[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1142788] I say we bring back the cult of Jin na luo![/QUOTE]
What do you mean “bring it back”?
-
Early adherents of Chan set up shop on Mt. Song because it was a holy mountain. That is why Faru and Huian went there. Just because a legend associated Bodhidharma with the mountain doesnt mean he went there. As I stated above, historians dont believe he was the historical progenitor of Chan.
-
Point taken. But the records do not point to him being disliked. Why then wouldnt they mention him sooner? You said that they may have been using older records that are no longer extant. Are you telling me that every single contemporary record mentioning him going to Shaolin before the 8th century disappeared? Ill concede that he may have been a historical person (shahar even says this), but the oldest records only attest to him being in Luoyang. And even if he went to Shaolin, again, he didnt introduce Chan.
-
Can you prove this? Wenshu makes a good point. What I stated earlier about the records talking about his origins as a Persian, South Indian Prince, and a Brahman is another good example of embellishment. Brahmans and Kshatriyas are two different social castes. How could he have been all of these? Which is correct?
-
Again, too many IFs. And where did he meditate for those 9 years? Today there is one place designated as Damos cave, however, historically there were at least 4 different places claimed to have been where he made his hermitage (Bush, Susan H. and Mair, Victor H. “Some Buddhist Portraits and Images of the Lu and Ch’an Sects in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century China,” Archives of Asian Art 31 (1977-78): 32-51.). This is just another example of proliferation of the legend.
-
I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Labeling his work under controversy for the sake of sales is one common fallacy that Ive seen others use to try to discredit Shahars work. Many of the people who have made such statements had never actually read the book, they were just objecting to the information because it conflicted with what they had been told in the martial arts community. So, have you read his book? If so, you would know that the material is supported by the work of other credentialed scholars like himself.
-
Yeah, so holy was it that it is number 1 of the 5 sacred mountains in China. So holy that if a holy man spent 3 years walking to China, then the rest of his life in Luoyang, he would definately have gone their to visit. He wasn’t gonna be spending his days working in the local noodlery for cash. Some places he would have gone. A contempary record says he roamed about teaching (TanLin)… Song Shan would have been the perfect place. Its not too many 'If’s its logic. He spent years to get to china, you don’t think he would go a days travel from luoyang to visit such a palce as songshan, in the many years he stayed there?
-
Well, there are only 2 contempary records that say anything at all. So, yeah If only two survived at all then yeah, it is entirely possible every shaolin record was destroyed. Shaolin has few written records left because of several serious fires in its past. Outside Shaolin, why would they record a random person visiting shaolin? Remember in his own time, before he is recognised as a saint, he is just a random person. there wouldn’t have been so many records. He didn’t actually have magical powers.
‘Even if he went to shaolin, he didn’t introduce Chan’ Well, yeah. He didn’t go there and say ‘This is Chan’ a disseminate wisdom. He probably did things a little differently, then people who came after him created Chan. But as is the custom to attribute your successes to your master, they probably did that. Never the less his journey and different methods inspired Chan. A contempary account (TanLin) does mention his practice of ‘Wall Gazing’ which is the inspirational practice. So he is credited as the founder.
-
Why would a bunch of random Chinese guys know and understand the indian Caste system? I live in China, I know the way they think. One guy once asked a black friend of mine if he was from ‘HeiGuo’ Lit. Blackland. To them at the time Persia, India etc. were all the same place.
-
Its not too many ifs. 30 years in luoyang roaming around teaching and you DON’T go to SOngShan? Couldn’t happen. The contempary account doens’t mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don’t have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn’t do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.
-
I didn’t say ‘for the money’. I mean to have any point in writing stuff at all you have to say something different otherwise there is no point in writing something new. Professors aren’t superhuman. Lots of people make an opinion then when they analyse evidence they see it interms of their opinion. None of the evidence we have talked about precludes Damo going to shaolin. In fact they do the opposite. I.e a stele actually saying he was at shaolin…To see this as evidence against him going to shaolin…well that takes a strong opinion.
Things aren’t as simple as we would like them. No he didn’t come to shaolin and invent Zen then teach the monks the 18 hands of Luohan. Off course not. But I think he was some guy. He went there, his meditation practice inspired the monks (probably only a few of them) then the influence of these practices took 100 years or more to work themselves out. He may have inspired many people in many places.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143368]1. Yeah, so holy was it that it is number 1 of the 5 sacred mountains in China. So holy that if a holy man spent 3 years walking to China, then the rest of his life in Luoyang, he would definately have gone their to visit. He wasn’t gonna be spending his days working in the local noodlery for cash. Some places he would have gone. A contempary record says he roamed about teaching (TanLin)… Song Shan would have been the perfect place. Its not too many 'If’s its logic. He spent years to get to china, you don’t think he would go a days travel from luoyang to visit such a palce as songshan, in the many years he stayed there?
- Well, there are only 2 contempary records that say anything at all. So, yeah If only two survived at all then yeah, it is entirely possible every shaolin record was destroyed. Shaolin has few written records left because of several serious fires in its past. Outside Shaolin, why would they record a random person visiting shaolin? Remember in his own time, before he is recognised as a saint, he is just a random person. there wouldn’t have been so many records. He didn’t actually have magical powers.
‘Even if he went to shaolin, he didn’t introduce Chan’ Well, yeah. He didn’t go there and say ‘This is Chan’ a disseminate wisdom. He probably did things a little differently, then people who came after him created Chan. But as is the custom to attribute your successes to your master, they probably did that. Never the less his journey and different methods inspired Chan. A contempary account (TanLin) does mention his practice of ‘Wall Gazing’ which is the inspirational practice. So he is credited as the founder.
-
Why would a bunch of random Chinese guys know and understand the indian Caste system? I live in China, I know the way they think. One guy once asked a black friend of mine if he was from ‘HeiGuo’ Lit. Blackland. To them at the time Persia, India etc. were all the same place.
-
Its not too many ifs. 30 years in luoyang roaming around teaching and you DON’T go to SOngShan? Couldn’t happen. The contempary account doens’t mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don’t have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn’t do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.
-
I didn’t say ‘for the money’. I mean to have any point in writing stuff at all you have to say something different otherwise there is no point in writing something new. Professors aren’t superhuman. Lots of people make an opinion then when they analyse evidence they see it interms of their opinion. None of the evidence we have talked about precludes Damo going to shaolin. In fact they do the opposite. I.e a stele actually saying he was at shaolin…To see this as evidence against him going to shaolin…well that takes a strong opinion.
Things aren’t as simple as we would like them. No he didn’t come to shaolin and invent Zen then teach the monks the 18 hands of Luohan. Off course not. But I think he was some guy. He went there, his meditation practice inspired the monks (probably only a few of them) then the influence of these practices took 100 years or more to work themselves out. He may have inspired many people in many places.[/QUOTE]
-----A good well reasoned and sensoble post.
Thanks for taking the time.
joy chaudhuri
Speaking of Jiannalo and Damo
You can see both on the altar in the background. As I understand it they represtent Wu and Chan respectively, both of which are considered intimately connected in the Shaolin culture. “Chan and Wu return to one origin”
(this is a pic I took, but which is now open to public viewing on another person’s FB account. I’ll take the link here down if anyone in the picture objects)
If the embedded picture breaks, try here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=127215280687277&set=t.594480136&type=1&theater
This is just one example of the kind of speculation that I find very well justified in your take on this question. I think it’s important to use common sense and not just rely on the fragmentary records, just as you suggest.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143368]
4.The contempary account doens’t mention the 9 years, just the wall gazing. He probably did it many different places. People don’t have 1 place where they always meditate. He probably didn’t do the 9 years in one sitting. Maybe he did a few days at a time which is common. Probably in many many different places.[/QUOTE]
An obvious pattern of hagiography is that religious figures accrete more and more miracles after their deaths. So what could have been, for example, 3 solitary three-year mountain retreats (a common enough practice) was turned into a legendary account of a single 9-year period of never even getting up to go the toilet or eat.
A reason for this pattern could be that living religious teachers are inspiring by their presence. After their deaths, they can’t win hearts just through their dignity and bearing, so followers invent miracles of a sort that would seem credible to folks at the time.
Meir Shahar’s book is very interesting but IMO you can’t draw the conclusion that Damo didn’t exist from what he presents. On the whole, proving a negative like that is pretty much impossible.
[QUOTE=rett;1143568]This is just one example of the kind of speculation that I find very well justified in your take on this question. I think it’s important to use common sense and not just rely on the fragmentary records, just as you suggest.
An obvious pattern of hagiography is that religious figures accrete more and more miracles after their deaths. So what could have been, for example, 3 solitary three-year mountain retreats (a common enough practice) was turned into a legendary account of a single 9-year period of never even getting up to go the toilet or eat.
A reason for this pattern could be that living religious teachers are inspiring by their presence. After their deaths, they can’t win hearts just through their dignity and bearing, so followers invent miracles of a sort that would seem credible to folks at the time.
Meir Shahar’s book is very interesting but IMO you can’t draw the conclusion that Damo didn’t exist from what he presents. On the whole, proving a negative like that is pretty much impossible.[/QUOTE]
If I remember correctly Prof. Shahar didn’t offer any original research or draw any specific conclusions about the Damo legend in his book. The Damo legend was ancillary to his main theses and he simply summarizes current historical understanding. I don’t recall him claiming Damo did or did not exist rather that the issue is somewhat controversial among historians.
Common sense indicates that the Chinese like to make shit up. They are also fond of metaphors and oftentimes something that begins as a metaphor gets reinterpreted a century or two later as having actually happened (9 years spent facing the wall).
There are those who also believe that “wall gazing” itself is a metaphor and not to be taken literally!
Also:
If I said I spent 9 years training in Kung Fu, how many people would think that means I spent 9 years of non-stop, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year training.
China does have its austerity nuts too just like India and the middle east; people who do strange things thinking they will gain some kind of spiritual insight, but Buddha emphasized that that sort of thing is a waste of time. If Bodhidharma did do something on a regular basis it should not be considered something taken to the extreme, but something exercised moderately according to circumstance.
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1143596]There are those who also believe that “wall gazing” itself is a metaphor and not to be taken literally!
Also:
If I said I spent 9 years training in Kung Fu, how many people would think that means I spent 9 years of non-stop, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year training.
[/QUOTE]
If it’s anything like the Buddhist hermits shown in the film Amongst White Clouds, then a three-year period of solitary “wall gazing” (? retreat?) could involve some daily chanting, sutra reading, meditation, preparing meals, gardening, getting water, cleaning up, making minor repairs on the hut, making major repairs on the hut, perhaps meeting other monks on a fortnightly basis to chant the precepts, perhaps occasionally receiving visitors. But the meditation part could very well involve literally facing a wall. I’m not even sure if all sects focus that much on sitting meditation. Some could do more chanting, for example, or integrate the cultivation into daily activities.
Just some impressions, ideas… happy to be corrected by anyone with more insight into this culture.
Tanlin’s hagiography of Bodhidharma appears in the preface to a book attributed to the Indian (or Persian) monk, The Two Entrances and Four Practices. Based off of an analysis of different Buddhist texts, Jeff Broughton thinks that Tanlin was actually the author of the work. On top of this, the hagiography of Bodhidharma is suspiciously similar to that of the historical Buddha. John Jørgensen writes, Buddha and Bodhidharma were both princes, brought up in luxury, which they renounced; both died through poisoning, and both defeated six heretical teachers (Jørgensen, Inventing Hui-Neng, p. 184). Most importantly, Huineng, who was considered to be the 6th patriarch of Chan, was the victim of hagiographic embellishment. The Brill description of Jørgensens book Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch’an states:
[indent]It was through the propaganda of Shen-hui (684-758) that Hui-neng (d. 710) became the also today still towering figure of sixth patriarch of Chan/Zen Buddhism, and accepted as the ancestor or founder of all subsequent Chan lineages . . using the life of Confucius as a template for its structure, Shen-hui invented a hagiography for the then highly obscure Hui-neng. At the same time, Shen-hui forged a lineage of patriarchs of Chan back to the Buddha using ideas from Indian Buddhism and Chinese ancestor worship.[/indent]
When I asked you the question about extant records being lost, I wasnt just talking about those of Shaolin, I was also talking about outside records. I dont accept the notion that every single record mentioning him was lost. The evidence above shows that early Chan masters would have had no problem with embellishing the hagiography of someone that was appointed the poster boy for their sect. This would explain why the later records differ or have additional information that the earlier ones didnt. This means that one needs to be careful when accepting the historical information that they purport to relay. Sure, a historical monk named Bodhidharma could have gone to Shaolin, but the records attest to the laying of myth to puff up his influence there.
Regarding the hermitage where he supposedly faced the wall, Im afraid saying that he probably did it many different places is not a good enough answer. That seems like an excuse to reconcile the four areas historically claimed to have been his hermitage. This is a clear case of embellishment. People read the early record stating Bodhidharma meditated somewhere, so people at different times chose different places, only one of which is officially recognized today.
This entire discussion–not the one that FoilingFist started—has been about whether Bodhidharma ultimately had some connection to Shaolin Kungfu. It is known that he did not physically teach them martial arts or qigong exercises. He was also not the founder of the Chan sect. So how exactly did he influence them like you believe he did? If Shaolin was a center for Chan learning, wouldnt there have been lots of other inspiring monks there? Despite changing your views a little, you seem to be clinging to the idea that he was still as historically important back then as his modern image portrays him to be.
[QUOTE=rett;1143611]If it’s anything like the Buddhist hermits shown in the film Amongst White Clouds, then a three-year period of solitary “wall gazing” (? retreat?) could involve some daily chanting, sutra reading, meditation, preparing meals, gardening, getting water, cleaning up, making minor repairs on the hut, making major repairs on the hut, perhaps meeting other monks on a fortnightly basis to chant the precepts, perhaps occasionally receiving visitors. But the meditation part could very well involve literally facing a wall. I’m not even sure if all sects focus that much on sitting meditation. Some could do more chanting, for example, or integrate the cultivation into daily activities.
Just some impressions, ideas… happy to be corrected by anyone with more insight into this culture.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that these monks most likely faced a wall because it was said that Bodhidharma did the same thing, however, the phrase is literally “wall gazing” which may not be the same thing as “facing a wall”, especially if the original phrase was meant to be metaphorical and not to be taken literally.
Ok then,
For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn’t have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.
Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment
[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1143641]
[indent]“It was through the propaganda of Shen-hui (684-758) that Hui-neng (d. 710) became the also today still towering figure of sixth patriarch of Ch’an/Zen Buddhism, and accepted as the ancestor or founder of all subsequent Ch’an lineages . . using the life of Confucius as a template for its structure, Shen-hui invented a hagiography for the then highly obscure Hui-neng. At the same time, Shen-hui forged a lineage of patriarchs of Ch’an back to the Buddha using ideas from Indian Buddhism and Chinese ancestor worship.”[/indent].[/QUOTE]
Lets see then, so Damo wasn’t real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure… So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn’t make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.
When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. —For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540… 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.
So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn’t a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn’t make it all up.
Do you see what I mean?
@ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin… If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.
Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don’t put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.
Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143787]Ok then,
For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn’t have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.
Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment
Lets see then, so Damo wasn’t real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure… So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn’t make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.
When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. —For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540… 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.
So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn’t a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn’t make it all up.
Do you see what I mean?
@ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin… If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.
Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don’t put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.
Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.[/QUOTE]
Another good post!! Thanks.
Cheers Vajra!
@All;
One more thing;
The story we tell today was more or less complete by about 1200 years ago… Is that right?
Of all the great Kung Fu the Shaolin Temple researched, most of it comes after this time.
So we can at least say with some degree of certainty that when most of Shaolin’s Gong Fu was created, that is the story that inspired the monks. If it inspired such great stuff then Damo, real or not, has had a very real influence on Shaolin Gong fu. Since we know the stories that inspired them then, we can use these same stories to inspire ourselves today.
So even if it is otherwise, most shaolin gong fu was created under the assumption of Damo as the founder. But I believe the evidence is a long way from saying anything conclusive.
Either way in the absence of an alternative story why not keep telling the one that inspired over 1000 years of Shaolin Awesomeness.
The tradition is that Damo was at Shaolin, if this is the tradition, it is a tradition for a reason. Therefore, it must be concluded that either Damo was in Shaolin, or he wasn’t in Shaolin, but his fans wanted him to be in Shaolin.
Neither are demonstrable in anyway! It is ultimately irrelevant whether he was or not. It does not change Ch’an or Shaolin in the least.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143787]Ok then,
For the purpose of this discussion its necessary that I am of the opinion Damo had influence on shaolin. If I gave that up early we wouldn’t have the opportunity to justify ourselves through debate which in itself is the learning experience.
Ok then, lets ignore Tanlin for the moment
Lets see then, so Damo wasn’t real, Shen Hui was a cheat and Hui-neng was obscure… So does Zen exist at all or is it also just made up in retrospect by a bunch of cheaters? You see, when you discredit everything, it doesn’t make any sense. Zen is real and is an AWESOME philosophy. So someone who created this line of thinking had to be a pretty imposing person or people. People worthy of legend. Some AMAZING people MUST have existed for Chan to have been passed down. Why would they have made up legends about a load of made up people if the REAL legends existed (which for us to have zen today they must have). It is only Logical that SOME of the people in this lineage are real.
When we acknowledge the above we must also know that as Zen Masters they themselves would not have been complete cheaters and would have passed down a somewhat accurate lineage. Told to them by their masters. —For example my Shi Ye is 90 years old. He tells stories of his master all the time. If when I am 70 I repeat these stories to my disciples those stories will have already covered 120 or more years. And they will only be 2nd hand. In 710 the story is complete and Damo maybe died about 540… 170 years is not so long in lineages of old masters.
So actually I think early Chan Masters would have had a problem with too much embellishment. If we have Chan today and Chan is awesome, then these people must have been awesome to have given it to us. They may have exagerrated, but they would have kept the sacred knowledge sacred. We know for a fact Zen isn’t a cheat, it is a real and precious thing, so its early lineage holders must have been precious also. They wouldn’t make it all up.
Do you see what I mean?
@ the rest of your post, Damo may not have been famous enough in his own time for many people to write about. Since we disregard Tanlin then only 1 contempary record exists at all. If 5 existed and none said he was at shaolin then that would be something, but if only 1 survived at all it says nothing. In fact it may support him being at shaolin… If he was in other places more external records should exist, if he stayed in shaolin its easy to see how no external records exist and the internal records could be gone.
Anyone who meditates has many places they do it, thats a fact. I don’t put any stock in the cave being an actual location though, but it could be and I see nothing to the contrary. But that is of little importance.
Shaolin Gong Fu is a fusion of Chan and Wu. So if Damo genuinly had influence on Chan then he influenced Shaolin Gong Fu.[/QUOTE]
That’s a prefect example of religious hagiography at work. With a heavy dose of black and white thinking.
Chan is such awesome perfect awesomeness it’s founders never could have lied. Being awesomeness perfectly awesome awesomely they would have had no reason to fabricate the origins of their sect.
Brownie is right, if Damo didn’t exist or wasn’t ever at Mt Song the only thing that really changes are people’s unrealistic expectations. If anything it only humanizes the practice and its early adherents.
Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism originated in part as a defense mechanism to prevent people from looking too closely at it’s origins and lineage claims.
Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?
[QUOTE=wenshu;1143814]
Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism …[/QUOTE]
From what I have been given to understand, Chan isn’t against using your mind intellectually. It only suggests that the signature insight of Chan isn’t arrived at intellectually. But if you live in the world and try to be effective at helping people, or pursuing your occupation, or whatever, you have to be able to think clearly and understand what is around you.
[QUOTE=wenshu;1143814]That’s a prefect example of religious hagiography at work. With a heavy dose of black and white thinking.
Chan is such awesome perfect awesomeness it’s founders never could have lied. Being awesomeness perfectly awesome awesomely they would have had no reason to fabricate the origins of their sect.
Brownie is right, if Damo didn’t exist or wasn’t ever at Mt Song the only thing that really changes are people’s unrealistic expectations. If anything it only humanizes the practice and its early adherents.
Food for thought: it has been put forth that the famous Chan disdain for intellectualism originated in part as a defense mechanism to prevent people from looking too closely at it’s origins and lineage claims.
Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?[/QUOTE]
Not exactly my point,
Perhaps I wasn’t so clear. The point is if something is real, then there must be an origin. Something that is great (and Zen IS great) must have been created by someone who had greatness. This story is what is left of that person whoever it was. Chan literally could not have been created by some random d*ckhead.
Searching for the truth is Science and is always a noble goal. To destroy a thousand year old story you have to have great evidence and a great alternative. With neither you have nothing.
And there is some logic to what I say. The people who created Chan were far from ordinary and it stands to logical reason they would act in far from ordinary ways.
Like many philosophies and religions the vast majority of those who follow Zen probably have very little understanding of it. But the First masters, to have created it in the first place, must have had some understanding of it.
[QUOTE=wenshu;1143814]
Again, if they fabricated details about the origin and Damo never existed does that change your practice in the slightest?[/QUOTE]
Yes,
In our civilisation stories are very important. They shape how we grow in many ways and reflect our instinct. From stories we come to know ourselves.
Zen is no trivial thing. It is an attempt at supreme wisdom. The story of its origin does matter. Staring at a wall for 9 years may have been a story designed by Zen masters to teach us an important lesson, it may be the truth, it may be a worthless lie. It is important. People who make a story tend to do so to encompass a lesson, rather than just to lie.
What if the wall gazing for 9 years is a lesson to imprint on us the importance of reflection and meditation. What if we say its not true and omit it from our Zen teachings, do we not lose a valuable lesson? One that was left by the first masters?
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143827]Not exactly my point,
Perhaps I wasn’t so clear. The point is if something is real, then there must be an origin. Something that is great (and Zen IS great) must have been created by someone who had greatness. This story is what is left of that person whoever it was. Chan literally could not have been created by some random d*ckhead.
Like many philosophies and religions the vast majority of those who follow Zen probably have very little understanding of it. But the First masters, to have created it in the first place, must have had some understanding of it.[/QUOTE]
Yet even within the Chan tradition it is acknowledged that Damo did not create Chan nor was he the first to introduce it into China. Furthermore if we are going to implore the use of logic, it is far more logical that Chan was not created out of the blue by a single person; rather a nebulous formation over centuries from the synthesis of indigenous Chinese and adopted Indian practices and thought.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143827]
Searching for the truth is Science and is always a noble goal. To destroy a thousand year old story you have to have great evidence and a great alternative. With neither you have nothing.
And there is some logic to what I say. The people who created Chan were far from ordinary and it stands to logical reason they would act in far from ordinary ways.[/QUOTE]
If by logic you mean the very definition of a syllogistic fallacy then yes: “This story is about an extraordinary person therefore all stories are about extraordinary people”.
Moreover the “destroying a thousand year old story” line of thought is obstinate black and white thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Investigating doubt is a core practice of Chan. Doubting the political, social and overall cultural background of legends isn’t destroying anything, the meaning and influence of legends are not diminished and certainly have nothing to fear from of a bit of critical thinking and demand for well sourced historicity.