This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 16 November 2006 (→Edits: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:07, 16 November 2006 by MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs) (→Edits: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Indian kallaripattam/Kalarippayattu was NOT precursor to East Asian Martial Arts
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. Also Taoist monks were practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi during the 500 BCE.
"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"
"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"
-intranetusa
 | India Stub‑class  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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.
Is there any research to tie Qigong to Indian meditation techniques such as Yoga?
Greetings,
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.
Fire Star 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.
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. --preetamrai 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any research to tie Qigong to Indian meditation techniques such as Yoga?
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.
--preetamrai 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-80.171.131.223 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
What are our sources for Bodhidharma's birth and death dates?
I've established a ballpark for each primary source based on the chronology therein. For death dates anyway.
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?
Also, where are we getting 440 as a birth year from?
There is this text block on this page..
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.
Jai - I agree with writer, but I have few questions - I myself a decendant of the worrier family, I got some hints from my grandfather in 1975 about how a man can be killed within seconds 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.
ATTN: 66.82.9.82
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)?
I was under the impression that the latter was included verbatim in the former.
JFD 17:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
"Second Buddha", Bodhidharma
A large block of text has been added by the same user, under different names, the last one being User:AVNER. I see three major issues.
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 Nagarjuna, and sometimes Padmasambhava 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.
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.
3) Lastly, the tone is often un-encyclopedic and POV (eg: "Bodhidharma was an extraordinary spiritual being").
As it stands, unless major improvements are introduced, this block deserves to be challenged by other editors.PHG 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandal
Repeated copyrighted-violations by flying-account vandal User:AVNER, User:ADON, User:CARNASSUS, User:TRUTHSEEKER, User:Sir Arthur Wellington, User:BEELZEEBUBB. The copyrighted text is from . Article Sardilli is also complete copyright violation from the same source. Repeated usage of abusive language against Wikipedians. User block requested. PHG 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Jai
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.
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 verifiable 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.
JFD 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dates of birth/death
One proposed set of birth and death dates is c. 440–528; another is c. 470–543.
Where in the heck did these come from again? JFD 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 trueKennethtennyson 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? --MichaelMaggs 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. JFD 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 Buddhist monk credited as the founder of Zen says what it needs to pretty well. Would you object if I put the sentence back to that version? --MichaelMaggs 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not in the least but, if you could, please leave the footnote for "legendary" in there. Thanks. JFD 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--MichaelMaggs 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.--MichaelMaggs 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.202.20.5.206 09:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--MichaelMaggs 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. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 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. 202.20.5.206 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.--MichaelMaggs 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. 202.20.5.206 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.
Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 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? --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh - while I was writing this I see that Nat Krause has done it for me.--MichaelMaggs 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories: