…it’s an odd quirk, but such is the nature of his personality. We were over there yesterday for lunch (at’s always fun to spend Easter with a Jew) and I’ll see him again tomorrow. Then he’s off to give a talk in Boston, so if you’re near there, check it out.
Ok, I should qualify some things here, because I can tell that some of you are still working with some very old notions of what is real and what is history. As rik said, there is often fictative material in alleged historic accounts of China, especially where martial arts is concerned. There’s a tradition of attributing lineage to mythic figures. What makes things additionally complicated is that martial artists weren’t particularly literate, so there’s almost no record of martial arts history. According to Dr. Shahar’s research, Bodhidharma doesn’t figure into Shaolin martial arts until the 16th or so. Prior to that, it was attributed to Jinnaluo. Now his findings are based on written records - archived documents, steles, and such. I think where we are splitting, rik, is that I’m talking about Shaolin martial arts and you’re talking about Buddhism in general. Of course, there is overlap, in fact, as they say at Shaolin chan quan yi qi, but I think a distinction can be made here for acedemic purposes.
As for the Bodhidharma yoga connection, I’ve never felt that was particularly significant, mostly because asana as we know it is relatively new. It’s more like trying to make a connection as some sort of parallel reaffirmation, when the fundamental question of ‘did Tamo even create yijinjing?’ has yet to be answered. Personally, I don’t beleive that he did, but spiritually, I do. It’s kind of like Noah in the bible. Do you disregard the moral of the ark just because you’re skeptical of it’s existence or do you take the teachings and their associated myths for their face value? In truth, there’s no way to prove that Tamo created yijinjing - you have to take it on faith. Now, I really enjoy my yijinjing practice and even if I’m skeptical of it’s creation, well, that doesn’t detract from it. Nor do I complete disregard the myth because it is such a part of the tradition.
This thread really kills in the worst way. All I see is a Western approach to the verification of history based on extant written documents. Oral tradition is just as important. It is one thing to read about, e.g., the five ancestors of Shaolin; but through oral tradition, I got to know them as people-- with personality flaws and excellent kung fu.
All I can say is light your incense and connect to your ancestors. THE INFORMATION IS THERE WAITING FOR YOU!!! It always has been.
mickey
P.S. Gene: “it’s always fun to spend Easter with a Jew” That was really golden. If you put that on a T shirt, I would buy it – seriously.
that’s why this forum is such a good place to spend some time..it might take only one word to initiate a search and some serious study…there are so many true and dedicated martial artists here and it’s just absurdly grandiose to think that anyone of us has all the information…don’t quote me..but besides sharing war stories I think the info - trade is why we’re all here
Oral tradition is frightfully unreliable. There is only one exception - the Mahabharata - but that’s a whole other issue. Actually the southern tradition of Shaolin (five ancestors) is the most nutty. Dr. Shahar isn’t even going there. Neither am I. We joke about it all the time actually. There’s some really fine scholarly work on the Boxer Uprising which also was fueled by the “five ancestors” but those five are completely different than the five we commonly belief in CMA. So that’s a big probelm, when you think about it…
Hi fellows. I agree completely with Gene here, in order to rise the level of our art we should stress truth. And truth need people like this Schollar quoted in this thread.
I have read the work, I found it very important to be read, I am re-reading in order to be able to catch the full lenght of his reach.
He has made a great effort. As he is not a kung fu practicioner, he doesn’t support any theory in advance. Instead, he is able to quote his sources, something often missed in so many books which rely on oral transmition.
Un abrazo
horacio
Pd I would like to be able to access to other Dr Sahar works about Yi Jin Jing and others. ¿Does anyone know how to contact him?
respectfully
horacio
I havn’t posted in a long time and wasn’t a big poster in the first place. I’ve recently became interested in martial arts again and the old frustrations are still there: 90% of martial arts out there seem to have dubious lineages. Oh well, why is it martial arts attract so much crap? I can probaly answer that one myself…
This thread is excellent though. I love to see this sort of serious research being done. It would be amazing to think that all these individual researchers could get together to create a bigger picture too. Researchers of okinawan styles in particular.
This sort of research could be the foundation or base for further speculation using corroboration on myths, legends and oral traditions.
It is good to trust your intuition but we all need a guide to poke us in the right direction first and this sort of research is great.
In truth, there is a tradition of falsification of lineage in CMA that goes back at least 400 years. That earliest extant Yijinjing document Dr. Shahar found was a classic example. The forwards, one by Niu Gao (a general under Yue Fei) and one by a general under Li Shinmin, were both clearly forged. Why do we do this? Tradition. I suppose you could make some kind of argument about this as a Confucian artifact, but really, if you get so caught up in the lineage, you’re missing the art. This gets a little tricky when dealing with Buddhism, since there is a direct lineage there, one that is verifiable in historic documents. It makes Shaolin all the more tricky - but if you want something linear, perhaps Zen isn’t your cup of tea.
As for Bodhidharma, there’s surprisingly little available. He was mentioned in an offhand way in Eminent monks. There are a few sutras attributed to him - two main translations are available in English, Red Pine’s seminal work (which includes the Chinese) and a newer version that came out half a decade ago by Jeffrey L. Broughton. Both are important reads for anyone serious about this. Really, Chinese Chan starts to spark with the 6th patriarch - that’s were you will find a lot of research, analysis and interpretation.
Hi Gene
Sorry to take this off topic. I’ll let it go after this. I’m not overly concerned with lineage but i like honesty and value it highly so it would be nice to think i’m practicing something genuine. I’m just looking for something fun really. I use the sedona method so i have no need for buddhism or those associated benefits with martial arts. It makes a interesting hobby i think.
Originally posted by GeneChing Oral tradition is frightfully unreliable. There is only one exception - the Mahabharata - but that’s a whole other issue. Actually the southern tradition of Shaolin (five ancestors) is the most nutty. Dr. Shahar isn’t even going there. Neither am I. We joke about it all the time actually. .
it’s a huge task but theres more factors to the equation so I intend to find them…I am also interested in the fall out from the 2 monks ( alah journey to west) and if they were in afganistan …I had considred that prior, that when the manchu came back into play a little later on their art had come from somewhere in that region but shared root..developing elsewhere…implying a whole range of stuff…this is where i’m gearing my research coupled with whatever i get from you…
pls keep us informed..some of here are as keen to know as yourself
Genuine martial arts, now there’s a tricky assumption. A lot of spiritual traditions will make a leap into the magical and mythical - consider any religion. So to find such leaps in martial arts should actually be reaffirming. The problem is that we are so practically minded now, that we often disregard such leaps as fairy tales. I think you’ll find ample examples of Buddhist parables that are beyond belief - Bodhidharma cutting off his eyelids to make tea, for example. Does such a myth sully the practice of Zen? If so, well, game over. If not, then would it sully the practice of martial arts? A lot of spiritual practice is not based on logic. It’s based on faith. Now that doesn’t mean you have to belief these myths as literal fact - that would be too fundamentalist. Quite to the contrary, you must understand what is real and what is not AND WHY. Therein lies the key to genuine faith.
As for research into the Southern lineages, the wise avoid it at all costs My main advice would be to start with the Hung Men literature, since like I said earlier, there’s a lot of good research there, AND THEN move to the CMA myths.
Gene. It is hard to proove that any martial art lineage is true and especially considering that, as this thread indicates, shaolin history is even hard to verify.
I’m talking about the obvious and grossly misleading lies. That book, bodisattva warrior that you mentioned in an old thread. The style of the guy who wrote that book is mushindo kempo. If you visit www.e-budo.com. You’ll see the author of the book is the founder of mushindo and lay down a very well researched fabrication of his arts lineage and his experience with buddhism and martial arts. It turns out that some of the more extreme folks on the forum even consider mushindo to be a cult.
That’s what i’m talking about. I do not want to be hood winked into wasting my time and i’m not a mainstream type of person. Though i think WTF taekwondo looks fun! I’d actually like to try shorinji kempo but it isn’t available in my area. I know that even that lineage has been called into question and that Doshin may have been a member of Japanese mafia type group. He makes no extraordinary claims though and his style looks the business from what i’ve seen.
I’d like to feel that the art i’m practicing is something every practioner of which has faith in because all previous masters of that art had the same faith and 100% confidence in what they did.
The spiritual stuff i happen to think is probaly metaphorical and perhaps isn’t something you can understand fully until your level of conciousness is high enough. I doubt the monks who wrote those stories would lie and if was just meant to be a fairy tale i’m sure there was a good reason for it.
Faith shouldn’t be the base of any spiritual practice. It is useful but i think it shouldn’t be relied upon. Eventually faith should be rewarded with evidence of the truth. One of the things that attracted me to buddhism so much was the less reliance on faith. All good masters would say;“don’t believe a word i say but take it for checking”. I believe the buddha said something along those lines. I was also under the impression that Zen was a rebellion against the chinese misinterpretation of the nature of buddhism. In that buddhism is a practice to see the truth not a faith.
Yes, faith is a tricky one, especially in today’s world. Often, I think I’m inhibited in my practice from lack of faith. But then again, I have to be very practical about CMA, not in a street-effective but in a really weird way that’s hard to imagine, just to keep my job.
Charlatans exist whereever there is money. If you want to avoid grossly misleading lies, go somewhere where such lies are not profitable. Not that you’re saying this, bungle, but I often hear about people waiting for Mr. Miyagi, the kindly master who will show them all the secrets for nothing and give them a cool car to boot. They wait and they wait, until they are sure. All that time waiting could have been spent practicing. That’s where you have to have some faith - faith that the truth is out there (and in good X files form - to trust no one). You gotta take the risk. Take it wisely, surely, check the masters out, but at least train somewhere.
That’s not what I meant. Actually I think faith is more important as you get further down the path. This is because it gets so much harder the further you go (and the older you get). Only faith keeps you going through tough times.
Oral tradition is frightfully unreliable.
Oral history has its time and its place it could be argued that Dr. Shahar would have no starting point to begin his research if not for the oral history people are generaly so quick to dismiss. Additionaly it could be argued that the history of Shaolin is embedded in the actual practice of the art itself, the oral history and the physical evidence.
I suppose you could make some kind of argument about this as a Confucian artifact, but really, if you get so caught up in the lineage, you’re missing the art. This gets a little tricky when dealing with Buddhism, since there is a direct lineage there, one that is verifiable in historic documents. It makes Shaolin all the more tricky - but if you want something linear, perhaps Zen isn’t your cup of tea.