take for example a pilot who drops a 2000lb guided bomb on a target. does the training to perform an effective bombing run require a level of spiritual mastery? clearly no!
I disagree on this. The bomber must reconcile his actions by either turning off (becoming a robot) or turning on (taking refuge.) Today mostly it’s Stanley Milgrim’s 58 unfortunately, the robot follower or nazi, take them to 58 because you’re just following orders. Killing is dirty business and it leaves emotion scars. You don’t have to have killed someone to know. Even if you’ve just really hurt someone, you know. Vengence is the way of the robot. Forgiveness is the spiritual path. As the world becomes more violent, this is the treasure that we martial artists can offer the world - the real way of the warrior - where to draw the line.
I’m not saying that spirituality and morality has no place in human endeavour.
I always thought martial arts was a human endeavour. For me, it’s one of the most human.
Whilst my ever-so-brief visit to Song Shan Shao Lin Si was a wonderful experience, the place reeked of tourist $$$. Now, obviously these places need $$$ to survive and prosper but let’s hope it is not at the price of the martial arts.
The same can be said for any ancient place - the Vatican, the Pyramids, even modern things like Mount Rushmore. The worst I was ever trapped as a tourist was Bodh Gaya, India, the place where Buddha was enlightened. I literally had to escape in the middle of the night through a passage that had international warnings about bandits. But I still think of it as a pilgrimage, one of my most profound in fact.
The question is not the if marital arts will be tainted by tourism. The question is if martial arts are strong enough to endure the mediocrity of the public. I say we are strong enough.
A fact that I am so frequently called upon to relate: Shaolin has a recorded history of performing for tourists that goes back 400 years - twice the age of the U.S.A. It’s something to think about when grappling with these issues…
Comeing back to your example about the “bomber”. Isn’t it true that no matter how he moralizes his actions, it would not detract or add any value to his training?
Your comments about shaolin temple having served tourist for over 400 years is little wonder why the general public think that kung fu came from shaolin. Although this had ensured the survival of shaolin temple, it had also misinformed the public about the history of kung fu and painted an inaccurate picture of kung fu.
I think it is good to spread the word of kung fu, but please ensure that the message is genuine.
How can someone say that Wong Fei Hong is overrated? Or any old school master for that matter? No one has even see them and all we know are from stories and books.
We can only state comments on the sifus that we have seen .
On bombers - It’s not a question of morality, it’s about spiritual reconciliation for the immorality of killing. It’s about personal peace of mind after an immoral deed.
On Shaolin - Shaolin serves as the symbolic origin of martial arts, mostly due to the Bodhidharma myth. But we cannot discount myths just because they might not be ‘real.’ In fact, there is a hyperreality to mythology since it expresses the roots of our beliefs and thus, shapes our world view. Martial skills can be traced back much further, but when and why does it elevate into martial arts? The answer lies in Bodhidharma.
On spreading the word - Everyone has their own “kungfu genuine message,” mostly it’s “me,” “my style,” and “how great I am.” This is often manifested by saying “you suck,” “your style sucks” and “how sucky you are.” Personally, I find that kind of negativity useless for the spread of anything. For me, that message might go “find your peace in practice.”
Shaolin serves as the symbolic origin of martial arts, mostly due to the Bodhidharma myth. But we cannot discount myths just because they might not be ‘real.’
Which part is myth? That he came, that he brought something new, or that all CMA is born of it? Have you just said something, or is this only sophistry (no offense intended)?
A few scholars contend that Bodhidharma never existed. They cite the scant amount of actual records of him. Many scholars contest the idea of him having any connection to the martial arts. This is definately more questionable. But like I said, the historic fact of the matter doesn’t matter so much as what the underlying meaning of such an assumption and its ramifications on the definition of martial arts. Who we assume to be are our originators is highly significant because it becomes implicit in all we do.
A few scholars contend that Bodhidharma never existed. They cite the scant amount of actual records of him. Many scholars contest the idea of him having any connection to the martial arts. This is definately more questionable.
Oh, you are talking lack of evidence. I thought you were talking evidence of lack. I wouldn’t expect “scholars” to understand even the surface of esoteric martial arts, and I don’t attach much value to uninformed opinion.
But like I said, the historic fact of the matter doesn’t matter so much as what the underlying meaning of such an assumption and its ramifications on the definition of martial arts. Who we assume to be are our originators is highly significant because it becomes implicit in all we do.
If I just want to dance around in a orange unitard, the events of 600 A.D. aren’t too important. OTOH, if I want to sit for 9 years and get a result, the historic facts become important, VERY important.
What you say still doesn’t expalin why kung fu needs to concern with morality when other business of killing that is far more deadly does not.
In any case, one cannot teach another morality. It is a subjective issue that can be argued either way (what is moral and what is not).
Students of martial arts should concern only with finding good teachers who can impart good skills. It is for the students themselves to firgure out what is moral.
However I do feel that an instructor should be aware of what is / not legal in terms of the law of the land and should impart this awareness to the students. There is a distinction with what is moral and what is legal.
This is really getting good. Up to this point I understand and agree with everything. Can’t wait to read the next comment to see how this comes together.
c- Ancient history is always an exercise in mythology. We can present any part of history as fact, but in fact, we can never prove it so. It is determined by a preponderance of evidence but can never really be established as fact. In the last century, technology has allowed us to record facts in a way never available before, but it’s a mistake to examine anything ancient with the same lens.
So whether Bodhidharma even existed or not, becomes a question like whether Noah existed or not. The facts don’t exist, but our faith may, as long as we temper that faith with the understanding of the underlying morality.
ee - Wait a minute, I think you’re misreading me. All killing must either engage the moral implication or turn off their humanity. I tried to convey this idea in the beginning of our dialog. However, one fascinating distinction of the East is the the notion that warriors embody the power to kill and some martial ethics. Consider the concept of Wude - the root radicals of ‘wu’ imply stopping the spear. Consider bushido. There’s been a connection between eastern spirituality and martial arts for centuries. It’s what makes Asian martial arts more special than say, boxing or wrestling. Now while similar ideas appear in the West, for the most part, we’ve made that Decartian split. Take the word soldier, which comes form the root solidi, a term for money (in Latin I think, but that I’d have to look up.) Already you can see the compassion turning off.
I disagree with the notion that you cannot teach morality. The finer point may be subjective - grey zones like abortion, vegetarianism, what have you - but the gross points are universal. When we fail to be teachers of morality, we fail as humans.
If we could just teach the morality, we wouldn’t need the martial arts.
c- Ancient history is always an exercise in mythology. We can present any part of history as fact, but in fact, we can never prove it so. It is determined by a preponderance of evidence but can never really be established as fact. In the last century, technology has allowed us to record facts in a way never available before, but it’s a mistake to examine anything ancient with the same lens.
You’re running in circles. If I can prove what happened yesterday then I can prove what happened 1000 years ago.
So whether Bodhidharma even existed or not, becomes a question like whether Noah existed or not. The facts don’t exist, but our faith may, as long as we temper that faith with the understanding of the underlying morality.
I don’t care about Noah. Not because he’s history, but because I’m not building an Ark!
I could blather on about the “true meaning of Noah”, and I don’t think anyone here can call bullsh*t on me. But I’m not going to do that.
You’re running in circles. If I can prove what happened yesterday then I can prove what happened 1000 years ago.
no you can’t by virtue of the fact that you weren’t there to experience what happened. However, you were around yesterday and so it goes without saying that you could likely “prove” some of what happened “to you” yesterday.
I don’t care about Noah. Not because he’s history, but because I’m not building an Ark! I could blather on about the “true meaning of Noah”, and I don’t think anyone here can call bullsh*t on me. But I’m not going to do that.
You can’t go on about Noah either, historically or otherwise except for what anyone can access in the books that are written that contain references to Noah.
Point is, take things for what they are and concentrate on what you are doing. don’t hold up moot problems without in the same breath presenting a possible solution.
Nothing means anything without tangible evidence.
Kungfu, it’s history, practice and methods and results are all the tangible evidence I need to know that it is worth pursuing.
With regard to history, there is truth in saying that history is written by the winners. It is true to say that information about the past is incomplete due to the record keeping, biases and so forth. However, modern technology that has allowed us to record information in superior ways today has also allowed us to discover history with forensic precision. We no longer need to base 100% of our analysis on historical writings but can discover facts that were “unintentially” left behind.
with regard to Noah and his ark, which is a good example of a myth becasue, scientifically it is impossible to re-create the whole animal kingdom with 2 of each specise. You need to take into account the ecosystem that these animals belong in and as well as the food chain. Even today, with our technology, it would be a challenge to preserve an exisitng ecosystem and almost impoossible to terra-form a plant such as mars - which could take at least 100s of years.
In the noah example, this is what would happen when they try to repopulate the earth. 2 tigers and 2 cows. Tiger goes hungry and eats a cow… Or cow eats seeds before they can be planted to grow crops. You get the picture.
Therefore you can conclude that Noah is a myth, a silly one at that.
With regard to morality, those warriors of the east also engage in carnage and sacking of villages. They may try to feel better about it but so what, the deeds are done. I wonder if the Japanese soldiers who sacked Nanking during WW2 were living by the Bushido code, or what were they thinking when they tourtured the allied prisoners.
My point is, eastern teachings about morality need not make you a more compasionate warrior! That’s why we now have the Geneva convention. It is the law which is our guiding light should you choose to follow it and face the consequences if you don’t, regardless of one’s beliefs.
Morality is too much of a wishy washy idea that is prone to manipulation and post event justification. That’s why I like martial arts that is taught in a way that is free of morality. When threatened you fight for survival, it never becomes a question of right or wrong.
no you can’t by virtue of the fact that you weren’t there to experience what happened. However, you were around yesterday and so it goes without saying that you could likely “prove” some of what happened “to you” yesterday.
Truth always goes without saying. And you’ve said a mouthful.
Point is, take things for what they are and concentrate on what you are doing. don’t hold up moot problems without in the same breath presenting a possible solution.
Here’s a solution: Don’t attempt to display your knowledge by slandering the ancestors. :eek:
ego - If Noah is a myth, do we chuck out all the bible? The truly scientific mind does. The truly scientific mind is atheist. But that chucks out a lot of good books. Is the good book silly because of Noah?
Alternatively, we can accept it a face value for it’s underlying metaphor. That’s a more anthropological/sociological point of view. Not hard science, but then, we aren’t vulcans, are we? Few of us have truly rigorous scientific minds. That’s a hard way to think and it makes your ears too pointy. Modern thinkers have to resolve science and myth. Sagan, Jung, Campbell, they all offered alternatives. When looking at Tamo from a western standpoint, it resolves a lot of doubt.
Now, I never said that eastern teaching offered any more morality than western. In fact, there was a great book titled Zen at War a few years back that showed how major Buddhist thinkers justified the war. Certainly any philosophy can be twisted. It’s the razor’s edge, but just because it’s hard and many fail, is no reason to abandon morality. My stance is that morality is more important - and should be implicit in martial teachings. Do you give a child a gun with no lesson on proper usage? Or do you teach that child the difference between right and wrong, then offer the gun as an option?
Self defense/survival is always the simple man’s justification for martial arts. It’s usually taken from a short sighted self centered attidude of “what if some one attacked me physically witha knife or something.” But in the big picture, most of us aren’t getting attacked like that so often (if you are, you beter rethink your life.) Self defense is really much bigger. It’s defense from disease, both physical and mental. It’s defense of your neighborhood, your family, your culture, from the constant ravages of an unkind world. When you start to see that, then you have to be much more proactive and morally right.
censored - When did anyone slander the ancestors? The Noah analogy was just an analogy to the point of view of Tamo. Do you really believe Tamo cut off his eyelids and tea plants sprouted? My scientific mind rejects that. But my heart is inspired by the myth, so it’s important to my practice.
Originally posted by GeneChing
Do you really believe Tamo cut off his eyelids and tea plants sprouted? My scientific mind rejects that. But my heart is inspired by the myth, so it’s important to my practice.
Well sai, Gene. “Xing” and “Yi”, the Heart and the Mind, that is the rub!
