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

This is an archive of past discussions about Martial arts of East Asia (origins). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Preserving removed text

The following text was removed with a comment about "removing BS from nationalist". I have no idea of the facts of the issue, but I though that potentially true text should be preserved (not necessarily in the article) until it can be confirmed or refuted.

There is archaeological and textual evidence of Chinese martial arts that predate the introduction of Buddhism to China, however.

--Andrew 08:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Martial Arts in China and India

This is in response to the earlier version of this article that states that Kalaripayattu is the ancestor of all martial arts: The oldest evidence of Kung Fu, or Chinese martial arts, as it is practiced by the military goes back to the Zhou dynasty (1111-255 BC). The first written history of Chinese martial arts comes from the reign of Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor of the Zhou Dynasty (1122-255 BC). Huangdi was a famous military general, before becoming China’s leader and wrote a lengthy treatise about martial arts. He is also credited with being the founder of China’s oldest known martial art – chang quan (long fist). Further, the Taoist monks were practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi (or a soft form of Kung fu) at least during the 500B.C. era. There are texts referring to qigong like exercises from at least the 5th century B.C., and inscriptions from centuries earlier which seem to (although some dispute the interpretation). As well, there are a few statues of unarmed soldiers from the first Qin Emperor's terra cotta army that are in distinctly martial "kung fu" poses that date from the third century B.C. In 39-92 A.D. , the "Six Chapters of Hand Fighting", in the Han Book of Arms were written by Pan Kuo. Also, the Hua To, "Five Animals Play" - tiger, deer, monkey, bear, and bird, was developed during 220 A.D. As stated earlier, the Kung Fu that is practiced today developed over the centuries and many of the later additions of Kung Fu, such as the Shaolin Kung Fu style, later animal forms and the drunken style were incorporated from various martial arts forms existing later on in China or have accurate historical data relating to their inventor.

The earliest written evidence of kalariprayyattu are from the Portuguese that state that it had been practiced by the members of Kerala during the 13th-16th centuries A.D.

Who is correcting this site? There is no evidence that Boddhidharma taught the Shaolin monks kalaripayattu!!! There is no evidence that he even existed in South India. No evidence from Indian historical texts. All the historical texts in China written posthumously state that he created the meditative exercises (2 of them) after meditating supposedly for 9 years in a cave and not to protect the monks from bandits but to help strengthen them during meditation. If you had actually practiced martial arts you would know that these meditative exercises are just that - exercises akin to stretching before working out. Most people believe that the monks already had self defense techniques that they learned from the retired soldiers that they would harbor during peace time. The only texts that exist stating that Bodhidharma might be from South India are Japanese texts and they only speculate centuries after his death when Chan buddhism came to Japan! The oldest text that mention kalaripayattu are western texts as there are no existing texts in India that mention it prior to the 15th century A.D. Thus the speculation that it might have originated in 1000A.D.

The Shaolin temple has been burned down three times and rebuilt three times during its history - those pictures that you speak of supposedly of one light skinned monk and one dark skinned monk fighting each other that you attribut to Indian monks teaching chinese monks self defense on the Shaolin wall were painted only recently and the translation that you have is a Japanese translation of dubious merit. If it was written in Japanese script on a Chinese wall it was most likely written by Japanese soldiers during WWII. Do not write information on this site if it is to further your nationalistic ideas as you are twisting history. You are writing historically bogus information. The religious texts in India - The vedas do not speak of kalaripayattu in any sense whatsoever. They only mention that an ancient god-king of india wanted kalaris (gymnasiums) built after he controlled south india. None of the religious texts mention any training or describe training that is even similar to kalaripayattu.

-Kenneth Tennyson, Ph.D

Kalaripayattu (comment)

It would seem that it is you who harbours a nationalistic agenda by taking a jaundiced view of history.

It is clear that you are intent on manipulating evidence to push your theory of a Chinese history that has not been influenced by its neighbours.

What do you intend to prove next, that Buddha was chinese?

Hello I would like to add to this, that Boddhidharma was in fact an Indian, His very name immplies that to be so. It's Sanskit, in case those of you who are claiming otherwise had not noticed. The only reason why the Chinese are considerd such a great race is because of the bhuddist philosophies they claim as thier own, so thats why all their temples face India huh!

- The whole idea of Boddhidharma being the founder of shaolin martial art was created by the Triads in late Qing Dynasty for political reasons. Chinese martial art is based on Confucist model with Taoist meditationa and breathing exercise. From early Tang Dynasty till 1909 both literary and martial Imperial Examinations (Ke Ju) were held every 3 years with additional special Examinations. Teachers taught martial art the same way as teachers who taught Confucius classics. Prior to Tang dynasty the lineages were still there, it is just there was no Imperial Examination.

      Karolus 2006/9/26

Who are you?

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—68.14.62.73 (talk · contribs)—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)

I have been trying to change the article to reflect a NPOV. The current version is a NPOV and doesn't involve odd stories about the semilegendary figure Bodhidharma traveling up and down India learning kalaripayattu prior to any mention of kalaripayattu and then going to China to teach it to the monks. kennethtennyson

Whoever has been trying to edit article please read

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)

Added Bodhidharma Legend

It would seem that someone is very persistent in changing the text to try to link kalaripayattu with Bodhidharma. Added Bodhidharma "legend" to alleviate the persistent person. Kennethtennyson

Article Protection

This article has been protected. Please come to a concencus over what the issue is and then notify an administrator. Thank you. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

The person reverting the article today is the same person: 172.196.101.9, 172.197.72.35, Martinmarginela who has been involved in vandalizing my site and the kalaripayattu website (placing fake biographies involving gay biographies). The current version was written by him/her and really isn't a history so much as a personal attack against me. Open up any encyclopedia on martial arts history, read encyclopedia brittanica's account of kung fu history on-line or martial arts history on-line, or read Zarilli's book online about kalaripayattu on his website. Everything that I have been writing is fact. Better yet, read Fire Star and her history of martial arts as she seems to be another administrator. This might sound crazy, but their are some elements out their that are extremely partisan in regards to Indian history. This is quite similar to the debate proposed by P.N. Oak on whether or not the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple vs. a Muslim temple. It is similar in that there really is no debate and most scholars agree that the Taj Mahal is a Muslim temple and P.N. Oak has been discredited as a historian. Kennethtennyson 29 June 2005 01:46 (UTC)

Interesting controversey

This is an interesting controversy given the fact that I have never heard of this kalaripayattu. No textbooks on martial arts that I have even mention it. Went to the above websites mentioned and also to some of the external links. Also visited the Brittanica website. From what I can read, it would seem that I would weigh in with the belief that this kalaripayattu had no connection with Bodhidharma. I'm not even sure you could call it a martial arts. Most of the other websites that I went to that seemed neutral were actually from university departments related to Dance Groups and seemed to suggest that kalaripayattu had "murky" beginnings. The kalaripayattu websites seemed to suggest that it was some sort of dance. However, why is it that kennethtennyson is the only one writing in the discussion page? Where is the other person who disagreed with him? Anyways, an interesting discussion but not one that would seem to be worth all of this craziness. Steelhead 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)

To Kennethtennyson

It is clear that you have chosen to view history from a purely Chinese perspective and from your previous modifications it is evident that you seek to academically eliminate India’s role in influencing Chinese culture. By systematically removing and adding material that conforms to your interpretation of history you have fulfilled this fact. What you’re doing is not editing but rather exacting a gross censoring of information which is in complete violation of what Wikipedia stands for.

To completely ignore and avoid evidence that may suggest an Indian connection to Chinese martial arts and manipulating the facts to serve a personal point of view you have initiated what is tantamount to a personal attack on Indians. Even your claim of being an academic is highly suspect given your frequent enthusiasm to cite the encyclopaedia Britannica and personal websites to bolster your highly fanatical point of view involving the origins of Chinese martial arts. And isn’t it your much revered Britannica which states that Boddhidarma is a “native of Conjeeveram, near Madras”, reinforcing the fact that he was indeed South Indian, a view you so aggressively challenge by suggesting that he was of Central Asian origin. The academic inconsistencies you display are clearly suggestive of an individual with a single minded agenda to distort existing evidence to portray an ethnically cleansed view of the past.

Your attempt at finding scraps of evidence to support your ludicrous claim is feeble at best. Remember no one is saying that there were no martial arts in China before the Buddhist intrusion. The fact is that there is no evidence of a ‘codified system’ with an integrated approach of martial arts before Shaolin, only inferences, claims and fabricated evidence from unverified sources by individuals of your moral integrity who fear that the proudest contribution of your nation might be tainted by an Indian. The point I’m trying to make is that Boddhidarma may have provided a more comprehensive school very much like Kalaripayattu, involving integrated yogic cultivation of mind and body through breathing and meditation which eventually filtered through and modified your so called Wushu and other east Asian martial art systems. The fact is you cannot conclusively prove that Boddhidarma did not teach his monks a form of martial arts. Given the existing evidence it is an extremely valid interpretation of history which you have no right to discount.

And please exercise some intelligence and not look for Kalaripayattu references in ancient history, the reason being Malayalam terms are near absent before about 1000AD. To understand the origins of Indian martial arts one would have to study the rigid code of the Kshastriya caste and its systems of combat and also to have deeply read the Mahabharata which describes the codified systems of war and battle. Much of which have been poorly documented in western texts and definitely would be beyond the comprehension of someone of your intellectual capacity. And please extend your research to more neutral sources and not just one or two of your favourite books and a bunch of personal websites that support your view purely because it makes a mockery of the institution you have come from and the organisation you represent. The internet is no place for proper research (for now at least), a fact known by most academics.

To the ones who have no knowledge of Kalaripayattu, its because India never brags about its treasures. 30 June 2005

Codified routines of punches, kicks, etc existed well before Confucius time in around 550 BC. COnfucius was the first teacher who taught such arts including literary classic, history, bare-hand arts, weaopon fighting, archery, as well music to non-nobility people. Before that these arts were restricted to nobles, much like what had been in Europe and Japan for thousands of years. Your comment that Boddhidarma provided a codified school or fighting is nonsense.

  Karolus 2006/9/26

ATTN KAROLUS

You yourself have a biased agenda, so don't be hypocritical by critizing everyone else here. The fact is that all evidence points to Chinese martial arts in existence LONG before the introduction of Buddhism. Buddhism may or may not have influenced Chinese styles, but the influence (if any) was small and insignificant at best. The only major thing transmitted between India and China were Buddhism and trade goods.

"To the ones who have no knowledge of Kalaripayattu, its because India never brags about its treasures" Kalaripayattu was created around 1200 CE, which is 1700 years AFTER the first documented martial arts in China.

Information out of Context

First of all user 220.253.117.216 and users 196.101.9, 172.197.72.35, and Martinmarginelais are all the same as user as they like to employ the same forms of vandalism. Not only that user 220.253.117.216 has just committed an act of vandalism by placing pornographic phrases on my personal page. Many thanks to Smoddy for reverting my page.

Now to respond to the above statement by user 220.253.117.216 ...

If you actually quoted the whole encyclopedia brittanica article on bodhidharma and books written about Bodhidharma, it does not mention Bodhidharma with kalaripayattu or any Native Indian Martial arts. You are taking tidbits of articles out of context. These books all state that he is a "semilegendary" figure in Buddhist mythology. There is no doubt in history that the very first texts to ever mention him state that he is a central asian monk and later texts mention him as being an Indian monk. I have never disputed that. I have never disputed that the Chan sect considers him to be their native founder of Chan buddhism. I have never disputed the fact that he "might" have contributed to the Shaolin martial arts although many historians are even skeptical of this. What I am disputing is the preposterous contention that Bodhidharma was a kalaripayattu practitioner and that he studied kalaripayattu in India and then brought it to China (all the legends that exist state clearly that he meditated in a cave for nine years and thought of his meditative exercises then.) Further, there is no evidence to suggest that kalaripayattu existed before the 11th century A.D. and even if that.

You and others like you are making a fallacy of reasoning - if Bodhidharma in 500A.D. contributed to Shaolin martial arts, and there seems to be a martial arts in Kerala in 2005 A.D. , then henceforth Bodhidharma must have been a practitioner of the current martial arts and the current martial arts are from 500A.D. It's very similar to me stating that if there are legends of Icarus creating flying wings for humans in ancient Greece, and there are now airplanes flying humans in Greece from airports in 2005, then thus, Icarus is the inventor of airplanes and airplanes have been present since the time of Icarus. This is the fallacy that you are making as their is nothing to suggest that kalaripayattu is from 500A.D. or that Bodhidharma is a kalaripayattu practitioner.

Not only that, I have been reverting the article to change the following other ridiculous claims. The previous articles stated that all of Shaolin kung fu is derived from kalaripayattu that you and others like you are so fond of putting on this article which is patently false. You are making a second fallacy by stating that as a result all martial arts are derived from Shaolin kung fu. As a result since kalaripayattu is supposedly the originator of Shaolin Kung fu, kalaripayattu is then the mother of all martial arts, which is false. Not only that, almost everything that you have quoted to me in the previous page is straight from only a few kalaripayattu websites (not all of them make this claim) and Hindutva websites (such as the interestingly named website - "a tribute to Hinduism"). They in turn not only misquote but also use as their source one book and one book only - the Book by Terence Dukes (a.k.a Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio) which is the only book printed to state these claims. The author has a dubious history as a historian and a martial artist. He plagiarized work from previous authors and at the same time selectively misquoted various sources that he was plagiarizing. All other books do not even talk about this. Even the one book written by a western author on kalaripayattu (Zarilli) is explicit in not stating any connection with Bodhidharma and even going so far as stating that the first written evidence or any evidence of kalaripayattu was from Portuguese sources and that the earliest suggestion of kalaripayattu's existence is from the 11th century A.D. Kennethtennyson 30 June 2005 03:08 (UTC)

To Kennethtennyson

I would like to apologise for attacks on your intellectual integrity in my recent contribution. It was uncalled for and not in keeping with the spirit of a proper written exchange.

However, I do not agree with most of your points in your most recent discussion. As I have some pressing matters to attend to, I will provide you with a rebuttal as soon as I am done with my present responsibilities. Thank You. 30 June 2325hrs (+0800GMT)

Interesting discussion, user 202.156.2.162. It would probably by easier if you were to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, that's our normal convention in discussion.

But interesting discussion. It would be good to have some non-Internet references in the article, if anyone can add them. Surely the subject is mentioned in printed literature as well as on the web? For the moment they can be added to the talk page here, until the matter of page protection is resolved. Andrewa 4 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

Constructional arguments???

Hi all

OK I barely want to get involved in this argument, but there a few things that i would like to mention as well.

There is a certain amount of texts written about the chinese martial arts, however there is barely anything written about karali. I heard of the form when I was studying kung fu sometime back, and my master had then jsut retruned from kerala after studyng basics of karali.

However I think that a few things could be added to the deifinition in the wikipedia discussion. And I would really really like if it doesnt contain politics, :( There are enough politicians doing it for us and the last thing we need is warfare in a knowledgebase.

Hope someone understands.

202.69.193.66 09:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Kulendra Janaka.

Almost every country and culture has a form of martial arts in its history. There's even a persian form of martial arts. I agree with the politics statement. Everybody of course would like to aggrandize there own form of martial arts but this is a knowledgebase that should report fact, not somebody's opinions or ideas. Kennethtennyson

Compromise

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)

Minor revision

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)

ATTN: Mano1

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)

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)

ATTN: JD or KennethTennyson

If the Pro Chinese nationalists are intent on providing a biased view of History then more accurate views should be given fair recognition. User:Morfeen 06 Aug 2005 01026hrs (+0800hrs)

ATTN: JD or KennethTennyson- cont'd

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? His early sermons were not only rich in Indian linguistic flavour but were filled with Indian geographical references e.g. 'sands of the Ganges'..... 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. Also to claim that Boddhidarma came from Central Asia does not discount the fact that he originally was from India. To label him semi legendary is to say that Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, etc were semi legendary. The fact is you cannot conclusively prove that these people even existed even if you had their bone fragments. 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. This is all we have and the volume of information suggests overwhelmingly that he is Indian rather than Central Asian as you feebly claim. Right now most people know that Buddha was from India. I believe in another 1000 years or so people not unlike yourself would be fervently claiming that he was from China and aggressively trying to prove that no text can be found suggesting he was from India. You would even base your claim on the fact that there are more Buddhists in East Asia than anywhere else in the world. It still however doesn't change the fact that he was from India. Even as I write this I have noticed a number of Chinese nationalist websites sprouting and fanatically trying to disassociate the Chinese branch of Mahayana Buddhism form all its existing counterparts, even going as far to claim that Buddhism existed in China long before the Buddha was even born. Notice anything familiar with that argument?

I do agree with you that there is nothing to tie Kalaripayattu to Boddhidarma. But it is only because the term kalariupayattu is a south Indian dialect called Malayalam that does not have much history before 1000AD. The Malayalam dialect group have been very successful in preserving a number of hindu sciences that has lost prominence in India in recent times. Among them are Ayurveda and Kalari. It is only fitting that the present label for Indian martial arts be a term in the Malayalam dialect as they have so painstakingly preserved it over the ages. This does not however mean that the art was born at the time the Malayalam dialect was born.

Boddhidarma was described by your Chan Buddhist figures as being from the Kshastriya caste. If you're not familiar with this caste it means that they were born and bred as occupational fighters. They are born into a line that had primarily only one thing to do and that is to learn how to fight. As with all fields in ancient Indian times it was a perfected art form. They are initiated from the day they are born. There is even a whole science behind how the initial castes were formed based on their metabolism, physical form and psychological predisposition, etc. They are even taught to eat foods (rakshasic foods) that would heighten aggression and nurture tolerance to physical pain. They did not just learn martial arts but various fields that came with it like yoga, meditation, medicine, field surgery, etc. In the final stages it is revealed unto the students, primary marma points that can heal or do harm. One of which is a nerve cluster that can cause instant death from a single open hand strike. These were not just kalari practices but skills imparted long before the term kalari even existed. All this has been done since the earliest of times as described in all our early religious and mythical texts. These are not practices that have evolved over a few hundred years but a science that has evolved through the ages and is shrouded in antiquity. So of course Zarilli would not be able to find any connection with Kalaripayattu and Boddhidarma because how or where would he find it?

It is no wonder that the similarity in practices between shaolin and kalari practitioners is an area that is subject to much speculation. Such coincidences do not come about randomly. This is why the existence of Boddhidarma requires such great attention as he provides the link that explains these patterns. This is the exact same reason you are bent on casting doubt as to his existence and origins. If Boddhidarma did not exist or if he was not of Indian origin you have yourself a theory that eliminates any connection between Indian and Shaolin martial arts. I hope you are not naïve enough to think that your trickery is not evident. The crucial point I am trying to make is that Shaolin martial arts is greatly influenced by Indian meditational and fighting techniques. It would be simple to label me a liar but the evidence suggests a logical pattern as to how Shaolin martial arts evolved.

Your mistake is in relying on texts written by individuals who had no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history. You have taken their sugesstions as the premise of your argument, that Kalari is no older than 1500AD to support your claim. If Indian martial arts did begin in 1500AD than I admit I would have a problem. But it is much older than that. If it were not, there would be no kshastriya caste which we know did exist as it is in the Vedas.

These are different times, everyone speaks english and more information is at hand from the east. 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. You imply that kalari did not exist before 1100AD but what evidence do you have? A travelogue from some portuguese traveller and an author that supports your view who probably did not even understand the science and history behind it? As an example, If aliens came to earth today they would see us using telephones. In their log it would be that 'the first documented observation of humans using communication devices would be 2005AD earth years' But every earthling would know that phones have been in use for more than 150 years. 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. 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; 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. User: Morfeen 06 Aug 2005 01026hrs (+0800hrs)

ATTN: Morfeen

[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)

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)

..................... August 21 2005 May I help you a bit. I am French and studied Indian medicines, Ayurveda, Siddha, Varma and Yoga. I learned from famous scholars and doctors in South India. And because it was linked to martial arts and was historically unclear I decided to find out more.

It is difficult to say who created and when an Indian science was created. There are a lot of claims made by Indians but unfortunately for them, because by doing so they become ridiculous, they do not show any historical or written evidences, in short serious works do not exist.

If Indians or others want to say KalariP is the oldest martial art it is OK. But if they say KalariP is the mother of Chinese or else martial arts, this is not OK.

Monkeys sometimes fight. They jump, they use sticks too. So according to this fact and if I use a short, poor, inexact, ridiculous, injurious theory, I can say that monkey fight is the most ancient martial art and the mother of Indian KalariP.

One day, we will talk about ayurvedic massage which is another propaganda, this one made by west and propagated by Indians for lucrative purpose. In Ayurveda there is not a single treaty in the large corpus of Ayurvedic books, on Ayurvedic clinical massotherapy and no degree of ayurvedic masseur offered by official state university of Ayurveda in India. But this is another funny subject.

Another thing, last one I want to add. Chinese people developed medicine and martial arts much more than Indians have. If we have to pay a tribute I suggest Chinese people. Indians claim too much and this in contradictory to their secretive culture and religion based on truth and not time. In short: If you say something prove it or don't talk. Learn to accept your limitations and ignorance. Both buddhist and hindu teachings. ..........end of this post .............

edits to kalaripayattu for Kjrajesh

I'm reverting this to the edits by 136.42... I don't know about the accuracy of the statements that you have made to the site.

"The present practicing traditions origin can be traced back to the 12th centuary A.D. Some of the specific techniques still practiced today are part of the much older Indian martial tradition of which references can be seen in the Agnipurana; 'Natyashastra' etc dating back to the 4th century A.D. It can also be seen that this art as practiced today was at its peak of popularity and social interaction during 12th through 17th centuries when Kerala consisted of several and semi feudal principalities ruled by local chieftains. The art formed a regular part of the education of the youth especially the martial class called the Nairs. The training consisted of self disciplinary training, physical culture and finally training to become a proficient warrior."

This is the very first time that i have heard of this statement on the history of kalaripayattu and it is not present in any credible historical textbooks. In regards to why we should have that section on the Bodhidharma legend, if you were around earlier, kennethtennyson and JFD have had long long long discussions on the history of kalaripayattu with other users who were presenting a history of kalaripayattu that differed from accepted history and quite POV. It wasn't until JFD bought books and began to cite the references and talk in detail about the incorrectness of connecting the Bodhidharma legend to kalaripayattu that other users began to reconsider. It is vital that we leave that section in the history because it is still an ongoing debate. if you go to all of the links that are cited below, the websites continue to endorse that Bodhdiharma was a kalaripayattu practitionner (some even state that he learned both the Northern and Southern styles and went to southeast asia and then china influencing all martial arts in the region). Therefore, to educate the public, I believe that it is our duty to discuss the disputes in the main page and not just shunt it to some other page.Mano1

Hello Mano.. This is Rajesh who moved the disputed section to another section. You can see that i did not delete, the section was only moved with a proper link to avoid confussion and avoid clutterness.

Usually people come to Wikipedia to know the subject not to see some clutterd docúments. The previous section was mostly not realted to Kalaripayattu but related to the disputes and unknow facts.

We both know regarding Kalaripyattu but none of us know the actall history. Let people read the disputed section i as another section. If we add the disputed article in the main topic (Eventhough it relates to Kalari) its very anoying. Am I correct.

Give users more details on the correct topic (Which we actually know) and let the unknown and disputed topic be on other sections, but give a good link to get into it.

Sincerely

Kjrajesh|talk

Please read my statements on the discussion page. You only recently went into this kalaripayattu debate. Kennethtennyson and JFD and others have been trying to point that the Bodhidharma legend connection is totally unfounded for the last half year. There actually is no debate on the origins of kalaripayattu. Most historians can trace its developement and have found sources citing it. The only debate is the totally unfounded bodhidharma legend which was settled. It is important that we keep that section as all of the websites that this article links to still continues to state the bodhidharma connection and we need to inform the public.Mano1 13:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

==Rajesh==

Hello manu i read your talk. Thank you.

See actually I am not in to the debate topic. The exact debate topic was in the Discovery channel (but as not as a debate :) ). In that the Shavolin monks themself speaks about Bodhidharma and etc.. etc.. So its not a topic for me.

The matter for me was the clutterness on the main page. Could you please look the previous page? The first thing when a new user see in the page is the dispute section not the real thing.

What you said was correct we can keep the desputed part in the main section itself, but it should not overide or overlook the main subject itself. Make it as simple as possible give a nice link as another section.

Actually this is how a professional web designer do.

Sincerely

Kjrajesh|talk

I don't know about the monks on the discovery channel, but this I'm actually seeing it from an encyclopedia or journal article section as this is considered to be a free encyclopedia. Although the Shaolin monks have a history of attributing everything to Bodhdiharma - whether or not what they attribute is true. The first references to him actually stated that he was central asian or persian. However, the shaolin monks are adamant in stateing that their legends state clearly that began the meditative exercises after meditating in a cave in China with no reference to bringing it to China from India.

Regardless, people come to wikipedia for encyclopedic reference and as as an encyclopedia, it is important for us to present information to educate the public and to clear up rumors and urban legends, especially during the age of the internet. I really don't see how adding that section will change the aesthetics of the page. It's just another interesting section to read, it's short, and it directly clears up any confusion as the websites without having to search for another webpage. Mano1 14:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- Mano Rajesh once again. See I am not into the dispute of the subject. I am only saying that the the materials should be kept in 'proper shelfs'. If you have some hundred files how will you keep it in a computer? we keep it in folders and name it accordingly. Again when these each folder is filled with hundred of files we create subfolders according to their relevance and move it. This is the first thing we learn as an Administrator.

We do not put all files in the C: or / ! We create folders and sub-folders....

Same way we create a Web page. Once the content becomes larger we sub divide it (Care should be take not to delete or move importnat parts). Here in our case I only moved very very long lines, mostly discribing about Bodhidharma to another section and gave a link, that to highlighting it.

As I mentioned in my last talk that you are correct that we should keep some section regarding Bodhidharma in the main section, but not diverting the attention of the people by something else.

As you might have noticed Bodhidharma have 'his' on page in Wikipedis!

Kjrajesh|talk

Hmmm.... I still don't see how that ruins anything. It's just another subject relating to kalaripayattu. How about this. Let's compromise. I'll reword the sections so that everything will flow well.Mano1 14:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Manu,

It would be better you shorten your section regarding the debate, from the main page. A topic Like Kalaripayattu means - a lot to lots of people. But just think we all reade the topic of Kalari first to know about the art, then we go for looking the history, then we go for looking the conflits of the subject if there is one (Usually there will be debate in history of any subjects).

When I first came through the wikipedian subject on Kalari, I was really sad to see the details, it was more on debate that the Kalaripayattu itself (am I correct, please chech the articles dated before 15th). As you can see from my user page Eventhoug I was born in Palakkad, I was in Kannur for 30 years, As you know most of the Kannurian practices Kalaripayattu, its in there blood. So as a KalariP practitioner I taught of keeping the page more relevent to the subject 'kalari payattu' by adding more details and pictures on the subjects to make it understandable. and moved the disputed section to another part.

Rajesh,

I'm sorry to hear that you are saddened about the debate. I know what it must be like to have something that you practice as a martial art debated about, but it occurs in every subject of history. By hiding it or not discussing it, it only contributes to speculation and misinformation.

But if you go to almost all of the kalaripayattu websites, the debate is generated by the kalaripayattu websites themselves and also the people in the past on wikipedia who were pushing the false bodhidharma connection. This is very similar to the Taj Mahal article where there was this huge discussion early on about the Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple (followers of P.N. Oak) and finally after debate, everyone agreed that it was not considered standard historical interpretation and had a small section about it. The people pushing the taj mahal Hindu connection didn't like that section but it was a compromise everyone agreed upon.

As to shortening my paragraph, it seems a little clearer from reading your letter that you perhaps were originally diverting the debate section to try and avoid a discussoin of it? I know that it might be disheartening, but I've compromised on my end, got rid of the whole section on Bodhidharma and kalaripayattu, and then shortened the whole section into a tiny paragraph. If I shorten it anymore it becomes meaningless and only hides the true debate. Perhaps a compromise on your end is necessary.

This discussion is necessary, I think, as there are a lot of people running around citing different versions of kalaripayattu history that are somewhat fanciful. I even went to one website of a supposed trainer in kalaripayattu who stated that Bodhidharma learned the northern and southern styles and all the other styles, went on a boat and then taught it to the indonesians, the southeast asians, the chinese and japanese, and that it is the mother of all martial arts. (Oh, by the way, I'm putting our discussion on the discussion page so others can read it in case questions pop up.)Mano1 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical Article

I am surprised to see such an openly biased and structure-less, illogical article as this. Has the article been hijacked by people with vested interests?

First the title of the article "Disputed History of Kalaripayattu" is way off the mark. The article mainly is worried about whether or not Bodhidharma took martial arts with him to China.

Somehow the thought that martial arts were taken to China from India seems to irk a lot of nerves. To disprove that Bodhidharma had anything to do with Chinese martial arts the author of the article adopts the approach of questioning everything that is known about Bodhidharma. By bringing everything about Bodhidharma into doubt he hopes to establish his claims in the ensuing confusion. If he consistently starts holding every bit of history to the same impossible criterion of truth that he expects of facts surrounding Bodhidharma then no history textbooks would exist!

The article says "Some martial arts claim descent from Bodhidharma...". Which martial arts are these? Is it Shaolin Kung fu? Now why would they claim descent from Bodhidharma if it wasn't true? To undermine this one claim the author of the article undertakes his ridiculous and openly biased examination of Bodhidharma's history. The main methodology of the author is "if there is even a seed of uncertainity the whole question has to be thrown out"! Thus, since there are two translations of the inscription on the mural, the whole mural evidence has to be thrown out! Even admitting that the mural has nothing to do with Bodhidharma, how does one explain the presence of a dark skinned figure in a Chinese mural on martial arts?

On the contradictory claims of Bodhidharma's origins:

1. the name clearly indicates his Indian origin.

2. Yang Xuanzhi's version that he was central asian can be easily reconciled with the versions that mentions Bodhidharma as Indian. Yang Xuanzhi's book was on Buddhist monasteries in Lo-Yang and was not specifically about Bodhidharma, unlike Xu Gaoseng Zhuan which is a biography. The first book presents the immediate region from where Bodhidharma appeared while the latter book, being a detailed biography, presents detailed origins of Bodhidharma. The latter book does mention that Bodhidharma spent time wandering around in central asia.

Is the author of the article incapable of this simple analysis? Just this evidence is sufficient to show how biased it is, not to speak of the general tone and wording in the article.

But there is more nonsense in the article. The author writes:

"Assertions like those championing Kanchipuram as Bodhidharma's birthplace are of recent provenance (Chou, 1955)."

So just because it is recent does it have to be wrong?! This statement is keeping in line with the general strategy of undermining anything that relates Bodhidharma to India and to martial arts. And every silly reason is used to undermine offending statements.

The article further says: "Moreover, they conflict. Was Bodhidharma a Brahmin born in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu or was he a poor hunter clan prince born in present-day Kerala?"

In Indian history many royal families have been brahmins. So a brahmin prince is not a contradiction. Tamil Nadu and Kerala are neighbouring states and the present states were created only fifty years ago. It is not as if we are talking about Iran and Indonesia. This is just the author's weird attempts to introduce uncertainities where there are none.

"None of the primary sources on Bodhidharma specifies either the year, the kingdom, or the jati into which he was born."

Such detailed information not available on most historical personages! Why demand it only of Bodhidharma? Does the author seek to impress the reader with buzz words like "jati"?

"The first explicit association of Bodhidharma and the Shaolin martial arts is made in a text from no earlier than 1624, 1000 years after his purported death, written by Zining Daoren (literally "Zining, the Taoist") who also provided the Yijin jing and Xisuijing as Bodhidharma's written work."

Since the author has been so biased thus far, we need to ask if we can take his word for this. Even taking it for granted, so what if the association between Bodhidharma and Shaolin occurs 1000 yrs later? Does it invalidate the hypothesis? Ofcourse, the occurence does not prove anything but it definitely makes it more plausible that Bodhidharma was associated with Shaolin martial arts.

"There is physical and written evidence in China that martial arts as practiced by the Shaolin monks predate the 6th century CE and that most martial arts in most countries developed to some degree independently of each other."

This is fallacious. Fighting forms like wrestling, boxing are very different from martial arts like Kung fu, Kalarippayattu which are based on profound principles. They involve dedicated, life-long training. The primary aim of these martial arts is total control oneself, not just beating up the other guy. The concept of Prana, Chi is crucial in these martial arts. The principles involved are quite specific and not general or universal as the author glibly mentions. Given the sophistication and similarities, one school must have come from the other. The fact that there was extensive trade between China and India makes this only more plausible.

All available evidence suggests that the transfer was from India to China. The evidence is as follows:

1. Chinese sources themselves mention Bodhidharma as source of martial arts

2. Neutral Japanese sources too mention the same.

3. Tradition of martial arts in India goes back to ancient times. Just read the Mahabharata where several types of martial arts involving various weapons are mentioned. It even refers to various movements that fighters make while fighting. Cutting off Kalari from the larger tradition is a cheap trick.

4. Yoga has poses which are named after animals. This is similar to martial arts poses being named after animals. Yoga is undisputedly of Indian origin and is atleast 3000 yrs old (the oldest terracotta figures from Indus valley depicting yogic postures date to that period). Yoga also is based on regulating Prana as are martial arts.

This evidence should be sufficient for any reasonable person. It is strange to me that Chinese and Buddhist sources keep artibuting stuff to Bodhidharma which the author firmly believes is not the case. Why would they do that? Why would they paint murals showing dark skinned people (persumably Indians) teaching martial arts? Why would the Shaolin monks attribute "everything" to Bodhidharma? Is it so un-reasonable that we are justified in derisively dismissing it? Why else would Bodhidharma be remembered after so many centuries if not for his profound influence?

Unfortunately, the author of the article makes no attempt at explaining the Chinese and Japanese sources. He tries to dismiss the evidence one at a time by invoking strange and inconsistent reasons. Is it the case that the Chinese and Japanese being "irrational and mystical Easterners" never cared for truth until the "rational Westerners" forced themselves into the picture? Why would Chinese and Japanese sources repeatedly connect Shaolin arts with Bodhidharma? This has to be reasonably addressed.

The article is so biased and badly written that the whole needs to be thrown out. Also the author of the article must be prevented from writing any further articles until he learns to overcome his puerile biases.

Did you not read any of the discussion before this? You are writing the exact same thing that almost every other person before you have argued and it has been shown to be faulty. The legend of Bodhidharma is just a legend. It is a conflicting legend even regarding his origins and the first association of him in chinese texts with the Shaolin temple( in regards to Chan Buddhism) did not occur in chinese sources until centuries after he died. None of the shaolin temple written texts from the same century that he existed ever mention him. His association with shaolin kung fu did not occur until the 16th century ad, a thousand years after he died and it was written by a taoist monk who did not like the shaolin temple. the very first text that attribute him with the shaolin temple has been proven to contain false information. Regardless, there is no proof that kalaripayattu is connected to Bodhidharma or that he was a kalaripayattu practioner. I have no idea why you are focusing on bodhihdarma and kalaripayattu. The earliest texts that even mention kalaripayattu in the whole world come from 15th century AD sources and they state that kalaripayatuu existed since about the 13th century ad.

Please stop being intolerant and deleting posts in a revert/edit war. Let's debate the topics rationally and point by point, please! This is unproductive and you are deleting ideas that are just facts. You can't delete movies that Kalarippayattu is in just because you think that Bodhidharma doesn't exist and that the Chinese are superior to Indians and that martial arts could not have at all been influenced by India.

Wikipedia articles are not Internet discussion forums

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)

I agree with Bwwith. Kennethtennyson 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

freedom skies

i want to discuss with you here... why are you removing my edits and why are you placing "cn" on my citations. Read your own citation for nishiyama - it states that Bodhidharma is a "legend" it further states that karate is as old as mankind as itself... what part of that statement don't you understand as him endorsing that it is a legend? There is no requirement to place a specific type of citation, just that a citation is placed. Kennethtennyson 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

let's see... in the nishiyama citation [1] ... "there is a famous chinese legend regarding the origin of kempo...." hmmm.....also the author states that the basic forms of self defense are as old as mankind itself.... so what part of that statement by nishiyama states that he believes that the legend is fact... he states that the legend is a legend. As for why i reported you to vandalism, i actually thought we were haveing a relatively civil relationship until you started removing my citations or adding "citations needed" to my citations... in the parenthesis next to the names of the authors, i have the citations of the books and the articles that they wrote... you need only look at them yourself... there is no requirement to have a certain format for citations. NOr is there a requirement by wikipedia to have links to google books. You need only read their textbooks. Kennethtennyson 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i want to discuss with you here...

Great. You'll see that assuming good faith works better then using sockpuppets. For one thing the possibility of being reported is avoided.

why are you removing my edits and why are you placing "cn" on my citations.

Well, for one thing we have to take your word that Paul Pelliot has anything at all to do with this.

As for the citations. Past incidents relating your knowledge of martial arts form the reason why I'm asking you mention where exactly have these people actually said anything that disproves the Indo-Chinese connection in martial arts ? ?

You will understand that I have gone out of my way to let links like Susan Lynn Peterson [2] stay. She has nothing to do whatsoever with either endorsing the connection or disproving it. I merely understood the difficulty you must have gone through to compile such an impossible list, and made allowances.

Kindly provide links to where these people have disproved the India-China connection. If you have to provide only books then provide the ISBN, page number and preferable quotes to where exactly have they disproved these theories. You will understand if I don't take your words at face value after the non existent knowledge, mindless reverts, sockpuppets and anti India stance.

what part of that statement don't you understand as him endorsing that it is a legend?

Legend, does not nessesarily mean that it's false. It might mean that a real story has many variations, many including miracles depending upon the capabilities of the individuals involved. It also indicates that the story has a very real historical basis.

You aim to misguide the reader by saying that Nishiyama and others reject the India-China connection. That is something I simply cannot allow.

I'm removing the "legend" line because it's misleading, it's a list of men who have worked to establish the connection and not people who dismiss Ta Mo as legend. If you have to put Nishiyama etc. to beef up your list then introduce them as people who have endorsed the India-China connection.

If you chose to put the authors back in and take their works out of context again then I will provide quotations directly from their books in which they have endorsed Bodhidharma and introduce them properly as the "Authors who endorse the India China connection"

You need only read their textbooks.

Cite the ISBN, publications and page numbers. All those are unsourced. After the sockpuppet, I won't take your word for it.

Freedom skies 10:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

you are misunderstanding

first of all, i don't need a sockpuppet to revert all of your edits by myself

Secondly, you are missing my intent of listing those authors. I merely list authors who have stated that they think the bodhidharma connection to martial arts is totally unfounded, authors who have stated that it is a legend (regardless of whether they think a connection exists), authors who believe in the association and hence, and so forth. I am not making any judgement as to whether they believe "legend" means "reality" or whether legend means an associationn exists between bodhidharma and martial arts. I am merely trying to be complete in my statements.

third, don't quote me the definition of legend from wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As far as i can tell, the word legend does not imply that there is a historical basis that is established. That doesn't mean that in the future a historical basis will not be discovered, just that it has not been established. If it were historical FACT, it wouldn't be called a "legend". Have you heard of urban legends? in order to be an urban legend, it must not have occurred.

finally, you confuse me... did nishiyama not state in his book let's see... in the nishiyama citation [3] ... "there is a famous chinese legend regarding the origin of kempo...." Now I am not stateing that Nishiyama does or does not believe that the legend has some truth... when i quote him, i am merely stating that he states that it is a legend. That is it. If you notice I put him under : "Lay authors who have stated that Bodhidharma is a Legend" and as far as i can tell, he states that it is a legend. I have neither made a negative or positive statement on whether he believes that it has truth or not. Kennethtennyson 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

first of all, i don't need a sockpuppet to revert all of your edits by myself

Yes you do. It makes it look like anyone actually subscribes to your POV at all. Your sockpuppet has been quiet ever since though, I'll give you that.

Nishiyama endorses' the legend (which has a very real historical basis as a monk from India, a dyana master is the patriarch of what would be the focal point of martial arts), your attempts to find people to beef up your list and try and make it sound like anyone actually takes this absurd revisionist claim seriously highlight your desperation. I've mentioned them as people who endorse the Bodhidharma legend. Next time I'll type out for everyone to see what he wrote, but since I steadfastly want non interference in your article, I've been refraining so far.

Attempts to mislead the reader by stating Susan Lynn Peterson have been allowed, assuming that the reader will judge for himself, the absymal taste of the citation once he navigates and will wonder what the hell does this have to do with anything:-

Legends of the Martial Arts Masters by Susan Lynn Peterson:-

"This exciting collection is made up of twenty dramatic adventures--with heroes ranging from Tamo, a monk who lived 1,500 years ago, to Robert Trias, who lived into the late 20th century. Filled with action, amazing feats, and martial arts wizardry, Legends of the Martial Arts Masters also promotes the virtues of discipline and courage to which martial artists aspire. The stories of how Gichin Funakoshi introduced karate to Japan, how Matsumura defeated a killer bull with guile instead of bloodshed, and how Musashi won a duel without drawing his sword will dazzle students of martial arts. Legends of the Martial Arts Masters is ideal for young readers interested in stories of courage, combat, and self-discovery."

Any further allowances will not be made. Freedom skies 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

this is becoming tiresome. In the book, susan lynn peterson is pretty emphatic in stating that these are children's stories and "legends", hence she uses the term. I think when people talk about "wizardry", amazing feats, and then mentions legends, it really has nothing to do with reality. Open up a dictionary. Regardless, I've written it as association to legend to make it neutral. Kennethtennyson 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the article for?

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)

The article was originally part of the Kalarippayattu article until it was split off by Kjrajesh into a separate article originally called Disputed history of Kalarippayattu.[4]

As for what the article is for, it was originally a response to certain editors who repeatedly presented, using sources either unnamed or unreliable, as undisputed fact that the East Asian martial arts come from kalarippayattu and, later, the Indian martial arts in general. It was at that point that I changed the title of the article to Indian origins of East Asian martial arts? with the question mark.
Bwithh changed the title to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts and Kennethtennyson to its present title.
JFD 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced text in italic

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)

That unsourced text in italic ultimately traces back to this edit.
The article in its current state is a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal.

Both were originally part of the Kalarippayattu page and were split off by Kjrajesh.[5]
JFD 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BBC citation

The article states that "In addition, reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, [46] the New York Times, [47][48] and the Discovery Channel [49] to name a few, have also rejected the revisionist claims."

But the BBC cite links to a 2004 news report of the film Kill Bill part 2, the only relevent part of which says:

"According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples."

Which doesn't support the allegation at all as it explicitly calls the story a legend. I am removing the BBC reference until a better source can be found. --MichaelMaggs 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesnt prove that this is a bad source.-Bharatveer 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Only that it doesn't support the material in question.

JFD 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the BBC .. has "rejected the revisionist claims". As I understand it, whoever wrote 'revisionist claims' intended it to mean 'claims that deny there was any Indian influence on Chinese martial arts'. The BBC Kill Bill page does not reject that stance; indeed if anything it appears to support it by explicitly calling the ku-fu-came-from-India story a legend rather than a fact. There may be other source which support your belief, but this one does not. You may like to consider revising the sentence to avoid the incorrect implication that "reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation" back up the out-of-India view. The cited page neither backs it up nor denies it; it simply calls it a "legend". --MichaelMaggs 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The BBC mention endorses the effect of Ta Mo not disputes it. The legend has been cited when the question of the origin of Shaolin arts appeared.

To quote the section in it's entire context:

Legend
The presence of such strong influences from just one city in so many films is remarkable - however it has surprising origins.
Keanu Reeves in The Matrix The Matrix series borrows heavily from China According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples.
But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe.
It is said that eventually he taught the moves to the members.
"They can't use actual fighting on stage, so they transform it into some kind of dance-like action," explained Hong Kong film archive programmer Law Kar.
"Then the Cantonese actors brought the tradition into Chinese cinema.
"So in early Cantonese cinema, in the 1960s and even in the 1970s, the scenes of fighting in films are in fact opera-stage fighting. They're not real kung fu."
Instead, the kung fu seen on screen is more balletic, and based on movement.
Cheng-Sim Lim said that this was what made it exciting on film - and why it had proved so influential.
"There is a clarity to the way they construct these scenes," she said.
"You don't just move the camera in a blur to suggest action - you actually show the action.
"That's what's so incredible, because you see people - even though they may be wearing wires and all that kind of stuff - you see the body in motion, and it's beautiful."

The "Legend" heading covers very well established facts about Kung Fu movies as well. In addition of providing Bodhidharma as a source of Shaolin martial arts. My own opinion on this might differ but the endorsement is clear. The legend section covers what the BBC has put forward as origins of sholin martial arts and then goes forward to the development of cinema further in the same section.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read the Kill Bill page through very carefully, and I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. You may be reading into it something I just don't see. Is my summary, above, of what you mean by 'revisionist' correct? Sorry if I'm just being thick, but can you please point out to me the exact words used in the Kill Bill article which demonstrate that the BBC "rejected the revisionist claims".--MichaelMaggs 10:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading use of word 'legendary' (to mean famous, or notable, or something similar?)

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)

Many martial artists have written about the subject. Out of those I have selected the few who are the most unmatched in their respective fields. Hence the use of legendary. Regards. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Duely noted. Will do in next session. I have to go out, Jog now. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies)

Reliance on New York Times web pages as sources

I have removed two web pages. The first linked to a non-public page that is accessible by registered users only. The second [6] 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)

The article endorses the legend instead of endorsing conflicting revisionist theories. Hence the idea of it being used as citable evidence of how when the history of Kung Fu is mentioned the historians point towards taditional claims instead of citing modern revisionist works.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta Mo?

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)

Ta Mo, Daruma, Dhamo, Buddhadharma are the names of Bodhidharma in various languages. Refer to Page 1 of Long Life; Good Health thru T'ai Chi: Through T'ai Chi Ch'uan by Simmone Kuo.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

bodhihdarma and martial arts article

you've come into the middle of a conversation, Michael. 2 years ago, there was this huge discussion where some wikipedians were stateing that bodhidharma came from india through southeast asia to china and spread kalaripayattu (an indian martial art) that ended up being a progenitor of shaolin kung fu. after much discussion, we wrote this article so that we wouldn't have to go through the arguments again. They were quoting a hindu or random websites online. they were using those claims on various articles. Freedom skies has written a competing article called "indian influence on chinese martial arts" Kennethtennyson 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to muck up anything you've been working on for ages, but it's strange that most of the careful refutations appear in the article Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection which, by its title, sounds less authoritative than Indian influence on Chinese martial arts. The latter is stuffed full of violently POV statements. Would it not be possible to tackle the main article and to let Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection die? Having two sound like a POV fork. The refutations also appear to be in reply to some statements that have not in themselves been sourced, which suggests to me I could add some citation-needed tags. But I'm not fully aware of the history here, as may be clear ... --MichaelMaggs 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately, i don't think freedom skies will accept any changes to his article. also the wording "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is sort of POV. What influence are we speaking of? religious vs. actual martial arts influence? in terms of martial arts influence, no one has been able to tie anything. Religious influence you can state if you were willing to use buddhism but then it only applies to one martial arts - shaolin kung fu. Most of the other martial arts do not have an influence. I actually like this article title. It also addresses a lot of questions in the martial arts community. Many parts of this article were part of other articles before freedom skies decided to delete vast sections from them. Our article has been there for years - before freedom skies came this year. Freedom skies created his article as a platform for his views. If you wish, editing "indian influence on chinese martial arts" might be better. Although i have a funny idea freedom skies will revert your changes. Kennethtennyson

uh, you're the one who always kept reverting the changes nonstop and started some huge war with freedom skies.--D-Boy 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

this article's title is awkward
its scope is identical to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
the two articles should be merged, preferably at some undisputed title (alleged Indian influence on Chinese martial arts?)
Freedom skies doesn't own either article. It's all a matter of WP:ATT and it should be straightforward to sort out among good faith editors. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

I'm adding a merge tag for now, but this should really be cleaned up and summarized in some neutral fashion asap. dab (𒁳) 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this merge issue before. The ironic thing is that this article existed about a full year before freedomskies wrote his article on the "foreign influence on chinese martial arts". The problem is that most of what freedom skies has written in his article takes a onesided view of the evolution of the martial arts whereas this article only addresses the bodhidharma issue. The other issue is that freedomskies doesn't seem to allow anyone to change his article outside of his scope of view. Currenlty, I favor not merging because this article only discusses bodhidharma whereas freedomskies articles goes on and on about other theories. Kennethtennyson 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)