Talk:Bodhidharma

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Karthiking123 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)bodhi means knowledge in tamil

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Bodhidarma was a Tamil king of the Pallava dynasty. His original name was Jayavarman CrMithun.s (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

bodhidharma

Bodhi might be a chalokya(solanki)king from Gujrat auther Mr Hodewala doubts in his book. مالڪ سولنڪي (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@مالڪ سولنڪي: you added diff (and I removed diff the following:

According to a sindhi historian Ghullam hyder Mehjoor Solangi In chachanama`s Sindhi translation a history book about arab invade on Sindh Mr Hodewala theoricise that this might be a chalokya(solanki) king because in 642 a.c a Gujrati king named Budhivarmam of chalokya dynasity was also exited in history. this looks a powerfull reference.

References

You messed-up the reference, but it seems to be Ghullam hyder mehjoor Solangi (2012), History of rajput solanki their one milinum ruling period on sindh and hind. I can't find it on Google Books, so I'm afraid it's not a very "powerfull reference." You seem to refer to the Chalukya dynasty (543–753) from southern India. Yet, "solanki" refers to the Solanki (clan) from Pakistan, and in the context of Gujarat, you may be referring to the Chaulukya dynasty (c. 940 CE–1244 CE) from Gujarat. So, I can't make sense of what you added. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The book i mentioned is a highly discussed book about Solanki history perhaps this like book has never been published about chalokya or solanki nation. these two are Same. مالڪ سولنڪي (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

chachnama took this reference from Mr Hodewala`s book Rasmala and G.H Mehjoor Solangi has taken this reference from chachnama and I took this referenc from “ History of rajput solanki their one milinum ruling period on sindh and hind”.Publishing year(2012)
مالڪ سولنڪي (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of what you're writing, and your source is unverifiable; please stop adding it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bodhidharma was a semi-legendary????

What is semi legendary ?? english meaning I can see is :

somewhat legendary; having something of the nature of a legend; almost legendary. the semi-legendary poet whose verses had the authority of oracles.

A historical character like a saint or sage have legendary stories related , but his existence is not legendary.

So Bodhidharma was a semi-legendary is completely wrong..

will you call buddha a semi-legendary ??? or jesus a semi-legendary ???

remove that.

Ok done Noncreativephotographer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wall-gazing

Request to add a quote by Dahui to clarify wall-gazing topic, would fit right after Daoxuan's line.:

Wall-gazing
Tanlin, in the preface to Two Entrances and Four Acts, and Daoxuan, in the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks, mention a practice of Bodhidharma's termed "wall-gazing" (壁觀 bìguān). Both Tanlin[note 9] and Daoxuan[web 5] associate this "wall-gazing" with "quieting [the] mind"[24] (Chinese: 安心; pinyin: ānxīn).

In the Two Entrances and Four Acts, traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma, the term "wall-gazing" is given as follows:
Those who turn from delusion back to reality, who meditate on walls, the absence of self and other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with reason".[52][note 10]

Daoxuan states, "The merits of Mahāyāna wall-gazing are the highest".[53]

These are the first mentions in the historical record of what may be a type of meditation being ascribed to Bodhidharma.

Exactly what sort of practice Bodhidharma's "wall-gazing" was remains uncertain. Nearly all accounts have treated it either as an undefined variety of meditation, as Daoxuan and Dumoulin,[53] or as a variety of seated meditation akin to the zazen (Chinese: 坐禪; pinyin: zuòchán) that later became a defining characteristic of Chan. The latter interpretation is particularly common among those working from a Chan standpoint.[web 6][web 7]

There have also, however, been interpretations of "wall-gazing" as a non-meditative phenomenon.[note 11]"

There are a couple of options, I'll post the bigger text below, but I was thinking this quote myself:

The old barbarian Bodhidharma for nine years suffered defeat [i.e., his nine years of sitting facing a wall were a defeat]—what a pity that he was mistaken all that time! The result has been that the followers of “silence-as-illumination” do sitting for years on end.34

Just to give an idea of the different interpretations that exist withing the teachings.

The text comes from The Letters of Zen Master Dahui Pujue and can be found on pages 19 and 20, ISBN 978–0–19–066416–9

This is the context:

How much stress should be placed upon the practice of sitting? Dahui holds that sitting has its place on the Chan path but must not be valued in and of itself as an ultimate. The perverse teachers take awakening as an upāya and sitting as the ultimate—hence their insistence on the primacy of sitting—but Dahui says “in investigating the ultimate principle take awakening as the standard” (letters #58.6 and #59.1) and says sitting is an upāya, to be used when needed, as in letter #15.4:

When it is time to deal with things, just deal with them. When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate. At the present time, of the party of perverse teachers, most take “silence-asillumination” stillness-sitting as an ultimate dharma, misleading younger students. I don’t fear making enemies of them. I vigorously scold them in order to repay the kindness of the buddhas, and to rescue beings from the con-men of this end-time of the dharma.

Here are a few brief passages from Dahui texts that explicitly link “engirding mind” and “silence-as-illumination” with excessive sitting:

Preceptor Yantou said: When previously I was on pilgrimage I probed Chan with the honored monks of one or two places. All they did was have students day-and-night “engird mind,” sit until they produced callouses on the rump and until the water in their mouths was drained dry; first they would face Dīpaṃkara Buddha, and, from the black-lacquer darkness in their bellies, they would say: “I keep my Chan sitting safe!”33

The old barbarian Bodhidharma for nine years suffered defeat [i.e., his nine years of sitting facing a wall were a defeat]—what a pity that he was mistaken all that time! The result has been that the followers of “silence-as-illumination” do sitting for years on end.34

They fervently close the eyes and assume the appearance of death. They call it “stillness-sitting,” “mind-contemplation,” and “silenceas-illumination.” In turn they take this perverse view and use it to lead ignorant mediocrities, saying: “If you can attain stillness [in sitting] for one day, that’s one day’s gongfu.”35

Also, to clear up ambiguity, what they mean with wall-gazing is to make you mind straight like a wall, the emphasis is not on the gazing part, which can be deduced when you look at the other translations (which say: "Make your mind (straight) like a wall" or "Make your mind like a straight standing wall") and look at other zen masters when they say "mind like a stone". I can look if I can find and provide the quotes if you're interested.

See WP:OR and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

[Edit 9.08 AM, 9 october 2021: "How much stress should be placed upon the practice of sitting? Dahui holds that sitting has its place on the Chan path but must not be valued in and of itself as an ultimate. The perverse teachers take awakening as an upāya and sitting as the ultimate—hence their insistence on the primacy of sitting—but Dahui says “in investigating the ultimate principle take awakening as the standard” (letters #58.6 and #59.1) and says sitting is an upāya, to be used when needed, as in letter #15.4:" is what the writer is saying, meaning it's a secondery source and not original research. You should try reading things before responding in bllnd biased fury User:Joshua Jonathan (end of edit)]

So if I find a writer who says the same thing as I do, but presents it in a book instead, it is allowed to be included, but not now? You don't see how that is a little off?

The proposed quote should be no issue as there already is another quote under the header. I don't see the issues with the other clarifying quotes then either, especially when taken from a book where the author agrees with the view I'm discussing here.

"If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

Why does your primary source get more weight than the one I presented above? Where is the neutrality in that? Why does a quote advocating for the merit of sitting get allowed but a rejection of it doesn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"These are the first mentions in the historical record of what may be a type of meditation being ascribed to Bodhidharma." That's why. Dahui is 500 years later; he refers to Bodhidharma to oppose a (concurrent) approach of his own time; adding this quote would be WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A "later these claims would be thouroughly rejected/contested" does not seem undue to me.

Why is daoxuan considered a good/reliable source again?

Although Daoxuan’s account is straightforward, succinct, and apparently fairly authentic, it presents some problems. Most important, it presents two different, almost contradictory, images of Bodhidharma—as a practicer of “wallgazing,” intent on not relying on the written word, and as a partisan of the Lankāvatāra Sūtra. Daoxuan clearly has some difficulty in reconciling his divergent sources. Primarily, he draws on the preface to the so-called Erru sixing lun (Treatise on the two entrances and four practices), written around 600 by Bodhidharma’s (or Huike’s) disciple Tanlin (dates unknown) and on information concerning the reputed transmission of the Lankāvatāra Sūtra. This latter had probably been given to Daoxuan by Fachong (587?–665), an heir of the tradition. In any case, at the time of Daoxuan’s writing, Bodhidharma was not yet considered the twenty-eighth patriarch of Indian Buddhism.

BERNARD FAURE (1987) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

Here's another secondary source stating the unreliability of the two entrances and four acts: https://books.google.nl/books?id=fRbr8uPtTcUC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=two+entrances+and+four+acts+unreliable&source=bl&ots=4sMro0pad4&sig=ACfU3U1Fbi8QWyloNGxmu_Mmj4nzTwB77w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj1K258rrzAhU3_rsIHewxADQQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=two%20entrances%20and%20four%20acts%20unreliable&f=false

Note the: Until modern research proved otherwise.

Also note that this is a book from 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So "These are" not "the first mentions in the historical record of what may be a type of meditation being ascribed to Bodhidharma"? Do you actually understand what's written here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is a "though these views are heavily contested" misplaced?

I think you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. If the historical record has been deemed an unreliable source then whatever is stated in it is unreliable too and I don't see why you're allowed to use it. If: "There have also, however, been interpretations of "wall-gazing" as a non-meditative phenomenon" is valid then so should "though the text has been ascribed to bodhidharma, it's reliability is heavily contested by scholars"

Look... What I'm proposing happens later in the article, too. You really need to drop your bias and start acting like an editor.

Shaolin boxing

Traditionally Bodhidharma is credited as founder of the martial arts at the Shaolin Temple. However, martial arts historians have shown this legend stems from a 17th-century qigong manual known as the Yijin Jing.[83] The preface of this work says that Bodhidharma left behind the Yi Jin Jing, from which the monks obtained the fighting skills which made them gain some fame.[37]

The authenticity of the Yijin Jing has been discredited by some historians including Tang Hao, Xu Zhen and Matsuda Ryuchi. According to Lin Boyuan, "This manuscript is full of errors, absurdities and fantastic claims; it cannot be taken as a legitimate source."[37][note 12]

The oldest available copy was published in 1827.[84] The composition of the text itself has been dated to 1624.[37] Even then, the association of Bodhidharma with martial arts only became widespread as a result of the 1904–1907 serialization of the novel The Travels of Lao Ts'an in Illustrated Fiction Magazine.[85] According to Henning, the "story is clearly a twentieth-century invention," which "is confirmed by writings going back at least 250 years earlier, which mention both Bodhidharma and martial arts but make no connection between the two."[86][note 13]

I think that you think you have some sort of understanding of zen and you can't take criticism from anyone because you think you know better by default, making you unable to face your mistakes or accept that someone may have a more encompassing view than you do, which is fine, but it doesn't have a place on wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral, not in favor of your personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as you won't respond again, I'll add some more myself. You claim OR research has no place in wikipedia, but I don't think you know what you're even saying here, let me quote the page User:Joshua Jonathan

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

I did not think up the rejection of meditation, anyone who has seen even one book written by zen masters/patriarchs knows that throughout the canon practice and meditation get rejected very frequently. There are a lot of "opposing/contradicting" views in zen and it's weird to me that this one in particular is not being accounted for seeing as it is very prevalent throughout the zen canon.

RFC Wall-gazing section

Content is not being given it's due weight and I suspect editorial bias, which isn't soothed by the editor's unwillingness to cooperate.

Tried DRN but I don't see it going anywhere and would like some neutral input instead of input from people who are invested in the topic in some way.

Sorry if I'm doing this too early, but I don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in and don't see DRN or the discussion with joshua jonathan going anywhere atm.

Be sure to read everything carefully, it's not an easy topic.

I'm 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 in the discussion above, seems like my ip changed today.

2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)