shame on you lot!

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
1

I just read the (long) post on Shaolin Ulysees, and I have to say what world do you live in???

From what I understood this Doc chap did an interview in Hooters or something? Well, I think that’s bloody brilliant! It was a smart thing to do, because it is exactly YOU LOT he was trying to rattle.

I mean people, I read your posts and you’re all “ah, brother” this and “ah brother” that like you’re living in some kungfu movie! next thing you’re going to tell me is that you speak in dubbed and have wires attached to your bodies so you can fly high in the air!

What do you think Shaolin is? It’s a martial art, a hobby, a discepline, a way of learning that LIFE IS MEANT TO BE ENJOYED and be enjoyed by EVERYONE!

On that note, he is also trying to express that ANYONE is allowed to study Shaolin.

My sifu just had the privaledge of meeting one of the last, true Grandmasters of shaolin. This guy is the grand-daddy of what is considered to be the hardest and most practical Shaolin fighting style. And you know what? Let me shock you: this grandmaster drinks, smokes and has parties. OH NO! That must make him less shaolin. And the fact that my sifu also likes to hit the Glastonbury Rock Festival once a year and large it up on drugs and alcohol means he’s less Shaolin, despite being the first westerner ever to be invited to join this true shaolin clan.

Do you know why we wear a uniform in kungfu? It’s not to say “I am Shaolin, I am a monk!” That’s fanciful rubbish. The only reasons we wear a uniform are these:

  1. To show equality amongst everyone in the class;
  2. To show that no matter who you are, and what you do (a stripper, solictor, criminal, doctor, streetsweeper) it doesn’t matter, everyone has the equal right to study Shaolin.

So good on him for doing what he did. It’s a shame that such a great art is wasted on people who only study to give themselves a sense of identity because they just can’t be themselves. And I speak of 99% of shaolin practitioners.

2

Whatever happened to health and humility?

3

My sifu just had the privaledge of meeting one of the last, true Grandmasters of shaolin. This guy is the grand-daddy of what is considered to be the hardest and most practical Shaolin fighting style.
Name? Style?

4

SmallAssassin

Actually, I agree with you to some extent. Shaolin is a layman’s discipline and the whole monk trip is totally overrated. I don’t mean that to be disrespectful to the monks themselves, moreso those who would call themselves monks. It always strikes me as funny when someone says they want to become a monk because of the martial arts, but doesn’t know the first thing about what monkhood means. Personally, I’ve pursued the monastic path outside of martial arts - I took my Buddhist vows before I took my disiciple vows. I’ve lived in many temples around the world and studied. So it’s particularly pretentious to me when I hear people going all monk-y.

But to each their own. Eveyone has Buddha potential, and everyone arrives from a different path, whether it be Hooters or Glastonbury. The one thing I will say about authentic Shaolin, and that is that authentic Shaolin must be Chan. That doesn’t mean that you have to be a monk to be Chan. You can be a jew, a pothead, a punk, a ****sexual, a subscriber - you name it.

As for the intention of Dr. Russell, I don’t think it’s us he wants to rattle, I think its them :wink:

In regards to the uniforms of shaolin, well, originally it was more to show humility, not equality. Buddha fashioned his first robes using scraps of cloth he found on corpses - it was an austerity thing. Nowadays, though, you don’t have to wear robes to be Shaolin.

5

on that note

Now that we’re on the subject of Buddhism, i find this to be quite a fasinating chapter in Shaolin.

From what I understand of Buddhism, and I mean the absolute core of Buddhism, is that you cannot actually BE buddhist. By being buddhist you end up contradicting the purpose of buddhism.

Buddhism is like kungfu in that it is form from formlessness and vice versa, hence why it was practised - what more physical expression of buddhism could you obtain other than through kungfu?

Then it gets confusing for me, because therefore by being a monk you are contradicting the understanding of Buddhism because you are not being yourself, you are being a monk. But then how do you follow Buddhism unless it has some form for which to follow? Then perhaps Buddhism is not meant to be followed.

Buddhism seems to be the whole “trying to catch flowing water” paradox. Best to just let it flow through your open palm than try to hold it with a closed fist.

6

Re: on that note

Originally posted by SmallAssassin

From what I understand of Buddhism, and I mean the absolute core of Buddhism, is that you cannot actually BE buddhist. By being buddhist you end up contradicting the purpose of buddhism.

I think this is where you are wrong. by being a “true” buddhist, you are practicing every single moment. Every single act you perform conform to buddhism in spirit. In fact, it seem you are not doing anything out of ordinary. Buddhist principles are completely fused into the everyday chore.

Using Dalai Lama as an example. If you ask him if he is a buddhist, he will reply in the affirmative. He might not be a buddha yet, but for this discussion, his mastery is high enough. If you inquire why is he consider a high master, he will reply that he is a simple monk and not a high master. he is just a simple monk who practice buddhism everyday at every moment.

That simplicity in itself makes him a high master. It seem so simple, yet it is very hard to do. Try it sometime. Have just one thought while perform every act in one day. The thought of just performing that act/task at hand. Concentrate on that act and nothing else.

There is no paradox. It is all very simple yet very hard to do. Patience and persistence that is all it requires. Yet, countless have tried and failed.

wm

7

Hey SmallAssassin, if your shaolin where did you learn your Pak Mei?

8

non existent

Again this is something in buddhism which doesn’t exist. There is no wrong or right, there is only that which is. The essence of buddhism is just to be.

We are taught that all of life is a matter of perspective: one person may look at a flower and decide it is pretty, another may decide it is ugly. The universal truth however dictates that the flower is neither pretty nor ugly, it just simply is, it exists, that is all.

If you read “The Teaching of Buddha” by the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, Tokyo, and “The Sermon on the Mount” by Emmet Fox, both highly acclaimed books in their field, they both state that Buddhism is something that which cannot exist in form, it is merely the essence of being. The moment one calls himself a Buddhist, that truth becomes non-existent because you have labelled yourself and thus have not understood the Buddha-truth.
Which to me feels more like Buddhism.

There is a saying in kungfu which says “Kungfu is not what you learn, but what you are.” which directly confirms these teachings of learning to just be, to accept what you are in truth.

9

Originally posted by Lowlynobody
Hey SmallAssassin, if your shaolin where did you learn your Pak Mei?

I do not understand your question. Why “if you are shaolin”. Pak Mei is Shaolin.

You will have to forgive me for not wishing to talk about pak mei, it just results in too much aggressive politics and arguing, and not enough enthusiasm for positive learning.

10

Just wondering if you trace your lineage back to CLC?

11

Re: non existent

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]
We are taught that all of life is a matter of perspective: one person may look at a flower and decide it is pretty, another may decide it is ugly. The universal truth however dictates that the flower is neither pretty nor ugly, it just simply is, it exists, that is all.

If you read “The Teaching of Buddha” by the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, Tokyo, and “The Sermon on the Mount” by Emmet Fox, both highly acclaimed books in their field, they both state that Buddhism is something that which cannot exist in form, it is merely the essence of being. The moment one calls himself a Buddhist, that truth becomes non-existent because you have labelled yourself and thus have not understood the Buddha-truth.
Which to me feels more like Buddhism.

There’s many acclaimed western buddhist books that has nothing to do with buddhism. Having not read these books, I can’t judge on their qualities. The definition you gave based on your interepretation of these author’s thesis is technically correct. But, you must learn how to walk before you can run.

Form and dogma are used to instill the essence. If one regard form and dogmas as the truth in totality, then certainly he is mistaken. When one achieve high level of mastery, he can forego these formalities. Yet, few really achieve high level of mastery. Many will tell what the finish line looks like, but most people can’t get to the finish line from the starting line by just knowing what finish line looks like. They actually have to “run” the course. If you forego these formalities before really reaching mastery, you can only relay what other people description of what the finish line look like. You can’t really say what it is because you have never “experienced” it.

Labeling oneself as a buddhist does not deviate from true buddhism. It means his practices are in accordance with four noble truths and eight folded righteous path. If what one practice does not conforms to the four noble truth and eight folded righteous path, then it is not buddhism. Regardless what people tell you.

But, based on your contention, Dalai Lama is not a “true” buddhist. I have seen him being interviewed and he professes to be a simple buddhist monk. Does that make him not a “true” buddhist? In fact, if you read through the buddhist scriptures, you will find many distinguished masters refer to themselves as “monk” in the scriptures.

I find your explanatiion misguided. Labels don’t mean anything. buddhism teach one to transcend labels. but, by adopting the label does not deviate from true buddhism. It is only a formality. It is only when one define himself by the label and only see the labels, does he go astray. Buddhism allow one to put on labels and throw it away whenever one wants to (at the highest level). One is not limited by labels. but, if you see the simple act of adopting of a label deviate from “true” buddhism, then I think you are trap by these labels. But, maybe I misunderstand you which is perfectly possible.

wm

12

Wow, thank you very much for that. I am very new to the entire concept of Buddhism and it is very generous of you to be so thorough in your information.

I will dwell on this a while and see what I make of it.

Cheers!

But do see if you can get your hands on the Emmet Fox book, it is very enlightening.

13

Some advice to Buddhist newbies…

Don’t get caught in semantics. Buddhism can be a very intellectual pursuit, but if you start overanalysing it, it won’t be the flag flapping, nor the wind flapping. It’ll be your mind flapping.

Also, if you don’t enjoy paradox, don’t pursue Buddhism. We Buddhists love paradox, or at least that’s how it might seem from the outside. From the inside, there is no outside.

The big problem with approaching Buddhism from a martial world is that it’s akin to approaching physics from construction. Physics is the model, construction is the actual. Buddhism is the model, Kung Fu is the actual. Wait a minute. Strike that and reverse it. Remember what I said about paradox? :wink:

Keep in mind that there are many forms of Buddhism. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are as alike as Lutherans and Mormons. Same foundation, but different variations.

It’s a mistake to view Zen as ‘no right, no wrong’. In Chinese Zen, that is what I call a Kwan Yin oversight. If you fail to grasp the bodhisattva way of compassion, you lose the true gem of karma. I think this was the problem with Herrigal, who wrote Zen and the Art of Archery then went on to become a Nazi sympathiser. You miss the first and final step.

14

Actually, I agree with you to some extent. Shaolin is a layman’s discipline and the whole monk trip is totally overrated. I don’t mean that to be disrespectful to the monks themselves, moreso those who would call themselves monks. It always strikes me as funny when someone says they want to become a monk because of the martial arts, but doesn’t know the first thing about what monkhood means. Personally, I’ve pursued the monastic path outside of martial arts - I took my Buddhist vows before I took my disiciple vows. I’ve lived in many temples around the world and studied. So it’s particularly pretentious to me when I hear people going all monk-y.

I agree with you Gene. too many people want to be a monk without understanding what it takes. before i took kung fu i knew what it takes. im a wana be monk. of course im a wana because i dont have what it takes to become a real one.

15

Note to all

Practice buddhism

Don’t think or analyse it

last time I thought about it, my brain exploded

:smiley:

16

Re: Some advice to Buddhist newbies…

Originally posted by GeneChing

Also, if you don’t enjoy paradox, don’t pursue Buddhism. We Buddhists love paradox, or at least that’s how it might seem from the outside. From the inside, there is no outside.
…
Keep in mind that there are many forms of Buddhism. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are as alike as Lutherans and Mormons. Same foundation, but different variations.

From my experience, only chan/zen buddhism employ “paradox” as a major vehicle of traning. In other schools (e.g., pure land, tibetan) there are significant less use of paradox.


It’s a mistake to view Zen as ‘no right, no wrong’. In Chinese Zen, that is what I call a Kwan Yin oversight. If you fail to grasp the bodhisattva way of compassion, you lose the true gem of karma. I think this was the problem with Herrigal, who wrote Zen and the Art of Archery then went on to become a Nazi sympathiser. You miss the first and final step.

There are several conceptual problems that novice have when studying buddhism. 1. “no right, no wrong”. 2. “no practice” 3. excessive emphasis on the abstract. 4. "no thoughts’

  1. no right, no wrong. In buddhism, every action has a reaction. For every merit/misdeed, there is a reward/punishment. A merit cannot cancel out a misdeed (very accurate accounting) Bodhisattva views sentient beings with compassion and overlook sentient beings’ faults. It is like a parent willing to overlook a child’s faults and help him to find the right path. But, it does not mean karma does not bear fruits.

  2. “no practice”, there are description of high master who don’t practice in buddhist scriptures. This “no practice” actually refers to continual practice. Some these master describe their practice as walking, eating, sleeping, etc. It appears that they are not practicing. What they don’t say is during these activities, their minds are completely focus on one thought or are in the state of “no thoughts”. They are completely at ease and it is a form of zen meditation. So, this actually refer to a continual practice. Practice which is fuse into everyday chore.

  3. excessive emphasis on abstract thoughts
    Shakyamuni Buddha embarked on his journey when he saw the suffering, sickness and death of sentient beings (e.g., all living things) around him. He decided to find a path to liberate sentient beings from these suffering. This was the original and true intent of buddhism. He sought out other religious practitioners and practiced severe austerity and starved himself near to death. He came to the conclusion that in order to achieve true enlightenment, one must be sounded in both mind and body. The only way that truth can be found is through the middle path. Moderate compassion with wisdom and avoid either extremes. Westerners are sometimes fascinated by these zen paradox and miss the true intention of buddhism.

  4. “no thoughts”
    This is a common problems of many practitioner who study buddhism. They come across this concept of “no thoughts” and find that this must mean the master think of nothing. In a sense, he is a rock. he has no emotion and no thoughts. So, buddhist aspires to be rocks. well, what a waste of time. To me, no thought means no thoughts to distract you. Many people’s minds are constantly ravaged by thoughts of what need to be done today, tomorrow, deadlines, etc, etc. When all these extraneous thoughts are clear away, then you are at a calm and quiet place (focusing on one thought is one of the practice to help clear these extraneous thoughts). When your mind is quiet, it is like a pond which is perfectly still. Then, it is possible to reflect on the true meaning of life and existence without bias.

these are just some buddhist knowledge that I gained through the years. Perhaps, it can be of some service.

wm

17

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]Wow, thank you very much for that. I am very new to the entire concept of Buddhism and it is very generous of you to be so thorough in your information.

I will dwell on this a while and see what I make of it.

Cheers!

But do see if you can get your hands on the Emmet Fox book, it is very enlightening. [/B]

If Fox’s book is in my local library, I’ll have a look. I’ll also moderate my original position about western books on buddhism. There are good one out there, but some really missed the point.

I will give you two ancedotes to help digest my previous reply.

  1. Two friends are travelling to a distant city. One is a monk and other is a young man. They pass by a young lady who was hesistant to walk because there was a pot hole filled with water on the road and she didn’t want to get her shoes dirty.

The monk inquired about her problem and offered to carry her across the pot hole. The young lady agreed. Hours later at rest stop, the young man angrily confronted the monk, I thought you were a monk. How can you carry that girl on your back? The monk paused and smiled. I let her off hours ago. Why are you still carrying her (in your heart)?

  1. A young monk entered a monastery to meet an old master. The young monk declared he has reached achieved great attainment and surpassed the old master. The old master looked down and said: “your shoe is untied”. The young monk hurrily try to bent over to tie his laces.

The old master laughed and said, I thought you have achieved great attainment. Why do little things like this trouble your mind?

To truly learn buddhism requires a good teacher. Unfortunately, there are many hacks out there just like in kung fu. Be careful.

wm

18

Originally posted by WanderingMonk
[B]

  1. Two friends are travelling to a distant city. One is a monk and other is a young man…
    [/B]

hahah that’s excellent because that is the exact same storymy sifu told me, but what makes it even funnier is that he cunningly used it against me:

the day after he told me we went shopping, and in one of the stores there were big, heavy dummies blocking some stairs. One of the shop girls walked past the dummies, and knocked one over. It was abou to land right on her head and I luckily cuaght it in time. About a week later we are in the pub, and I go "What do you think, eh? eh? Pretty cool how I caught that dummy!’ and he just calmly replies “Why do you still hold on to the dummy?” which put me off my drink completely…

19

WM.

I read most of those and similar stories in comic format over here.
:smiley:

BTW, I disagree that learning buddhism requires a good teacher all it requires ,IMHO, is honesty with yourself.

For me the study of CMA is VERY similar to the studying Buddhism, you need to see things for what they truly are without judging and labeling them.
One of the MA I studied had meditation exercises to help us with this.

In order to become good at MA or enlightened you first need to let go of:
Who am I.
What am I.
etc

Only than can you see your past life and studies for what they truly are.

MA study like buddhism is NOT about adding on, but about removing unneccessary things that are holding you back.

Forget the techniques forms and drills and only see the principles and you will get closer to mastery than training every day for x hours.

20

TJM

That’s very enlightening, because one of the first things I was told to do with my training was to read a self-help book by Louise Hay called “The Power is Within You”, because my sifu said the only way to learn CMA is through sincerity, and in order to do that I need to work out me first.

I would usually have thought it was rubbish, but since all i ever saw outside of his teachings was “Kungfu is about smashing bricks and pulling out people’s eyeballs!” I thought, “He must be on to something.”

It’s good, but now all this crap about my life is surfacing and making me very worn out. I have a lot of issues with my dad, he drinks too much and has a very short temper. He hates listening to other people’s opinions and things, and generally dislikes the world. Unfortunately a lot of that had rubbed off on to me, and now that I have become aware of this it’s all very draining. Sifu says it’s going to be tough, but you have to keep at it because eventually one can reap the rewards of doing this. I’m 27 and I actually cried for my first time in years when I first read this book.