Talk:Batuo

message: there is no reoord of buddhabhadra teaching the his disciple martial arts so please quit trying to make the association. records state that his disciples were probably retired soldiers. Kennethtennyson 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you attempting to imply that without Buddhism, Dhyana teaching and the establishment of the Shaolinsi itself the Han Chinese martial arts would have existed in the same form as they do right now ??? I should remind you that I have never disputed the existence of organised martial traditions in India, Greece and China prior to the Shaolinsi though. On a completely unrelated subject, you should really start discussions under a topic heading (complete with == on either side of the heading). Refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information. Happy Editing. Freedom skies 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i have not stated anything for or against a connection on a religious level between martial arts and religion. I merely state that there is no record of buddhabhadra teaching martial arts. Dhyana is a meditative form of buddhism, by the way. Anyways, i've noticed that we have reached some level of agreement after much long and heated discussion. Happy editing. Kennethtennyson 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dhyana essentially involves exercises which would make one breathless and tired if one has no previously been associated with Yoga. A Dhyana master essentially is adept in these exercises. Hence the global connection between the physical exercises of the Dyana masters, the concentration/meditation regimens, the religion and martial arts. It's very amusing to see people like you attempting to seperate aspects of exercises from Dhyana itself, I take it you have not seen Swami Ramdev yet, or any Indian Dyana master for that matter.  Freedom skies 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. I can't see what most of this has to do with the article in question.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is inaccurate to refer to Buddhabhadra as a "patriarch".In Zen Buddhism, "patriarch" is a term with a very specific meaning which does not apply to Buddhabhadra.Those who have no idea what they're talking about really should defer to those who are actually knowledgeable about Zen Buddhism and its history and are able to refer to third-party published sources rather than websites.JFD 15:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Patriarch" 

message: *To all three of you - Quit using horizontal lines on talk pages, its annoying.
*To Freedom Skies - I got the ref for Bernard Faure, please make further citations like I did for Faure
*To JFD and Kenneth - Faure is in  Princeton University Press, refrain from deleting his ref.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: Why are there two Buddhabhadra articles when they were the same person? Chinese records show that the Shaolin temple was built for Buddhabhadra to translate Buddhist texts so it's clear that the founder and translator were one and the same. Morinae (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder and translator