Non-Chinese Shaolin Monks

[RenDaHai]

It shouldn't be done by those with something to throw away - but for those who are already at the entrance of the temple, or those who are already capable of leaving home without baggage to 'throw away.'

I think if you have already dealt with your 'baggage' then there is no need to become a monk. You are already past that stage. You can move straight on to the personal contemplation of a hermit. Becoming a monk is to give you that opportunity to shed this baggage.

Amongst my older teachers they say there is nothing to revere about monks. In times past monks were most often criminals, disgraced officials/officers/soldiers, orphans, bastards etc. and more rarely those seeking spirituality. Temples offered some form of legal sanctuary. The renown of Shaolin perhaps made it special though.

[Matthew]

Amongst my older teachers they say there is nothing to revere about monks. In times past monks were most often criminals, disgraced officials/officers/soldiers, orphans, bastards etc. and more rarely those seeking spirituality. Temples offered some form of legal sanctuary.

To generalize about monks this way is a poor contemplation. Because someone took vows, it does not mean they must be worthy of teaching, worthy of having disciples, or are necessarily free of desires, etc.

Driving cars used to be very dangerous - and still is to this day. We don't teach potential drivers that cars have no use, and there is nothing to appreciate about them. Not only would it be a waste of our breath, it would say little to their usefulness to ourselves or others.

Likewise, those who have wholly dedicated themselves to understanding their selfish desires and cultivating the way are certainly worthy of revere.

I think if you have already dealt with your 'baggage' then there is no need to become a monk. You are already past that stage. You can move straight on to the personal contemplation of a hermit. Becoming a monk is to give you that opportunity to shed this baggage.

What I mean by having baggage- is that they are not ready/able/wholly willing to sincerely cultivate toward ending their selfish desires and live selflessly. I don't mean that all of their desires are already resolved before "Leaving Home" and/or taking certain vows to become a monk.

If you don't have utmost sincerity in this, you are not ready to become a monk, and will surely not progress no matter how many vows you take, how far away from home you are, etc.

[RenDaHai]

To generalize about monks this way is a poor contemplation. Because someone took vows, it does not mean they must be worthy of teaching, worthy of having disciples, or are necessarily free of desires, etc.

Indeed.

Likewise, those who have wholly dedicated themselves to understanding their selfish desires and cultivating the way are certainly worthy of revere.

They are. But I am talking historically. Buddhist Monks have a very bad reputation in Ancient China and Japan. More often than not they were murderers and exiles seeking sanctuary in the temples. Then the temples would act like mercenary armies.

Some on who has genuinely dedicated is indeed worthy of revere, but becoming a monk doesn't guarantee that and historically and today I am certain there is more ulterior motive than genuine dedication. All those times the Shaolin temple marched to War, I am certain there was an old monk left in the temple shaking his head saying 'A mi tuo fo'

What I mean by having baggage- is that they are not ready/able/wholly willing to sincerely cultivate toward ending their selfish desires and live selflessly. I don't mean that all of their desires are already resolved before "Leaving Home" and/or taking certain vows to become a monk.

If you don't have utmost sincerity in this, you are not ready to become a monk, and will surely not progress no matter how many vows you take, how far away from home you are, etc.

Becoming a monk is a tool to help you along this path. You will surely have sincerity to become a genuine monk in the first place. They are resolved but still have a great deal of attachments. Becoming a monk gives you the opportunity to shed these attachments, to throw them away and see for once if they were ever necessary.

[Syn7]

The number of non-Chinese Buddhist monks is innumerable. The number of non-Chinese Shaolin monks is very low, if any, but this is just because Shaolin has only been open for laowai for a few decades. I've spoken to the Abbot about this, and like I said, he's very diplomatic publicly. He is totally open to non-Chinese Shaolin monks. In fact, he encourages it (at least when talking to me) but he stipulates that such person must meet the criteria just like any other Shaolin Monk candidate. In due time, the Abbot feels non-Chinese Shaolin monks are inevitable.

No No, I dont think the fact the Shaolin has few foreign monks is racist. I think questioning the merrit of said monks based on the fact that they are not chinese is racist.

[bawang]

No No, I dont think the fact the Shaolin has few foreign monks is racist. I think questioning the merrit of said monks based on the fact that they are not chinese is racist.

race is not an issue, money is an issue. shaolin temple is a business.

the "real" monks at the region are also weary of weirdo tourists that play dressup for 3 months then lose the "mood". the turnover for kung fu tourism is huge, its like a converyor belt of people constantly coming and going.

[Syn7]

race is not an issue, money is an issue. shaolin temple is a business.

the "real" monks at the region are also weary of weirdo tourists that play dressup for 3 months then lose the "mood". the turnover for kung fu tourism is huge, its like a converyor belt of people constantly coming and going.

It takes a long time to be an actual monk there. I imagine that's why they have lay disciples playing dress up. To adress the LARPers and make some duckets.

Anyways, the comment was in relation to the original question. A question that specifically asked if these non chinese monks were for real. I don't think it was intended that way. But it is what it is, none the less.

[PalmStriker]

I don't think it's racist at all. For example you can't be a Hindu convert. It's by birth only. I understand why the question came to light as it did in his mind.

There are numerous Gayatri Brahmins ("Hindu") priests of non-Indian descent. Even in India.

[LFJ]

No No, I dont think the fact the Shaolin has few foreign monks is racist. I think questioning the merrit of said monks based on the fact that they are not chinese is racist.

Anyways, the comment was in relation to the original question. A question that specifically asked if these non chinese monks were for real.

Specifically? Where? Questioning their merit based on race? Where?

The only racism I see in this thread is what you've read into it.

[Syn7]

racism

(ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m)

[f. race n.2 + -ism; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).]

a.a The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.

Why single out non Chinese monks? Why not a discussion on the diff between real monks and LARPers?

I'm not reading into anything. I use words the way they are meant to be used. I don't care what people THINK they mean.


I was wrong about him asking if they were for real though. He simply asked for opinions. I don't think his intent was racist. But why should the color of their skin even be an issue? At best it was a culture question. But then why write:

Weel, this is for for reading your opinions or something. I hope not being breaking any rule

Who does that with a normal solicitation of opinion on a website where the sole purpose is to share opinions? And visit http://www.martialartsmart.com of course!!!


This isn't anything new either. Idiots are still duped by Asians because they assume that because they are Asian they are legit. It's kinda sad.

[Syn7]

As for what makes you a monk, IMO taking personal vows and following the rules makes you a monk. Sanctions from a bigger body don't mean a thing to me. Having the Abbot himself swear you in doesn't make you any more or less of a buddhist monk than anyone else taking the vows and staying true. Many ordained monks are liars and not true to their vows. So yeah, sanctioning by any body doesn't mean a damn thing to me. Who's a real christian? A molesting bishop who dines with the pope 4 times a year or a guy who attends service, and walks the walk in his daily life? To me, it's not even a question that needs to be asked.

[LFJ]

Thanks for the definition. It further illustrates that you were the only one coming into this topic with such a mind, reading racism into the thread, as no one ever suggested these men can't acquire certain characteristics or abilities because they aren't Chinese.

Why single out non Chinese monks?

He didn't. It was about non Chinese Shaolin monks. Why single them out? Because it is quite rare in Shaolin today to have non Chinese monks.

The question was only on our opinion of them, which may open cross-cultural discussion on many related topics, not about whether we think it is right or wrong because they are non Chinese.

The original poster himself seems to be from Venezuela and has begun training at one of these guys' schools. What is he, the Clayton Bigsby of Latin America, being racist against his own race?

As for what makes you a monk, IMO taking personal vows and following the rules makes you a monk. Sanctions from a bigger body don't mean a thing to me.

And your opinion doesn't mean a thing in the context of the Buddhist monastic structure as laid out by the Buddha.

Who's a real christian?

Who is a real Buddhist is a separate question. Who is a monk vs layman is straightforward. There are clear provisions for becoming a monk, but obviously that doesn't guarantee spiritual attainment, just as being a layman doesn't bar you from spiritual attainment. Buddhist laymen remember the example of Vimalakirti, a lay Bodhisattva. So these are really two unrelated questions.

[RenDaHai]

racism

(ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m)

[f. race n.2 + -ism; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).]

a.a The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.

Shiiiiiiittt, if thats the definition of Racist then I'm one, as is anyone with any degree of logic or knowledge of the concept of DNA.

To make this a better definition it should be split into Physical and Mental characteristics and abilities. On the physical side it is demonstrably and undeniably true that race determines some physical characteristics and abilities. On the Mental side it is much less so.

Nature and Nurture BOTH play a huge part in the formation of a human being. If you have complete knowledge of both then you can act with absolute discrimination and would be correct to do so. But to use knowledge of one to predict the other is unwise and offensive.

And to generalise is foolish. To say all things that are grey are metal is stupid. However to say all things that are grey are GREY is absolutely true. If greyness was the characteristic I was looking for then using that as my discrimination is fine. If metal was the characteristic I was looking for then grey is a stupid distinction to make.

In short it is never racist to point out that black people have dark skin or that Asian people have slitty eyes or that white people have long noses. It is racist to deny them an opportunity because of this fact, or to suggest that these superficial characteristics have any determination over their capacity or potential.

The problem is today people don't get that and even pointing out race is considered racist....wtf?



As to questioning white people being SHaolin monks? Thats a good question. China s a foreign country and doesn't give out life long visas. Your lucky if you get 3 months at a time. Any commitment to being a monk for 3 months is not really a genuine commitment and if they are a monk in any temple outside Shaolin then are they really a shaolin monk?

[Kellen Bassette]

In short it is never racist to point out that black people have dark skin or that Asian people have slitty eyes or that white people have long noses. It is racist to deny them an opportunity because of this fact, or to suggest that these superficial characteristics have any determination over their capacity or potential.

The problem is today people don't get that and even pointing out race is considered racist....wtf?

Yup, that's it. We've become so over sensitized with the PC garbage we can't even have a real discussion on the subject anymore. Too many yahoos jumped on the bandwagon and condescend with "well that's racist" every time there's a mere mention of race. Everyone's walking on egg shells afraid to say anything that could imply another person is of a different ethnic background.
You certainly can't mention any facts or statistics regarding a group of people. That's akin to genocide.

It's weakening us as a society and making us unable to deal with real issues.

[GeneChing]

No No, I dont think the fact the Shaolin has few foreign monks is racist. I think questioning the merrit of said monks based on the fact that they are not chinese is racist.

Our merit questioning is color-blind. Just read the archives here. That being said, I see your point now. I imagine that a lot of the questioning arises from the fact that there are so few non-Chinese 'official' Shaolin monks, if any, so the poseurs really stick out. There are plenty of fake Chinese Shaolin monks, but they don't stick out nearly as much. That's sort of contrapositive racism.

[Syn7]

Yup, that's it. We've become so over sensitized with the PC garbage we can't even have a real discussion on the subject anymore. Too many yahoos jumped on the bandwagon and condescend with "well that's racist" every time there's a mere mention of race. Everyone's walking on egg shells afraid to say anything that could imply another person is of a different ethnic background.
You certainly can't mention any facts or statistics regarding a group of people. That's akin to genocide.

It's weakening us as a society and making us unable to deal with real issues.

Racism is classifying by race. It's not positive or negative until somebody makes it so. And yes, we are all racist. Some more than others. Some negative, some not.

This isn't an anthropology forum. I just don't see why race is even a topic? Non Chinese monks are rare, no shit! the temple is new, the country was relatively shut until relatively recently. In time, if it survives, I have no doubt there will be all sorts of diff people there. As far as I'm concerned, this is all a given. SO again, why even bring up race at all?


Oh, and you can hardly put what I said next to people using reverse racism for political agendas. Come on. Your beef is with the bastardization of the term, not me using it correctly. I specifically made a point to spell out how I did NOT feel that this was intended to be offensive. But I do feel that there is a great chance he knew it could be seen that way. My point s to the greater context in how we talk about race at all. It's a non issue IMO. Race means nothing. You wanna talk culture, ok. In that context it's not racist, it's culturalist. another term that is not postive or negative until it is made so. One could argue that I made it so. But if I wasn't clear before, I'll say it now. It was not my intent to call people racist in the way many percieve the word to mean.

Nobody here would ever call me PC You should know this by now. I speaks my mind and I use whatever language I feel will suit my goals. Whether it's relaxed, straight talk, baiting, or just plain aggressive.

Kellen, that's not all directed toward you. I just used your post as a jump off. You should know which parts are for you.