Meat, Wine and Fighting Monks

[GeneChing]

We've just posted an unabridged version of Dr. Meir Shahar's paper on Shaolin monks violating Buddhist precepts. See Meat, Wine and Fighting Monks. An abridged version of this article appears in our Shaolin Special 2004.

amitoufo

[norther practitioner]

Thanks Gene, I just started reading that, I'll read the full version now though.

[GeneChing]

I'm a bit confused by your comment - what is your point exactly? The article is a scholarly one that charts the notion of meat and wine monks through history, relying on extant verifiable sources. The reference to the film Shaolin Temple was used mostly as modern example of this.

As for getting in bed with authority, have you done any work on the Tang steles of Shaolin?

[Shaolinlueb]

Gene my teacher has told me different monks feel differently about this. Like if you ask a "Monk" like Shi Yan Ming he will tell you its alrite to eat meat, drink wine, have a wife and such. but if you ask a Monk like Shi Goulin (sp?) he will tell you no to all because buddhists dont eat meat or drink wine. so is it jsut a matter of thier religious depth? i also heard the monks in flushing dont have nice things to say about Shi Yan Ming.

[richard sloan]

I think this was a pretty good article. The only criticism I would have is that some of the meat and wine monks that are mentioned aren't characterized very well- for instance all the ones I know aren't exactly devouring whole cow carcasses at every sitting...they just eat meat from time to time, and so they enjoy a beer. Last time I had dinner with MDY he had a few beers, the admonition is actually against allowing something to have delitrious effects and not a particular *kind* of beverage. For instance if he were addicted to coffee, that would be bad.

The other problem I have is that if YX wants to wrestle the Chinese version of Buddhist orthodoxy back into primacy in the fold, he needs to do it across the board. But there is a problem in that this is the modern world, and people meet and greet and exchange ideas...the Dalai Lama writes books, it's easy to read his wisdom and philosophy. Should he stop eating meet? Should only Chinese Buddhists not eat meat? What about Thich Naht Hahn? Was he wrong to celebrate the Eucharist from Thomas Merton's hand? According to De Cheng and Guolin, yup, he was. But others say it's fine, it was a good thing. There are quite a few monks who are married under YX's banner, so if it's wrong, let it be wrong, not a means of taking pot shots at someone else.

Speaking for myself, I was happy to learn of monks who were engaged in the world and not keeping spiritual treasures locked up and reclused. They have a successful means of delivering people from the dualistic suffering, I feel it is irresponsible to the notion of interbeing to keep that from people.

Of all these different monks, I don't know a single one who can keep all 250 precepts. It would be impossible, from the Dalai Lama to Guolin. Most religious I have met who make a big show of what they do for their religion, aren't quite getting what I feel to be the whole point of human spiritual systems, and that is transcending. Reminds me of the Damo story.

In that regard, I am also happy to see the celibacy thing fall on occassion...much like the Christian reformers who splintered from the Catholic Church, I hope it happens more and more.

[Roc Doc]

gene,
thanks for including the great article by dr. shahar in the recent kf mag.
it is so good to have academic, objective and intelligent information on the subject we all love. sad though, some would rather not shine a light on the topic but would rather remain in the dark. in the matrix. hmmmmmm...
i know kung fu... nyuk nyuk nyuk
doc

[bungle]

It's obvious to why alcohol is banned. Try drinking it while meditating intensively. No go . It messes up your mind big time. I do sedona and if i drink i cannot do sedona properly for a couple of days.

[GeneChing]

I'll admit that I'm quite biased toward this article because for me, Dr. Shahar's work is a revelation. His research into Shaolin has resolved many questions I had in my own work on Shaolin. I've read some of the chapters of his upcoming book, and what he postulates may well change the perception of CMA as we know it. Keep in mind that this article, along with Dr. Shahar's other articles, are part of a larger body of research which will be presented in his book....assuming he finishes it.

Now to address both shanghai_kid and richard sloan:

Dr. Shahar sets out to answer a simple question "Did Shaolin Monks Breach Buddhist Dietary Regualtions?" We know that many do today - as Richard mentions, Shi Yanming is an outspoken transgressor. My own shifu, Shi Decheng has eaten meat, which I discuss in the Shaolin Special 2004 cover story. Now we should sidestep here and state that while vegatarianism is not practiced by all sects of Buddhist monks. There are many schools of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is not vegetarian, but Tibetan Buddhism is not known for vegetarianism to begin with (in fact, there is ritual 'forbidden' meat eating in Tibetan tantric Buddhist schools). However, Chinese Buddhist monks are known for their vegetarianism. So the idea that Shaolin monks may have violated this precept, as one of the foremost temples of China, is very interesting.

Dr. Shahar sets out to answer this question by looking at historical examples. I'm a bit astounded that the sources are brought into question since this is a scholarly article. Admittedly, since we are a popular journal, we don't publish academic bibliographies, but that doesn't mean Dr. Shahar doesn't have them. If you have a specific source in question, I can provide the biobligraphic information.

Now there isn't much documented about Buddhist violations in the Buddhist cannon and literature for obvious reasons. No religion would air it's dirtly laundry so. But there is substantial evidence in historical fictional works and well as government documents, and of course, Shaolin's extensive stele collection, which has dates from which certain implications can be drawn. This record is what Dr. Shahar choses to focus on (and from a scholarly standpoint, there really isn't much else that is valid). In my reading, I find that he presents the film Shaolin Temple more as a contemporary echo of some of the earlier classic fictional sources. Several fascinating Chinese concepts emerge from fiction, ones that most Westerners are unaware, like jiurou heshang, dian seng, ye heshang and feng heshang. Actually, in defense of Yanming, he might fall into one of these catagories, and I truly mean that with respect. The Sengchou story is extremely significant to all Shaolin researchers because of its date, its mention of meat eating and also Vajrapani. That story is so rich and revealing about early Shaolin culture. Then there's the governement stuff. Your comment on the preservationof government records is somewhat true, until the Ming and Qing, which is what is referenced. The Ming and Qing records are very well preserved. In fact, every imperial document of the Qing is extant; the study of these documents is an amazing scholarly pursuit of its own, covering the minutia of daily life for the last 400 years of China. The revelation here is that of fangtou heshang, something that is being echoed today. But all this is gravy, really, rich gravy that provides an astute CMA researcher with a lot of grist for the mill.
Ultimately, the conclusion is simple. Did they trangress? Most probably. The implication is more interesting because if they can trangress forbidden foods, they can transgress violence. That gets at some very interesting questions about our roots. The commonly accepted myth is that Shaolin was the origin of CMA. Talk about myth making. I'm surprised you miss the connections, because to me, they're painfully obvious.

[Just a Guy]

While it is true that most Chinese Ch'an sects practice vegetarianism, it is unsurprising that Shaolin does not. It is particularly apropos that you mention Tibetans, as Shaolin Ch'an was heavily influenced by Tibetan Buddhism, especially the offshoots of Vajrayana present in the Omei Shan region. To say that Shaolin violates Buddhist dietary regulations seems a little off-base. It would be more accurate to say that Shaolin differs from other Chinese Buddhist traditions. Talk of "violations" of the Vinaya seems to be thinly concealed sensationalism.

Consider: when the Buddha's own cousin challenged him for leadership of the Sangha, pushing for strict vegetarianism (among other things), the Buddha strongly affirmed that vegetarianism was to be an individual, and not a doctrinal, decision - and thoroughly optional.

As an interesting aside, Wes Nisker points out in "Buddha's Nature" that we have to harness the power of the sun *somehow*, and there are only two methods available: eat things that photosynthesize, or eat things that eat things that photosynthesize. Nisker's formulation provides one starting point for thinking about the wheel of karma.

Shahar's article, while a fascinating read (it would be really interesting to find out more about Ch'ing-era documentation on the Shaolin), seems caught up in the paradigm of commandment-style Buddhist precepts. The precepts aren't supposed to be immutable commandments. For instance, what's wrong with life-affirming love-making, even for a Buddhist monk? Sex is not allowed for many Buddhist monks, though, not because there's something wrong with it, but because it is *easier* to be harmless (Right Resolve and all that) and cultivate detachment when you don't have sex. Sex is frequently and easily abused. So we get the precepts, and ultimately the *Theravadin*-created Vinaya (monastic disciplinary code), which provide "commandments to live by", because it's simply too hard for most people to grasp and follow the eightfold path directly.

As a Mahayanin Ch'an school, however, Shaolin is very focused on the eightfold path, and upon personal responsibility and choice. Precepts and discipline imposed from the outside are pretty useless on the path.

Shanghai Kid's points about PRC propaganda are valid in some areas. For instance, this new insistence that monks living in the monastery be celibate and vegetarian is not authentic to Shaolin tradition. It's mostly, I presume, an effort by the PRC to lend credibility to what's currently happening at the Song Shan site. Hmm, mid-1970's: Shaolin Order in ashes. Quick: find some martial artists, and marry them to borrowed Buddhist practices of other Chinese Ch'an schools. Well, I suppose my perspective on the authenticity of the PRC-endorsed Shaolin is apparent.

My sources on Shaolin tradition and philosophy are all pre-PRC, but I'll take my sources any day over historical fiction, Ch'ing imperial documents, and agents of the PRC. (I don't mean this as a condemnation of Shahar's work at all, he is simply doing research with what is available to him. But here's a consideration: think of how hard it would be to do accurate research on Jewish culture in Germany today had the Nazis prevailed in WWII. This isn't meant to be a literal analogy, but it makes my point: Shahar has got a long row to hoe.)

[GeneChing]

While you've both posed some fine arguments, for you to properly address a scholarly paper, you need to back it with some precedent research citations. Otherwise I'm not sure you can even begin to make these statements that you're making fairly. Here, someone has produced some historical documents, material you can validify. You are countering with hearsay, unless you can produce your sources. This is scholarly research so we should discuss it as such. I know that's a huge leap for a forum, but we like making such leaps around here. So let's at least play with a bit of an academic standard.

Now, despite most westerners belief that the CR destroyed everything and left wushu in its place, there still remains a significant record. I'd direct you to the Wushu in the White House series that we have been running throughout 2004 (actually, the Shaolin special was the only one that we skipped). You find that the 'ban' on martial arts was actually only for a very short period of time, just a few years, and the conversion to wushu was an attempt to preserve traditional that backfired in a weird way. It was an attempt to level the playing field, but that's really hard given the diveristy of traditional styles.

What I find interesting is that Shaolin monks are supposed to abstain from meat, wine and sex, but there's this tradition that implies that they frequently did not. The 1735 report is fascinating, as is the accusations of Wang Shixing (1647-1598)and He Wei (fl. 1830). Clearly we can deduce from these that meat, wine and 'whoring' was forbidden during the Qing. And it makes sense, after all, Shaolin was a Buddhist Temple. Can you authentic source that validly permits Shaolin monks to eat meat and drink wine? That's the challenge here. The common argument is Li Shinmin, but if you believe that, I ask you, then who is learning history from the movies?

[GeneChing]

In all fairness, I still fail to see your point, shanghai_kid, but I'm in total agreement with you on the fact that it has elicited a nice dialog here. I find Dr. Shahar's work to be some of the most scholarly material done on martial arts so far. He's joining such authors as Henning, Hurst, Wise, and a few others that are doing exemplary work. Have you read some of Shahar's other papers? We've discussed his work on a few previous threads, like this one. If Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies isn't scholarly enough for you, well, maybe we need to analyse the defination of scholarly. You're main pont of contention, as I undestand it, is that this is some sort of myth making. I find it to be quite the opposite. It's looking at the myths of Shaolin and trying to verify them with historical sources. Of course, he encouters the historian's problem in that you can only allude from extant documents, so the conclusion is somewhat implied, but you have to read between the lines, like any scholarly paper (at least he is relatively free of jargon.)

As for the connection of fighting and meat eating, the notion of meat for strength is a common myth, but like many common myths, it isn't explicitly codified, it's an implied connection. So Shahar doesn't produce some ancient document that says this, but implies it from other works, mostly historical fictitious accounts. And to make a conclusion that there is a connection without an explicit example would be faulty. Instead, he lets you fill in the gaps. Really, what he is doing is making a historical review and letting the conclusions fall out for the reader. This is not uncommon in academia. In fact, such papers/publications often become the most cited in future research. Keep in mind that the topic of Shaolin has not been approached academically to any depth so far, so the presentation of many of his sources is unprecedented.

Now, FWIW, if you know the academic world, you know that most scholars don't publish in popular newsstand magazines, they only publish in academic journals. I know many will cite Journal of Asian Martial Arts as an academic journal, and it does have that leaning, but it's certainly not on the level of something like the Harvard Journal. Dr. Shahar agreed to publish in our magazine as a personal favor - this is an extraction from a larger work. I'll grant that since I've read the larger work, or the current draft of it, I might be seeing a bigger picture of his research and filling in those gaps better. And wait 'til you see what's in that book. I think many martial artists will reject it, because it explodes a lot of common Shaolin myths with hard evidence.

[GeneChing]

The field of martial arts scholarship is just opening up, both in English and Chinese (re: Ma Mingda) but it's still very limited. So I personally find any attempt for scholarly work to be of interest and worthy of encouragement, but that's just me. My mission is to promote CMA, and more academic research can onlly improve our understanding. Now, our magazine is a popular journal, not an academic one - if we were academic, we wouldn't be on the newsstand. I hear you guys dissing this piece from an armchair observationalist standpoint, which is certainly within the common rights of the forum here. However, what would be more productive for martial arts as a whole, would be to provide some better resources. Is there some better research on Shaolin Temple that you are privy to? If so, please share.

[richard sloan]

last I checked the mag wasn't a peer reviewed scholarly journal...so I thought the article was more than sufficient for it's purposes and well within the scope of the magazine...and it's certainly open to scholarly debate or rebuttal which if someone would like to do that I am sure Gene would consider publishing it. That is after all how this stuff works...

again, my only real complaint was the mischaracterization, which can be dismissed by observation, that shahar makes when describing the meat and wine consumption- he makes it sound like these guys are walking around munching on joints of beef ripped from a cow's barbecued carcass and I just don't see that as the case...not speaking for all of them, but the few I have been around for any length of time do eat meat *from time to time*, but it's not the norm, normally it's vegetables. And lots and lots of noodles.

[Just a Guy]

Originally posted by GeneChing
for you to properly address a scholarly paper, you need to back it with some precedent research citations. Otherwise I'm not sure you can even begin to make these statements that you're making fairly. Here, someone has produced some historical documents, material you can validify. You are countering with hearsay, unless you can produce your sources.

Gene,

My intention is not to counter Dr. Shahar's research, per se, but rather to make some differing perspectives more public. Shahar's biases (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense - everyone has some kind of bias) heavily color his article and lead the reader to certain kinds of conclusions - conclusions which are not inevitable at all.

I hope this point is appreciated, even though I've managed to make it without saying anything very solid. Heh, trademark of an academic, perhaps.

All that aside, your requirement that one can only make telling comments on a scholarly paper by citing sources of one kind or another is based on a logical fallacy. Sound reasoning takes many forms, and argument by appeal to authority (those good ol' citations) is only one of them, and a frequently faulty one at that. Many excellent pieces of research are packed with citations, but the citations are frequently *not* a vital part of the argument. Academics pad their work with references to other academic work for many reasons, including: acknowledgement of their peers, to demonstrate their mastery of the field, etc. Citations of source material are more important in some fields, of course.

I appreciate the work Shahar is doing (and have read his other published work), and wouldn't take the time to even comment on it if I felt it was frivolous or what have you. As I mentioned before, I simply want to bring out some different perspectives. I suppose I could cite the sutras regarding some of my comments about the Dharma, but what I have to say is hardly unique or original. I understand the desire for sources when it comes to my representation of the Shaolin interpretation of the Dharma, however.

On that topic, I am aware of an argument by appeal to authority of the very best kind, which will appear in a book being published this August.

The book is The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text: History, Philosophy, and Gung Fu of Shaolin Ch'an, ISBN 0-9755009-0-2.

The primary author of this manuscript, which has been held in trust for many years (the manuscript, not the author!), was the abbot of the Song Shan Temple from 1882-1901. In 1901, he left China and directed the dispersal of Shaolin's highest level of priests. The Shaolin Order never crumbled as many supposed, but persisted in relative anonymity - yet the village masters in the region of Song Shan and the few Shaolin students left in that region and scraped up by the PRC only represent a peripheral aspect of Shaolin heritage. Wait - the Cultural Revolution saw the demise of many of these people, so really, what has survived in China as "Shaolin" is a small fraction of Shaolin. My source, again, is the above-mentioned tome.

I realize this sounds like a fairy tale, but the reality is truly stranger than any fiction. Also, let me note that I am playing a role in the publication of this text, and so have my own definite bias about Shaolin. I don't pretend to be purely objective - niether am I a moral relativist. There is right and wrong in the world, just as there is truth and falsehood. (Of course, from a Ch'an perspective, I am just referring to worldly truth and worldly morality

[GeneChing]

...that's sounds like a very interesting book. I'll be looking forward to it. Can you tell us a little more? Of course, you realise that there was no Abbot of Songshan Shaolin from 1882 to 1901. The previous Abbot, Shi Xingzhen, was inaugurated on 12/13/86 and died on 8/27/87. The Abbot before him was Shi Haikuan who reigned from 1662 until his death in 1666. There have been honorary Abbots in the interim like Haideng and Suxi, but no official recognized ones. What's the name of this 1882-1901 Abbot? I'm really interested in the source material. That period was a very exciting time for CMA especially considering the world political theater and it's relationship to China.