Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 3

message: The page has been unprotected at my request, and I have put in the introductory paragraph that seemed not to be offensive to anybody. Citations can be easily added if deemed necessary (I made a brief reference to the relevant books and pages in a comment above). Now—let's not get all cabalistic and argumentative, shall we?
In the meantime, I'm going to consider and/or start working on a second paragraph to flesh out the introduction more (and possibly move the info in the current intro's last sentence further down, into the biographical section); that is, a second paragraph with the basic ideas behind the legendary material, so as to provide more information about Bodhidharma's actual significance. Still waiting for thoughts on this matter, assistance, et cetera ... Cheers. —Saposcat 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'll just go ahead and do it. Cheers. — Saposcat 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One entrance ... now—act nice 

message: First my best regards to Saposcat and MichaelMaggs, without whom an agreement would have been impossible. 
Kindly take a look at Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma_and_the_Martial_Arts. The article Indian influence on Chinese martial arts has been altered to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts as the influences are many from many countries. Would someone rename Indian influence on Chinese martial arts to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts in Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma_and_the_Martial_Arts? I'll refrain from editing here for now as should the cabal.
Thanks in advance.
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work, guys. Appreciated a great deal

message: If anyone is curious to see what inspired Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, please see this, which one admin described as an "unreferenced, rambling, highly opinionated personal rant".
Hi Bakaman!Welcome to the Bodhidharma discussion page!Haven't seen you here before!JFD 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sick joke of an article" 

message: ===Connection with Kanchipuram===
---
The Dharma Master was a South Indian of the Western Region. He was the third son of a great Indian king 
Bodhidharma travels by sea to southern China
---
The third son of a great Indian king. In south India, there have been three great kingdoms, Pallavas, Cholas and Cheras
---
Cholas became great kingdoms during the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. This was much after Bodhidharma's time so we need not concern ourselves with them.
---
Cheras, with capital at Kodungallur and Karur (which is not linked to sea).
So let's see, prince to a great south Indian kingdon making his way to southern China from the western coast of India, not possible.
---
Pallavas, with their capital established  at Kanchipuram in the 4th cent. CE.
The son resides in the capital, capital is Kanchipuram. If the account does say that he was' a son of a great king from south India and he made it to southern China by sea all indications are towards this one kingdom, and it's capital, very strategically located.
If it is a prince from a south Indian kingdom who made it to China by sea, the strongest indication, as endorsed by Encyclopedia Brittanica, is that he was from the capital of the Pallavas -- Kanchipuram.
That is why most sources believe that he was from Kanchipuram, Encyclopedia Brittanica and all.
---
===Wong Kiew Kit===
---
Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.
:Where?
JFD 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again

message: ---
Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.
:Where?
JFD 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wong Kiew Kit

message: The amount of malice you displayed towards bakaman is too low even for you, JFD.
Michael Maggs apperared on the Indian influence on Chinese martial arts article as well. I extended my best regards to him and replied to his every question, I talked to him. i did not subject someone to misbehaviour like you did to Bakasuprman, instead I explained and talked to him.
202.20.5.206 appeared there as well. I talked to him, i made the article neutral to the extent of naming it "Foreign Influence", he replied to previous changes in making the article more neutral by saying he appreciated them.
People related to you in the past came to an article I largely contributed to, what do I do ? I talk to MichaelMaggs and extend my regards to him. 
Bakasuprman contributes in your words "the only reliable piece of evidence" (JSTOR) about Bodhidharma and you subject him to abuse.
I never abused your aquaintences. I do get blamed for being combative, stubborn, unreasonable but I was not uncivil to MichaelMaggs, your aquaintence. He came to the article following a conversation with the cabal.
You abused mine, JFD. A distasteful act which highlights your pervese mentality.
I kept it to the cabal of you and Kennthtennyson, the barnstar couple, not to your aquaintences who took intrest in your business. I draw the line there, they are not the cabal but just their aquaintences.
You obviously have other principles of morality, JFD. Low ones.
The good thing is that you,JFD, not me is the one who'll have to live with it.
---
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bakasuprman

message: By the way, speaking of nationalist agendas:
* "The science of medicine originates in Ancient India"
* "Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts"
* "if the archealogical survey near Dwarka completes the unearthing of an undersea civilization which might be the oldest in human history, thereby making India the cradle of human civilization."
JFD 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing an agenda

message: Please consider, all of you, whether any of this is going to change anyone's mind. No. Is it going to help build a better encylopedia? No. Are any of you actually enjoying this? Unlikely. I suggest you all take a deep breath, accept that you won't agree and stop worrying about who's going to have the last word. None of this is worth it. --MichaelMaggs 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, None of the conversations on this Talk page since the article was unprotected have contributed to anything except inflamed passions. --MichaelMaggs 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better encylopedia? 

message: ---
establishment of shaolin
That was batuo. Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.
Meaning: The man credited for the establishment of the Shaolin is Batuo (now turn to Ta Mo). Ta Mo is referred in similar terms (terms like father) as Batuo regarding his role in shaolin martial arts.
You misunderstood.
---
Take a look at the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. The quote JFD so gleefully went to is not mentioned in the NYT citations.
again, the NYT citations mentioned are this and this.
Read them, arrive at your own conclusions.
---
For falsely citing the material. The material stayed and I bought the citations for it following a conversation with Subhash Kak, with him directing me to Stanley Wolpert.
Take a look at the article in it's finished form, the only thing my contribution has done is provide sources.
---
I could go at length about the past when JFD tried to stop the Shaolin from being menioned at all, a part of his compromise. JFD tried to erase Batuo from the very history of the Shaolin, an act I did not allow him and such but I'll refrain from going into the details for now.
---
Take a look at Indian martial arts and Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts in their final forms.
Take another close look at Yi Jin Jing and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, articles which the cabal created.
Judge the finished articles. Arrive at your own conclusions.
---
* third-party publication
* peer-review
* academic journals or university presses
The most prestigious martial arts institutions on the planet, views from the Shaolin, the Discovery Channel. Arrive at your own conclusions.
---
IMO, None of the conversations on this Talk page since the article was unprotected have contributed to anything except inflamed passions.
I cannot stand it when someone of the cabal's agenda and standards of morality talks back. I will go on a wikibreak as soon as this is finished though.
If insult would not have been inflicted on Bakaman, this would already have been finished.
As far as I'm concerned this is finished now, time for a break. Unless the cabal feels otherwise.
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral in this edit war. I just want to ask that you cut down on the amount of space that you take up with your comments. I've noticed that yours are several times larger than most editors. It will only be a short time before this page needs to be archived yet again. (Ghostexorcist 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Bakaman mentioned the establishment of Shaolin in reference to Bodhidharma which, with all due respect to him, is incorrect.Actually, it is.Ctrl-F for "Pete Hessler".It's currently footnote 50.The quote I went to can be found there.See for yourself the early edits I made to the Batuo article.I added sources, detail, even a sourced quotation which a subsequent editor deleted for some reason.Would this be the same Bakaman whose request for assistance I fulfilled by standing up for him against those who would have him banned?If someone's going to make accusations against me that are demonstrably incorrect, then I feel I have no choice but to "talk back".JFD 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet again

message: I was in the process of collecting citations to reply for JFD's little "If someone's going to make accusations against me that are demonstrably incorrect, then I feel I have no choice but to "talk back"." line.
I came across this:-
I'm neutral in this edit war. I just want to ask that you cut down on the amount of space that you take up with your comments. I've noticed that yours are several times larger than most editors. It will only be a short time before this page needs to be archived yet again.
Y'know. What I came here to do has been done. 
In response to "IMO, None of the conversations on this Talk page since the article was unprotected have contributed to anything except inflamed passions.": 
I'm going to save myself the trouble of writing another very lengthy post with citations about the cabal in response to a flamebait post which "will take up space" and "get the article archived again" and "will contribute to nothing except inflamed passions."
This thing is over. The lines pointing Bodhidharma non-existent in the very second para are gone.
No use squabbling when it's done. Time to live with it.
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. Take a chill pill. 81.98.250.180 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Again

message: Does anyone know the actual name for the reference source called "Ibid"? The reason I ask is because I created a page on the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution a while ago and the source "Ibid" is also used in an online transcription of a book that I got the info from. However, only part of the book was transcribed and the bibliography was never listed. (Ghostexorcist 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibid. is an abbreviation for the Latin term ibidem, meaning "the same place". In practice, it means the reference in question is the same as the previous reference; that is, if note 20 was "Johnson 1992, p. 27" and note 21 is "Ibid.", it means that note 21 is also referring the reader to "Johnson 1992, p. 27". —Saposcat 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You learn something new everyday. (Ghostexorcist 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Hey all. I removed the bit about crossing the Yangtze on a reed from the Daoxuan bio section, inasmuch as it directly mentions neither reeds nor the Yangtze—the latter being Broughton's sensible and correct inference from Daoxuan's text—and I wore my eyes out checking the original text here. Anyone have any idea when the reed bit—surely an important part of the bio/legend—first entered the story? I have a feeling it's in the Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall, but I haven't found that text yet. Cheers, and thanks in advance for any assistance. —Saposcat 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Found it (secondarily, that is). According to Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, 850–1850, p. 395–396, the reed business first came up when someone in the 13th century altered the verse accompanying case 1 of the Blue Cliff Record, changing "Thus he escapes secretly across the river" to, effectively, "Thus he escapes by breaking off a reed and crossing the river". (If anyone's interested ... ) —Saposcat 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reed? ...  

message: *WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition I'm going to do it sooner or later, if nobody else does.
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.158 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some information about Bodhidharma to be inserted

message: First of all, regardless of any evidence and personal beliefs most accounts say that Bodhidharma is Indian and not Persian. Anyway I actually wanted to say that the information in this article seems restricted to Chinese legends. In the Malay archipelago, Bodhidharma is known as Dharuma and is believed to have been a south Indian Buddhist priest who travelled from Palembang in Indonesia northward into mainland Southeast Asia. I don't know if this has been written down anywhere besides contemporary accounts but it has been passed down orally. Morinae (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside China 

message: I wasn't trying to push any POV since I personally am not even sure if Bodhidharma existed. But the article says "most accounts agree that he was either a South Indian or Persian monk". This isn't true. Most accounts say that Bodhidharma was Indian. Even though he is sometimes said to have been Persian, he could have just as easily have been Tibetan or Central Asian. And none of this changes the fact that he is Indian according to most accounts. This article already mentions how Yang Xuanzhi wrote that Bodhidharma was Persian so there's no need to reiterate the fact unless I'm seeing someone else pushing a POV. If it must be noted that Bodhidharma was once said to be Persian, the aforementioned sentence should be rephrased.Morinae (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian by most accounts 

message: * Here it is said that Bodhidharma was Kamalashila. "According to legendary accounts, Kamalashila paid seven visits to Tibet, and on one occasion was miraculously transported to China. In China he is known as Bodhidharma."
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.171 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.171 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  His name/identity 

message: Here WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition it is said by Heng-Ching Shih : "The first `bhiksuni` mentioned in the Ch'an literature was a disciple of the First Patriarch of of Chinese Ch'an Bodhidharma, known as Tsung-chih."
Tsung-chih
As far as I identify the names of disciples given on the wikisite, she is not mentioned.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.108 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.108 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.37 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  His disciples 

message: Hi everybody.  People are starting to revert edits wholesale on the basis of the assertion that they are "unsourced" (even the ones that just cleaned up grammar and punctuation, presumably) and that the previous version of the article was "too China-Centric" when it discussed what happened to Bodhidharma in China.
I've made the section about Shaolin into a section about Shaolin again, and moved the other martial arts discussion to a specific section which is about Bodhidharma and non-Chinese martial arts.  It seems better to discuss on the talk page what needs to happen from here, rather than communicating via hitting the "undo" button.  See WP:RV, specifically:
Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Subverdor (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert!  Revert!  Too China-centric!