Self-Defense

[Saijun]

Re: Self-Defense

I also want to point out that the Precept we take says to Refrain from taking life.

Hello Heitetsu,

That was actually what I was attempting to point out in my previous post. My apologies for any confusion ops: .

Metta,

Saijun

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

I doubt that a member of a kshatriya family had "lousy kung fu" even if he did teach that we should love everyone.

"Don't you know that I am a person who can let you cut my head off without blinking an eye." doesn't necessarily mean that he would have.

[Hoyu]

Re: Self-Defense

Before a person chooses to attack another haven't they accepted the potential for harm or death to themselves? It's like signing a wavier of liability before doing anything dangerous. If they accept that upfront does it have to result in bad karma to the one who reacts in self defense thus causing harm?

Matt wrote:
Act swiftly, reflect deeply.

I completely agree with what Matt wrote. Only i would reword it to:
Act swiftly without excess, reflect deeply.

Without excess reflects on Hans's words:

(like kicking someone you already knocked out repeatedly in the head because you are so angry at him/her for having attacked you).

Gassho,
John

[Ekai]

Re: Self-Defense

Before a person chooses to attack another haven't they accepted the potential for harm or death to themselves? It's like signing a wavier of liability before doing anything dangerous. If they accept that upfront does it have to result in bad karma to the one who reacts in self defense thus causing harm?

Agreed and agreed to " Act swiftly without excess, reflect deeply."

Thanks,
Jodi

[Hans]

Re: Self-Defense

Hello,

just a quick comment regarding Shaolin. The whole Bodhidharma/Kung-Fu connection did only ever come into "legendary" existence many hundreds of years after Bodhidharma had lived. To my knowledge this was briefly mentioned in McRae's "Seeing through Zen"...or a similar tome...

So basically, there is ZERO evidence that the original Bodhidharma (whoever he might/might not have been) promoted Kung-Fu. Looking at the Pali sources and just about 95% of all Mahayana sources will only come to show that promoting Martial Arts was never an integral part of Buddhadharma. The connection between Samurai culture and Zen is very problematic in this respect.

Takuan e.g. might have been ten times more skilled and wise than this puny novice priest-in-training here, but whichever way you turn it from my limited point of view, training how to best kill and/or maim someone is not at the core of the Buddhadharma and can lead one down a very slippery slope indeed (I remember how I started "to size people up" after only a few months of Wing Chun training....not because I consciously wanted to). Learning how to defend oneself might be something one decides one has to know (I decided I did have to know how to a while ago), but one shouldn't justify this kind of training through kidding oneself into believing it's a particularly skillful way of practising the Buddhadharma.

Btw. here's a link to Wikipedia (which I don't particularly recommend...but I just don't remember which academic text I got my Bodhidharma info from), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma

So basically the real Shaolin-Bodhidharma-hype seems to only have really become popular a little more than one hundred years ago.

Gassho,

Hans

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

Hans,

Your last few posts here on the forum has really been speaking to me. I agree with you on all counts, and I thank you for putting things much more eloquently than I ever could.Thank you again, and many bows.

With that said, I just wanted to say that I felt exactly the same when I trained Wing Tsun, what with the sizing people up. On one occasion I even wished for a quite irritating macho man nearby to take a swing at me, and I could just picture myself responding with chain punches. I didn't think like this when I didn't practice Wing Tsun, so I can definitely see how one can proceed down a slippery slope from such martial arts training.

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

The connection between Samurai culture and Zen is very problematic in this respect.

Suzuki Shosan appears to lean toward the idea that once a samurai takes the field he has to cast Buddhism aside in order to do his duty as a warrior, but can always return to the path of Dharma once that duty is fulfilled. I'll look up the exact quote once I get home. There were aspects of Zen training that could be adapted to the battlefield, but I doubt that Shosan considered this to be the same as practicing Zen.

On the flip side of that, he also felt that the duty of the samurai- being prepared to cast aside one's life in service to his lord- was itself the heart of the Zen way. If you were a samurai that is.

Perhaps that is the key. There are some situations where precepts don't neatly apply, so we need to approach the situation with a fluid nature. Rather than trying to seek an ideal means before an event, act naturally if such an event occurs.

My apologies for earlier abrupt and disjointed posts, it takes a bit to get warmed up sometimes.

[Hans]

Re: Self-Defense

Hello Rev.,

that is definitely a position one can take and I feel (or rather hope) I can understand the logic. Disclaimer, twisted unsui two cent ramblings coming up.

At this early point in my practice and understanding, permit me to express or rather re-state my position regarding this kind of Samurai Zen.

The bumbling fool that is this Kraut called Hans feels that to cast the Dharma aside cannot be done, once one has truly entered the womb of the Prajnaparamita with hairs on fire. One can easily cast away the -ism of Buddhism, but how can one cast off or even return to the path of Dharma? Can one take off one's skin and dance around in one's bones (my apologies to Tom Waits)?

If you wield a sword cutting not through delusions but through flesh and bones, becoming a widowmaker, a smith forging orphans on an anvil made of pain and suffering, is that the path the Buddha taught after rising from under the bodhi tree? Let us not forget, following the Buddhadharma is an option, not an obligation.

If we fail in our practice, that is only all too human. As the Japanese say, seven times down, eight times up. I surely fail a lot. But please let us not make the mistake to turn our own inadequacies into the standard units by which to measure the greatness of the Buddhaway.

Krishna talking to Arjuna at the dawn of the battle at Kurukshetra might have been sympathetic to Suzuki Shosan's quote, but from my limited perspective we could just as well stop practising Zazen and convert to reading the Bhagavadgita in that case. Since the medieval period, right up to the second world war, the idealisation of warfare has poisoned the well of Japanese Zen in many cases.

Let us be very careful about every single sip we take from the ladle that is Japanese Zen in this context.

When mindfulness developed through Zazen is employed to become better at killing, it is not our hair that is on fire, but the Buddha's robe.

Shakyamuni walked away from his duty as a warrior, his call to re-discover the ancient path was stronger than what society expected of him.


Gassho,

Hans

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

Thank you for the reply. It will take a little more time than I have available at this moment to formulate an appropriate reply, tonight I hope. In other words...en garde :lol:

[Hoyu]

Re: Self-Defense

Hi guys,
I too found the same to be true when I studied Wing Chun. I noticed that when angry I became more prone to punching the wall or kicking things. Before studying Wing Chun I was in Aikido. During those years of training when I became angry I didn't act out the same. Its impossible to throw the wall! Without an object to focus that anger on it dissipated quicker.
I think a big part of why i behaved that way while in Wing Chun was the environment of the school and the attitude of the teachers and students. Things like this. We were set up in a bad part of town. Our teachers warned us that anytime someone could come in and challenge any one of us to a fight. It was drilled into us that should that person off the street choose you, you had to fight them. If you refused you would have to fight against all your "Kung Fu brothers" instead!

Aikido is taught to be a non violent martial art. Are the techniques really less violent.....no. An Aikido person could do as much damage as a Wing Chun guy. It's the martial arts! They have the same concept just a different approach to the psychology of it.

Karate master Mr. Miyagi has this to say which sums it up for me:

No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher

Students reflect and perpetuate what they learn from the attitude of those doing the teaching. Martial arts are just empty skills.

Gassho,
John

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

There are some situations where precepts don't neatly apply, so we need to approach the situation with a fluid nature. Rather than trying to seek an ideal means before an event, act naturally if such an event occurs.

I'd have to say that to set the precepts aside, because your way is better (or more fitting or fluid, or calls for something else) is as adharmic as it could be. As I wrote in another thread, Buddhadharma can never be anything goes. Unfortunately, Japanese buddhism (and other forms of buddhism perhaps) is plagued with antinomianism, an attitude of "we can do it whichever way we want!" or "That doesn't apply to me!". That antinomianism is spreading to western zen buddhism, where scores of people change the Buddhadharma into anything that fits their view of ultimate reality. It fits the western individualism, I suppose. It make people unwilling to change, even if their way brings negative consequences.

All may have Buddha nature, but it is deeply covered by layers of ego and values. To do what is natural can have devastating consequences if what is natural to me, is completely wrong to you.

[Ekai]

Re: Self-Defense

If you are at the right school with great instructors, martial arts is definitely more than learning how to fight. In my Kyuki-Do federation, they promote developing the virtues of courtesy, humility, integrity, self-control, perseverance and indomitable spirit. Martial arts allows us to see into our true nature and to realize the potential within each of us physically, mentally and spiritually. We learn discipline, focus, attention, patience, persistence and respect for others. Students entering our DoJang have the intent on keeping an open mind for learning and growing together instead of wanting to harm each other. I know that other schools are different. I am very grateful to be in a family-oriented school that teaches good values for adults and kids.

I just started Aikido & Judo, and they are great styles of martial arts. I have to admit they are both hard to learn but I like the philosophy behind them. It flows nicely with Buddhist practice.

Thanks,
Jodi

[Kaishin]

Re: Self-Defense

If you are at the right school with great instructors, martial arts is definitely more than learning how to fight. In my Kyuki-Do federation, they promote developing the virtues of courtesy, humility, integrity, self-control, perseverance and indomitable spirit. Martial arts allows us to see into our true nature and to realize the potential within each of us physically, mentally and spiritually. We learn discipline, focus, attention, patience, persistence and respect for others. Students entering our DoJang have the intent on keeping an open mind for learning and growing together instead of wanting to harm each other.

I think this is especially true of Aikido, which has very limited "attacks", depending almost entirely on defensive moves. At least that's my limited understanding.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Self-Defense

There are some situations where precepts don't neatly apply, so we need to approach the situation with a fluid nature. Rather than trying to seek an ideal means before an event, act naturally if such an event occurs.

I'd have to say that to set the precepts aside, because your way is better (or more fitting or fluid, or calls for something else) is as adharmic as it could be. As I wrote in another thread, Buddhadharma can never be anything goes. Unfortunately, Japanese buddhism (and other forms of buddhism perhaps) is plagued with antinomianism, an attitude of "we can do it whichever way we want!" or "That doesn't apply to me!". That antinomianism is spreading to western zen buddhism, where scores of people change the Buddhadharma into anything that fits their view of ultimate reality. It fits the western individualism, I suppose. It make people unwilling to change, even if their way brings negative consequences.

All may have Buddha nature, but it is deeply covered by layers of ego and values. To do what is natural can have devastating consequences if what is natural to me, is completely wrong to you.

But remember also that the Buddha put these precepts in place for those who could not transcend their baser wants, desires, and attachments. This does not mean that the Precepts were set in stone and to be followed to the letter, hence the differing versions of them. It might be that they were worded the way they were to impress their significance on those who needed them, and the bodhisattvas who were more enlightened need not adhere as stringently to the words of the Precepts because they lived the Spirit of the Precepts in their daily lives.

[anista]

Self-Defense

There are some situations where precepts don't neatly apply, so we need to approach the situation with a fluid nature. Rather than trying to seek an ideal means before an event, act naturally if such an event occurs.

I'd have to say that to set the precepts aside, because your way is better (or more fitting or fluid, or calls for something else) is as adharmic as it could be. As I wrote in another thread, Buddhadharma can never be anything goes. Unfortunately, Japanese buddhism (and other forms of buddhism perhaps) is plagued with antinomianism, an attitude of "we can do it whichever way we want!" or "That doesn't apply to me!". That antinomianism is spreading to western zen buddhism, where scores of people change the Buddhadharma into anything that fits their view of ultimate reality. It fits the western individualism, I suppose. It make people unwilling to change, even if their way brings negative consequences.

All may have Buddha nature, but it is deeply covered by layers of ego and values. To do what is natural can have devastating consequences if what is natural to me, is completely wrong to you.

But remember also that the Buddha put these precepts in place for those who could not transcend their baser wants, desires, and attachments. This does not mean that the Precepts were set in stone and to be followed to the letter, hence the differing versions of them. It might be that they were worded the way they were to impress their significance on those who needed them, and the bodhisattvas who were more enlightened need not adhere as stringently to the words of the Precepts because they lived the Spirit of the Precepts in their daily lives.

So, the precepts (some of them considered grave for a reason) along with I suppose the eightfold path, is for those who are "less enlightened"? I am not sure I agree with this. Anyway, it may be as it may with that, but a samurai who used his sword for killing could hardly be called enlightened. Not even by a stretch. You can't turn the dharma on and off, and avoid vipaka for some actions, and not for others. That, if anything, goes against the spirit of the precepts.

That is also why it is so dangerous to assume that the path explained by the Buddha does not apply to yourself. The precepts are not set in stone, so I can change their meaning so to fit my wants, needs and desires. For all of us, it's better I think to not see us as awakened but to keep following the path even though it may conflict with our own interest. But that is just my opinion.