Just thought....

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
1

On why buddhist monks might of felt the need to develop a martial art. What better way would there to influence and get the respect of the warlords and generals of the country?

You develop a martial art that serves the greater good not only on a personal, self defense level, but through it you can attract and influence those who are interested in war and destruction. Teaching them your masterful forms of combat might influence them. The very temple surroundings with its calm atmosphere and peaceful monks would also temporarily calm them and help them see an alternative life to seeking war and conquest. Unbeknown to the generals that the same qi gong and forms used for combat are also burning up bad karma by flushing their energy systems with positive energy and flushing out the negatve.

Not only that. As Doshin of shorinji kempo found. The martial arts attract you young who do not want to sit and listen to boring religious doctrine. However, shorinji kempo is well entwined with Doshans own take on Zen.

I wonder how many folks have taken up martial arts and then looked into the more spiritual aspects as time progressed. I’d say a hell of a lot more than in any of other physical activity or sport.

I don’t like to admit this but also. It is possible that the shaolin temple was merely corrupted and that chan was used much as it was in Japan by the samurai. Is there any evidence of this?

2

Bungle,
Buddhist monks from Shaolin developed the martial arts as an outgrowth of their spiritual studies. They were seeking to destroy illusions in order to find the truth, and nothing is more real than the life and death scenarios provided by combat. Their martial studies eventually brought them to attain enlightenment.

As far as Chan corrupting the Temple or being abused, I do not know of any evidence to support this. Chan was one of the principle foundations within the Shaolin Temple. Chan and the martial arts went hand in hand, working together in harmony. It is through the Chan beliefs that the marital arts develped within the Temple. Hence, no spears, but poles, bleaded weapons were only sharpened in specific areas, such as the last three inches of the blade near its tip. Combat was not seen as fighting, but a restoration of harmony to a Monk. If someone entered their space with bad intent, a monk had every right to refuse that entry forcefully. he has as much right to exist as the next person.

I am not too familair with the Samurai and the integration of Zen, so I cannot fairly comment on their use of Chan (Zen).

Steve

3

Some thoughts…

First and foremost, Shaolin temple wasn’t open to Bodhidharma’s Dyana transmission in the beginning. It is said that it took at least 9 years for Ch’an (Dyana) to be the “curriculum”.

This goes to say that there are more than one “form” of Budhism.

Not all Budhism embrace absolute pacifism. Not all Budhism live in the monastery only. If that is that case, Bodhidharma wouldn’t travel all the way to China in the first place. I believe that he brought in Budhist missionary model instead of just Ch’an Budhism. Ironically, we all know that Henan Shaolin temple has a tendence to “own” things. Ch’an, martial arts, land, Imperial decraction, special previliages, even the idea of trademark. sigh

When this Budhist missionary model moved out of the temple and to the south of China, we see the practice of religion, kung fu, and medicine all come under the roof of a kwoon. It is about a practice of spirituality, self-defense/fitness, and healing. That’s the practice that brings about Arhatship (luohan), which according to some Budhist traditions, is not absolute Buddha hood or perfect enlightened being. Arhat is after all the worthy one who has high attainment that can be lost. Budha used the churning of the ocean parable to expounded the imperminant state of being a luohan. Bodhidharma would be considered as a Bodhisattva in Mahayana tradition. He wouldn’t want to and needed not to be a Budha anyway. The important thing is to bring Vajra Prajna Paramita to all beings and non being. But then Chinese being Chinese, most of us took to it that Ch’an is from Shaolin. So we never really learn Bodhidharma’s real lesson. Most of us just immitated it and thought we’ve got it. But the sad truth is we have never learnt and we buy and crave the Shaolin label.

Mantis108

4

Thanks. I can see how martial arts would be useful but it is the initial starting point. When they first decided to use their qi gong and combine it with martial arts. That has always been of interest to me. The inspiration, the influence that caused them to start the training. Maybe Generals who went there to retire simply taught a group of young monks so they could protect the temple. That makes sense…

5

There is no singular reason, but there are some likely reasons as to why there were martial artists in temples.

Not just buddhist temples either and not just Shaolin.

At different periods throughout history, and especially after mahayana buddhism entered China, Buddhist temples found themselves being granted wealth and lands in not small amounts.

This was because the wealthy and everyday people wanted to acquire merit. To do this, they could help a temple, help the poor through giving to the temple or any number of other ways that was directly connected to the seat of the religious thinking…basically, the temple.

Very similar to the reasons that people put money into the collection plate in a christian church, or help the poor or whatever. Good deeds = god smiles upon you.

Anyway, the temples became wealthy on and off at points throughout their histories. The Shaolin temple was no different in this respect and in fact at several times it became extremely wealthy.

Being a pacifist doesn’t equate to being an idiot about protecting your assets. Rejection of theft or offense is at the root of the development of Martial arts.

The monks would need to defend the temple from theives and bandits and warlords who would steal from them.

Because of the practices that the shaolin had, they attained some noteriety in their ability to defend themselves, so much so that they became legendary for their martial prowess.

So, the martial arts of shaolin and the monks who practiced it also saw it as a way of understanding it (the practice of martial arts). After all there is no teacher like experience and that is a strong lesson in Chan thought.

In buddhism, it is thought, how can you know light if you are not sure what dark is? It is through the exploration of both sides of the duality that we begin to understand that neither side exists. And this is also key in zen.

How can we know sweet, if we do not taste bitter?

and so, after about 1000 years of this type of thinking, well, you can see how the martial arts would get so highly developed. along with the fact that physical exercise and meditation were pretty much all the monks had to do to fill their time.

they certainly weren’t the first temple or church to raise an army and they weren’t the last. They just happened to raise an army that fit within cultural ideals and religious tenet which made them a little different than your average soldier. More along the lines of a holy knight or the “righteous scholar warrior” type figure.

real archetypes in many cultures.defenders of the faith, protectors of the weak, all that sort of righteous goodness that one would expect of a higher thinker who is master of mind and body in equal amounts.

cheers

6

A couple of thoughts…I know there would have been a strong secular power structure too, like at least a Governor or Emperor imposing law & taking tribute from the population. Even so, would Shaolin have expected aid from the secular authority, in the event of say, a group of bandits sacking the temple for food or whatever else of value?
Even if you can call on “help,” you have to allow time for it to arrive. From what I can tell, Songshan’s not the hub of a huge population center in modern times, although maybe it was at one point.
It seems sort of natural that they would see the need to have a defensive contingency.
Didn’t the temple burn because of the then-Abbot’s friendship with a political figure?
There are places on the North American continent (not naming names) that still have ‘bandits.’

An hour or so north of here is a Sikh community. They are pretty insular but still strive to promote positive relations..But anyway, if I was part of a group like that I bet I’d feel better knowing a had good training in self defense. Just because of the way people are.
The thought of them arose when I was trying to imagine ancient Shaolin. I don’t kno why.
I agree with KL’s thoughts in his post above.

7

I understand why violence can be done by a buddhist monk. Especially one from the mayhayana tradition. As long as their actions are motivated by compassion for a greater good. They can ignore their vows if they are required to fight.

I understand the need for protection of the temple. It is fair enough and i suspect that the retired generals who went there had big influences to begin with.

The thing i don’t get it this political business. They seemed to of gotten involved in politics. I guess they could move into an area and defend the innocent people. Maybe it took a lot of talking to get them to come round to the idea.

They are different from knights paladin or holy knights. These knights killed, like the romans, out of pride. They would subdue the enemy and make them listen to the truth. Like terrorists.

I feel shaolin should not be equated to the terroist way of thinking. They would not fight out of revenge, or for god, or to convert the local inhabitants. They wouldn’t fight to save a political system or an emporer.

All their fighting would be out of compassion. So if there are lives of innocent people at stake that desperately need help then they intervene.

People sometimes say. Well they’re only human, maybe they had to fight and wanted to protect thier country, they had political biasing… I think people who say this underestimate buddhist practice.

Wasn’t there a time when the abbott invited martial artists from around the country to come and teach the monks? The large painting in the monastary?

Thanks

8

Originally posted by bungle
[B]I understand why violence can be done by a buddhist monk. Especially one from the mayhayana tradition. As long as their actions are motivated by compassion for a greater good. They can ignore their vows if they are required to fight.

I think to prceive it as part-time vow is to misunderstand

I understand the need for protection of the temple. It is fair enough and i suspect that the retired generals who went there had big influences to begin with.

The thing i don’t get it this political business. They seemed to of gotten involved in politics. I guess they could move into an area and defend the innocent people. Maybe it took a lot of talking to get them to come round to the idea.

They are different from knights paladin or holy knights. These knights killed, like the romans, out of pride. They would subdue the enemy and make them listen to the truth. Like terrorists.

I feel shaolin should not be equated to the terroist way of thinking. They would not fight out of revenge, or for god, or to convert the local inhabitants. They wouldn’t fight to save a political system or an emporer.

]actuallly…it is a well known part od shaolin history that they were employed by the Emporors for protection…it was all about politics , especially near the end…or pre-cultural rev…but I think you’re right …and I think this is what ultimately saw the demise of old day shaolin resulting in some of the most horrific displays of humanity to date…despite their famous martial prowess

All their fighting would be out of compassion. So if there are lives of innocent people at stake that desperately need help then they intervene.

People sometimes say. Well they’re only human, maybe they had to fight and wanted to protect thier country, they had political biasing… I think people who say this underestimate buddhist practice.

Wasn’t there a time when the abbott invited martial artists from around the country to come and teach the monks? The large painting in the monastary?

Thanks [/B]

9

actuallly…it is a well known part od shaolin history that they were employed by the Emporors for protection…it was all about politics , especially near the end…or pre-cultural rev…but I think you’re right …and I think this is what ultimately saw the demise of old day shaolin resulting in some of the most horrific displays of humanity to date…despite their famous martial prowess

I’m not exactly sure what your saying here. Are you saying shaolin started became corrupted over time and more and more political in nature as its power increased?

Or are you saying that shaolins demise was due to their unwilingness to act politically?

How many instances do we have of them helping the emporer and could they also be instances where civilians are in danger and need protection?

I guess working as a body guard is no crime as long as those who you protect are not evil.

It seems shaolin almost became mercenary like. What evidence is there of this mercenary type behaviour? Could it be explained and validated from a buddhist perspective?

I’d say that if they became mercenaries, nationlistic or politically driven then this suggests deviation from buddhist teachings. Maybe that explains the lack of notice by other forms of zen.

10

Actually. That body guard thing is incorrect. It wouldn’t matter who your were protecting. You would simply defend against the agressor i guess.

11

I understand why violence can be done by a buddhist monk. Especially one from the mayhayana tradition. As long as their actions are motivated by compassion for a greater good. They can ignore their vows if they are required to fight.

Personally, I don’t believe Ch’an is about “action motivated by compassion for a greater good”. This would make Ch’an falls back onto the cause and effect or Karma category. My understanding is that Ch’an is not by nature about the teaching of Karma. Ch’an IMHO is the direct and intuitive mind that is at the same time the origin and result of the discipline namely Dhyana (meditation). There is a resolve beyond reasoning and emotions. You see this resolve in all the tales about Ch’an masters starting from Bodhidharma himself. He was said to have cut off his eye lids in order to stay awake in meditation. His first disciple cut off one arm in order to receive the dharma. This goes on and on in the Ch’an Buddhist tradition. It suggests to me that priest warrior mentality is totally possible given all the bloody tales. I don’t believe that in a normal mindset causing bodily harm is justified in anyway, yet Ch’an teachings don’t seem to bother with that at all. It could be that these tales are no more than tall tales or Koan if you will. But there are definitely a deeper meaning than simply rationalize and reason with them. One have to “meditate” them in order to under the unique resolve (priest warrior) of Ch’an. BTW, a Ch’an master would be conducting 3 battles, that of the body, mind, and spirit at the same time.

I understand the need for protection of the temple. It is fair enough and i suspect that the retired generals who went there had big influences to begin with.

The protection of the temple(s) and to a large extend self preservation of the monks has to do with cultural clashes as well. In India, receiving and even soliciting alms would not considered detestful but in China that’s a taboo in which sometime the end result is senseless beating of the soliciting party. So there is a need for a commune (the sangha) and the place to house the sangha is the temple. They don’t have to solicit alms having land to farm. Sangha or the monk communion was not always accepted due to the economic and social structure of China. They are not exactly “productive” members of society. They have to become useful in certain way. Being able to contribute in military campaigns is one of the ways that Shaolin was perceived as productive at least in the imperial courts’ perspectives. It is also a smart diversification of services of the Buddhist sect in China.

The thing i don’t get it this political business. They seemed to of gotten involved in politics. I guess they could move into an area and defend the innocent people. Maybe it took a lot of talking to get them to come round to the idea.

In the very beginning of the Shaolin temple, they have learnt the importance of having patrons of the imperial courts. In fact, the temple was built because of that. Besides the practical reasons mentioned above. It is also an important strategic lesson that the Buddhists have learnt from the Taoists. That is having the ears of the Emperor is crucial to the survival of the religion. This is since Yuan dynasty’s time. They were almost wiped out if not for Fu Yue’s effort in restoring the Buddhist order in China. At a time when democracy is unheard of, your only chance of having a voice or making a difference is to grab the ear of the law and order makers, namely the imperial courts. Inevitably this means getting involve in politics.

They are different from knights paladin or holy knights. These knights killed, like the romans, out of pride. They would subdue the enemy and make them listen to the truth. Like terrorists.

No comments

I feel shaolin should not be equated to the terroist way of thinking. They would not fight out of revenge, or for god, or to convert the local inhabitants. They wouldn’t fight to save a political system or an emporer.

Shaolin is often credited with saving Tang Taizhong (first emperor of Tang dynasty), who gave about 600 years of culutral and economic growth to China. Chinese often pride ourselves as Tang Ren (people of Tang). If Shaolin monks didn’t lend a hand to Li Shiwen, the whole Chinese history and to a certain degree Japen’s history plus Buddhism history would have to be rewritten. Without a strong Tang dynasty the prospect of Ch’an would be glimsp and Zen would not have evolved. The samurais would have not the luxury of Zen’s spiritual outlook. Without Zen, how would Bushido develop? It would be unthinkable what could have happened. It’s almost the case of “It’s a wonderful life”.

All their fighting would be out of compassion. So if there are lives of innocent people at stake that desperately need help then they intervene.

That’s an ideal in an ideal world. But life on this planet is not really like that. Just an opinion. :slight_smile:

People sometimes say. Well they’re only human, maybe they had to fight and wanted to protect thier country, they had political biasing… I think people who say this underestimate buddhist practice.

There are certainly misunderstanding everywhere. This is not just Buddhism. Anyother discipline religious or otherwise is the same way. That’s why we have Ch’an.

Wasn’t there a time when the abbott invited martial artists from around the country to come and teach the monks? The large painting in the monastary?

I think the “legend” began at arround Yuan dynasty. Then it turns into a myth of 18 styles’ masters, including Taizu Changquan, were taught in Henan Shaolin temple. This is arround late Qing dynasty (mid 1800s) I believe. The “burning” of the Henan Shaolin would be more recent which is about 1920s or1930s by one of the warlords. Of course Fujian Shaolin or Southern Shaolin is yet another great “myth” of CMA that is again a Qing dynasty thing IMHO.

Anyway, There are lots of research out there nowadays. I am sure that you will find them helpful in whatever that you are searching for. It is the journey that matter IMHO. So enjoy what you have already.

Mantis108

12

Thanks for the reply Mantis. I can see your points. I think i have the crux of the problem though. When we are trying to work understand why monks did the things they did we are looking at it from our point of view. Our conciousness.

Their conciousness is very different. Things look, seem and are different for them. The only way we can understand is to take on their way of viewing things and we need historical facts to give us a concrete setting in which to do that.

I disagree with your first comment.

Personally, I don’t believe Ch’an is about “action motivated by compassion for a greater good”. This would make Ch’an falls back onto the cause and effect or Karma category

The goal of zen is to reveal the practioners buddha nature by mindfully releasing all his thoughts. Getting as close to an enlightened person as possible so that he can hopefully realise the truth.

The buddha nature is said to be compassonate. Therefore spontaneous and intuitive actions of advanced Chan monks are motivated out of compassion. Compassion for needless suffering.

It is true that while a master might say and do harsh things to a student in order to wake him up, they would not stand idly as REAL harm is being done to another.

I’m sure the arm severing was to shatter his illusions. Those monks who came to masters seeking enlightenment get whatever they are given.

Innocent folks on the other hand may need to be protected from violent acts. The violent acts of masters are to wake up their students and they know the students will benefit in the long term for this. The violent acts of lay men are derived from emotions and are not productive or compassionate.

I’m sure the helping of the emporer is more complex than it seems as i’m sure any political approval seeking is. I imagine that these things could even be moves directly from the intuitive buddha mind doing what is best for the temple rather than motivation from the emotional mind which seeks approval, control or saftey.

13

bungle…

I saw this an wrote like a half hour reply, but I lost server right as I was subitting…have some comments here I’d like to share…doing my ch’an doctral and all.

but I’ll have to do it tommorow …

cheers

14

dude, have you ever been to ancient china?.. well neither have I. lol um people answered this already. bandits and animal attacks, improve the body for meditation.

15

If by “people answered this already” you mean they said “bandits and animal attacks, improve the body for meditation” that doesn’t wash with me.

I’m not gonna accept this at face value. The above quote might apply to a bunch of english explorers in the new world, “bandits and animal attacks” but if you assume buddhist monks are the same as 99% of other people then you’d be mistaken.

The main reason i have so much interest in this is direct, first hand experience of transformation and so i realise how powerful it is and how everyday theories and problems do not apply to them.

As Jung said, is it the events in the world that cause me to be upset or my reaction to them? The monks new very well the answer to this. So for them to begin to develop martial arts then there should be some good reasons for it and i havn’t heard anything that convinces me.

On the other hand, i’m just doing this cos i get bored at work so i ain’t too fussed. How do you know i havn’t been to ancient china. Maybe i have!!!

16

to me all of my excercise andespecially my gongfu is moving meditation…I feelmoreable to cope with daily annoyances when I both meditate and train…to be vigilant in my workouts, especially when coupled with meditation, makes me feel more…at peace…

I feel I am doing my spirit a service to look after the vehile it travels this life-time in , so for me as long as I know I’m using right will, right thought , right action and right medtitation, it doesn’t eally matter what happens in the world around me…I retain my peace

tootired to answer on the polictical mercenary relevance but will hopefully get round to it soon

cheers

17

Yeah I’m interested in the polotics especially. I can well believe that kung fu is beneficial it is just the initial motivation that interested me. They can’t of known it would be beneficial until they did it?

I guess they may of been guided by bodhisatvas or gods or higher beings…

Actually, on another forum i did come up with one good reason. If you goto buddhanet.net and look at the timeline it is obvious that buddhism has been pretty much ****ed on by various authorities. Including China. It could be seen that the monks knew that preserving Chan buddhism be far more important than any personal issues. Thus kung fu must be developed to protect the religion from extinction. A neccesary evil and yet one that can be used to maximise its potential for good. For me, this idea resonates. Protecting the Chan buddhist religion. Not the monastary and not the monks themselves but preserving the religion. That clicks. What do you think?

18

Originally posted by bungle
[B]Yeah I’m interested in the polotics especially. I can well believe that kung fu is beneficial it is just the initial motivation that interested me. They can’t of known it would be beneficial until they did it?
]
spot on…you try sitting in cavefor 9yrsandsee what movementsyour body will want to make… at a time later, as hadalways been provinces were at war and te best system of defence retained control…and monks were on hire by request of emporors and royal guard to stand as their bodyguards…eventually times progressed and asthe end of the dynasty leagcy came about, gongfu, being a threat to national security, became outlawed…monks and civilians were killed and sujected to somwe of the most atrocious displays of humanity ever witnesses in our history…there was nomercy and fighting was vicious…I believe that becaues of their ethical stance there was not as great resistyance from shaolin, of those still living preferring to seek seclusion, in lieu of torturous “punishment” for crimes against “progression”(possibly accoutning for renegade and mercenary stories following…please also see the “boxer rebellion” of early 1900, where similar events and secluded groups of practitioners tookto underground means of preservation of “old China” IE: self-sufficient, indepedant and traditional non-western influenced life. At this time of the 1049 war, to and beyond the '69 “great revoloution” or cultural revoloution..international trade was opening up and relations with the west were paramount…gongfu was a threat to these influences because of their views on traditional preservation, and aside from government structured wushu ( which also evntually became a criminal act to practice)…the only gongfu had either left the coutry narrowly wih it’s life or gone underground. Gongfu was developed as a means first by confucius, who died out and coinciding with birth of Daoism…which progressed by vitue of facets of each, to buddhism and then to ch’an, as a means ofbrining peace to warring provinces…confucius beleived that if everyone would practice gongfu, as he did also, that war would subside, taoisms belief was more in ways of nature and to not fight or practice fighting skills as it promoted means for destruction, yet still has fighting arts???..gongfu forms were originally developed yes, to protect the unarmed general popualtion against mounted attacks from royal guards…so you can see here that it was originally designed for fighting opponents at higher ground…hence aerials and high kicks etc…these not being sopracticle for real ground and standing same level fighting…

I guess they may of been guided by bodhisatvas or gods or higher beings…

a bodhisvatta is a human now walking path to become like boddha or as said in buddhism, the “eternal buddha nature”…

Actually, on another forum i did come up with one good reason. If you goto buddhanet.net and look at the timeline it is obvious that buddhism has been pretty much ****ed on by various authorities. Including China. It could be seen that the monks knew that preserving Chan buddhism be far more important than any personal issues. Thus kung fu must be developed to protect the religion from extinction. A neccesary evil and yet one that can be used to maximise its potential for good. For me, this idea resonates. Protecting the Chan buddhist religion. Not the monastary and not the monks themselves but preserving the religion. That clicks. What do you think? [/B

you are correct. and the abbot of shaolin today seeks protection for shaolin as a world heritage licving monument under unesco, so they may come back to their rightful place safely within the world to spread dharma and bring chan, gongfu and community to the world

19

My understanding of bodhisattva is someone who renounces their buddhahood until all sentient beings are freed and that bodhisatvas may reside in any place of existance. Thus you may call for them to help you out if you truly want it. I think this is more pure land buddhism. Mayhayana is big on bodhisattvas but theravada don’t acknowledge them.

That is interesting stuff about confuscius. When was confuscianism first created and when did chan buddhism first come to China? It would make sense that monks might bring in confuscian values into their practice since buddhism has always taken aspects of local relgions while retaining its core foundations. The idea that by practing and understanding violence you conquer it is a great idea. Similar to that of witnessing your emotions and being mindful!

I understood that Bodhidharma brought with him energy cultivation methods of his own clan. He came to China and was refused approval to spread his mayhayana teachings. Also, i understood that when he came to China he wasn’t enlightened just very realised and spirtualy advanced. Seeing his rejection he decided to go whole hog and reach satori. On accomplishing this the monks intuitively knew bodidharma knew what he was talking about and became more resceptive. Thus he founded Chan buddhism or chinese mayhayana buddhism. Am i wrong?

20

Originally posted by bungle
[B]My understanding of bodhisattva is someone who renounces their buddhahood until all sentient beings are freed and that bodhisatvas may reside in any place of existance. Thus you may call for them to help you out if you truly want it. I think this is more pure land buddhism. Mayhayana is big on bodhisattvas but theravada don’t acknowledge them.

your udnerstaning is pretty close…thereason the theravda school doesn’t acknowledge bodhisattvas is because a bodhisattva , once he/she reaches their own nirvana, willforsake this to bring others to their., the reason you can call on one if yuo need it is probably just a ilttle optimistic that dharma hasspread and one will be nearby. These bodhisattvas are the “warrior” monks and their like…ch’an Buddhists…like myself and many others on these boards …

That is interesting stuff about confuscius. When was confuscianism first created and when did chan buddhism first come to China? It would make sense that monks might bring in confuscian values into their practice since buddhism has always taken aspects of local relgions while retaining its core foundations. The idea that by practing and understanding violence you conquer it is a great idea. Similar to that of witnessing your emotions and being mindful!

I dont have exact dates gere but confucius is something like 600 and ??bc..although nothing was solid in the way of confucism until a discple a little later on…I’lllook up some dates and get back to you asa soon I can unless NP, GeneChing or MK wants to asnwer…hmmm…boys??? :smiley:

I understood that Bodhidharma brought with him energy cultivation methods of his own clan. He came to China and was refused approval to spread his mayhayana teachings. Also, i understood that when he came to China he wasn’t enlightened just very realised and spirtualy advanced. Seeing his rejection he decided to go whole hog and reach satori. On accomplishing this the monks intuitively knew bodidharma knew what he was talking about and became more resceptive. Thus he founded Chan buddhism or chinese mayhayana buddhism. Am i wrong? [/B]

mmm hmm…guatama Siddartha, or buddha, was a prince in India, he renounced this life to persue enlightenment…he brought with him some beliefs circulating India and went from province to province trying to “sell” his beliefs to leaders in hope that it would bring peace and enlightenment to end the warring ways of of the time…He didn’t rach his greatest enligtenment until A. he spent much time in total lack of material comfort believing aesetic detatchment to be the best path…until he met this beautiful looking woman swimming in a pond..looking healthy andradient and seeing her seeing him looking so deprived of food and sustanence, decided that dead he would cease to be able to continue to do good …and so when she offered him a meal he accepted and then began to accept alms in the way of charity food donations from people in local townships where in return he would spread dharma ( doctrines and teachings of his enlightenments)…he travelledand met with many great leaders but could not convice them to subscribe to his beliefs as a means of brining peace and good rule to each province …andso disheartened and seeking where he could better improve his notions and methods, went to what is now know as “damos cave”…where he sat meditating..reflecting and considering life and humanity, morales and war amongst many other things…for 9 yrs he sat and got up only to stretch and move about his cave which in doing so borne gongfu as we ( or as ancient China) would know it ergo …he eventually took this back to a particular provincial leader with whom he had had good relations and who was receptive to his words and ideas and a temple was built so that height teach him / his pweople and translate scriptures…I’m not 100% but since the first buddhist temple in China was built in luoyang, my guess is that’s the one we’re talking about…

If you have questions you cant find answers to here …google is your friend and will turn up alot of good information…just be sure to check your sources andreconfirm elsewhere…because I’m doing my doctoral in Ch’an Buddhism, I also have a few links I can give you…read some sutras..or search on chinese history …buddhism …ch’an or even many of the current leading monks’ sites ) ie: xingpeng, shi guolin, shi xing hao, shi decheng and at russbo.com , you will find some good information and pictures

happy searching :smiley: