Is the Shaolin temple Buddhist or Zen?
Does the fact that the Shaolin temple is either Buddhist or Zen have any bearing on how one practices one’s Shaolin kung fu?
What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?
Is there a Zen Martial Art? If so, how is Buddhist martial art different from Zen martial art?
[QUOTE=kfson;1010670]Is the Shaolin temple Buddhist or Zen?
Does the fact that the Shaolin temple is either Buddhist or Zen have any bearing on how one practices one’s Shaolin kung fu?
What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?
Is there a Zen Martial Art? If so, how is Buddhist martial art different from Zen martial art?[/QUOTE]
Zen is a school of Mahyna Buddhism.
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;1010672]Zen is a school of Mahyna Buddhism.[/QUOTE]
OK, I googled Mahyna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field… different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc… Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvstivdins, Sautrntikas, Yogcra, and others.
Why isn’t Buddha just Buddha?
[QUOTE=kfson;1010689]OK, I googled Mahyna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field… different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc… Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvstivdins, Sautrntikas, Yogcra, and others.
Why isn’t Buddha just Buddha?[/QUOTE]
Because once he died, different students began teaching different lessons.
munching popcorn this sh!t is priceless…
[QUOTE=uki;1010716]munching popcorn this sh!t is priceless…[/QUOTE]
seriously…
[QUOTE=kfson;1010689]OK, I googled Mahyna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field… different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc… Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvstivdins, Sautrntikas, Yogcra, and others.
Why isn’t Buddha just Buddha?[/QUOTE]
For the same reason Jesus isn’t just Jesus.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1010723]For the same reason Jesus isn’t just Jesus.[/QUOTE]
That’s what I was thinking.
Some consider a major part of Christianity to be heretical. Could this be so in Buddhism, also?
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;1010704]Because once he died, different students began teaching different lessons.[/QUOTE]
Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn’t this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.
the different schools are just different flavors, different ways to practice that suit different people.
zen is “a special transmission outside the scriptures; not dependent on words and speech”, which means although the tradition grew out of mahayana buddhism, and is still considered buddhist and uses buddhist scriptures as instructional tools, it really doesnt depend on buddhism.
its not about picking up new ideas, but putting everything down.
so zen and buddhism, are they the same or different?
if you say the same, you get hit thirty times.
if you say different, you get hit thirty times.
if you say both or neither, you get hit thirty times.
[QUOTE=kfson;1010730]That’s what I was thinking.
Some consider a major part of Christianity to be heretical. Could this be so in Buddhism, also?
Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn’t this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]
yes.
On his death bed, Buddha pleaded to thin it all down and take it all back to the very basic message (deer park sermon and 8 fold path solution). This did not stop all te sects from popping up and interpreting what buddha said however they wanted to interpret it to suit the perspective of te teachings that their elders had. This is how tradition forms. 
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of great information in the sutras and in dharma practice no matter the sect.
But we all have to have an identity and unfortunately, having an identity can outweigh the meaning of the identity in the first place all too often, this is due to a lack of mindfulness and an abundance of emotional excitement.
In all religions, there are plenty of texts which serve only to make things unclear. the more you chase the knowledge that is in them, the more you realize how it is incongruous, contradictory depending on what part you’re reading and in many cases can be an outright conflict of ideas at play.
The religious hierarchy is not what is important. Neither is the teacher. What’s important is how you live your life. What you do with your time here. How much love you can push into the world around you. How much help you can give. How much balance you can bring into your own life that allows you to do that.
Sometimes a lesson can be had and given at the same time. Not all lessons are positive experiences and some of the most positive events come out of the ashes of terrible things said and done.
Know yourself, and you know more than most.
[QUOTE=kfson;1010730]Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn’t this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]
Think of it like different kinds of ice cream. You may prefer vanilla, some one else may prefer chocolate, a third may prefer a Ben and Jerry’s fancy schmancy mix, but they are all still ice cream!
Mahayana recognizes that all people have different talents, mental capacities, inclinations, etc. We are all individuals with different needs and abilities. The goal, then, is to get people “across to the other shore”. Mahayana understands that all people are individuals and that what is most important is “getting to the other shore” not whether everyone travels across in this boat, that boat, a surf board, or swim, etc.
So, some people are more intellectual, they may gain insight through philosophical reflection and/or perceiving the rationally paradoxical nature of existence. Another person may be more emotional by nature, but not all that bright intellectually. This type of person may be more inclined to devotional methods. Another person may be very active and have an inclination to “do things”, this person may serve others or ritualize flower arranging or sword practice or painting etc. as a means of cultivating themselves. Formalized ritual may be a preference for a person with little individual self-discipline or someone who just enjoys pomp and ceremony. And of course, there are those who adopt various combinations of these or drift into and out of different methods at different times.
Since Buddhism views life as a series of reincarnations a being may practice any number of different variations throughout innumerable lives. Each life drawing them closer to ultimate realization.
Zen/Chan recognizes the use of various methods. Zen adopts the use of expedient means, that is, whatever works for each individual is permissible. Yet Zens view is that, since all methods lead to the same realization, why not just directly perceive reality which IS the other shore, rather than muddy the water with innumerable methods that contribute to greater attachment.
So as LFJ mentioned, Zen seeks to discard methods. Its method is the method of no method. Stop TRYING to get to the other side and realize you are already THERE and have never left.
Since we are already THERE, there is nothing to do, nothing to learn, nothing to earn/gain, nothing to lose! We do not realize we are ALREADY THERE simply because we have confused ourselves by creating distinctions between phenomena. Once we create distinctions between phenomena we focus on the distinctions rather than the underlying IS-NESS that is the foundation of those distinctions. The distinctions ARE IS-NESS! So we spend our time looking for something we have never lost, we just dont realize that we have had it all along because we have confused our perception by over attachment to details/distinctions.
One metaphorical story used to describe this is used in one of the oldest known Chan documents:
It is like a man wearing a headband with a pearl on it. He has forgotten that is where his pearl is located, so he spends many years searching the world over looking for it. He cannot find it because he is looking in the wrong place. He is looking OUT THERE for something he has with him the whole time. In time he realizes that the pearl is right there in front of his face the whole time and that the time spent looking OUT THERE was unnecessary and a distraction. Searching (using the various methods of intellection, devotion, action, rituals, etc.) did not bring him to the realization that he had his pearl with him the whole time. He missed it because he was looking in the wrong place. Searching did him no good, because he never lost the pearl from the start.
The instruction here is that methods of searching cannot lead you to what is right in front of your face. All you need do is look and see clearly with unobstructed sight. It is a “realization” that occurs; it is not something you DO, PRACTICE, or EARN!
Thanks for the answers. I have been sifting through some Buddhist sites and have found that the answers are far more complicated than the questions.
I’ll get back to you later on this, what I think is, a very important subject.
my zen ice cream flavour is tiger/tiger!
mmmmmmmmm
mr. jamieson sounds like a fan of fightin joe campbell.
Ch’an Buddhism, that’s spelled “C”…“H”…“A”…“N”… “Buddhism.”
always cracks me up when Shi Yanming says that.
to this day, it’s my pet peeve to see the piggy backing.
I don’t know who fighting joe campbell is.
But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1010988]I don’t know who fighting joe campbell is.
But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell. :-)[/QUOTE]
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/773567/joseph_campbell_mythos_ii_explores.html
Joseph Campbell Mythos II Explores Hinduism and Buddhism
Campbell is Scottish, right?
[QUOTE=kfson;1010998]http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/773567/joseph_campbell_mythos_ii_explores.html
Joseph Campbell Mythos II Explores Hinduism and Buddhism
Campbell is Scottish, right?[/QUOTE]
The name Campbell is indeed Scottish, but the professor and author is American.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1010988]I don’t know who fighting joe campbell is.
But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell. :-)[/QUOTE]
I like his soup! Mmmmmmm…mmmmmm…Tomato and Rice!!!
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1011045]I like his soup! Mmmmmmm…mmmmmm…Tomato and Rice!!![/QUOTE]
or some kind of woody allen joke about Jewish soup.
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1010883]Think of it like different kinds of ice cream. You may prefer vanilla, some one else may prefer chocolate, a third may prefer a Ben and Jerry’s fancy schmancy mix, but they are all still ice cream!
…
The instruction here is that methods of searching cannot lead you to what is right in front of your face. All you need do is look and see clearly with unobstructed sight. It is a “realization” that occurs; it is not something you DO, PRACTICE, or EARN![/QUOTE]
This was actually a really good post, better than 99% of the bull**** you see about Zen/Chan on the Interwebs, not to mention the extreme bull**** you see written about the relationship between Chan/Zen & the martial arts.
Are you practitioner or student of Chan?