Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 98

Thread: Shaolin History - Fact or Myth?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    As I mentioned above, the Dhyana/Chan lineage is important, even if not "historically accurate" as it gives a clear idea of the position of development of the Chan school from their own perspective- that is in respect to the "Three Turnings of the Wheel".

    The first, is the Buddha's early teachings on such topics as the Four Noble Truths of the Arhat-path. The Dhammapada and other texts of the Pali Canon are considered part of "first turning" teachings.

    The second, is the Buddha's Mahayana teachings on such topics as emptiness & compassion, which form bodhicitta of the Bodhisattva-path. The Prajnaparamita and other texts of the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna (14th Dhyana patriarch) focus on these elements and are considered "second turning" teachings.

    The third, is the Buddha's teachings on "Buddha-nature", elaborated on mostly by the Yogacara school founded in part by Vasubandhu (21st Dhyana patriarch) and his half-brother Asanga who received teachings from Maitreya on the subject, considered "third turning" teachings.

    In other words, the "3 Turnings" views all of the Buddha's teachings as essential at certain stages. One doesn't just come to Mahayana teachings without having first studied Hinayana, some time previously. They'll be too concerned with ending personal suffering and need the 4 Noble Truths, not some talk about "emptiness" and the Bodhisattva-path which will not interest them. In later teachings, the 4 Noble Truths are seen as provisional. They are essential "truths" from the point of view of someone who is clinging to their own suffering as a real product of real circumstances. Once such view is broken, those truths are no longer necessary. Enter Mahayana, begin bodhicitta.

    One of the main focal points of Yogacara is the 8 layers of consciousness. This is also a big subject in the Lankavatara Sutra, the only sutra from which Bodhidharma is said to have taught.

    So if you study these schools (Yogacara being extremely fine detailed in explanation) you can better understand the Chan school, and those nonsensical Chan sayings make "sense" without getting all "zen".

  2. #32
    It is all dust one must eventually clean up, ignore, or percieve as ultimately unreal.

    "One doesn't just come to Mahayana teachings without having first studied Hinayana, some time previously."

    If one believes this they are placing shackles where they need not be. It is like intetionally swimming with an anchor around ones neck.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Somehow I knew Scott would be drawn out with something funny to say, lol.

    That's just what the sutras say. Not being drawn to or able to accept Mahayana teachings is due to "yezhang" (karmic obstruction). Being drawn to it and able to accept it means there is no such obstruction, which necessarily comes from previous progress within Hinayana. Which also means, there is no such thing as "sudden enlightenment". It may only appear so, but is due to very long previous cultivation. Chan is a school of the "Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma". It's in Lankavatara.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Somehow I knew Scott would be drawn out with something funny to say, lol.

    That's just what the sutras say. Not being drawn to or able to accept Mahayana teachings is due to "yezhang" (karmic obstruction). Being drawn to it and able to accept it means there is no such obstruction, which necessarily comes from previous progress within Hinayana. Which also means, there is no such thing as "sudden enlightenment". It may only appear so, but is due to very long previous cultivation. Chan is a school of the "Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma". It's in Lankavatara.
    This is more serious business, than just goofing off.

    It is unimportant what the sutra says, Sutras are guides they are not absolute truth. They are a perspective, not THE perspective.

    When one creates within their mind a structure, or accept a structure imposed upon themselves by "authority" they bind themselves to that structure and if they are not careful they become a slave to that structure. The structure then becomes an anchor binding them to the world system.

    There is no Hinayana or Mahayana, they are phantasms used as expedient means, nothing more. It is unimportant whether one moves from the first to the second, from the second to the first, or avoids both altogether.

    Avoid clinging to any teaching and directly see into/through the illusion. You can read about the taste of an orange in a sutra, or you can taste the orange for yourself, and then be your own sutra!

    The choice is each individual's to make for themselves.

    Step!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    It's not about "teachings" or "structure" but insights which one obviously comes to in stages. I couldn't care less about structure. That's just the natural course, and happens to be explicated in the sutras.

    I'm not into fancy zen speech and debate though. That's all lie-to-yourself BS to me.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    It's not about "teachings" or "structure" but insights which one obviously comes to in stages. I couldn't care less about structure. That's just the natural course, and happens to be explicated in the sutras.

    I'm not into fancy zen speech and debate though. That's all lie-to-yourself BS to me.
    I agree with you!

    With the exception that there is not one defined "natural" course. In fact, once one defines that course it is no longer natural. And one cannot get around "define the course" by saying identify the course", because to identity is to define.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    ... The Dhammapada and other texts of the Pali Canon are considered part of "first turning" teachings. ..
    Something about the term "Pali Cannon" just really bugs me.
    I think I've just run into too many hard-line Theravadans who bash anything they don't consider "orthodox," too many Westerners stressing over the "Historical BuddhaŽ," and too many apologetic Northern/Eastern Buddhists who seem ashamed of the documents, theories, and histories of their respective schools.

    The idea of Theravadan Orthodoxy/Fundamentalism & the idea of Pali as the original language of Buddhism doesn't really pre-date Buddhaghosa in the 5th century AD; who translated existing Sri Lankan Sinhalese texts into Pali, started touting it as the true source, and burned the originals. In fact this view directly contradicts the the views of the other 17 early schools (and possibly their own suttas) which recommended keeping things in whatever vernacular is/was current for the times/region.

    There were at least 4 major languages of early Buddhism: Buddhist-Sanskrit, Prakrit (Gāndhārī/Karosthi), Apabhramsa, and Paisaci. There are 3 early copies of the Dhammapada from different schools of early Buddhism, in 3 different languages, and none have the exact same content. There are early tipitaka/tripitaka suttas/sutras that are even quoted by Theravadan sources that are not contained in the Pali tipitaka; for example the Milindipanha references a sutta that doesn't appear in the Theravadan tipitaka. Nagarjuna & the Sarvastivadans quoted tripitaka sutras that they took as canon but do not appear in the Theravadan tipitaka and there are suttas in the Theravadan tipitaka that are not recognized by any other schools. Don't even get me started on the Abhidhamma.
    (For references to & further reading on the above, see Peter Skilling's article "Scriptural Authenticity and the Sravaka Schools: An Essay Towards an Indian Perspective", the Eastern Buddhist Journal Vol 41, #2. 2010)

    The rest of your post almost seems to be the standard Tibetan view of the teachings?
    Of course I would argue that their tossing around of the "H-yana" word leads to a lot of problems between the various schools. Hard to get the Theravadans to lay off the full frontal assault when they're constantly feeling antagonized (even though the term was never meant to address them directly).

    I think this is the first I've heard of Chan/Zen being referred to as a third-turning school. On one hand it makes some sense given the "directness" of the path and similarities to Dzogchen & Mahamudra. On the other hand I would say that the practice of Dhyana/Jhana is important to all schools of Buddhism and that the Theravadan Thai Forest monks say a lot of stuff that sounds a lot like what the old Zen masters said/say.

    Tend to be a bit more of an Ekayana person myself - there's one full Awakening, we're all shooting for it, and we should develop the 4 Immeasurables/Brahma Viharas on the way.
    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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Pork Chop View Post
    The rest of your post almost seems to be the standard Tibetan view of the teachings?
    Of course I would argue that their tossing around of the "H-yana" word leads to a lot of problems between the various schools.
    The Three Turnings was originally devised by the Yogacara and seems to have caught on in several other schools. From a Three Turnings point of view, the "H-word" is not derogatory because it is an absolutely necessary stage. In Chinese they are called "small" and "large" vehicles as a description of the scope of their doctrines on emptiness, which is accurate. One deals only with the emptiness of personal selfhood, and the other expands to include also the emptiness of phenomenal selfhood. How can you come to accept phenomenal emptiness without having first emptied personal selfhood (at least conceptually, that is)? So it's a natural part of the same stream.

    Besides, the "H-word" shouldn't necessarily be tossed around. Different schools have their own understanding and are best left in their own context. Some folks are just bent on having their feelings hurt by the "literal meaning" of the big, bad H-word, even if you explain the above understanding. I used to be part of a Buddhist discussion forum. No longer. There's about as much bickering back and forth as on the Wing Chun forum, just with a little more bromance.

    I think this is the first I've heard of Chan/Zen being referred to as a third-turning school. On one hand it makes some sense given the "directness" of the path and similarities to Dzogchen & Mahamudra.
    I studied Yogacara in great depth, mainly from the Chinese Weishi school, and found it to make a lot of sense of Chan teachings. Then seeing that Vasubandhu is considered the 21st patriarch of Dhyana (and Nagarjuna the 14th) made total sense to me.

    I have since withdrawn from it all and just do what I do.
    Last edited by LFJ; 03-05-2013 at 06:23 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    I hope you've got your answer now, BlackEChan

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    There's about as much bickering back and forth as on the Wing Chun forum, just with a little more bromance.
    roflmao (and I almost never use that particular web acronym). I so feel ya on that LFJ.
    It's just like that old zen parable:
    Student 1: The flag is flapping!
    Student 2: No, the wind is flapping!
    Master: Your minds are flapping!

    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  10. #40
    Once the Monad became Diad confict was inherent to the system of extistence. This is the lesson of Yin-Yang!

    Conflict is the mother of creation, without it there is no creation. It is beneficial to embrace conflict as necessary to existence, change and growth.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    The Three Turnings was originally devised by the Yogacara and seems to have caught on in several other schools.
    Wasn't aware of that, cool. Probably need to read more Asanga & Vasubandhu.

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    One deals only with the emptiness of personal selfhood, and the other expands to include also the emptiness of phenomenal selfhood. How can you come to accept phenomenal emptiness without having first emptied personal selfhood (at least conceptually, that is)? So it's a natural part of the same stream.
    Interestingly, I've run into people online that deny that phenomenal emptiness appears in the Pali. I provided at least 5 references to it and had 2 more that were pretty explicit, but I got bored of the conversation. Apparently 2 of the ones Nagarjuna quoted from the most don't appear in the Pali.

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Besides, the "H-word" shouldn't necessarily be tossed around. Different schools have their own understanding and are best left in their own context. Some folks are just bent on having their feelings hurt by the "literal meaning" of the big, bad H-word, even if you explain the above understanding. I used to be part of a Buddhist discussion forum. No longer. There's about as much bickering back and forth as on the Wing Chun forum, just with a little more bromance.
    I definitely feel you on the part about the forums. Finally gave up on them altogether here the last week or 2. Hoping it sticks. There are a few cool people, but a lot of nutjobs.

    As far as the "H" word fallout, I'm a bit more troubled by the fact that a lot of modern scholarship seems to be taking up the mantle. Reading Peter Harvey's latest book, he's openly Theravadan, and while he's considered a solid scholar, the bias is palpable. At one point he seems to make the claim that Theravada represents pragmatism, Tibetan Buddhism represents advanced psychological techniques, and East Asian Buddhism is nothing more than devotional superstition. Been hard to take him seriously after that, and he's not the first... Nattier making claims that half of the major East Asian source documents (Heart Sutra, Awakening of Faith, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, etc) are nothing more than Chinese "forgeries" isn't too cool either. Eventually I'm just going to stick to books on topics I like. hehe

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    I studied Yogacara in great depth, mainly from the Chinese Weishi school, and found it to make a lot of sense of Chan teachings. Then seeing that Vasubandhu is considered the 21st patriarch of Dhyana (and Nagarjuna the 14th) made total sense to me.
    I go to a Vietnamese Tiantai place around the corner and have a bit of a hankering for Mind-Only Pure Land & Chan meditation. Asanga, Vasubandhu, and Nagarjuna are some of my favorite reads. More recent folks, Thich Nhat Hanh is cool and I really like vids from the late Sheng-Yen of Dharma Drum mountain - also got one of his books. I'm wondering if the typical Pure Land approach of keeping it simple and staying away from too much research or debate isn't a display of pure brilliance...
    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

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Pork Chop
    Wasn't aware of that, cool. Probably need to read more Asanga & Vasubandhu.
    Yogacara has a pretty thick collection of sutras and sastras that are hard to find, including odd individual works by Vasubandhu and "Maitreya", but since that was mainly the school I studied I eventually found copies. Several thick hard cover books were quite expensive. Now I'm living in China, and left most of them back in the states and miss them.

    It's a lot to take in, all the very fine detail of things the school goes into, but it really makes sense of everything I've studied from Xiaocheng to Dacheng, from Pali to Pureland, that were previously difficult to understand/reconcile. The underlying "meaning", how's and why's, are all put straightforwardly.

    The Three Turnings is a logical stream of the Buddha's teachings, based on the natural course of insight. In other words, it doesn't just "say" Mahayana is greater and "you guys" aren't ready for it or on an inferior path, like a lot of internet nutjobs like to argue, but explains in great detail precisely when, why, and how one comes to different points of the path and ties it all together making all of the schools of Buddhism internally consistent with one-another, even from Arhatship to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. That may be an easy task for someone trying to draw parallels just looking for group hugs, but Yogacara goes into hairsplitting detail.

    Btw, the 8 Layers of Consciousness provides the finest explanation of "rebirth" --what is it exactly, how and why-- that I've ever seen. Otherwise complicated and sticky subjects like that, that get a lot of attention on forums, are clearly explained in Yogacara. Previously, I'd only seen vague explanations in the sutras, but it wasn't necessary at that stage. All there was to know was that it happens, and be aware of karma. By the Third Turning it's all explicated in a way that is straightforward, and as verifiable (at least by reason and deduction) as you can get to a scientifically satisfactory explanation of rebirth.

    One long text I'd recommend is the Cheng Weishi Lun (Demonstration of Consciousness Only) which is actually Xuan Zang's commentary on Vasubandhu's last work, "Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only". It's a lot to swallow, but it's worth it!

    Both of these texts, plus Vasubandhu's "Twenty Verses" are available in this book.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Btw, the 8 Layers of Consciousness provides the finest explanation of "rebirth" --what is it exactly, how and why-- that I've ever seen.
    Think I'm starting to understand how it all fits together (re Yogacara & Tibetan).
    I also study with a Lam Rim group and have dabbled quite a bit in Tibetan Gelug tradition.
    Came to the conclusion that the sheer number of practices required for Tibetan Buddhism are a bit more than I can handle. I'm kind of a "keep it simple" guy. But it has helped to get exposure to ideas like the alaya consciousness and even some of the philosophical debates between Yogacara & Madhyamaka (Buddhapalita - Bhavaviveka - Candrakirti). HH the Dalai Lama's Heart Sutra book was particularly helpful for a lot of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    One long text I'd recommend is the Cheng Weishi Lun (Demonstration of Consciousness Only) which is actually Xuan Zang's commentary on Vasubandhu's last work, "Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only". It's a lot to swallow, but it's worth it!

    Both of these texts, plus Vasubandhu's "Twenty Verses" are available in this book.
    Thanks for the heads up on the book, added it to my wish list.
    Got over 40 books to get through at the moment.
    Got through another 30+ pages of Harvey's book last night, about 150 to go.
    After that, not quite sure, I have LOTS of Suttas & Sutras to get through.
    Ideally, it'd be nice to get through all the Pali Suttas and hit Santideva's Bodhicaryavatara before moving on to the Mahayana Sutras (starting with the Prajnaparamitas), but that's a lot of reading.
    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. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    182
    LFJ, thanks for expounding a lot of your knowledge on this topic (oh, and other people too!). I'm really an outsider in this discussion, having only read Thomas Cleary's translations and commentaries of the Wumenguan and tried to get something out of them, and read a few books on Zen/ Chan and Buddhism.
    Well, I also did a Japanese martial art called Shorinji Kempo, which is supposed to be a Zen Buddhist art, we had to do a bit of seated meditation, and we had to recite an oath, which was a translation from the Dhammapada. As far as I can remember, the translation went: 'By doing evil, I contaminate myself. By not doing evil, I purify myself. Purity and impurity come from within, and others cannot purify my heart.'

    Excuse me that I haven't read any scholarly works on Shaolin history, but I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me. Are there any ties between Shaolin and an Indian martial art called, I think, Kalaripayattu?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Sima Rong View Post
    Excuse me that I haven't read any scholarly works on Shaolin history, but I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me. Are there any ties between Shaolin and an Indian martial art called, I think, Kalaripayattu?
    Nice Dhammapada quote by the way, I love that book.

    If nobody minds, I'll add my own opinion to this point, as it seems I haven't been very on-topic for most of this thread and I'm dying to contribute.

    As far as Shaolin martial arts coming from Kalaripayattu, it's a tough question to answer.
    China had qigong development and 5 animal play before they had Buddhism (though it was a different five animals.)
    China also had martial arts before they had Buddhism, so that part's hard to claim too.
    Bodhidharma's a tricky issue as well, many think he was a literary device more than a real person.
    There was a Bodhidharma in China around that time but was an Iranian Buddhist (if I remember correctly) and didn't necessarily do what's described in legend.
    There's also the accusation that Bodhidharma as the source of the Muscle Changing (Marrow washing) Classic is a rather late invention (18th century if I'm not mistaken).

    What I do think is that qi and prana are roughly equivalent and that there was a lot of back and forth between India and China in the creation of practices to develop such energy.
    There was a lot of back and forth between the 2 cultures during the first millennia of the Common Era in both qigong type exercise and Buddhism.
    I think the influence went both ways and if anything Indian meditative practices greatly influenced Chinese martial arts.
    Whether this influence occurred as is described in legend is anyone's guess, but personally, I think it's more of a metaphor.

    Where Confucianism said that one should not suffer to live in the same country as one who killed your father, Buddhism preached nonviolence, or at least no-killing.
    I think this outlook greatly influenced the Chinese away from such an "eye for an eye" ideology of vengeance, towards an ideology of being compassionate towards one's "enemies".

    On the other hand, the idea of "soldiers in the guise of monks" is a reality in asia. "Fighting monks" who weren't really monks at all is definitely a possibility.
    Vajrapani was a major object of devotion of Shaolin. Vajrapani was considered a "Dharma Protector", in fact the personal Dharma Protector of the Buddha himself.
    As with many things in early history, the reality is not so clear.
    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

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
  •