Jump to content

Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Edits

  • Removing the theories surrounding Ta Mo from the very second para itself and placing the theories, often conflicting in nature, in a seperate section.
  • Mentioning Ryuchi and others who have not found mention in the previous versions.
Best regards to everyone.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits again as your comments above aren't what I'd call a discussion - merely a bald statement of what you have done. Which I and others disagree with. May I suggest you post here your thinking behind the edits you want to introduce, and see what the consesnsus of the community is? --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Skies: I take issue with your labelling my edit as "vandalism". I may be useless, but I do not vandalise. I would appreciate an apology. Anyway, before we launch into a stupid edit war, let me point out where you are mistaken. Differing views about an issue doesn't necessarily make it "negationism" - whatever that means to you. In a democracy with freedom of thought and freedom of expression, it is only normal that people disagree about many things. Only in a authoritarian/fascist state is everyone expected to conform. If this counts as "negationism", then most articles in Wikipedia will require a "negationism" section. That is plainly absurd. Do we really need to be so confrontational? Having conflicting sources about someone is not the same as denying that that person exists. Surely this is obvious to you? And saying that the traditional account is "legendary" (as borne out by numerous sources like Britannica - please note correct spelling) is not the same as saying the person does not exist - it merely means that the popular story is not accurate. And even if one doubts the historicity of the person in question, that does not make him a "negationist", or whatever, if he has good grounds for his belief. So, before you go about reverting, kindly let us know what you think here, first. 202.20.5.206 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh - while I was writing this I see that Nat Krause has done it for me.--MichaelMaggs 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text and entire sections in the pretext of attempting a "community support" routine is not assuming good faith, neither am I bound by any WP to go ask form a posse` on Wikipedia. Anyone who removes a section which is properly placed and goes on to remove references of additional authors from the article in the name of holding talks and fraternizing with a "community" is assuming very bad faith. I'll see that this removal of sourced text is not done. Best Regards once again to eveeryone. I hope that our little "community" lets go of this feeling of continued bad faith. Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 03:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - how about a compromise? But before that, let it be known that, personally, I have no problems with Bodhidharma having existed and coming to China. For your information, I disagreed with describing Bodhidharma as "the legendary Buddhist monk..." - for it is the accounts that are legendary, not necessarily the person himself. But the point is - others may disagree, and with good reasons too, given the undisputed fact that it is mainly traditional/hagiographic sources that we are relying on here. So, the controversy remains very much a live one, and this must be pointed out prior to the "Biography" section. At the same time, the seriously loaded and POV term "negationism" is totally unacceptable and should not be used. I base my proposed compromise on the following quote: "Tradition traces the beginning of the school to Bodhidharma (fl. 460-534), whose historicity has been questioned in the West. Most Chinese and Japanese scholars, however, are satisifed that he did come to China. But a clear picture of the school did not emerge until Hung-jen (601-674). With him the history of Zen in China took a radical turn[...]" -Chan, Wing-tsit, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 1969), pp 425-426. I hereby propose the following revisions to the lead paragraphs:

"[PARAGRAPH ONE] Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in China, around the 6th century. [PARAGRAPH TWO] The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins (either Indian or Persian), the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. While most Chinese and Japanese scholars are satisifed that he did in fact come to China, his historicity has been questioned, especially by Western scholars. Heinrich Dumoulin, for example, emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story, while Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that all accounts pertaining to Bodhidharma are legendary." 202.20.5.206 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very good, especially with the additional source cited. --MichaelMaggs 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the Western/Eastern scholarship dichotomy as the Japanese scholar D.T. Suzuki argues that the patriarchal lineage ascribed to Bodhidharma is a Tang Dynasty invention meant to bolster the credibility of Zen from criticisms of other schools of Buddhism whose credibility comes from their reliance on canonical texts.

I'm ok with including the Western/Eastern dichotomy if it is attributed explicitly to Chang Wing-tsit in the body of the text.

Otherwise, I'm fine with it.
JFD 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

--- Almost any source that you quote on bodhidharma will state that his life is more legendary than anything else. To try to state that people are negating his existence is untrue because people have always stated that he existed somewhere, just that all the stories tied to him are just legends. Which by most standards of definition are just made up stories. Kennethtennyson 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AMENDED PROPOSAL: Freedom Skies, I am prepared to suggest a further compromise (and no, I am not part of any conspiracy against you, and I am against any kind of nationalism that is carried too far.)

(updated - see below)

What say you? 202.20.5.206 11:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

dichotomy?

Dichotomy? I don't understand. There really is no dichotomy on the western and eastern interpretations of bodhidharma except for the degree that they both talk about how much the stories around him are legendary. Some western sources state that anything about him are suspect. Others state that he existed as a person, but that his connection with chan is tenuous. hence we all wrote that he is described in "tradition" as the founder of zen, but that most accounts of him including his founding of zen are legend. The same goes with japanese and chinese historians. the only one who disputes this is freedom skies, and if you look at his edits, he has a history of pushing a view of the world that is militantly Pro-Indian. He contributed to the article "achievements of ancient indian civilization" with bogus historical information (it used to be a subsection of "indian nationalism" and its presence led to multiple blocks, he's been edit warring on the oddly written "buddha as an avatar of vishnu" which led to blocks, his edits led to the blockage of "buddhism and hinduism" page, the list goes on and on. he's made extremely biased comments about chinese calling them sniveling [[1]] At other times, he goes on and on about a Han chinese cabal. Why should the reasonable people on wikipedia cater to someone who is obviously out to promote a pro-Indian POV view of the world and who is obviously unbalanced? Kennethtennyson 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


The same goes with japanese and chinese historians. the only one who disputes this is freedom skies

You forget Encyclopedia Britannica, Kenny. It disagrees with you.

He contributed to the article "achievements of ancient indian civilization" with bogus historical information

Again you speak about things you have no idea about Kenny. Point out ONE piece of bogue information in that article. I recieved a request to find sources for the article and got engaged to it in the process. The article is very well referenced and sourced.

You also take it out of context Kenny. I have contributed to many ancient civilizations a good deal. Stood up for Korea. Worked on ancient achievements of Egypt and Sumer. Yet you mentioned one aspect and speak white lies Kenny.

he's been edit warring on the oddly written "buddha as an avatar of vishnu"

You once again talk about things you do not know about Kenny. I have not been edit warring at all on that article. It was very oddly written before I came in an extensively cleaned it up. Take a look at the history of that article. I did not war with anyone there. You made it up to fake rhetoric Kenny. I have what ?? three edits in that article [2]. I don't even recall seeing it after then.

his edits led to the blockage of "buddhism and hinduism" page

You continue kenny. Only my content made it to the finals of the "Buddhism and Hinduism" page. The users Green23 and Saavak123, identified as vandals as sockpuppets have been permanently blocked (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23). Dealing with vandals is something I have been known to do, and obtain at least three results (the third being an unsigned IP) in this one process alone. The article was frozen up with my content in it during the final stages.

he's made extremely biased comments about chinese calling them sniveling

Again Kenny. The quote is:-

Call it legend or hypothesis, there are two forms that exist. One is the form which states that Bodhidharma bought martial arts to poor. sniveling Chinese and the other is that he was an idiot who contributed nothing. The effort here is to show that as a Dyana master, he merely introduced exercises, the Chinese people did the development of the mesmerizing work.

Arrive at your own conclusions people. I did not call the Chinese people sniveling. The text was taken outside of it's context by Kenny. A thing which happens all too often when you deal with him and his very malicious and incompetent ways.

Why should the reasonable people on wikipedia cater to someone who is obviously out to promote a pro-Indian POV view of the world and who is obviously unbalanced?

Kenny has a history on anti Indian and pro red han China bias. He accepts orders, exchanges barnstars in order to fake credibility [3][4] (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period) and deletes and reverts for the red Han Chinese cabal.

I'll let this question remain. Let people judge me without help from malicious and incompetent persons. The only one thing I would like to say is that my convictions are strong, as are my sources. Flamebait posts from incompetent so-called editors are not a healthy advance.

Freedom skies 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means everyone take a good close look at Freedom skies sources.
JFD 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Enter the second member of the cabal. I did expect Kenny to recieve support from his superiors on this issue. Since even his superiors, who reserve the right to dictate to him and whom he closely follows recieving his only barnstar in return of his services, have mocked my sources I have to provide a good close look myself at my sources:

Concise Encyclopedia Article [5]:

Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) sect of Buddhism.

A native of Conjeeveram, near Madras, Bodhidharma in 520 traveled to Kuang (modern Canton), China. He was granted an interview with the Liang emperor Wu-ti, noted for his good works. To the emperor's dismay, he stated that merit applying to salvation could not be accumulated through good deeds. Soon afterward he went to a monastery in Lo-yang, China, where he is said to have spent nine years looking at a cave wall, a legend that some scholars believe refers simply to a lengthy period of deep meditation.

Of course JFD's attempts to push for a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal instead of a normal Wikipedia article will continue. His actions will be followed closely by Kenny, whose orders are to cause reverts and confusion, something he is very good at.

Freedom skies 07:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Amendment to Proposed Compromise

Freedom skies: nobody is claiming that he is not credited, what we are pointing out here is that such accreditation is by tradition. Since your "source" also says that "the accounts of his life are largely legendary", any claims to credit him as the founder of "Chan/Zen" (or whatever) must be traditional because they are not historical. Unlike other Buddhist missionaries to China such as Kumarajiva (he was part-Indian, I'm sure you are aware) whose biographies are comparatively well-documented, there are no records of Bodhidharma whatsoever in the official histories of any of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (there are altogether nine, I'm sure you are aware too). This is a very important fact.

Yang Xuanzhi's account, despite not being an official historical document, is nevertheless significant in comparison to the other accounts (note: there is no one single undisputed account) because (1) It was the earliest, (2) It was the least hagiographic, and (3) Yang actually claimed to be a contemporary who met the person himself. And of course he tells us that the man was a Persian. If you must insist that there is any "negationism", then surely all subsequent accounts which differ from Yang's will qualify as "negationist"!

For goodness's sake, stop all this ad hominem attacks that border on blatant racism, and focus on the substantial issues at hand! Do realise that you have a choice.

AMENDED PROPOSAL:

"[PARAGRAPH ONE] Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in China, around the 6th century CE.

[AMENDED PARAGRAPH TWO] While most Chinese and Japanese scholars are satisified that Bodhidharma did in fact come to China, his historicity has been questioned by others. (See section below).

[ADD LEAD PARA TO "HISTORICITY AND BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES" SECTION] (i.e. shifted "below the line") The major sources about Bodhidharma are largely traditional, and not found in contemporary historical documents. They also conflict with regard to his origins (either Indian or Persian), the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Some Western scholars, such as Heinrich Dumoulin, emphasise the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story, while Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that all accounts pertaining to Bodhidharma are legendary. [Suzuki's view may be added here, provided he is correctly paraphrased.]" 202.20.5.206 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


encyclopedia brittanica article

just to let you know freedom skies, this is the full encyclopedia brittanica article that you keep on quoting.... get a free subscription to it for 1 month...

flourished 6th century AD
Chinese (Wade-Giles romanization) Ta-mo, Japanese Daruma Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) sect of Buddhism.
A native of Conjeeveram, near Madras, Bodhidharma in 520 traveled to Kuang (modern Canton), China. He was granted an interview with the Liang emperor Wu-ti, noted for his good works. To the emperor's dismay, he stated that merit applying to salvation could not be accumulated through good deeds. Soon afterward he went to a monastery in Lo-yang, China, where he is said to have spent nine years looking at a cave wall, a legend that some scholars believe refers simply to a lengthy period of deep meditation.
Considered the 28th Indian patriarch in a direct line from Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma is regarded by the Ch'an as their first patriarch. Because he taught meditation as a return to the Buddha's spiritual precepts, his school was known as the Dhyana (meditation) sect. The word was converted in the Chinese to Ch'an and in the Japanese to Zen.
The accounts of his life are largely legendary. According to one such story, he cut off his eyelids in a fit of anger after falling asleep in meditation. On falling to the ground his eyelids grew up as the first tea plant. The legend serves as a traditional basis for the drinking of tea by Zen monks in order to keep awake during meditation.

Kennethtennyson

A view (hopefully) from outside either or both of the involved cabals or non-cabals

202.20.5.206 has given a good start with his/her proposal for the intro, which would run roughly (I've made an itsy-bitsy correction or two) thus:

Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in China around the 6th century CE.
While most Chinese and Japanese scholars are satisfied that Bodhidharma did in fact come to China, his historicity has been questioned by others. (See section below)

One small problem I see with this amended version is that "(See section below)" bit: that sort of self-referentiality, with all due respect to its sincere attempt to placate the—as far as I'm concerned—unnecessarily heated passions involved, just ain't good style. I agree, however, with the amended version's basic solution of removing Dumoulin and Pelliot from the intro entirely: the article is about Bodhidharma, not (specifically) his critics, and so emphasis really shouldn't be laid on them at the article's very start (particularly Pelliot, who—whatever his excellent accomplishments—most decidedly has an extreme marginal view on the issue).

Anyhow, the larger problem I see with the proposed amended intro is precisely the same problem that had already been there: it's an extraordinarily skimpy intro. There is much that must be added to give some idea about the man/figure/legend (whatever) to people who have little or no idea about Bodhidharma (and let's not lose sight of the fact that that is who we should be writing for). For my part, I would propose at least beginning the intro something (again, roughly) along these lines:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Et cetera et cetera. I wonder if anything in this would be offensive to or disputable by any of the involved cabals or non-cabals. In any case, the "legendary" details and their supporters and detractors, et alia, could (or rather, should) come below the table of contents, as User:202.20.5.206 was good and wise enough to suggest.

Anyhow ... any thoughts? Because this (to be honest) somewhat silly argument, which has led to the page being protected, really ought to be more constructively tackled than has so far (for the most part) been done on this here talk page. Cheers. —Saposcat 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Good to see there are reasonable people here after all! As for "cabals" (I'm still not sure what that word means exactly), all I can say is that the main problem with Wikipedia is actually POV-pushers, whose very marginal views get magnified and even entrenched. And unfortunately, it is precisely these people who persist the longest, and causing reasonable and well-intentioned people to become frustrated and leave WP altogether - i.e. a classic (and sad) case of adverse selection. And there seems to be no easy solution to this.

Anyway, looks like we have a lot of POVs here (and elsewhere - e.g. with terms like "negationism" being bandied about freely). Freedom skies, I really cannot believe the "Persian=Indo-Iranian=Indian" stuff you said on my userpage - now this is revisionism of epic proportions! And it's not as if Bodhidharma himself didn't know where he came from. (Not to mention the fact that "Indo-Iranians" may not even encompass South Indians to begin with.) Hopefully you'll attempt to start discussing your views in a constructive manner. Will discuss the details of the proposal later. 202.20.5.206 10:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

First of all thank you for being one voice of neutrality and a voice without affiliations to the cabal. This entry is more then welcome.

Now:

  • Neutrality - CHECK
  • Endorsing the claims of the traditional authors - CHECK (any ways Indian influence on Chinese martial arts will provide a detailed outlook. This article is connected from the main Bodhidharma page itself so the reader gets a close and personal look at this POV).
  • Mentioning that accounts are layered with legend- CHECK (anyways the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts will provide a detailed outlook. This article is connected from the main Bodhidharma page itself so the reader gets a close and personal look at this POV).
  • The removal of conflicting cnspiracy theories, one of whic points that Bodhidharma did not exist at all thereby asking for an AfD on the article from the very opening lines of the biographical article itself - CHECK. My main concern.

I give the go aheads. Now I suggest one more thing. Let only the opening paragraph change and the conflicting lines be removed. A pro revisionist version column is provided in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts and a version highlighting the conflics within the revisionist versions will be created subsequently in Indian influence on Chinese martial arts. Both of these are linked up to the main Bodhidharma page.

Once this is done we can put the para in the article, remove the conflicting theories (since they find a mention in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts in detail) and forget about a seperate column dealing with the conflict in these thoeries on the main Bodhidharma page (since this will be done in the Indian influence on Chinese martial arts article, which is linked up to the main Bodhidharma page as well).

If we reach consenseus then we can go ahead and unlock the article. Also a supervisor intervening to see that these points are not violated once the agreement is in place is required.

Extending best regards,

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we need to include the section on the historians stating that he is legend. We also need to remove the attribution to martial arts because most historians believe that is a bogus legend. If we leave the attribution to martial arts, we need to definitely state that it is a legend and not fact. Like i said, the only person who wants to add and change all of this is freedom skies.

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited in legend as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

OR

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Either way we need to add what the historians have said on the matter. there is no revisionism. It is only freedom skies trying to push his pov. Kennethtennyson 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we need to include the section on the historians stating that he is legend.

We'll do one better. We'll provide a link to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts from the main page itself.

---

We also need to remove the attribution to martial arts because most historians believe that is a bogus legend.

Again you lie Kenny. I challenge you to compile a list of authors who dissassociate him from Chinese martial arts and i will compile one which has authors endorsing the traditional claims and citing Bodhidharma in any form when the question of tracing origins of martial arts arises. The one with the shorter list leaves Wikipedia forever.

Lemme know.

Moreover, the lines say "Bodhidharma....... traditionally credited in legend ............ and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts.". A point that I disagree with as well since I'd like to remove "traditionally" and place "is". Personal opinions, mine and yours are of little consequence though as the line is neutrality itself.

---

Like i said, the only person who wants to add and change all of this is freedom skies.

Like I said Kenneth, it does'nt matter if you and JFD combine (refer to WP:CABAL). If the changes are due to very real reasons then they will take place. Wikipedia is not a place for ganging up on people and playing "might is right" with articles. Facts will be stated regardless.

---

there is no revisionism.

During the 18th century, Chinese Ling Tingkan's extensive research concluded that the author of the Yì Jīn Jīng must have been an "ignorant village master."

Paul Pelliot said that Bodhidharma did not exist at all. You feaking placed that in the opening lines itself.

Conflicting revisionism is a reality. If a pro revisionist version is given extensively in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts then why insist on having revisionist theories mentioned on the main page of Bodhidharma in addition to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, which is already prominently linked up to Bodhidharma? Do you intend to allow a normal Wikipedia article to exist at all instead of a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal style monstrosity which has been the objective of your red han Chinese cabal since Day 1 ?

---

It is only freedom skies trying to push his pov.

And yet the ones guilty of practicing wikistalking is you, Kenneth Tennyson. Observe this, this, this, this and I can provide a lot more.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies, as i stated earlier... you are the only one subscribing to this belief. it's pretty obvious by everyone concerned that you are pushing your pov. regardless, i've read the edits and this is the better of the two. We still must add what ALL of the historians agree to as the fact that his attribution to zen is considered debatable and that his attribution to shaolin kung fu for sure is considered legend. Historians at universities (not random people running websites) have based their career on proving that it is all a legend.

<

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Kennethtennyson 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Freedom skies, as i stated earlier... you are the only one subscribing to this belief.

Kenneth I quote from my earlier post "Like I said Kenneth, it does'nt matter if you and JFD combine (refer to WP:CABAL). If the changes are due to very real reasons then they will take place. Wikipedia is not a place for ganging up on people and playing "might is right" with articles. Facts will be stated regardless."

---

regardless, i've read the edits and this is the better of the two.

It does concur your cabal's version of a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal .

---

We still must add what ALL of the historians agree to as the fact that his attribution to zen is considered debatable and that his attribution to shaolin kung fu for sure is considered legend.

Not. Again you lie Kenneth Tennyson, again you lie. You say that "ALL of the historians agree to as the fact that his attribution to zen is considered debatable" when Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with you. I'm tempted to ask you who died and made you the spoksperson for (I quote) "ALL of the historians" but WP:CIVILITY binds me.

In any event the very neutral lines "Bodhidharma....... traditionally credited in legend ............ and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts" cater to your POV of "considered debatable" as well.

---

Historians at universities (not random people running websites) have based their career on proving that it is all a legend.

Historians at the Shaolin, including grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, <>The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense, Health and Enlightenment by Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit <> feel that Mr. Paul Pelliot is lying. His reputation and authority surpasses that of any of your sources.

---

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <>[6] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <>[7] So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <>[8] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <>[9] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>

Proposed citations.

---

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we decide what we agree on?

I think it would help if we stepped back and looked at the various possibilities regarding Bodhidharma's life. Once we understand what they are, perhaps we can move forward.

His historicity may be one of the following:

  • 1. He is a fictional character
  • 2. He actually existed, in the 6th century CE, although much of his life story is legend

and his actions can be described by one or more of the following:

  • a. he actually introduced Chan/Zen to China
  • b. he is said by some to have introduced Chan/Zen to China, but this can't reliably be proved
  • c. he actually introduced certain martial arts to China
  • d. he is said by some to have introduced certain martial arts to China, but this can't reliably be proved.

Now, what sources do we have for each of these positions?

Of the scholars mentioned in the article, only Paul Pelliot argues for 1; all the others agree on 2, based on primary sources. Thus, I propose that mention of 2. should be omitted from the lead paragraphs, and listed only lower down in the article as being one scholar's view.

The earliest sources that support position a. are Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang (547) by Yang Xuanzhi, and Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (645) by Daoxuan. So unless anyone disagrees, I propose that the lead paragraphs should reflect position a. (No-one is arguing for b. are they?)

I'm not familiar with the martial arts sources, but as I understand it the earliest primary source that links Bodhidharma with the martial arts is Yì Jīn Jīng, which according to the article Yì Jīn Jīng is found in the preface of a 1875 edition by Surig Kuang called the Weisheng Yijinjing. The article states that "the story cannot be documented by historical record; neither can its authors or sources be substantiated". Is that so, or is anyone able to point to a reliable earlier-dated primary souce which makes the link? If so, please point it out now. Since 1875 is some twelve hundred years after Bodhidharma is said to have lived, d. seems a much more reliable statement than c. On that basis I propose that d. should be mentioned lower down in the article.

Comments? --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we most certainly can. Especially when everything has already been very thorougly debated already in the past.

Kindly consider:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <>[10] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <>[11] So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <>[12] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <>[13] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>

The paras cover everything from the mention of '"traditionally credited" to "became layered with legend." Details on his proposed influence or his contributions can be obtained from Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts and Indian influence on Chinese martial arts.

All the work is already done. We do not need to create a section providing a critical analysis of the conflicts in modern views, I'll fine tune it and place it somewhere outside of this (most probably in the Indian influence on Chinese martial arts article). We do not have to provide the conflicting revisionist views themselves. This has already been done in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article which is prominently linked up from the main Bodhidharma article.

All we have to do is substitute the following paragraphs by the proposed paragraph:

Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]

The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]

Then leave the article alone.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I take it that "traditionally credited" is now accepted? I can include the Chan Wing-tsit citation (there are lots others) that says "tradition traces...". The point is, it is not "historical" sources that credit him with the founding of Chan.

2. His association with Shaolin kungfu is certainly "legendary" - even more tenuous than his association with Chan. I propose mentioning this, along with other legends associated, in lead para 2 (except Chan/Zen, which shall remain in the lead para 1). BTW, he neither "founded" Shaolin nor "Shaolin kungfu" - all he did was "contribute" to the development of the latter.

3. The conflicting views about lack of historicity, as well as the summary of the sources, etc. shall move below the content box, as the lead para(s) to the "Biographical Sources" section.

Anyone disgrees? 202.20.5.206 23:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mechanism

My suggestion is to accept the following PARAGRAPH 1, not changing one word from it as it encompasses everyone's viewpoint:

PARAGRAPH 1

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <>[14] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <>[15] So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <>[16] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <>[17] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>

You'll notice that PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" and "layered with legend." I find immense comfort in my conviction that this paragraph, proposed by Saposcat, is neutrality itself. This paragraph is entirely free from any bias whatsoever. Editors, myself incuded, have tried to push for different lines but I can't foresee anything that addresses the concerns of those involved more precisely.

Step 1: We substitute the following PARAGRAPH 2 by PARAGRAPH 1 mentioned above:

PARAGRAPH 2

Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]

The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]

---

Step 2': No further sections. I'll refrain from placing a section which highlights the conflicts within the revisionist claims, as was my original intention. The other side does not place revisionist claims in the page following my withdrawl of a section dealing exclusively with the revisionist claims.

---

Note: The claims of revision are addressed in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts. The article is linked up very prominently to the Bodhidharma main page. Any further mentions of more revisionist convictions can be added to that article.

---

Compromise: The opening paragraph is not touched by the parties involved. I do not place the proposed section in the article. The other side does not place the revisionist theories in the article.

---

That is the proposed mechanism.

---

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The cabal

There are efforts being made for a final solution. I have accepted the paragraph proposed and advanced citations from the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britanica.

The cabal , on the other hand, will never allow a final solution which does not advance it's red Han Chinese agenda in any event.

I direct your attention to JFD and Kennethtennyson, who closely follow me committing harrasment under WP:stalking. Kindly observe this, this, this, this and I can provide a lot more.

If you take a look into the record you'll see that when I make an edit into any article first. The group follows me there and stalks me. Kennethtennyson has contributed next to nothing in any actual article in which he stalks me. All he does is, walk in here, violently revert and then log out.

Judging by the cabal's recent actions I also see that the coming days hold excessive exhaustion for me.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dating

Daoxuan dates Bodhidharma's arrival in China to the Liu Song dynasty (420-479) so the dating of his arrival to China to the Liang Dynasty should be removed from the intro.

Will have more to say later.

JFD 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Historians at the Shaolin, including grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, <>The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense, Health and Enlightenment by Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit <> feel that Mr. Paul Pelliot is lying. His reputation and authority surpasses that of any of your sources.

The following information on my sources is from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:

Tang Hao

He is viewed as being the greatest Chinese martial arts historian that ever lived. Second, many of his comments and criticisms regarding martial arts history and martial arts writing are still valid today....He advocated applying modern scientific methods to the study of Chinese martial arts history and to the practice of Chinese martial arts themselves....His writings include Taiji Boxing and Neijia Boxing, A Study of Shaolin and Wudang, Neijia Boxing, The Qi Qi Fist Classic, and A Study of Chinese Martial Arts Illustrations.

Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folk tales corrupted and tainted people's thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.

In 1920 (sic) he wrote a book called Study of Shaolin and Wudang, which was published by the Central Guoshu Academy. He used lots of historical material to prove that Bodhidharma and Zhang San Feng knew nothing about martial arts, and that the theory that Shaolin martial arts started from Bodhidharma and that Taijiquan was invented by Zhang San Feng was incorrect.

Matsuda Ryuchi

Matsuda Ryuchi [is] a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts. According to his biography included in An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts, Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts.

Stanley E. Henning

Stanley E. Henning is an American scholar and martial artist who has published a number of articles concerning the early history of Taijiquan. Some of his articles—in particular, one titled "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan"—raised heated debates in certain martial arts circles. In his own words, his goal was "to extract Chinese martial arts from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research." One of his major theses, he says, is "the fact that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including boxing, are rooted in military, not religious practice." That idea did not sit too well with some sectors of America's Taiji community and, for a while, Henning was a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community. Be that as it may, Henning went on to write a number of scholarly articles on the history and development of Chinese martial arts that have done much to lift this study out of the realm of pulp fiction and into a more serious, accurate, and scholarly domain.

JFD 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Source 1: Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, 4th generation successor of the Southern Shaolin Monastery, set up The Shaolin Wahnam Institute.

His lineage traces right back to the Southern Shaolin Monastery through two patriarchs: Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam. Ho Fatt Nam's teacher was Yang Fatt Khuen, whose teacher was Venerable Jiang Nan, the monk who escaped from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in Fujian Province. The legacy that Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit holds is over 150 years old.

Today, Wong Kiew Kit has over 2000 students world-wide through various branches of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. Certain forms of hard qigong are taught, again, differing from the soft, internal qigong that was taught in the former Shaolin Monasteries of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Shaolin arts, as taught at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute, purport to be of the soft, internal kind. They are comprised of: Shaolin Kungfu, Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin Zen.

Source 2: Eminent journalists from the New York Times. In this case I have chosen a citation coming from Howard W. French:

Howard W. French (born 1958) is a New York Times reporter as well as an author. French taught at a university in the Ivory Coast in the 1980s before becoming a reporter. He has reported extensively on the political affairs of Western and Central Africa. These reports were the basis for the book A Continent for the Taking.

French has also reported on the political and social affairs in China, where he reported on the government crackdown of dissent in the Dongzhou protests of 2005. Most of his current work for the New York Times is centered on China.

French became Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times in 1999. He is a senior writer for the Times, and has served as Shanghai bureau chief since 2003.

Sorce 3: Encyclopedia Brittanica

The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelled with the æ ligature) is a general encyclopedia published by the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.. Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the encylopedia was first published progressively from 1768–71 as Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan. It was one of the first printed English encyclopedias and today is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.

From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, Britannica's articles were often judged as the foremost authority on a topic, and sometimes included new research or theory intended for a scholarly audience. During this era, the Britannica gained its erudite reputation and had a unique position in English-speaking culture.

The Britannica has survived fierce competition from an ever-increasing number of alternative information sources.


Self explainatory. In this case, the concise addition.

---

Compare the sources and judge the quality of each by yourselves.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Skies: the problem I see with the wording you would like for paragraph 1 is that it improperly puts the association with Chan/Zen and the association with martial arts on the same footing: "Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts".

But it's hardly fair to treat them the same, is it? So far as I can see, the Chan/Zen link was first set out in primary sources of the 7th Century, whereas the first primary source for the martial arts link is apparently 1875. I asked above whether you or anyone else are able to cite an earlier primary source for martial arts, but you side-stepped the question. Now, there's a lot of stuff about what is allegedly said in the 'historic sources', but I want to know exactly what those sources are and whether they are extant. Anyone can quote web sites or even historians that simply repeat this legend uncritically, but we ought in a proper encyclopedic article to go beyond that and make it clear (if it is the case) that the martial arts link is a mere 19th century legend which has no basis in fact.

If you disagree (as I'm sure you will), please see what you can do to persuade me on the basis of reliable early sources. Let me say again that it's not enough to quote back to me modern authors who make this link. I would like to hear from you what you think their primary sources are. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We disagree again, my friend. You give arguments, reasons. I can provide counter arguments, counter reasons.

The fact is that I challenge Kenneth Tennyson and JFD combine to bring a set of websites, books which discredit Bodhidharma and I will bring those who credit him. The one with the minority POV quits Wikipedia forever, only never to return.

This, my friend, is the traditionally held version. The argument is not about whether the version is true or not, but whether the version is traditionally held or not.

You point towards conflicting theories about a legend, my friend. These theories are very prominently' dealt with in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, an article made for this very purpose and an article which JFD and Kenny craft to their liking without my interference. I have even mentioned to Kenny that he should strengthen up his article when we were on more civil terms.

Kindly note the following points:-

  • Bodhidharma is commonly held to be asociated with martial arts (If anyone disputes this I take it they accept my challenge, bring your sources to display that that he is not and I will bring mine to display that he is. Even JFD's sources confirm that till this day he is credited with association with martial arts though they intend to disprove that association).
  • The lines mention areas which are neutrality themselves. You'll notice that PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" and "layered with legend."
  • If you want the mentions of versions based on 19th century legends and everything there is always the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts

Also note that PARAGRAPH 2 has just the following lines:

PARAGRAPH 2

Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]

The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]

Substituing those mere lines (which basically comprise of an intro and a mention of conflicting legends) with PARAGRAPH 1 is adequate. We are not substituing anything else, so why does the question of mentioning conflicting revisionist claims arise ? especially since I have proposed to withdraw from mentioning a section which specifically points out the conflicts within the revisionist versions.

Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts deals with every aspect in uninturrupted detail, this article is very prominently linked up with the main article.

Kindly consider.

After all we're replacing just two paragrahs. Why place newer theories of revision when I show intentions to withdraw my section ? Why place these theories when Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts deals with every aspect in uninturrupted detail ? Why place these theories when PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" and "layered with legend", which cater to both the the sides ?

Thank you.

Extending regards.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 11:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Claims

To be very precise:

About 150 years later in CE 527 the great Bodhidharma, a prince-turned-monk, came from India to teach Zen at the Shaolin Monastery. Since then the Shaolin Monastery has become the fountainhead of Zen Buddhism, which is a major school of. Mahayana Buddhism.

Bodhidharma left behind as a legacy three great sets of exercise, namely Eighteen Lohan Hands, Sinew Metamorphosis and Marrow Cleansing. Eighteen Lohan Hands became the forerunner of Shaolin Kungfu, and Sinew Metamorphosis the forerunner of Shaolin Chi Kung. "Bone Marrow" in Chinese medical terms is not just the bone marrow in Western terms, but figuratively refers to the nerves. The great Bodhidharma is honoured and worshipped as the First Patriarch of the Shaolin arts, as well as of Zen Buddhism.

From grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself. A greater authority on Shaolin arts has not been mentioned in this discussion.

I don't ask anyone to endorse the claims. I know people will dispute the traditional claims. Traditional Claims remain just that though, traditional.

The paragraph mentions traditional claims. The paragraph also states lines which will cater to the other side.

The lines mention areas which are neutrality themselves. You'll notice that PARAGRAPH 1 has areas which I repeatedly stress on include "traditionally credited" which is the truth.

The fact that the above mentioned quote echoes the traditional claim is not under dispute. All PARAGRAPH 1 states is "traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, and of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. "

s]]) 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We should distinguish reasonably-probable legends from legends having no basis in contemporary sources

Freedom Skies - I've never heard of Wong Kiew Kit, I'm afraid, but I gather he's a modern writer. If he's a scholar, the statement you've quoted from him above will be backed up by some early primary sources. Could you perhaps do some further reading and look up what he says those are, please? If he cites no primary sources for his belief, we are no further on than relying on what a journalist says on a film-review web site. It is not disputed that some people make statements along the lines you have quoted above. What is still open, though, is how we should treat such statements in the Bodhidharma article. If what you call the 'traditional' martial arts view really can't be sourced before 1875, we should say that and make the position quite clear. I suggest the following:

Lead paragraph:

  • Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China [cite 1]. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk — possibly from Kanchipuram — who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Somewhere later in the article:

In modern times, Bodhidharma has become associated with the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts, and some martial arts writers state that he was responsible for introducing Shaolin kung fu into China. However, contemporary documents do not support this, and the legend appears to have originated as later as 1875 (see Yì Jīn Jīng) [cite 2].

Cite 1: Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang (547) by Yang Xuanzhi, and Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (645) by Daoxuan.

Cite 2: Yì Jīn Jīng is first found in the preface of a 1875 edition by Surig Kuang called the Weisheng Yijinjing. The 1875 story has not been be documented in the historical record; neither have its authors or sources been substantiated.

--MichaelMaggs 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make a very clear distinction between what comes from primary sources and what doesn't.

There is support in primary sources for the claim that Bodhidharma was South Indian, but none for the claim that he was from Kanchipuram.
I'm even willing to say that "most primary sources agree that he was from South India" but any reference to Kanchipuram must be left out because it incorrectly suggests that the primary sources say that he is from Kanchipuram when they say no such thing.

And the primary sources conflict on when he arrived in China.
Tanlin, the second oldest of the primary sources, dates Bodhidharma's arrival in China to the Liu Song dynasty.
The Liang dynasty date does not appear until Daoyuan (not to be confused with Daoxuan), writing roughly 400 years later.

Daoyuan is likewise responsible for the "beatification" (for lack of a better word) of Bodhidharma as the First Patriarch of Zen.
Daoyuan wrote at a time after Zen had risen to its position of prominence in Chinese Buddhism.
At the time when Yang Xuanzhi, Tanlin, and Daoxuan were writing, Zen had not yet emerged as a distinct school of Buddhism, let alone risen to a position of influence.

The conflicts between the primary sources are exactly why I separated the Biography section by source rather than try to write a single synthesized biography.

And if Freedom skies wants to talk about the "revisionism" of Bodhidharma's life story, he would do well to compare the 10th century Daoyuan with the 6th and 7th century Yang Xuanzhi, Tanlin and Daoxuan.

Writing about the lives of Buddhist monks was the metier of both Daoxuan and Daoyuan.
Yet the 7th century Daoxuan devotes far fewer "column inches" to Bodhidharma than he does to, for example, Seng-ch'ou. (Source: Broughton)
Nor does the 7th century Daoxuan adopt the reverential tone towards Bodhidharma that the 10th century Daoyuan does.

And, as mentioned before, there is no reference in the 7th century Daoxuan to Bodhidharma as the Patriarch of either Buddhism or Zen; those titles first appear in the 10th century Daoyuan.
Writing in Essays on Zen Buddhism, D.T. Suzuki proposes that this patriarchal lineage of Zen Buddhism was an invention of later Zen hagiographers in response to criticisms of the increasingly popular and influential Zen by rival schools of Buddhism.

Other parts of the "traditional" Bodhidharma story which do not appear until the 10th century Daoyuan are the encounter with Emperor Wu of Liang, the "9 years of wall-gazing", and Hui-k'o cutting his hand off (in Daoxuan he loses his hand in a bandit attack).

The association of Bodhidharma with martial arts does not appear until centuries later, in the Yi Jin Jing, a text that is neither contemporary nor belongs to the Buddhist canon.
No historian (that is, an author who is writing first and foremost a history, as opposed to say an author mentioning Bodhidharma in passing in an article about the relevance of T'ai Chi to massage in Massage Therapy Journal[18]) attests to the existence of the Yi Jin Jing before the 17th century at the earliest.
And the association of Bodhidharma with martial arts does not become widespread until the 19th and, especially, 20th centuries.

So what say all of you?
Is Wikipedia to be a place where the conclusions of the highest-quality research are made available to all?
Or will it be a place that perpetuates fairy tales because it caters to the ethnic chauvinism of the stubborn?
JFD 20:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

JFD - You say that we should make a very clear distinction between what comes from primary sources and what doesn't. I quite agree. How would you phrase the lead paras, and perhaps a later one which describes the purported martial arts connection? Feel free to re-write my suggestion to make it accurate. --MichaelMaggs 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember that I prefer brevity in article intros though I admit that conflicts with the Wikipedia ideal of intros as article summaries.
JFD 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Quite

Again you provide arguments dealing with Ta Mo, quoting selective authors and their works. This has been done in great detail on Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts. The Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts is very prominently linked up to the main Bodhidharma article. If the works providing the view of a few modern authors and their conflicting theories of revision are already mentioned in Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts then why force a repition of the same text in the main Bodhidharma article ? Why accomadate a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal style monstrosity for the sake of those who have an ethnic red Han Chinese agenda instead of a normal Wikipedia article behind the motive of their actions?

Not only is Ta mo commonly held to be the founder of the Shaolin arts, he is officially held to be the father of the Shaolin arts, Kindly access the NYT citation mentioned below.

---

Alternative

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder both of Chán/Zen Buddhism in China, <>[19] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma</> and officially credited as the founder of the Shaolin kung fu school of the Chinese martial arts. <>[20] So Many Paths. Which Shaolin Is Real? The Reply: Yes. by Howard W. French. New York Times<> Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts by both Chan Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu practitioners became layered with legend, <>[21] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<> but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards. <>[22] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<>

---

You may point to not endorsing the connection, but that has already been done in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article. The lines mention areas which are neutrality themselves. They cater to everyone's POV.

I did not expect the cabal to accept any solution in any event. This is when I have proposed to withdraw on the main page a section which deals with the conflicts within the revisionist claims.

---

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian influence on Chinese martial arts - Totally unacceptable article

Freedom skies, I am not against the idea of only briefly mentioning Bodhidharma's association with Shaolin kungfu here (exact wording to be worked out), and linking the detailed arguments to the other article(s). But with the extremely POV article "Indian_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts", I cannot see how there can be any good faith on your part. The two articles dealing with this issue will probably need to be merged, and what is disputed clearly mentioned as such. Terms like "negationism" and "revisionism" should not be used, for these imply that there is no dispute whatsoever, and anyone who dares to raise questions is condemned as having committed an intellectual crime right from the outset. The detailed article should instead be in the conventional "Arguments For"/"Arguments Against" format, so as to be more balanced and neutral. And no deliberate distortion of supposed "sources" and citations - something you are inclined to do. And no more use of offensive racial slurs - that's utterly unacceptable behaviour. Unless you modify your POV stance at "Indian_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts", I don't think a meaningful and lasting compromise can be reached. 202.20.5.206 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how there can be any good faith on your part.

I'll help you. The only unsourced line in that article is "The extensive development of these techniques by the Chinese monks over centuries led to modern day Shaolin Kung Fu." The article is very balanced and speaks only of an influence, not an origin, which is subscribed to by most sources.

extremely POV article

Mistaken. The article credits the Chinese and it speaks of the Chinese arts predating Shaolin. The extreme POV would have been quoting Indian sources/sites extensively and claiming that he was the father of martial arts. Something i have not done.

The article even has a proposed influences on India section. Where is the proposed influences on China section in the very formidable Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts?

If influences on India don't make me nervous then see to it that influences on China don't scare you to the point of losing your wit as well.

The two articles dealing with this issue will probably need to be merged

Nothing New. The articles deal with opposite content. Merging them would be like merging the Out of India theory and the Aryan Invasion theory.

Unless you modify your POV stance at "Indian_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts", I don't think a meaningful and lasting compromise can be reached.

Your outburst amuses me. You speak of an article which is not under question here. An article which is neutralized by the very formidable Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts.

I could say the same thing about the very formidable Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article but I choose to stay away. A suggestion, if the strength of the Indian influence scares you to the point of losing your wit on another article's talk page then I suggest you strengthen up the already formidable Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article. I will not touch sourced content there.

Also a compromise will very soon be reached regardless. I have shown my readiness to arrive at a solution. Your ideas to stifle the other side completely will be disregarded. The only contentious issue is the paraphrasing of the Shaolin Kung Fu portion, which will soon be discussed till a solution is reached.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Learn something from that article. The second paragraph of which goes out of it's way to quote the New York Times on this:-

This foreign influence acting as a catalyst, however, does not necessarily indicate the indroduction of martial arts to China from India. In an article by published in the New York Times Travel section in 1983, Christopher Wren asserts that organised martial traditions predate the establishment of the Shaolin Monastery by centuries.

Appreciate the sentiment of neutrality. This is how second paragraphs are formulated. Compare that with the second para of Bodhidharma. The second para of Bodhidharma stated that he did not exist and implied that the biographical article is due for an AfD.

I'm still offended by the very audacity of the "Totally unacceptable article" statement. Have you no morals? You advocate the placing of a paragraph which points a man to be non existent in his freaking biography and you have the cheek to critisize this? Have you taken a look into the very formidable Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts article and can you honestly claim that it's as neutral ?

Gawd.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 03:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The extreme POV would have been quoting Indian sources/sites extensively and claiming that he was the father of martial arts. Something i have not done.

Ahem.
JFD 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Third alternative proposal

PARAGRAPH 1:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán and Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[23] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[24] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk—possibly from Kanchipuram—who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.


Step 1: We substitute the following PARAGRAPH 2 by PARAGRAPH 1 mentioned above:

PARAGRAPH 2

Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk (usually Indian by most accounts) traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China.[1]

The major sources about Bodhidharma's life conflict with regard to his origins, the chronology of his journey to China, his death, and other details. Heinrich Dumoulin emphasises the legendary nature of the traditional Bodhidharma life-story,[2] and Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation.[3]

---

Note: We remove Kung Fu as is proposed by the cabal following which I take back my offer of accomadating "traditionally credited." I have Encyclopedia Brittanica and BBC citations stating very clearly that he is credited. The charade of ambiguity ends here, the citations will be reflected accurately.

---

Note: The conflicting theories are withdrawn completely from the main page itself following which I withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts withing the theories.

---

That's it. Now, does the deadlock end here?

---

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. (Except for minor corrections e.g. "Chan/Zen" instead of "Cha, Zen, Seon, and Thien..." sects etc.) Do remember that this whole episode (that has been exhausting for everyone, I suppose) started with your moving material from the intro to your so-called "negationism" section - that is the main reason why I found it to be "totally unacceptable". Now that that is removed (and from the "Indian influence" article too - totally appreciate that), I see no major problems remaining. (Except maybe put in a brief lead paragraph to the "Biography" section as some kind of summary. Dumoulin, Pelliot, Suzuki may be mentioned there using more neutral language, or mentioned in footnotes, or dropped altogether - I leave it to the others to decide.) I would further suggest the so-called "cabal" reciprocate by making their article likewise more balanced and neutral, since there is little possibility of a merge/collaboration between you guys. (I never wanted to get embroiled in your "kungfu" dispute in the first place!) Now let's hear what the others think. 202.20.5.206 13:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sound good to me. In a comment above, though, JFD has said that "possibly from Kanchipuram" should be left out as the primary sources do not support that. What do you think? --MichaelMaggs 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If Freedom skies does the same, I am willing to remove all material from Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts that cannot be found on JSTOR or Project MUSE or is not published by a university press.

In other words, I am willing to hold myself to Wikipedia's highest standards for reliable sources.

Is Freedom skies willing to do so?
JFD 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Accomadating the opposition yet again

If JFD does the same, I am willing to remove all material from the Indian influence article that is not associated with the official shaolin temple, grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, Howard W. French and the Discovery channel. In other words let's hold ourselves to the highest standards for reliable sources in the world on this matter.

Is JFD willing to do so?

Rhetorical questions aside I can accomadate JFD on the opening paragraph in the Bodhidharma article. We have been known to reach compromises despite even more heated debates. If JFD has said that "possibly from Kanchipuram" should be left out then for the third time in this discussion I accomadate the oppositions point of view despite having formidable sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica endorsing my claim.

---

Paragraph I:


Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán and Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[25] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[26] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

---

No further changes are acceptable. I have backed down on more than enough despite the citations. This comes despite the cabal insinuating that I have been combative, stubborn and need to be sent off Wikipedia when I seem to be the one bending head over heels to reach a solution and end this. No further changes.

---

Note: The conflicting theories are withdrawn completely from the main page itself following which I withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts withing the theories.

---

Now. Do we have an agreement?

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --MichaelMaggs 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is my proposed source code for the intro.

Bodhidharma is the 6th century Buddhist monk credited as the founder of Zen.
Accounts from the Chinese Buddhist canon concur that Bodhidharma was South Indian and ultimately settled in the kingdom of Wei where he took as disciples Daoyu and Huike, though they differ on much else, such as the date of his arrival in China.

JFD 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is my proposed source code for the intro.

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán/Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[27] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[28] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Since the difference between the two proposed codes appears to be minimal, I would take up the one put forward by Saposcat since I trust him to put togather a neutral article instead of a point-by-point rebuttal.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph does not really describe bodhidharma correctly. we need to add that he is considered only by tradition to be the founder of zen and that most of his life story is considered legends. We also need to write what the academic establishment has talked about his life and should not leave that out. As I state again to all of us involved, why should we be pandering to a biased person who is not willing to listen to facts or reason? It's similar to haveing a wikipedia article on space, and then haveing a nut come along and state that "aliens from mars" have been watching us for years and then changing it to accomodate him on his beliefs on aliens. further, The "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is a nutty article written to support his nutty views. No academic person believes that the stories revolving around Bodhidharma are much more than legend. why should we change the article to state anything less? At the same time why should we change "bodhdiharma, the martial arts, and the disputed indian connection" article at all when everything written there is from an academic source? That article is very balanced as it is. NO ONE is stating that Bodhidharma probably existed.... we are all stating that the stories around him are legend and mythology. Kennethtennyson 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited BY TRADITION as the founder both the Chán/Zen sect of Buddhism. <>[29] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[30] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Oh, yes, freedom skies = you don't know much about zen or chan. They are considered the same sect. Kennethtennyson 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources - I have quite a few sources to back up the fact Bodhidharma was the son of the King of Kanchipuram (or at least a prominent Brahmin family). Rediff in an interview with Jayendra Saraswati (Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram Math). Also the fact is Cited in a Chinese page [31] and Trinidad's Guardian newspaper.Theres another figure Buddhagosa from Kanchi listed in this JSTORBakaman Bakatalk 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Without a doubt Bodhidharma was a Tamil (either Buddhist Kshatriya or high caste Buddhist, which makes no sense because Buddhism isnt supposed to recognize caste) from Kanchipuram. The more pressing detail is when he was born, and when he journeyed to the Shaolin ashram.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt Bodhidharma was a Tamil

I've read speculation that Bodhidharma was Telugu like Nagarjuna, in addition to the identification of Bodhidharma as "Central Asian Persian" by Yang Xuanzhi.

Buddhism isnt supposed to recognize caste

If you had read Tanlin, you'd know he actually writes that Bodhidharma was "of South Indian Brahman stock" (Translation: Dumoulin).
Taoyuan likewise writes that Bodhidharma was "the third son of a great Brahman king" (Translation: Suzuki).
In other words, the canonical accounts do not describe Bodhidharma as Brahmin, they describe is ancestry as such.
Of course, someone well-versed in the literature would already know that.

Just as they'd know that Zen and Chan are the same thing.
To describe them as different schools is like referring to "the Deutsch and German languages": the sort of mistake made by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
JFD 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenny

he above paragraph does not really describe bodhidharma correctly.

You continue Kenny. Wikipedia does not cater to your notions of "does not really describe bodhidharma". Wikipedia caters to the notions of the BBC and the Encyclopedia Brittanica's notions.

---

we need to add that he is considered only by tradition to be the founder of zen and that most of his life story is considered legends.

The citations say that he is considered. It's called sourcing.

I allowed "traditionally" in "Mehcanism 1" now we're on Mechanism 4, which is different. Mech 1 had me compromising on "traditionally" and the cabal accepting that he is also commonly associated with Kung fu, which he is.

Unfortunately that did not materialize.

---

We also need to write what the academic establishment has talked about his life and should not leave that out.

Conflicting theories of revision ?

The article Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts deals exclusively with a pro view of them. The article is linked up with the main Bodhidharma article and we're only replacing two short paras and I have suggested that i withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts within these theories as well.

You take it back to square 1, kenny. try keeping up.

---


As I state again to all of us involved, why should we be pandering to a biased person who is not willing to listen to facts or reason?

I agree. let us not be pandering to Kenny who is not willing to listen to facts or reason, not that he has done much editing except reverts though.

---

It's similar to haveing a wikipedia article on space, and then haveing a nut come along and state that "aliens from mars" have been watching us for years and then changing it to accomodate him on his beliefs on aliens.

At least your idiotic outbursts are amusing, Kenny. Keep at it. Next time do Cinderella.

---

further, The "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is a nutty article written to support his nutty views.

Having 80 something sources ?

---

No academic person believes that the stories revolving around Bodhidharma are much more than legend. '

kenny, kenny, kenny. what do say we put that to test. The one with less references loses and leaves Wikipedia forever.

---

At the same time why should we change "bodhdiharma, the martial arts, and the disputed indian connection" article at all when everything written there is from an academic source?

No one asks you to. The very formidable article should continue.

---

I know what he said sounded like a joke but Kenny does that.

Anyways. I did not expect the cabal to reach a solution. They attempt not to allow regular articles. Everything has to be a point by point rebuttal or nothing.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's further is MichaelMaggs, Bakasuprman agree with my paragraph. I think 202.20.5.206 does too.

Only the cabal remains ike I said they would. Even after me compromising four times they have the shamelessness and the cheek to continue pushing for a point-for-point rebuttal instead of a regular article.

I say put the two paras to poll or something now. Enough is enough.

My suggestion.

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán/Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[32] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[33] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I would temporarily propose for the intro:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. The accounts differ on the date of his arrival, with the earliest account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

All the refs can be found in Dumoulin's history pp. 87–91 and/or in Broughton's Bodhidharma Anthology 54 ff. (and many other reliable places besides).

However, I would also propose that this intro is getting unnecessarily weighted down with what is, to some extent—and let's call a spade a spade here—specialist crap. As a better way to introduce the figure of Bodhidharma, I would propose we actually not start bandying back and forth in the intro about precisely where he was born, where and when he arrived in the Middle Kingdom, et cetera ad nauseum. I think, instead, that—since an intro is supposed to introduce the significance of a person (or "figure")—we instead simply mention, in the place of the whole "The accounts differ" sentence—a new paragraph that talks about his actual significance to Chan/Zen Buddhists (and possibly Shaolin kung fu practitioners as well, though I personally know essentially nothing about that particular field): how he is considered (and note, I say, considered) to be basically the founder—or rather, reinvigorator, since we mustn't forget Gautama Buddha—of the style of meditation used in Chan/Zen (壁觀 bìguān or "wall-gazing"); how he is considered to be the first of the Chinese patriarchs; how he is generally accorded a significance second only to Gautama Buddha himself; et cetera.

I propose this idea because we have to think about the reader: no reader who is relatively unversed in the subject and comes to the article in order to actually learn about Bodhidharma wants to be assaulted immediately with all manner of detailed arguments and counterarguments. These should, of course, be present in the article, but in some sort of "Biography" (or more suitably titled) section; not in the intro, which is make-or-break time for any article (in my reading experience).

Any thoughts on this? Cheers. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also suggest the separate articles about Bodhidharma and martial arts and disputed Indian origins and whatnot no longer be mentioned here; they may be relevant to the figure of Bodhidharma himself, but they're irrelevant to our attempt to get this article into shape, and their mention only seems to be furthering the sides-taking that's going on (as far as I can see, anyhow). Cheers again. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Skies: Accepting a compromise yet again

My understanding is that the following paragraph as proposed by Saposcat is used:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. The accounts differ on the date of his arrival, with the earliest account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

No further edits mentioning revisionist claims are made in the main page itself by the cabal following which I withdraw my section dealing exclusively on the conflicting nature of the revisionist claims. There are articles linked up to the main article which deal with the issues in detail.

I accept a compromise yet again because it is proposed by Saposcat, not a member of any cabal.

If we give this the go-ahead then lemme know.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

it's odd, freedom skies, but you keep on stating in here that you accept these changes and yet in the chan and zen articles you keep on removing any mention of the fact that it is tradition that associates him with zen/chan. You also remove any mention of the fact that most of his life story is considered legend. It would seem that if we were to agree to an unblock you would do the same in teh other articles. Kennethtennyson 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "(c. 6th century)" is more awkward than "6th century Buddhist monk" but otherwise fine.
JFD 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for putting "(c. 6th century CE)" in parentheses rather than integrating it into the sentence are: (a) it follows Wikipedia guidelines; and (b) it allows for the use of "CE"—which is absolutely necessary—without having to resort to such an extremely awkward double-hyphenated construction as "6th-century-CE Buddhist monk".
In the meantime, any thoughts on my proposal about a second intro paragraph outlining the significance of Bodhidharma to Chan/Zen practitioners (i.e. a paragraph incorporating the basic concepts underlying the legendary material)? Cheers. —Saposcat 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive_2&oldid=664817497"