[QUOTE=Mr Punch;829732]1) A lot of MA didnât come from Shaolin or the Taoists.[/quote]
MA like many other knowledge and technology in ancient China would have been state owned. Clans and families are the keepers of these affairs. Most if not all traditional Kung Fu would have something to do with the military and protection of the imperial properties (practically the whole China) and personales. But as the economies changes from agricultural base to a more diversed economy including commercial trade. Other trades such as militia men, teachers, guards, escorts, bandits and entertainers (lowest of the scale). Shaolin monk troops are somewhat militia-esque. They are granted special privilege by the Emperors. Daoist militia, although not a rule, mostly degenerate into cult militia and often become banned or destroyed. So yes, most of the MA didnât come from Shaolin or Wudang.
- A helluva lot (emphasis on âhellâ!
) of martial arts in the Buddhist and Taoist sects came from gangsters, bandits and murderers. Think about it: in the West we had the same religious laws: asylum. Felons and lowlifes seeking asylum from the authorities were granted clemency by the monasteries, and in return they protected the monasteries and helped keep their martial traditions alive with new ones.
Well, in some way those gangaster, bandits and murderers would still need of âsalvationâ and we need to understand that some of them were pushed to join the gangs. This is why novels such as âwater marginâ is popular becames it speaks of the corruption of the government and turns good and ordinary people to rise up against it. Make no mistake, most people know whatâs right and whatâs wrong most of the time (I bet even Mr Bush knows he ****s up most of the time) and recgonize there is a higher calling. But not every one could or would make the right choice and/or do the right thing. SoâŚ
There is a difference between actually having Buddhist and Daoist philosophies inherit in a Kung Fu system and a system that became âspiritualâ because the progenitor of the system became a worshiper or follower of a spiritual discipline. In other words, spiritual by affiliations is quite common. One example is that people somehow come across Yi Jin Jing (and there are plenty 0f versions), which is âbelievedâ to be of Shaolin origin; hence, they find it palatable to call themselves one of Shaolinâs own.
- Again related to the above. Think of the Crusades: a lot of moral instruction was not based on improving people but damage limitation. Thatâs why there are so many ecclesiastical treatises to fighting for the power of god: if you get a group of largely celibate, solely male, 50% or so criminal people in a confined space and teach them fighting youâre gonna need to use it. In China it was mainly defending themselves, in the West we could attack the Moslems!
I believe the idle medival knights have to observe something called the Peace of God and the Justice of God? All because they were doing damage to the community (re: economy). So they were reined in by the Bishops and the Barrons through the God route.
These are just a couple of thoughts, not especially backed by any evidence. Feel free to point out flaws in the arguments.
Thatâs a very interesting point. Most of the samurai codes were Confucian, and yes of course were moral codes, but more to the point they were societal codes, enforced by and generated by the mores of the society around them. The written codes that we now know as samurai ethics like bushido and the Hagakure, were all written in peacetime, again as constraints on a bored, powerful, dangerous and often borderline or out-and-out criminal class of unemployed warriors.
Confucianism was more concerned with moral codes and the enforcement of it prior to Song southern dynasty because it has always been the preferred instrutment of the government. But since that time, Confucianism also evolved to personal pursuits of enlightenment thanks to the Neo Confucianism movement started during the Northen Song. They absorded some ideas of both Buddhism and Daoism. Philosophical debates of morality whether it is divine (self imposed) or humanitarian (socially imposed) by Neo Confucians still happening today since that time. Chinese leadship, since Song dynasty, finially woke up to the fact that a smart and strong populace as a whole is better to handle the challenges of truely international or universal level impacts.
So I think the moral codes in all of these societies werenât based on: âDo this because it makes you good,â just on, âDonât do this or youll go to hellâ. More of a plea for restraint than a moral instruction. Look whatâs happened to many of the soldiers in Iraq whoâre highly trained to kill, without the moral component: you have dehumanization on such a scale as Stephen Green who gang-raped and murdered a 14 year old girl and killed her family because according to his own testimony, there was no thrill in just killing people any more.
Moral codes is but an illusion of a temperay peace. It is a slippery slope which Buddhists and Daoists have long recgonized.
The moral instructions of the warrior-monk castes in medieval times and in the orient did as much as they could to build in those restraints, but of course sometimes the killer urges were subjugated by saying, ah well, itâs OK to kill them cos theyâre Moslems⌠oh bugger, perhaps this is the same now, and perhaps this post is taking a disturbingly political angleâŚ! :eek:
Fundamentalist elements in any of the big three religions in the west is basically suffering from a tribal anxiety complex (ie Dominionism). This goes all the way back to the story of Abraham. They all believe they are the elected tribe to carry out their âGodâsâ will. Basically, the world suffers because of a family feud (re.: Ismael-Isaac feud). The worst irony is that itâs all because they wanted to control a rock in the middle of desert nowhere. BTW, they certianly provide âGodâ and his Angels with live reality show entertainment.
To the OP: donât be ridiculous, of course not. 
And welcome to the forum! Of course, in this modern world where everyoneâs supposed to be personal responsible for their actions nobody teaches morals anymore. Can anyone see the breakdown in logic here?! Youâre supposed to know what right and wrong is, so nobody teaches you, so of course you donât knowâŚ! 
⌠which is why you get a huge breakdown in the church and society, and even the churchâs moral education has ceased to preach social responsibility outside a very small circle, and now preaches only personal salvation and personal responsibility. I blame the parents.
This is perhaps the most interesting and important part to discuss. But I am going to have lunch first. So hopefully, we could discuss this later.
Mantis108