Talk:Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts/Archive 1

message: The disputes mentioned in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts are not strong enough to reject the Indian presence from Chinese martial arts history.
The article has no mention of Sengchou's master Batuo, an Indian, no depictions of the shaolin murals, no mentions that the microscopic section itself has disagreements including the dating of the Yi Jin Jing, or who wrote it, complete with the claims that it was written by a "Village master" or such, no mentions of major news institutions endorsing the traditional claims and rejecting revisionist history.
The overwhelming majority, endorsed by major institutions, deserves a mention. Hence this article.
I have provided a dual link to both my article and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, wherever required, so the reader knows both POVs extensively.
Freedom skies 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons

message: i'm a little disappointed in this page. it seems to have been written to express one opinion and the article itself is very opinionated in its tone.  It also presents myth as fact and continues to talk about a legend as fact without even a discussion of it as a legend.  First, the article written by freedom skies states that the shaolin temple makes certain claims about bodhidharma and the martial arts.... and then quotes websites of uncertain authenticity... it also does not allow for other views on the subject matter and uses weasel words such as "microscopic" community of scholars.  it also misquotes books on the origins of bodhidharma.  Freedom skies, i'm very disappointed that you have gone to the bodhdiharma article in wikipedia and deleted sections of the article and further, have then rewritten certain sentences of that prior bodhidharma article to represent your viewpoints... for example the sentence - "Shaolin monastery records state that two of its very first monks, Huiguang and Sengchou, were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma.
""The Taishō Tripiṭaka documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff." were written in the Bodhidharma article to support the view that there were martial artists in the shaolin temple BEFORE bodhidharma... 
you have plagiarized what JFD has written it, and then rewritten it as... ""Buddhabhadra () was an Indian dhyana master who was the founding abbot of Shaolin Monastery and the teacher of Sengchou. Monastery records state that Sengchou was one of the two of its very first monks, the other being Huiguang. Sengchou was an expert in the martial arts.""
The Taishō Tripiṭaka documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff.""  This is written to suggest that Batuo taught Sengchou martial arts, and thus your assertion.
You have also only partly quoted lines from other articles - for instance from the "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article written by JFD, which this article takes most of its information from but appears to twist the information.  You have written in this article.... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body which come from India...""  the original sentence was... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, supposedly inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body [which come] from India..." Elsewhere, however, the title is given in Chinese as "Quanpu Bihua," which translates as "Boxing Drills Mural.""
The worst thing i think is that you are using the same sources that JFD and I used to support the facts behind the legend of bodhidharma and then plagiarizing what he wrote and then rewriting it and at the same time misquoting the original author in the book.  In your article, you haven't even discussed the fact that the Bodhidharma legend is contradictory as to his origins and as to whether or not other historians even believe in his existence.  You have also talked about the mural of dark skinned and light skinned monks.  That mural makes no statements on indians or chinese in the mural.  There are african american and egyptian nationalists who lay the same claim that that mural depicts africans or egyptians...  Most likely, that mural represents dark skinned and light skinned monks - in china there are dark skinned chinese and light skinned chinese... regardless, that mural was made in the 17th century ad or so, 1000years after bodhidharma supposedly was in china.
However, I do applaud you on admitting that martial arts existed in China before Bodhidharma... Kennethtennyson 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a little disappointed

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?