Yanfan (Franco Testini)

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
, , ,
21

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1021210]Ahahah, Never trust anyone who says that. I know at least 12 people personally who make that claim and another load I have heard of. Hell I’ve done the whole ceremony several times, with monks who were in Shaolin in the 60’s and 70’s and consider themselves above the authority of the new abbott when it comes to shaolin lineage (something most old/good masters agree on). I had to do it just to train with one of them…

Ni bu neng chi roe, neng chi bao? Neng Chiiiiiiiiiiii.

The only western guy who can claim that he is a shaolin monk is a guy called Shan Li who has been here in shaolin 13 years, and has actually left home and lives the ascetic lifestyle. But he doesn’t claim to be a shaolin monk. Its a really Douchebag thing to do.[/QUOTE]
There is a brief video documentary of him receiving the Jieba on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPqF08tNjsw

The whole event was attended by Chinese government officials no less. I think its a slap to the face of Buddhism for Shaolin to allow such a thing to happen. I’m an atheist, but I respect all religions. Shaolin obviously had ulterior motives, like trying to attract more westerners to the temple so they would shell out big bucks to learn kung fu. If the guy truly wanted to be a Buddhist monk, he could have gone to any number of places to gain his ordination. I’m sure there are thousands of westerners so caught up in “Shaolin culture” that they would love to become monks. I doubt religion has anything to do with it. Its all about Kung fu and that is sad.

The person who posted the video is not allowing any nasty comments (such as the one I left).

22

Apparently the divisions go like this:

Religious Monk
Warrior Monk
Fake Monk
and
Douchebag Monk (these are they who aren’t really monks and are being douchebags about it.)

that’s certainly clear enough for me! :stuck_out_tongue:

23

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1022839]Apparently the divisions go like this:

Religious Monk
Warrior Monk
Fake Monk
and
Douchebag Monk (these are they who aren’t really monks and are being douchebags about it.)

that’s certainly clear enough for me! :p[/QUOTE]
so where does Shawn Liu fit into that hierarchy? :eek::eek::eek:

24

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1022776]
The whole event was attended by Chinese government officials no less.
I think its a slap to the face of Buddhism for Shaolin to allow such a thing to happen.[/QUOTE]

This may amount to nothing more than wild speculation on my part, but it appears likely to me that this was a taking refuge ceremony and not an ordination, or maybe even a taking of the bodhisattva precepts. I’m pretty sure anybody can show up, pay a fee, buy some robes and take part. In fact I think there is another such mass ceremony taking place soon or has already taken place. I’m sure shaolin is not the only temple that practices this.

I don’t think Buddhism cares if government officials attend ceremonies or laowai take and uphold precepts. :wink:

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1022776] I’m an atheist, but I respect all religions. Shaolin obviously had ulterior motives, like trying to attract more westerners to the temple so they would shell out big bucks to learn kung fu. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, cause Shaolin Si really needs the $$!:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1022776]If the guy truly wanted to be a Buddhist monk, he could have gone to any number of places to gain his ordination. I’m sure there are thousands of westerners so caught up in “Shaolin culture” that they would love to become monks. I doubt religion has anything to do with it. Its all about Kung fu and that is sad.
[/QUOTE]

There is definitely a western fetishization of Shaolin monkhood at work here; the tendency to mystify the life of a monk, shaolin or otherwise conveniently disregards the extreme hardships of leaving home. Karmic reconciliation through means of enduring hardships is no weekend retreat.

I myself have taken refuge, follow the five precepts and practice traditional shaolin culture, but I know better then to lie to myself by thinking i could withstand for one day the hardships of life as a Shaolin monk. I probably wouldn’t make it a day in chan monastery without the gong fu.

25

Shaolin obviously had ulterior motives, like trying to attract more westerners to the temple so they would shell out big bucks to learn kung fu.

Except that whenyou go there to train you never make make your payment to “the shaolin temple”

26

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1022776]If the guy truly wanted to be a Buddhist monk, he could have gone to any number of places to gain his ordination.[/QUOTE]

he was apparently ordained at chi ri monastery nearby kyung ju in south korea at the age of 21.
[URL=“http://www.shaolintemplela.org/pages/shiyanfan_biography.php”]
http://www.shaolintemplela.org/pages/shiyanfan_biography.php

27

[QUOTE=wenshu;1022879]This may amount to nothing more than wild speculation on my part, but it appears likely to me that this was a taking refuge ceremony and not an ordination, or maybe even a taking of the bodhisattva precepts. I’m pretty sure anybody can show up, pay a fee, buy some robes and take part. In fact I think there is another such mass ceremony taking place soon or has already taken place. I’m sure shaolin is not the only temple that practices this.[/QUOTE]

jieba means ‘precepts scars’, and are taken on the head only by the fully ordained in chinese monasticism as a part of taking bodhisattva precepts. chinese monasticism is a two-part ordination combining the bhikshu/ni upasampada and bodhisattva precepts- making one a bodhisattva bhikshu/ni (bodhisattva monk/nun). if laity receive precept scars it is usually done on the arm or wrist.

the ceremonies that took place recently were a full ordination ceremony and a bodhisattva precepts transmission ceremony for laity. these ceremonies were held at the site of shaolin monastery, but conducted and participated in by followers from all over.

28

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1022874]so where does Shawn Liu fit into that hierarchy? :eek::eek::eek:[/QUOTE]

Who’s Shawn Liu?

29

Shi Miao Zun - Sam Dyson Warrior Monk UK

www.fightschool.co.uk

Here is another genuine shaolin warrior monk..one of only handfull westerners to become fully ordained :rolleyes:

30

Le Fujun is another

Le claims he’s part of the Shaolin Warrior Monk Reserve Team
Le Fujun & Shaolin Chan City

Should we change the title of this thread to non-Chinese warrior monks? :wink: There are more. I’d just have to dig them up.

We’ve discussed Matthew Ahmet a little already on the Shaolin on Superstars of Dance thread.

31

[QUOTE=GeneChing;1024968]the Shaolin Warrior Monk Reserve Team[/QUOTE]

that is the name of master deyang’s school in english, “wuseng houbeidui”, where members are trained in traditional wugong and chan, as warrior monks would. some of his students after personal training and study have then taken discipleship under him.

but the “warrior monk reserve team” is not a class of monk that master deyang initiated, but a preparatory training base which he originally started in the mid-90’s with ven. shi suxi to develop secular students external to the monastery, hence the name. so to be a member does not mean one has taken any level of ordination, as you can see.

32

Yes, we know that…

…but most people don’t. The very fact that you need to explain it demonstrates how it can be misleading. It all falls back on the wuseng class, which is poorly defined in the public eye. They just see a bald robed guy and read ‘Shaolin monk’.

Another person of interest here would be Juan Carlos Aguilar, aka Huang Aguilar. Here’s his site - www.shaolinmonastery.org - nice web addy, eh? Juan and I had some Shaolin adventures together back in the mid '90s. He put out a DVD - Shaolin Kung Fu Encyclopedia - here’s a quote from the sell text:

In this encyclopedia, Juan Carlos Aguilar, the only Western monk recognized by the Temple and with the approval of the unveils the true Shaolin Kung fu.

33

[QUOTE=GeneChing;1025101]The very fact that you need to explain it[/quote]

its explained on that same page, and elsewhere on the site, which means the reader made assumptions after having failed to actually take care in understanding what they were reading.

same thing happens with understanding what wuseng are, when people judge them by the standards of fully ordained monks, just because “monk” is part of the term “warrior monk”, and they dress that way.

the fault is not of the wuseng, but belongs to those who judge without making an effort to understand the shaolin culture.

It all falls back on the wuseng class, which is poorly defined in the public eye. They just see a bald robed guy and read ‘Shaolin monk’.

the fault here lies on those who make assumptions without proper familiarity of the culture. thats the major issue in the western world regarding shaolin- everyone has something to say, but few actually bother educating themselves on the topic.

you’ll notice in this thread, when several clarifications concerning yanfan’s legitimacy and sincerity were made, his critics suddenly disappeared…

so what was the point of dogging on him? just for the love of controversy?

i personally havent met yanfan and dont know much about him, whether what he says is accurate or not, but i think it is unfair to denounce someone without even bothering to look into their history as they state it.

like questioning the sincerity of his buddhist devotion because he hasnt ordained elsewhere besides shaolin, when in fact, he has, at a young age, as can be read clearly on his website.

it is also unfair to lump someone in with all the people making large claims of monkhood, when nowhere have they claimed any level of ordination or even a generation name.

like those for example;

In this encyclopedia, Juan Carlos Aguilar, the only Western monk recognized by the Temple and with the approval of the unveils the true Shaolin Kung fu.

34

[QUOTE=LFJ;1025210]
you’ll notice in this thread, when several clarifications concerning yanfan’s legitimacy and sincerity were made, his critics suddenly disappeared…

so what was the point of dogging on him? just for the love of controversy?

i personally havent met yanfan and dont know much about him, whether what he says is accurate or not, but i think it is unfair to denounce someone without even bothering to look into their history as they state it.

like questioning the sincerity of his buddhist devotion because he hasnt ordained elsewhere besides shaolin, when in fact, he has, at a young age, as can be read clearly on his website.

it is also unfair to lump someone in with all the people making large claims of monkhood, when nowhere have they claimed any level of ordination or even a generation name.
[/QUOTE]

I still don’t buy it. Granted it appears he was ordained as monk. However, having seen his gong fu and having spoken with people who were privy to his time at shaolin; he spent little time training there, certainly not enough to be considered a warrior monk (unless Shaolin has lowered their standards dramatically).

I would expect such a diligent researcher as yourself to look beyond
[QUOTE=LFJ;1025210] their history as they state it. [/QUOTE]
to have noticed the discrepancies in his stated timeline.

I’m only indirectly calling into question his Buddhist devotion insofar as he is seemingly misrepresenting himself for fame and/or profit.

This is no love of controversy, rather a response to what are genuinely felt to be misleading claims made in an article in a major metropolitan publication.

On a side note, I just returned from a breif visit to Shaolin Si and saw that there are in fact foreigners training at the temple proper (a few Ukranian nationals and a German I believe), as to their level of ordination the Chan monk I discussed it with was unsure. He mentioned that they are training Gong Fu, Chan and massage

35

wenshu,

i was mainly referring to ghostexorcist when he said:

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1022776]If the guy truly wanted to be a Buddhist monk, he could have gone to any number of places to gain his ordination.[/QUOTE]

this appears to be denouncing the guy without a solid case, and without even really attempting to look into it. because if you read his website he writes of a korean ordination in his early 20’s. this is taken at his word, but still.

you have of course made a much better case, which doesnt appear to just be for the sake of controversy.

[QUOTE=wenshu;1025247]I would expect such a diligent researcher as yourself to look beyond

to have noticed the discrepancies in his stated timeline.

I’m only indirectly calling into question his Buddhist devotion insofar as he is seemingly misrepresenting himself for fame and/or profit.

This is no love of controversy, rather a response to what are genuinely felt to be misleading claims made in an article in a major metropolitan publication.[/QUOTE]

right, i’m sure there’s much more to it than meets the eye. like i said, i’m not really in a position to know any of the details. and honestly i’m not particularly interested to do a deep investigation of his situation. i dont find it necessary.

if you understand shaolin culture, you wouldnt need to question anyone’s claims. because they would become glaringly obvious.

i just wish more people interested in shaolin would take the time to study the culture, and not speak on politics if just for the sake of controversy. all that serves is to damage each other, and fill the air with more air.

but i notice that much of shaolin culture is inaccessible to the western world because they dont speak enough chinese - for one - and because a lot of it is not available in english as of yet. not just shaolin but buddhism, and chinese buddhism in particular, is largely in its infancy or non-existent in the west. many important chinese sources have yet to be translated or even touched by westerners.

thats part of the reason i started sharing some culture articles a couple years back. kind of anonymously. just to make it available. it was only when another shaolin disciple of master deyang suggested and urged i start teaching here. and when master deyang approved i had to open up a bit.

some people emailed me saying they felt it was like one of the “highlights in supporting and spreading the shaolin ‘philosophy’ without any other purpose than ‘supporting and spreading the shaolin philosophy’ has now been put in line with those who have schools and businesses”…

but its kind of necessary. everyone has their reasons and aims for being involved in shaolin, and aspirations for what they wish to do with it. its a natural evolution.

give shaolin and buddhism another hundred years or so in the west. it will be interesting to see what becomes of it.

36

Agreed

Thanks for making that clear. I was somewhat perplexed when I saw this thread was still active after about a week or so. Don’t really want to continue beating a dead horse.

I’m in complete agreement with you regarding the confusion surrounding Shaolin. The language is the door to the culture; Shaolin, Buddhist or otherwise.

Unfortunately I cannot help myself but get caught up in the fog of petty politics on occasion, especially when it is so close to home. But if I was perfect what would I have to cultivate?

37

[QUOTE=LFJ;1025210]You’ll notice in this thread, when several clarifications concerning yanfan’s legitimacy and sincerity were made, his critics suddenly disappeared…

so what was the point of dogging on him? just for the love of controversy?

i[…]

like questioning the sincerity of his buddhist devotion because he hasnt ordained elsewhere besides shaolin, when in fact, he has, at a young age, as can be read clearly on his website.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LFJ;1025273]wenshu,

i was mainly referring to ghostexorcist […]

his appears to be denouncing the guy without a solid case, and without even really attempting to look into it. because if you read his website he writes of a korean ordination in his early 20’s. this is taken at his word, but still.

you have of course made a much better case, which doesnt appear to just be for the sake of controversy. [/quote]
I never disappeared, I just don’t live on the forum like a lot of people do. I think the fact that I’ve been a member for almost 4 years and I only have 300 sum posts shows that. Work, school, and life in general keeps me pretty busy. I drop by every few days or say just to see if anything interesting has been posted.

My points were not made for the “love of controversy”. That sounds like something only a troll would do. I just questioned whether the entire situation was kosher or not. I mean a westerner receiving the Jieba and then being made the abbot of the LA Shaolin temple just seemed fishy to me at the time. Because he took his vows in Korea, I’ll concede he might actually be a devout Buddhist, but the whole Shaolin aspect seems like a way of making money.

38

[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1025484]Because he took his vows in Korea, I’ll concede he might actually be a devout Buddhist, but the whole Shaolin aspect seems like a way of making money.[/QUOTE]

a lot of people seem to have this sort of view - and i’m not saying that you necessarily do - that if someone is involved with shaolin, then they must not be sincere buddhists, that its just for the recognition, martial arts, or something. as if shaolin cannot be taken seriously as a buddhist monastery and a tradition for dharma practice.

its unfair to assume that one cannot be involved in shaolin and be taken seriously as a buddhist practitioner. a lot of that has to do with the image of recent events and the direction of the monastery as of late, and those who take advantage of the name, but that people come to shaolin for whatever reason means they have some karmic connection with it, which predates any sort of modern business approach to spreading the tradition.

i remember master deyang speaking to me of three wishes he has for shaolin in the world. one was for the dissolving of this image of shaolin monks being uncultured martial artists who cannot be taken seriously as buddhist monks, and that martial arts cannot be a vehicle for dharma practice.

shortly after this conversation is when i began work on making shaolin culture articles easily available in english. the latest one is on “shaolin warrior ethics”, which is strongly influenced by traditional buddhist literature.

39

Unfair? This is a web forum. A martial arts web forum.

LFJ, point taken on lumping Yanfan in ‘with all the people making large claims of monkhood’ and recant that. Those others can warrant their own threads someday perhaps.

However, I don’t think it controversial for controversy’s sake. Shaolin has a lot of controversy. It always has. To not engage that is to be mindless and that flies in the face of Shaolin’s fundamental philosophy of mindfulness.

I’ve met Yanfan. We met at Songshan Shaolin Day last year. We broke his story in The First American Branded at Shaolin Temple By Melissa Leon-Guerrero Do in our November/December Shaolin Special 2007 issue. I think being the first Westerner to get jieba at Shaolin is pretty **** cool. I wish it had been me. Nevertheless, Yanfan’s controversy will continue, as it will for every one who steps up to claim that ‘first Western Shaolin monk’ title. This is exactly as it should be. That’s a title that really needs to be earned.

40

Controversy, you want controversy, well I claim to be the first western Shaolin Grand Puba. How’s that for controversy. And yes I practice kungfu in my rather large blue fur hat.