Talk:Martial arts of East Asia (origins)/Archive 1

message: Look, why don't you open up any edition of Encyclopedia brittanica or any historical textbook.  You are making up history.  There is no evidence to show that Bodhidharma was a martial arts practitioner of kalaripayattu and no evidence to show that kalaripayattu existed before the 13th century A.D. None at all. Your legends of bodhidharma are all from Chinese legends that were written centuries after the creation of Zen (Chan) Buddhism in China.  No historical texts from the 5th century A.D. in India mention kalaripayattu or Bhodidharma.  Go and read some textbooks before you make crap up and put it online.  You keep on referring to some "ancient" textbooks that talk about the creation of kalaripayattu but there are none. Then you refer to religious textbooks that don't even mention kalaripayattu.  There is no evidence.  You base your history on legends.  IF that were true, then why don't you mention the legends of the origin of kalaripayattu from the Middle East or from some God-King?  This is history that we are dealing with, not mythology.  You are only doing your history a disservice as very few people when they read this believe what you are writing. kennethtennyson
:While I have no dog in this fight, and the above paragraph is not directed at me, since the user who wrote it——protested to my reversion of his/her reversion, I'll explain my actions here. This user did what looked like a wholesale reversion to the June 8 revision of this article, completely disregarding edits made in the intermin. No edit summary was given. The revision the user reverted to was also suspect in its improper use of a byline (user signature). I suspect this anonymous user is in fact either User:Vrmanoj or User:Kennethtennyson. I will not revert again provided that care is taken to preserve uncontroversial edits and that the byline is not included. -- Hadal 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who are you?

message: First, please do not quote any books by the author Terrence Dukes.  Unfortunately, he is not a trained historian, rarely visited East Asia before writing his historical book on Martial art and its link to religion, not trained by any true martial artist, wrote articles under a dubious Japanese name, plagiarized what he did write from previous historians, and after plagiarizing what he wrote historically, made dubious conclusions from tidbits of facts.  Further, he began training other students during the 90's and was involved in an unfortunate scandal with his female students.  His book has lead to terrible interpretations of martial arts history. 
Second, legends on Bodhidharma are just that legends.  He probably existed but if you really read the first few stories cited about him by Chinese historians he was from Central Asia.  His origins and his life story has changed and evolved throughout history.  
Third, Bodhidharma only existed in Chinese and Japanese literature. No reference to him in India.
Fourth, the earliest Chinese texts written a century after his death only speak of Bodhidharma teaching the monks meditative exercises and that was after meditating 9 years in CHINA. It wasn't until a few centuries after that, that his story changed and evolved and people began adding on to his legend.
Fifth, no chinese texts ever mention kalaripayattu.  However, Many chinese texts mention the existence of martial arts in china going back to the Warring states period (700-300B.C or so).
Sixth, no kalaripayattu legends in India or texts in India have ever mentioned Bodhidharma and linked it with kalaripayattu. This link only began being fabricated recently in the last decade with the advent of the internet and on kalaripayattu websites.  The Chinese legends are clear that if Bodhidharma did introduce something, he introduced meditative exercises to strengthen the monks and he did this while meditating in China.  This whole bodhidharma thing with kalaripayattu is a recent phenomenon and the people spreading it are all kalaripayattu practitioners or people running Hindutva websites.  If we are to go by oral legends (That constantly change) then we should write down in the history of kalaripayattu that it began in the middle east by some god-king as that is the legend.  We date the origins of things by evidence.  The earliest evidence for kalaripayattu date to 16th century A.D. (C.E.) descriptions and they mention that it might have been present in kerala during the 14th century.  Some Indian historians try to pull it back to the 11th centruy A.D. but through speculation and without any evidence.  If kalaripayattu was so evident throughout Kerala's history going into 200B.C. or so, wouldn't there be more evidence of it?  Archeology?  Written text?  Further, using Christianity as an example of history without evidence of its existence is faulty because there was actually evidence in Roman literature dating to the time of Christ that state that the Romans were persecuting the early Christians.
Finally, ample evidence exists in China that Wushu (which the chinese call their martial arts) began sometime in the Warring States period 5 centuries before the birth of Christ.  If Bodhidharma transfered martial arts to china from India along with Buddhism as many kalaripayattu websites contend in 500 C.E. (A.D.) or so, how could he have done it 1000 years before his birth and 600 years before Buddhism ever came to China?  The fact that I've been trying to give hard evidence and I run up against the same arguments that base their evidence on rumor, legends, and facts that have no supported evidence suggests to me that I am dealing with radical and partisan elements.   Kennethtennyson 08:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever has been trying to edit article please read 

message: Obviously, there is a dispute going on between the history of kalaripayattu; I've placed the dispute tags and placed both versions of the history online.  I've removed the long discussion about kalaripayattu and the conspiracy theories about people trying to "disrepect" the art as it seems more of an opinion than a text in an encyclopedia. Hopefully, this will prevent future edit wars. Mano1 01:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: Made some minor revisions that were confusing to the reader (confusing to me also and I actually have read site over various iterations since it was locked).  Hopefully this will make the text flow more evenly.  The whole discussion on Hindutva and whether or not Chinese, Japanese, Indian or Buddhist religious entities were the people making the claim about kung fu being descended from kalaripayattu was confusing and distracting; as far as I can tell, only one or two people who have ever written a book ever mention kalaripayattu, bodhidharma, and kung fu in one sentence as most people were unaware of kalaripayattu until recently. But the question is not who is making the claim but what the true origins are. Regardless, this is an interesting discussion.  Mano1 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor revision

message: Were there really no references to kalarippayattu in Indian sources earlier than Barbosa's Description?
: [T]he question is not who is making the claim but what the true origins are.
True, but when a particular issue is highly contentious, citing sources becomes especially valuable.
JFD 01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read Zarilli and other accounts, there are legends within kalaripayattu's history that speak of this god-king who brought kerala from the sea who created it.  Also, within their oral traditions they speak of some legendary being from the middle-east.  Some people would like to state that the religious textbooks in india speak of some god-kings who had to learn combat by bow and arrow and by hand but it doesn't really describe it in any way.  But almost all religious texts speak vaguely of warfare and combat (think Gilgamesh and the bible).  That isn't really a description of martial arts as we know it and as far as I can tell no ancient texts have descriptions of how they trained in combat or any of the types of training that is associated with kalaripayattu.  Kalaripayattu is pretty unique.  If you read how kalaripayattu practitioners train and read zarilli's book, it is more of a war-like dance with some elements of self-defense than a full blown self-defense regime like you would associate with boxing, wrestling, or tae-kwon do.  There's also a lot of massage and ayurvedia associated with it.Mano1 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTN: Mano1 

message: [Bodhidharma's] early sermons were not only rich in Indian linguistic flavour but were filled with Indian geographical references e.g. 'sands of the Ganges'.
I would love to read these sermons. Are they collected in a book or can I find them online somewhere?
With reference to Boddhidarma, do you not think that it is unusual that you have chosen to lock on to the few ambiguous references claiming he was Central Asian instead of the majority of your very own Chinese and Japanese references, citing him as being of Indian origin?
This reference comes from a source you consider credible enough to cite as proof of Bodhidharma's existence.
; Your words : On the internet, propagandists disclaiming his existence remark that historical record of Bodhidharma did not exist until centuries after his death. Yang Xuanzhi describes Bodhidharma in the earliest surviving mention of him in "The Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-yang", a 547 Chinese text. Yang tells of meeting Bodhidharma at the monastery of Yung-ning.
; My words : [I]n the earliest surviving mention of him in the "The Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-yang" (547), Yang Xuanzhi describes Bodhidharma specifically as a Persian from Central Asia (Wade-Giles: po-szu kuo hu-jen) (Broughton, 1999).
At that time there was a monk of the Western Region named Bodhidharma, a Persian Central Asian. He traveled from the wild borderlands to China.
And for anyone who cares to read the whole thing:
Yung-ning Monastery was erected by Empress Dowager Ling of the Hu family in Hsi-p'ing I [516 CE].... At that time there was a monk of the Western Region named Bodhidharma, a Persian Central Asian. He traveled from the wild borderlands to China. Seeing the golden disks [on the pole on top of Yung-ning's stupa] reflecting in the sun, the rays of light in the wind, the echoes reverberating beyond the heavens, he sang its praises. He exclaimed: "Truly this is the work of spirits." He said: "I am 150 years old, and I have passed through numerous countries. There is virtually no country I have not visited. But even in India there is nothing comparable to the pure beauty of this monastery. Even the distant Buddha realms lack this." He chanted homage and placed his palms together in salutation for days on end.... Hsiu-fan Monastery had a statue of a fierce thunderbolt bearer guarding the gate. Pigeons and doves would neither fly through the gate nor roost upon it. Bodhidharma said: "That catches its true character!"
[T]o claim that Boddhidarma came from Central Asia does not discount the fact that he originally was from India.
Here is what Stephen Broughton's endnotes for the above passage have to say:
The intriguing line, of course, is po-szu kuo hu-jen ("a Persian Central Asian"). According to Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica (1919; reprint, Taipei: Ch'eng Wen Publishing Company, 1978), 194-95, the term hu relates to Central Asia and particularly to peoples of Iranian extraction. What we seem to have is an Iranian speaker who hailed from somewhere in Central Asia.
To claim Boddhidarma was anything but Indian is to label one of your own grand masters, Hui Neng I believe, a complete fabricator. For wasn't it him that described Boddhidarma's lineage.
I do not claim that Bodhidharma was "anything but Indian."
I pointed out that Yang Xuanzhi says that he was Persian, which you omitted, even though you were otherwise happy to cite him.
Moreover, I also pointed out those authors who do say that he is Indian. And no, it was not Hui Neng who described Bodhidharma's lineage; it was Daoxuan.
; My words : Of the primary sources on Bodhidharma, the "Xu Gaoseng Zhuan" (645), written roughly a century after Bodhidharma's death, and those texts which copy it, the "Zutangji" (952) and the "Jingde Chuandenglu" (1004), identify him not only as South Indian, but Brahmin.[Bodhidharma], the Teacher of the Law, was the third son of a great Brahman king in South India, of the Western Lands. (Suzuki, 1949)The "Biography" (pre-645) by Tanlin, the original which the "Xu Gaoseng Zhuan" copies, does not specify his caste.
I presented what all of the primary sources had to say about Bodhidharma's origins—without self-serving omissions—and let the reader make up his or her own mind.
Boddhidarma was described by your Chan Buddhist figures as being from the Kshastriya caste.
The Chan Buddhist figures Daoxuan and Daoyuan both describe Bodhidharma as being from the Brahmin caste.
If you're not familiar with this caste it means they were born and bred to be priests, teachers, and scholars. The most observant among them eat a sattvic pure vegetarian diet, avoiding even vegetables such as onion and garlic because their pungency supposedly arouse base urges for violence and lust. Such a diet is followed not only by observant Hindu Brahmins, but also observant Jains and, yes, observant Buddhists.
How can we prove someone existed unless we knew him personally, had a photo of him, or knew someone who knew him/her, or had scientific evidence? That is why we base our theory on literary texts and historical references.
Exactly, so if you would be kind enough to cite the specific literary texts and historical references that you are basing your theory on, your readers would appreciate it, such as naming those Chan Buddhist figures that describe Bodhidharma as Kshatriya and in which texts they do so.
So of course Zarilli would not be able to find any connection with Kalaripayattu and Boddhidarma because how or where would he find it?
So how and where are you finding it, Morfeen?
Your mistake is in relying on texts written by individuals who had no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history.
Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki has no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history?
You cannot hide behind some obscure text written by an author you personally favour because he supports your view and slag the ones that run against the grain of your stand.
Suzuki is hardly obscure. Moreover, I'm not the one presenting distortions and misrepresentations of Yang Xuanzhi and Terence Dukes to support my view.
You imply that kalari did not exist before 1100AD but what evidence do you have?
All I do is note that the Barbosa reference dates kalarippayattu to c. 1500, Zarrilli to the 12th century, and Pillai to the 11th.
If you want Wikipedia to reflect your assertion that kalari existed before 1100AD then please name the sources that support that assertion unless, of course, you have something to hide.
The fact is you are in no position to discount the evidence that suggest a possible link between Boddhidarma and Shaolin martial arts purely because you do not have enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Your attempt at trying to cover up possible links would be nothing short of censorship.
As is your attempt to silence those who point out the gaping holes in your hypothesis.
If you'll note, Morfeen, I did not delete your interpretation of Terence Dukes' theories, the conflicting claims about Bodhidharma's birthplace (Tamil Nadu or Kerala), and the supposed inscription on the Shaolin Temple Mural ("Tenjiku Naranokaku").
I did little more than point out what the literary texts and historical references actually said.
The fact, Morfeen, is that it is you are in no position to discount, distort, or misrepresent literary texts and historical references purely because you do not have the evidence—direct or circumstantial—to make your case.
I am done with repeating myself and will not partake in this verbal exchange any longer. I will not tolerate gross censorship and the manipulation of literary material to serve personal ends[.]
If I were a "Chinese nationalist" manipulating literary material to serve personal ends, why would I have added all this:
Kalarippayattu (Malayalam: കളരിപയററ്) is a martial art practiced in the Indian state of Kerala and the Kodagu district of neighboring Karnataka....
Tradition attributes kalarippayattu and indeed Kerala itself to Parasurama, sixth avatar of Vishnu....
Related to the point of indistinguishability to the Southern style are the Tamil martial arts practiced in the Travancore district of Kerala and the Kanyakumari district of neighboring Tamil Nadu that variously go by the names ati tata (hit/defend), ati murai (law of hitting), varma ati (hitting the vital spots), or chinna ati (Chinese hitting) (Zarrilli, 1992). These arts claim descent from the rishi Agastya and, compared to kalarippayattu, place more emphasis on empty-hand techniques and less on weapons.
I, at least, have been doing heavy lifting to "clean up this page to conform to a higher standard of quality" while you abuse Wikipedia by doing nothing for this article except reverting to your POV rant.
Moreover, I made a point of citing sources precisely because this is clearly a matter of such contention while you either refer vaguely to "historical texts" or misrepresent those authors you actually bother to name.
I will persevere in my efforts to promote the freedom to post material that will ultimately aid individuals on the path to making their own choices and forming their own opinions on the subject.
As shall I.
At least we have that in common.
Good day.
JFD 21:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, Morfeen, you shouldn't imply that I am JFD, as I am not.  He's done a pretty good job of cleaning up this page, though.  Kennethtennyson 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTN: Morfeen 

message: Please remember that wikipedia articles are intended to be encyclopedic in nature, with a neutral point of view, and referencing. Please do not the treat wikipedia articles as opportunities to impose your own unreferenced and rambling and highly opinionated personal essays over existing text. If you want to introduce new content or views, treat the old content with reasonable respect (don't simply delete entire sections), write in a formal, neutral, encyclopedic style (NOT as if you're writing a personal essay or speech) and provide references for your claims Bwithh 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Wikipedia articles are not Internet discussion forums'''

message: Isn't this the exact same issue as at Indian influence on Chinese martial arts?  I see that article is newer, but it's is certainly more coherently named. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the article for? 

message: This article makes rather little sense. For a start, where does the following text come from that appears immediately after the first heading?  No source is quoted, and it's unclear what the reader is supposed to make of it.  How does it link in with the discussion following (if at all)? Is the text meant to set out the disputed claim, which is then addressed line by line?  If so, who made the claim? If the disputed claim itself can't be sourced (eg if it was just made by an editor) it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, which makes the whole article rather pointless.
:Historical texts speak of Bodhidharma, the legendary founder of Chan Buddhism, a Brahmin born in Kacheepuram (sic) in Tamil Nadu, in 522 A.D. arriving at the courts of the Chinese Emperor Liang Nuti, (sic) of the 6th dynasty, as the person responsible for bringing Kalaripayattu from India to China.
:He taught meditative and physical exercises to the chinese monks so that they could defend themselves against the frequent attacks of bandits.
--MichaelMaggs 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced text in italic 

message: Freedom Skies:  In this edit you have silently reverted an edit I made (deletion of 'legendary') without giving any reason, discussing on the talk page, nor even using an edit summary.  Could you please always, at the very least, use an edit summary so others can see why you are making the changes you do?  To do otherwise is at the very least impolite.  If you disagree with my edit, please indicate why so that we can discuss. regards. --MichaelMaggs 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unhappy choice of word, since elsewhere in the article 'legendary' is used in the sense of 'fictional'.  Here you are confusingly using the totally different and less-formal meaning of 'unmatched' (or famous?). Suggest you use 'notable', 'famous' or something along those lines instead. --MichaelMaggs 11:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of word 'legendary' (to mean famous, or notable, or something similar?) 

message: I have removed two web pages. The first linked to a non-public page that is accessible by registered users only. The second  does not support the statement that the New York Times has "rejected the revisionist claims". What it actually says is:
:The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.
:Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators. Variations of their refined techniques subsequently reached Japan, Okinawa, Korea and other Asian countries that developed their own distinct fighting styles.
which makes it very clear that Bodhidharma's involvement "has been attributed in legend".  Which is hardly a rejection of what the article calls the 'revisionist' view - that his involvement is legendary and can't actually be proved. --MichaelMaggs 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on New York Times web pages as sources 

message: There should be some discussion of who Ta Mo is in this quote:
Finding that the sedentary life often left the monks weak both in body and mind, Ta Mo decided to encourage physical discipline as well as meditation. He taught streching exercises from the Indian tradition of Yoga with which he was familiar. On their part, the Chinese monks were reminded of the native fighting techniques from their youth. A group of eighteen particulary dedicated monks then developed and refined a system of streching exercises and movements of what is now the core of Shao-lin Chuan, the source for all subsequent martial arts, including Tai Chi Chuan. The Chinese revere the eighteen monks to this day and venerate them as Lohans.
"Ta Mo" appears nowhere else in the article.  The identity of Ta Mo and Bodhidharma ought to be explained. --MichaelMaggs 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ta Mo?