Talk:Chinese martial arts

Do not archive!

Removal of Bodhidharma material

Extended content

I have put the following comment under its own subheader because the editor directed it at me in the wrong section. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Although I support your removal of Bodhidharma from literal history, calling him "a myth" without siting a source proving he never existed is inaccurate. NJMauthor (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I meant his connection to martial arts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) BTW, where's the evidence that shows he had nothing to do with martial arts? Are you saying this because he only taught exercises, or because you doubt his affiliation with the shaolin temple at all? NJMauthor (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) See Prof. Meir Shahar's new book called The Shaolin Monastery. Shahar relies on authentic Shaolin records to show that Vajrapani was actually the deity connected with Shaolin arts centuries before Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma would later be connected to Shaolin arts during the 17th or 18th century (I don't remember which since I don't have the book in front of me) when the Sinew Changing classic was written. Shahar has also shown that stories regarding the origins of Shaolin arts are not reliable because they include or were influenced by popular fictional characters from Chinese literature. For instance, the story regarding the origin of the Shaolin staff method was influenced by the Monkey King from Journey to the west. (see here for more details) --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) This sounds like a new and unverified (by other commonly known sources) claim. This information is valid for our purposes now because you have a source and there's no contradiction from other sources, but it's liable to change in the future. NJMauthor (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC) On the lack of a genuine historical link between Bodhidharma and martial arts, Shahar's conclusions concur with those of Tang Hao and, writing in English, Brian Kennedy & Elizabeth Guo and Stanley Henning. JFD (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I doubt the material will change because he relies on authentic Shaolin steles and martial arts manuals to chart the evolution of Shaolin legends. You can find the book here: http://uhpress.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-shaolin-monastery/ . It's $54, but well worth the price if you want to read a true scholarly treasure. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I moved the following comment to the appropriate section. It was placed at the top and partially directed at me and another editor. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC) There are significant POV issues on this page. First of all, it seems that there are quite a few people (ex. Tianshanwarrior, Ghostexorcist). According to Wikipedia policies, "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of ALL RELEVANT SIDES OF A DEBATE, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." I understand that many of you are passionate about the Chinese origins of Kung Fu. However, completely removing the idea that Bodhidharma played a role in Shaolin Kung fu is to push a biased point of view. Note Tianshanwarrior's statement that this article "uses verifiable references and not myths or nonsense legends" (a tangential reference to Bodhidharma's involvement in Shaolin kung fu). This article should at least mention the theory and that there are documents supporting this theory, and that there are historians that disagree with it. To completely remove any reference to Bodhidharma is not proper history, but revisionism. While you may disagree with the role of Bodhidharma, or if he had any role at all, you must acknowledge that historians debate the issue, not take one side and pretend that the other side does not exist. This is de facto POV bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I only have a problem with the addition of Bodhidharma material when it is presented as fact. Please forgive me for my rudeness, but you seriously need to read some scholarly books (i.e. a university press) and research papers on the subject and not rely on martial arts websites that blindly recite legends as fact. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I suggest there should be at least a sentence mentioning that to a vast majority, Bodhidharma is related to the Shaolin martial arts. However, leave the debate and details on the actual relationship of Bodhidharma and Shaolin to the main article in Shaolin Kungfu (which requires a lot of work). ottawakungfu (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I know it and you know it, but you would have to have a supporting source that says many people believe he has historical connections to Shaolin martial arts. I'm positive Prof. Shahar mentions it in his book. However, the connection has been destroyed by martial art and mainstream historians many times over. It should only be mentioned as a legend. A brief paragrah wouldn't hurt to explain the situation. It could be explained in depth on the Shaolin page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Just in case anyone is interested to read up more on what I discussed above, I have added a decent sized section to the Shaolin Monastery article about the veneration of Vajrapani. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I have just removed the following material from the page: "New evidences have emerged on the combat techniques of Dravidian martial arts such as Kalarippayattu from the ancient Tamil country as being influences and precursors to Kung Fu. I read the lengthy journal article and the author refers to Bodhidharma as being the creator of Shaolin martial arts. It also says the dark-skinned monks in the famous Shaolin wall mural are Chinese of African descent. I have no problem with the Out of Africa theory, however, the monks in the mural are dark because they probably just have dark complexions or are Indian monks like others have suggested in the past. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An Indian is the creator of Chinese martial art?

Extended content

This was a separate, yet related discussion that was started at the bottom of the talk page. I have moved it here so the two will be next to each other. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC) There are so many so called legends stated that Bodhidharma (an indian) who help the chinese monks to develop a fighting style that help defeat bandits and even the emperor armies, but there are no similarity of any indian martial art and chinese martial art, here are some examples: 1) There are absolutely no proof or similarity of any indian martial art with todays sanshou 2) There are absolutely no proof or similarity of any indian martial art with any chinese Shuai jiao 3) There are absolutely no proof or similarity of any indian martial art with any chinese throwing, grappling techniques 4) There are absolutely no proof or similarity of any indian martial art with Chinese Leitai competition 5) There are absolutely no proof or similarity of any indian martial art with Chinese Wushu (sport) The only similar of indian martial art and chines martial art is that they all have striking, and weapons trainning. But it is a believe that the Indians Yoga, Zen trainning improve the phisical and mental of the chinese monks that already knows martial art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.67.47 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC) You have made some very interesting observations casting doubt on the claim that an Indian started Chinese martial arts. Having been to the Shaolin Temple in central China and having seen the cave of Bodhidarma there no longer exists any doubt in my mind that he was the founder, or initiator, of the development of the martial arts in China. The basic movements based on yoga movements were carefully crafted to improve the practitioners health and fitness. The significance of that training is carved into the ancient stone of walls and walkways. The further development of those movements into martial applications resulted from the greater fitness experienced by the practicing monks. The exploration of movement and capabilities were closely linked to the underlying tenets of harmonizing body, mind and soul. Prior to his teachings there is absolutely no proof that the Chinese monks had any martial arts system. This is widely acknowledged within China and is only debated in the west. Bodhidarma developed a system of training, brilliant in its design, which allowed for further development, evolution and expansion. True that the Chinese had been warriors for many centuries prior to the Shaolin system, but battlefield training and tactics cannot be suggested to be martial arts. The two are completely dissimilar, though martial art training can be used in battle. Simply my 2 cents on the subject.Clftruthseeking (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Clftruthseeking I've also been to Shaolin and seen Bodidharma's cave / etc. And yet I still don't think that there is a lick of solid evidence that Bodidharma introduced martial arts to China. He's a bigger myth than the green grass monk - and that's saying something. Martial arts are just that - the arts of warfare. They have no unified origin point. They are as old as civilization. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Clftruthseeking, I suggest you take a look at this section of the talk page and the Vajrapani article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Clftruthseeking, You have made some very interesting observations casting doubt of the chinese battlefield training and tactics is not martial art, hence the name "MARTIAL" suggest warlike, war, relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms or military life, Characteristic of or befitting a warrior; having a military bearing; soldierly, soldierlike, warriorlike. And "MARTIAL" art is the skill of war, relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms or military life, Characteristic of or befitting a warrior; having a military bearing; soldierly, soldierlike, warriorlike Instead you self-suggesting, self-declare, and self-proclaim that martial art is just some form of movement that precede "MARTIAL" war "ART" skill. And also, Clftruthseeking you self-declare/self-proclaim that the carving of dark-skin-monk on shaolin "IS" and "PROVE" Bodhidarma who is teaching martial art while there is absolutely no proof of any documentation that the carving "IS" and "PROVE" Bodhidarma teach anything else beside religion. The carving on shaolin can mean that the Bordhidarma is learning chinese martial art from chinese instead of teaching them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.172.93 (talk • contribs) I'd just like to say that saying there is 'no evidence' is incorrect, first the names of several moves in Kung Fu have decidedly Indian origin's, eg: Indra's roar, second the 108 Chinese pressure points correspond to the marman points of kalaripayattu, we know that bodhidharma knew these thing's and had been to china, the simplest and most realistic explanation is that these were similar because bodhidharma taught them hence the similarity. Also several mudra's of Yoga from India have been found in Chinese and Japanese martial arts, so we see that atleast this was transmitted for sure which makes it seem more likely that martial art techniques being taught too. --Kalona Constantine (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think you read any of the prior discussions that I linked on your talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC) well my friend, you thought wrong, I've been through all the discussions you linked me to All of them state that saying there is no evidence is incorrect most of them concur that there is much evidence for Bodhidharma being the progenitor of these arts .You have quoted Meir Shahar's book on several occasions but have for some reason chosen not to explain why if there is no evidence the chief abbot of the shaolin temple gave a detailed explanation of how exactly shaolin kung fu has had its roots in sharing of knowledge, where Bodhidharma bought his styles and opinions about the art to china and from there it was shared to the eastern asian countries of japan, korea and vietnam. As far as I can tell the only explanation you gave for dismissing it was it was hearsay and on cable tv, hardly valid since the chief abbot's opinion can hardly be hearsay or atleast any less accurate than that of Meir Shahar and the medium of the transmission of the information has no bearing on it's factual veracity. I'd say the chief abbot is a more reliable source of information that professor Meir Shahar, despite his impressive credentials .Several people have stated this before and now I'm being to suspect this as well that the information being provided is increasingly one sided, several arguments in favor of the bodhidharma theory have been ignored or dismissed on the basis of Meir Shahar's book but the one person other than you who has read it has already stated that a major part of what you have dismissed on the book of Mr.Shahar's book is actually not addressed in it. Also although it has been said that archaeologists don't believe the legend, the fact that the majority of scholars think that there is some truth in it has been ignored. Let's make an attempt to be unbiased shall we? I'm not saying it's proven beyond a doubt, but there is definitely some evidence for it--Kalona Constantine (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) All of them state that saying there is no evidence is incorrect most of them concur that there is much evidence for Bodhidharma being the progenitor of these arts. No, they are full of people who believe that Bodhidharma must have been responsible, but who can give little evidence beyond sources already shown as fiction or fabrication (and who in one case didn't know that Chinese and Japanese are different languages - not exactly arguing from a position of strength). the chief abbot of the shaolin temple gave a detailed explanation of how exactly shaolin kung fu has had its roots in sharing of knowledge, where Bodhidharma bought his styles and opinions about the art to china and from there it was shared to the eastern asian countries of japan, korea and vietnam. Those are his personal opinions. Can he back them up with historical sources? Being the head of a religious organization does not make one a historian, nor is the traditional history of such an organization necessarily correct: the Catholic Church long asserted that the Donation of Constantine was factual, and there are plenty of current religious figures promoting Young Earth creationism. the chief abbot's opinion can hardly be hearsay or atleast any less accurate than that of Meir Shahar and the medium of the transmission of the information has no bearing on it's factual veracity. See above, and also the historical method. Really, we've been through this many times, on many articles. "Scholars" do not believe the Bodhidharma invented the Yijin JIng/Shaolin kungfu/CMA stories, or at least those arguing for this have never provided any examples of historians, archaeologists, etc. saying same. Numerous scholarly sources, Eastern and Western, modern and period, have been provided in the articles and talkpages showing why these stories are both dubious and actually fairly recent. I would suggest getting a grounding in basic historical methods and reading those sources. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I was going to type out a rebuttal, but Ergative has done an eloquent job already. Since I have previously provided verifiable scholarly evidence on the discussions linked on your talk page, there is no reason for me to mirror it here. Therefore, I am challenging you, User:Kalona Constantine, to find information that shoots down the current scholarly stance on a point-by-point basis. Information found on random websites and hearsay passed on by the abbot (on a cable tv show) or other martial arts masters do not count as valid references. The source has to be one written by a credentialed academic who has analyzed pre-modern documentation. You will be hard pressed to find anything. Others have tried to do the same in the past, but have mysteriously disappeared from all conversations on the subject. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SO basically when it comes to history of the shaolin temple, what the chief of the shaolin temple has to say about it is hearsay? a most interesting proposition. and he is not only the head of a religious organisation but also of shaolin kung fu,and it's incredibly fallacious to compare creationism to this, the church is talking about something they know nothing of, this man is talking about the history of the organisation of which he is the leader, can you see no difference? Also since I've been challenged to site sources here they are, Masutatsu Oyama has stated in his books that Bhodhidharma traveled to China and combined his combat and yogic breathing exercises with indigenous Chinese martial arts at a temple called Shaolin, Comprehensive Martial Arts by Donn F Draeger and Robert Smith two very well respected scholars also state the same thing Shaolin Lohan Kung-Fu by Khim, P’ng Chye and Donn F. Draeger also say there is much evidence in favor of the bodhidharma theory Encyclopedia of China-The Essential Reference to China, its History, and Culture also provide's support to bodhidharma theory however this is not a book on martial arts but China as a whole. also this is an extract from an interesting article I found the other day by Alan W Watts Any effort to identify and substantiate Bodhidharma’s contributions to the development of the Shaolin martial arts must logically begin with an argument that the historical personage did, in fact, exist. Transmission of the Lamp, perhaps the most comprehensive source for details on the early history of Ch’an Buddhism in India and China, provides a wealth of information about Bodhidharma. Author Tao Yuan wrote in 1004 that Prajnatara, the 27th Indian patriarch of Dhyana and the man who taught the dharma (teachings of the Buddha) to Bodhidharma, said to his student, “You should ... go to China. There [you should establish] a great foundation for the medicine of the dharma.” Further Lives of Exemplary Monks, the first draft of which was written in 645 by Tao-hsuan, a resident of Loyang, records that Bodhidharma arrived in China around 475. It also records Bodhidharma as having ordained a Chinese monk named Sheng-fu around 490 on Songshan’s western Shaoshih peak. Another text, A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang written by Yang Hsuan-chih in 547, contains one of the few eyewitness accounts of a meeting with a monk from the West named Bodhidharma who was visiting Yungning Temple, some 35 miles from Shaolin Temple, to observe a newly constructed 400-foot-high pagoda. Reid and Croucher, researchers for a British Broadcasting Corporation documentary about the Asian fighting arts, attempt to precisely date the encounter: “The [Yung-ning] temple was built in 516. It burned down in 535, but from 528 troops were billeted in it, so the meeting must have taken place between 516 and 528.” This is quite plausible, as Bodhidharma is believed to have spent more than 30 years in China. A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang is said to have once contained a preface by Li Ching, a great Han Chinese military officer of the Tang dynasty, in which it is written that Bodhidharma “arrived at the court of Wu-ti, the first emperor of the Liang dynasty, where he first dwelt. Afterward, he removed to the Kingdom of Wei and dwelt at a temple called Shaolin Ssu. After a residence of nine years (he was 69 years old when he arrived in the year 526 and was the 28th Indian patriarch), he died and was buried at the foot of Hsiung-erh Mountain (between Henan and Shanxi).” Details of Bodhidharma’s audience with Emperor Wuti lend additional support to the argument in favor of his existence. Known as the “Emperor Bodhisattva,” Wu-ti was an outstanding patron of Buddhism in southern China and reigned from 502 to 549 during the Liang dynasty (502- 557). He is said to have questioned Bodhidharma about the merit of his pious acts and to have been somewhat upset at the monk’s honest replies. The two supposedly met in the capital of Chien-k’ang, modern Nanjing. At this point, researchers encounter the only major discrepancy in the historical accounts of Bodhidharma: One says he arrived in China in 475, and another in 526. No irrefutable evidence has been cited either in favor of the earlier date recorded in Further Lives of Exemplary Monks or that given in Transmission of the Lamp. Some scholars hold that both accounts are true and blame the conflicting dates upon a mere error in transcription. Other than these three texts, Chinese records of Bodhidharma are few. This scarcity has been explained by Reid and Croucher as occurring because of the radical differences of Ch’an Buddhism, which often led to persecution by suspicious Confucianists and Taoists. Other scholars even argue that orthodox Buddhist sects resented the followers of Ch’an. C.W. Edwards wrote that Bodhidharma, in his interview with Wu-ti, declared: “The emperor’s temple-building and sutra-copying to be of ‘no merit whatsoever’ and the ‘holy doctrine’ to be ‘vast emptiness, with nothing in it to be called holy.’ ” Regarding the unconventional teachings of Ch’an, another scholar wrote, “It was reasoned that, if all things contain the buddha-nature, then the Buddha could rightfully be equated with a dung heap.” Statements such as these could easily have incited those orthodox Chinese Buddhists who tended to revere the Buddha as a god and could easily have convinced Ch’an followers that secrecy was necessary for the safety of themselves and their temple. An additional reason has been offered for the perceived secrecy concerning Bodhidharma and Shaolin Temple. The special privileges and great economic power of Buddhist temples often brought about anti- Buddhist campaigns and governmental restrictions upon religious practice. In particular, the destruction of the campaigns that took place between 446 and 452, and again between 574 and 578, was widespread. A later crusade against Buddhist monks was conducted by the Chinese government in 845, reportedly resulting in the destruction of more than 4,600 large temples and 40,000 hermitages. Any type of temple record, whether related to financial matters or monastic lineage, might have been incriminating enough to incur the wrath of marauding government troops. The safest course, once again, would have been to avoid keeping any records. The practice of keeping records of temples and notable monks became more commonplace during the Sui/ Tang (581-907) and Sung (960-1279) dynasties, often referred to as the Golden Age of Chinese Buddhism. All religions flourished in China, and Ch’an was one of the four major Buddhist sects to gain considerable popularity. The changing norms of Chinese society probably encouraged the keeping of official accounts of important people and events, and after the 11th century, a more open and stable society did, in fact, accord Bodhidharma great praise for founding Ch’an Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu. These arguments, convincing as they are, still do not prove conclusively that Bodhidharma ever lived or traveled to Shaolin Temple, so research continues. Hakeda, Yampolsky and de Bary observed that recent finds, including discoveries at the Dunhuang Buddhist caves in northwestern China, point to the historical existence in China of a man named Bodhidharma who taught a form of meditation based upon the Lankavatara Sutra. Meanwhile, Alan W. Watts, a noted author of Buddhistic texts, looks suspiciously upon all those who would deny the existence of Bodhidharma: “It is hard to say whether the views of these scholars [who are skeptical of the Bodhidharma story] are to be taken seriously, or whether they are but another instance of an academic fashion for casting doubt upon the historicity of religious founders.” Watts concluded his examination of the arguments for and against the existence of Bodhidharma by adopting a most pragmatic attitude: “We may as well accept the story of Bodhidharma until there is some really overwhelming evidence against it.”' As I've said before, saying this is no evidence is simply wrong,I've provided the name's of several respected scholars and historians who put stock in the yi yi jing and other sources of information that back up what I've been saying.Also I fail to see how what the chief abbot of the shaolin temple has to say about the history of shaolin temple is hearsay and how it being on cable tv has something to do with it's factual veracity, as ghostexorcist seems fond of bringing it up again and again. nobody is saying that there was no such thing as Chinese martial arts before Bodhidharma however it seems almost certain that he made a major contribution to it's development. The information currently being provided on the WP page seems to purposely exclude the information supporting the bodhidharma theory and it has already been stated that it seems to be more focused on disproving bodhidharma connection rather than giving information,if anyone is capable of proving that Robert Smith, Donn F Draeger, Mas Oyama Alan W. Watts all very well respected researchers are all somehow mistaken then please do so,if the people who have raised objections previously are unable to prove that all of these people and any further information I can/will provide is wrong then very well otherwise I see no reason for not including this in the WP page , I have ignored some of the lesser known authors who have also provided support for this since apparently if something is on cable tv or on the internet it's bound to be false and hence these guys would definitely be incorrect right? also the website's of many teachers of Kung Fu including one national wushu coaches provides support to the bodhidharma theory. Also interesting to note that one of the more famous scholars who discredits the bodhidharma theory is also a japanese comic book writer. And I fail to see how you can assert that there is no similarity between the two styles inspite of the fact that all 108 chinese pressure points correspond to the marman point's of kalaripayattu, the similarity of yoga and the breathing exercises of internal martial arts, and moves which have names such as Indra's roar. I look forward to your reply and will wait for it, if you are able to disprove all the of the sources I have cited then very well otherwise I will add the necessary information. --Kalona Constantine (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Again, people like the abbot and Mas Oyama are not historians. They are simply passing on a legend that is several hundreds of years old. The Yijin Jing is physically only traceable to the 1800s, but the preface of one edition dates it to 1624. That means it is plausibly 386 years old. Imagine a scenario set at the first publishing of the manual where a master of high repute mentioned the story to a student who later became a famous practitioner himself. This continued down through a line of people who took it at face value, but never actually read the manual or even examined the presented history (mainly due to rampant illiteracy). Word-of-mouth in the martial arts community is the only reason why this legend is so prevalent today. While I am thinking about it, what documentary evidence does Mas Oyama provide other than his own opinion? Yes, Matsuda Ryuchi has used his great knowledge of martial arts to write a comic book, but playing the Ad hominem card here won’t work. There are other scholars in the world of academia that write murder mysteries, sci-fi, etc. It doesn’t matter if there are similarities between Indian and Chinese pressure points. There might have been some influence, but the one thing you have to remember is that both the Indians and Chinese have the same human body. Those bodies have the same strengths and weaknesses. Given that both civilizations are very old and have doctors, it is not a stretch of the imagination that they both would independently find these “hollows” (as they are sometimes called) in the body. This doesn't prove a connection between Bodhdidharma and Shaolin arts either. I have consulted three of the four sources you cited above. All of them ultimately shoot down Bodhidharma's connection to Shaolin arts. Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith says: “Tamo’s boxing role is even more ambiguous than his Ch’an role … Now it is known that boxing existed in China before Tamo’s coming, but how systematized it was is moot. He is said to have left two manuscripts, only one of which has come down to us—The Muscle Change Classic (I-chin Ching). No verification of Tamo’s authorship exists for this and the available versions are of a much later time. W. Hu states that the earliest mention of it in literature goes back only to 1835. Of much more pertinence than the dating and authenticating of the various versions of the Muscle Chang Classic is its relevance for boxing. The exercises detailed in this work are static tensing postures, callisthenic in nature and function. If it is assume that Tamo created them—and this is impossible to prove—they remain distant from boxing tactics. Therefore, it must be concluded that Tamo probably did not introduce boxing.” (pp. 44-45) Shaolin Lohan Kung-Fu by P'ng Chye Khim and Donn F. Draeger says: “Futhermore, there is no proof of his authorship of the Muscle-Change Classic (I-Chin Ching). Nor are the eighteen basic exercieses in that book directly related to Chinese combative arts, being more concerned with calisthenics performed from static stances and postures and designed to strengthen the body and mind so that the performer will be more receptive to meditative discipline. It is now known that combative arts of a shaolin-like nature existed long before Ta Mo came to china, and that at least some of these arts were initially practiced in places other than the Shaolin Temples. Scholars, therefore, generally agree that Ta Mo did not introduce shaolin methods to China.” (pp. 15-16) Alan W. Watts' article comes from a Sept. 2001 edition of Black Belt Magazine. In the October continuation of the article, Watss says: "I Chin Ching, or Muscle Change Sutra, remains as the only vestige of Bodhidharma’s work at Shaolin Temple. This treatise does little to either prove or disprove a relationship between Bodhidharma and the Shaolin martial arts, however, for it can hardly be considered a martial arts instruction manual. Rather, as its name [and a previously quoted paragraph] suggest, it describes a series of yogic breathing and stretching routines, just what might be expected from an Indian monk trained in Dhayna Buddhism. The exercises of I Chin Ching are intended to strengthen the body’s constitution and enhance chi flow. Not one kick, punch or block is discussed... Evidence clearly indicates that martial arts have been practiced at Shaolin Temple for some time and that Bodhidharma has been associated with the temple for at least several hundred years. Yet there is still no proof that Bodhdidharma was directly involved in the creation or practice of the martial arts. Little additional evidence is likely to be discovered at the temple to either prove or disprove this hypothesis, for the Warlord Era of the 1910s and 1920s saw the rise to power of dozens of regional strongmen throughout China; several attacked and burned parts of the temple on different occasions…Although a number of valuable artifacts, some of which were cited above, have survived the turmoil unscathed, it will never be known how many ancient records, some of which may have shed light on the life of the man claimed to be China’s first patriarch of Shaolin kung fu, were lost forever." (pp. 89 and 91) On top of this, it seems as if he was unaware of the many historical inaccuracies and flat out fictions that pepper the Yijin Jing (all of which I have previously described here). Why do you keep on mentioning works that disprove your position? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Even the author of the largest chunk of information you have provided has shot the theory down Actually no he is hasn't if you hadn't noticed before the author of the piece I mentioned is Alan W Watt's, the author of the article you mentioned is Robert W Young, two different people Alan Watts end's his article with this "“We may as well accept the story of Bodhidharma until there is some really overwhelming evidence against it" so he isn't shooting down the theory Also you seemed to have missed out part's of the article you yourself mentioned They would naturally have imported their own fighting styles which could then have been refined and merged into a single system the great diversity found within the Shaolin Kung Fu system can thus be explainedIn the temple these former fighter's could have augmented their martial skills with the internal energy and breath control teachings of bodhidharma, do you know what this? that's a contribution to the development of Shaolin Kung fu If you think martial art's are all about kicking and punching you're sadly mistaken physical conditioning is an incredibly important of any martial art and especially one such as Shaolin KunG Fu which is famed for it's hard body techniques which rely immensely on conditioning and internal martial arts rely greatly on internal energy control, breathing exercise's. Also this is from the article which you mentioned However much more important than the founding or the systematization of the physical aspect of Shaolin tradition is an often overlooked contribution of Bodhidharma he was probably the first to temper the lethality of of empty hand combat skills with the self discipline,universal compassion and reverence for life expounded in Buddhism. Had this buddhist influence not been added it is doubtful the Asian fighting art's could have survived the many centuries until the present and quite unlikely they could have so profoundly influenced Asian History. If bodhidharma had never moulded they would never have evolved beyond a mere method for defeating an adversary considering the fact that the article YOU mentioned says that the fighting art's wouldn't have survived without Bodhidharma it is quite a contribution don't you think? Also my raising the fact that Ryuchi is a comic book writer is an ad hominem yet the fact that you constantly raised the fact that the chief abbot made his statements on cable tv is not which somehow negated them is not? Also as you can see for yourself Draeger's books don't point out that there is any irregularity or mistake in the document's mentioned all they say is it is difficult to date them and authenticate them. However he does show that they contain important breathing exercises, calisthenics and chi control exercises, All three of these are very very important parts of Shaolin training, now I know you're going to say we can't be sure that this is what Bodhidharma has written, that is addressed below Imagine a scenario set at the first publishing of the manual where a master of high repute mentioned the story to a student who later became a famous practitioner himself. While I'm imagining that the thought comes to my mind that can you explain how the master of high repute was taken in by this manual if it was false? It's obvious that even the monks 368 years ago must have had a pretty good idea of where and what their style has descended from, On what basis do you make the claim that they would be taken in by a supposed forgery? That's like saying if you introduce text book's of faulty American history where instead of being a British Colony America was a Spanish Colony into schools eventually everyone would come to accept that as the truth instead of calling it garbage. And How can you honestly claim it doesn't matter if there is a similarity between all 108 marmam points of kalaripayattu and all 108 chinese pressure points? just saying they both are old cultures and both have doctors does nothing to disprove the obvious fact that there was influence, that the entire Shaolin pressure point system came from India. Bodhidharma may not have taught kick's and punches but what he did teach is nevertheless an incredibly important part of Shaolin Kung Fu, the sources you have cited that although he did not create Shaolin Kung Fu ( which I have already said, there were definitely martial art's before him) he did nonethless make an immense contributions which lead to the survival of Asian fighting styles (your source not mine), Also the exercises taught by Bodhidharma while directly they do not help in combat are used extensively to this date in conditioning, breath control, and chi control all of which have a great emphasis laid on them in Shaolin.Also when you take the fact that murals have been founded depicting dark skinned monk's training chinese monks, the presence of bodhidharma's cave and the reverence the monk's have for him to this date in conjunction with what we know about Bodhidharma it is almost certain that he was there and did make several important contributions Also it is fairly certain that the pressure point system of Shaolin came from India, the they both are old and have doctors who found the hollows isn't very logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalona Constantine (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I apologize for the mix up, but you have to understand my confusion considering you wrote “this is an extract from an interesting article I found the other day by Alan W Watts” and then followed it with material from Young’s article. This doesn’t change anything, though, as Watts was actually talking about Bodhidharma’s historicity. Young’s article from the Oct. 2001 Black Belt Magazine says: ”Watts concluded his examination of the arguments for and against the existence of Bodhidharma by adopting a most pragmatic attitude: ‘We may as well accept the story of Bodhidharma until there is some really overwhelming evidence against it.’” (p. 131) This has very little to do with our discussion, which is on Bodhidharma’s supposed connection to Shaolin arts. Regarding the (author’s?) theory about Bodhidharma being the first to merge fighting arts with Buddhist meditation, he provides no documentary evidence beyond his own opinion. What’s worse is that it seems to be influenced by the “legend” put forth in the Yijin Jing, which has already been shown to be a forgery. It is the first document that attributes martial-based Taoist daoyin (guiding and pulling) exercises to the monk. And please don’t bother quoting Young’s material about the Dunhuang caves. I looked up his source, The Buddhist Tradition in India, China, and Japan, and it only says: "Recent research, particularly by Dr. Hu Shih, has shown that a person known as Bodhidhdarma was indeed in China, but during the years 420-479. An ascetic, his teaching were based on the Lankavatara Sutra, and he practiced an exceedingly simplified form of meditation. His disciples continued his teachings and attracted a considerable body of followers, until by the start of the eighth century a school of meditation, of sufficient significance to have had a history of its own, had been formed. By the third decade of the same century Ch’an had gained enormous popularity…" (pp. 209-210) This is referring to Chan meditation and not Daoyin exercises. No, my observation about the abbot’s comments being unreliable is not an Ad Homenim attack. If you don’t know, an Ad hominem argument is when you attack someone’s personal character to deviate a discussion from the main debate. The abbot’s comments were made on a cable TV show and not printed in a sourced paper. You attacked Ryuchi because he wrote a comic book, I am questioning the source of the abbot’s statement. See the difference? Draeger’s comments about the Yijin Jing’s dating errors have already been covered on one of the discussions linked on your talk page. So, there is no reason to go any further on this. Please re-read that discussion again. Why would a master of high repute be taken in by a forgery? Well, not all such masters were highly educated. China is also obsessed with ancient lineages. The first of the two prefaces from the Yijin Jing states Bodhidharma passed his manual down through a line of religious masters and martial heroes, including the Tang Dynasty General Li Jing. The second preface says a Shaolin monk passed the manual onto the Song Dynasty General Yue Fei, who later passed it on to his junior General Niu Gao. The preface goes on to say Niu hid the manual. The real author of the Yijin Jing, Zi Ning Daoren, claims to have found it. If that is not a lineage, I don’t know what is. The fact that the Yijin Jing has been shown to be a forgery, but continues to be passed off as real is a testament to how masters of high repute can be tricked. It is important to note that Shaolin did not start to practice boxing on a wide scale until the Ming-Qing transition. It was also during this time that they began to incorporate Taoist daoyin exercises into their martial practice. If you have a JSTOR account, you can read more about this here. I am not going to reply to the rest of your most recent comments because this is becoming a circular discussion. You keep on bringing up stuff that I have already disproven, like Bodhidharma teaching breathing and stretching exercises. This all comes from the Yijin Jing forgery. Please, before you reply again, I want you to do several things for me: 1) Find a reliable source that is up on the most current research; 2) Learn how to format your comments. It is hard to read anything you type because it’s a mixture of your own words, mine, and your sources; 3) If you quote something, please put quotation marks around it and list the author, book name, and page number; and 4) Sign your comments with this --~~~~. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC) SO basically when it comes to history of the shaolin temple, what the chief of the shaolin temple has to say about it is hearsay?...he is not only the head of a religious organisation but also of shaolin kung fu. Sadly, yes. He is repeating stories with no evidence or indication of source criticism. And as a longterm practicioner of shaolin kungfu (hereafter SKF), I scoff at the second assertion. He is in no way the head of SKF, because SKF isn't even an organization in the first place. also this is an extract from an interesting article I found the other day by Alan W Watts <snip several paragraphs> Besides the article not being by Alan Watts (it's by Robert Young), none of what you quote has anything to do with Bodhidharma creating a physical practice (martial or otherwise) at Shaolin. It simply has to do with if Bodhidharma did so he would have needed to exist and traveled to China; likely evidence is provided for this latter assertion (and note that Shahar etc. do not dispute that Bodhidharma likely did teach the Dharma at Shaolin or in the vicinity) . The converse of this, asserting that if Bodhidharma traveled to China he must have developed or influenced SKF is not a valid argument - it is in fact a clear example of affirming the consequent. The same holds true for any similarities in pressure points etc. - the (undeniable) contacts that China and India have had does not serve as proof for any particular claimed contact, or that Bodhidharma was responsible for same. if you hadn't noticed before the author of the piece I mentioned is Alan W Watt's, the author of the article you mentioned is Robert W Young, two different people Your attempt to discredit Ghostexorcist (which you repeat several times) merely reveals your own sloppiness in attribution. As I mention above, the article you cite is by Robert Young, and the article Ghostexorcist cites is simply the second part of that same article. Watts appears in a single quote, and as he's been dead for nearly 40 years, I doubt he'll be contributing any more to the debate. If you think martial art's are all about kicking and punching you're sadly mistaken physical conditioning...internal energy and breath control teachings of bodhidharma The only source given for the latter is the Yijin Jing (as I Chin Ching), which has already been discussed in depth, here and in many books and articles. As for the former, I - as a longterm practicioner of SKF, xingyiquan, and other arts - am a bit familiar with what is entailed in CMA and their training methods. On what basis do you make the claim that they would be taken in by a supposed forgery? That's like saying if you introduce text book's of faulty American history where instead of being a British Colony America was a Spanish Colony into schools eventually everyone would come to accept that as the truth instead of calling it garbage. Because religious leaders and martial artists are not necessarily historians. One could say that the Catholic Church must have had a pretty good idea of their history - and yet they still fell for and promoted the Donation of Constantine for centuries. As for how we know it's a forgery: source criticism and diplomatics (the same things that revealed the Donation to be fake). And lots of people are taught and believe things that aren't true. Many Americans are taught that Colombus proved the world was round (a falsehood that stems from an anti-Catholic slur), many Thais are taught that their nation is descended from the Nanzhao kingdom (Nanzhao was mainly Tibeto-Burman speaking, a fact ignored by Thai nationalists), fencers are often taught that the restricted target zones of modern saber have something to do with not hitting horses (untrue, and said zones were only instituted in sport saber in the 20th century). The argumentum ad populum is not a good one to make. I'm working on a major project about one of the arts I study. Stuff like writing about the art and taking pictures of techniques...that's easy. Engaging in source criticism, studying numerous, often contradictory documents, arranging museum access, grabbing time from scholars (who have their own more important stuff to do) etc. - that's tough. Doing the tough stuff also reveals that much of what is repeated about CMA, by some of the big names in CMA, is complete nonsense. (Let's not even talk about what gets uttered on martial arts forums). Bad sourcing, sloppy argumentation, a lack of concern for provenance, even using gongfu and wuxia novels as historical sources (Let's use Robert E. Howard's Conan stories as sources for ancient European history!) - that's what most of the stuff out there consists of. CMA practicioners who are also careful scholars are rare - Tim Cartmell, Brian Kennedy, and Scott Rodell come to mind - and they have opinions similar to mine on the general quality of CMA resources. If we're going to put info about Bodhidharma in a top-level CMA article, it's going to need to be from sources as good as these latter authors - not from misattributed and misrepresented sources. I second Ghostexorcist's recommendation of JSTOR, and many libraries provide access to it and similar services. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC) "This has very little to do with our discussion, which is on Bodhidharma’s supposed connection to Shaolin arts." Actually it does the article establishes that bodhidharma was in the right place at the right time to support the Bodhidharma contribution theory. Secondly we know of the existence of bodhidharma's cave and that there are numerous carvings of a dark skinned man practising and teaching what appear to be martial art's to the chinese monks. Based on what we know now about Bodhidharma it is quite clear this man is most likely Bodhidharma. When we take this in conjunction with the fact that there are many many similarities between shaolin Kung Fu, All 108 chinese pressure points correspond to the marmam point's of kalaripayattu, saying both cultures were old and had doctors does not adequately explain this especially in light of bodhidharma's presence at the temple. "Many Americans are taught that Colombus proved the world was round (a falsehood that stems from an anti-Catholic slur), many Thais are taught that their nation is descended from the Nanzhao kingdom (Nanzhao was mainly Tibeto-Burman speaking, a fact ignored by Thai nationalists" As you can clearly see from the examples you pointed out all of these falsehoods have a definite motive, whether it be to disrespect a particular religion to appealing to a sense of nationalism. When you take the yijin jing, we can see no motive. Infact if someone else did make it up, there is no reason for them to pass on the credit to Bodhidharma. Also while the point of historical inaccuracy does stand there a few documents that do not possess such mistakes, take the example of the Bible, which proposes contradicting dates for several events and many other inaccuracies, does this mean it is a complete forgery? no. Also to assume that the monks were taken in completely by the forgery, you would have to assume that they didn't have the slightest idea whatsoever about the history of their art and were completely clueless, in the example's you mentioned it is the people who are supposed to pass down the information who are willfully making thing's up or ignoring facts, eg: the Thai Nationalist's in question have made up the fact that their country is descended from Nanzhao. However here we see that there is no indication that the monk's themselves made up the Bodhidharma theory. most people seem to be saying they were fooled by it, thai nationalist's making up a pseudo historical claims to appeal to their own misguided sense of nationalism is not the same as them being fooled by a false external source which what people claim supposedly happened to the Shaolin monks. It suggesting that (someone with no motive for doing so) walked in one day with the yijin jing and suddenly everyone was convinced that Bodhidharma had made many contributions isn't exactly plausible. The master's may have been illiterate but not being able to read and write does not mean that they would not know the history of their own art. It is also very important to note here that while a subject may not be historically verifiable via the historical method, that does not mean that it isn't factual. A good example of this is the Tlingit language. The Tlingit people do not have a system of writing - their language is only spoken and there are only approximately 400 fluent speakers currently. Moreover, much of the nuance and variation in the Tlingit language is known to have existed by the tribal elders, but is no longer spoken. The lineage is broken and documentation doesn't exist,so, do we take their word for it? Their entire culture is based on oral tradition, yet it isn't verifiable using the historical method. Did they simply make it up? According to the criteria employed by the historical method Tlingit Traditions may not have existed, invalidating an entire aboriginal cultures values. "none of what you quote has anything to do with Bodhidharma creating a physical practice (martial or otherwise) at Shaolin. It simply has to do with if Bodhidharma did so he would have needed to exist and traveled to China; likely evidence is provided for this latter assertion (and note that Shahar etc. do not dispute that Bodhidharma likely did teach the Dharma at Shaolin or in the vicinity) . The converse of this, asserting that if Bodhidharma traveled to China he must have developed or influenced SKF is not a valid argument - it is in fact a clear example of affirming the consequent. The same holds true for any similarities in pressure points etc. - the (undeniable) contacts that China and India have had does not serve as proof for any particular claimed contact, or that Bodhidharma was responsible for same." As I've said before I never said it had something to do with creating a physical practise, however we know that bodhidharma was in the right place and the right time. The argument that Bodhidharma influenced SKF is valid if you do not simply ignore the pressure points and actually try accounting for them. As you yourself have said the fact that the pressure points of SKF are identical to the marman point's of kalaripayattu are signs of undeniable contact we can also see that since Bodhidharma knew kalaripayattu, knew these points and is credited with influencing Shaolin Kung Fu, was in the right place in the right time and steles depict him training with and teaching the monks, and the monk's themselves assert that Bodhidharma had greatly influenced(some even say created) SKF, the simplest and most likely explanation is that he was the once who introduced pressure points to SKF. yes there were many other instances of contact but it is fairly certain that the transmission of pressure points to SKF came about through bodhidharma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalona Constantine (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC) WP:HEAR, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I see you've chosen to accuse me of being disruptive or having some kind of agenda (what it would be is something I fail to see) rather than address the points I've raised.Very well, I guess if you don't like the message you can always take it out on the messenger. 1)It has been made abundantly clear by now that Bodhidharma was in the right place at the right time to influence or as some say create SKF , obviously older styles exist hence this is not synonymous with creating CMA 2)The carvings of a dark skinned man practicing and teaching some form of martial art in the bodhidharma cave have also been conveniently ignored. 3)The monk's themselves say that Bodhidharma played a big role in influencing and creating SKF, to claim that they were taken in by a forgery would rest on two fallacious assumptions a)The monk's were completely clueless about the history of their style hence when a random somebody walks in with a forged document with monumental assertions as to the history and origin of their style was accepted without question. b)The monk's were completely clueless about all the training they had been doing so far and thus somehow did not realize that the techniques mentioned in the so called forgery were made up recently and were not the one's they had been practicing. 4)There has not been a single motive put forward for someone to attempt to distort the history of SKF by creating such a forgery. 5)The fact that every single pressure point in SKF corresponds to the marmam point's of kalaripayattu has been blatantly ignored even though it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of the bodhidharma theory. we know that 1)bodhidharma was there at the right place at the right time, 2)he knew the pressure point's in question well, 3) the monk's attribute much of their knowledge to him,and skill to him. 4)there are depictions of him practicing and teaching what appear to be some form of martial arts When I asked what all of this pointed out to, ghostexorcist was rather quick to reply "both civilizations were old and had doctors, they probably found the same hollows" this is a denial of the obvious and most likely possibility that these pressure point's have come through Bodhidharma to SKF and is as such a myopic and narrow view. The Asian Martial arts(origin) article and several other related articles seem to be less focused on providing information and more focused on disproving bodhidharma connection to SKF, the entire subsection on India is devoted to proving how bodhidharma is unconnected to CMA at all,then just in case somebody still has doubts the China subsection start's by assuring the readers that Bodhidharma has nothing to do with CMA and goes on to cite two monks who were trained in martial art's prior to Bodhidharma arrival and the article ends by informing all it's readers that chinese martial art's have existed prior to Bodhidharma's arrival. a similar bent is to be seen in most related articles and there seem to be serious POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalona Constantine (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I suggest you contemplate the list at WP:TEND. Ergative rlt (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I think that the person who needs to think about being biased is you, not me.The Asian Martial Art Origin article is basically a rant about how bodhidharma has nothing to do with Chinese martial arts at all. A major part of the Indian subsection of the article is devoted to showing Bodhidharma has no involvement with detailed quotes, then just in case someone still has doubt's the China subsection starts by stating that Bodhidharma has no connection to Chinese martial arts and the article ends on a somewhat monotonous note by saying Chinese martial art's have existed long before Bodhidharma. meanwhile all the contrary evidence is being ignored. Also, every single pressure point of Chinese martial art's corresponds to that of Indian Kalaripayattu, Bodhidharma was in the right place in the right time to teach these points, He knew the pressure points in question very well, there are numerous carvings of Bodhidharma practicing and teaching some form of martial arts, the monk's themselves have repeatedly stated that Bodhidharma played an important role in the formation of SKF, When this was pointed out and I asked you what you made of it, ghostexorcist's reply was rather interesting, Bodhidharma didn't transmit any information, both cultures were old and had doctors hence found the same hollows by chance he said,. I see significant POV issues here. by the way the odd's of this being correct and the similarity between all the 108 pressure point's being mere co incidence is less than 1.54074396 × 10e-31 % yet so far the explanation of bodhidharma teaching these points has been dismissed by you, on the basis that the similarity is just a coincidence even though that's mathematically impossible, yet apparently I am the one who has a biased point of view? If you can prove that any of the points I've raised are false, please do so, however as it stands the information provided is correct and extremely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalona Constantine (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I see you've removed the information I've added in spite of the fact that's it's factual veracity is known and even accepted. Removing information you know is true just because you don't like it is deplorable, several articles related to chinese martial arts have basically been dedicated to disproving Bodhidharma connection to shaolin Kung Fu solely on the basis of the yi yi jing being discredited by historians. I will re-add the following information, just because it doesn't sit well with you isn't acceptable 1)The shaolin monks at the monastery have stated that Bodhidharma has played a significant role in the creation and development of Shaolin Kung Fu, how much of this is true, is unknown however it is extremely unlikely that they kept no records of their history whatever and would accept some false version of their history written by the purple coagulating man to purposely denigrate them 2)The carvings In Bodhidharma's cave near the monastery have depicted him practicing and teaching what appears to be a form of martial arts, this evidence is literally etched in stone, though it's traces have been removed from wikipedia 3)All 108 pressure points of Chinese martial arts correspond exactly to the the marman points of kalaripayattu, the chances of 108 pressure points, or 108 of anything corresponding to 108 of anything just by chance is approximately 50 / (2^108) = 1.54074396 × 10^-31 or to say it in plain english, practically impossible 4)also as Alan Watts article has made it painfully clear that the transmission of the lamp isn't the first record of Bodhidharma. deliberating removing fact's and replacing them with lies is pathetic. Further Lives of Exemplary Monks, the first draft of which was written in 645 by Tao-hsuan, a resident of Loyang, records that Bodhidharma arrived in China around 475. It also records Bodhidharma as having ordained a Chinese monk named Sheng-fu around 490 on Songshan’s western Shaoshih peak. Another text, A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang written by Yang Hsuan-chih in 547, contains one of the few eyewitness accounts of a meeting with a monk from the West named Bodhidharma who was visiting Yungning Temple, some 35 miles from Shaolin Temple, to observe a newly constructed 400-foot-high pagoda Details of Bodhidharma’s audience with Emperor Wuti lend additional support to the argument in favor of his existence. Known as the “Emperor Bodhisattva,” Wu-ti was an outstanding patron of Buddhism in southern China and reigned from 502 to 549 during the Liang dynasty (502- 557). He is said to have questioned Bodhidharma about the merit of his pious acts and to have been somewhat upset at the monk’s honest replies. The two supposedly met in the capital of Chien-k’ang, modern Nanjing. A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang is said to have once contained a preface by Li Ching, a great Han Chinese military officer of the Tang dynasty, in which it is written that Bodhidharma “arrived at the court of Wu-ti, the first emperor of the Liang dynasty, where he first dwelt. Afterward, he removed to the Kingdom of Wei and dwelt at a temple called Shaolin Ssu. After a residence of nine years (he was 69 years old when he arrived in the year 526 and was the 28th Indian patriarch), he died and was buried at the foot of Hsiung-erh Mountain (between Henan and Shanxi).” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.34.140 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Let me ask you a question, if "[r]emoving information you know is true just because you don't like it is deplorable," why do you repeatedly (here and here for example) remove cited material in such a way? The reason your information was removed was because it was uncited original research and not because we were conspiring to hide truthful information we didn't agree with. Any material you intend on re-adding that consists of uncited original research will be removed because Wikipedia prohibits this (WP:OR). Now onto your other comments: 1) The monks are simply passing on a legend. Just because they practice Shaolin boxing in the Shaolin Monastery doesn't mean they are trained historians who have analyzed pro-modern documentation and stelae. We keep on repeating this, but you choose not to accept it. Your opinion about them being able to see through a forgery is exactly that: your opinion. The fact that the forgery has been passed off as authentic throughout the centuries shows martial artists are not historians. Even a cursory check of the presented history shows it is full of anachronistic mistakes and total fictions. This is another point I have reiterated time and time again. 2) Please provide scholarly evidence that the stones with etched pictures of Bodhidhdarma teaching martial arts predate the 20th century. Stan Henning has shown the idea of Bodhidharma physically teaching boxing to the monks did not come about until the publication of a popular political novel in 1907 (see this research paper). This research paper analyzes all of the ancient stelae depicting the Monk at Shaolin. One stone known as the "image stone" is said to carry a photo negative-like image of Bodhidharma comparable to the Shroud of Turin. You have no doubt heard the story of how the image was burnt into the stone by his force of will. But unless evidence supporting such a phenomenon can be found, I suggest the cause of the etching should be looked at only as a legend. The rest of the stelae are of a religious nature, none of which depict Bodhidharma teaching boxing to other monks. All of these range from the 12th-14th centuries. I wouldn't doubt there are modern stones with images of him in martially inclined situations on display at Shaolin, but this by no means proves an ancient connection to their arts. 3) You have not cited a single reference on this matter. Your opinion, though informed as you think it may be, does not count as a valid source. As it stands, just saying "this Indian art is similar to this Chinese one," "Bodhidharma came to China from India," and "he was at the Shaolin Monastery at the right place and time" is a clear cut case of WP:Synthesis. 4) You keep on referring to Young's article as being written by Watts (hence the confusion in one of my previous posts). Watt's comments are only applicable to our discussion about Bodhidharm as far as helping to verify his historicity. That's it. He mentions nothing about the Monk's supposed links to martial arts. As I've dicated above, Young's quote about Watts actually says: ”Watts concluded his examination of the arguments for and against the existence of Bodhidharma by adopting a most pragmatic attitude: ‘We may as well accept the story of Bodhidharma until there is some really overwhelming evidence against it.’” (p. 131) Despite this, you seem to misquote his comment about accepting the legend as referring to the martial arts. This isn't even original research, it's just plain incorrect. The next three documents you refer to only mention him as a historical person. They do not say anything about martial arts, so they are not strengthening your argument in anyway. Again, this is a violation of WP:Synthesis. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Let me ask you a question, if "[r]emoving information you know is true just because you don't like it is deplorable," why do you repeatedly (here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Removing information? Let's see, the cited information you refer to is still there, the only thing is it doesn't need to be repeated again and again again, the statement that the Yi Jin Jing has been thoroughly discredited is enough especially in an article about ASIAN martial arts as a whole. saying the yi jin jing's authenticity is doubted several times then provide an unneeded synopsis of your argument even though the point has been made adequately before and adding said synopsis where ever you can is unnecessary unless for some reason you're afraid people won't believe you for some reason. if it's false it's false, I haven't removed the reference to the the Yi Jin Jing being false, what i've removed is the constant restatements, that isn't removing true information. False accusations aren't the way to go. the statement that the yi jin jing is discredited by notable historians is enough, however if you feel the need for constantly restating something, (also known as ranting go ahead), just don't do it through wikipedia, 2) Please provide scholarly evidence that the stones with etched pictures of Bodhidhdarma teaching martial arts predate the 20th century. Stan Henning has shown the idea of Bodhidharma physically teaching boxing to the monks did not come about until the publication of a popular political novel in 1907 (see this research paper). No they were made yesterday by vandals ofcourse, the monks have lived there for countless centuries and have repeatedly maintained those carvings were always there, an unbroken line of people who have spent their entire lives in that place saying that the carvings weren't made yesterday is pretty strong evidence. One stone known as the "image stone" is said to carry a photo negative-like image of Bodhidharma comparable to the Shroud of Turin. You have no doubt heard the story of how the image was burnt into the stone by his force of will. But unless evidence supporting such a phenomenon can be found I wouldn't doubt there are modern stones with images of him in martially inclined situations on display at Shaolin, but this by no means proves an ancient connection to their arts. Sure, if the photo negative image right in front of you isn't proof enough then fair enough,maybe whoever made it should have made a couple just to be sure, however there are many stones there which aren't modern but still have images of him in martially inclined situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaolin_Monastery&action=historysubmit&diff=387680134&oldid=387679919 you seem to misquote] his comment about accepting the legend as referring to the martial arts. The point is that Bodhidharma was in the right place at the right time and saying that transmission of the lamp is the FIRST record is incorrect there are plenty of contemporary accounts of Bodhidharma going back to 475. Watt's comments are only applicable to our discussion about Bodhidharm as far as helping to verify his historicity. Thats kind of the point right place right time. Also you ignore the pressure points again and again, the percentage chance of 108 points corresponding exactly to each other is of the order 10^ -31 even if you assume each point can be only in two places, if you would actually consider all the viable points on the body they could be you could probably add several more dozen zero's after the point. if you aren't mathematically inclined it means it's practically impossible. There are carvings of Bodhidharma in the backyard of the shaolin monastery, the monks have said repeatedly that Bodhidharma did indeed introduce several new concepts into Shaolin Kung Fu, the obvious, most simple most rational explanation is that the pressure points in question were taught by Bodhidharma, no one else fits the bill as well as him, rejecting the explanation because you don't like Bodhidharma isn't logical or rational. The monks are simply passing on a legend. Just because they practice Shaolin boxing in the Shaolin Monastery doesn't mean they are trained historians who have analyzed pro-modern documentation and stelae. So basically you'd like to make a baseless assumption that the monk's over the years have kept no records whatsoever, something that isn't true. further more you're assuming that that monk's in 17th century were nitwits, that someone named the purple coagulating man brought a book about about a guy creating the style they dedicated their lives to mastering, they'd never heard this before but they still accepted it without question, despite the fact that it's gives credit to a foreigner for their style and would deprive them of much national pride, the yi jin jing has flaws yes, but it is also incredibly unlikely that the monks were taken in by a revolutionary and wholly false history of their monastery brought to them by a fraud who probably didn't like them very much. so let's see the monks say that Bodhidharma did bring important martial concepts to the monastery, some say even created their fighting style, they didn't drop into the monastery like some foreign tourist but have lived there their entire life and this stretches back for quite some time though the monastery was destroyed a few times assuming they're clueless is highly disrespectful not to mention inaccurate especially when they have other information that is true and has been verified by other historians. The argument that since the yi jin jing is fake and from the 18 century hence bodhidharma couldn't have taught martial arts in the 5th century is a logical fallacy. There are several carvings of Bodhidharma doing and teaching martial arts, clftruthseeking himself has been there and has seen them. so have several people. The fact that the 108 chinese pressure points are identical to marman pressure points a mathematical impossibility even if you assume each point can only be in two places. so far Bodhidharma seems to be the most likely candidate from bringing this information to china. The fact that Bodhidharma was in the right place and the right time backed up by. Further Lives of Exemplary Monks, the first draft of which was written in 645 by Tao-hsuan, a resident of Loyang, records that Bodhidharma arrived in China around 475. It also records Bodhidharma as having ordained a Chinese monk named Sheng-fu around 490 on Songshan’s western Shaoshih peak. Another text, A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang written by Yang Hsuan-chih in 547, contains one of the few eyewitness accounts of a meeting with a monk from the West named Bodhidharma who was visiting Yungning Temple, some 35 miles from Shaolin Temple, to observe a newly constructed 400-foot-high pagoda Details of Bodhidharma’s audience with Emperor Wuti lend additional support to the argument in favor of his existence. Known as the “Emperor Bodhisattva,” Wu-ti was an outstanding patron of Buddhism in southern China and reigned from 502 to 549 during the Liang dynasty (502- 557). He is said to have questioned Bodhidharma about the merit of his pious acts and to have been somewhat upset at the monk’s honest replies. The two supposedly met in the capital of Chien-k’ang, modern Nanjing. A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang is said to have once contained a preface by Li Ching, a great Han Chinese military officer of the Tang dynasty, in which it is written that Bodhidharma “arrived at the court of Wu-ti, the first emperor of the Liang dynasty, where he first dwelt. Afterward, he removed to the Kingdom of Wei and dwelt at a temple called Shaolin Ssu. After a residence of nine years (he was 69 years old when he arrived in the year 526 and was the 28th Indian patriarch), he died and was buried at the foot of Hsiung-erh Mountain (between Henan and Shanxi).” you can hardly call the above unverified research. the fact that the monks have stated that bodhidharma did indeed teach them a lot as you've pointed out before in the past, it's also on cable TV not unverified is that? or maybe the tv documentary is fake? so lets see the verified facts we can breakdown Bodhidharma historicity is genuine there is no doubt of the fact that he was at the right place at the right time the chinese martial arts have several aspects of Indian martial arts' moves named such indra's roar etc and not the least is the entire pressure point system. if my styles entire pressure point system was gifted by someone I'd say thanks. The monks have repeatedly stated that bodhidharma did bring a lot to them. since they have provided other verified information and lived their entire lives there in the monastery in unbroken lines stretching back centuries so their information can't be discounted easily the steles do depict bodhidharma doing and teaching martial arts magical photo's notwithstanding, there are several eye witness accounts the article you mentioned is written by one man named stanley henning who by his own admission has just floated around the martial art scene and has published just one article. matsuda and the others you mention can be listened to. some article online by a random guy with no credentials is accepted without question even though you ignored the monks who have first hand evidence. the author makes interesting statements such as This book, of unknown origin but written in an anti-Manchu secret society tone, a line later Master of the Study of Self Respect (probably an allusion to anti-Manchu and anti-imperialist feelings) Also the entire article is dedicated to debunking the The Zhang Sanfeng legend. a couple of lines about Bodhidharma in an article filled with anti manchu sentiment doesn't exactly disprove a lot. also this article https://proxy.lib.muohio.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111083 is password protected so I can't comment on it. however the eye witness accounts still stand. since you seem so keen to keep removing the points supporting bodhidharma Ive added the necessary citations. if you can prove that the monks don't believe bodhidharma played an important role, that monks in 17th century were retarded fools and that the carvings depicting bodhidharma as martially inclined are false please do so, if not stop removing verified information you don't like. additionally try to avoid adding information you know is FALSE, there are plenty of references to bodhidharma going back to the 4th 5th and 6th century that predate transmission of the lamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalona Constantine (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC) If I am falsely accusing you of removing material, please explain this edit which I had to revert. I have left several warnings on your main and anonymous I.P. user talk pages about such edits. If you remove the material again, I will contact an admin about your behavior. Let's cut the childish remarks about vandals creating the stones (see Wp:Civil). The burden of proof is on you to show there really are pre-20th century stone engravings on display at Shaolin specifically showing Bodhidharma teaching martial arts. You either have a source for it or you don't. It's time to cite a book, magazine, or journal in which you found the information. The journal I cited does not mention a single martial stone inscription. (I corrected the link before your most current reply. Check it again. You won't be able to access it unless you have a JSTOR account.) I never once said that the Monastery did not keep records. It's obvious from all of the historical and religious-based stelae present on the grounds and the documents that survived the many fires that they did. However, the Yijin Jing is not among those. If you think it is a logical fallacy to say he couldn't have taught martial arts back in the 5th century if the manual was written in the 17th century, then you should have no problem finding a book which mentions an ancient source with this information. Have you noticed how all of the works you cite to verify his historicity--Further Lives of Exemplary Monks for example--do not connect him with martial arts? The reason I called the works you listed in the article original research is because you did not give a source in which you found the information. I have linked you to WP:Citing sources once before. I'm afraid your "breakdown" of the information betrays your violation of WP:synthesis. Linking Bodhidharma to Chinese martial arts (C.M.A.) because he was present at Shaolin, the moves of C.M.A. styles have Indian names, and the 108 pressure points are similar to those from India is original research because you have not presented a source that states all of this. A single source (not information pruned from different references) has to mention all of this in the same work. Your evaluation of Henning's credentials and his paper is without merit. You obviously have no idea who he is because if you type his name into google, the very first page that pops up is his website. He is just some "random guy with no credentials" who has only written one article? Really? I think you need to check again. As for the paper, the lines you mention are referring to two different books. The book of "unknown origin" is Shaolin School Methods published in 1910. The second book is Secrets of Shaolin Boxing (pseudonym, Master of the Study of Self Respect). It doesn't matter if the paper's main focus is on debunking Taiji myths. The fact of the matter is the Bodhidharma martial arts myth is closely tied in with the Zhang Sanfeng myth. Even Prof. Meir Shahar has commented on this in his recent book The Shaolin Monastery (pp. 176-180). The material Henning presents about Bodhidharma in his paper, however brief it may be, is still sound, scholarly, and citable. Again, I would like to remind you of WP:Civil due to your accusations of me adding "FALSE" information to pages. Also, I never said the monks were "retarded fools," so please discontinue this tone of writing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC) False, yes false, the transmission of the lamp is not the first mention of bodhidharma, as the article showed you there are plenty of references going back to 475 hence transmission of the lamp from 1004 is not the FIRST mention of him. secondly you have implied much worse about the monks you've accused them of being illiterate, keeping no records, being gullible and being taken in by a forgery by a random stranger who walks in. you didn't use the word retarded but your paraphrased argument was that the monks were illiterate and didn't know much. one day purple coagulating man walked in with a book he just wrote told the monks it's very old going back to the time of the creation of their style. the monk's didn't notice they've never heard of the exercises in it before and didn't question such monumental assertions as to the historicity of their style's and have been living ignorantly ever since while outsiders unconnected to the monastery shake their head at the monks lack of knowledge. both basically means the same thing. a direct insult and an implied insult are no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.34.140 (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I re-added the allusion to the Transmission of the Lamp because it was part of a sweeping revert of the material you deleted. However, the information has not graced the page since you removed it. You can see from my edit here that I did not add it back. Please keep in mind that many of the ancient religious works you have been citing to verify his historicty do not mention him physically being in Shaolin at that time, only cities near it. The following comes from Prof. Meir Shahar's book The Shaolin Monastery (2008): "In the sixth-century Record of Buddhist Monasteris in Lo-yoang (Luoyang qielan ji) (ca. 547), the saint is said to have visited the city, but no allusion is made to the nearby Mt. Song. Approximately a century later, the Continuation of the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu Gaoseng zhuan) (645), describes him as active in the "Mt. Song-Luoyang" region. Then, in such early eighth-century compositions as the Precious Record of the Darma's Transmission (Chuanfa baoji) (c. 710) Bodhidharma is identified not merely with Mt. Song but more specifically with the Shaolin Monastery, where supposedly for several years he faced the wall in meditation ... A stele inscription dated 728 is the earliest to have Bodhidharma residing on Mt. Song." (pp. 13-14) How can he teach martial arts at Shaolin in the 5th century if historical documents don't place him there until the 8th century? Records from this time show the monks attributed their skills to the Bodhisattva Vajrapani. They continued to do so throughout the 16th century. All of this is explained in the linked article. Before I continue, I would like you to find one example where I said the monks did not keep records. Comb through the edit history if you like. Unless you can find an example, you are putting words into my mouth that I did not say. Moving on. My comments about illiterate martial artists were aimed at those outside of the monastery (I actually have citations for the illiteracy by the way). This is because the Yijin Jing was written outside of the monastery by "Zi Ning Daoren" Zongheng from Mt. Tiantai in Zhejiang province. Shaolin is in Henan province. Both provinces are separated by Anhui, a province of some 53,800 square miles. Zi Ning Daoren just walking into the Shaolin monastery with the manual did not happen the way you think. This manual circulated amongst the people and eventually made its way to Shaolin. As you know, monks are celibate and can't have children after they take the tonsure, so the Monastery has to get its staffing from among the common folk that the manual circulated with. You seem to be working off the wrong assumption that I was aiming an insult at them in the first place. You are just reading too much into the situation. You said on one of your user talk pages that the addition of the summation of the scholarly stance was biased since there isn't a presented view from people who think it is real. Frankly, there are a lot of people who think it's real, but no one has ever tried to counter the Scholarly stance on the subject. This is because not one thing about it is historically correct, therefore, there is nothing to argue in favor of. By all means, feel free to try to track down credentialed individuals who have found evidence for its authenticity and written papers about it. This is something I've been asking editors like yourself to do for years now. I've tried occasionally to do this myself, but I keep on turning up nothing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) From all of the above, two things really stick out for me personally in favor of the bodhidharma theory, the hundred and eight points for starters that correspond in both styles. forget a hundred and eight, if the indians and the chinese just picking one point on the body the chances of them corresponding would be incredibly low. (1 multiplied by (area of pressure point/total body surface area). When it comes to hundred and eight such points on the body it's so unlikely that compared to it, your chances of winning the state lottery are almost guaranteed, second the monks opinion of the history of the monastery themselves, if that purple coagulating man(what kinda name is that anyway?) really made up false assertions, would they have noticed it the moment he introduced it? why would they accept a completely new and revolutionary theory of the origin of their monastery introduced by a stranger unless they had some reason to believe in it themselves? this is like suggesting that if I walked into a chinese classroom tomorrow and told everyone that they're actually russians everyone would accept my chinese=russian theory without question. IMHO I think it's rather unlikely. my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.45.155 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Your first question about the corresponding 108 points has been answered above. But in review, the reason they correspond is because there is only one human body, with the same joints, veins, organs, and weak spots. If we were talking about two different life forms the chances of them corresponding would be like winning the lottery, but we aren't. On top of this, both cultures have their own sophisticated schools of traditional medicine. So it stands to reason that both had the time and capacity to independently stumble upon these weakspots since they were working off of the same specimen: the human body. It's possible both schools shared techniques, but the idea of one stealing all 108 points from the other is absolutely ridiculous. Scribal evidence points to the Chinese having acupuncture as early as the Shang Dynasty (1766-1122 BCE). Bodhidharma didn't arrive in China until the 5th or 6th century CE (depending on the source), and Chinese records don't place him at Shaolin until the 8th century (which is another blow to the legend). How could he possibly have influenced traditional Chinese medicine and indigenous martial arts if the techniques he supposedly introduced had already been present in China for hundreds of years? Your second question is easy to answer. As mentioned above, the Yijin Jing is the source that attributes Shaolin qigong to Bodhidharma. Stan Henning has shown the Buddhist saint wasn’t connected to Shaolin boxing until the publishing of a popular satirical novel in a Chinese newspaper from 1907-1910. The author of the novel confused the strength-bestowing qigong exercises of the Yijin Jing with Shaolin boxing. From this point on, the legend appeared in one form or another in martial arts manuals. I doubt the monks immediately accepted the claim, especially since it developed outside of the monastery and contradicted the in-house legend about Vajrapani. It is important to note the Vajrapani myth is not very old, only first appearing on a Shaolin stele in 1517. The transition between in-house origin myths was relatively short, only a few decades, but it was by no means instantaneous like your scenario suggests. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, monks can’t have children after taking the tonsure, so the monastery must get staff from amongst the common folk the satirical novel and martial manuals mentioning the legend circulated. This means those coming to the monastery would be more likely to accept the legend than those already in the monastery. Second, because the monastery has a rotation of new people, the “collective memory” of the sanga tends to differ from generation to generation. For example, the monks made a statue of Vajrapani during the 17th century. One hundred years later, the monks of the new generation believed that Vajrapani himself had made it. Third, Shaolin chose the wrong side in a dispute between Warlords, which led to the monastery being burnt in 1928 and the dispersal of the sanga. This left Shaolin a former shadow of itself. Fourth, the Shaolin cult of Vajrapani received a huge blow when the aforementioned statue perished in the fire. The cult was not rejuvenated until almost sixty years later when the monks rebuilt the shrine to him in 1984. By the time the monastery was rebuilt and a newer sanga was formed, the Vajrapani legend had all but been forgotten. The younger and more prevalent myth about Bodhidharma won out in the end thanks largely to its proliferation amongst the common folk outside the monastery. My five dollars. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding masters to the "Notable practitioners" section

Extended content

User:199.173.225.25 continues to add a master to the "Notable practitioners" section that is just not notable enough (by the way I have put a WP:3RR warning on their talk page). My major problem with the addition is that the person is not notable to even have his own wiki article. Red links should never be added to the list. My other problem is that the list would be a gigantic unverifiable mess If every person added a skilled master from their lineage to the section. The currently listed masters do have articles and many of them are important outside of the martial arts community: Yue Fei - National hero, portrayed in novels, comic books, folktales, and movies (hereafter SAME) Ng Mui - Creator of several noted styles, SAME Yang Luchan - Creator Ten Tigers of Canton - Famous old world masters, SAME Wong Fei Hung - National hero, SAME Huo Yuanjia - National hero, SAME Yip Man - First person to teach Wing Chun openly and master to Bruce Lee Bruce Lee - Creator and famous actor (DUH!) Jackie Chan - DUH! Jet Lee - DUH! I have notified them of this discussion on their talk page. Hopefully we can resolve the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I agreed with Ghostexorcist on his list and criteria for inclusion in the list. As noted in the article, this list is representative and is not meant to be comprehensive. Yes, everyone likes to have their personal favorites listed but it would make the article unreadable. Please add notable Chinese Martial Artists under their respective styles as well as in the list of Chinese Martial Artist. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, I would like to see a more detailed list of practitioners with the styles from which they are notable under. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) We could start separate list article, e.g. Notable practitioners of Chinese martial arts and link that, but do think that the bar should be an article or a good secondary source that indicates an article could be written in the future. However it might be easier to just list the ones above and then link the category Category:Chinese martial artists --Nate1481(t/c) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I wrote a related article called List of lei tai fighters a long time ago. It is a horrible article, but it is at least sourced. I have not updated it for at least a year. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I moved this question to here since it is the more appropriate section. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate feedback on my proposal to add Chan Heung to the list of "Notable Practitioners" listed on this page. His information can viewed at Chan Heung. Thank you for the consideration.Clftruthseeking (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It is a though call, Chan Heung is definitely a notable martial artist being the founder of Choy Li Fut. The list is already have represented Southern Masters (Ten Tigers, Wong Fei Huang) so one reason for his exclusion is that the masters should be "important outside of the martial arts community". ottawakungfu (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC) You mention Kill Bill and the Kung Fu series when giving examples of how the Chinese martial arts are popular in the West, but yet you don't have David Carradine on your notable practitioners list? Really?! 24.56.220.220 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Are you kidding? David Carradine is an actor not a martial artist. Does he even do his own stunts? ottawakungfu (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Legendary founders

So Bodhidharma's involvement in martial arts is legendary. So what? So is the Yellow Emperor's. Just create a "legendary origins" section and discuss this stuff there. It beats sprinkling the article with html comments asking people to not mention Bodhidharma.

I created the Bodhidharma at Shaolin section-redirect. This should be taken as the main reference to this topic. As it turns out, this is a tradition dating to the 17th century. This makes it rather relevant, as it turns out that the history of Chinese martial arts itself dates to the 17th century. Let me explain what I mean.

So we have tons of references stating that "there was combat in ancient China". Yeah, there was also combat in Europe, in the North American plains, and in the Congo. As it happens, this article completely over-emphasizes the snippets of information from remote antiquity, and completely ignores the period of actual historical interest. Yes, I am sure there has been martial arts in China since before 1000 BCE. The point is that very little is known about it. We have an article dedicated to this stuff, at Asian martial arts (origins).

The actual history of Chinese martial arts (in the sense of historicity, i.e. we have actual sources that can be used to reconstruct what these people were doing) apparently emerges from around the 16th century. The period of interest here should therefore be the 16th to 19th centuries (late Ming plus Qing). Sadly, this period is completely neglected here. We hear about the Yellow Emperor, the Shang dynasty, the Spring and Autumn annals, and what have you, but about the period of actual historicity, all we have is the off-hand reference to

"various literary genres of the late Ming: the epitaphs of Shaolin warrior monks, martial-arts manuals, military encyclopedias, historical writings, travelogues, fiction and poetry."

well, that's great. These various literary genres of late Ming, especially the martial arts manuals, should be what this article focusses on, because they will be the source of any historical presentation of Chinese martial arts. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to keep the articles separate. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I have proposed merging Kung fu (term) into Chinese martial arts. The Chinese martial arts article itself specifies kung fu as a synonym. Granted the words in Chinese are not true synonyms but this is not a Chinese language article. These terms in English are essentially synonymous. To the extent that one could argue that there are subtle differences used in some contexts these can simply be explained in a single article. I don't see a rationale for two articles. As it stands the Kung fu (term) article is essentially just defining a term which, IMHO, violates WP:NAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: the Kung fu (term) article specifically states that its scope is broader then that of this article. I would suggest renaming Kung fu (term) to something making more sense instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - I tend to agree with the IP that kung fu (term) is a dictionary definition, though if I have missed an obvious reason that it could be expanded into an encyclopaedic article then I might reconsider. Chinese martial arts is getting a little bit lengthy, perhaps, and it looks like it has already had material split from it several times, but I would not mind giving a little more space to the definition of kung fu there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my recommendation to "oppose" because of Ottawakungfu's suggestion below that "kung fu" is a concept in Neo-Confucian philosophy, which was easily verified through a quick Google Books search. See, for example, this source. I agree with others that changing the name could be a good idea, though I'm not certain what to. Does anyone have any suggestions? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Article has a broader scope and the term itself has enough notability to have a separate article and that will not violate WP:WEIGHT in this case. That being said, the article should rather be renamed to something that covers the full scope per Czarcoff. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The anon needs to provide solid proof that the term is considered 100% synonymous with Chinese martial arts. As mentioned above, the article has a lot of potential due to the all encompassing meaning of the term (i.e., skill in any given discipline through effort). I support the name change as well. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  I see what you're getting at, but WP:DICTIONARY doesn't set the bar quite as high as that. For the article to be kept, what needs to be proven is that the term is an encyclopaedic topic in its own right - i.e. it should be possible to extend the article beyond a description of the term's different meanings, its etymology, and its usage. I think that Ottawakungfu's suggestion below that it is a concept in Neo-Confucian philosophy would be enough reason to keep it. I'll have a look for sources and see if I can find anything. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Kung Fu" is a Chinese term with many meanings historically e.g in Neo-Confucian philosophy, the term refers to moral effort. It is only recently that the term has been associated with Chinese martial arts. As suggested, the name could be changed to make this point more explicit. ottawakungfu (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How real are the weapons scenes in periodic historic Chinese drama and films?

In historic Chinese drama and films, it appears that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can be carrying and displaying weapons such as long swords. Is this accurate? Could anybody just carry weapons in public in Chinese history? Did they need licences? Or were they simply banned? 86.176.190.115 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ch'uan fa

Why does ch'uan fa redirect here, when there is no mention of the term at all in this article? Rhialto (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I too have wondered about this. I have been told that the Japanese "kenpo" came from the Chinese "chuan fa", and that both mean "fist way"; that is, ken=chuan=fist and po=fa=way or art. I have noticed some movie titles which have "fist" in the English title have "chuan" in the Chinese title, which seems to support this translation. Also, see the article on tai chi ch'uan "Kung Fu" is shown, in this and other articles, to mean "human achievement". It seems that the two term "kung fu" and "chuan fa" are separate terms, with separate meanings. It therefore seems that, for the sake of completeness, this article should explain the term "chuan fa". Since I don't know the Chinese language, I would not be qualified to add such content.SRBirch922 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)