[QUOTE=Citong Shifu;809095]LOL! Another person who likes to listen to himslef…[/QUOTE]
By “another” I hope you are including yourself among the group. Are you? Wait, don’t tell me yet, build up the suspense and tell me later…
I also love to listen to myself!
My voice is quite nice. At least that is what I have been told.
Interesting stuff!
My question is a bit off topic. (Citong Sifu) It says in your profile that you practice Fujian Kung Fu. Now is that simply styles practiced at the temple or styles that are said to come from that area(ie..white crane, wuzuquan,etc…)
What styles are they exactly?
Sorry for the intrusion. Please continue your bickering.
WF
[QUOTE=ittokaos;809188]My voice is quite nice. At least that is what I have been told.
Interesting stuff!
My question is a bit off topic. (Citong Sifu) It says in your profile that you practice Fujian Kung Fu. Now is that simply styles practiced at the temple or styles that are said to come from that area(ie..white crane, wuzuquan,etc…)
What styles are they exactly?
Sorry for the intrusion. Please continue your bickering.
WF[/QUOTE]
ittokaos,
There’s no bickering nor debate with those who already know everything. Those who wish to close their mind’s will always find themselves wanting.
The “Fujian/Fukien Shaolin Temple’s styles” I train are Shaolin Louhanquan, Shaolinquan, & Shaolin Dishuquan which were taught through Hui Kai Monk’s lineage. (here is a more recent chart)
Hui Kai Monk
Zheng Yi Shan
Zhuang Zi Shen - Cai Ruo Shui (trained with Zheng for a short period as well).
Cai Ying Xia (trained with Zhuang for 11 years as a private disciple)
R. Davenport (me. Private disciple of Cai yingxia)
For those who didn’t know how Zhuang became a student of Zheng’s, this will be interesting. Zhuang actually challenged Zheng to a match after hearing of his high level skills. At the time, Zhuang himself was regarded a high level teacher as well. Well, the day came and the challenge match began, ending with Zheng breaking Zhuangs leg with a Di shu technique. Zheng helped Zhuang recover (Zhuang was also a famous bone doctor) and eventually passed the Shaolin Di Shu style onto Zhuang…
Hopefully that helps…
Thanks!
Would you be able to PM with a better description of what is contained in your Shaolinquan?(sets,sub styles,animals used etc…) The reason i ask is the fact that almost everyone’s ShaolinQuan differs.
Also, what is Dishuquan? Is it a form or a style?
Sorry for taking up your thread with my off topic questions. You are right about those with closed minds.
[QUOTE=ittokaos;809336]Would you be able to PM with a better description of what is contained in your Shaolinquan?(sets,sub styles,animals used etc…) The reason i ask is the fact that almost everyone’s ShaolinQuan differs.
Also, what is Dishuquan? Is it a form or a style?
Sorry for taking up your thread with my off topic questions. You are right about those with closed minds.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ll pm you later tonight or tomorrow with some of the forms names, etc. Shaolin Di Shu is SH. dog boxing or ground boxing…
TTYL.
CS
[QUOTE=Citong Shifu;809061]I never said that these religions/philosophies were “represented at one time”.[/QUOTE]
you said they all had been “the doctrine of shaolin temple”. i disagree. they may have been there, but were never the doctrine of the shaolin temple.
Shaolin like PRC cant let the lineage have holes.
really? why not? what has shaolin got to hide? the dharma can be picked up and set down by anyone at anytime.
everyone knows there have been periods where the temple was without an abbot, when various monks acted as abbot. but the dharma doesnt have holes.
this is chan, who cares?!
Everyone knows that in order to show purity, the lineage must not be distorted at all…
and what is this purity, and why is it so important? and who cares?! 
The point I’m making here is that one does not have to be or practice Buddhism to become highly skilled or master Shaolin Kungfu…
if this is your only point you’ve been waiting to make, its kind of late. everyone knows that.
Shaolin Temple has had a mix of doctorines throughout its history and kungfu development
the shaolin temple had a mix of doctrines enter, just like that tibetan monk i know who holds tibetan buddhist services at a christian church. but just like the doctrine “of that church” remains of christianity despite whatever else has a presence there, the shaolin temple has always been a buddhist temple.
and none of these religions/philosophies made the kungfu of shaolin or monk any better at the martial arts
a statement made of your own observation or assumption? a philosophy that trains one to understand and control their mind would definitely help bring about improvement with greater focus in training. and why not?
its a proven fact that emotional states have effects on motor skills. try balancing drills, strength exercises, or even flexibility training when upset. you’ll find your training will not be as effective and your coordination will be off. do you know anything about how the brain works and connects everything from emotions to motor skills?
Now, especially through Songshan lineage, they completely mislead the world with these types of statements.
thats a crock, my friend. no one has made such a statement. you have simply misunderstood the point.
i’m reminded of the shaolin ulysses documentary where shi xinghong was talking about shi suxi asking him how he thought his gongfu was. shi xinghong naturally said “not bad, pretty good”- to which shi suxi replied saying he thought xinghong would never become a really great practitioner. the reason being because his “heart was not silent enough, it was floating”.
thats the reason! when you realize that and learn how to silence your heart and plant your feet on the ground you will immediately improve a great deal. suxi said nothing about “buddhism”. he didnt say because you havent studied the buddha’s word enough.
he said simply because his heart was not silent, it was floating.
and any path which leads to silencing the heart and planting ones feet on the ground will improve ones gongfu and allow them to reach a higher level of mastery.
so basically, your whole idea for this thread was way late. and you’ve misinterpreted much, or else were just misinformed.
but it was not unimportant nor unnecessary. so thanks for starting such a thread as a great reminder!
peace! 
[QUOTE=LFJ;809463]
its a proven fact that emotional states have effects on motor skills. try balancing drills, strength exercises, or even flexibility training when upset. you’ll find your training will not be as effective and your coordination will be off. do you know anything about how the brain works and connects everything from emotions to motor skills?
[/QUOTE]
i agree with this
emotional status does affect one training A LOT
usually students who are happy…train much more harder and actually try to learn…
students who are mad..just use their power like crazy and go all out
students who are sad…usually..dont try in class…and look so down…and lost..and just dont giv a rat ass…
this is what i noticed
well, speaking as a member of the Songshan lineage, the revelation expressed here in the first post in the thread is ummm…a little moot…and not quite right. I certainly couldn’t agree with it being said that cross pollination and sharing of concepts and ideas between Buddhists at Shaolin and others is ‘hidden’ knowledge, it certainly is not forbidden knowledge I would say it is rather public. But who the hell knows these days- r.Shaolin’s monk, I’d like to know who that was. I think it’s important to remember that just because someone took vows that might not mean their information is correct- yet, lol…in fact I just met a few of Yong Xin’s disciples who had to be instructed to return “Amitabha” with an ‘Amitabha.’
Anyway you can walk into our temple and see a wall scroll bearing a tripartate figure- buddha, lao tzu, and confucious. The artwork comes from Shaolin. I’m sure I have posted a pic of this in the forum before because when I first saw it I was quite taken with the image. It’s pretty cool looking.
There are temples all over the place around Shaolin, a Daoist temple often sheltered monks during the CR, and vice versa. They participated in each others ceremonies and if you look you can find pictures of this…
Anyway anyone who has access to Shaolin would or should know there was this kind of exchange and I seriously doubt there is any kind of conspirational directive regarding the matter. It’s quite open knowledge.
[QUOTE=LFJ;809463]
its a proven fact that emotional states have effects on motor skills. try balancing drills, strength exercises, or even flexibility training when upset. you’ll find your training will not be as effective and your coordination will be off. do you know anything about how the brain works and connects everything from emotions to motor skills?
[/QUOTE]
hence the cultivation of no mind and the flat heart, why hui ke was taken to drum mountain.
[QUOTE=LFJ;809463]you said they all had been “the doctrine of shaolin temple”. i disagree. they may have been there, but were never the doctrine of the shaolin temple.
really? why not? what has shaolin got to hide? the dharma can be picked up and set down by anyone at anytime.
everyone knows there have been periods where the temple was without an abbot, when various monks acted as abbot. but the dharma doesnt have holes.
this is chan, who cares?!
and what is this purity, and why is it so important? and who cares?!
if this is your only point you’ve been waiting to make, its kind of late. everyone knows that.
the shaolin temple had a mix of doctrines enter, just like that tibetan monk i know who holds tibetan buddhist services at a christian church. but just like the doctrine “of that church” remains of christianity despite whatever else has a presence there, the shaolin temple has always been a buddhist temple.
a statement made of your own observation or assumption? a philosophy that trains one to understand and control their mind would definitely help bring about improvement with greater focus in training. and why not?
its a proven fact that emotional states have effects on motor skills. try balancing drills, strength exercises, or even flexibility training when upset. you’ll find your training will not be as effective and your coordination will be off. do you know anything about how the brain works and connects everything from emotions to motor skills?
thats a crock, my friend. no one has made such a statement. you have simply misunderstood the point.
i’m reminded of the shaolin ulysses documentary where shi xinghong was talking about shi suxi asking him how he thought his gongfu was. shi xinghong naturally said “not bad, pretty good”- to which shi suxi replied saying he thought xinghong would never become a really great practitioner. the reason being because his “heart was not silent enough, it was floating”.
thats the reason! when you realize that and learn how to silence your heart and plant your feet on the ground you will immediately improve a great deal. suxi said nothing about “buddhism”. he didnt say because you havent studied the buddha’s word enough.
he said simply because his heart was not silent, it was floating.
and any path which leads to silencing the heart and planting ones feet on the ground will improve ones gongfu and allow them to reach a higher level of mastery.
so basically, your whole idea for this thread was way late. and you’ve misinterpreted much, or else were just misinformed.
but it was not unimportant nor unnecessary. so thanks for starting such a thread as a great reminder!
peace! :)[/QUOTE]
I dont want to go “tit for tat”, but Shaolin (PRC) has much to hide and will continue to hiding the true facts. Purity, well modern Shaolin Temple has started this debate. As far as a philosophy that trains one’s mind, I agree. I believe this is very important. My comment was made due to the restrictions placed on what philosophy/ies could be used…
Example - I also train and teach Ziranmen which is daoist. My sifu was a private disciple of Wan laishen. Now, when I first strarted training ZRM and its philosophy I quickly learned learned that 99 of the difference between my Shaolin and ZRM was strategy/ies. Sure, the philosophy was different but only by wording (like when two people are discussing the same thing but in diferent ways)… I guess one could totally take them in two different directions, of course, but the goal is to maintain simplicity.
[QUOTE=Citong Shifu;809725]Shaolin (PRC)[/QUOTE]
if thats what you’re talking about then, i find it odd. because “shaolin (prc)” makes a very strange title.
to me, and in the hearts of many traditional monks, disciples and students of shaolin temple, this “prc shaolin” is not shaolin at all. its just like saying those sausages sold under the shaolin name were shaolin.
modern shaolin is the same as the old shaolin. just like the dharma can wear many colors, have many expressions. but essentially it is unchanged and remains the same. shaolin, to us, is a path of dharma. therefore a path of simplicity.
this “prc shaolin” is a movement, not a path. a movement may need to uphold some image and cover its tracks. but a path is meant to be clear. and it is.
and paths may cross, but as richard says, its always out in the open.
my advice: if you want to know the fact of what shaolin is, dont follow the “prc shaolin” movement- follow the path.
[QUOTE=LFJ;809948]if thats what you’re talking about then, i find it odd. because “shaolin (prc)” makes a very strange title.
to me, and in the hearts of many traditional monks, disciples and students of shaolin temple, this “prc shaolin” is not shaolin at all. its just like saying those sausages sold under the shaolin name were shaolin.
modern shaolin is the same as the old shaolin. just like the dharma can wear many colors, have many expressions. but essentially it is unchanged and remains the same. shaolin, to us, is a path of dharma. therefore a path of simplicity.
this “prc shaolin” is a movement, not a path. a movement may need to uphold some image and cover its tracks. but a path is meant to be clear. and it is.
and paths may cross, but as richard says, its always out in the open.
my advice: if you want to know the fact of what shaolin is, dont follow the “prc shaolin” movement- follow the path.[/QUOTE]
Ok! I guess the PRC doesnt control or run Modern Shaolin Temple (Songshan & Putain). This is why I use Shaolin (prc). This is a common fact with Shaolin Tample. And, Modern Shaolin Temple is not the same as the old ST!!! But, if you insist, ok… I have alot of facts concerning this subject. The path, what is the path? Shaolin philosophy teaches us not to “define”. My intentions are not to discredit Modern Shaolin, only discuss what has been twisted and kept from the public.
[QUOTE=Citong Shifu;809963]Ok! I guess the PRC doesnt control or run Modern Shaolin Temple (Songshan & Putain). This is why I use Shaolin (prc). This is a common fact with Shaolin Tample. And, Modern Shaolin Temple is not the same as the old ST!!! But, if you insist, ok… I have alot of facts concerning this subject. The path, what is the path? Shaolin philosophy teaches us not to “define”. My intentions are not to discredit Modern Shaolin, only discuss what has been twisted and kept from the public.[/QUOTE]
i’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood me. let me define (even if shaolin philosophy says not to :rolleyes:):
my idea of this “prc shaolin” is the whole movement led by yongxin.
my idea of true “shaolin” is a path of dharma. which rules out yongxin’s movement, imho.
and since shaolin is a path of dharma and the dharma is unchanging, because it is unconditioned, therefore i say modern shaolin is the same as old shaolin.
its something that exists only in ones heart. outside of the physical structure of the temple, and far beyond the politics of yongxin’s movement.
that being made clear, again the twists and information being kept from the public has nothing to do with shaolin. how could that ever be a part of dharma? what you are talking about is “prc shaolin” aka. yongxin’s movement.
it is as far from being shaolin as the “shaolin” sausages.
so as far as true shaolin is concerned, if you are looking at this movement as modern “shaolin”- a continuation and evolution of shaolin, you might as well be eating shaolin sausages.
[QUOTE=LFJ;809968]i’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood me. let me define (even if shaolin philosophy says not to :rolleyes:):
my idea of this “prc shaolin” is the whole movement led by yongxin.
my idea of true “shaolin” is a path of dharma. which rules out yongxin’s movement, imho.
and since shaolin is a path of dharma and the dharma is unchanging, because it is unconditioned, therefore i say modern shaolin is the same as old shaolin.
its something that exists only in ones heart. outside of the physical structure of the temple, and far beyond the politics of yongxin’s movement.
that being made clear, again the twists and information being kept from the public has nothing to do with shaolin. how could that ever be a part of dharma? what you are talking about is “prc shaolin” aka. yongxin’s movement.
it is as far from being shaolin as the “shaolin” sausages.
so as far as true shaolin is concerned, if you are looking at this movement as modern “shaolin”- a continuation and evolution of shaolin, you might as well be eating shaolin sausages.[/QUOTE]
LFJ, Sorry. I think I did misunderstand your post. I couldn’t agree more with your post/reply. Yongxin’s movement, correct. His appointment was political. He has no real kungfu or wushu background, but yet he speaks and makes decisions concerning Shaolin wushu and its evolution, etc. He is a business man (graduate business degree) working for the PRC. Believe this. Its common knowledge. Shaolin Temple is so commercialized now it’s not even funny. Money, money, money… This I dont really care to much about, only there efforts (Songshan) to claim domination over the entire Shaolin kungfu world… Its been said and quoted in many of the magazine articles/publications that unless one is associated or affiliated with Songshan Shaolin Temple, one is not a legitimate Shaolin kungfu practitioner or instructor. Same if one is not a Chan practitioner… I agree with you on learning a philosophy to train the mind and character. I just dont believe it has to be Chan. To make or trick someone into practicing any religion is wrong. How is
Shaolin Temple doing this? By making statements like, without Chan one can master shaolin kungfu, etc… I understand that Chan has much influence on Shaolin kungfu philosophically, but not the religous aspect of Chan… Anyway, I think you know where I’m going with that, lol…
Really, I’m not against the new evolving Shaolin Temple or its kungfu. This evolution has really boosted the popularity of the Shaolin arts. Just want to see the credit shared throughout the world Shaolin kungfu.
[QUOTE=Citong Shifu;809993]Its been said and quoted in many of the magazine articles/publications that unless one is associated or affiliated with Songshan Shaolin Temple, one is not a legitimate Shaolin kungfu practitioner or instructor. Same if one is not a Chan practitioner…[/QUOTE]
but, said and quoted by whom? there’s the famous line “tianxia gongfu chu shaolin”. (all gongfu comes from shaolin) but there is a following line that is often forgotten, even though its importance is far greater. that is “shaolin gongfu bian tianxia”. (shaolin gongfu spreads throughout the world) and what happens when lineages branch out across the world? of course! some become unassociated, and things change.
but, i could understand maybe if its said because their gongfu evolves into something not practiced at the temple. it would be some sort of offshoot, i guess. if you wanted to be technical. its not shaolin if its not developed by those in shaolin… ?
and as for not being a chan practitioner- well, you may not be a disciple of true gongfu if that is defined as a physical expression of chan. then you’d just be a martial artist. and we all know there are many great martial artists in the world.
I agree with you on learning a philosophy to train the mind and character. I just dont believe it has to be Chan.
well, to be literal, the word “chan” refers to a deep state of meditation. once entered anything will be an expression of it. (going back to “real gongfu”) but
basically, chan in itself never indicates philosophy. chan is unique in that it does not require a belief or any written word to be followed. therefore, so long as one can find a way to reach a state of what we call “chan”, then it doesnt matter what your religion may be.
like i said, shi suxi told shi xinghong nothing about religion or philosophy. he simply told him about his state of mind not being quiet enough.
To make or trick someone into practicing any religion is wrong. How is
Shaolin Temple doing this? By making statements like, without Chan one can master shaolin kungfu, etc…
first of all the temple has no mouth with which to speak. “the temple” sounds like its representing the word of all the individuals involved in it, like the many different monks who dont all think alike.
but if you take that idea of chan as i just expressed, then this statement begins to make sense, doesnt it? again, no one is talking belief or religion here. just talking about a state we named “chan”.
[QUOTE=LFJ;810002]but, said and quoted by whom? there’s the famous line “tianxia gongfu chu shaolin”. (all gongfu comes from shaolin) but there is a following line that is often forgotten, even though its importance is far greater. that is “shaolin gongfu bian tianxia”. (shaolin gongfu spreads throughout the world) and what happens when lineages branch out across the world? of course! some become unassociated, and things change.
but, i could understand maybe if its said because their gongfu evolves into something not practiced at the temple. it would be some sort of offshoot, i guess. if you wanted to be technical. its not shaolin if its not developed by those in shaolin… ?
and as for not being a chan practitioner- well, you may not be a disciple of true gongfu if that is defined as a physical expression of chan. then you’d just be a martial artist. and we all know there are many great martial artists in the world.
well, to be literal, the word “chan” refers to a deep state of meditation. once entered anything will be an expression of it. (going back to “real gongfu”) but
basically, chan in itself never indicates philosophy. chan is unique in that it does not require a belief or any written word to be followed. therefore, so long as one can find a way to reach a state of what we call “chan”, then it doesnt matter what your religion may be.
like i said, shi suxi told shi xinghong nothing about religion or philosophy. he simply told him about his state of mind not being quiet enough.
first of all the temple has no mouth with which to speak. “the temple” sounds like its representing the word of all the individuals involved in it, like the many different monks who dont all think alike.
but if you take that idea of chan as i just expressed, then this statement begins to make sense, doesnt it? again, no one is talking belief or religion here. just talking about a state we named “chan”.[/QUOTE]
LFJ, When explained like that it makes alot of sense. One of the points I was trying to make (according to the teachings passed to me) is, Shaolin kungfu is based on Shaolin philosophy with meditation (Chan) being one aspect. The question is, does one have to convert to Chan in order to complete the meditation or mind training? Absolutely not! My disagreement with Shaolin Temple kungfu delegates today is that one needs only to follow Shaolin philosophy in order to become skilled in the Shaolin martial arts… I understand that China/Shaolin wants to spread Buddhism throughout the world, this I dont have a problem with. Many cultures have been spreading their religion and beliefs throughout America for years. We’re America, we welcome all… The question is, What exactly is Shaolin philosophy if not Buddhism? :D.
right. see my signature. its a quote from master shi deyang. it says basically the same thing. gongfu comes from chan. its an expression of chan. but the same can be said for anything including daily chores. but the way one puts on their shoes is vastly different from the way one who is in a state of chan may put on their shoes. see what i mean?
in shaolin, we refer to gongfu as an expression of chan. without that you cant call it gongfu. thats the point. its just plain martial arts movements or techniques. which is fine if thats your goal. but in shaolin, that is not the goal.
through chan, putting on your shoes is not simply putting on your shoes. the intention and the driving force is not impulse. its spontaneous action and reaction through the clear sight of chan-eyes.
its completely different though it may look the same. thats why we say you cant call it real gongfu if it doesnt come through chan.
but it is also very important to remember that this has nothing to do with religion, per se. its a state of mind. a flat heart does not float into the sky. it stays grounded.
shi yanming, for example has many disciples who are of different religions! thats something to think about. they are disciples of chan yet do not have to change their own religious beliefs. that is definitely not a requirement.
chan may be a requirement for true gongfu. but buddhism is not.
So much for Chan. What about the absence of Chan?
I’ve always believed that there is a philosophy intrinsic in the practice of Shaolin. It’s not at all like Master Po laying down some words of wisdom between lessons. It’s built into the very movements. Philosophy need not be transmitted via word or sutra. That was the whole Buddha/Kasyapa flower trip. Bodhidharma is attributed to have disregarded sutra as well. Chan isn’t necessarily held in words. Words may be the most literal way to attempt transmission, in a very literal sense, but it’s definitely not the only way.
That being said, consider Taguo, the largest school at Shaolin, which some say reached a student body peak of 19,000 a few years ago. Taguo is putting out more Shaolin trained masters than anywhere. The headmasters are the Liu Clan. If you look at my article, 13,000 Warriors of Taguo (which for some mysterious reason is not listed in the online table of contents for Shaolin Special 2003), I interview Taguo’s founder Grandmaster Liu Baoshan. He’s been a card-carrying communist since 1952. So Shaolin’s largest academy isn’t under Buddhist supervision at all. Quite to the contrary. Nevertheless, the Liu family have been folk Shaolin masters for seven generations.
One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism is to never be possessive of the teachings. This gets a little sticky with layman and folk transmission, but really only if your overly possessive of things like the name Shaolin. Yongxin’s effort to control the Shaolin name is very complicated. Of course, he has a very close relationship with Taguo, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t shut down any of Taguo’s students from advertising their schools as Shaolin derived. In America, he hasn’t made any attempt to shut down Shaolin schools. You’d think, given Yanming’s transgressions, Yongxin might have acted, but he didn’t. He even had audiences with Yanming when he returned to Shaolin. (I should note that I mean the NY Yanming; there is now a CA Yanming at my school - see our Shaolin Special 2007B for details ;)) . I know he went after some European schools, but that seemed more like PRC politricks bubbling over into foreign soils. Has he gone after any Shaolin schools that were not from the Dengfeng area yet? He’s also gone after the performance tours pretty heavily, although there are still many unofficial tours on stage outside China.
It’s all about Chan. But what is Chan? 
[QUOTE=GeneChing;810115]I’ve always believed that there is a philosophy intrinsic in the practice of Shaolin. It’s not at all like Master Po laying down some words of wisdom between lessons. It’s built into the very movements. Philosophy need not be transmitted via word or sutra. That was the whole Buddha/Kasyapa flower trip. Bodhidharma is attributed to have disregarded sutra as well. Chan isn’t necessarily held in words. Words may be the most literal way to attempt transmission, in a very literal sense, but it’s definitely not the only way.
That being said, consider Taguo, the largest school at Shaolin, which some say reached a student body peak of 19,000 a few years ago. Taguo is putting out more Shaolin trained masters than anywhere. The headmasters are the Liu Clan. If you look at my article, 13,000 Warriors of Taguo (which for some mysterious reason is not listed in the online table of contents for Shaolin Special 2003), I interview Taguo’s founder Grandmaster Liu Baoshan. He’s been a card-carrying communist since 1952. So Shaolin’s largest academy isn’t under Buddhist supervision at all. Quite to the contrary. Nevertheless, the Liu family have been folk Shaolin masters for seven generations.
One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism is to never be possessive of the teachings. This gets a little sticky with layman and folk transmission, but really only if your overly possessive of things like the name Shaolin. Yongxin’s effort to control the Shaolin name is very complicated. Of course, he has a very close relationship with Taguo, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t shut down any of Taguo’s students from advertising their schools as Shaolin derived. In America, he hasn’t made any attempt to shut down Shaolin schools. You’d think, given Yanming’s transgressions, Yongxin might have acted, but he didn’t. He even had audiences with Yanming when he returned to Shaolin. (I should note that I mean the NY Yanming; there is now a CA Yanming at my school - see our Shaolin Special 2007B for details ;)) . I know he went after some European schools, but that seemed more like PRC politricks bubbling over into foreign soils. Has he gone after any Shaolin schools that were not from the Dengfeng area yet? He’s also gone after the performance tours pretty heavily, although there are still many unofficial tours on stage outside China.
It’s all about Chan. But what is Chan? ;)[/QUOTE]
Thanks Gene and LFJ,
This is what I was getting at the whole time, with a few extras :D. I needed other members to bring this material up so it didn’t sound like it was just me or my opinion. I see your point about Yongxin and his actions (as well as the taguo), but as you’ve stated this is a very sticky subject. There are things that can and can’t be done concerning Yongxin and the Taguo, as well as Yanming (NYC) and some of the others. I’m really glad that Shaolin’s evolving, really. I just think Yongxin or Shaolin delegates should express a little more caution when explaining Shaolin and its kungfu’s true intention when targeting the public or layperson. It can be rather confusing to someone who has no real knowledge on this subject.. Know what I mean… Heck, how many times have your heard this same argument, many times. Why? Because its not being made clear. I will always help support Shaolin kungfu and promote the Shaolin arts, regardless of my feelings. Hopefully, that will be good enough…
CS (Ron)
Shaolin in Sri Lanka
Shaolin has become much more active in Buddhist rituals recently. It’s all fulfillment of the promise Shi Yongxin made when he took abbacy. We’ve reported on some of the non-martial, strictly-Buddhist events and activities that Shaolin has participated in of late, both here on the forum and in Kung Fu Tai Chi. In fact, our next issue (Nov Dec 2009) has a short news piece on another Buddhist event that’s just about to conclude at Shaolin Temple right now - the China Shaolin Chan Debate 100 Day Summit. In general, the press is more focused on Shaolin’s martial aspect, so I was amused to find the article below on today’s newsfeed. I’ll compile more here, if I find more.
Chinese Bhikkhus to participate in Norochcholai ceremony
Wasantha RAMANAYAKE
A traditional Buddhist religious ceremony with the participation of Shaolin Buddhist monks from China will be held on August 20 marking the erection of the roof over the main building housing generators of the Norochcholai Coal fired power plant, a Power and Energy Ministry official said.
The Chief Prelates of the Malwatte and Asgiriya Chapters and Ramannya Nikaya will also participate in the religious ceremonies, the spokesman said.
Power and Energy Minister W. D. J. Senevirathne, Power Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Buddhist Affairs Minister Pandu Bandaranayake will participate.
Quoting the Chinese Construction Company official, the spokesman said a Buddha statue of the Shaolin tradition will be installed at the power plant premises.
The completion of the construction of the main building would mark the end of the main civil engineering work.
Other construction work would be completed by the beginning of next year.
He said that the construction of the second and third phases of the power plant would also begin in October this year and is expected to be completed by 2012. He said the total cost of the project would exceed $ 1,346 million, funded mainly by China.