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.
"The avalanche was down, the hillside swept bare behind it; the last echoes died on the white slopes; the new mount glittered and lay still in the silent valley." Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited
Hello, just wanting an explanation on why jumping straight to Chan on the Bodhidharma page is acceptable given that you seem to have quite a understanding of history. There are two points the word and character is Chinese and not Indian so by reason denotes integration into Chinese culture, and the other is there is a complete neglect to reference the initial Chinese Buddhist's historical culture. The time foundation of south and north is still in dispute. ie hui-neng. I think that we are going to have to get mediation on this one to be fair if you and the others are going to dispute my edit on page. Thankyou Foristslow (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan yes there is enough information to put the existence of Bodhidharma Under question due to the found qigong manuscript being discounted and called dubious by modern scholars. Buddhabhadra or Batuo for instance was attributed to being the Abbott of the temple trained in many indigenous arts that are well known to have developed in that geolocation with two of his students are mentioned in the Chinese Buddhist canon seems to back up that claim, also the historical timeline of the Shaolin temple, points to the only reason it did not get closed with the rest of the temple's as Buddhism was out of favour with the Emperor, is because of Xuanzang's the Chinese monk was kept as a foreign diplomat in cort due to his extensive knowledge of Indian Buddhism, as history shows that Taoism was now in favour.
Here is a exert from one western reference
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
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.
So I think we have a lot to maybe talk about. And if you could answer this for me what is with everything Linking back to India for you and the others ?
i see that you have added more to the lead, you can't have a link that goes no where in the lead. It is just not done on wiki. I think also that you are still talking like be is a real historical person. As you are mislead so to will others. Although he is a historical comic book personality has credit. And should be highlighted at the very beginning Foristslow (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Joshua, not nice on the tea house that conversation was for me to get better as a editor not for cheap shots. Can you please keep it to the talk as you have suggested, I genuinely would like to get to the bottom of this as I see some big errors in historical records, maybe I am reading into it, but is unusual. Thanks Foristslow (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Asking page protection for a page where your edits are recognised for what they are is below standard; adding personal attacks to it even lower. You do indeed need to improve your editing skills; as they are now, they are insufficient. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
i have already asked for page protection also, please I am trying to work with you. Reflecting back to me with my words is corrosive speech and will not resolve this as you attacked me in a public forum at the tee house when I was asking for guidance to become a better editor. Can we move on, Thanks and regards Foristslow (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
What is it about the caste of Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya that you do not accept any scriptures before 1947 as evidence. All the Puranas of India were written before the emperor's rule and many of them have been accepted by Misplaced Pages as evidence. Then why is Alfred Edward Robert's book Vishwakarma and his decadence written in 1904 hesitant to accept as evidence. All the books written in the modern era are meant to protect the systematic interests of the writers themselves. How can these become history. Misplaced Pages should not support such distorted histories. Most of the histories of India have been honestly written by the British who ruled India. A brother with the belief that Misplaced Pages will rewrite Adi Shankar's caste. 2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maurya Empire. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
So basically, one of your sources for the hole map "Archaeology of South Asia", that book doesn't contain any maps with holes but rather a map without holes.
As respecting copyright rules of wiki, I did not directly upload the map here, but rather recreated it.
.jpg)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maurya Empire. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
.jpg)