from a historical (not secular or spiritual)perspective, when I read up on the history of Zen, it seems like authors shy away from Shaolin almost on purpose.
for instance in the wikepedia article on Zen, which I know wikipedia isnt a good source all the time, its a popular one so its nice to see what "e-scholars" agree upon with certain topics......I looked deep into it and it doesnt reference Shaolin outside of a small segment in the "Zen Arts" paragraph. this segment speaks very briefly on gongfu ad qigong as zen arts developed in Shaolin Monastery.
Name:  Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 4.01.29 PM.jpg
Views: 203
Size:  131.0 KB
its really irritating to have a big gap in the history like that. how can they say Zen was founded, rather transmitted to China via Bodhidharma, yet leave where he was, and to who he transmitted it to? It literaly jumps from Damo to the 4th and 5th patriarchs, and speaks of Hui Neng (6th patriarch) as if he had no affiliation with Shaolin. is this on purpose?

also the 5 houses leave out Shaolin, which leads me to my next question, Shaolin is veiwed as its own school of Ch'an separate from the 5 houses? then how did we get from Shaolin to Guiyang and so on.....
is anyone here familiar with the lineage?

Name:  Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 4.05.41 PM.jpg
Views: 198
Size:  139.6 KB

whos writing this stuff?

there should be a book or article called "From Shaolin to Dogen" , and detail how Ch'an was developed and cultivated at Shaolin, instead of saying it developed it "multiple locations in China" .....such a slap in the face.....yea multiple locations in and around Shaolin Temple in Songshan.

Amituofo