Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 141

Thread: Qigong's Buddhist Origins

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    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.
    wrong! academics do not destroy cultural traditions and icons, those cultural traditions and icons destroy themselves! what we need the academics for is, of course, to point out the fact that they do so (jeez)!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    Independent thinkers are not automatically impressed by the latest research or scientific studies just because they demonstrate "new" information!
    yes! I mean, I was COMPLETELY unimpressed by this recent development in the world of physics...

  2. #47
    [QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143950]


    @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. --------
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    As an academic, often that is indeed true. Academics make assumptions and sometimes very wrong ones that can go unchallenged for some time. There are academics and then there are academics.

    David Halberstram's "the Brightest and the Best"- which brought out the roles of the McBundys and Rostows- in making wrong assumptions in the Viet Nam war is a classic example of mis applied logic while making bad assumptions. But it sometimes takes a maverick academic to point out the mistakes of other establishment academics. History is not really a science. Science too makes assumptions...but history is more loaded with them.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    yes! I mean, I was COMPLETELY unimpressed by this recent development in the world of physics...
    The problem I have is that often someone will release a study which we are told 'implies' such and such, then everyone will beleive it just because a scientist said it. But then when you read the detail of the study it reveals there is little scientific merit in the work and doesn't imply anything other than the weakness of the study. Even with science this happens all the time. With something like History which can't be proved either way I would imagine there is even more potential for errors.

    Personally I am not criticising the academic community, I am criticising the way people easily believe things without proper consideration.

    But the news you posted above, if it is true, is literally the greatest physical discovery of our lifetimes. If it is true. With something of this magnitude it will be checked meticulously. Unfortunately most studies do not undergo such scrutiny.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajramusti View Post
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    As an academic, often that is indeed true. Academics make assumptions and sometimes very wrong ones that can go unchallenged for some time. There are academics and then there are academics.
    .
    Exactly, that's what I mean.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Research on extant manuscripts isn't exactly a fad nor is it by any means controversial.

    But whatever, myths, legends and folklore totally make more sense.

    QED bitches.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    The problem I have is that often someone will release a study which we are told 'implies' such and such, then everyone will beleive it just because a scientist said it. But then when you read the detail of the study it reveals there is little scientific merit in the work and doesn't imply anything other than the weakness of the study. Even with science this happens all the time.
    I agree; what's ironic, is that this is most often the case with the manifold studies that "prove" the existence of "qi", the efficacy of of "qigong" for healing, etc. - when you go and read
    them in detail, the methodological errors are so rife and glaring that it's just ridiculous; what's even more disturbing, is that the "qi-heads" who r the first to critique so-called "western science" as being innadequate to the task of talking about "qi", will be the first to jump up and down waving these "studies", saying "see? science agrees w us!"


    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    With something like History which can't be proved either way I would imagine there is even more potential for errors.
    yes; for example, from a historical perspective, how can one really be sure of the difference between these two?




    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Personally I am not criticising the academic community, I am criticising the way people easily believe things without proper consideration.
    exactly - there is the ideal, and then there are those that either uphold it or distort it; academic / scientific rigor is HARD! constructing valid and reliable studies that control for confounding variables is challenging and requires a passion for the work, but a true dropping of the ego in order to look at things relatively-objectively; researcher bias is a huge factor - one typically researches what one is curious about, and one often has a hope / desire for a certain outcome in alignment w one's worldview - how to control for that subtle (or not so subtle) bias when designing a study is critical;

    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    But the news you posted above, if it is true, is literally the greatest physical discovery of our lifetimes. If it is true. With something of this magnitude it will be checked meticulously. Unfortunately most studies do not undergo such scrutiny.
    it is pretty wild, right? glad u can appreciate the implications; I mean, it wud essentially turn 20th c physics on its ear; what they r trying to do now is figure out if the results r as such or due to methodological error - which is exactly what all good science is about!
    Last edited by taai gihk yahn; 11-20-2011 at 04:49 AM.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Research on extant manuscripts isn't exactly a fad nor is it by any means controversial.
    I studied philology for years, and I can tell you lots of manuscript research turns out to be wrong. However in a narrow field, with very few active researchers, it can literally take more than a century to discover the mistakes (or for new texts to come to light).

    A related example is academics trying to interpret Pali Canon texts on meditation without knowing anything about practical meditation traditions. They are at a major disadvantage... just as a carpenter would have a better chance to understand ancient texts on carpentry.
    Last edited by rett; 11-19-2011 at 09:47 AM.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by rett View Post
    I studied philology for years, and I can tell you lots of manuscript research turns out to be wrong. However in a narrow field, with very few active researchers, it can literally take more than a century to discover the mistakes (or for new texts to come to light).

    A related example is academics trying to interpret Pali Canon texts on meditation without knowing anything about practical meditation traditions. They are at a major disadvantage... just as a carpenter would have a better chance to understand ancient texts on carpentry.
    good point: I think a lot of people extrapolate on "ancient" texts based on their contemporary context - I mean, everyone and his brother has deep, profound things to say about the vast and hoary knowledge contained within the Dao De Jing; for all we know, back in "the day", it might have been regarded as the cultural equivalent of "Chicken Soup for the Soul"...

  9. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    yes! I mean, I was COMPLETELY unimpressed by this recent development in the world of physics...
    You mean what we have been taught for 60 years is wrong AGAIN!!!

    How impressive, science, once again, doesn't know what is true or not!

    Their problem is their never ending statements of fact that are later demonstrated NOT to be fact. If they would just stop with the "this is the way it is" attitude, real thinkers might not criticize them so much! All they can say is "this is what we think now based on x and y evidence.

    So go ahead and stop drinking coffee because it is bad for you until the next SCIENTIFIC study fells you it is NOW the best thing for you!!

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by rett View Post
    I studied philology for years, and I can tell you lots of manuscript research turns out to be wrong. However in a narrow field, with very few active researchers, it can literally take more than a century to discover the mistakes (or for new texts to come to light)..
    I don't dispute that at all. I mentioned earlier the point about The Old Texts controversy.

    Nonetheless, the possibility for forgeries and misinterpretation makes a rather flimsy justification to consider legends and folklore as historically accurate.

    Might as well disregard Herodotus and Thucydides and claim that greek myths are an accurate account of Hellenistic daily life.

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post

    Nonetheless, the possibility for forgeries and misinterpretation makes a rather flimsy justification to consider legends and folklore as historically accurate.
    I wasn't suggesting taking the step of concluding they're historically accurate in the sense required by academic research. Just NOT taking the step of dismissing them outright on the rather flimsy grounds Shahar adduces.

    Also, legend (or stories or whatever) serve different functions than science. Many good scientists are also religious, and it's totally feasible to combine two different ways of believing/knowing in the same person. Precisely because of the different functions they serve for a person.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by rett View Post
    . Just NOT taking the step of dismissing them outright on the rather flimsy grounds Shahar adduces.

    Also, legend (or stories or whatever) serve different functions than science. Many good scientists are also religious, and it's totally feasible to combine two different ways of believing/knowing in the same person. Precisely because of the different functions they serve for a person.
    He cites McRae and Faure. They work from a foundation of around 50 years of modern critical scholarship on the issue. I guess you can call that flimsy. Again, Shahar just gives the modern historical consensus about Damo a name check, he doesn't really dismiss anything and specifically notes that "the attribution of the school to him is considered a legend by most historians".

    http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/..._Paradigm.html

    You implore others not to dismiss myths but you do this by being just as dismissive of the critical historical research. Then you want to stake claim to some sociologists middle ground between myth and science. Give me a break.
    Last edited by wenshu; 11-20-2011 at 09:08 AM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Skid Row Adjacent
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    The problem I have is that often someone will release a study which we are told 'implies' such and such, then everyone will beleive it just because a scientist said it. But then when you read the detail of the study it reveals there is little scientific merit in the work and doesn't imply anything other than the weakness of the study. Even with science this happens all the time.
    Study finds that 80% of smokers are more likely to smoke 80% of the time when they're smoking.

    These kinds of "studies", the ones you always see cited in alarmist headlines are usually, in the case of legitimate research institutions, for the purpose of getting their hands on some of that government grant paper. In the case of less scrupulous institutions; advertising for some corporation or business concern.

  14. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by wenshu View Post
    Again, Shahar just gives the modern historical consensus about Damo a name check, he doesn't really dismiss anything .
    No, but it seems like you're dismissing it. And I don't think the academic consensus, however much textual study they've put into it, can really draw the conclusion that he wasn't a real figure.
    Last edited by rett; 11-20-2011 at 10:27 AM.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cincinnat, OH, USA
    Posts
    595
    I never said that Bodhidharma wasn’t real. I have just provided evidence that his historicity and or his origins and the events of his life are highly suspect. There is too much layering of myth on top of “the obscure Bodhidharma” (as Shahar calls him) to say he was concretely “from here” or “did this” or “went there.” As for your comments on Shen Hui and Huineng, the evidence clearly points to this, albeit not in such a black and white manner. Every religion feels like they need to have an outstanding representative, so they layer on myth to create that perfect representative. Jesus is a very good example of this, which you brought up earlier. He may have been a historical person, but his supernatural accomplishments are too similar to common mythic motifs from around the world to be taken as fact (Note: This is not an invitation to Christians to argue with me. Any negative comments directed at me based on what I said above will be ignored). As for the questioned existence of Zen, it’s possible that you are a practitioner, so you tell me if it is real or not. There is obviously a religious tradition that stretches at least back to the late 7th century when Mt. Song became a center for Chan. This implies that the tradition came prior to this and took time to become widely accepted. Beyond the legend connecting the sect to Bodhidharma, who says that a single person had to bring it?

    You are oversimplifying the matter by calling the Chan lineage masters “cheaters.” They were simply embellishing stories. I’m afraid saying that they wouldn’t “make stuff up” is just wishful thinking on your part. Jørgensen’s research shows that the modern image of Huineng is not historically accurate. Tanlin’s hagiography of Bodhidharma is very similar to that of the historical Buddha. Given that fact, how do you know what your grandmaster tells you is the truth. I do not mean to say that he intentionally lied to you in anyway, but how does he know what his master told him is the truth? Did he ever tell you that Bodhidharma is the creator of Shaolin kungfu? If so, I know you know that this information isn’t true because the story stems from the early 20th century, and this was ultimately based on the Yijin Jing manual from the 17th century. There have been very famous masters that have parroted this story to their students and in their training manuals. Their students, in turn, passed the story down to their own students. Despite the scholarly stance on the subject, there are many people who still believe and pass on the story. Therefore, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s historically accurate.

    The “Shaolin awesomeness” stems only from their skill in boxing. Let’s face it; the monastery’s association with Chan has been eclipsed by its famed martial culture, especially in the west. If Shaolin had never helped the Tang emperors deal with their enemies, it would have been destroyed in 845 by Emperor Wuzong. It was only their past service to his ancestor some 200 years prior that kept him from doing it. The monks were known to have been very proficient in the use of military weapons in the early 7th century. This implies that they were practicing much earlier than this. They most likely began drilling in these weapons as a means of protecting the monastery's finery from mountain bandits. There is no evidence for the community as a whole taking up unarmed boxing until the Ming-Qing transition. They continued to venerate King Jinnaalou as the progenitor of their art through the 17th century. So the boxing tradition doesn’t stretch back to the time of Bodhidharma. It is also important to note that the early martial monks were not a part of the regular devote religious community. They lived in small cloisters outside of the monastery proper. Most importantly, they were allowed to break the rules against eating meat and drinking alcohol because of the protection that they provided. I doubt such men were inspired very much by a devout Buddhist saint. As for the later martial monks, if stories about Bodhidharma inspired them, it was only stories. If Bodhidharma didn’t bring the Chan tradition to China, the monks are not really venerating him, but an embellished “image.” So, again, he has no historical connection to Shaolin kungfu.

    There are some people on who seem to be distrustful of scholars, or they feel that we should be more respectful of the legends. Charles Holcombe once wrote: “If it is necessary to debunk the Bodhidharma myth since it is historically false, we must also be wary of our modern materialist impulse to tear aside the veil of myth to uncover the real martial arts beneath. The truth is that for most Chinese practitioners of the arts the myths were real enough” (Charles Holcombe, “Theater of combat: A critical look at the Chinese martial arts” in Combat, Ritual, and Performance Anthropology of the Martial Arts, ed. David E. Jones (Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2002), 158). Stan Henning rebutted this statement by saying: "The bottom line is, polite deference to the myths surrounding the Chinese martial arts is not only unwarranted but also unworthy of serious scholarship. It is high time that self-styled American martial arts “scholars” [i.e. Holcombe] took a big step forward out of the 1920’s and up to the threshold of the 21st century" (Stan Henning, "On Politically Correct Treatment of Myths in the Chinese Martial arts," Journal of the Chen Style Taijiquan Research Association Of Hawaii 3, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 1). This is equally applicable to religious history. I would also argue against Holcombe's stance by stating it is a historian's duty to record the past accurately for posterity. Bowing out to tradition will only cause the true history to be forgotten.
    Last edited by ghostexorcist; 11-20-2011 at 03:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

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