talking about outside records. I don’t accept the notion that every single record mentioning him was lost. The evidence above shows that early Chan masters would have had no problem with embellishing the hagiography of someone that was appointed the poster boy for their sect. This would explain why the later records differ or have additional information that the earlier ones didn’t. This means that one needs to be careful when accepting the “historical” information that they purport to relay. Sure, a historical monk named Bodhidharma could have gone to Shaolin, but the records attest to the laying of myth to puff up his influence there.

Regarding the hermitage where he supposedly “faced the wall,” I’m afraid saying that he “probably did it many different places” is not a good enough answer. That seems like an excuse to reconcile the four areas historically claimed to have been his hermitage. This is a clear case of embellishment. People read the early record stating Bodhidharma meditated somewhere, so people at different times chose different places, only one of which is officially recognized today.

This entire discussion--not the one that FoilingFist started---has been about whether Bodhidharma ultimately had some connection to Shaolin Kungfu. It is known that he did not physically teach them martial arts or qigong exercises. He was also not the founder of the Chan sect. So how exactly did he influence them like you believe he did? If Shaolin was a center for Chan learning, wouldn’t there have been lots of other inspiring monks there? Despite changing your views a little, you seem to be clinging to the idea that he was still as historically important back then as his modern image portrays him to be.