Talk:Kalaripayattu

List of Archived Talk Pages
Archive 1

Disputed history

We need to leave the dispute in the history section of kalaripayattu. We have spent nearly a year now on this subject and every two months, someone comes along and tries to state that kalaripayattu is the origin of all martial arts or all chinese martial arts. Along with that, every other month, someone else comes along and tries to prevent discussion of the topic that there are people who are misinformed about kalaripayattu's history. Kennethtennyson 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not read all the messages in the archive, but if I'm correct, what is disputed here, is not the history or the origins of kalarippayatu; but the history of the Chinese and Japanese martial arts. So I dont see what is wrong with my cleaned-up version of the history section.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section should directly address the controversy, if only briefly. As Mano1 put it in the archive, "It is vital that we leave that section in the history because it is still an ongoing debate".JFD 11:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The point here, is that this so called "disputed theory" has absolutely nothing to do with the "history of Kalarippayattu". It could merit inclusion in perhaps the influences of Kalaripapyattu section. To this effect, the page titled as Disputed history of Kalarippayattu contains text irrelevant to the topic. It is not the history of Kalaripayyatu that is in question. Of course, I might be completely wrong, and could have interpreted something incorrectly here. Please let me know your thoughts. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is whether the controversy needs to be addressed or not. And, as Mano1 and Kennethtennyson point out, neglecting it means that the controversy will rear its ugly head again.

Last year Mano1 and Kjrajesh had pretty much the same discussion you've brought up now. It was Kjrajesh who came up with the title "Disputed history of Kalarippayattu" after breaking the text out from the main "Kalarippayattu" article into its own page.
JFD 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

<de-intending> I just sat and read through the entire talk page archive. The controvesy does need to be discussed in the article. But not in the "history of Kalaripayattu" section, but in the "influences" section. And a single line would do, stating that there are certain accounts that describe Kalaripayyatu to have been the origin of Chinese martial arts. It has to be written in an encylopedic way, with a neutral viewpoint. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors of this article have repeatedly made the claim that Kalarippayattu is described as the origin of the Chinese martial arts by "ancient references" and "historical texts" without ever naming those works or their authors in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of citing your sources. To attribute such a claim to "certain accounts" would simply be more of the same, neither encyclopedic nor NPOV.

You yourself acknowledge the importance of this by noting that the statement "Modern historians trace the origin of Kalarippayattu to the Vedic times" needs a citation.

If you re-read Disputed history of Kalarippayattu, you will find that it cites its sources, including scholarly sources such as translations of primary texts and academic works.

Looking at the article, the controversy has much more to do with the content of "History" than with "Cultural influence," which really ought to be re-titled "Related arts of Kerala". The case with many articles on Wikipedia is that the article is organized into titled sections after the content has been written. That is the case for both "Disputed history of Kalarippayattu" and "Cultural influence". Your criticism about text's relevance to title really ought to be directed at the titles rather than the texts.

Also, "in the beginning of the Sixteenth Century" is part of the proper title of "A Description of the Coasts of East Africa and Malabar in the beginning of the Sixteenth Century"
JFD 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Every few months, we have the same discussion here with the same people who continuously make the same erroneous argument about how old Kalaripayattu's history is! There is no evidence to show in any written or printed or any form whatsoever that kalaripayattu predated the 15th century AD! there is no evidence to connect kalaripayattu to Bodhidharma or to Shaolin Kung Fu. Kennethtennyson 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Source citation/NPOV rephrasing needed

Bodhidharma's Jati is clearly stated as Brahmin and/or having a Brahmin father. Kalari Payitu was only practised by the Nair caste whose women had loose relationships called sambandham with the ruling class Nambhothiri Brahmins.Thus he could easily have been of the ruling class and a warrior.

Can we get a citation on the hypothesis that Bodhidharma was the product of a sambandham marriage between his Brahmin father and a Nair mother? Also, the statement that kalarippayattu was practiced only by Nairs conflicts with information in the main page that Kalarippayattu has also traditional been practiced by others.

Was Bodhidharma born in present-day Kerala or in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu is a question asked by opposers, which is irrelevant because south western Tamil Nadu and south eastern Kerala have historically been the same region

"Asked by opposers" is NPOV phrasing. Regardless, the location of Bodhidharma's birthplace in either Kerala or Tamil Nadu is not in the "Transmission of the Lamp" texts, which say only that Bodhidharma was "South Indian," getting no more specific than that. From what source do these birthplace claims come from?
--JFD 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

There are four references to Bodhidharma's caste being brahmin in this article.

From the Kalarippayattu page

"Until the 19th century, this martial art could be practiced only by the warrior castes. All children of such castes were sent to a Kalari at the age of seven, where they learnt the art of warfare as a primary occupation."

If Bodhidharma was from erstwhile Travancore or southern Tamil Nadu as hypothesised in the article, he would have to have been of the Nair Warrior caste ,the only warrior caste at the time,to have practiced Kalarippayattu.

From the Nair page - "Sambandham (Relationship) was a loose form of marriage prevalent among the Nairs......For Nair women, Sambandham can be conducted with the Nairs, Nampoothiri Brahmins, other Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Ambalavasis."

This shows the possibility that Bodhidharma could have been of both Brahmin and Nair Caste ,in relation to the question on the main article of the confusion of his caste.This page is on the disputed history of Kalaripayyitu - so both sides of the argument can be shown.A prevalent cultural custom creates the possibility fo this classification regardless of a citation.

There are three refrences to Bodhidharma having come from Kanchipuram or South Western India in this article. Again this article is about the disputed history of Kalarippayattu,both sides of the dispute requires representation.

The distinction wether Bodhidharma was born in present-day Kerala or in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu as asked in the article, is irrelevant because south western Tamil Nadu and south eastern Kerala have historically been the same region - this can be seen in the prevalent Tamil influences all over Travancore, including architechture, language and culture..

From the Travancorepage - "...in A.D. 1954, the Travancore Tamilnadu Congress launched a campaign for the merger of the Tamil speaking regions of Southern Travancore with the neighbouring area of Madras."

From the Kalarippayattupage - "....the southern style is closely related to the Tamil martial arts practiced in Travancore and Kanyakumari. Compared to Kalarippayattu, these arts place more emphasis on empty-hand techniques and less on weapons. These arts claim descent from the rishi Agastya and variously go by names such as ati tata (strike/block), ati murai (way of hitting), varma ati (Tamil)/marma ati (Malayalam) (literally, hitting the vital points). Other Tamil empty hand martial arts include Kuttu Varisai and Varma Kalai. Tamil weapon arts include Silambam (staff fighting), Madhu (deer horn dagger), Surul Pattai (steel blade whip called Urumi in Kalarippayattu), and Val Vitchi (sword fight)."

The article seems to firmly conclude that Chineese martial arts could not been influenced by Indian martial arts - is that not biased considering the article is on the 'disputed' history of Kalarippayattu.

Further more in direct relation to Kalarippayattu and Kumfu, no refernces have been made, to the similarities between the two Martial Arts. They both have systems of traditional herbal Medicine, the study of which is necessary to the martial art. Both Kumfu Masters and Kalarippayattu Asshans and Gurukkal used to be doctors and martial artists at the same time, playing a fundemental role in society. Study of Marmams and animal stances are also similar to the two styles.The Mystic - 15:59, 25th July 2006