Hindu Prana, Buddhist Prana, and Taoist Qi the same energy?

[Agnideva]

Namaste everyone,

Originally Posted by Vajra

consciousness, per se, is like all other phenomena in our universe, interdependent. in a certain sense, consciousness and the universe et al, arose in mutual dependence upon each other.

Sanatana Dharma also has this concept of interconnectedness of all things . In Vedanta, it is explained that all things came from the same source, and the source is called, among other things, the Sutratman, the string soul. So all things in existence are sort of threaded together like pearls on a string. They are interdependent and interconnected. This position is also found in the Bhagavad Gita.

Originally Posted by Vajra

correct, we share the Indian view of time and it's cyclical nature. this universe is simply the current one, which is influx and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise.

Thanks for the info , I wasn’t sure whether the universe and time were cyclical according to Buddha Dharma, or not.

Originally Posted by Silver

There are actual scientific theories such as the cyclical universe theory. According to it the universe has been big banging and big crunching for eternity, although recent scientific evidence is showing that the universe will in fact continue to expand, but the cyclical universe theory is still very much accepted by many scientists. Are you two aware of the theory? How similar is to Budo-Hindu view of the universe?

Yes, I am aware of the cyclical universe theory in science. In Hinduism, the cyclical universe is a central doctrine and is accepted by all philosophical schools. The idea is that the universe (or multiverse as we may call it ) comes into being, along with time and space, exists for a period of time, and then returns to its source. The period of time of its existence is very long by human standards. This is also called the cycle of creation, sustenance and dissolution, and is likened to waves emerging from the ocean, crashing on the shore, and being drawn back in. The universal cycle continues on and on forever, but time exists only when the universe is in existence. A fundamental principle in Hinduism is that the universe does not manifest itself into being, but rather only does so because a Force acts upon it. Whether that Force is the material cause of the universe or not … is a point of contention between the monistic and pluralistic schools.

Originally Posted by Vajra

Sanatana Dharma, too, has more than one philosophical school, as does the Buddha Dharma.

Buddha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma share many concepts, but they are not the same. should we pick only one feature of Buddha Dharma to make this clear, it is my view that it is no more clear than as presented in the teaching of Atman and Anatman.

Some excellent points, Vajra. Sanatana Dharma, for example, contains many philosophical positions ranging from pure monism to pure pluralism (dualism). Most philosophical schools, however, take a stand somewhere between monism and pluralism. Obviously, people who speak of religion will have their opinions colored by the philosophical position of the tradition(s) they follow. For the record, I would like to state that what I describe of Hinduism is based on my limited understanding of monistic Vedanta, monistic schools of Shaivism, and Shaktism, unless otherwise noted.

As for the Dharma religions also I agree with you. Similarities between the various religions of the Dharma family should not be misconstrued to mean that they are the same. Sanatana and Buddha Dharma are different and distinct religions, although they are related because they fall in the family of Dharma religions, of which Sikh and Jain Dharma are also a part.

[Silverbackman]

I am pretty sure the mystical energy exists in Buddhism, Shaolin Monks (monks of Zen Buddhism I think) use the concept of Chi all the time in their practices, meditation, and martial arts ( can can do pretty amazing things with it!). Though I am not sure whether this is a Taoist influence or not. Anyone know?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I am pretty sure the mystical energy exists in Buddhism, Shaolin Monks (monks of Zen Buddhism I think) use the concept of Chi all the time in their practices, meditation, and martial arts ( can can do pretty amazing things with it!). Though I am not sure whether this is a Taoist influence or not. Anyone know?

actually, Silverbackman, Zen is a Japanese word and wouldn't be used to describe the Chinese Buddhist practice, of which there are many schools. generally speaking, it is the Ch'an school of Buddhism that the Shao~lin temple practices.

Ch'an, in many respects, represents a blending of Buddhist and Taoist traditions, in particular the Mahayana and Taoist Spiritual Alchemy schools found throughout China.

metta,

~v

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually, Silverbackman, Zen is a Japanese word and wouldn't be used to describe the Chinese Buddhist practice, of which there are many schools. generally speaking, it is the Ch'an school of Buddhism that the Shao~lin temple practices.

Ch'an, in many respects, represents a blending of Buddhist and Taoist traditions, in particular the Mahayana and Taoist Spiritual Alchemy schools found throughout China.

metta,

~v

Yes, so the "chi" aspect of of the shaolin monks is not buddhist? So is there a mystical force or not?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Yes, so the "chi" aspect of of the shaolin monks is not buddhist? So is there a mystical force or not?

i think that we've been pretty consistent saying that Buddhism doesn't have a "mystical force" in it's teachings.

within the Vajrayana, in particular the Tantric aspects of practice, there is something which is similiar which we call the "subtle psychic body" but it is not a mystical force, per se.

more to the point, perhaps, is that such abilities are not, in the Buddhist view, confined to the particular use of any energy. such things manifest naturally as a being progresses through the Jhanas.

metta,

~v

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i think that we've been pretty consistent saying that Buddhism doesn't have a "mystical force" in it's teachings.

within the Vajrayana, in particular the Tantric aspects of practice, there is something which is similiar which we call the "subtle psychic body" but it is not a mystical force, per se.

more to the point, perhaps, is that such abilities are not, in the Buddhist view, confined to the particular use of any energy. such things manifest naturally as a being progresses through the Jhanas.

metta,

~v

The shaolin monks seem to devote a lot of their time in finding the Chi. What sect of buddhism are the shaolin monks?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

The shaolin monks seem to devote a lot of their time in finding the Chi. What sect of buddhism are the shaolin monks?

There are several schools of Mahayana Buddhism which are prevelant in China, perhaps the most well known is Ch'an Buddhism, of which Zen is the Japanese flavor of the same tradition.

in any event, Ch'an is the school of Buddhism which is practiced by the Shaolin monks.

metta,

~v

[Silverbackman]

Oh I see it now. Chinese Buddhism gets most of its mystical force-like energy from Taosim. So in a sense there is just Taoist Chi and Hindu Prana.

What that said, what are some fundemental differences between Taoist Chi and Hindu Prana?

[Zazen]

ehh, ok. limme make some statements here as im pretty intimately involved with this subject as it pertains to my practice as a chinese martial artists of the shaolin school.

qi in the taoist tradition is the same "vital life force" described in buddhism. well you talk about qi, your really not gonna get anywhere on an intellectual level because its something that has to be experienced. let me say this though about the "shaolin monks" for one, buddhism is all but extinct in shaolin temple, its a tourist attraction and is for the most part occupied by "wushu" or demonstrative monks. many of them do practice "iron body" which is a form of qi gong, which in itself has many different schools or 'styles' for instance i practice "small golden bell" qi gong, which is from shaolin , but not neccesary the same qi gong the monks may do. regardless the monks for the most part are not real shaolin monks, they can do "amazing" things but they only appear amazing to the unintiated to the arts. if you understood the level of dedication it took to get the results, but beyond that i would say there is much mystical about the abilitys they posses.

now, is qi mystical. no, imo its just a very real, very natural aspect of our bodies. the methods used in taoism and buddhism to harness and manipulate the qi energy are vast, if you would look to the chinese history there are countless storys and legends of monks outside of the shaolin order who are known for their amazing abilitys.

as for the actuall process of manipulating qi, there is no secrets or short cuts. it takes hard work(kung fu) to fully develope and mantain. like is commonly said when the mind(intent) is present the qi energy is manifest. of course body structure and the like are of upmost importance, the most important aspects of harnessing and manipulating the qi energy is the mind.

[Silverbackman]

You sure that Shaolin Monks practice little to know Buddhism now? They practice mainly Taoism? I havn't read that anywhere, do you have an article to back up that claim .

Shaolin Monks have been known to do some amazing things with the qi, but so have yogis with the prana I think. It makes you wonder whether the two energies might be the same energy. How similar and different is the prana and the qi?

[Zazen]

u know how u become a shaolin monk? the lay disciples who are children and teenagers go to shaolin because they were 'bad' kids. in some way or another its like a wierd juve for them. only the best of the lay disciples become 'shaolin' monks. although in the past there were differences. for instance there were at a time more purely buddhist monks then wu seng or warrior monks. although times changed, the wu seng traditionally were very devote buddhists, just as much as the normal buddhist monks, only they practice shaolin gung fu. if you understand the teaching of damo(bodhidarma) you would understand that he taught a very different method of buddhism then most then or now practice. for instance when he arrived the monks were very physically weak and couldnt sustain long hours of meditation, so he taught them the 18 lohan kuen, the classic of sinew metamorphosis, and bone marrow and brain washing qi gong. known collectively as the yi jin jing(COSM) xi su si(bmbwqg) also on arriving he found the monks to be to caught up with reading sutras and pondering over such things. so he taught and emphasised action meditation, meditation and experienceing nirvana in the present.


ok now, we all know that chan(zen) was created at shaolin temple. shaolin gung fu is a expression of chan philosophy, like buddhism it has to be taught in a heart to heart or mind to mind manner. in the past masters would have only few students and transmitt the knowledge to the best students. there is so much to understand even on a basic level few even after years and years of practice even scratch the surface, because they are not taught properly and because their understanding is to superficial to really percieve the mysterys of shaolin gung fu. it sounds mystical and whatnot but its true. and no art that i have come across anyhow, places more emphasis on the mind or intent, and the spirit. now this of course is nothing really, if your not a buddhist of the chan sect and you dont understand chan or believe in the teaching etc the gung fu will not and doesnt have to be spiritual or religious, but you can still be very good. the bulk of the monks are not buddhist, or religious, even though they take the vows they arent buddhist. few act like monks and even fewer understand what they preach on buddhist views. although the monks that do practice buddhism have a deep understanding.

the monks also, do not practice taoism, at all, vaj is completely wrong there, and the misconception that taoism and chan buddhism are intertwined is bs. vaj is entitled to his own oppinion but with a intimate study of shaolin chan buddhism and how it is practiced, vs taoism, they are more dissimilar methods then similar, only philosohpys and teachings get people confused because they are similar. the same could be said for christianity and buddhism even though i know vaj would seriously refute this because of the "creation-creator belief" held by christians, but then again, thict nat han(spelling might be wrong) has a different view and so does the dali lama.

anyway, the monks arent spiritual, no one lives in shaolin temple besides i think the abbot and maybe a few others like shi su xi but really no one lives or trains there, let alone practice buddhism.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Zazen

u know how u become a shaolin monk? the lay disciples who are children and teenagers go to shaolin because they were 'bad' kids. in some way or another its like a wierd juve for them. only the best of the lay disciples become 'shaolin' monks. although in the past there were differences. for instance there were at a time more purely buddhist monks then wu seng or warrior monks. although times changed, the wu seng traditionally were very devote buddhists, just as much as the normal buddhist monks, only they practice shaolin gung fu. if you understand the teaching of damo(bodhidarma) you would understand that he taught a very different method of buddhism then most then or now practice. for instance when he arrived the monks were very physically weak and couldnt sustain long hours of meditation, so he taught them the 18 lohan kuen, the classic of sinew metamorphosis, and bone marrow and brain washing qi gong. known collectively as the yi jin jing(COSM) xi su si(bmbwqg) also on arriving he found the monks to be to caught up with reading sutras and pondering over such things. so he taught and emphasised action meditation, meditation and experienceing nirvana in the present.


ok now, we all know that chan(zen) was created at shaolin temple. shaolin gung fu is a expression of chan philosophy, like buddhism it has to be taught in a heart to heart or mind to mind manner. in the past masters would have only few students and transmitt the knowledge to the best students. there is so much to understand even on a basic level few even after years and years of practice even scratch the surface, because they are not taught properly and because their understanding is to superficial to really percieve the mysterys of shaolin gung fu. it sounds mystical and whatnot but its true. and no art that i have come across anyhow, places more emphasis on the mind or intent, and the spirit. now this of course is nothing really, if your not a buddhist of the chan sect and you dont understand chan or believe in the teaching etc the gung fu will not and doesnt have to be spiritual or religious, but you can still be very good. the bulk of the monks are not buddhist, or religious, even though they take the vows they arent buddhist. few act like monks and even fewer understand what they preach on buddhist views. although the monks that do practice buddhism have a deep understanding.

the monks also, do not practice taoism, at all, vaj is completely wrong there, and the misconception that taoism and chan buddhism are intertwined is bs. vaj is entitled to his own oppinion but with a intimate study of shaolin chan buddhism and how it is practiced, vs taoism, they are more dissimilar methods then similar, only philosohpys and teachings get people confused because they are similar. the same could be said for christianity and buddhism even though i know vaj would seriously refute this because of the "creation-creator belief" held by christians, but then again, thict nat han(spelling might be wrong) has a different view and so does the dali lama.

anyway, the monks arent spiritual, no one lives in shaolin temple besides i think the abbot and maybe a few others like shi su xi but really no one lives or trains there, let alone practice buddhism.

Arrghhh, interesting information but do you have some article to back it up.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Zazen

the monks also, do not practice taoism, at all, vaj is completely wrong there, and the misconception that taoism and chan buddhism are intertwined is bs.

you misunderstand my view, Zazen. my view is that the Shaolin sect is a school of Ch'an Buddhism. this is clear. Ch'an Buddhism is the tradition of Buddhism that was brought to China and interacted with the existing tradition of T'ao.

this is evidenced by the particular word formations which are characteristic of the Ch'an tradition, especially as found in more esoteric teachings. for instance, the term "special transmission outside of doctrine" is a typical by-word of Ch'an practice as influenced by T'ao.

please understand that this is not simply my opinion on this matter. there has been a great deal of study on this subject and is the prevailing view amongst scholars of the eastern Buddhist traditions.

vaj is entitled to his own oppinion but with a intimate study of shaolin chan buddhism and how it is practiced, vs taoism, they are more dissimilar methods then similar, only philosohpys and teachings get people confused because they are similar.

or her opinion. let us leave my gender out of this discussion, please

perhaps you are not understand the nature of my claim. i am not asserting that Ch'an and T'ao share the same practices, i am asserting that, at their philosophical level, they share many of the same concepts and thus, the Chinese used what they already understood when they started upon the study of the Dharma.

the same could be said for christianity and buddhism even though i know vaj would seriously refute this because of the "creation-creator belief" held by christians,

more than just that, of course. in point of fact, that consideration is fairly low down on the list of objections, though it certainly cannot be overlooked.

but then again, thict nat han(spelling might be wrong) has a different view and so does the dali lama.

regarding? by the by, it's Dalai Lama

metta,

~v

[Zazen]

articles to back up my claims..lolo. well, most of the articles you read about monks either talk about their gung fu or their life at shaolin. maybe thats proof therien that they dont even talk about buddhism.

anyway, articles arent going to bash the monks, people worship these guys in the states and abroad. there are 'temples' in america(shi guolin, shi yan ming, zhang li peng etc in NYC) some in texas etc, in the UK theres shi yan lei and others. these guys dont emphasise buddhism, alot of them have chan buddhism classes but ex students and friends of mine make it perfectly clear what type of training is involved and what type of teaching is being 'enforced'

i really dont like talking bad about the monks, umm if you want to find out the truth i could suggest some evil ones you can train with lolo. but umm really bad mouthing them isnt respectful. for one i admire there determination and will power because the things some of these guys are capable of(licking white hot iron, the iron body skills, the consumate skills they practice..some of them can literally fly..) these things take alot of really hard work and understanding of the mind and a total mastery of the body(sounds simple but anyone on this forum would struggle for years with the concepts no matter how much they would like to think different)

anyway, i suggest you do your own research if you truly care, articles at kung fu qi gong magazine which are the bulk of the articles about monks only put them on a higher pedastal.

vaj, girl, boy, hemaphrodite whatever you are ill get to your post later.

[I, Brian]

Try not to make personal comments at other posters - it really isn't called for, nor acceptable - you should be experienced enough to know that by now, Zazen.