Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 98

Thread: Shaolin History - Fact or Myth?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    As far as etymology it is a man with the head emphasized. There are several other "coincidences":

    1) As a farmer tilling the land: 土 + 人
    2) As a sedan carrier shouldering two poles: 二 + 人
    3) As husband and wife being two persons: 二 + 人
    4) As a man communicating with the heavens: 天 + 人

    Choose whichever you like, but in "gongfu" from a classical pov, it appears to simply be a noun suffix, rather than adding to the literal or implied meaning of the word, as it is not a person like "nongfu" (farmer).

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tell me if you figure that one out.
    Posts
    73
    I thought it would boil down to something like that. The translation of gongfu I normally come across is simply a man doing work. Given what you are saying, however, is it reasonable to assert that it is more along the lines of a person doing spiritual work?

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    520

    Fu (夫)

    Fu (夫) refers to adult males, or men and shows a pictograph of a standing person 大 with a hairpin which symbolizes adulthood. 'Fu' in oracle bone inscriptions was a man wearing a hair clasp. In ancient China, children's hairstyle was different from that of an adult. Males at the age of 15 would tie their hair into a 'bun'. At the age of 20 they would have begin to wear a hat 冠禮, signifying their coming of age, sexual maturity, legal empowerment and duty to society, including military service. During Han times for an example, all able men over 20 and younger than 56 were obliged to serve in the army for a period of two years.
    Here is an interesting article which appeared in the NY Times a couple years ago.
    Last edited by r.(shaolin); 03-12-2013 at 07:41 PM.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by DoGcHoW108 View Post
    I thought it would boil down to something like that. The translation of gongfu I normally come across is simply a man doing work. Given what you are saying, however, is it reasonable to assert that it is more along the lines of a person doing spiritual work?
    Originally it was a Buddhist term, but I honestly think it is just acting as a noun suffix here. Other words ending with fu clearly have the meaning of a man who does something, e.g. nongfu (farmer), yufu (fisherman), mafu (horsekeeper), etc., but gongfu is a noun referring to the meritorious work itself, rather than an individual who does it.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Originally it was a Buddhist term, .
    I have not found any evidence that "功夫" was originally a Buddhist term.
    r.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    There is a similar term which can also mean 'skill', 'labor', 'a period of time', etc., that is 工夫 (gongfu). It's pronounced the same but with a different character. This gong means 'skill' or 'work' as in manual labor. It is a secular term.

    On the other hand, the gong in 功夫 (gongfu) has the meaning of 'merit' in the Buddhist sense of 功德 (gongde) which is a translation of the Sanskrit term 'guna'. With fu as the noun suffix, 功夫 is a meritorious deed or service.

    Nowadays, the two terms are often used interchangeably to mean 'skill', 'labor', or 'effort', but the former is secular and the latter is Buddhist.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    No one can be certain of the original intent behind the pictures,

    But here is the one we always used:

    FU, 'A man of great achievement'. If you notice Fu is the character for heaven 天, but with the top reaching past the sky 夫. Like surpassing heaven. A great feat, reaching through the sky. Hints at the inner potential of a person.

    Either way its a person who has accomplished much.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tell me if you figure that one out.
    Posts
    73
    Fascinating. Does anyone have any dates on the oldest known written occurrence of the
    My hunch is that it probably started with Chan or more abstractly when the yogic practice met with Chinese Buddhism.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by DoGcHoW108 View Post
    Fascinating. Does anyone have any dates on the oldest known written occurrence of the
    My hunch is that it probably started with Chan or more abstractly when the yogic practice met with Chinese Buddhism.
    Buddhism and "yogic practice" go hand-in-hand. The yogic practices became formalized during the formation of Jainism and Buddhism, from which Hinduism borrowed. This was long before there was "Chinese Buddhism".

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post

    On the other hand, the gong in 功夫 (gongfu) has the meaning of 'merit' in the Buddhist sense of 功德 (gongde) which is a translation of the Sanskrit term 'guna'. With fu as the noun suffix, 功夫 is a meritorious deed or service.
    .
    You may will be right that Buddhist concepts of morality and 'meritorious deeds' may have influenced popular Confucian and Taoist thought, never-the-less, morality books during the mid- seventeenth century, books with such titles as, "Meritorious Deeds at No Cost" and "A Record of the Practice of Good Deeds and Establishing One's Own Destiny," taught that good deeds would be rewarded by worldly success, etc. in this present world, reflected very un-Buddhist ideas of success.
    r.
    Last edited by r.(shaolin); 03-13-2013 at 09:49 PM.

  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by r.(shaolin) View Post
    You may will be right that Buddhist concepts of morality and 'meritorious deeds' may have influenced popular Confucian and Taoist thought, never-the-less, morality books during the mid- seventeenth century, books with such titles as, "Meritorious Deeds at No Cost" and "A Record of the Practice of Good Deeds and Establishing One's Own Destiny," taught that good deeds would be rewarded by worldly success, etc. in this present world, reflected very un-Buddhist ideas of success.
    r.
    Did it say that it is the only way to achieve worldly success ?You also can gain karma over and over and achieve worldly success but the result of it is of course different.


    Best regards,
    Xian

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by r.(shaolin) View Post
    You may will be right that Buddhist concepts of morality and 'meritorious deeds' may have influenced popular Confucian and Taoist thought, never-the-less, morality books during the mid- seventeenth century, books with such titles as, "Meritorious Deeds at No Cost" and "A Record of the Practice of Good Deeds and Establishing One's Own Destiny," taught that good deeds would be rewarded by worldly success, etc. in this present world, reflected very un-Buddhist ideas of success.
    r.
    Yes. They are not Buddhist. I'm not sure what you're trying to say...

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by r.(shaolin) View Post
    taught that good deeds would be rewarded by worldly success, etc. in this present world, reflected very un-Buddhist ideas of success.
    r.
    actually i'm not sure that your observation is correct.
    in the agamas & pali suttas the Buddha gave clear advice on how to work hard to be successful and how to not be parted with one's wealth.
    he also recommended engaging in actions that would lead to desired results (causes & conditions have to be related to desired result), this included things like long life and wealth.
    he was a lot more pragmatic than a lot of people give him credit for being.
    he didn't go around telling everyone to be poor.
    he recommended living a simple life, and to not base one's happiness around achieving wealth - but he certainly did not say that wealth was something that would lead to d@mnation (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven and all...)
    What would happen if a year-old baby fell from a fourth-floor window onto the head of a burly truck driver, standing on the sidewalk?
    It's practically certain that the truckman would be knocked unconscious. He might die of brain concussion or a broken neck.
    Even an innocent little baby can become a dangerous missile WHEN ITS BODY-WEIGHT IS SET INTO FAST MOTION.
    -Jack Dempsey ch1 pg1 Championship Fighting

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Pork Chop, I guess it depends on what you mean by "Buddhist". According to Bodhidharma's Bloodstream Discourse:

    "If you attain anything at all, it's conditional, it's karmic. It results in retribution. It turns the Wheel. And as long as you're subject to birth and death, you'll never attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment you have to see your nature. Unless you see your nature, all the talks about cause and effect are the dharmas of the Exterior-Paths. Buddhas don't practice Exterior-Paths dharmas. A Buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. To say He attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha, how can the speaker achieve the Awakening?"

  15. #90
    As long as one is able to distinguish between what is conditional and what is not, they should be fine.

    I do not agree with avoiding the conditional, it screams of a misunderstanding of reality. Not to mention that preoccupation with seeking to transcend the conditional is itself attachment to the conditional.

    I start with the premise that all things have purpose and reason for being. Life is conditional for a reason, therefore.

    It is irrational to set up a conditional system only to have those who are created spend multitudinous lives attempting to get beyond the conditional.

    The conditional is there for a reason. Life is here for a reason. Live your life and enjoy it. If you are personally motivated to see past the illusion and learn to distinguish between conditional and eternal, then do it. If not, then don't.

    That is why there is no difference between a regular person and a Buddha! Each has their place in the game, and neither is more important that the other. They are both conditional roles. Play your role, then let it go in order to play a new role later.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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