Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 2

message: *Removing the theories surrounding Ta Mo from the very second para itself and placing the theories, often conflicting in nature, in a seperate section.
*Mentioning Ryuchi and others who have not found mention in the previous versions. 
::Best regards to everyone. 
Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of sourced text and entire sections in the pretext of attempting a "community support" routine is not assuming good faith, neither am I bound by any WP to go ask form a posse` on Wikipedia. Anyone who removes a section which is properly placed and goes on to remove references of additional authors from the article in the name of holding talks and fraternizing with a "community" is assuming very bad faith. I'll see that this removal of sourced text is not done. Best Regards once again to eveeryone. I hope that our little "community" lets go of this feeling of continued bad faith. Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 03:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that sounds very good, especially with the additional source cited.  --MichaelMaggs 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Dichotomy? I don't understand. There really is no dichotomy on the western and eastern interpretations of bodhidharma except for the degree that they both talk about how much the stories around him are legendary. Some western sources state that anything about him are suspect. Others state that he existed as a person, but that his connection with chan is tenuous. hence we all wrote that he is described in "tradition" as the founder of zen, but that most accounts of him including his founding of zen are legend.  The same goes with japanese and chinese historians.  the only one who disputes this is freedom skies, and if you look at his edits, he has a history of pushing a view of the world that is militantly Pro-Indian. He contributed to the article "achievements of ancient indian civilization" with bogus historical information (it used to be a subsection of "indian nationalism" and its presence led to multiple blocks, he's been edit warring on the oddly written "buddha as an avatar of vishnu" which led to blocks, his edits led to the blockage of "buddhism and hinduism" page, the list goes on and on. he's made extremely biased comments about chinese calling them sniveling [] At other times, he goes on and on about a Han chinese cabal.  Why should the reasonable people on wikipedia cater to someone who is obviously out to promote a pro-Indian POV view of the world and who is obviously  unbalanced? Kennethtennyson 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dichotomy?

message: Freedom skies: nobody is claiming that he is not credited, what we are pointing out here is that such accreditation is by tradition. Since your "source" also says that "the accounts of his life are largely legendary", any claims to credit him as the founder of "Chan/Zen" (or whatever) must be traditional because they are not historical. Unlike other Buddhist missionaries to China such as Kumarajiva (he was part-Indian, I'm sure you are aware) whose biographies are comparatively well-documented, there are no records of Bodhidharma whatsoever in the official histories of any of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (there are altogether nine, I'm sure you are aware too). This is a very important fact.
Yang Xuanzhi's account, despite not being an official historical document, is nevertheless significant in comparison to the other accounts (note: there is no one single undisputed account) because (1) It was the earliest, (2) It was the least hagiographic, and (3) Yang actually claimed to be a contemporary who met the person himself. And of course he tells us that the man was a Persian. If you must insist that there is any "negationism", then surely all subsequent accounts which differ from Yang's will qualify as "negationist"! 
For goodness's sake, stop all this ad hominem attacks that border on blatant racism, and focus on the substantial issues at hand! Do realise that you have a choice.
AMENDED PROPOSAL:
"[PARAGRAPH ONE] Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in China, around the 6th century CE.
[AMENDED PARAGRAPH TWO] While most Chinese and Japanese scholars are satisified that Bodhidharma did in fact come to China, his historicity has been questioned by others. (See  section below).
[ADD LEAD PARA TO "HISTORICITY AND BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES" SECTION] (i.e. shifted "below the line") The major sources about Bodhidharma are largely traditional, and not found in contemporary historical documents. They also conflict with regard to his origins (either Indian or Persian), the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Some Western scholars, such as  Heinrich Dumoulin, emphasise the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story, while Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that all accounts pertaining to Bodhidharma are legendary. [Suzuki's view may be added here, provided he is correctly paraphrased.]" 202.20.5.206 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Amendment to Proposed Compromise

message: 202.20.5.206 has given a good start with his/her proposal for the intro, which would run roughly (I've made an itsy-bitsy correction or two) thus:
:Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in China around the 6th century CE.
:While most Chinese and Japanese scholars are satisfied that Bodhidharma did in fact come to China, his historicity has been questioned by others. (See  section below)
One small problem I see with this amended version is that "(See section below)" bit: that sort of self-referentiality, with all due respect to its sincere attempt to placate the—as far as I'm concerned—unnecessarily heated passions involved, just ain't good style. I agree, however, with the amended version's basic solution of removing Dumoulin and Pelliot from the intro entirely: the article is about Bodhidharma, not (specifically) his critics, and so emphasis really shouldn't be laid on them at the article's very start (particularly Pelliot, who—whatever his excellent accomplishments—most decidedly has an extreme marginal view on the issue).
Anyhow, the larger problem I see with the proposed amended intro is precisely the same problem that had already been there: it's an extraordinarily skimpy intro. There is much that must be added to give some idea about the man/figure/legend (whatever) to people who have little or no idea about Bodhidharma (and let's not lose sight of the fact that that is who we should be writing for). For my part, I would propose at least beginning the intro something (again, roughly) along these lines:
:Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.
Et cetera et cetera. I wonder if anything in this would be offensive to or disputable by any of the involved cabals or non-cabals. In any case, the "legendary" details and their supporters and detractors, et alia, could (or rather, should) come below the table of contents, as User:202.20.5.206 was good and wise enough to suggest.
Anyhow ... any thoughts? Because this (to be honest) somewhat silly argument, which has led to the page being protected, really ought to be more constructively tackled than has so far (for the most part) been done on this here talk page. Cheers. —Saposcat 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A view (hopefully) from outside either or both of the involved cabals or non-cabals

message: Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.
First of all thank you for being one voice of neutrality and a voice without affiliations to   the cabal. This entry is more then welcome.
Now:
*Neutrality - CHECK
*Endorsing the claims of the traditional authors - CHECK (any ways Indian influence on Chinese martial arts will provide a detailed outlook. This article is connected from the main Bodhidharma page itself so the reader gets a close and personal look at this POV).
*Mentioning that accounts are layered with legend- CHECK (anyways the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts will provide a detailed outlook. This article is connected from the main Bodhidharma page itself so the reader gets a close and personal look at this POV).
*The removal of conflicting cnspiracy theories, one of whic points that Bodhidharma did not exist at all thereby asking for an AfD on the article from the very opening lines of the biographical article itself - CHECK. My main concern.
I give the go aheads. Now I suggest one more thing. Let only the opening paragraph change and the conflicting lines be removed. A pro revisionist version column is provided in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts and a version highlighting the conflics within the revisionist versions will be created subsequently in Indian influence on Chinese martial arts. Both of these are linked up to the main Bodhidharma page.
Once this is done we can put the para in the article, remove the conflicting theories (since they find a mention in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts in detail) and forget about a seperate column dealing with the conflict in these thoeries on the main Bodhidharma page (since this will be done in the Indian influence on Chinese martial arts article, which is linked up to the main Bodhidharma page as well).
If we reach consenseus then we can go ahead and unlock the article. Also a supervisor intervening to see that these points are not violated once the agreement is in place is required. 
Extending best regards,
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom skies

message: I think it would help if we stepped back and looked at the various possibilities regarding Bodhidharma's life.  Once we understand what they are, perhaps we can move forward.
His historicity may be one of the following:
*1. He is a fictional character
*2. He actually existed, in the 6th century CE, although much of his life story is legend
and his actions can be described by one or more of the following:
*a.  he actually introduced Chan/Zen to China
*b.  he is said by some to have introduced Chan/Zen to China, but this can't reliably be proved
*c.  he actually introduced certain martial arts to China
*d.  he is said by some to have introduced certain martial arts to China, but this can't reliably be proved.
Now, what sources do we have for each of these positions?  
Of the scholars mentioned in the article, only Paul Pelliot argues for 1; all the others agree on 2, based on primary sources.  Thus, I propose that mention of 2. should be omitted from the lead paragraphs, and listed only lower down in the article as being one scholar's view.
The earliest sources that support position a. are Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang (547) by Yang Xuanzhi, and Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (645) by Daoxuan.  So unless anyone disagrees, I propose that the lead paragraphs should reflect position a. (No-one is arguing for b. are they?)
I'm not familiar with the martial arts sources, but as I understand it the earliest primary source that links Bodhidharma with the martial arts is Yì Jīn Jīng, which according to the article Yì Jīn Jīng is found in the preface of a 1875 edition by Surig Kuang called the Weisheng Yijinjing.  The article states that "the story cannot be documented by historical record; neither can its authors or sources be substantiated".  Is that so, or is anyone able to point to a reliable earlier-dated primary souce which makes the link? If so, please point it out now.  Since 1875 is some twelve hundred years after Bodhidharma is said to have lived, d. seems a much more reliable statement than c.  On that basis I propose that d. should be mentioned lower down in the article.
Comments? --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we decide what we agree on? 

message: My suggestion is to accept the following PARAGRAPH 1, not changing one word from it as it encompasses everyone's viewpoint:
PARAGRAPH 1
Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <> So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>
You'll notice that PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" and "layered with legend." I find immense comfort in my conviction that this paragraph, proposed by Saposcat, is neutrality itself. This paragraph is entirely free from any bias whatsoever. Editors, myself incuded, have tried to push for different lines but I can't foresee anything that addresses the concerns of those involved more precisely.
Step 1: We substitute the following PARAGRAPH 2 by PARAGRAPH 1 mentioned above:
PARAGRAPH 2
Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]
The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]
---
Step 2': No further sections. I'll refrain from placing a section which highlights the conflicts within the revisionist claims, as was my original intention. The other side does not place revisionist claims in the page following my withdrawl of a section dealing exclusively with the revisionist claims.
---
Note: The claims of revision are addressed in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts. The article is linked up very prominently to the Bodhidharma main page. Any further mentions of more revisionist convictions can be added to that article.
---
Compromise: The opening paragraph is not touched by the parties involved. I do not place the proposed section in the article. The other side does not place the revisionist theories in the article.
---
That is the proposed mechanism.
---
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mechanism

message: There are efforts being made for a final solution. I have accepted the paragraph proposed and advanced citations from the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britanica.
The cabal , on the other hand, will never allow a final solution which does not advance it's red Han Chinese agenda in any event.
I direct your attention to JFD and Kennethtennyson, who closely follow me committing harrasment under WP:stalking. Kindly observe this, this, this, this and I can provide a lot more.
If you take a look into the record you'll see that when I make an edit into any article first. The group follows me there and stalks me. Kennethtennyson has contributed next to nothing in any actual article in which he stalks me. All he does is, walk in here, violently revert and then log out. 
Judging by the cabal's recent actions I also see that the coming days hold excessive exhaustion for me.
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The cabal

message: Daoxuan dates Bodhidharma's arrival in China to the Liu Song dynasty (420-479) so the dating of his arrival to China to the Liang Dynasty should be removed from the intro.Will have more to say later.JFD 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: The following information on my sources is from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:
:;Tang Hao
:;Matsuda Ryuchi
:;Stanley E. Henning
JFD 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Source 1: Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit
Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, 4th generation successor of the Southern Shaolin Monastery, set up The Shaolin Wahnam Institute.
His lineage traces right back to the Southern Shaolin Monastery through two patriarchs: Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam. Ho Fatt Nam's teacher was Yang Fatt Khuen, whose teacher was Venerable Jiang Nan, the monk who escaped from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in Fujian Province. The legacy that Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit holds is over 150 years old.
Today, Wong Kiew Kit has over 2000 students world-wide through various branches of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. Certain forms of hard qigong are taught, again, differing from the soft, internal qigong that was taught in the former Shaolin Monasteries of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Shaolin arts, as taught at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute, purport to be of the soft, internal kind. They are comprised of: Shaolin Kungfu, Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin Zen.
Source 2: Eminent journalists from the New York Times. In this case I have chosen a citation coming from Howard W. French:
Howard W. French (born 1958) is a New York Times reporter as well as an author. French taught at a university in the Ivory Coast in the 1980s before becoming a reporter. He has reported extensively on the political affairs of Western and Central Africa. These reports were the basis for the book A Continent for the Taking.
French has also reported on the political and social affairs in China, where he reported on the government crackdown of dissent in the Dongzhou protests of 2005.  Most of his current work for the New York Times is centered on China.
French became Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times in 1999.  He is a senior writer for the Times, and has served as Shanghai bureau chief since 2003.
Sorce 3: Encyclopedia Brittanica
The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelled with the æ ligature) is a general encyclopedia published by the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.. Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the encylopedia was first published progressively from 1768–71 as Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan. It was one of the first printed English encyclopedias and today is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.
From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, Britannica's articles were often judged as the foremost authority on a topic, and sometimes included new research or theory intended for a scholarly audience. During this era, the Britannica gained its erudite reputation and had a unique position in English-speaking culture.
The Britannica has survived fierce competition from an ever-increasing number of alternative information sources.
Self explainatory. In this case, the concise addition.
---
Compare the sources and judge the quality of each by yourselves. 
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: To be very precise:
About 150 years later in CE 527 the great Bodhidharma, a prince-turned-monk, came from India to teach Zen at the Shaolin Monastery. Since then the Shaolin Monastery has become the fountainhead of Zen Buddhism, which is a major school of. Mahayana Buddhism.
Bodhidharma left behind as a legacy three great sets of exercise, namely Eighteen Lohan Hands, Sinew Metamorphosis and Marrow Cleansing. Eighteen Lohan Hands became the forerunner of Shaolin Kungfu, and Sinew Metamorphosis the forerunner of Shaolin Chi Kung. "Bone Marrow" in Chinese medical terms is not just the bone marrow in Western terms, but figuratively refers to the nerves. The great Bodhidharma is honoured and worshipped as the First Patriarch of the Shaolin arts, as well as of Zen Buddhism. 
From grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself. A greater authority on Shaolin arts has not been mentioned in this discussion.
I don't ask anyone to endorse the claims. I know people will dispute the traditional claims. Traditional Claims remain just that though, traditional.
The paragraph mentions traditional claims. The paragraph also states lines which will cater to the other side. 
The lines mention areas which are neutrality themselves. You'll notice that PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" which is the truth.
The fact that the above mentioned quote echoes the traditional claim is not under dispute. All PARAGRAPH 1 states is "traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. "
s]])</span> 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditional Claims

message: Again you provide arguments dealing with Ta Mo, quoting selective authors and their works. This has been done in great detail on Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts. The Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts is very prominently linked up to the main Bodhidharma article. If the works providing the view of a few modern authors and their conflicting theories of revision are already mentioned in Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts then why force a repition of the same text in the main Bodhidharma article ? Why accomadate a  meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal style monstrosity for the sake of those who have an ethnic red Han Chinese agenda instead of a normal Wikipedia article behind the motive of their actions? 
Not only is Ta mo commonly held to be the founder of the Shaolin arts, he is officially held to be the father of the Shaolin arts, Kindly access the NYT citation mentioned below.
---
Alternative
Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and officially credited as the founder of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <> So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>
---
You may point to not endorsing the connection, but that has already been done in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article. 
The lines mention areas which are neutrality themselves. They cater to everyone's POV.
I did not expect the cabal to accept any solution in any event. This is when I have proposed to withdraw on the main page a section which deals with the conflicts within the revisionist  claims. 
---
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Quite

message: Freedom skies, I am not against the idea of only briefly mentioning Bodhidharma's association with Shaolin kungfu here (exact wording to be worked out), and linking the detailed arguments to the other article(s). But with the extremely POV article "Indian_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts", I cannot see how there can be any good faith on your part. The two articles dealing with this issue will probably need to be merged, and what is disputed clearly mentioned as such. Terms like "negationism" and "revisionism" should not be used, for these imply that there is no dispute whatsoever, and anyone who dares to raise questions is condemned as having committed an intellectual crime right from the outset. The detailed article should instead be in the conventional "Arguments For"/"Arguments Against" format, so as to be more balanced and neutral. And no deliberate distortion of supposed "sources" and citations - something you are inclined to do. And no more use of offensive racial slurs - that's utterly unacceptable behaviour. Unless you modify your POV stance at "Indian_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts", I don't think a meaningful and lasting compromise can be reached. 202.20.5.206 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Indian influence on Chinese martial arts]] - Totally unacceptable article

message: PARAGRAPH 1:
Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán and Zen sects of Buddhism. <> Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><> Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.
Step 1: We substitute the following PARAGRAPH 2 by PARAGRAPH 1 mentioned above:
PARAGRAPH 2
Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]
The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]
---
Note: We remove Kung Fu as is proposed by the cabal following which I take back my offer of accomadating "traditionally credited." I have Encyclopedia Brittanica and BBC citations stating very clearly that he is credited. The charade of ambiguity ends here, the citations will be reflected accurately.
---
Note: The conflicting theories are withdrawn completely from the main page itself following which I withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts withing the theories.
---
That's it. Now, does the deadlock end here?
---
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound good to me. In a comment above, though, JFD has said that "possibly from Kanchipuram" should be left out as the primary sources do not support that. What do you think? --MichaelMaggs 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third alternative proposal

message: If JFD does the same, I am willing to remove all material from the Indian influence article that is not associated with the official shaolin temple, grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, Howard W. French and the Discovery channel. In other words let's hold ourselves to the highest standards for reliable sources in the world on this matter. 
Is JFD willing to do so?
Rhetorical questions aside I can accomadate JFD on the opening paragraph in the Bodhidharma article. We have been known to reach compromises despite even more heated debates. If JFD has said that "possibly from Kanchipuram" should be left out then for the third time in this discussion I accomadate the oppositions point of view despite having formidable sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica endorsing my claim.
---
Paragraph I:
---
No further changes are acceptable. I have backed down on more than enough despite the citations. This comes despite the cabal insinuating that I have been combative, stubborn and need to be sent off Wikipedia when I seem to be the one bending head over heels to reach a solution and end this. No further changes.
---
Note: The conflicting theories are withdrawn completely from the main page itself following which I withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts withing the theories.
---
Now. Do we have an agreement?
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources - I have quite a few sources to back up the fact Bodhidharma was the son of the King of Kanchipuram (or at least a prominent Brahmin family). Rediff in an interview with Jayendra Saraswati (Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram Math). Also the fact is Cited in a Chinese page  and Trinidad's Guardian newspaper.Theres another figure Buddhagosa from Kanchi listed in this JSTORBakaman Bakatalk 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a doubt Bodhidharma was a Tamil (either Buddhist Kshatriya or high caste Buddhist, which makes no sense because Buddhism isnt supposed to recognize caste) from Kanchipuram. The more pressing detail is when he was born, and when he journeyed to the Shaolin ashram.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accomadating the opposition yet again

message: he above paragraph does not really describe bodhidharma correctly.
You continue Kenny. Wikipedia does not cater to your notions of "does not really describe bodhidharma". Wikipedia caters to the notions of the BBC and the Encyclopedia Brittanica's notions.
---
we need to add that he is considered only by tradition to be the founder of zen and that most of his life story is considered legends.
The citations say that he is considered. It's called sourcing.
I allowed "traditionally" in "Mehcanism 1" now we're on Mechanism 4, which is different. Mech 1 had me compromising on "traditionally" and the cabal accepting that he is also commonly associated with Kung fu, which he is.
Unfortunately that did not materialize.
---
We also need to write what the academic establishment has talked about his life and should not leave that out.
Conflicting theories of revision ?
The article Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts deals exclusively with a pro view of them. The article is linked up with the main Bodhidharma article and we're only replacing two short paras and I have suggested that i withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts within these theories as well.
You take it back to square 1, kenny. try keeping up.
---
As I state again to all of us involved, why should we be pandering to a biased person who is not willing to listen to facts or reason?
I agree. let us not be pandering to Kenny who is not willing to listen to facts or reason, not that he has done much editing except reverts though.
---
It's similar to haveing a wikipedia article on space, and then haveing a nut come along and state that "aliens from mars" have been watching us for years and then changing it to accomodate him on his beliefs on aliens. 
At least your idiotic outbursts are amusing, Kenny. Keep at it. Next time do Cinderella.
---
further, The "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is a nutty article written to support his nutty views.
Having 80 something sources ?
---
No academic person believes that the stories revolving around Bodhidharma are much more than legend. '
kenny, kenny, kenny. what do say we put that to test. The one with less references loses and leaves Wikipedia forever.
---
At the same time why should we change "bodhdiharma, the martial arts, and the disputed indian connection" article at all when everything written there is from an academic source? 
No one asks you to. The very formidable article should continue.
---
I know what he said sounded like a joke but Kenny does that.
Anyways. I did not expect the cabal to reach a solution. They attempt not to allow regular articles. Everything has to be a point by point rebuttal or nothing.
 Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. The accounts differ on the date of his arrival, with the earliest account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).
All the refs can be found in Dumoulin's history pp. 87–91 and/or in Broughton's Bodhidharma Anthology 54 ff. (and many other reliable places besides).
However, I would also propose that this intro is getting unnecessarily weighted down with what is, to some extent—and let's call a spade a spade here—specialist crap. As a better way to introduce the figure of Bodhidharma, I would propose we actually not start bandying back and forth in the intro about precisely where he was born, where and when he arrived in the Middle Kingdom, et cetera ad nauseum. I think, instead, that—since an intro is supposed to introduce the significance of a person (or "figure")—we instead simply mention, in the place of the whole "The accounts differ" sentence—a new paragraph that talks about his actual significance to Chan/Zen Buddhists (and possibly Shaolin kung fu practitioners as well, though I personally know essentially nothing about that particular field): how he is considered (and note, I say, considered) to be basically the founder—or rather, reinvigorator, since we mustn't forget Gautama Buddha—of the style of meditation used in Chan/Zen (壁觀 bìguān or "wall-gazing"); how he is considered to be the first of the Chinese patriarchs; how he is generally accorded a significance second only to Gautama Buddha himself; et cetera.
I propose this idea because we have to think about the reader: no reader who is relatively unversed in the subject and comes to the article in order to actually learn about Bodhidharma wants to be assaulted immediately with all manner of detailed arguments and counterarguments. These should, of course, be present in the article, but in some sort of "Biography" (or more suitably titled) section; not in the intro, which is make-or-break time for any article (in my reading experience).
Any thoughts on this? Cheers. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I also suggest the separate articles about Bodhidharma and martial arts and disputed Indian origins and whatnot no longer be mentioned here; they may be relevant to the figure of Bodhidharma himself, but they're irrelevant to our attempt to get this article into shape, and their mention only seems to be furthering the sides-taking that's going on (as far as I can see, anyhow). Cheers again. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenny