shame on you lot!

[SmallAssassin]

I just read the (long) post on Shaolin Ulysees, and I have to say what world do you live in???

From what I understood this Doc chap did an interview in Hooters or something? Well, I think that's bloody brilliant! It was a smart thing to do, because it is exactly YOU LOT he was trying to rattle.

I mean people, I read your posts and you're all "ah, brother" this and "ah brother" that like you're living in some kungfu movie! next thing you're going to tell me is that you speak in dubbed and have wires attached to your bodies so you can fly high in the air!

What do you think Shaolin is? It's a martial art, a hobby, a discepline, a way of learning that LIFE IS MEANT TO BE ENJOYED and be enjoyed by EVERYONE!

On that note, he is also trying to express that ANYONE is allowed to study Shaolin.

My sifu just had the privaledge of meeting one of the last, true Grandmasters of shaolin. This guy is the grand-daddy of what is considered to be the hardest and most practical Shaolin fighting style. And you know what? Let me shock you: this grandmaster drinks, smokes and has parties. OH NO! That must make him less shaolin. And the fact that my sifu also likes to hit the Glastonbury Rock Festival once a year and large it up on drugs and alcohol means he's less Shaolin, despite being the first westerner ever to be invited to join this true shaolin clan.

Do you know why we wear a uniform in kungfu? It's not to say "I am Shaolin, I am a monk!" That's fanciful rubbish. The only reasons we wear a uniform are these:

1) To show equality amongst everyone in the class;
2) To show that no matter who you are, and what you do (a stripper, solictor, criminal, doctor, streetsweeper) it doesn't matter, everyone has the equal right to study Shaolin.

So good on him for doing what he did. It's a shame that such a great art is wasted on people who only study to give themselves a sense of identity because they just can't be themselves. And I speak of 99% of shaolin practitioners.

[freedom76]

Whatever happened to health and humility?

[MasterKiller]

My sifu just had the privaledge of meeting one of the last, true Grandmasters of shaolin. This guy is the grand-daddy of what is considered to be the hardest and most practical Shaolin fighting style.

Name? Style?

[GeneChing]

Actually, I agree with you to some extent. Shaolin is a layman's discipline and the whole monk trip is totally overrated. I don't mean that to be disrespectful to the monks themselves, moreso those who would call themselves monks. It always strikes me as funny when someone says they want to become a monk because of the martial arts, but doesn't know the first thing about what monkhood means. Personally, I've pursued the monastic path outside of martial arts - I took my Buddhist vows before I took my disiciple vows. I've lived in many temples around the world and studied. So it's particularly pretentious to me when I hear people going all monk-y.

But to each their own. Eveyone has Buddha potential, and everyone arrives from a different path, whether it be Hooters or Glastonbury. The one thing I will say about authentic Shaolin, and that is that authentic Shaolin must be Chan. That doesn't mean that you have to be a monk to be Chan. You can be a jew, a pothead, a punk, a ****sexual, a subscriber - you name it.

As for the intention of Dr. Russell, I don't think it's us he wants to rattle, I think its them

In regards to the uniforms of shaolin, well, originally it was more to show humility, not equality. Buddha fashioned his first robes using scraps of cloth he found on corpses - it was an austerity thing. Nowadays, though, you don't have to wear robes to be Shaolin.

[SmallAssassin]

Now that we're on the subject of Buddhism, i find this to be quite a fasinating chapter in Shaolin.

From what I understand of Buddhism, and I mean the absolute core of Buddhism, is that you cannot actually BE buddhist. By being buddhist you end up contradicting the purpose of buddhism.

Buddhism is like kungfu in that it is form from formlessness and vice versa, hence why it was practised - what more physical expression of buddhism could you obtain other than through kungfu?

Then it gets confusing for me, because therefore by being a monk you are contradicting the understanding of Buddhism because you are not being yourself, you are being a monk. But then how do you follow Buddhism unless it has some form for which to follow? Then perhaps Buddhism is not meant to be followed.

Buddhism seems to be the whole "trying to catch flowing water" paradox. Best to just let it flow through your open palm than try to hold it with a closed fist.

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by SmallAssassin

From what I understand of Buddhism, and I mean the absolute core of Buddhism, is that you cannot actually BE buddhist. By being buddhist you end up contradicting the purpose of buddhism.

I think this is where you are wrong. by being a "true" buddhist, you are practicing every single moment. Every single act you perform conform to buddhism in spirit. In fact, it seem you are not doing anything out of ordinary. Buddhist principles are completely fused into the everyday chore.

Using Dalai Lama as an example. If you ask him if he is a buddhist, he will reply in the affirmative. He might not be a buddha yet, but for this discussion, his mastery is high enough. If you inquire why is he consider a high master, he will reply that he is a simple monk and not a high master. he is just a simple monk who practice buddhism everyday at every moment.

That simplicity in itself makes him a high master. It seem so simple, yet it is very hard to do. Try it sometime. Have just one thought while perform every act in one day. The thought of just performing that act/task at hand. Concentrate on that act and nothing else.

There is no paradox. It is all very simple yet very hard to do. Patience and persistence that is all it requires. Yet, countless have tried and failed.

wm

[Lowlynobody]

Hey SmallAssassin, if your shaolin where did you learn your Pak Mei?

[SmallAssassin]

Again this is something in buddhism which doesn't exist. There is no wrong or right, there is only that which is. The essence of buddhism is just to be.

We are taught that all of life is a matter of perspective: one person may look at a flower and decide it is pretty, another may decide it is ugly. The universal truth however dictates that the flower is neither pretty nor ugly, it just simply is, it exists, that is all.

If you read "The Teaching of Buddha" by the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, Tokyo, and "The Sermon on the Mount" by Emmet Fox, both highly acclaimed books in their field, they both state that Buddhism is something that which cannot exist in form, it is merely the essence of being. The moment one calls himself a Buddhist, that truth becomes non-existent because you have labelled yourself and thus have not understood the Buddha-truth.
Which to me feels more like Buddhism.

There is a saying in kungfu which says "Kungfu is not what you learn, but what you are." which directly confirms these teachings of learning to just be, to accept what you are in truth.

[SmallAssassin]

Originally posted by Lowlynobody
Hey SmallAssassin, if your shaolin where did you learn your Pak Mei?

I do not understand your question. Why "if you are shaolin". Pak Mei is Shaolin.

You will have to forgive me for not wishing to talk about pak mei, it just results in too much aggressive politics and arguing, and not enough enthusiasm for positive learning.

[Lowlynobody]

Just wondering if you trace your lineage back to CLC?

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]
We are taught that all of life is a matter of perspective: one person may look at a flower and decide it is pretty, another may decide it is ugly. The universal truth however dictates that the flower is neither pretty nor ugly, it just simply is, it exists, that is all.

If you read "The Teaching of Buddha" by the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, Tokyo, and "The Sermon on the Mount" by Emmet Fox, both highly acclaimed books in their field, they both state that Buddhism is something that which cannot exist in form, it is merely the essence of being. The moment one calls himself a Buddhist, that truth becomes non-existent because you have labelled yourself and thus have not understood the Buddha-truth.
Which to me feels more like Buddhism.

There's many acclaimed western buddhist books that has nothing to do with buddhism. Having not read these books, I can't judge on their qualities. The definition you gave based on your interepretation of these author's thesis is technically correct. But, you must learn how to walk before you can run.

Form and dogma are used to instill the essence. If one regard form and dogmas as the truth in totality, then certainly he is mistaken. When one achieve high level of mastery, he can forego these formalities. Yet, few really achieve high level of mastery. Many will tell what the finish line looks like, but most people can't get to the finish line from the starting line by just knowing what finish line looks like. They actually have to "run" the course. If you forego these formalities before really reaching mastery, you can only relay what other people description of what the finish line look like. You can't really say what it is because you have never "experienced" it.

Labeling oneself as a buddhist does not deviate from true buddhism. It means his practices are in accordance with four noble truths and eight folded righteous path. If what one practice does not conforms to the four noble truth and eight folded righteous path, then it is not buddhism. Regardless what people tell you.

But, based on your contention, Dalai Lama is not a "true" buddhist. I have seen him being interviewed and he professes to be a simple buddhist monk. Does that make him not a "true" buddhist? In fact, if you read through the buddhist scriptures, you will find many distinguished masters refer to themselves as "monk" in the scriptures.

I find your explanatiion misguided. Labels don't mean anything. buddhism teach one to transcend labels. but, by adopting the label does not deviate from true buddhism. It is only a formality. It is only when one define himself by the label and only see the labels, does he go astray. Buddhism allow one to put on labels and throw it away whenever one wants to (at the highest level). One is not limited by labels. but, if you see the simple act of adopting of a label deviate from "true" buddhism, then I think you are trap by these labels. But, maybe I misunderstand you which is perfectly possible.

wm

[SmallAssassin]

Wow, thank you very much for that. I am very new to the entire concept of Buddhism and it is very generous of you to be so thorough in your information.

I will dwell on this a while and see what I make of it.

Cheers!

But do see if you can get your hands on the Emmet Fox book, it is very enlightening.

[GeneChing]

Don't get caught in semantics. Buddhism can be a very intellectual pursuit, but if you start overanalysing it, it won't be the flag flapping, nor the wind flapping. It'll be your mind flapping.

Also, if you don't enjoy paradox, don't pursue Buddhism. We Buddhists love paradox, or at least that's how it might seem from the outside. From the inside, there is no outside.

The big problem with approaching Buddhism from a martial world is that it's akin to approaching physics from construction. Physics is the model, construction is the actual. Buddhism is the model, Kung Fu is the actual. Wait a minute. Strike that and reverse it. Remember what I said about paradox?

Keep in mind that there are many forms of Buddhism. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are as alike as Lutherans and Mormons. Same foundation, but different variations.

It's a mistake to view Zen as 'no right, no wrong'. In Chinese Zen, that is what I call a Kwan Yin oversight. If you fail to grasp the bodhisattva way of compassion, you lose the true gem of karma. I think this was the problem with Herrigal, who wrote Zen and the Art of Archery then went on to become a Nazi sympathiser. You miss the first and final step.

[Shaolinlueb]

Actually, I agree with you to some extent. Shaolin is a layman's discipline and the whole monk trip is totally overrated. I don't mean that to be disrespectful to the monks themselves, moreso those who would call themselves monks. It always strikes me as funny when someone says they want to become a monk because of the martial arts, but doesn't know the first thing about what monkhood means. Personally, I've pursued the monastic path outside of martial arts - I took my Buddhist vows before I took my disiciple vows. I've lived in many temples around the world and studied. So it's particularly pretentious to me when I hear people going all monk-y.

I agree with you Gene. too many people want to be a monk without understanding what it takes. before i took kung fu i knew what it takes. im a wana be monk. of course im a wana because i dont have what it takes to become a real one.

[Chinwoo-er]

Note to all


Practice buddhism

Don't think or analyse it

last time I thought about it, my brain exploded