|Bodhidharma has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Bhodhidharma was a Tamil speaking Kshatriya warrior hailed from 'Kanchipuram'.
Bhodhidharma cannot be a Brahman (Brahmin). I can give 3 (A,B,C) reasons for that.
A. In the ancient Hindu caste system (Manu code) there were 4 categories. 1. Brahmana 2.Kshatriya 3. Vaishya 4. Sutra. Among these four categories only a Kshtriyas can become a King/soldier/warrior in ancient India. So, Bhodhidharma should have hailded from a Kshtriya family only, to learn and teach such martial arts. Not from a Brahmin family who are strictly appointed to perform "pujas" and spiritual practices at Hindu temples like they do today.
B. Buddha had started his movement only against the then-existing 'sanathana-hindu-dharma' consisted of six major religious segments in Hinduism. So,Buddha was dead against those six types of followers. As Buddha was a also a kshatriya king and was opposing the said 'sanathana dharma' there was a strong opposition from Brahmins for his bhuddhist movement from all over India and more particularly from Tamil Brahmins. So, Bhodhidharma could never hailed from a Brahmin family, but from a royal kshatriya blood of Kanchipuram/Tamilnadu (Kanchipuram was called as kanchiampathy காஞ்சிவரம், காஞ்சிபுரம், காஞ்சியம்பதி in those days only.Saivism,Vaishnavism,Ganapathyam,Saktham,Sowram,Gowmaram, When the whole of south India was flooded with Buddhist philosophy Kanchipuram/Tamilnadu was happened to be the prominent place for them. Moreover, Kanchipuram is and was called as "1000-temples city" and those temples and sculptures are nearly 1000-3000 years old. The inscriptions in those temples are 100% in Tamil language only. Then how one can argue Kanchipuram belonged to other races and other linguistic people?
C. Till the date 'varmak kalai'(வர்மக் கலை)is a sole property of Tamil speaking people from tamil nadu. And one can watch the words like 'padu varmam' thodu varmam, nokku varmam (படு வர்மம், தொடு வர்மம், நோக்கு வர்மம்)etc are the pure tamil words and it is never the sanskrit words either. So, Bhodhidharma must have been a Tamil Speaking Kshatriya warrior caste and never a Brahmana (Brahmin).
(I am a Counseling psychologist and I coined a name for my Org. as 'Yo-zen mind'in the year 1992. When I gave a radio interview in the year 1998 in chennai fm radio citing the reference to why i kept "Zen' as its suffix, i narrated the story of Bhodhidharma who was hailed from 'Tamilnadu-Kanchipuram" and he went to china and taught the 'Dhyan-Zhann-Zen' there. You can watch the part the radio interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-zllSnOFJQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqOIXpnMfsg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozenmohan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
More likely that Bodhidhrma was from Taxila in NW Frontier close to Persian border. Taxila was a well known center of education and theology during Budhism period. That explains his origin being confused with Persia. Regarding the use of term "South", the scholars have mistaken the term "South of China" with Southern part of India. In fact all of India is south of China. His name sounds more North Indian and his physical characteristics in the painting resemble more with Punjabis and people of NW Frontier states like Taxiala, Vahika, or Bahalika. The person depicted in the paintings is certainly not a South Indian and scholars need to study the Sikh martial arts form [Gatka] and observe the common features with Shaolin Kungfu credited to Bodhidharma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that two of my edits were reverted adding the Category:Tamil People to the article.It is well perceived that his origins are not recorded clearly but the two of the widespread versions are Kancheepuram the capital of the Tamil Pallava Empire around that time, this version popular in India and China whereas the other is Persia according to some Japanese versions.Citations for both are present in the article itself and I assume that there is no need for me to elaborate further.
Now what is sinister here is that while the Category:Tamil People is not allowed for its uncertainty there there is another category Category:Persian philosophers in the same page which no-one has taken note of. Does that mean the version that links him to Persia is accepted and that to Kancheepuram not when both are of the same reliability?
Further, there are other categories such as Indian Zen Buddhists, Indian Buddhist missionaries, Indian expatriates in China which have no meaning if he did not originate from present day Tamil Nadu.
I hereby request consensus on adding the Category:Tamil People here or propose the removal of the others mentioned above as each equally violates the norms if you consider only the former to do so.--CuCl2 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are assuming that if Bodhidharma was Indian he was necessarily specifically Tamil. That isn't a safe assumption. Helpsome (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Refer to the article, the second para says he may have been a Tamil Pallava prince. That makes him necessarily Tamil and not Indian. India came into existence only during and following the colonial period there.Otherwise there were several independent kingdoms ruling the territories that make up the India you see today. And during the time he belonged to its quite safe to assume he was more Tamil than Indian(since no India existed back in the 6th century).--CuCl2 14:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User SudoGhost, The on what grounds does he belong to the category Persian philosophers, you hve been evading this question right from the start. By your argument if he was a Persian Scholar or even if there is a theory to contend he was one makes it invalid to have categories such as Indian expatriates or Indian Zen Buddhists etc.He only 'could have' been from India.
Within the article and outside it, in a reliable source^ it is mentioned that:
Scholar Dumoulin comments on the three principal sources. The Persian heritage is doubtful, according to Dumoulin:
"In the description of the Lo-yang temple, bodhidharma is called a Persian. Given the ambiguity of geographical references in writings of this period, such a statement should not be taken too seriously". --CuCl2 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
User Helpsome, that is very funny. Just because you have two Kerala options so you can invalidate the stronger theories and the more popular beliefs surrounding his Tamil origin? India did not exist in 6th Century.Only different kingdoms did. Even then, Kerala in the 6th century constituted the Chera Kingdom which was Tamil-speaking in those times.
Check both the sources below:
These Chinese sources lend themselves to make inferences about Bodhidharma's origins. "The third son of a Brahman king" has been speculated to mean "the third son of a Pallavine king". Based on a specific pronunciation of the Chinese characters 香至 as Kang-zhi, "meaning fragrance extreme", Tsutomu Kambe identifies 香至 to be Kanchipuram, an old capital town in the state Tamil-Nadu. According to Tstuomu Kambe:
"Kanchi means 'a radiant jewel' or 'a luxury belt with jewels', and puram means a town or a state in the sense of earlier times. Thus, it is understood that the '香至-Kingdom' corresponds to the old capital 'Kanchipuram'."
Fact is certifying he was a Pallava prince is a different thing. I' am not doing that.The point is how valid are the other categories when each of them can be disputed. Can somebody of you both prove to me he was certainly Persian for sure. In that case we eliminate the categories calling him Indian. If he is not Persian, and you call him Indian, we will contend again on a different forum whether he was Tamil or Malayali.--CuCl2 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Contrary to your statement here over at Tamil Buddhism you were trying to certify that he was a Pallava prince with nothing more than "Popular Indian and Chinese Traditions".  The truth is that we have no idea where Bodhidharma came from or honestly how much if any of his popular biography is even true. Constantly battling in numerous articles because you really want a dead guy to have been Tamil seems kind of silly to me. Helpsome (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your comment is unwarranted and evasive to this discussion here. Only Japanese sources believe he is Persian. Rest pertain that he was a Pallava prince. Read through the links and provide something argumentative, friend. Please refer to who Kambe is first. If you really had no idea about his origins, then you must remove him from the category of a Persian philospoher and equivalently Indian Buddhist categories. Here we are disputing the relevance of other sources. In that article your trying to vandalize everything there.--CuCl2 03:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Few days off, and missing all the fun...
- I've removed the category for "Persian philosophers": no Tamil, no Persia. That's only fair, isn't it?
- As for the Indian categories, that's point-making WP:POINTy. I'll hav e a look at them, though.
- Thanks for the sources; they have already been mentioned, and are not exactly WP:RS
- As for discussing edits and reverts, see WP:BRD. It's up to Coppercholride to convince us why the Tamil-category should be included.
- Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Few days off, and missing all the fun...
- Convince 'us' is not fair.It cannot be one vs many. All I did was want to add the Tamil People Category since the other categories existed and then everyone were making such a fuss only about this.--CuCl2 07:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that "Bodhidharma" is repeatedly being "hijacked" by what seem to be Tamil nationalists. Though I have to say, investigating deeper into Ramana Maharshi's background, I can understand this Tamil "nationalism": it's an ancient culture, which seems to be overshadowed by northern c.q "vedic" culture, while it has an immense richness of its own. Greetings, 07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)~
"The Japanese tradition regards Bodhidharma to be from Persia."
This sentence is given in the lead and is again repeated word for word with the same source in a later section on modern scholarship. This repitition is unnecessary and does not improve the article at all. Moreover, a statement on how Bodhidharma is depicted in the Japanese tradition has nothing to do with the section, since it deals with the opinions of modern authors. Removing a repeated sentence shouldn't be a problem most of the time, but the only reason I'm saying it here is so nobody thinks I'm pushing a POV or something, since this seems to be a touchy subject with many people. Morinae (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Guess you're right. There's been quite some edit-warring on Kanchipuram last year; that's also the reason for the extensive notes on Bodhidharma's origins. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
bodhidharaman was from tamil nadu and kung fu was found by an Indian person and mostly no people in India knows about bodhidharaman and even they don't follow kung fu......Chinese people continued to follow kung fu and we are not following kung fu even by being Indian's Abhay K. Shah (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Xi Sui Jing
Whatever it means to say "The Xi Sui Jing has been lost" there are people practicing Xi Sui Jing today. (Anyone interested should know, directing the flow of chi in such a powerful way is generally considered too risky to do without expert supervision and only taught when a person has trained their body enough to handle it).
In the "secret" 6th movement from Peter Kelder's famous book of 5 tibetan exercises, energy from the testicles is raised through the spine to the brain. Xi Sui Jing (Marrow/Brain Washing) may be practiced today in a version that uses this principle, demonstrating a tibetan influemce which may date this version to the 12th century at the earliest. This seems to be the version that Yang Jwing-Ming describes in his book (with a preface by Mantak Chia).
Yang Jwing-Ming is as much a scholar as a practioner and instructor and he describes the historical texts, which have only recently become known, that he uses as his source in his presentation of Marrow/Brain Washing. The introduction to his book can be browsed on his website.
One of the top results from a web search for Xi Sui Jing was from Anthony Korahais. He descibes it as a skill which can be applied to many movements, and doesn't mention a component of diverting sexual energy to the brain: http://flowingzen.com/5967/bone-marrow-cleansing-qigong/
The principle of chi flowing powerfully and being felt strongly in the bone marrow is well known in the internal martial arts like tai chi, where with correct practice, after some time it begins to occurs spontanously, without being sought by the practitioner.
And why not give the last word to the shaolin temple website, where an article written by "Shaolin Master Shi Yan Zhuo Head Master of the Greek Shaolin Temple Cultural Center" describes Xi Sui Jing as something being curently taught and practiced, eg:
"It exerts a real influence on the prevention and the improvement of chronic diseases such as the depression, gastritis acute or chronic, disease of the respiratory system or cardiovascular, weakness of the kidneys, pathology of the vertebrae, arthritis, impotence, etc. It is advised to practice it after having assimilated the "Yi Jin jing". "
and writes that the skill was not lost, just not known to many people, such as the scholars or practictioner who wrote the books quoted in this article. (Incidentally, Yang Jwing Ming also described it as "lost" in his book on Shaolin Kung Fu published in 1982.) For example:
"The Xi Sui Jing taught the Shaolin Monks how to use their own Qi to clean their bone marrow and strengthen their immune system, as well as how to nourish and energize the brain, helping them to attain Buddhahood. Because the Xi Sui Jing was hard to understand and practice, the training methods were passed down secretly to only a very few disciples in each generation of Shaolin Monks."
PS: I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've given three sources of people teaching Xi Sui Jing, including the shoalin monastry http://www.shaolin.org.cn/templates/EN_T_newS_list/index.aspx?nodeid=297&page=ContentPage&contentid=10322.
<<The original source mentioning the exercise, the Yijin Jing, states that it was "rarely seen", not "lost". Here is an English translation from Prof. Meir Shahar's wonderful book The Shaolin Monastery (2008):
- After his nine years of meditation were completed, the master pointed the way to Nirvana. His remains were enshrined on Mt. Xionger [in Western Henan]. Then carrying one shoe he returned to the west. Later, the brick wall he faced in meditation was damaged by wind and rain. When the Shaolin monks repaired it, they discovered inside a metal case ... Hidden inside it were two scrolls, one titled Marrow Cleansing Classic (Xisui jing), the other titled Sinews Transformation Classic [Yijin Jing]...
- The Marrow Cleansing Classic was handed over to Huike and along with his cassock and bowl became part of a secret transmission. In later generations it was rarely seen. Only the Sinews Transformation Classic remained as the cornerstone of the Shaolin Monastery, treasuring forever the master’s virtue (p. 166).
- The problem is that Bodhidharma has no historical connection to either one of these texts or the exercises contained therein. This is because the Yijin Jing is traceable only to the 17th-century, hundreds of years after the monk is supposed to have lived. It contains two forged prefaces attributed to two famous Chinese generals of dynasties passed. They too have no historical connection to the text. This is extremely important as the first preface, attributed to Gen. Li Jing of the Tang, is the source of the claim that Bodhidharma created the exercises. Therefore, this is not reliable historical information that can be added to the article. It's more likely that the name Xisui jing was attached to a later daoyin exercise after the Yijin Jing became popular in the public eye. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but what you quoted apparently says that the Marrow/Brain Washing exercise was lost forever (regardless of what happened to a scroll which may or may not have existed):
<<The original source mentioning the exercise, the Yijin Jing, states that it was "rarely seen", not "lost". Here is an English translation from Prof. Meir Shahar's wonderful book The Shaolin Monastery (2008):[...]Hidden inside it were two scrolls, one titled Marrow Cleansing Classic (Xisui jing), the other titled Sinews Transformation Classic [Yijin Jing] [...]Only the Sinews Transformation Classic remained [...](p. 166).>>