shaolin monks: real vs. fake vs. stupid
Realshao
I have been receiving various emails about the subject of "fake vs.
real" Shaolin monks for some time now. Up to this point, I have thought it
best to remain silent on this issue. However, this last series of emails has
been so insulting and wrong-headed that I can no longer keep my views to
myself.
Since this debate centers around the question of legitimacy and
authenticity, let me lay out my credentials. In September of 1992-1994, I
left Princeton University to do research for my senior thesis in the
Religion department on the Shaolin Temple. For two years I lived in the
Shaolin Wushu Center, which is one block away from the Shaolin Temple in the
small village of Shaolin. I lived there, because it is the only place that
the Henan government will allow foreigners to stay. It also has the most
modern training facilities. While at Shaolin, I trained in traditional
Shaolin kung-fu, modern Wushu, and Chinese style kickboxing (sanda). My
speciality was sanda. I was the only foreigner to represent the Shaolin
Wushu center at the 1993 Zheng-Zhou Wushu Festival. I competed in Sanda and
took second place, losing my final bout to one of the top ranked sanda
fighters in China. I am the only foreigner ever to be allowed to teach
Chinese students at the temple. I am the only foreigner to ever defend the
Shaolin Temple during a challenge match. A martial arts instructor from the
north came to the Temple to challenge the monks. I asked my teacher Monk De
Ching to allow me to take the challenge. He agreed, and I fought my
opponent, until he submitted. My stay of two years at the Shaolin Temple
represents the longest time in the modern period that any Westerner has
stayed at Shaolin. I speak both Mandarin and the local Dengfeng dialect.
When I returned to Princeton, I completed a hundred page thesis that
combined a historical analysis of the Shaolin Temple with an anthropological
critique of the modern temple. I do not think it would be too bold to say
that there is no Westerner who has a better grasp of the modern Shaolin
Temple than myself. When I graduated from Princeton, I went to Oxford to
take up my Rhodes scholarship. At present, I work in magazine publishing. I
have no financial interest in the Shaolin temple one way or another.
Now that I have let you know who I am, let me take up the issues that
have been raised, so that I might bring some clarity to this rather confused
debate.
1) REAL VS. FAKE: Yes, there have been examples in the recent past of
"fake Shaolin monks" parading as the real thing. Let me give an example. In
1994, the Henan Wushu team was invited to Hong Kong to give a series of
demonstrations as the Shaolin monks. These very skilled wushu artists were
not at any point Shaolin monks, they new nothing of tradition Shaolin
kung-fu, they had never trained at the Temple or the Shaolin Wushu Center.
But because they were ordered to do so by the communist leader of the
college where they trained, they shaved their heads, put on monk robes, went
to Hong Kong, and pretended to be the real Shaolin monks. If Ervin had been
in Hong Kong to watch their performance and had then accused them of being
fake monks, he would have been correct -- they were. So it is quite true
that there have been at times performances given in various parts of the
world that were done by "alleged Shaolin monks." However, to question all
Shaolin monks based on a few shysters is ridiculous. The monks I trained
with at the Shaolin Temple are real Shaolin monks. To the best of my
knowledge both Yan Ming and Guo Lin are also real Shaolin monks. To question
their legitimacy without ever having visited the Temple is, I think,
slander.
2) WHAT MAKES A SHAOLIN MONK REAL? First, there are two types of Shaolin
monks -- Buddhist monks and martial monks. This has been true for almost
1500 years. A Buddhist monk takes stricter vows and focuses his attention on
Buddhist study. A martial monk takes less strict vows and focuses his study
on Shaolin martial arts. Now, since the devastating affects of the Cultural
revolution all Temples in China, and particularly at Shaolin, have suffered
a disruption of tradition and authority. However, there are certain agreed
upon precepts that make a Shaolin martial monk "real" (to use the loaded
Western philosophical word). To be a real Shaolin martial monk entails
several things, let me boil it down to its essential. First, a Shaolin
martial monk must be accepted as a disciple by a living Shaolin monk.
Second, a Shaolin martial monk must dedicate himself to the study of Shaolin
martial arts. Third, I would argue, a Shaolin martial monk must spend at
least some of his time studying in the Shaolin village under the tutelage of
a Shaolin monk. Fourth, a Shaolin martial monk must take certain vows of
abstinence. These vows of abstinence do not include giving up meat or
alcohol. The Shaolin temple monks are allowed to drink alcohol and eat meat.
(I have the historical references for anyone who does not believe this.) The
Shaolin monks, however, are not allowed to marry or have children. (I will
return to this point later.) I would say, based on close observation and
experience, that there are at least forty Shaolin monks who meet all the
above requirements. They are "real."
Ervin wants to make the argument that because a Shaolin monk does not
live up to the standards of the "Brahma Net Sutra" or "other Ch'an Buddhist
texts" they, ipso facto, "fake." This argument is absurd. A Shaolin martial
monk has never been required to live up to the standards of the Brahma Net
Sutra or the Diamond Sutra or any other Sutra to maintain his legitimate
status as a monk. The requirements for being a martial monk are, to the best
of my knowledge, the ones I have written above. Being a legitimate Shaolin
monk is an institutional issue not a question of virtue. For example, I have
read the New Testament. I know many Catholic priest. Many of them do not
live up to the standards of The Sermon on the Mount. This does not make them
"fake" priests. A priest needs to complete his seminary studies, take
certain vows, and be accepted into the priesthood by the Catholic Church.
The parallel is clear.
3) "FAKE" MONKS VS. FORMER MONKS. Shaolin monks are allowed to give up
their status as Shaolin monks. They may also if they so choose return to the
status of a monk. Being a Shaolin monk is not necessarily a vow for life. I
knew many living around the Temple who used to be monks. These men were not
"fakes" they were former monks. It is very similar to the analogy of a
Catholic priest, who can give up the priesthood and who can also be
defrocked. The most common reason for a Shaolin martial monk to give up his
status as a martial monk is to marry. Many of the martial monks entered the
monastery as young boys. At a certain age (I am sure we can all guess at
about what age) some of them take an interest in the opposite sex. There
have been cases where a monk left the monastery to marry, only later to
return to the monastery when the marriage collapsed. This is not uncommon in
many monastic communities (Buddhist, Catholic, etc.).
4) AMERICAN-BASED SHAOLIN MONKS: I do not know the particulars about the
American Shaolin monks. They defected to the United States three months
before I arrived at the Temple. I do know that every monk at the Shaolin
Temple considered them to be "legitimate" Shaolin monks. They trained for
many years at the Temple; their kung-fu was excellent; their masters were
Shaolin monks. But more importantly, they risked a great deal more than
Ervin or Harry could ever imagine to defect to the United States. They
consequences if they had failed would have been severe. They did this in
part to be free; they did it in part to bring Shaolin martial arts and the
Shaolin tradition to the United States. Whatever their failings as men (and
all men have failing whether they are monks or not), I think we all owe them
a great deal of gratitude for their sacrifices. What they have done has
enriched the martial arts community in America. To respond to the great gift
they have brought to us by accusing them of being "fake" is not only
ungrateful, it is despicable.
I cannot answer the question of whether Yan Ming and Guo Lin are still
Shaolin martial monks or former Shaolin martial monks, but, as far as I
know, they are certainly not "fakes." A "real" Shaolin monk is not some
Platonic ideal that exists in the mind of American students who have never
even been to Shaolin. A "real" (whether former or present) Shaolin monk
meets the standards I have mentioned above. I find it hard to believe that
Ervin and Harry have had all this experience with Buddhism and Shaolin and
have still not figured out this basic point.
5) GOOD MONKS VS. BAD MONKS: All students have in their mind the ideal
teacher. We have an idea of the kind of person we want to be, and we want
"Yoda" to teach us how to be that person. When I was living at the Temple, I
met some monks whose behavior I found disagreeable. On the other hand, I met
some monks who I loved immediately (flaws and all). I spent my years
training with the monks I admired, and I avoided the monks I did not admire.
If Ervin or Harry do not admire or respect the American-based Shaolin monks,
the legitimate response is simply to not study under them, which I gather
they have done. It is not however fair or reasonable to question their
"realness" as monks, because they did not live up to Ervin or Harry's
expectations. To return to the Catholic church example, there have been many
cases of Priests breaking their vows of chastity. But until they are
defrocked or voluntarily leave the priesthood, they are still "real"
priests, despite their sins. The same is true for Shaolin monks. Anyone who
has had a religious education knows that not all religious leaders are
particularly virtuous people. I can attest to the fact that not all Shaolin
monks are virtuous or ethical people. But the vast majority in my experience
are. However, this is not the point, ethics is not the same philosophical
question as ontology. A monk can be a real monk and still be a bad person.
6) WHOSE STANDARD?: Harry mentions that Yan Ming and Guo Lin took
"novice monk vows" "here" in America. So what? Yan Ming and Guo Lin may not
be "real" Buddhist monks in the eyes of Harry's Buddhist Master or his
monastery "here" in the United States. That does not mean they are "fake"
Shaolin monks. Vows taken in an United States monastery do not cancel out
vows taken at the real Shaolin Temple in Songshan, Henan China. Also,
Shaolin martial monks are not held to all of the standards of "the Chinese
Mahayana Buddhist tradition." In fact, as a academic student of Buddhism, I
fail to see any convincing evidence that there is a consistent Chinese
Mahayana Buddhist tradition, either historically or regionally. Taiwanese
monks have different standards from Hong Kong monks, and post-Cultural
revolution mainland Chinese Buddhism is another story altogether. And the
Shaolin monastery has always had a different set of standards from other
Chinese monasteries, ever since the Tang period.
I hope this clarifies this rather stupid debate over "real vs. fake."
When a man asks the wrong questions, he gets the wrong answers.
Sincerely,
Matthew Polly
(Shi Yan Kuei)
PS. THE UFC AND FIGHTING SKILLS: Ervin questions the fighting skills of the
Shaolin martial monks. He says, he has "never witnessed skilled Shaolin
martial artists fight." I have. And I can attest to the fact that they are
quite skilled. During the course of my stay at the Temple, five times I
witnessed martial artists from various part of China and the world come to
the Temple to challenge the monks. As I have said, once I was even a
participant. In every case, the monks won quickly and decisively. Now, could
a 135 pound Shaolin monk beat Ken Shamrock or Dan Severn in The Octagon? It
doesn't matter. You can be a great martial artists and still not be the best
fighter in The Octagon.
Gichoke
>From: real...@aol.com (Realshao)
>Date: 5/5/99 9:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990505212925...@ng-cb1.aol.com>
>
>To some old friends and some complete strangers,
>
and some people that know you but dont like you.
>I have been receiving various emails about the subject of "fake vs.
>real"
If they defy gravity they're fake,she'll say they're real,but don't buy it.
>I have been receiving various emails about the subject of "fake vs.
>real" Shaolin monks for some time now. Up to this point, I have thought it
>best to remain silent on this issue.
it's been gnawin' at both of us.
>owever, this last series of emails has
>been so insulting and wrong-headed
those bastards.,
>hat I can no longer keep my views to
>myself.
Well you could try.
>nce this debate centers around the question of legitimacy and
>authenticity, let me lay out my credentials. In September of 1992-1994, I
>left Princeton University to do research for my senior thesis in the
>Religion department on the Shaolin Temple.
meanwhile i was workin on your babe.
>For two years I lived in the
>Shaolin Wushu Center, which is one block away from the Shaolin Temple in the
>small village of Shaolin. I lived there, because it is the only place that
>the Henan government will allow foreigners to stay.
you shoulda escaped like a ninja
>ment will allow foreigners to stay. It also has the most
>modern training facilities. While at Shaolin, I trained in traditional
>Shaolin kung-fu, modern Wushu, and Chinese style kickboxing (sanda).
i just knock people down and beat the shit out of em...wanna fight?
>My
>speciality was sanda.
my specialty is evil schemes.
>was the only foreigner to represent the Shaolin
>Wushu center at the 1993 Zheng-Zhou Wushu Festival
did it get you layed?
>mpeted in Sanda and
>took second place, losing my final bout to one of the top ranked sanda
>fighters in China. I am the only foreigner ever to be allowed to teach
>Chinese students at the temple. I am the only foreigner to ever defend the
>Shaolin Temple during a challenge match. A martial arts instructor from the
>north came to the Temple to challenge the monks. I asked my teacher Monk De
>Ching to allow me to take the challenge. He agreed, and I fought my
>opponent, until he submitted.
i heard you got him in the dreaded.."wushu triangle"
> My stay of two years at the Shaolin Temple
>represents the longest time in the modern period that any Westerner has
>stayed at Shaolin. I speak both Mandarin and the local Dengfeng dialect.
i can speak in a cockney accent.
>When I returned to Princeton, I completed a hundred page thesis that
>combined a historical analysis of the Shaolin Temple with an anthropological
>critique of the modern temple. I do not think it would be too bold to say
>that there is no Westerner who has a better grasp of the modern Shaolin
>Temple than myself.
ill accept that
>When I graduated from Princeton, I went to Oxford to
>take up my Rhodes scholarship.
meanwhile i was delivering pizzas and getting jealous enough to mock you on
newsgroups
>At present, I work in magazine publishing.
hustler? and if so,im a good photographer and i was thinkin....
Roh, DongHyun
Realshao wrote:
On internet nobody knows thyat you are a dog....
Tomas
Martha de Forest
> To some old friends and some complete strangers,
>
> [...]
>
> I hope this clarifies this rather stupid debate over "real vs. fake."
> When a man asks the wrong questions, he gets the wrong answers.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matthew Polly
> (Shi Yan Kuei)
>
Wow! What a great post. It seems that only .01% of the posts
to this news group are worth passing on, this one qualifies along
with the prior discussion that precipitated this post.
Martha de Forest
"Elevate the Martial Spirit"
shaoli...@my-dejanews.com
enjoy reading regarding fake shaolin monks. Mr. Matthew Polly -- a student
of Wing Lam (direct importor of the original Shaolin Temple) writes
compellingly, but I'm afraid there's more rhetoric and questionable
information there than most readers can tell. Therefore, one last final
point. And this time, I mean it. I don't care what nonsense is posted by
future students of Wing Lam & Co. Yes, Polly has probably studied at The
Shaolin Wushu Center (which he continues to equivocally call "Shaolin" --
which people interpret as The historical Shaolin Temple). Yes, he may have
learned some fighting moves from DeCheng and may be a good fighter (though by
continuing to call himself "Shi" when he's not a Ch'an Buddhist priests casts
doubt on his credibility). Here's a verbatim reproduction of a feature cover
story that appeared on the front page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL on October
23, 1996. After reading this, I reacted much like Polly & Co. have reacted
against my postings. Like Polly, the Daniel Reul of this article also
studied at the Shaolin Wushu Center. Read on and enjoy.
It's Such a Bummer
That Kung Fu Monks
Kicked Their Habits:
Pilgrims Who Come in Search of Wisdom Contemplate
The Zen of Moneymaking
By Craig S. Smith
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
[October 23, 1996]
SHAOLIN TEMPLE, China -- Daniel Reul is banging his tanned and tonsured head
against a concrete wall.
"This is the real secret of kung fu," says the 23-year old Belgian. The
body adapts to pain, he reasons between hollow thuds, and toughens after
repeated abuse. He stops, does a headstand leaning his feet against the
wall, then lifts his hands to his sides so he resembles a human lawn dart.
Mr. Reul came to China to become a monk. Though he will leave enlightened,
he won't be closer to nirvana. he will be closer to the truth, however:
that spirituality attributed to this land of mist-shrouded mountains by
mystic-minded Westerners disappeared long, long ago.
He spent his life savings for a year at Shaolin Temple, birthplace of the
peculiarly ascetic Buddhist sect of Zen and home to China's famous kung-fu
fighting monks. He thought he would have to persuade the monks to let him
join.
Mr. Reul says now he bought a dose of disillusionment. A carnival of
tourist traps and cheap martial arts schools choke Shaolin's rugged mountain
valley. Blue dragon-headed trams car China's gawking middle class to and
from the temple, now manned largely by actors. Mr. Reul looked in vain for
the candlelight chambers where David Carradine's famous character,
Grasshopper, grew wise in the 1970s television series "Kung Fu." He found
monks watching kung-fu movies on TV instead.
"I wanted to make a life in which money isn't important, but I fell into a
place where money is even more important than home," says Mr. Reul, now
standing upright in his dim, $35-a-night hotel room.
Twenty years ago, he might have found what he was looking for [This part of
Smith's article is actually doubtful, according to those who argue that the
Temple was actually (re)constructed in the 70s]. In the mid-1970s, only four
aged monks remained at the tumbledown temple. The rest had been chased off
during China's Cultural Revolution by zealous Red Guards. Few visitors
trekked to the nearby cave where, nearly 1,500 years ago, the Indian monk
Bodhidharma hit on the idea of Zen after staring at a wall for nine years.
Then, in 1980, a Hong Kong company made the film "Shaolin Temple" about the
monks and their unique martial-arts style -- developed to restore circulation
in the limbs after sitting and staring at walls. [Actually, Jet Li's Shaolin
Temple showcases Chinese modern wushu and not the internal kung fu excercises
DaMo reputedly taught the Shaolin monks, such as DaMo Yijinjing). The
kung-fu classic swept Asia and won a cult following in the West.
It also set off a stampede of monk wannabees to this remote Buddhist
redoubt, which has commercialized Shaolin. The temple went to court recently
to stop a factory from selling Shaolin-brand sausages. Hardly a day goes by
when Chinese television doesn't show fighting monks leaping a 20ft feet in
the air or performing other feats -- such as "running along the wall,"
horizontally, a feat pictured in a book on sale at the temople. (The books
doesn't say how long the monk defied gravity.)
More than 10,000 Chinese, some no more than six years old, crowd the narrow
valley's kung fu schools. Foreigners come, too. In a sports hall next to
the temple, a Jean-Claude Van Damme look-alike, with military haircut and
tattooed elbows, wavers on one leg under the gaze of a monk wearing a Henan
Tourist Corp. shirt.
"The temple isn't for meditation, it's for making business," Mr. Reul says.
Instead of a monk's cell, he got a room in the Shaolin Kung Fu Hotel, where
a disco down the hall blares, "Baby, baby, can you move me." Outside his
door, a dance-hall girl in a black lace dress chats up a German fellow in
paramilitary clothes.
Mr. Reul's master rarely showed up on time. After a few weeks, he let his
hair grow and donned a Harley-Davidson T-shirt, causing Mr. Reul some doubt
about his asceticism. "Who is a monk and who isn't a monk is the grand
question of Shaolin," Mr. Reul says. the answer is murkier still because
Beijing no longer allows monks to receive the jie ba -- ritual scars on the
head and wrist made with a burning incense. [Of course, fake monks could
probably imitate this too if their livelihood were threatened.] Of the
hundreds of men sporting shaved heads and monkish garg at Shaolin, only a few
dozen have spent the years of rigorous study to become monks, residents say.
[And the residents are probably offering the standardy company line, since it
behooves them to appear objective in saying most of them are fake but some
are real. The locals would lose their livelihood if they didn't make this
concession, so they make it.]
Even the real monks fail to live up to Westerners' expectations. Yang Pu,
a tall and thickening man from impoverished Qinghai province, says he came to
Shaolin to avoid getting married. "I didn't want such a life," he says from
behind a red lacquered table spread with ocher sticks of incense. He didn't
know anything about Buddhism, "but then I saw the movie, "Shaolin Temple,"
and ti gave me something to shoot for."
Some people pay to become certified monks, boosting their status when
opening kung-fu schools at home. [And if you believe Gene Ching's article in
Wingl Lam's catalogue, you too can become a Shaolin disciple with a Ch'an
Buddhist priest's title of "Shi" if you pay $888 or $1111 because of it's
alleged significance in Buddhism. A fact a senior Ch'an Buddhist priest in
New York City, Venerable Shi Fa Yuen -- a pre-Communist revolution monk with
the jie ba -- seemed befuddled about when this allegation was brought to his
attention.] John Chen, a baseball cap turned backward on his head, insists he
didn't buy his certificate of monkhood. But he does give his kung fu master
as much as $500 -- more than monks' average annual salary -- on his yearly
trips to China. The 22 year-old American, who has been written up in Black
Belt Magazine, leads martial arts tours to Shaolin [As does Wing Lam, Gene
Ching and the rest of Wing Lam Inc.] As for religion? "I'm agnostic," he
says. Then he stomps a bug on the floor.
The dispirited Mr. Reul dropped his master and began training himself. He
meditates in the mornings beside a mountain waterfall. But the place isn't
as pristine as in the temple's brochures: The water is strewn with shampoo
bottles, dirty socks and a pari of old underpants. Earlier this year, a
corpse with a mangled face and no hands turned up in the hills.
"It's difficult here to know what is true, because there is so much that's
not true that even the true seems untrue," Mr. Reul says. he shows a picture
of himself balanced on his head -- this time with no wall for support,
recreating one of the more mystifying scenes featured in books on Shaolin.
Of course, Mr. Reul says, he toppled over after the picture was snapped.
O.K. readers. Now you've heard from another person who's studied at "the
Shaolin Temple" or "Shaolin" -- i.e. Shaolin Wushu Center -- other than
Matthew Polly and Gene Ching and the rest of Wing Lam's students who've been
writing and alleging they have no vested interests. Isn't it a vested
interest to claim one has been taught by monks at Shaolin and therefore is a
budding martial arts master? Isn't it in one's vested interested to support
one teacher against people who unveil what is probably the truth because
one's teacher is "the direct importor from the original Shaolin Temple" and
also leads tours to Shaolin every year? Isn't it a vested interest to
announce onself as a great Sanda fighter and how one is a select disciple of
a real monk? Come guys, do you think Dejanews readers and the American
public at large are morons?
I feel sad for you folks who are involved in what I and I believe Mr. Craig
Smith, Mr. Reul, and many others believe is highly questionable behaviors by
alleged monks. Keep writing what I believe is first-rate bullshit; don't
worry, I can't keep with all you guys from the same school who produce this
Shaolin fiction (in my opinion, of course). Yes, make your claims about
Shaolin that people here in the U.S. can't verify. But just remember, people
like myself, Craig Smith, Daniel Reul and many others have been to Shaolin
and we know better. We won't let down our belief that the real Shaolin
Temple may one day resurrect from this commercialized Sodom and Gamora that
now exists in place of the famed respected temple. Omit arguments and
questions I pose to you in all of my posts and continue to mudsling and
attack my character. But look into your own souls first, and ask yourself
how in the world you can live down the crap your spreading as truth. O.K.
you win. You will have the last word on all of this, since I'm tired of
responding to drivel. Congratulations and good riddance!
-- Ervin Nieves
P.S. Once again, the aformentioned represents my "opinions" intended on
helping Americans protect themselves from probable or potential
misrepresentations (whether intentional or not) regarding the authenticity of
the alleged Shaolin Temple in China and alleged Shaolin monks and their
agents/associates/affiliates/etc. in the U.S. I wish I were wrong; but
folks, I highly doubt it. Wish all of you happiness!
In article <3731B724...@cup.hp.com>,
defo...@pacificwarriors.com wrote:
> Realshao wrote:
>
> > To some old friends and some complete strangers,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I hope this clarifies this rather stupid debate over "real vs. fake."
> > When a man asks the wrong questions, he gets the wrong answers.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Matthew Polly
> > (Shi Yan Kuei)
> >
>
> Wow! What a great post. It seems that only .01% of the posts
> to this news group are worth passing on, this one qualifies along
> with the prior discussion that precipitated this post.
>
> Martha de Forest
> "Elevate the Martial Spirit"
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dietwagn
First of all Polly is not a student of Wing Lam. Now what? Ummm. Oh yeah.
Why are we all interested in Shaolin in the first place, to become a monk?
That's what it sounds like some of these people are in for, especially the
reference to Reul. But if you want to be a monk why choose Shaolin, why not
just any buddhist temple??? Oh alright you want to learn the martial arts of
shaolin. Then shutup and learn the martial arts...this whole real vs. fake is
pointless...the people that are getting bashed by everyone have definitely
trained in the martialarts at shaolin for many many years...i have been to
shaolin and stayed for a month...the kids there train 8-10 hrs a day 6 days a
week, it makes any U.S. curriculum for martial arts look like a joke....( sorry
can't stand to write formal so deal with it)...these kids train hard for years
and years...now the fact that you say none of the monks are real is a profound
statement...you base your real on buddhist scripture, which i know nothing
about, but i do know that shaolin has been burned and destroyed on a few
occassions...so i would like to believe that in a time where the temple is
trying to get back on its feet after some major destruction, it is good to see
shaolin martial arts still alive in some people who have dedicated their entire
lives to learn and master these skills...so whether or not you think they are
real they have dedicated most of their lives to shaolin kungfu and have a great
understanding of the art...they each have tremendous skill, even the people who
have been promoting "thier" shaolin truth must admit this...so whether or not
you think these people are "real" monks they will be dealt with by a higher
power when the time comes if it is needed( don't you think)...but to have the
chance to learn real shaolin kungfu from some one who has dedicated their life
to it, is a real treat...now i recall mention of the monks here in the states
not being in top performance and shape, but i think of it like this...are the
boxer trainers the best boxers...are the football, basketball, soccer, etc.
coaches the best players, NO and can the best athlete in a sport be the best
teacher...usually not...so if these monks can translate the skill of shaolin to
you, isn't that what we started this whole shaolin quest for in the first
place...i love Shaolin, and i know that nothing in this world is perfect,for
every story of someone loving "something" there is a story of someone getting
burned by that "something"...that's life........i want to thank matt polly for
showing me what is beyond the wushu perfomances of Shaolin Temple(what most
people base their view of Shaolin on)...i got a little taste of the real thing
and my love for Shaolin grew stronger as it does everyday...hey don't make
judgement from these posts and articles go find your own "TRUTH"...damn this
was a bit more than two cents, more like a buck and a quarter...
thanks for listening,
a shaolin kid from North Carolina(i am not a student of any school, so
don't even go there)
p.s. the joke reference above is not a bash on U.S. martial arts, i merely
meant that in this society you can't dedicate 10hrs a day 6days a week to
training...(unless you win the lottery)
Realshao
that was bored and waiting for his flight to Hong Kong. He came over to
the Temple, and while he was there, the Belgian was in a tizzy because the
Wushu Guan was charging extraordinary fees and he felt that he was being
cheated. I agree that he was probably being cheated, but most of the
business that is done there is quasi-controlled by the local government
training to make money off of foreigners. After my first two months paying
for training, I was accepted as a disciple of the Temple, and have never
paid for training since.
The Belgian man was bad mouthing the Temple without knowing what was really
going on there. Unless you really get to know the monks in the Temple, you
really do not understand what is going on there. Just meeting them and
stating that is not good enough. They really have to take you in and adopt
you. Unless you have actually spent time in there (The actual Temple that
is) for an extended period of time, it is hard not to take the view of
these skeptics out there.
-John
Realshao
Ervin's last post held a great deal of incorrect information, which I
intend to clear up.
1) I am not, nor have I ever been a student of Wing Lam. I was studying at
the Temple long before I ever met Gene Ching or any other Wing Lam student.
2) I'm ever so happy that Ervin is generously willing to admit that I
"probably" studied at the Shaolin Wushu Center. He then goes on to say that
I equivocally refer to the Shaolin Wushu Center as "Shaolin." Actually, when
I use the term Shaolin I am referring to the Shaolin village, within which
resides the Shaolin Temple. While Ervin merely visited Shaolin, I lived
there for two years. In the course, of my life in China, I studied with
monks and regular martial arts instructors at the Shaolin Wushu Center,
various schools in the Shaolin village, schools in nearby villages, the
Beijing Sports University, the Henan Sports University, the Wuhan Sports
University, and, yes, the Shaolin Temple itself. Personally, I preferred
studying in the Shaolin Wushu Center because the facilities are far superior
and, in my opinion, the instruction is better. However, I did study in the
Temple, as well as everywhere else in that village.
3) Ervin says that the fact that I call myself "Shi" when I'm not a Ch'an
Buddhist priest casts doubt on my credibility. Ah, a little learning is a
dangerous thing! If Ervin had a better grasp of Mandarin he would understand
that the word "Shi" has multiple meanings. (Of course, if he had a better
understanding of Mandarin, he'd have a better understanding of Chinese
culture, and then we wouldn't be having this debate.) One of the meaning for
"Shi" is monk. Another is disciple or devotee. All disciples of the Shaolin
Temple when they are accepted by a Shaolin monk are given a Buddhist name.
This Buddhist name has three parts: a) "Shi" which in this case means
disciple, b) a second name which indicates which generation of disciple they
are. A disciple is one generation lower than their master, c) and a third
name which indicates something about the disciples character. Being given a
new religious name when joining a new religious organization is not limited
to Buddhism. Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali when he joined the Nation of
Islam. When I became a disciple, I received a Buddhist name. The "Shi" in my
Buddhist name (Shi Yan Kuei) does not indicate that I am a monk, nor have I
ever claimed that it does.
4) The Washington Post story is based on one disgruntled student's views of
Shaolin. While I stayed at Shaolin, I met several students who felt
disgruntled. There are a lot of problems at Shaolin that can frustrate a
foreigner, particularly if he does not speak Chinese. I'm sorry that Daniel
Reul had a difficult time. I was not at the Wushu center, while he was
studying. If I had been, I would of helped to make his stay more enjoyable
and productive. I spent a lot of time helping foreigners who came to the
Temple sort out their problems and explain to them how things worked. If I
had been at the Wushu Center when Ervin visited, I'm sure he would of had a
much different experience.
5) An institution is only as good as the people who are running it. I am sad
to say that the Shaolin Temple does have many problems: commercialization
being one of the biggest. However, this does not make the Temple fake, just
flawed. This is not, as Ervin puts it so eloquently, "crap" -- it's the
truth. Ervin's idea that the "real Shaolin Temple" exists like some Platonic
ideal and will one day "resurrect from this commercialized Sodom and Gomora
that now exists in place of the famed respected temple" is extremely
childish and naive. And to compare the Shaolin village, with its poor
peasants, selling trinkets on the side of the road to tourists in order to
make barely enough money to feed their parents, and to compare young monks
who try to earn a little money on the side so they can buy some presents for
their parents to Sodom and Gomora is the worst kind of hyperbolic rhetoric.
Ervin should be ashamed of himself for comparing the hard-working, poor
peasants of Shaolin to the citizens of a city so licentious that Yahweh had
to stike it down.
6) Like all institutions, the Shaolin Temple will improve or get worse based
on the gradual influences of the general culture and the leadership of the
Temple. It is my hope it will become a better place. When I lived at the
Shaolin Wushu Center, I tried to make the center and the Temple a slightly
better place. The one thing that will not help the Shaolin Temple is to have
people like Ervin point out a few of the flaws of the Temple and its
representatives and then cry out, "Fakes, Fakes, they're all fakes. It's a
scam." This is the worst thing that anyone could do to the Shaolin Temple. A
reputation is very hard to regain. If I have any vested interest, it is to
help the Shaolin Temple maintain its reputation as one of the truly
marvelous martial arts institutions in the world. I do not claim it is
perfect; it most certainly is not. But it is singular in its history and in
its present form (flaws and all). Ervin clearly feels he is doing the "real
Shaolin Temple" as favor by responding to my "drivel" (again, another classy
phrase). What Ervin doesn't seem to understand is that the "real Shaolin
Temple" does not exist as an ideal in his mind; it exists in the Songshan
mountains in Henan, China. It is not "alleged", because it is imperfect. In
fact, it's flaws are what make it so very real.
7) Ervin ends his letter by claiming that he is too "tired" to further
respond to "drivel." And, indeed, it is very tiring to rail against the
world or even one particular institution for not living up to one's own
expectations. When I decided to leave Princeton to live at the Shaolin
Temple, I too had a very clear image of what I expected -- a Temple in the
mountains, enlightened monks, who would perfect my body and my mind. When I
arrived at the Temple I was shocked to find how much it had become a tourist
trap. I seriously considered leaving, but I did not. And as a gradually grew
to understand the history of the Temple, the village, and its people: I
realized perhaps the most important spiritual truth that I acquired while
living at the Temple. Humility. After all, who was I to expect these people
or this Temple to live up to my vision? Who was I to tell them how to live?
Who was I to tell them that they shouldn't wear Harley-Davidson T-shirts?
Who was I to expect them to be without ambition or monetary goals? I learned
through my stay to accept and love the monks and the Temple, and the Wushu
Center as they are. Of course, there are still things I wish were different
about the Temple and the Wushu Center. However, I now wish these
improvements for the Temple, because I honestly believe they are in the best
interest of the Temple and its monks, not because I "know" how "the real
Shaolin Temple" should be. Ervin has fallen into the most basic of spiritual
traps. Pride. He believes, with his very limited experience at Shaolin, that
he knows what is real and what is fake. And based on his own prideful
ideals, he believes he has the authority to publicly call students,
disciples, and monks of the Shaolin Temple, who have spent many years of
their lives living, training, and working in the Shaolin village, fakes.
Ervin asks rhetorically, whether I think "Dejanews readers and the American
public at large are morons?" The truth is I don't even think Ervin is a
moron (although his prose style could use some work). What I do think is
that Ervin -- in his spiritual pride, and with his inadequately informed
allegations -- is doing the Temple and its representatives more harm than
good.
8) Despite all its flaws, the Shaolin Temple and lately the Shaolin Wushu
Center has produced some of the best trained martial artists in the world.
We here in America are now very fortunate that some of these Shaolin trained
martial artists have come to the United States to share their skills in
traditional Shaolin kung-fu, modern wushu, and modern Sanda with us. Now,
Americans no longer need to go to the great deal of trouble that I did and
travel to the Temple to study. They can do it here. We should be very
grateful for this fact. If we truly want to support the Shaolin Temple, then
we should all support the representatives of the Temple who have come to
America to teach us. They are not perfect individuals, but they are truly
excellent martial artists. The fact that Ervin expects them to be something
that they are not is his own problem.
9) I wish Ervin the best of luck in waiting for the day when "the real
Shaolin Temple" resurrects from the ashes of the current Temple, like the
mythical Phoenix. With any luck maybe that day will arrive before the second
coming of Jesus and Judgement Day. I certainly would love to spend some time
in a perfect Temple filled with enlightened monks teaching "real" kung-fu,
before St. Peter reads off a list of all of my sins, while the world is
plunged into the apocalypse. But until either of those long awaited days
arrive, I plan to continue my study of the martial arts I learned at the
Temple. I suppose Ervin will continue "to cry wolf" or whatever it is
disgruntled idealists do with their free time.
Matthew Polly
(Shi "I-am-not-a-monk-merely-a-Shaolin-disciple" Yan Kuei)
PS Actually, I heard this farfetched rumor that some Catholic monks have
been known to have improper relations with not only women, but also (gasp)
men. I'm not sure, but I think even according to Vatican II this is a
violation of their vows. Maybe, for Act II Ervin can expose the alleged
Catholic Church and its alleged monks on the basis of this scandalous
behavior. Now that I think of it, little old ladies were trying to sell me
"crosses" when I visited St. Peter's Cathedral. The plot thickens. And I
hear the Catholic church uses it spiritual status and alleged reputation to
get believers to give money (every week, no less!), when it turns out that
the Catholic church is already fabulously rich. Personally, I am shocked,
shocked by this kind of fakery. But I am too tired to take on the Catholic
church and all it's "agents/associates/affiliates/etc." But I bet good old
Ervin has the kind of courage to expose this kind of deception in his
regular dejanews postings. One can only hope that Ervin still has the
strength remaining to help damage the reputations of one more group of
alleged monks.
Christopher Williams
they can't help calling each other prideful and blind to real spiritual
ideals. Hmmm....
It's good to know that the Shaolin Wushu Center is thriving. I visited the
temple before the Center was built and everyone had to practice in an area
squared off in the farming fields... Didn't Shaolin village have an actual
name like Dunfoun, or is my recall gone? Hey, all of the great tourist spots
in China are fake, rebuilt just to rake in the money. It always poses a
moral problem for those who want to delve beneath this surface...
cw
shaoli...@my-dejanews.com
1. It's pretty conveniently dismissive to call anyone who points out serious
breaches of fundamental Buddhist precepts (which some alleged Shaolin
supporters have called "ancient dogma"] "bored" or "disgruntled." My December
1998 Inside Kung Fu cover story cited genuine Buddhist Sutras (The Brahma Net
Sutra), not mere opinion or rhetoric.
2. In Smith's Wall Street Journal article he writes that John Chen stomped
on a bug. Not a very Buddhist thing to do, or perhaps there's a new brand of
Buddhism now practiced at today's Shaolin "Temple" where reincarnation is not
a factor?
3. Today's alleged Shaolin monks seem to be able to do anything they please.
According to some reports, they can eat meat, abandon wives and kids in
China, not teach Buddhism in the U.S. or just go through the motions, focus
on becoming celebrities instead of on their religious duties, make a ton of
money instead of practicing traditional ascetism, have girlfriends who travel
with them on business trips and admit to living together in national pop
magazines, drink alcohol, say they're martial monks and therefore not full
Buddhists but then refuse martial arts challenges from fellow martial arts
masters, etc. Yes, today's alleged Shaolin monks are really lucky to be
alleged Ch'an Buddhists priests from the Shaolin Temple in the People's
Republic of China.
4. Of course, this is only one person's opinion against a lot of "Shaolin
disciples" and "Shaolin monks"? And my facts may be wrong or tainted? Or is
this true? How about all the other people who've argued against fake Shaolin
monks: Harry Leong, Jens Kruse, Kenny Wong, Daniel Ruel, Craig Smith, and
the many who've posted and now find themselves in the Dejanews archives. Oh,
let me guess? We're all bored and disgruntled. Yes, bored of the same
Shaolin fables/myths fed to us by our former alleged Shaolin monk teachers
[and their crony disciples], who according to your account are real, so we
must have some grounds to say what we say about Shaolin teachers in the U.S.
and those we've met in China.
5. But let me say this, I have never stated that I'm 100% sure that EVERY
one of these alleged monks is a fake. I can't know this for sure. I only
doubt the veracity of these alleged monks because of about ten monks I've
known over the last six years. Perhaps I and all these other folks have just
had rotten luck. Or perhaps our side of the story has more merit than you
let on. Keep in mind that although you have studied with alleged Shaolin
monks in China, we've studied with alleged Shaolin monks in the U.S. for just
as long if not longer. Since these alleged monks are pictured in the same
picture books and appear in the same videos as the ones in China, it casts a
big shadow on the credibility of the ones in China as well. It also doesn't
help that these individuals exchange their monk-disciple status however often
it's convenient for them to do so. i've seen one monk go from disciple to
monk to disciple back to monk and then back to disciple again ad nauseum. Of
course, you'll say that we're wrong about the alleged Shaolin monks in China
and the ones in the U.S. too. But you haven't studied with the stateside
alleged monks and served as their assistants, and we have.
6. Yes, you guys have a right to believe what you believe. I was wrong to
get angry and use the word "moron" to refer to people who believe
differently. Mat was correct to grill me on this. You see Matt, even a guy
who hasn't gone to Princeton can admit he's wrong and see the other side
speaks some truth. Perhaps some folks in the Ivory Tower can do the same.
7. Mat is also right about my bad prose on Dejanews. It's another positive
lesson I've learned from Mat. You see, I usually only take about thirty
minutes to respond to these posts, instead of the twelve days Mat took to
write and post his very long and angry 5/19/99 response to my 5/07/99 post.
Next time I'll make sure to edit and ponder over my arguments and polish my
language. Although the University of Iowa's Writer's Workshop is the number
one writing program in the country and has been for the last sixty years, and
the Department of English is also very good, the University of Iowa is not
Ivy league, so I have to watch my P's and Q's. What would the four-star
generals I wrote for daily when I was a Captain in the U.S. Air Force think
if they saw my prose slip so much in the civilian world? Oh my? Would they
make me give up my graduate fellowship and master's degree here at UIOWA?
Would I have to give up several writing awards? Oh stop it! Of course I'm
name and status dropping! It's simply the rage these days! Intoxicatingly
contagious! Oh, did I say "intoxicating"?
8. Hey guys, did you really spend $888 or $1111 (who decides who pays the
different amounts?) for a party when you became alleged Shaolin disciples?
God, didn't Smith write that alleged Shaolin monk-actors in China make only
about $500 a year? That's quite a party one has to pay for in U.S. dollars.
Since when did such generosity become a prerequisite for becoming a disciple
of an alleged religious order? Oh right, you'll point to a few bad Catholic
priests stuck to their alter boys to defend the charge that only one alleged
temple in China -- today's Henan, China Shaolin "Temple" -- seems to depart
from the religious principles of decorum and observance articulated in sacred
Buddhist sutras. Oh, let me guess? Today's Shaolin Temple monks don't
observe these sacred sutras because they're ancient dogma? Well in that
case, what are the Catholics and Jews waiting for? Out with the ten
commandments and Torah? To quote Robin Williams in Dead Poet's Society,
"rip...rip...rip." Everyone should just burn their religious texts and adapt
to the modern world. Yes, the need to adapt to modern commercialism and
vanity take precedence over the desire to embrace genuine religious precepts
and expect "monks" (Buddhist or martial -- if ever such a specious
distinction has really existed) to behave as "monks." Hey, "monk" = "priest"
= "reverenc", right? Oh let me guess Matt? Not in Mandarin?!
9. Mat, I've got to hand it to you. You're a heck of a writer. You had me
balling when you wrote about all those poor little villagers who would have
to go hungry if the millions of tourists didn't bring their millions of bucks
to spend on kung fu books, Shaolin t-shirts, Shaolin-brand sausages, Shaolin
kung fu hotels, Dengfeng village discos, wushu center kung fu lessons,
Shaolin monk and disciple parties and certificates, black laced party girls,
etc. You really made me feel guilty about having to pay U.S prices for a
hotel in Dengfeng village in a country where the exchange rate is
approximately 8 Chinese RMB to 1 U.S. dollar.
10. Hey Matt and John, what would you say if we could all purchase Roman
Catholic priests clothes and police officer's uniforms? Wouldn't that be
grand? Why not? We already can buy the religious attire of Ch'an Buddhist
priests to use as kung fu uniforms, regardless of the religious significance
of these clothes. Aren't we lucky that we're living at the edge of the
millienium where we can buy these things? Let me see, why not wear the
Pope's uniform. It's just as pretty as the yellow and red robes and other
monastic clothing some companies in China and the U.S. seem not to deem
religious anymore. After all, everyone is doning these clothes in Dengfeng
village, so it must be o.k. One must adapt.
11. God we're lucky that these alleged Shaolin monks have "defected" or
"escaped" to the U.S. with their Chinese modern wushu, Chen style Tai Chi
Chuan, qigong tricks, and some traditional forms! But aren't these skills
practiced by thousands of people in Dengfeng village alone? Sanda is
practiced all over China. More Chinese martial artists are coming to the
U.S. because of a more open policy between Bejing and Washington. And they
come to teach kung fu and make lots of money, not save the world. Most of
these people could easily call themselves monks if they shaved their heads
and said "O Mi Tofu." Did I spell that right Mat? You know, if I can't
speak Chinese Mandarin, I have no right to say anything about China or
Buddhism, even though all my conversations (many of which I taped) were
translated to me by my Chinese wife and Buddhist sutras are available in
English for everyone to read. My children will be half Chinese, but I have
no right to comment on anything Chinese, even if it's based on years of
personal experience. Oh...but I don't go to an Ivy League school, so maybe I
really can't read. Yes, perhaps that's it. Or perhaps like Smith and Reul
and everyone else who doesn't agree with you, I'm just "bored" or
"disgruntled."
12. Most of these alleged monks in the U.S. are racking up tons of money.
But to be fair, Shi Yanchang, the first stateside monk to live permanently in
the U.S. has always acted like a real monk in my presence. Unfortunately,
I've heard reports from very credible sources that have prevented me from
having full faith in him also, whether he's really real or not. Yes, perhaps
Shi Yanchang and a few other alleged Shaolin monks in China are real. If
there are a few real Shaolin monks at Shaolin, I hope time will prove you
right. Believe me, I would be happy if this turned out true. Again, I doubt
it. But it would be great if you were right. It would be great to be wrong
about the other stateside alleged Shaolin monks as well.
13. Matt and John and Lori and Andy and everyone else, I know if we met in a
pub somewhere drining officially sanctioned Shaolin beer and munching on
Shaolin-brand sausges as we stained our Shaolin monk uniforms over videotapes
and our personal vignettes, we'd probably all get along. Do you hear anger
in my prose? Yes folks. But not really at you. I'm angry that something
sacred and special -- the Shaolin legacy itself -- has suffered such a
historical travesty as to become a quick buck and a way to personal fame.
14. Matt may be able to kick my ass using his Sanda skills and may have had
the money and time to attend Princeton and the Shaolin Temple/Shaolin Wushu
Center/various Beijing Schools/various Dengfeng villages/etc., but that
doesn't necessarily make him right. He may write spend more time writing
these posts than I, but I'm sincere in believing that I'm trying to help
people being dupped. I'm not saying these folks are intentionally dupping.
Just let's say, their alleged experience with "authentic Shaolin monks" just
doesn't jive with the many years of our experiences.
15. Let me say this, I do not hate my former teacher or other Shaolin monks
I wrote for. I wrote for Yanming "after" I left for Iowa and no longer
studied with him, not before. I wrote for Guolin because I believed that he
would take up where I thought Yanming no longer wished to pursue. In the
end, I just gave up believing. Perhaps I'm wrong in judging others by what I
and others experience as breaches of fundamental Buddhist principles and
ethics. No one is perfect. But folks, although human too, "Shaolin monks,"
"Catholic Priests," Jewish Rabbis," etc. attain their respected positions in
society because they're suppossed to have committed their lives in
transcending the mundane and transience to help lead others in pursuing
higher spiritual lives. Buddhist principles develop over time, but they're
not simply flung into the abyss because modernity knocks at the door of the
millenium.
16. I love Shaolin wushu (traditional and modern) also, but one could love
the martial art yet still lament the loss of a special part of Chinese
culture.
Best wishes!
-- Ervin (O.K., so I posted again. I couldn't resist!)
P.S. Why is it wrong for me to expect 135 pound alleged Shaolin monks to be
able to fight 250 pounds (more or less) of Shamrock? Doesn't their legendary
qigong and iron palm skills, etc., give them the ability to withstand kicks
and punches to the groin and throat, break stones with their hands, withstand
spear thrusts, crush huge stones with their head, jump 20 feet into the air,
scale walls horizontally, etc.? If so, then where's the problem. If they
have these skills, then they can fight.
In article <19990519182012...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
shaoli...@my-dejanews.com
shaoli...@my-dejanews.com
matt...@my-deja.com
Dear Christopher,
Deng Feng is the nearest town to the Temple. It is about 20 minutes
from the Shaolin village.
Matt Polly
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
matt...@my-deja.com
shaoli...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hi John and Mat, 1. It's pretty conveniently dismissive to call
anyone who
> points out serious breaches of fundamental Buddhist precepts (which
some
> alleged Shaolin supporters have called "ancient dogma"] "bored" or
> "disgruntled." My December 1998 Inside Kung Fu cover story cited
genuine
> Buddhist Sutras (The Brahma Net Sutra), not mere opinion or rhetoric.
1) As I've said before, serious breaches of fundamental Buddhists
precepts do not make a monk "fake." They make him "immoral" or a "bad
monk," but that's not the same thing as fake. A man who has never been a
monk but pretends to be a monk is a fake. This argument represents one
of the many times when you misuse words. You can say your former master
is a bad monk, if you want, but if you wish to call him a "fake" you
have to prove that he was not and is not a monk.
2. In
> Smith's Wall Street Journal article he writes that John Chen stomped
on a
> bug. Not a very Buddhist thing to do, or perhaps there's a new brand
of
> Buddhism now practiced at today's Shaolin "Temple" where reincarnation
is not
> a factor?
2) When the Buddha referred to the middle path, he was reacting against
religious types who were so fanatic that they tried to avoid even
accidentally killing bugs. That is to say, Buddhism is not Jainism.
Besides anyone who was reincarnated as a bug must have done something
pretty awful, like, say, slander the reputation of a Buddhist temple.
3. Today's alleged Shaolin monks seem to be able to do anything
> they please. According to some reports, they can eat meat, abandon
wives and
> kids in China, not teach Buddhism in the U.S. or just go through the
motions,
> focus on becoming celebrities instead of on their religious duties,
make a
> ton of money instead of practicing traditional ascetism, have
girlfriends who
> travel with them on business trips and admit to living together in
national
> pop magazines, drink alcohol, say they're martial monks and therefore
not
> full Buddhists but then refuse martial arts challenges from fellow
martial
> arts masters, etc. Yes, today's alleged Shaolin monks are really
lucky to be
> alleged Ch'an Buddhists priests from the Shaolin Temple in the
People's
> Republic of China.
3) I am quite well aware that the conduct of some Shaolin martial monks
fails to rise to the standards that other Buddhist monks have lived.
However, a) this does not make them fake. And b) if you had studied the
history of the Shaolin Temple, you would know that there have been many
periods when the Shaolin martial monks did not live up to the standards
of Buddhist precepts, e.g., during the period when they were large land
owners who oppressed the local villagers. On the other hand, they did
not live up to Buddhist teachings when they were a center for rebellion
against the Ming Dynasty, but that is considered one of their more
glorious periods. Legend has it that once upon a time, they knocked back
a coastal invasion by Japanese pirates. This also is not exactly a very
Buddhist thing to do. But, the Shaolin martial monks have always been
different. That may not be a good thing, but it is a fact.
4. Of course, this is only one person's opinion against a
> lot of "Shaolin disciples" and "Shaolin monks"? And my facts may be
wrong or
> tainted? Or is this true? How about all the other people who've
argued
> against fake Shaolin monks: Harry Leong, Jens Kruse, Kenny Wong,
Daniel
> Ruel, Craig Smith, and the many who've posted and now find themselves
in the
> Dejanews archives. Oh, let me guess? We're all bored and
disgruntled. Yes,
> bored of the same Shaolin fables/myths fed to us by our former alleged
> Shaolin monk teachers [and their crony disciples], who according to
your
> account are real, so we must have some grounds to say what we say
about
> Shaolin teachers in the U.S. and those we've met in China.
4) Your facts are tainted if not wrong. And as for your reasoning, you
write: "Yes, bored of the same Shaolin fables/myths fed to us by our
former alleged Shaolin monk teachers [and their crony disciples], who
according to your account are real, so we must have some grounds to say
what we say about Shaolin teachers in the U.S. and those we've met in
China." Did you learn this sort of argumentation from the four-star
generals or from your graduate teachers at Iowa? Or perhaps you were
just writing too quickly. If you want to insult us "crony disciples" at
least do us the courtesy of writing in a way that we can understand what
you are trying to say.
5) I'm very curious who the "ten monks" you have known over the last six
years are. Which ones exactly are the fakes? As far as I know, there
have only been two Shaolin monks here in the United States in the last
six years. If in fact these two monks are fakes, which I still do not
believe, you have still failed to prove that all the Shaolin monks are
fakes. Statistically speaking, your sample size is too small.
6. Yes, you guys have a right to
> believe what you believe. I was wrong to get angry and use the word
"moron"
> to refer to people who believe differently. Mat was correct to grill
me on
> this. You see Matt, even a guy who hasn't gone to Princeton can admit
he's
> wrong and see the other side speaks some truth. Perhaps some folks in
the
> Ivory Tower can do the same.
6) In the spirit of unity with all the folks outside my Ivory Tower,
yes, Ervin, I think you do have a point. Some of the Shaolin martial
monks have behaved in ways that is unbecoming a Buddhist monk. However,
as I have argued and you have yet to adequately respond, this does not
make them "fakes" it makes them "flawed." To call someone a fake is to
call him a liar and a con man. This is a serious charge, and this is why
you have received a serious response. To say that someone is "flawed" is
a moral judgment that I could understand.
7) Actually, I only spent about an hour responding to your post of
5/07/99. And I bet if you asked those four-star generals you wrote so
much for and your professors at the number one writing school in
America, they'd tell you that when you slander someone's character you
should polish your prose and ponder your arguments. And, by the way, you
did not say "intoxicating." You said, "intoxicatingly," which is a
rather unique adverb. PS. Were you perhaps in the fiction program at
Iowa?
8) Actually I donated 888 RMB ($90) when I "became an alleged Shaolin
disciple." How does on become an alleged disciple? Generosity is not a
prerequisite when becoming a disciple; it is voluntary. I wish I had
been able to give more. Also, Shaolin monks are not the only Buddhist
monks in the world who accept monetary donations. Have you checked out
the Buddhist scene in Thailand? Throughout China's history there have
been many periods where Buddhist monasteries and certain Buddhist monks
were fabulously rich. Is this perhaps the good old days that you keep
hoping the Shaolin Temple will one day return to? And finally, did you
really quote Robin Williams in "Dead Poet's Society?" How very
post-modern of you.
9. Mat, I've
> got to hand it to you. You're a heck of a writer. You had me balling
when
> you wrote about all those poor little villagers who would have to go
hungry
> if the millions of tourists didn't bring their millions of bucks to
spend on
> kung fu books, Shaolin t-shirts, Shaolin-brand sausages, Shaolin kung
fu
> hotels, Dengfeng village discos, wushu center kung fu lessons, Shaolin
monk
> and disciple parties and certificates, black laced party girls, etc.
You
> really made me feel guilty about having to pay U.S prices for a hotel
in
> Dengfeng village in a country where the exchange rate is approximately
8
> Chinese RMB to 1 U.S. dollar.
9) You stayed in a hotel that is run by the Chinese government. And like
all hotels run by the Chinese government there is a foreigner surcharge.
Those little tacky tourist shops on the side of the street are run by
extremely poor peasants. If you had spent any time living in Shaolin and
had visited any of these people's homes, seen their one set of clothes,
seen how little they have to eat every day, seen the conditions the live
and sleep in, I think you would be genuinely ashamed of yourself for
calling Shaolin village Sodom and Gomarrah. There were many periods
while I stayed at the Temple that various monks did not have enough
money for food. I have it on very good authority that things were much
worse before Shaolin became a tourist town. The monks at the Wushu
Center survive by pooling their resources. It is one of the reasons that
the Chinese eat their meals collectively, and the person with the most
money pays. Your opinion on this subject is as disgusting as it is
ignorant. Where did you learn how to make fun of real poverty and human
suffering? The Brahma Net Sutra?
10. Hey Matt and John, what would you say if
> we could all purchase Roman Catholic priests clothes and police
officer's
> uniforms? Wouldn't that be grand? Why not? We already can buy the
> religious attire of Ch'an Buddhist priests to use as kung fu uniforms,
> regardless of the religious significance of these clothes. Aren't we
lucky
> that we're living at the edge of the millienium where we can buy these
> things? Let me see, why not wear the Pope's uniform. It's just as
pretty as
> the yellow and red robes and other monastic clothing some companies in
China
> and the U.S. seem not to deem religious anymore. After all, everyone
is
> doning these clothes in Dengfeng village, so it must be o.k. One must
adapt.
10) Deng Feng is the town twenty minutes away from the Shaolin Temple.
And the young students and teachers in the Shaolin village most
certainly do not all wear monk's clothing. Even in the Shaolin village
the students of the various schools wear wushu uniforms or regular
work-out clothes. (Did you really visit the Shaolin Temple?) PS. We live
at the "end" not the "edge" of the millennium. Time, like earth, is not
flat, and therefore has no edge. It's the little details ("fake" vs.
"flawed", "fake" vs. "former", "edge" vs. "end") that make all the
difference.
11) The Shaolin monks are the most skilled practitioners of Shaolin
style kung-fu of anyone in the Shaolin village, Deng Feng, or the rest
of the world. If a student wants to learn Shaolin kung-fu, a Shaolin
martial monk is the best possible teacher. So, yes, we are quite lucky
to have Shaolin martial monks here in America. If you want to learn
gymnastic Wushu, then a teacher from the Beijing team is probably best.
If you want to learn Chinese style kickboxing (sanda), then the teachers
at Wuhan are probably the best. But if you want to learn all three, then
the Shaolin martial monks in my opinion are the best in the world. I
base that opinion on two years of studying in all of these places in
China. The Shaolin martial monks are not the best teachers of Buddhism.
This is quite true. I fail to see why this is a shock, or why you,
Ervin, and others feel the need to call the Shaolin martial monks
"fakes," because their Buddhist training in not up to snuff. Also, I'm a
little uncertain about why you feel the need to add the fact that your
children are half Chinese. Does this add to your authority on the
subject of "alleged" monks? And if it does, which half of them does so?
And finally, you should be quite happy that the Shaolin monks came to
the United States. If they hadn't I can't imagine you ever publishing a
cover story in any magazine, no matter how desperate that magazine might
be for a juicy controversy. Besides how often does a man get a chance to
be a little Ralph Nader, making the American public safe at any speed?
PS You did spell "O Mi Tofu" right; it's my name that you misspelled --
"Matt" has two "t"s not one. Details. Details.
12. Most of these alleged monks in the U.S. are racking up
> tons of money. But to be fair, Shi Yanchang, the first stateside monk
to
> live permanently in the U.S. has always acted like a real monk in my
> presence. Unfortunately, I've heard reports from very credible
sources that
> have prevented me from having full faith in him also, whether he's
really
> real or not. Yes, perhaps Shi Yanchang and a few other alleged
Shaolin monks
> in China are real. If there are a few real Shaolin monks at Shaolin,
I hope
> time will prove you right. Believe me, I would be happy if this turned
out
> true. Again, I doubt it. But it would be great if you were right.
It would
> be great to be wrong about the other stateside alleged Shaolin monks
as
> well.
12) I'm not sure what you think of as tons of money. Did the US Shaolin
monks launch an internet IPO? As far as I can tell they are both just
struggling martial arts instructors with small schools. This isn't
exactly the best way to the Fortune 500 list. But I am ever so glad that
you are still keeping your fingers crossed that there are some "real"
Shaolin monks in China. I'm sure they are looking forward to passing the
Ervin test of realness. But until they do, they have to look forward to
a martial arts community that has been poisoned by accusations that
everyone with a shaved head, excellent martial arts, and an orange robe
is actually a fake, because a non-Mandarin speaking American with a
grudge against his former teacher blew into the Shaolin village for a
few weeks. Not exactly Woodword and Bernstein territory.
13. Matt and John and Lori and Andy and everyone else, I know if we
> met in a pub somewhere drining officially sanctioned Shaolin beer and
> munching on Shaolin-brand sausges as we stained our Shaolin monk
uniforms
> over videotapes and our personal vignettes, we'd probably all get
along. Do
> you hear anger in my prose? Yes folks. But not really at you. I'm
angry
> that something sacred and special -- the Shaolin legacy itself -- has
> suffered such a historical travesty as to become a quick buck and a
way to
> personal fame.
13. In contrast, the anger in my prose indicates that I am really angry
at you, Ervin. You have personally and publicly maligned and slandered
not only the Temple where I studied, but also all of my teachers, who
you have called "fakes," without ever meeting them. You have done this,
because of your experience with two monks in the United States and a
very short visit to the Temple. You have done this, because you don't
think the monks and the Temple -- the way it or they are now -- are good
enough for you and your reading of Buddhist texts. You wrote cover
stories slandering the Shaolin Temple without researching adequately the
history of the Temple and without questioning any of the Westerners who
had lived there for a long time. And then, when we have come forward to
explain to you at length why your views are, frankly, incorrect, you
responded by calling our arguments drivel and accusing us of lying
because of some financial motive, connected to "Wing Lam and Co." And as
soon, as you finished questioning our motives and our honesty as well as
our dearly beloved teachers (cloaked in the piety that you're just
trying to protect the American public) you claim that you are too tired
to even "read" any of our responses, which you charactorize as
"mudslinging." I think your behavior is not only intellectually
dishonest but also as my grandfather would say, "yellow." And I cannot
imagine ever sitting around at a pub with you and getting along.
14. Matt may be able to kick my ass using his Sanda skills
> and may have had the money and time to attend Princeton and the
Shaolin
> Temple/Shaolin Wushu Center/various Beijing Schools/various Dengfeng
> villages/etc., but that doesn't necessarily make him right. He may
write
> spend more time writing these posts than I, but I'm sincere in
believing that
> I'm trying to help people being dupped. I'm not saying these folks
are
> intentionally dupping. Just let's say, their alleged experience with
> "authentic Shaolin monks" just doesn't jive with the many years of our
> experiences.
14) Yes, here I will graciously admit that you, Ervin, are correct in
saying that I "might be able" to kick your ass. I just might...
15. Let me say this, I do not hate my former teacher or other
> Shaolin monks I wrote for. I wrote for Yanming "after" I left for
Iowa and
> no longer studied with him, not before. I wrote for Guolin because I
> believed that he would take up where I thought Yanming no longer
wished to
> pursue. In the end, I just gave up believing. Perhaps I'm wrong in
judging
> others by what I and others experience as breaches of fundamental
Buddhist
> principles and ethics. No one is perfect. But folks, although human
too,
> "Shaolin monks," "Catholic Priests," Jewish Rabbis," etc. attain
their
> respected positions in society because they're suppossed to have
committed
> their lives in transcending the mundane and transience to help lead
others in
> pursuing higher spiritual lives. Buddhist principles develop over
time, but
> they're not simply flung into the abyss because modernity knocks at
the door
> of the millenium.
15) Shaolin martial monks are not the same as Shaolin or any other type
of Buddhist monk. They are not held to the same standards, nor do they
take the same vows. So the expectation that they live up to the Brahma
Net Sutra is ridiculous. That said, they have taken certain vows, like
the vow of chastity. And if they fail to keep these vows, then they
should either leave the monkhood or suffer from a lower level of respect
in their students' eyes. Clearly, something of this nature happened to
you, Ervin. However, failing to keep a vow does not make a monk a fake.
Once again, words are important and should be used appropriately. If you
had said that your former teacher was a flawed man who failed to keep
one of his vows, then I certainly would not have felt the need to
challenge you. But you have gone too far, accusing everyone of being a
fake because your former teacher did not act the way your expectation of
him to act based on your understanding of Buddhism. This is a flawed
line of reasoning.
16. I love Shaolin wushu (traditional and modern) also,
> but one could love the martial art yet still lament the loss of a
special
> part of Chinese culture.
>
16) One can lament the loss of many aspects of Chinese culture. I lament
the almost total devastation the Shaolin Temple and the suffering
endured by the Shaolin monks under Maoism and particularly during the
cultural revolution. Deng's policy of turning sacred temples into
tourist traps have many negative ramifications, but seen in the light of
what Mao did to the temples, they are a definite improvement. At least
now, there is a temple where monks and students can train, which was not
the case 25 years ago. It is not surprising that you fail to make an
accurate judgment of the Shaolin Temple, when you fail to try to
understand it in its historical context. Of course, this would require
that you try to understand it first before judging it.
> Best wishes!
>
> -- Ervin (O.K., so I posted again. I couldn't resist!)
To each his just deserts,
Matthew Polly
(I'm leaving the Buddhist name out. I'd hate for you to get all worked
up by a tangental issue. But every Shaolin disciple is given a name with
"Shi" at the beginning. This is an anthropological fact.)
>
> P.S. Why is it wrong for me to expect 135 pound alleged Shaolin monks
to be
> able to fight 250 pounds (more or less) of Shamrock? Doesn't their
legendary
> qigong and iron palm skills, etc., give them the ability to withstand
kicks
> and punches to the groin and throat, break stones with their hands,
withstand
> spear thrusts, crush huge stones with their head, jump 20 feet into
the air,
> scale walls horizontally, etc.? If so, then where's the problem. If
they
> have these skills, then they can fight.
PS. As for the UFC, the problem is quite simple. As is obvious to anyone
has watched the contests, a fight between two men in an Octagon ring
with few rules, except "no biting" inevitably favors the grappler and
wrestler to the striker. The Shaolin martial monks are trained as
kickers and strikers, not as grapplers. This is a limitation to their
fighting style. However, there are very good reasons to prefer striking
to grappling. A) Biting is not allowed in the Octagon, but it is the
first thing any striker would do to a jujitsu stylist who pulled him
into the guard. B) Real fights usually end up involving more than one
opponent. In such a situation, it is a really bad idea to go to the
ground. The ground is where broken beer bottles are, not to mention the
boots of your opponent's pals. If I had to bet on someone in the
Octagon, I'd bet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Tien yi
Would a real monk be using edged weapons?
Is shan/zen EVEN anything to do with Buddhism? Its just a bit of
Buddhism retoric mixed
with folk Taoism.
These are the same guys (shan) that denounce putting things in writing
and then go ahead
and write volumes and volumes. Of course always clear to mention that
conventional learning
is flawed. Shan derides reasoning altogether. And you must be ready
to precieve your own
instinctive perspective at every given moment.
It does have its points there in the context of art or music. Who's to
say whats good or bad?
To respect and love someone. And like and understand a art form are
totally different. A real
musicial listens to learn. Its not about what you like. You have to
understand it first. You may
not like or understand kabuki. But it could make you a better
performer or screenwriter or director.
If your not going to learn from a book. Or a teacher. Or a guru. How
are you going to know if
your on the right track? People are taking it too far. One extreme to
another. The goal should be
to find formal descriptions. You know the difference between polka and
waltz. Even if you cant
quantify it in words. And all the technical mumbo jumbo.
Looking back. Shaolin isnt a form of Buddism any more than Adam smith
was expansionist.
Tien yi
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Christopher Williams
matt...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7in08a$5mk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7hvvr3$kek$1...@news.sasquatch.com>,
>Dear Christopher,
> Deng Feng is the nearest town to the Temple. It is about 20 minutes
>from the Shaolin village.
>
>Matt Polly
>
accent of the person telling me the name of the town was not one I was used
to...
cw
u_K...@hotmail.com
were in London they got in the press a bit and I remember reading that
these 'Monks' are actually good wushu players and not monks. They use
the shaolin monks ploy to increase interest in them.
On Sat, 29 May 1999 06:27:26 GMT, "Tien yi" <chec...@nightmail.com>
wrote: