Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bodhidharma: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:04, 17 November 2006 editFreedom skies (talk | contribs)4,714 edits →Edits← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:37, 2 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,469,323 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(815 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Bodhidharma|blp=no|1=
==Indian kallaripattam/Kalarippayattu was NOT precursor to East Asian Martial Arts==
{{WikiProject India|tamilnadu=yes|importance=mid}}
Kung Fu dates back to the Zhou and Shang Dynasties from 1111-500 BCE. Karate originated in China around 500 CE, and spread to Okinawa around 900 CE. Kalaripayattu was created around 1200 CE. Chinese martial arts predates Indian kallaripttam by more than 700 years.
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}
Also Taoist monks were practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi during the 500 BCE.
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Japan|myth=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|eastern=yes|religion=yes|metaphysics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(180d)
|counter = 4
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
}}


{{archives|search=yes}}


== What does "semi-legendary" mean? ==
"Kalaripayattu is thought to date from at least the 12th century CE, but may be older or more recent in origin, and likely developed around the region of Kerala where it is currently most widely practiced. Phillip B. Zarrilli, a professor at the University of Exeter and one of the few Western authorities on kalaripayattu, estimates that northern kalarippayattu dates back to at least the 12th century CE"


That term is used in the lead sentence, but it's unclear to me what it means or how it's sourced. It sounds like prose and seem inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Could someone clarify / tell me if I'm missing something? ] (]) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
"Shaolin monastery records name two monks—Huiguang and Sengchou—who were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma. Sengchou's skill with the tin staff is even documented in the Chinese Buddhist canon"


:same thing, came here to start discussion on it.
-intranetusa
:word semi legendary is like 'semi-existence' , which is an oxymoron, which is used to dilute his historical background. ] (]) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
::Concerning {{tq|it sounds like prose}} I don't think that's the right word, as all of the text in the prose is ]. As far as "semi-legendary" I'm not sure if that's the right word to use or not but it's not an oxymoron, as it's being used to describe a person where there is agreement among scholars that the person existed, but a lot or most of what is known of them is attested in ] (hence semi-legendary, what we know is a mix of what scholars consider both legend and historically accurate). This is similar to how ] is semi-legendary, contrasted to ] who is considered fully legendary, and ] whose historicity is not in any serious dispute. - ] (]) 03:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::My bad, I meant ''creative'' prose, as in non-encyclopedic, creative writing. ]<sup> ], ]</sup> 14:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I also was confused by the term "semi-legendary", but this is a matter of English usage. There are ways of conveying uncertainty without using this term. Accordingly, I modified the lede slightly to eliminate the term. Respectfully ] (]) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::My change was quickly reverted ostensibly because my revision was considered to be ambiguous as well. Still the term "semi-legendary" is unnecessary. ] (]) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
Slightly? You changed
{{talkquote|
'''Bodhidharma ''' was a semi-legendary ] who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ], and is regarded as its first Chinese ].}}
into
{{talkquote|'''Bodhidharma ''' was a ] who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE who is believed to be the transmitter of ] to ]. He is also regarded as its first Chinese ].}}
* I don't see the problem with "semi-legendary." He may or may not have existed; we can't know for sure, and it doesn't really matter; it's the legendary stories which are relevant for Zen;
* "Believed" is a weaselword; who "believes" so? Is this transmission a historiv fact? What's relevant is that he is ''credited'' with this transmission;
* "also"; no, not "also"; attributed transmission and legendary first patriarch are a cloth of one piece.
We're not talking about history here, we're talking here about legends and narratives. But the legends and narratives as subjects in themselves are historical artifacts, and most relevant to the self-understanding of the Zen-tradition. ] - ] 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


:Wow Joshua. I'not talking of history, or legends and narratives, I'm talking of English usage for a term I found and others found others found to be less than clear. I did not revert your revision. Respectfully, ] (]) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{WP India|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}}
I was told that in the state of Kerela in India, people practice some kind of martial art for centuries. This form of martial arts resembles Kung Fu and Karate. It would be nice if someone from India can expand on this because this form of martial art might have been the grandfather of all kung fu.


::Apologies, somewhat grumpy; in two days three disruptive editors I interacted with blocked. ] - ] 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there any research to tie Qigong to Indian meditation techniques such as Yoga?
----
Greetings,


== Chinese characters for Bodhidharma ==
There is a fair amount of archaeological evidence which many think shows qigong and the Chinese martial arts predating the arrival of Buddhism in China. 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.


菩提達磨 Putidamo : traditional characters with Pinyin used for pronunciation. He is called Damo because a personal name is usually, but not always, the last two characters of a name with the first one or two being their xing so in a sense it can be seen as the name Puti Damo. This is a transliteration of the term into Chinese. Chinese names can be complicated. ] (]) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
] 03:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
----
''I was told that in the state of Kerela in India, people practice some kind of martial art for centuries. This form of martial arts resembles Kung Fu and Karate. It would be nice if someone from India can expand on this because this form of martial art might have been the grandfather of all kung fu.''


== How the word Barbarian is added ==
Yes it is called kallaripattam, it is mentioned in the article. As Firestar mentions below, there must have been native martial arts in China before Tamo. There was also a lot of exchange between coastal India and China other than the silk route, so there are possiblities of mutual influnences.
--] 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I having seen that the word barbarian whose chinese letter can also be translated in english as Foreign,Foreigner,etc. But it is added as something that cause misconceptions and that should be corrected.THANK YOU. ] (]) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


:{{yo|Foristslow|Likes Thai Food}} thoughts? ] - ] 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
''Is there any research to tie Qigong to Indian meditation techniques such as Yoga?''
::I believe the original sense should be retained. The question is, what was the original sense? In the Platform Sutra, Hongren uses a slur for barbarian when addressing Huineng. In the Platform Sutra at least, it is likely that its author intended for the word to be derogatory. It's not that I am promoting the use of slurs. But I do think we have a responsibility to accurately show the way in which the tradition historically used these terms. ] (]) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
<br>Not sure about this one. Though, it is an interesting study area. The concept of life force and points (chakras) are consistent in both China and India.
::The character eludes to someone that has no restraint, so historically the underpinning principal translation will change depending on social religious and political position. So at this point it is really about what is the purpose of this article a) historical being early reference to phenomenon outside of Chinese influence and opinions held in history or b) education. As this is considered Dharma I adhere to tradition with a note explaining context for education. Hope this helps.🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 ] (]) 00:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
--] 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----
Hi, I'm form the german wikipedia, so my english is not so well ;o). I mentioned that in this article sometimes Wade-Giles is used and sometimes Pinyin. It would be better only to use one of tihis transscriptions. Greetings-] 14:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
----
Unfortunately, many practioners of the Indian martial art of kalarippayat are claiming that they are the forefathers of Chinese Shaolin Kung Fu. This is unfortunate, because no evidence exists that shows that kalarippayat existed before Shaolin Kung Fu and they are casting historical doubt on their own rich history. The martial art in the state of Kerala was practically dead before a few years ago and hadn't been practiced since the 1800's. The earliest historical written evidence dates from a Portuguese traveler who noted that around the 16th century members of the state of Kerala were practicing a holistic/ayurvedic/dance/martial arts system and that the locals stated that it had been practiced since the 13th century.


== Birth and death dates == == Lead image ==
What are our sources for Bodhidharma's birth and death dates?


{{yo|JGallagher83}} why do you want to change the lead-image? ] - ] 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I've established a ballpark for each primary source based on the chronology therein. For death dates anyway.


== Chan Buddhism. ==
Beyond speculation about the Heyin executions, does any of the other main sources say outright that Bodhidharma died in 528? Does ANY source say that he died in 528 rather than merely speculating that he died in the Heyin executions in 528?
===Arbitrary header #1===
please explain why when you know the history that you would negate all other pre-existing forms of Buddhist's culture and jump straight to a later evolution, there is no reference for the Shaolin edit. The first recognised Abbott of the temple was Batuo Buddhabhadra a Chinese monk that had indian heritage(but was Chinese- so binary in ideas to say he is indian) and as legend has it he was trained in the indigenous arts of qigong and taoist baguazhang, zingyiquan for the emperor's cort. As the Chinese Emperor was the benefactor of the temple, that would make sense right, Verse funding a foreign munk ???. ] (]) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


:Taoism influenced Chan Buddhism in many ways, including the incorporation of the concept of non-duality and the adoption of the idea of an "empty-mind":
Also, where are we getting 440 as a birth year from?
:'''Non-duality'''
:The concept of "emptiness depending on matter" and "matter depending on emptiness" is a Taoist concept that was incorporated into Chan Buddhism in its early days.
:'''Empty-mind'''
:The "empty-mind" goal of Zazen is a Chan concept that is rooted in the Taoist sage's identification with nature and going with the flow.
:'''Syncretism'''
:There was extensive syncretism between Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Taoism, including the adoption of the Taoist Lo Shu Square and the I Ching in the Mandala of the Two Realms.
:Two schools of thought Some scholars believe that Chan Buddhism developed from the interaction between Taoism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. Others believe that Chan has roots in yogic practices. In any case Taoism and Buddhism were both postering for kings favour over Confucianisms and the remnants of legalism. ] (]) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Shaolin is attributed, and sourced in the body. Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's ''viewed''. ] - ] 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Here is one western reference Only part but to the point and there are lots more
:::One of the most recently invented and familiar of the Shaolin historical narratives is a story that claims that the Indian monk Bodhidharma, the supposed founder of Chinese Chan (Zen) Buddhism, introduced boxing into the monastery as a form of exercise around a.d. 525. This story first appeared in a popular novel, The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907. This story was quickly picked up by others and spread rapidly through publication in a popular contemporary boxing manual, Secrets of Shaolin Boxing Methods, and the first Chinese physical culture history published in 1919. As a result, it has enjoyed vast oral circulation and is one of the most "sacred" of the narratives shared within Chinese and Chinese-derived martial arts. That this story is clearly a twentieth-century invention is confirmed by writings going back at least 250 years earlier
:::12]Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
:::Or Dr William cc Huo translated the Yijin Jing in Chinese talking about qi(Chinese) not prana (indian) no mention of India involvment. Talking about Taoist longevity and and and... exactly what I have read. What we are talking about to the best of our knowledge facts. And the only way this is done here is by reliable and credible sources being tricky about viewed or blind is miss leading. He is not by credible sources a real historical figure and you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero, and at the same time completely negating and marginalising real historical monk/public health figures figures that should be attributed to their deeds and historical influence, Societal health through religion or philosophy is nothing that should be misrepresented. Looking forward to talking more, best to set things straight, best wishes ] (]) 19:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Here is the link again let's discuss this first thanks https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false ] (]) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
] is required; the mess you're creating is painfull. Your latest edits contain a number of errors:
* addition of "fictional" to "semi-legendary": unsourced, and conflicting with "semi-legendary";
* "In martial arts pop culture, He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ], and is regarded as its first Chinese ], an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called ''The Travels of Lao T'san''," - Bodhidharma is regarded by the ''Chan-tradition'' as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years;
* "an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called ''The Travels of Lao T'san'', published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century ] manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic Yijin Jing" - grammatically incorrect; was the novel published in the Yijin Jing? And what exactly is "debunked" with regard to the Yijin Jing?
* "This fictional character" - again, unsourced;
* Changed "His name means "''dharma'' of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" into "was named after the Buddhist word "''dharma'' of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" - named after a Buddhist word?...
* "According to the '''fiction''' principal Chinese sources" - unsourced; grammatically incorrect;
* "'''B'''rahmin lineage" - source does not use a capital;
* "essence"<nowiki><ref>{{Cite book |last=Rinpoche |first=Thrangu |title=On Buddha Essence |date=2006 |publisher=Shambhala |isbn=9781590302767}}</ref></nowiki> - ]; MaRae writes "True Nature."
* Regarding {{tq|you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero}}, that is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read here at Misplaced Pages.
] - ] 05:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


:Ok wow Joshua, can you help to put get this on track. Your fix was not so eloquent. My comments are ment to be humorous as you have a lot of experience. I think the point is that it needs to be pointed out right at the start that it is fictional to the reader. Your comment above that "Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years". Is from the evidence maybe not that is not so true. There are many more credible sources that I have to back up this claim. I do not see much to back up what was there for you to be so defensive.The Chinese author of the Work Yijin Jing bring reference to Bodhidharma has been debunked by academic scrutiny and that puts into question the Shao lin conection, so that is where the "fictional" principal Chinese authors is coming from and that had no citation to begin with. And the reference towards true nature is not a statement but is used in the reference in the spirit and context of " the true nature of the beast..." so the essence of Buddha nature is less confusing and has thousands more references than just the one that you can find to kind of push your pov on that subject. Maybe instead of sitting in the sidelines waiting to find fault you could help out with the grammar. Kind Regards ] (]) 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
] 08:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::You seriously want to argue that the Chan-traditiin does not regard Bodhidharma as it's founder? Looking forward to your sources for such a statement... ] - ] 10:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
----
:::Ok Joshua, here is what you said above "Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here: Joshua Jonathan.
There is this text block on this page..
:::I have never said that Bodhidharma wasn't recognised by some sects within the Chan styled movement.It is that he is fictional. So from your previous response we agree that him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with. Nextthe Yijin Jing manual that is the evidence for the claim that he had a large part of the development of Shao Lin Kung Fu. Can we agree from evidence that this manual being of India origin is also debunked?. ] (]) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>Unfortunately, many practioners of the Indian martial art of kalarippayat are claiming that they are the forefathers of Chinese Shaolin Kung Fu. This is unfortunate, because no evidence exists that shows that kalarippayat existed before Shaolin Kung Fu and they are casting historical doubt on their own rich history. The martial art in the state of Kerala was practically dead before a few years ago and hadn't been practiced since the 1800's. The earliest historical written evidence dates from a Portuguese traveler who noted that around the 16th century members of the state of Kerala were practicing a holistic/ayurvedic/dance/martial arts system and that the locals stated that it had been practiced since the 13th century.</blockquote>
::::No, we don't agree that {{tq|him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with}}, and we certainly don't agee that he is a fictional character. I've already noted that "fictional" is unsourced; nevertheless, you've re-added it. Your edits are ]. {{yo|Bishonen|Doug Weller}} would one of you be able to explaain to this editor that they are crossing lines here? Thanks, ] - ] 14:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


===Arbitrary header #2===
Jai - I agree with writer, but I have few questions - I myself a decendant of the worrier family,
More regarding your most recent reverts:
I got some hints from my grandfather in 1975 about how a man can be killed within seconds
* : moved back nav-boxes to article sections, without explanation; these belong in the lead;
without using the any wepons. These hints came again in my reading in 1985 from a kung fu book. By the time grandfather was dead. My grandfather had never seen any CITY area and he was expert in Swords and Knives technically but he never read any book for his knowledge. He got all his knowledge from his forefathers. He was 'pahlwan', (In india a wrestler is called as 'pahlwan')Some times I feel that the 'pahlwan' word notification was out come of 'Pallava' word. This 'Pallava' word represent the South Indian Kings(Dynasty). As from folklore the kings of this dynasty were product of the a man who was very expert in fight without a wepon.
* :
:* changed
::{{talkquote|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ]}}
::into
::{{talkquote|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ]}}
::Obviously a big error, and no explanation provided;
:* changed correct link ] into incorrect link ];
* , edit-summary {{tq|Please to talk page, the edits are supported with reference for claims. More than what was there initially.}} reinserted a number of errors:
:* Changed
::{{talkquote|was a semi-legendary ]}}
::into
::{{talkquote|Is a semi-legendary fictional ]}}
::Grammatical error, and "fictional" is unsourced, as noted before,
:* Changed
::{{talkquote|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ], and is regarded as its first Chinese ]. He is also popularly regarded as the founder of ],{{sfn|Shahar|2008|pp=165–173}}{{sfn|Lin|1996|p=183}} an idea popularized in the 20th century based on the 17th century ].{{sfn|Shahar|2008|pp=165–173}}{{sfn|Henning|1994}}{{sfn|Henning|Green|2001|p=129}}}}
::into
::{{talkquote|In martial arts pop culture,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Henning, Stan |first=Stan |title=Folklore in the Martial Arts |url=https://buddhism007.tistory.com/m/entry/%EB%8B%AC%EB%A7%88cf}}</ref> He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ], and is regarded as its first Chinese ], an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called ''The Travels of Lao T'san'',<ref>{{Cite book |last=T'ieh-Yun |first=Liu |title=The travels of Lao T s'an |date=1971 |publisher=Cornell University Press}}</ref> published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century ] manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic ].{{sfn|Shahar|2008|pp=165–173}}{{sfn|Henning|1994}}{{sfn|Henning|Green|2001|p=129}}}}
{{reflist-talk}}
::* The link for Stan Henning goes to a page which copies this Misplaced Pages-page...
::* {{tq|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ]}} should be {{tq|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of ]; a leftover from another one of your edits;
::* {{tq|In martial arts pop culture He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of ] to ]}} - as noted before, in the ''Chan tradition'' he is regarded as the one who transmitted ''Chan'' from India to China; what you're writing her eis complete nonsense, and not supported by your source;
::* Bodhidharma is not the first patriarch of Chinese Budddhism, but of Chan Buddhism;
::* {{tq|an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called ''The Travels of Lao T'san'' published in a debunked 17th century ] manual}} - as noted before, ''The Travels of Lao T'san'' was not published in the ''Yijin Jing'';
:* {{tq|This fictional character of Bodhidharma}} - again, "fictional" is unsourced;
:* "affectionately" according to which source?
:* {{tq|named after the Buddhist word "'']'' of awakening (])"}} - as noted before, Bodhidharma was not "named after" this word; "dharma of awakening" is what "Bodhidharma" ''means'';
:* "fictional Chinese sources" - which source says that these Chinese sources are "fictional"?;
:* "'''B'''rahmin lineage" - the soyrce doesn't use a capital B, as noted before;
:* "true nature of reality" was changed in "true essence"; as noted before, McRae uses "true nature."
Obviously, you completed ignored my previous comments, to reinstate a number of changes comprised of multiple mistakes. This is ] in multiple regards. ] - ] 18:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


::Hi Joshua, ok wow, please read what I have said above, the only reason I appear to have ignored your message is one that I was waiting for you to add something constructive and two you are being aggressive. You need to understand that you are having a bit of cognitive dissonance. Again you are ignoring your words
== ATTN: 66.82.9.82 ==
::"Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questionable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's viewed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)"
Does the explicit association of Bodhidharma with the Shaolin temple appear in the "Jingde chuandeng lu" (1004) only, or does it also appear in the earlier "Zutangji" (952)?</br>I was under the impression that the latter was included verbatim in the former.</br>] 17:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::On page just under the lead information this is what is written.
::"Little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend and unreliable details"
::Historical negativism is not good as the monk Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 was the first Abbott, it was his students that ended up in the Chinese Buddhist's cannon for martial arts achievement and not Bodhidharma's influence.
::And second the link between him and the Yijin Jing is debunked so that is the link between him and the Shaolin temple debunked.
::I have read it myself and the copy that is considered authentic has Chinese medical terminology and is Taoist in origin and not Vedic medicine. Here is a quick link and it makes reference to other more credible versions.
::William C. C. Hu (1965), , Black Belt (journal)
::Please for those that are trained in it as "I am" it is very obviously Chinese and don't get me wrong Indian Vedic medicine has a lot to offer but is not here in this manual. Although you s em very passionate about this page I am only trying to rectify the misinformation with referenced material and recognised historical context by understanding the implications of the Chinese cultural revolution as Shao Lin temple was closed and training forbidden. So what changed in its reopening and who became their benefactors???.
::] (]) 05:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


:::There's no "misinformation" to rectify here. Bodhidharma is ''regarded'' by the Chan-tradition as it's founder. That's not a statement of fact; that's a statement of belief (which, as such, is a fact). Nuanced tretises of the history of Chan can be found at ] and ]; the Bodhidharma-page is not the place for detailing the history of Chan/Zen.
=="Second Buddha", Bodhidharma==
:::Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu: that too is a ''beief''; the lead does not pretend otherwise. ] - ] 05:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
A large block of text has been added by the same user, under different names, the last one being ]. I see three major issues.<br>
::::Understand Jonathan, but my interest is not in faith but truth. This is a encyclopaedia when information is there we should consider it and bring balance to the page. Chinese history is open to scrutiny especially after the Chinese cultural revolution and with industrialization, History of all religions should be questions including Chan's. I have supplied more initial references to question the authenticity of this semi/legendary personality and the conection to Shao Lin Kung Fu. Also I am not sure but some of the edits that are listed above aren't my mistakes. ] (]) 05:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
1) The whole text seems to be geared to presenting Bodhidharma as the "Second Buddha", a claim which, as far as I can see on Internet can only be found on a Karate forum. Furthermore, the "Second Buddha" title is usually attributed to ], and sometimes ] or some Tibetan masters. The presentation of Bodhidharma as the "second Buddha" is at best marginal (references needed), and could only deserve a smaller treatment, not a presentation as mainstream knowledge.<br>
:::::I'll check Shahar again. ] - ] 08:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
2) The second issue is that the whole block of text has been dumped into the article, without any consideration to the pre-existing article structure. As a results, several elements of the life of Bodhidharma are repeated several times in the article (like the ''Tea'' story). Any additions are welcome, but they have to improve on existing material, not just stand as a parallel story.<br>
::::::hi not confident that I understand the meaning of Shahar, please explain Joshua ] (]) 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3) Lastly, the tone is often un-encyclopedic and POV (eg: "Bodhidharma was an extraordinary spiritual being").<br>
:::::::Shahar (2008); see the sources. It contains a link to the book itself, which can be accessed; p.164 (or 166) to 172. It's very interesting, especially the last two pages. Regards, ] - ] 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
As it stands, unless major improvements are introduced, this block deserves to be challenged by other editors.] 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::thankyou Jonathan ] (]) 07:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I did; the attribution of Shaolin martial arts stems from the Yijin Jing, and has even older roots in the daoist association of ''daoyin'' gymnastics with Bodhidharma. ] - ] 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::did you look at the link to a article that i have include above thanks we can start there and move forward as a starting point? ] (]) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Here is the link again https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false ] (]) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


===Buddha-nature/essence===
==Vandal==
Also think Looked at the reference for True Nature, quick question why are you so stuck on including True nature over or beside Buddha nature on multiple pages when it is historically a very obscure definition ?. ] (]) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Repeated copyrighted-violations by flying-account vandal ], ], ], ], ], ]. The copyrighted text is from . Article ] is also complete copyright violation from the same source. Repeated usage of abusive language against Wikipedians. User block requested. ] 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:Because that's what McRae writes; if we use a source, we follow that source. In this case, "Ultimate Principle," "True Nature," and "Buddha-nature" are synonyms. NB: "true nature of reality" also was not exactly what McRae wrote; he 'simply' writes about Buddha-nature. 'Simply' because, of course, it's a very complicated term to 'translate' in a western idiom. Thrangu Rinpoche uses the term "Buddha essence (), but of course "essence" has 'essential' connotations, that is, eternalism. A never-ending discussion. The term "Buddha-essence" may be relevant for the ] page, but that page really needs to be edited very carefully, due to the necessary nuances and subtleties. gives a long list of possible meanings/translations for snying po; "essence" is just one of them. Regards, ] - ] 07:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::Do you have the Chinese characters that he translated ?. ] (]) 07:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
==Jai==
:::Augh... I'll try to find it. ] - ] 08:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
----
:::Nope, but I'll bet it's 佛性; see ]. Red Pine, ''The Zen teaching of Bodhidharma'', contains the Chinese text; see . Red Pine also translates "true nature. ] - ] 08:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Bodhidharma's father can not be Brahmin as he was a prince of Pallava dynasty and who learned self defense tact or martial art from his father's (Kings) school. As these war tact were used by the worriers in wars.
::::what great characters, I love the language, the language is polymorphic meaning we will choose meaning based on our stages of life. In traditional character representation the truth can never be hidden or misinterpreted, not the way the western language can. If nature is what you wish to go with then, so it is. But consider this that this speaks more about the author than the truth of the character. Essence is a better translation because you can't go past that in this world, therefore the foundational building blocks from there on, and therefore less chance of doing harm. ] (]) 01:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a word ‘pahlwan’ used for wrestlers in India. This directly represents the Pallava dynasty ruler’s ways to fight the war.

We can see the WWF on TV channels as free-form of wrestling. We can expect that the similar kind of tact may have been popular by that time.
------
== Caste background ==
No, there is no caste in Buddhism. And royalty are generally associated with the Kshatriya caste. But it is a ] fact that Daoxuan says that Bodhidharma's father was Brahmin. Whether that was truly the case or not is up for debate; what the text itself says is not.<br>] 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Dates of birth/death ==

''One proposed set of birth and death dates is c. ]&ndash;]; another is c. ]&ndash;].''

Where in the heck did these come from again? ] 05:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==we should preface the title with legendary or semi=legendary==
the last time i checked most encyclopedias they either prefaced his title with legendary or sem-legendary. to state that he is credited with founding zen implies that everyone believes that he existed and that he did found zen when the former is not true] 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Lead paragraph ==

Hi JFD. Over the last few weeks you've gradually whittled away at the lead paragraph, and it's gone down from some 60 words at the beginning of the month to 12 today. In your last edit you've reduced it to 7, and we seem to be heading fast to having no lead para at all at this rate. Was there a particular reason for removing the reference to B. being a Buddhist monk? That seems pretty uncontraversial, I'd have thought, and helpful to a reader coming across the subject for the first time. Admittedly, the actual expression 'Buddhist' is fairly new, and Western, but isn't that how we would now accurately describe what he was said to have been? --] 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:With most (but not all) articles I edit, I try to keep the opening sentence or paragraph as parsimonious as possible to give a new reader the subject "in a nutshell" as it were. Heaven knows I can't always get it down to "''x'' is ''y''" but where I can, I try to.

:Hence, for example, the box format at the top right. If Bodhidharma's name were given in only one or maybe even two foreign languages, then it wouldn't interrupt the opening sentence too much. But four languages plus two transliteration systems? So I moved that stuff to the right where it doesn't interrupt the sentence and the reader can refer to it if required.

:It wasn't a semantic or "political" thing as much as it was a brevity and concision thing. If I stepped on anyone's toes, I'm sorry. ] 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. And I fully agree with the intent to keep things concise and to keep the transliterations away from the main text and in the box. I'd have thought that '''''Bodhidharma''' is the legendary ] monk credited as the founder of ]'' says what it needs to pretty well. Would you object if I put the sentence back to that version? --] 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:Not in the least but, if you could, please leave the footnote for "legendary" in there. Thanks. ] 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--] 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== semi-legendary ==

Presumbly the intent behind introducing the expression 'semi-legendary' into the lead paragraph was that we don't actually know whether Bodhidharma is legendary or not. But, using 'semi' to imply that is poor English. 'Semi' does not mean 'unknown', it means 'half'. We could say 'of unknown historicity', but that would be rather clumsy. I suggest we simply leave it as 'legendary', and explain in the subsequent text that there is some controversy about whether he actually existed or not.--] 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:Modified the intro (which is still too brief, I think), and shifted the controversial reference to the "Biography" section. In Buddhist '''tradition''', his existence is never in doubt, though details may differ. Hope that is some improvement.] 09:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

::Looks good to me.--] 09:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm just tired of the "edit war" between established and anonymous users who put either "legendary" or "semi-legendary" or "mythological". An agreement needs to be reached. It is for these edit wars that I have problems with citing wikipedia as a trusted reference. I feel sorry for the kid that uses this page to do research for his/her school project. It changes every single day! And a tiny word like legendary or mythological could seriously change the outcome of their paper. (] 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

The "war" seems to be back - not that anyone really wants or needs it.
For me, an intro can and should include basic details like '''who, what, where and when''' etc.
It's not like these details differ much (if at all) according to the accounts in the main sections.
The intro must do what it is supposed to do - give a quick summary of what is most significant in that person's life, presented in a way that is easily understandable to someone unacquainted with the subject. Not every casual reader will bother to go through all the detailed accounts, and extract from those the '''non-controversial''' details.
Come to think of it - "Zen" isn't even the most accurate description of what he (was supposed to have) founded. ] 08:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Meaning of Dumouline quotation, and relevance to historicity in lead paragraphs ==

A little while ago, 202.20.5.206 edited the lead paragraph to cite Dumoulin as "arguing that Bodhidharma was an entirely fictional character".

The Dumoulin quote referred to ''(“it is legend we are dealing with here, not only because of the total lack of reliable historical data but also because of the very evident motives that lie behind the story”)'' doesn't support this statement. The quoted text follows Dumoulin's discussion of the story of the robe and the begging bowl, and he seems to be using ''"the legend"'' to refer to this (and other) stories about Bodhidharma's life, rather than implying that Bodhidharma himself was legendary. Admittedly the quote is rather ambiguous, at least in this English translation, but at line 7 of the next page Dumouline clearly accepts Bodhidharma's historicity when he says that ''"There are solid historical grounds for arguing that Bodhidharma was not really as original as legend would have it"''. Again, the word 'legend' is used to refer to stories about Bodhidharma and not about Bodhidharma himself.

I will make an appropriate correction to the article.--] 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

----
Freedom Skies: I take issue with your labelling my edit as "vandalism". I may be useless, but I do not vandalise. I would appreciate an apology. Anyway, before we launch into a stupid edit war, let me point out where you are mistaken.
Differing views about an issue doesn't necessarily make it "negationism" - whatever that means to you. In a democracy with freedom of thought and freedom of expression, it is only normal that people disagree about many things. Only in a authoritarian/fascist state is everyone expected to conform. If this counts as "negationism", then most articles in Misplaced Pages will require a "negationism" section. That is plainly '''absurd'''. Do we really need to be so confrontational?
Having conflicting sources about someone is not the same as denying that that person exists. Surely this is obvious to you?
And saying that the traditional account is "legendary" (as borne out by numerous sources like Britannica - please note correct spelling) is not the same as saying the person does not exist - it merely means that the popular story is not accurate.
And even if one doubts the historicity of the person in question, that does not make him a "negationist", or whatever, if he has good grounds for his belief.
So, '''before''' you go about reverting, kindly let us know what you think '''here''', first. ] 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Edits==
*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.

] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits again as your comments above aren't what I'd call a discussion - merely a bald statement of what you have done. Which I and others disagree with. May I suggest you post here your thinking behind the edits you want to introduce, and see what the consesnsus of the community is? --] 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh - while I was writing this I see that Nat Krause has done it for me.--] 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

: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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 03:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:37, 2 January 2025

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIndia: Tamil Nadu Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu.
WikiProject iconChina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBuddhism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconJapan: Mythology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:14, January 2, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Mythology task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Religion / Eastern High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Metaphysics
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

What does "semi-legendary" mean?

That term is used in the lead sentence, but it's unclear to me what it means or how it's sourced. It sounds like prose and seem inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Could someone clarify / tell me if I'm missing something? Actualcpscm (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

same thing, came here to start discussion on it.
word semi legendary is like 'semi-existence' , which is an oxymoron, which is used to dilute his historical background. Afv12e (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Concerning it sounds like prose I don't think that's the right word, as all of the text in the prose is prose. As far as "semi-legendary" I'm not sure if that's the right word to use or not but it's not an oxymoron, as it's being used to describe a person where there is agreement among scholars that the person existed, but a lot or most of what is known of them is attested in legends (hence semi-legendary, what we know is a mix of what scholars consider both legend and historically accurate). This is similar to how Ragnar Lodbrok is semi-legendary, contrasted to Sveigðir who is considered fully legendary, and Sweyn Forkbeard whose historicity is not in any serious dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
My bad, I meant creative prose, as in non-encyclopedic, creative writing. Actualcpscm 14:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I also was confused by the term "semi-legendary", but this is a matter of English usage. There are ways of conveying uncertainty without using this term. Accordingly, I modified the lede slightly to eliminate the term. Respectfully Tachyon (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
My change was quickly reverted ostensibly because my revision was considered to be ambiguous as well. Still the term "semi-legendary" is unnecessary. Tachyon (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Slightly? You changed diff

Bodhidharma was a semi-legendary Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch.

into

Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE who is believed to be the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China. He is also regarded as its first Chinese patriarch.

  • I don't see the problem with "semi-legendary." He may or may not have existed; we can't know for sure, and it doesn't really matter; it's the legendary stories which are relevant for Zen;
  • "Believed" is a weaselword; who "believes" so? Is this transmission a historiv fact? What's relevant is that he is credited with this transmission;
  • "also"; no, not "also"; attributed transmission and legendary first patriarch are a cloth of one piece.

We're not talking about history here, we're talking here about legends and narratives. But the legends and narratives as subjects in themselves are historical artifacts, and most relevant to the self-understanding of the Zen-tradition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow Joshua. I'not talking of history, or legends and narratives, I'm talking of English usage for a term I found and others found others found to be less than clear. I did not revert your revision. Respectfully, Tachyon (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, somewhat grumpy; in two days three disruptive editors I interacted with blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters for Bodhidharma

菩提達磨 Putidamo : traditional characters with Pinyin used for pronunciation. He is called Damo because a personal name is usually, but not always, the last two characters of a name with the first one or two being their xing so in a sense it can be seen as the name Puti Damo. This is a transliteration of the term into Chinese. Chinese names can be complicated. 2600:1700:DE60:3320:A196:ADD7:56EE:7127 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

How the word Barbarian is added

I having seen that the word barbarian whose chinese letter can also be translated in english as Foreign,Foreigner,etc. But it is added as something that cause misconceptions and that should be corrected.THANK YOU. 2409:40C4:3010:97AA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foristslow and Likes Thai Food: thoughts? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe the original sense should be retained. The question is, what was the original sense? In the Platform Sutra, Hongren uses a slur for barbarian when addressing Huineng. In the Platform Sutra at least, it is likely that its author intended for the word to be derogatory. It's not that I am promoting the use of slurs. But I do think we have a responsibility to accurately show the way in which the tradition historically used these terms. Likes Thai Food (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The character eludes to someone that has no restraint, so historically the underpinning principal translation will change depending on social religious and political position. So at this point it is really about what is the purpose of this article a) historical being early reference to phenomenon outside of Chinese influence and opinions held in history or b) education. As this is considered Dharma I adhere to tradition with a note explaining context for education. Hope this helps.🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

@JGallagher83: why do you want to change the lead-image? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Chan Buddhism.

Arbitrary header #1

please explain why when you know the history that you would negate all other pre-existing forms of Buddhist's culture and jump straight to a later evolution, there is no reference for the Shaolin edit. The first recognised Abbott of the temple was Batuo Buddhabhadra a Chinese monk that had indian heritage(but was Chinese- so binary in ideas to say he is indian) and as legend has it he was trained in the indigenous arts of qigong and taoist baguazhang, zingyiquan for the emperor's cort. As the Chinese Emperor was the benefactor of the temple, that would make sense right, Verse funding a foreign munk ???. ] (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Taoism influenced Chan Buddhism in many ways, including the incorporation of the concept of non-duality and the adoption of the idea of an "empty-mind":
Non-duality
The concept of "emptiness depending on matter" and "matter depending on emptiness" is a Taoist concept that was incorporated into Chan Buddhism in its early days.
Empty-mind
The "empty-mind" goal of Zazen is a Chan concept that is rooted in the Taoist sage's identification with nature and going with the flow.
Syncretism
There was extensive syncretism between Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Taoism, including the adoption of the Taoist Lo Shu Square and the I Ching in the Mandala of the Two Realms.
Two schools of thought Some scholars believe that Chan Buddhism developed from the interaction between Taoism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. Others believe that Chan has roots in yogic practices. In any case Taoism and Buddhism were both postering for kings favour over Confucianisms and the remnants of legalism. Foristslow (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Shaolin is attributed, and sourced in the body. Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's viewed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is one western reference Only part but to the point and there are lots more
One of the most recently invented and familiar of the Shaolin historical narratives is a story that claims that the Indian monk Bodhidharma, the supposed founder of Chinese Chan (Zen) Buddhism, introduced boxing into the monastery as a form of exercise around a.d. 525. This story first appeared in a popular novel, The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907. This story was quickly picked up by others and spread rapidly through publication in a popular contemporary boxing manual, Secrets of Shaolin Boxing Methods, and the first Chinese physical culture history published in 1919. As a result, it has enjoyed vast oral circulation and is one of the most "sacred" of the narratives shared within Chinese and Chinese-derived martial arts. That this story is clearly a twentieth-century invention is confirmed by writings going back at least 250 years earlier
12]Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
Or Dr William cc Huo translated the Yijin Jing in Chinese talking about qi(Chinese) not prana (indian) no mention of India involvment. Talking about Taoist longevity and and and... exactly what I have read. What we are talking about to the best of our knowledge facts. And the only way this is done here is by reliable and credible sources being tricky about viewed or blind is miss leading. He is not by credible sources a real historical figure and you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero, and at the same time completely negating and marginalising real historical monk/public health figures figures that should be attributed to their deeds and historical influence, Societal health through religion or philosophy is nothing that should be misrepresented. Looking forward to talking more, best to set things straight, best wishes Foristslow (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is the link again let's discuss this first thanks https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false Foristslow (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE is required; the mess you're creating is painfull. Your latest edits diff contain a number of errors:

  • addition of "fictional" to "semi-legendary": unsourced, and conflicting with "semi-legendary";
  • "In martial arts pop culture, He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch, an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san," - Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years;
  • "an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century Qigong manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic Yijin Jing" - grammatically incorrect; was the novel published in the Yijin Jing? And what exactly is "debunked" with regard to the Yijin Jing?
  • "This fictional character" - again, unsourced;
  • Changed "His name means "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" into "was named after the Buddhist word "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" - named after a Buddhist word?...
  • "According to the fiction principal Chinese sources" - unsourced; grammatically incorrect;
  • "Brahmin lineage" - source does not use a capital;
  • "essence"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rinpoche |first=Thrangu |title=On Buddha Essence |date=2006 |publisher=Shambhala |isbn=9781590302767}}</ref> - WP:SYNTHESIS; MaRae writes "True Nature."
  • Regarding you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero, that is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read here at Misplaced Pages.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok wow Joshua, can you help to put get this on track. Your fix was not so eloquent. My comments are ment to be humorous as you have a lot of experience. I think the point is that it needs to be pointed out right at the start that it is fictional to the reader. Your comment above that "Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years". Is from the evidence maybe not that is not so true. There are many more credible sources that I have to back up this claim. I do not see much to back up what was there for you to be so defensive.The Chinese author of the Work Yijin Jing bring reference to Bodhidharma has been debunked by academic scrutiny and that puts into question the Shao lin conection, so that is where the "fictional" principal Chinese authors is coming from and that had no citation to begin with. And the reference towards true nature is not a statement but is used in the reference in the spirit and context of " the true nature of the beast..." so the essence of Buddha nature is less confusing and has thousands more references than just the one that you can find to kind of push your pov on that subject. Maybe instead of sitting in the sidelines waiting to find fault you could help out with the grammar. Kind Regards Foristslow (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
You seriously want to argue that the Chan-traditiin does not regard Bodhidharma as it's founder? Looking forward to your sources for such a statement... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok Joshua, here is what you said above "Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here: Joshua Jonathan.
I have never said that Bodhidharma wasn't recognised by some sects within the Chan styled movement.It is that he is fictional. So from your previous response we agree that him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with. Nextthe Yijin Jing manual that is the evidence for the claim that he had a large part of the development of Shao Lin Kung Fu. Can we agree from evidence that this manual being of India origin is also debunked?. Foristslow (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
No, we don't agree that him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with, and we certainly don't agee that he is a fictional character. I've already noted that "fictional" is unsourced; nevertheless, you've re-added it. Your edits are WP:DISRUPTIVE. @Bishonen and Doug Weller: would one of you be able to explaain to this editor that they are crossing lines here? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

More regarding your most recent reverts:

  • diff: moved back nav-boxes to article sections, without explanation; these belong in the lead;
  • diff:
  • changed

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China

into

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China

Obviously a big error, and no explanation provided;
  • diff, edit-summary Please to talk page, the edits are supported with reference for claims. More than what was there initially. reinserted a number of errors:
  • Changed

was a semi-legendary Buddhist monk

into

Is a semi-legendary fictional Buddhist monk

Grammatical error, and "fictional" is unsourced, as noted before,
  • Changed

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch. He is also popularly regarded as the founder of Shaolin boxing, an idea popularized in the 20th century based on the 17th century Yijin Jing.

into

In martial arts pop culture, He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch, an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century Qigong manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic Yijin Jing.

References

  1. ^ Shahar 2008, pp. 165–173. sfn error: no target: CITEREFShahar2008 (help)
  2. Lin 1996, p. 183. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLin1996 (help)
  3. ^ Henning 1994. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHenning1994 (help)
  4. ^ Henning & Green 2001, p. 129. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHenningGreen2001 (help)
  5. Henning, Stan, Stan. "Folklore in the Martial Arts".
  6. T'ieh-Yun, Liu (1971). The travels of Lao T s'an. Cornell University Press.
  • The link for Stan Henning goes to a page which copies this Misplaced Pages-page...
  • He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism should be {{tq|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism; a leftover from another one of your edits;
  • In martial arts pop culture He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China - as noted before, in the Chan tradition he is regarded as the one who transmitted Chan from India to China; what you're writing her eis complete nonsense, and not supported by your source;
  • Bodhidharma is not the first patriarch of Chinese Budddhism, but of Chan Buddhism;
  • an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san published in a debunked 17th century Qigong manual - as noted before, The Travels of Lao T'san was not published in the Yijin Jing;
  • This fictional character of Bodhidharma - again, "fictional" is unsourced;
  • "affectionately" according to which source?
  • named after the Buddhist word "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" - as noted before, Bodhidharma was not "named after" this word; "dharma of awakening" is what "Bodhidharma" means;
  • "fictional Chinese sources" - which source says that these Chinese sources are "fictional"?;
  • "Brahmin lineage" - the soyrce doesn't use a capital B, as noted before;
  • "true nature of reality" was changed in "true essence"; as noted before, McRae uses "true nature."

Obviously, you completed ignored my previous comments, to reinstate a number of changes comprised of multiple mistakes. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE in multiple regards. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, ok wow, please read what I have said above, the only reason I appear to have ignored your message is one that I was waiting for you to add something constructive and two you are being aggressive. You need to understand that you are having a bit of cognitive dissonance. Again you are ignoring your words
"Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questionable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's viewed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)"
On page just under the lead information this is what is written.
"Little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend and unreliable details"
Historical negativism is not good as the monk Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 was the first Abbott, it was his students that ended up in the Chinese Buddhist's cannon for martial arts achievement and not Bodhidharma's influence.
And second the link between him and the Yijin Jing is debunked so that is the link between him and the Shaolin temple debunked.
I have read it myself and the copy that is considered authentic has Chinese medical terminology and is Taoist in origin and not Vedic medicine. Here is a quick link and it makes reference to other more credible versions.
William C. C. Hu (1965), Research Refutes Indian Origin Of I-chin ching, Black Belt (journal)
Please for those that are trained in it as "I am" it is very obviously Chinese and don't get me wrong Indian Vedic medicine has a lot to offer but is not here in this manual. Although you s em very passionate about this page I am only trying to rectify the misinformation with referenced material and recognised historical context by understanding the implications of the Chinese cultural revolution as Shao Lin temple was closed and training forbidden. So what changed in its reopening and who became their benefactors???.
Foristslow (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
There's no "misinformation" to rectify here. Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder. That's not a statement of fact; that's a statement of belief (which, as such, is a fact). Nuanced tretises of the history of Chan can be found at Zen and Chinese Chan; the Bodhidharma-page is not the place for detailing the history of Chan/Zen.
Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu: that too is a beief; the lead does not pretend otherwise. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Understand Jonathan, but my interest is not in faith but truth. This is a encyclopaedia when information is there we should consider it and bring balance to the page. Chinese history is open to scrutiny especially after the Chinese cultural revolution and with industrialization, History of all religions should be questions including Chan's. I have supplied more initial references to question the authenticity of this semi/legendary personality and the conection to Shao Lin Kung Fu. Also I am not sure but some of the edits that are listed above aren't my mistakes. Foristslow (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll check Shahar again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
hi not confident that I understand the meaning of Shahar, please explain Joshua Foristslow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Shahar (2008); see the sources. It contains a link to the book itself, which can be accessed; p.164 (or 166) to 172. It's very interesting, especially the last two pages. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
thankyou Jonathan Foristslow (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I did; the attribution of Shaolin martial arts stems from the Yijin Jing, and has even older roots in the daoist association of daoyin gymnastics with Bodhidharma. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
did you look at the link to a article that i have include above thanks we can start there and move forward as a starting point? Foristslow (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is the link again https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false Foristslow (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Buddha-nature/essence

Also think Looked at the reference for True Nature, quick question why are you so stuck on including True nature over or beside Buddha nature on multiple pages when it is historically a very obscure definition ?. Foristslow (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what McRae writes; if we use a source, we follow that source. In this case, "Ultimate Principle," "True Nature," and "Buddha-nature" are synonyms. NB: "true nature of reality" also was not exactly what McRae wrote; he 'simply' writes about Buddha-nature. 'Simply' because, of course, it's a very complicated term to 'translate' in a western idiom. Thrangu Rinpoche uses the term "Buddha essence (see here), but of course "essence" has 'essential' connotations, that is, eternalism. A never-ending discussion. The term "Buddha-essence" may be relevant for the Buddha-nature page, but that page really needs to be edited very carefully, due to the necessary nuances and subtleties. Rangjung Yeshe Wiki gives a long list of possible meanings/translations for snying po; "essence" is just one of them. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you have the Chinese characters that he translated ?. Foristslow (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Augh... I'll try to find it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Nope, but I'll bet it's 佛性; see Buddha-nature#Buddhadhātu. Red Pine, The Zen teaching of Bodhidharma, contains the Chinese text; see here. Red Pine also translates "true nature. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
what great characters, I love the language, the language is polymorphic meaning we will choose meaning based on our stages of life. In traditional character representation the truth can never be hidden or misinterpreted, not the way the western language can. If nature is what you wish to go with then, so it is. But consider this that this speaks more about the author than the truth of the character. Essence is a better translation because you can't go past that in this world, therefore the foundational building blocks from there on, and therefore less chance of doing harm. Foristslow (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: