Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 141

Thread: Qigong's Buddhist Origins

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by rett View Post
    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.
    Keep in mind that these monks most likely faced a wall because it was said that Bodhidharma did the same thing, however, the phrase is literally "wall gazing" which may not be the same thing as "facing a wall", especially if the original phrase was meant to be metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Ok then,

    For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn't have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.

    Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostexorcist View Post
    “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.”
    .
    Lets see then, so Damo wasn't real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure...... So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn't make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.

    When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. ---For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540... 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.

    So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn't a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn't make it all up.

    Do you see what I mean?

    @ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin.... If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.


    Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don't put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.

    Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Ok then,

    For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn't have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.

    Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment



    Lets see then, so Damo wasn't real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure...... So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn't make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.

    When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. ---For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540... 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.

    So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn't a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn't make it all up.

    Do you see what I mean?

    @ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin.... If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.


    Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don't put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.

    Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Another good post!! Thanks.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Cheers Vajra!

    @All;

    One more thing;

    The story we tell today was more or less complete by about 1200 years ago... Is that right?

    Of all the great Kung Fu the Shaolin Temple researched, most of it comes after this time.

    So we can at least say with some degree of certainty that when most of Shaolin's Gong Fu was created, that is the story that inspired the monks. If it inspired such great stuff then Damo, real or not, has had a very real influence on Shaolin Gong fu. Since we know the stories that inspired them then, we can use these same stories to inspire ourselves today.

    So even if it is otherwise, most shaolin gong fu was created under the assumption of Damo as the founder. But I believe the evidence is a long way from saying anything conclusive.

    Either way in the absence of an alternative story why not keep telling the one that inspired over 1000 years of Shaolin Awesomeness.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 11-18-2011 at 07:02 AM.

  5. #35
    The tradition is that Damo was at Shaolin, if this is the tradition, it is a tradition for a reason. Therefore, it must be concluded that either Damo was in Shaolin, or he wasn't in Shaolin, but his fans wanted him to be in Shaolin.

    Neither are demonstrable in anyway! It is ultimately irrelevant whether he was or not. It does not change Ch'an or Shaolin in the least.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Ok then,

    For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn't have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.

    Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment



    Lets see then, so Damo wasn't real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure...... So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn't make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.

    When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. ---For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540... 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.

    So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn't a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn't make it all up.

    Do you see what I mean?

    @ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin.... If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.


    Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don't put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.

    Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.
    That's a prefect example of religious hagiography at work. With a heavy dose of black and white thinking.

    Chan is such awesome perfect awesomeness it's founders never could have lied. Being awesomeness perfectly awesome awesomely they would have had no reason to fabricate the origins of their sect.

    Brownie is right, if Damo didn't exist or wasn't ever at Mt Song the only thing that really changes are people's unrealistic expectations. If anything it only humanizes the practice and its early adherents.

    Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism originated in part as a defense mechanism to prevent people from looking too closely at it's origins and lineage claims.

    Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism ...
    From what I have been given to understand, Chan isn't against using your mind intellectually. It only suggests that the signature insight of Chan isn't arrived at intellectually. But if you live in the world and try to be effective at helping people, or pursuing your occupation, or whatever, you have to be able to think clearly and understand what is around you.
    Last edited by rett; 11-18-2011 at 11:11 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    That's a prefect example of religious hagiography at work. With a heavy dose of black and white thinking.

    Chan is such awesome perfect awesomeness it's founders never could have lied. Being awesomeness perfectly awesome awesomely they would have had no reason to fabricate the origins of their sect.

    Brownie is right, if Damo didn't exist or wasn't ever at Mt Song the only thing that really changes are people's unrealistic expectations. If anything it only humanizes the practice and its early adherents.

    Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism originated in part as a defense mechanism to prevent people from looking too closely at it's origins and lineage claims.

    Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?

    Not exactly my point,

    Perhaps I wasn't so clear. The point is if something is real, then there must be an origin. Something that is great (and Zen IS great) must have been created by someone who had greatness. This story is what is left of that person whoever it was. Chan literally could not have been created by some random d*ckhead.

    Searching for the truth is Science and is always a noble goal. To destroy a thousand year old story you have to have great evidence and a great alternative. With neither you have nothing.

    And there is some logic to what I say. The people who created Chan were far from ordinary and it stands to logical reason they would act in far from ordinary ways.

    Like many philosophies and religions the vast majority of those who follow Zen probably have very little understanding of it. But the First masters, to have created it in the first place, must have had some understanding of it.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 11-18-2011 at 11:18 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?
    Yes,

    In our civilisation stories are very important. They shape how we grow in many ways and reflect our instinct. From stories we come to know ourselves.

    Zen is no trivial thing. It is an attempt at supreme wisdom. The story of its origin does matter. Staring at a wall for 9 years may have been a story designed by Zen masters to teach us an important lesson, it may be the truth, it may be a worthless lie. It is important. People who make a story tend to do so to encompass a lesson, rather than just to lie.

    What if the wall gazing for 9 years is a lesson to imprint on us the importance of reflection and meditation. What if we say its not true and omit it from our Zen teachings, do we not lose a valuable lesson? One that was left by the first masters?
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 11-18-2011 at 11:40 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Not exactly my point,

    Perhaps I wasn't so clear. The point is if something is real, then there must be an origin. Something that is great (and Zen IS great) must have been created by someone who had greatness. This story is what is left of that person whoever it was. Chan literally could not have been created by some random d*ckhead.



    Like many philosophies and religions the vast majority of those who follow Zen probably have very little understanding of it. But the First masters, to have created it in the first place, must have had some understanding of it.
    Yet even within the Chan tradition it is acknowledged that Damo did not create Chan nor was he the first to introduce it into China. Furthermore if we are going to implore the use of logic, it is far more logical that Chan was not created out of the blue by a single person; rather a nebulous formation over centuries from the synthesis of indigenous Chinese and adopted Indian practices and thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Searching for the truth is Science and is always a noble goal. To destroy a thousand year old story you have to have great evidence and a great alternative. With neither you have nothing.

    And there is some logic to what I say. The people who created Chan were far from ordinary and it stands to logical reason they would act in far from ordinary ways.
    If by logic you mean the very definition of a syllogistic fallacy then yes: "This story is about an extraordinary person therefore all stories are about extraordinary people".

    Moreover the "destroying a thousand year old story" line of thought is obstinate black and white thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Investigating doubt is a core practice of Chan. Doubting the political, social and overall cultural background of legends isn't destroying anything, the meaning and influence of legends are not diminished and certainly have nothing to fear from of a bit of critical thinking and demand for well sourced historicity.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    If by logic you mean the very definition of a syllogistic fallacy then yes: "This story is about an extraordinary person therefore all stories are about extraordinary people".
    .
    What? Where did you get that from?

    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Moreover the "destroying a thousand year old story" line of thought is obstinate black and white thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Investigating doubt is a core practice of Chan. Doubting the political, social and overall cultural background of legends isn't destroying anything, the meaning and influence of legends are not diminished and certainly have nothing to fear from of a bit of critical thinking and demand for well sourced historicity.
    Doubting is at the core I agree. That is why we are having this whole debate. I am doubting the doubt. I am deliberately over defending this side in order to have the debate.

    People are fickle and easily swayed in opinion. Yes the meaning of legends is diminished if you assert that they were randomly made up in a fabrication to get some renown. The purpose of fabrication is also important and needs investigating.

    If for example we discover the purpose of the fabrication is simply to make themselves look better (in whose eyes anyway?) that is different than of the purpose was to teach a lesson. It does have an impact on how we apply the story to our lives.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 11-18-2011 at 12:26 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Yet even within the Chan tradition it is acknowledged that Damo did not create Chan nor was he the first to introduce it into China. Furthermore if we are going to implore the use of logic, it is far more logical that Chan was not created out of the blue by a single person; rather a nebulous formation over centuries from the synthesis of indigenous Chinese and adopted Indian practices and thought.
    \
    Fine, but with all things there are turning points and major events and realisations.

  13. #43
    A couple of thoughts:

    1) Chan was never against intellectualism. Most of the great teachers were scholars of Buddhist thought and some were also scholars of Taoist and Confucian thought. What they taught was that intellectualism will NOT lead to realization, just as mind washing will not lead to realization. That has led to a misunderstanding by some leading them to think these are not beneficial. These are beneficial, just not necessary. Also, an over reliance on intellectualism can lead some into greater confusion.

    2) Some of the earliest Masters were not all that impressed with meditation either. I have quoted Master Yuan many times here on this matter. Again, "not necessary" is not the same as "not beneficial".

    3) Saying that the Great Masters would never lie begins from a false premise that has its origins in
    western moral and religious thought. Telling a faslehood was not viewed in the way we view it here in the west. A falsehood for the benefit of others was not always culturally inappropriate. "Expedient means" allowed for the stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and complete fabrication for the purpose of illustrating a point or for the general benefit of the community.

    So, what we in the west might consider a major moral and intellectual no-no would not necessarily be viewed in the same way in the ancient Buddhist community.

    What is important is "meaning" not necessarily factual truth.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    A couple of thoughts:

    3) Saying that the Great Masters would never lie begins from a false premise that has its origins in
    western moral and religious thought. Telling a faslehood was not viewed in the way we view it here in the west. A falsehood for the benefit of others was not always culturally inappropriate. "Expedient means" allowed for the stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and complete fabrication for the purpose of illustrating a point or for the general benefit of the community.

    So, what we in the west might consider a major moral and intellectual no-no would not necessarily be viewed in the same way in the ancient Buddhist community.

    What is important is "meaning" not necessarily factual truth.
    @Scott

    Yes, well put, thats more what I meant above, even if i couldn't articulate it properly. I didn't mean great masters would never lie, I meant there would be some kind of method behind their lying. It is hard to think it would be random and completely without virtue. Exposing a lie is not useful unless the reason behind it is also found.


    @All

    The reason I'm going overboard with this is because I think in society too much stock is blindly put in the opinion of the Academic community. Obviously, when someone has researched something thoroughly, their opinion is to be given weight. Never the less it must not be given so much stock that we fail to objectively analyse the presented facts ourselves. I realise I am myself being less objective and looking at all the facts from my already formed position. But that is because me being this way forces greater depth of justification.

  15. #45
    I agree with the critique of Academia. They have overdone their criticism schtick! It is a 150 year old fad. The easiest way for an academic to get attention and approval from their peers is to destroy cultural traditions and icons.

    This occurs with science and their foolish studies as well. To get a doctorate an academic must do a research project, usually one that has never been done before, therefore they come up with mostly useless studies and papers designed to gain attention for the researcher and impress the doctoral board. If you criticize or question a traditionally accepted principle, belief, etc. it "demonstrates/shows-off" one's critical mind!

    Independent thinkers are not automatically impressed by the latest research or scientific studies just because they demonstrate "new" information!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •