Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
you'll notice in this thread, when several clarifications concerning yanfan's legitimacy and sincerity were made, his critics suddenly disappeared....

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

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

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

it is also unfair to lump someone in with all the people making large claims of monkhood, when nowhere have they claimed any level of ordination or even a generation name.
I still don't buy it. Granted it appears he was ordained as monk. However, having seen his gong fu and having spoken with people who were privy to his time at shaolin; he spent little time training there, certainly not enough to be considered a warrior monk (unless Shaolin has lowered their standards dramatically).

I would expect such a diligent researcher as yourself to look beyond
Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
their history as they state it.
to have noticed the discrepancies in his stated timeline.

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

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

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