Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 4

7am Arivu

A tamil movie is being made about bodhidharma and his visit to china — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.136.98 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 7aam Arivu, starring Suriya and Shruti Haasan directed by A. R. Murugadoss. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The addition of this is unsourced, and without an appropriate reliable source to give this addition any weight, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:IPC. However, if the IP editor that is inserting the information feels otherwise, please discuss here why it belongs in the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy and depictions in popular culture

There should be a section called "Legacy and depictions in popular culture" or something like "Film and Literature". Ben (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's too trivial to mention films on the main article. Feel free to create a sister article to be linked to. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

Tonydass (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC) He belongs to Udayar Caste of moderntime.

 Question: Do you have a reliable source that shows this? - SudoGhost 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In Telugu, its బోధిధర్మ and not something భోధిధర్మ written in the article. Someone with edit permissions, please change it. రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill in the lede?

All I see that Bodhidharma was from south India. Being known martial arts tells me he somehow connected to present Kerala. Whether he is Brahmin or kshyatria tells me he was aryan just like every king in olden India was a Kshyatriya and an aryan. No where I see any context about about tamilnadu.

<ref>Broughton 1999:2; Dumoulin 2005:90; Addiss 2008:9; Faure 1996:45; Hoover 1999:1(Chapter One); Dumoulin 1988:89; Chung 1998:188; Jørgensen 2005:111</ref>

This style is a bit more pleasing to the eye:

<ref>Broughton, 1999, p. 2; Dumoulin, 2005, p. 90; Addiss, 2008, p. 9; Faure, 1996, p. 45; Hoover, 1999, p. 1, Chapter One; Dumoulin, p. 1988, p. 89; Chung, 1998, p. 188; Jørgensen, 2005, p. 111</ref>

However, the latter style would require changing the entire reference format. I offer it only to show an alternative. I recommend doing a first pass, bundling multiple references per the example above, and then coming back on a second pass to see if the multiple refs are even needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede, "Scholars have concluded his place of birth to be Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu." is supported by eight citations. This seems to be a bit much, so I wanted to discuss the possibility of trimming this down to around two or three of the strongest and most reliable sources. Does anyone have any objection to this, or a suggestion on which of the references would be best to keep, and which can be removed? - SudoGhost 09:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we know if the citations just support that sentence or the entire paragraph? We would have to look through the page history and/or the talk page to find out for sure. As a short term solution, what about bundling the refs like this:

I do have a question, if any editors would know. Why is the Tamil translation in the lede? It was inserted here by an IP editor, but I don't see why this Tamil translation gives an English reader any further understanding of the article's subject, as most English readers wouldn't even begin to know how to pronounce போதிதர்மன். I'm removing it from the lede, as it is already found in the infobox. - SudoGhost 19:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Person's name in their native language is usually added in the lede. I think it should be added! Ben (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede, "Scholars have concluded his place of birth to be Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu." is supported by eight citations. This seems to be a bit much, so I wanted to discuss the possibility of trimming this down to around two or three of the strongest and most reliable sources. Does anyone have any objection to this, or a suggestion on which of the references would be best to keep, and which can be removed? - SudoGhost 09:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we know if the citations just support that sentence or the entire paragraph? We would have to look through the page history and/or the talk page to find out for sure. As a short term solution, what about bundling the refs like this:

And, yea I thought you always added the person's native name and transliteration in the lede, so Tamil seems obvious...

--90.215.129.236 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources on the page do not support a historical connection to the southern kingdom. See the discussion below for more details. For his connection to martial arts, please see the section of the article called "Bodhidharma at Shaolin." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No the sources below seem to contest his origin in Kanchipuram, they seem to point out South India quite consistently. --90.215.129.236 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources plainly point out that his origins are not truly known. The best that we can do is to say that historians suggest that he may have come from southern India. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist, I do'not understand whats your concern in putting his name in Tamil. his mothertongue is Tamil and so am trying to put his name is in Tamil. I am from Chennai, India. Mahabalipuram -- A pallava capital is an hour drive from my home. I am known growing up with stories of Pallavas, BodhiDharma, Siddha medicine and all. You sitting in USA and have little practical knowledge about Tamilnadu or south india, wants to control this thing ? I think you have insidious agenda in doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgomat (talk • contribs) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of his various names in the lede

There is an anon who keeps on putting Bodhidharma's Tamil name into the lede. This is not necessary since it is already mentioned in the info box. The Zen patriarch is known the world over by many different names, so there is no reason to give preference to a certain one. I hope that the anon will come here to discuss the issue instead of re-adding it over and over again. This will naturally lead to the page being protected. That fact that they keep jumping IPs isn't very helpful either. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A newly established editor who added the Tamil name has left a message on my page that is related to this. Interested parties can view it here. My reply should establish why the Tamil name should not be added to the lede. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, because I will eventually archive my talk page, I have posted part of my reply here for posterity:

As I stated before, his Tamil name keeps on getting removed because he is known by so many names around the world. You stated that other Wikipedia articles include multiple names for other historical personages in an info box, but always post their native name in the lede. That's normally true if they are concretely known to have come from that area. However, there is not enough historical information to say he really did come from Southern India. Most of what is known about him comes from Chinese records, and none of them agree with each other. There are some historians who think he really didn't have anything to do with Chan Buddhism, and there are others who don't even think he was a historical person. I took the liberty of looking at some of the sources from the article which support his Tamil origin. The Bodhidharma Anthology (p. 2) says he was from East India. The Zen Sourcebook: Traditional Documents From China, Korea, and Japan (p. 9) says “Because accounts of Bodhidharma’s life and teaching were generally written some time after his life, they are historically questionable; a few scholars have even wondered if he existed at all.” The author then goes on to mention how “later accounts” say he was the son of a monarch in Southern India. The Zen Experience (chapter 1) presents the “Zen legend” that Bodhidharma came from southern India. It also states that he stayed in the Shaolin Temple, which is not a reliable story. The first source mentioning him actually setting foot in Shaolin is from the 8th century. This of course postdates him by hundreds of years. Across the Himalayan Gap: An Indian Quest for Understanding China (p. 188) says he was the son of a king of Kanchi. The author later says, “The historicity of Bodhidharma has been controversial. The first mention of Kanchi is in “The Record of the Transmission of the Lamp” compiled in 1002." Again, this posdates his supposed life by hundreds of years. It is evident from these sources that his origin has not truly been established.

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at another of the sources cited as supporting his links to southern India. Inventing Hui-neng, the sixth Patriarch: Hagiography and biography in early Ch'an (p. 111) doesn't give any concrete support for a Kanchipuram origin. In fact, it doesn't even mention Kanchipuram on that page, nor is it mentioned in the rest of the book. It only just reviews what the various Chinese sources say about him: that he was either Persian and South Indian. Therefore, it is evident that these sources are not supporting the statements being made in the article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist-- The problem is you donot know much of Indian history. Everyone in Tamilnadu knows Pallava dynasty is centered around Kanchipuram. Why should i explain you the basic facts - for you lack of knowledge ? if you do more research you will find yourself how things are connected. please let us know, if you have any insidous agenda ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgomat (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to keep a civil tone while discussing an issue on the talk page (see WP:Civil). If you continue to be belligerent, your editing privileges can be revoked. I'm afraid there is not enough evidence to say he was concretely from that area of India. Can you provide Contemporary Indian sources or modern day archaeological evidence to support this? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not what people "should" know. If you want information in an article, it is up to you to provide the proof of this. As the Tamil translation of the name is already in the infobox, there is no reason to unnecessarily duplicate this by placing it in the first sentence of the lede as well. Doing so provides no additional information and does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject in any way. - SudoGhost 14:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ok here is another proof: http://www.purple.dti.ne.jp/kambe/e-Sea-Route.pdf that he is from Kanchipuram. Since he is a Tamilian, Am going to put his name in Tamil Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgomat (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is one source, one that conflicts with others that say differing things. However, this still doesn't address the fact that the tamil name is already in the infobox, and putting it in the lede as well adds nothing to the article. - SudoGhost 15:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A Tamilian will google by his Tamilname, this may come up in google search. Bodhidharma is born Tamilian, there are so many references to check. This provides a chance for uses to read about Tamil as well. this is how wiki works -- by interconnected facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgomat (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, as anyone typing in Tamil would likely be searching the Tamil language Wikipedia. Even if they were searching the English Wikipedia, the Tamil name is already in the article, and adding it to the lede doesn't add anything useful. See above. SudoGhost 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding one more proof that he is from Kanchipuram, TamilNadu and he is a Tamilian. Please remember that its a proof from Former Professor of University of Tokyo, Japan http://www.purple.dti.ne.jp/kambe/e-Sea-Route.pdf

May be your mothertongue is Engish, so you do not understand this. Tell me why people's name is in their mothertongue is so many wiki pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius Let me tell you, your argument is pale. We can wakeup people who are sleeping but not the one who is faking. I will do one more time. if you revert it back, may be damo likes your ego to be satisfied. be with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgomat (talk • contribs) 15:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for adding content, and those articles are of individuals of whose origins are not disputed, which makes it a poor comparison. Those also do not have translations in the infobox, making it an even poorer comparison. - SudoGhost 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unless a valid argument can be given to the contrary, there is no reason to include the Tamil name in the first sentence of the lede. It is already in the infobox, and duplicating this translation serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, and every argument given for including it in the first sentence is already satisfied by having it in the infobox. - SudoGhost 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

Its states that he is from Nalanda University.

203.99.221.151 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Provide a specific request. CTJF83 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

I question the validity of some of the statements here and suspect that they have been included by the publicity department of a recent movie in Tamil. There's no proof that Bodhidharma was a Tamil prince. Some sources believe that he was from Kerala where the martial art 'Karali' supposed to be the origin of kung-fu, was invented. At the most, he could be South Indian, though some believe that Bodhidharma was born in the North.

Ashokscape (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please, if you want to improve the quality of the article, make an edit request propose an actual change to the page, with well sourced information. Zidanie5 (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article now holds the line "He was the third son of a Tamil king of the Pallava Dynasty.[1][2]". Let me explain the references used here.

Ref 1 calls Broughton, Jeffrey L. (1999), The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen, Berkeley: University of California Press. In the contents of this book (search for the book in Google books and search for key words and to see), there is no mention about Tamil or Pallava.

Page 2 of the above book mentions his as Bodhitara, the 3rd son of a South Indian king. For information on Bodhitara, refer: The Record of Transmitting the Light: Zen Master Keizan's Denkoroku. By Keizan, Francis Dojun Cook, Francis Harold Cook ISBN-10: 0861713303. This book calls Bodhitara as the 3rd son of the King of Koshi (Japanese pronunciation as per books note) in Southern India.

Ref 2 calls for Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005), Zen Buddhism: A History, 1: India and China, Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom. Again, in the contents of this book too(use the same Google Book search), there is no mention about Tamil or Pallava. The book mentions South Indian and Brahmin only and nothing about Tamil and Pallava. The book also mentions a possible Persian origin.

Page 89 says the teacher of Dharma, who came from South India in the Western Regions, the third son of a great Brahman king, possessed wonderful wisdom and penetrating clarity..."

In page 90, it says Tao-hsuan and T'an-lin speak of Bodhidharma's Indian origins. T'an-lin's account of the third son of a great Brahman king is mentioned to be a later addition. The book also says Tao-hsuan speaks of the origins of Bodhidharma from South Indian Brahman stock but that it is not clear whether he is referring to roots in nobility or to India in general as the land of Brahmans.

As we can see both references used do not contain Tamil or Pallava and hence the same should be removed to prevent misleading people. So, I here by suggest removing the line: He was the third son of a Tamil king of the Pallava Dynasty. And using the references quoted for the above line with "but some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage". don thomas (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

This page is edited with biased information. Jeevaaks (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. mabdul 11:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

PLEASE CHECK THIS PAGE AND MAKE HISTORY CORRECT. BODHIDHARMA IS A TAMIL PRINCE FROM SOUTH INDIA'S PALLAVA EMPIRE.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=303100013035363&set=pu.288825161129515&type=1&theater

Goldensingar (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That is not a source. Please review the discussions above about the contradictory nature of the sources and Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Electraspider (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. mabdul 11:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

why want to question his caste when he himself opted to become a Buddhist to avoid all these?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.130.210 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

bodhidharma was not form pallava heir, because of a strange reason that pallava regime destroyed and demolished Buddhism in southern part of india. if of their heir bodhidharma was, then would have gone to china to promote hinduism not buddhism.

Caadhavan (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: You did not ask for a specific item to be changed. You seem to be speculating more than anything else. If you have a source by a credentialed scholar mentioning this, please feel free to post it here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma as "the idealized image of a saint"

According to John McRae and Bernard Faure, Bodhidharma is the subject of a hagiographic proces which served the needs of the Chinese Ch'an movement. According to them it is not possible to write an accurate biography of Bodhidharma:

"It is ultimately impossible to reconstruct any original or accurate biography of the man whose life serves as the original trace of his hagiography - where "trace" is a term from Jacques Derrida meaning the beginningless beginning of a phenomenon, the imagined but always intellectually unattainable origin. Hence any such attempt by modern biographers to reconstruct a definitive account of Bodhidharma's life is both doomed to failure and potentially no different in intent from the hagiographical efforts of premodern writers" (Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd . ISBN 9780520237988. Page 24)

.So it seems that the more interesting question is not what exactly Bodhidharma was, but what meaning he does have. See also Bernard Faure (1986), Bodhidharma as Textual and Religious Paradigm. History of Religions, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Feb., 1986), pp. 187-198.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bambalapitya Hindu College.

It is a school started in 1953. It is started with the name of "pillayar padasalai". The school has celebrated its diamond jubilee in 2011. The former principal of Bambalapity Hindu College is Mr.Muthukumarasaamee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.13.199 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead & biography

Shouldn't a substantial part of the lead be integrated into the Biography-section? Beginning from lne 4, "However, martial arts historians" up to the last line "response to such attacks" The lead is quite long now, and contains discussions, and information which is repeated in the biography-section. Also, the biography-section could be introduced by the quote from John McRae that a reliable historical biography is impossible. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

A proof that Bodhidharma is from Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu and he is of Pallava dynasty, from Former Professor of University of Tokyo, Japan

http://www.purple.dti.ne.jp/kambe/e-Sea-Route.pdf

P.vishnu7 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That's not proof. The person who wrote that just used one of the several Chinese sources that say where he might have been from. An earlier Chinese text says that he was from Persia. So which is it, Persia or India? Shouldn't an earlier text be more accurate than a later one? Where did they get the new information from? That is why we can't say, as a fact, he was from Kanchipuram. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As per this book, The Lin Kok Collection [1], it quotes the following on page 1: "Bodhidharma was born around the year 440 in Kanchi, the capital of the southern Indian kingdom of Pallava. He was a a Brahman by birth and the third son of King Simhavarman." -- Akootha (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is just a rehash of two contradictory Chinese sources. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that against Wikipedia policy to have multiple claims made by different scholars? -- Sathish ! Ramadurai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from , 19 November 2011

In this page introduction please change "bodhidharma is the 3rd son of a brahmin king" to "the 3rd son of pallava king"..It can be found in the 2nd paragraph. http://www.minrec.org/wilson/pdfs/Bodhidharma.pdf

Saig95 (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has been changed by another editor to reflect the fact that reliable sources give differing accounts of this information, which should solve this issue. - SudoGhost 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

In the 'See Also' section, please either remove the third point, i.e. "7aum Arivu, a 2011 Tamil language film based on Bodhidharma's life" or at least change it to "7aum Arivu, a 2011 Tamil language film with a fictionalized account of Bodhidharma's life". The movie is mostly science fiction and gives a highly fictionalized account of Bodhidharma and focuses only on martial arts. For example, it doesn't even make a mention of Buddhism and Bodhidharma's relation to it. There are no mentions of his travels within China either. So I feel mentioning the movie in the 'See Also' section is irrelevant. Also, in case there is suspicion of any bias against the Tamil language, please note that I am a Tamilian and I love my language. 115.111.95.19 (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I think if anyone wants it in the See Also section of the article, they should discuss it here first, because the movie has nothing to do with this article's subject, but instead has to do with a fictional character based on this article's subject. - SudoGhost 05:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Akootha (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC) SudonGhost, Sure I understand your point of view. But should not we also include in the Wikipedia as another point of view from the history?

Thanks, Akootha Akootha (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. You want to include a fictionalized version of Bodhidharma as alternative historic point of view? - SudoGhost 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

173.34.165.133 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. Be it 'fictionalized version' as you say, but it is a version nevertheless. Thanks. 173.34.165.133 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Akootha. That Tamil movie 7aum Arivu should be added on to the "See Also" section. The first 20 minutes shows a historical biography of Bodhidharma and although there may be facts that he is not a Tamilian, there are also facts that contradict that statement and proves that he is a Tamilian. Either way, this movie should be posted up so people can get an idea of Bodhidharma through a movie portrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.251.225 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The film is a sci-fi movie with a fictional portrail of a Bodhidharma, not a historical biography by any means. However, if you could please provide a reliable source that shows that this sci-fi movie is a historical biography, then that would verify what you're saying. - SudoGhost 02:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking sources: Dumoulin

The next line references Dumoulin 1995 p.90:

"Tan-lin's account of Bodhidharma being the third son of a pallava king is understood as a later addition."

The reference begins with:

"However sources have proved that he is a tamilian prince from kanchipuram the third son of kantavarman,the king of pallava dynasty:"

This line is NOT in Dumoulin 1995 p.90; also, it cotradicts Dumoulin's statement:

""Tao-hsuan and Tan-lin speak of Bodhidharma's Indian origins. Tan-lin's account of the third son of a great Brahman king is certainly to be understood as a later addition. And when Tao-hsuan speaks of origins from South Indian Brahman stock, it is not clear whether he is referring to roots in nobility or to India in general as the land of the Brahmans"

I will remove the false quote.Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Various accounts of Bodhidharma's origins

John McRae gives a nice, comprehensive list of the "element[s] of his [Bodhidharma's] hagiography" (McRae2003 p.26). Neither the Pallava dynasty nor the Tamil origins are being metioned here. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Students and lineage

Yampolski has information about the variations given in the early Chinese lineage(s), and the reasons for this. Unfortunately, at this moment I have no time to put in this information, and a nice quote from him about lineages, but I'll try later. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some precious time found to put in the information and the quote. It underscores the standpoint of McRae, that the biography of Bodhidharma is to be seen as a hagiographic proces. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lineage

Does anybody understand where the unsourced lineage from Layman Xiang to Ching-yuan comes from? I can't find any information on any of these names, except for Chih-tsang. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the various information about lineage together. This way it gives more body to the lineage-section, and it makes the biography-section more comprehensive, carrying only the three major sources and an conclusion about the pieces of the biography "faling into place". But, this re-ordering is just a proposal, to see if it improves the article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 November 2011

details have been inserted wrongly.. 171.159.64.10 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

Kailash29792 states "added 7aum arivu; that is the only way through which present tamilians got to know abt bodhidharma! before that movie, only a few in Tamil nadu had known about him!". Given the apparently widespread opninion that Bodhidharma was born in Kanchipuram, it seems quite unlikelt that this specific movie would be so influential.

7aum arivu is not the first movie starring Bodhidharma; McRae mentions the Taiwanese movie Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon! from 1992. so maybe we should add a Filmography-section. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have anything against a "Media about Bodhidharma" article that could be linked in the "See also" section, but mentioning it on this article is too trivial. As I pointed out, 7aum arivu is a sci-fi movie that is not even remotely historically accurate (considering the original Chinese sources are so full of embellishments), and Bodhidharma is only present for the first 20 minutes or so. Beyond, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, there was an earlier Chinese film that follows his young life in India, and then it covers his journey to China and the founding of Shaolin kung fu. I've only seen it on YouTube. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you've got a point here. Maybe 7aum arivu should be mentioned in the article about Kanchipuram? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change

These and later sources vary on their account of Bodhidharma being either "from Persia" (547 CE)[1], "a brahman monk from South India" (645 CE)[1], "the third son of a Brahmin king of South India (ca. 715 CE)[1], a Pallava prince, or a Tamil.

To

These and later sources vary on their account of Bodhidharma being either "from Persia" (547 CE)[1], "a tamil monk from South India" (645 CE)[1], "the third son of a tamil king of South India (ca. 715 CE)[1], a Pallava prince from tamilnadu.

Note: It refers for a particular community. Books reference says only for Tamil monk/Tamil Prince or he can be from Pallava Dynasty. Please update the page and avoid community references.

Sansfwds (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to do a sword of Soloman thing here;

I've changed it to just either "from Persia" (547 CE)[1], "a monk from South India" [2]

ie, I removed "tamil".

You may, of course, discuss it below. See WP:TIGER. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the 'sword of Solomon was just a little bit to sharp, removing text from a quote which is in the refrenced source. I put back the mention of "Brahman", since this is in the McRae-quote. I also removed Tamil and Pallavine, since this is not in the three principal sources. But I also put Kanchipuram in the modern scholarship-section, since Kanchipuram is a modern interpretation of the principal sources. See "Sourcing Kanchipuram" for an eloborate explanation. I hope that this may finally solve the Kanchipuram-issue. Friendly regards Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the same reference in the Kanchipuram, as a gesture to the Kanchipuram-origins-supporters. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Kanchipuram

It sounds reasonable to me to mention Kanchipuram, since this is the origin which is stated over and over again. But, there is one burning question related to this "origin": on which source is it based? To be precise: on which dateable source, from China, from the 6th-8th century, which would make it comparable to Yang Hsüan-chih The Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang, Tánlín's Preface to the Two Entrances and Four Acts, and Tao-'s Further Biographies of Eminent Monks? None of these sources mentions specifically Kanchipuram, the supposed place of birth for this story of Bodhidharma's origin (this point has been mentioned before).

Also, before three "sources" have been mentioned (Lin Kok Collection, Biography of Bodhidharma by Wendell E. Wilson, Tstuomu Kambe: Bodhi Dharma and Oceanic Silk Road). All three are recent documents, without references to original source-material. Like-minded "sources" can be found easily: Damo Qigong, Bodhidharma. Joseph Aranha: From myth to reality. Joseph Aranha acyually gives a clue about Kanchipuram being the birthplace of Bodhidharma:

"The Chinese manuscripts show the birthplace of Bodhi-Dharma as "Kang-zhi", which researchers believe to be Kanchipuram of Tamil Nadu."

Unfortunately, no further references to these researchers are given. The only related reference I can find is from Francis Dojun Cook, in her translation of Keizan's Transmission of the light:

"The master was a member of the warrior-ruler class and his name was originally Bodhitara. He was the third son of the king of Koshi in Southern India" (page 147)

In a footnote to Koshi she (he?) writes:

"I cannot identify the sanskrit original of Koshi, so I give the Japanese pronunciation".

By the way, this is a 20th century English translation of a 12th century Japanese text, so the mention of "waarior-ruler class" should be treated with due abstention. In the same document Bodhidharma. Joseph Aranha: From myth to reality, Tsutomu Kambe writes:

"Documents published just after Tang dynasty of China (ending in 907) describe the name of his kingdom with two Chinese characters , meaning Fragrance-Extreme. It is very likely that those were pronounced as Kang-Zhi."

Yet, here too further references are lacking. The Chinese characters are 香至 (Tstuomu Kambe: Bodhi Dharma and Oceanic Silk Road This document also states that Tstuomu Kambe is a "Former Professor of University of Tokyo, Physics" - so, not a buddhologist). but a further explanation is also given by Tstuomu Kambe (Tstuomu Kambe: Bodhidharma (around 440? - 528?). A collection of stories from Chinese literature):

"According to Chinese records, Bodhidharma was born in a kingdom of South India. Documents published just after Tang dynasty (ending in 907) describe that the name of the Kingdom is expressed with two Chinese characters ‟香至‟. There are four states which are called as South India. No historical record is found in which state the 香至 is located. At this time when interest in Zen Buddhism is increasing throughout the world, the birthplace of this pivotal master would be a great concern. Not only scholars but also those interested in Buddhism would welcome this missing piece of information where in India is the Kingdom 香至. The Chinese name 香至 means “fragrance extreme”. At the time of Tang dynasty, it is likely that 香至 is pronounced as Kang-zhi. In 2007 by examining various documents, the author happened to come across the identification of 香至 to be Kanchipuram, an old capital town in the state Tamil-Nadu. Further investigation revealed that 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‟, located at a distance about eighty kilometers from the city Chennai in South India. It was a capital of Pallava Dynasty at the time when Bodhidharma was living. Currently, it is a sacred town of Hinduism. Historical remains related to Buddhism found in that region are very limited in number. In the Chennai Museum, however, one can see an image of standing Buddha (more than 2m height) excavated in a Hindu temple of Kanchipuram in the early times of 20th century. This image of dignity is reminiscent of the glorious times when Buddhism had flourished in this region where it was discovered."

But what are these "various documents" in which "the author happened to come across the identification of 香至 to be Kanchipuram"?!?

Only one true reference is being made by Tsutome Kambe regarding the biography of Bodhidharma. In part I Tsutome Kambe condences the information about Bodhidharma:

"Bodhidharma was born as the third son of a South Indian King according to Chinese historical documents. It is speculated that the kingdom was Pallava, it‟s capital city being Kanchipuram near Chennai. He was named Bodhitara and his surname was Kshatriya (the class of kings and warriors). [1]"

This footnote reads:

"[1] English translation: “The BodhiDharma Anthology” (edited by Tan-lin, Huike and disciples of Bodhidharma, about 540), translated by Jeffrey L. Broughton (1999, Univ. of California Press). Japanese translation:“Daruma no go-roku (達摩の語録) ” by Yanagida Seizan(柳田聖山, 1969, Chikuma shobo). [Original text was discovered at Dun-huang in 1900.]"

This book contains a translation of texts found at Dun-huang, supposedly written by students of Bodhidharma. Unfortunately, I don't own the book, so I can't check if it is Broughton who speculates about Pallava, or whether this is an inference from Tsutome Kambe. Anybodu owning this book, please check it!

What I can find ([http://www.academicroom.com/article/bodhidharma-anthology%3A-earliest-records-zen John Kieschnick (2001), Review, Journal of the American Oriental Society]) is a description of the contents, which states that the first document is a short biography of Bodhidharma by Tan-lin:

"The brief biography of Bodhidharma, for instance, is attributed to a sixth-century monk named T'an-lin and seems to have been the chief source for the biography of Bodhidharma written in the seventh century by Tao-hsuan"

According to Dumoulin the biography by Tan-lin is known in different, almost identical manuscripts (Dumoulin 2005, p.88). So, the reference is back to "The teacher of the Dharma, who came from South India in the western regions, the third son of a great Brahman king"

This is as close as I can get to sourcing Kanchipuram as the birthplace of Bodhidharma: a speculation from one author, based on an interpretation of the reading of two Chinese characters from an 10th-century Chinese document.

But, these "sources" actually seem to establish a true fact: in modern-day Kanchipuram, or in Tamil-nadu (and my apologies if I make a mistake here in the way I write it; I'm not Indian, and I'm not familiair with the specifics of Indian countries and people) Bodhidharma is seen as being born in this place.

So, maybe we should change the specific line to:

These and later sources vary on their account of Bodhidharma being either "from Persia" (547 CE)[1], "a tamil monk from South India" (645 CE)[1], "the third son of a tamil king of South India (ca. 715 CE)[1]. In modern-day Tamil-nadu Bodhidharma is regarded as a Pallava prince from Kanchipuram, Tamil-nadu.

We could also ad a subsection to the biography-section:

Modern accounts
In modern-day Tamil-nadu Bodhidharma is regarded as a Pallava prince from Kanchipuram, Tamil-nadu. The statements from the original Chinese statements about being either "the son of a great Indian king" or "of South Indian Brahman stock" get it a far more precise meaning here, given the sensitivities of the Indian caste-system and the cohabitation of various ethnic and religious groups in the Indian sub-continent

There is one problem to this solution of the dispute: according to Wiki-rules it needs secundary sources, which summarize primary sources like the before-mentioned web-documents. So, are there any available?

But, we do have a source now, and this one can be added to the modern scholarship-section:

"Based on a specific pronounciation of the Chinese characters 香至 as Kang-zhi, "meaning fragrance extreme", Tstuomu 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'"

Could this settle the issue for both (supposedly) Indians and (supposedly) Americans and Europeans?

Oh, and let's not forget: Why came Bodhidharma from the west? With other words: what's the main point of Buddhism?

Friendly regards to all the different participants in this discussion, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Zvelebil

For anyone interested, the Zvelebil (1987) source says this, in anrticle about the koan of the sound of one clapping hand:

"Persistent tradition tells us that the 'first Zen patriarch' Bodhidharma (ca. 470-532) was an Indian monk, the son of South Indian ruler, a king of Kanchipuram, and that he appeared one day at the southern Chinese port city of Canton around 520 A.D. whence he traveled to see Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty. This tradition point thus to Bodhidharma as a member of the ruling clan of the South Indian dynasty of the Pallavas, the contemporary of Skandavarman IV or Nandivarman I. It is well known that Kanchipuram, the Pallava capital, was one of the most important strongholds of Indian Buddhism. An ancient Prakrit charter (the British Museum plates of Queen CArudevT)5m entions among very early Pallavas two kings called Buddhavarman and Buddhayankura, obviously Buddhists, belonging probably to the 4th century A.D. Another Buddhavarman belongs to ca. 540-560 A.D. The well-known commentator Buddhaghosa lived in Kanchipuram probably in late 5th century A.D. The Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Hsian Tsang who visited South India in the 7th century A.D. tells us that there were about a hundred Buddhist monasteries in the city with more than 10,000 monks, and he also refers to Kanchih-pu-lo as the birth-place of Dharmapala, the reputed author of treatises on etymology, logic and Buddhist metaphysics. Undoubtedly, the Zen tradition of a South Indian Buddhist monk coming possibly from Kanchipuram to China in the early 6th century may be regarded as trustworthy. If Bodhidharma was a Tamil-speaking South Indian (whether Brahmin, as one version has it, or a prince), the popular saying of one hand producing no sound might have belonged to his linguistic competence."(page 125-126)

No reference to the source for Kanchipuram is being made. No arguments are give why the "persistent tradition" may "undoubtedly [...] be regarded as trustworthy". According to Yanagida, Dumoulin and McRae, the "persistent tradition" is doubtful.

• Zvelebil, K.V.; 1987: The Sound of the One Hand, Journal of the American Oriental Society 107(1), p. 125-126.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific description

Here we go again... but since "the third son of a Pallavine king from Kanchipuram" is the specific description that keeps popping up over and over again, it may be wise to mention it. It is now covered by two references, which actually mention "speculations", not prove. And it is embedded in "Some traditions specifically describe" - nicely stated, Ergative rlt! Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Martial arts

The Kanchipuram gives a source: "Henning, Stan and Tom Green, "Folklore in the Martial Arts" in Green, Thomas A. Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2001), p. 129." But I haven't read this source, so according to Wiki-policies I can't quote it here. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who added that reference to the Kanchipuram article. The source states:

One of the most recently invented and familiar of the Shaolin historical narratives is a story that claims that the Indian monk Bodhidharma, the supposed founder of Chinese Chan (Zen) Buddhism, introduced boxing into the monastery as a form of exercise around a.d. 525. This story first appeared in a popular novel, The Travels of Lao T’san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907. This story was quickly picked up by others and spread rapidly through publication in a popular contemporary boxing manual, Secrets of Shaolin Boxing Methods, and the first Chinese physical culture history published in 1919. As a result, it has enjoyed vast oral circulation and is one of the most “sacred” of the narratives shared within Chinese and Chinese-derived martial arts. That this story is clearly a twentieth-century invention is confirmed by writings going back at least 250 years earlier, which mention both Bodhidharma and martial arts but make no connection between the two.

This legend is ultimately connected to the Yijin Jing manual, a 17th century forgery attributed to Bodhidharma. Most of this is already covered in Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma at Shaolin. The material from it and the martial arts section should be merged. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'll take a look at it. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

about bodhidharma and 7aum arivu

why shouldnt i add the fact that the Tamil film 7aum Arivu is loosely based on bodhidharma? i've heard numerous people saying the film was false about him, any proof?

Please see WP:BURDEN. - SudoGhost 22:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Starvation

So, who died of starvation? Emperor Wu or general Hou Jing? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of China (Vol. I) states that Hou Jing conquered the capital and starved the 85 year old Emperor Wu to death (see here). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But read this one; who copied who? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just going off of your question. The link to Bodhidharma is no doubt a later oral legend attached to Wu's historical starvation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin

I have so many sources from books.goo.com stating the bodhidharman was born in kodungallur. But i am unable to add the links here as shows this links are in blocked list Tulu war (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Kodungallur

Hi Tulu war. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion on Bodhidharma's origins, and for using the Discussion Page to re-intruding Kodungallur as the birthplace of Bodhidharma. It's a pity you don't give the links; could you provide them here? That would make it possible for others to read those sources. I searched Google.books for Bodhidharma Kodungallur", Bodhidharman Kodungallur", Bodhidharma Muziris" and Bodhidharman Muziris", but couldn't find any source mentioning this connection. A general Google search did give hits, as these:

• Maddi (2008), Bodhidharma. On Kalaripayattu, Samurai, Origins of tea and Kung-fu……
• Rajeev Srinivasan, The Buddhist Connection: Sabarimala and the Tibetans
• Varsha Bhosle, First Blood

None of these webdocuments gives references to historical documents or historical research. As a matter of fact, the most elaborate exposition, by Maddi, is clearly a speculation about Bodhidharma being from Kodungallur:

"The Bodhidharma anthology by Broughton starts with the para that he was the 3rd son of a prominent South Indian King from the Western region. With that one could assume that he originated from Kodungallur (Muziris) and probably not Kanchipuram. Could he have been a Perumal who became a Buddhist and went on a pilgrimage? Much of the problem may have been due to Bodhidharma being confused with Boshisena since it appears that Bodhisena was a Brahmin from Kanchipuarm. The confusion over Tamil was due to the Pallava fact and of course the reason for Bodhidharma sailing out of Muziris or Quilon is because Buddhism was widespread in Kerala at that time (except for the Kanchipuram pocket)."Maddi (2008)

To repeat the arguments being used before: there are three principal sources for the biography of Bodhidharma. These sources are contradicting. They specifically mention Bodhidharma to be "from Persia" (547 CE), "a Brahman monk from South India" (645 CE), "the third son of a Brahman king of South India" (ca. 715 CE). The specific birthplace of Bodhidharma is unknown. Any specific inference about Bodhidharma's birthplace is not supported by these sources. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have searched it with kerala,cragnore, muzris etc. I have shown interest in this subject because I have seen a lot of similarities between Budhist countries and kerala. In martial arts(kalaripayattu), Building architecture, smilarities between kerala's temple rituals and that of budhist temple, atrology, food habits etc. If you see the building architecture in kerala, completely different from other states in India including Tamil Nadu(kancheepuram) and its so close to budist countries. Kancheepuram also has rich culture and its temples' are architectural marvel. But i could not find her(Kancheepuram)influences in these budist countries like China, Japan etc.I know these are facts thats create interest in scolars and historians and nothing do with wikipedia. Can You also try searching with "kodungallur bodhidharma"? Its got reference says he is from kodungallur. Tulu war (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense that there are similarities, since buddhism dìd come from India. But that doesn't give us exact information about the origins of Bodhidharma. I'll do your search later (my family is waiting again). By the way, speaking of similarities: in Mali there is a musical tradition that very much sounds like American blues music - or vice versa - which also makes sense, since Mali was a center of slave trade. The musical traditions came to America this way. It's amazing to hear the resemblances. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I got one hit on "kodungallur bodhidharma":India today: Volume 16,Nummers 13-24, "Kumar, like Bodhidharma, is from Kodungalloor in Kerala. Moreover, he was also planning to make a film in this region." I'm afraid that Kodungalaar is an inference from the original qoute "the third son of a Brahman king of South India" - which Dumoulin sees as a later addition... Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Please remove the following text from the article: "Damo had three students razin,nasir prashna.of all the most powerful is nasir as he can hipnotize with his kanadi.the kung fu specialist is razin he can fight better than 7am arivu suriya,mankatha ajith and velayudham vijay dog.the medical specialist is prasana as he once found a cure for AIDS and dun want to tell anyone the cure bloody cbakau..."

because, it looks like someone having an editing preference on this page has vandalized this page. The text is referring to scenes from a recent tamil movie "Yezham Arivu".

Santhosh.nttf (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good reading! Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tamil

Please provide the proof or source that he is a Tamil, south india doesnt only mean that it is tamilnadu if kan-zhi is kanchipuram, calicut is called kuli in chinese. and for that reason it can also be kochi which has more access to the arabean sea and indian ocean.and muzaris in kodungallur used to be the largest port in south asia. it has confirmed the chinese arrival in kochi. kerala state is the land of oldest martial arts kalari payat, and it is the land of medicine called ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawjansee (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that he is "a Tamil". Concerning what you are removing, each statement is backed by a source. - SudoGhost 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now we're talking! That's good. Welcome, Sawjansee. You mention Muzaris as an alternative possibility for Bodhidharma's birthplace. Actually, Muzaris has also been mentioned before, and I did soem Google-reseach on that one too. Kochi is new for me; I'll Google that one too, to see if I can find sources for it. I've written a draft on Bodhidharma's birthplace; it seems to be time to submit it.

As has been stated before, the principal sources give only very limited information on Bodhidharma's birthplace. All specifications are inferences, not historically documented 'proof'. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Kochi

I found one web-pages which mentions Kochi:

But then Kanchi is not Westerly in India. Is it perhaps Kochi? Calicut was ‘Kuli’ to the Chinese. Cochin was Ko-Chih. Nevertheless, almost all indicators point towards Kanchipuram rather than Kodungaloor or Muziris. From many accounts Bodhidharma was a studious child who studied under his Guru Pragnattara. Hence it is very unlikely that Bodhidharma had serious martial arts training in Kanchipuram to have transferred it to the pupils in Shaolin, since they already had a fair exposure to martial arts for many decades. It could of course be that he taught them valuable breathing exercises, silambam stick fighting and forms of Yoga.archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com

Omega (academic journals) gave no results. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Bodhidharma a Brahmin ?

My Wishes to everyone who is contributing and maintaining this great Page. Please don’t take this request as yet another recent activity on the page related to Tamil and other things. That’s not my intention. My intention is only to point out the contradictions in this article and correct the factual mistakes

The Wikipedia article says as follows “ but some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage.[3].”

This implies that as if Bodhidharma is from a Brahmin Family. Brahmin is a caste in India. So, it implies that he belongs to the Brahmin caste

Let’s see what the citation says “Bodhidharma is said to have come from a Brahman family in southern India and may even have been of royal blood”

Please note, it says “Brahman” and not “Brahmin”

If you look at the wordings used by the citation “said to have come”, “may even have been” are all speculation. But let me leave the speculation aside and look at what they are referring it is “Brahman family”.

Brahman means many things. Holy, pure, Supreme etc., If you look at this wiki article about Brahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman ) you can understand this.

In this case I believe the citation refers to it as “holy family”. I believe this because the citation goes on to say “royal blood”. Royal blood means Kshatriya which belongs to a different caste in the Indian caste system which I have explained below by citing a Wiki Article. (So, it’s not just my personal belief, but based on strong material evidence based on the Indian Varna caste system and my life with these complicated caste system in India)

So, I don’t think it is correct to take the word Brahman and translate it as Brahmin. Since the word Brahman itself can refer many things, how can we definitely conclude and change the citation in the wiki article?

Let’s look at one more contradiction in the Bodhidharma article. It says Bodhidharma belongs to Kshatriya warrior caste - “Bodhidharma's royal pedigree implies that he was of the Kshatriya warrior caste”

How come he can belong to Brahmin caste as well as Kshatriya warrior caste ?

Anyone who understands the caste system in India can understand that there are four different caste layers. Look at this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)

the Brahmins: scholars, teachers, priests and sages.[citation needed] the Kshatriya: kings, soldiers, and rulers.[citation needed] the Vaishyas: merchants, cattle herders and agriculturists [3] the Shudras: labourers, craftsmen and artisans.[citation neede

So, if go by the Wikipedia article that Bodhidharma was a Brahmin, then he can’t be a Prince (Kshatriya) and if we go by the argument that he belongs to the Kshatriya warrior caste, then he can’t be a Brahmin

Which one is correct?

So, I strongly believe that the Citation does not refer him as a Brahmin. Even in Buddhism Brahman or Brahma can have different meaning - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)

Since Brahman can give different meanings and not just Brahmin, my suggestion is to remove the word “Brahmin family” as it gives a wrong meaning. We can correct the wiki article as below

“but some accounts state that he was from southern India and possibly of royal lineage.[3]”

This will leave out the confusing terminology and present Bodhidharma was from South India. That will not confuse the readers. This is my opinion.

I leave it to the Editors to decide which the right thing to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamizhsasi (talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi User,

I agree. I dint notice that difference. But the reference material specifically says Brahman and so it is not wise to leave it out. Instead I have made it Brahman where Brahmin was used. Hope this will do. don thomas (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the correction. However it is still incorrect and might be confusing for readers especially those outside India who does not understand the caste system of India. So it is better to leave out the complete sentence which refers to both brahmin and Kshatriya warrior caste as these are just speculation and not conclusive evidence about Bodhidharma. If you understand the Indian caste System these references are really offensive to other sections of the society who belong to different caste.

His preachings and philosophies are more important than his caste. So, i kindly request for removing his references to the caste

71.187.51.141 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Bodhidharma a Brahmin or Brahman ?

I moved this section here because there was already a discussion on it

Following mentioned lines in the current version is fundamentally contradicting. "but some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage.[3]. However Broughton (1999:2) notes that Bodhidharma's royal pedigree implies that he was of the Kshatriya warrior caste" Bodhidharma [458931774]

How a Brahmin became a worrier? The person who wrote above lines could have zero understanding about the fundamental civilization structure in the South India. Please review those lines and correct it to the original statement.

Shayanthan Kanaganayagham (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote about him being "from a Brahman family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage" is simply a summery of the available Chinese sources. It is not saying he was both a Brahmin and a Kshatriya. If you refer to the Chinese sources presented on the page, Tanlin (6th century) states that "He was the third son of a great Indian king." Daoxuan (7th century) states that he was of "South Indian Brahman stock." Therefore, the author made no mistake. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern is caste is a sensitive issue and without proper proof if the article speculates it will lead to some confusion. If you understand the caste system in India, we can understand the sensitives of this issue. So, it's important that wikipedia has proper information as many people refer it as a major source of information. In this case the article totally misleads the readers. So, i still strongly feel the contradiction should be removed. It is appropriate to remove the references to both the Brahmin caste, Kshtriya caste and also the Brahman family reference. Brahman family can mislead the readers as it can mean many things.

Already i have provided enough evidence and argument for this case. I hope this will be considered and the wordings are rewritten based without contradiction

Thamizhsasi (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands that all sides of an issue be covered. If an ancient source mentions that he might have been of a Brahmin family, it must be included in the article. Likewise, if a different ancient source mentions that he might have been of a Kshtriya rank, it too must be included. This how an article become comprehensive. Confusion is a not a valid point for removing cited material. Besides, Confusion can be avoided by stressing the mysterious nature of Bodhidharma's past (i.e. we really don't know). As I've pointed out before, some historians don't even think he was a historical person. This information needs to be added at some point as well. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Following is the current version of this document. "some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage.[1] [2]. However Broughton (1999:2) notes that Bodhidharma's royal pedigree implies that he was of the Kshatriya warrior caste as royals cannot be Brahmins as per the Indian caste system."

As per the Tanlin (6th century) statement in "He was the third son of a great Indian king.", and from some other evidence he was from south India. Lets us have an argument, even though there are enough citations as evidences to make the note that he was a Kshatriya warrior, why should the editor trying to put the note as some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India in the first place and put the actual facts in the second. This will create an unnecessary confusion among the readers that they will unnecessary started to think that Bodhidharma was a Brahmin. “Brahmin family” as it gives a wrong meaning. Why the editor trying to create this unwanted ambiguous around Bodhidharma?

Further, current version doesn't even mention that he from a Pallava Dynasty.

(Shayanthan Kanaganayagham (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

Please see my comment above your last post. Also, you seem to know the "actual facts" about Bodhidharma's origins in the south as apart of the Kshatriya class. Beyond the contradictory Primary Chinese sources and modern secondary sources based on those Chinese documents, can you provide any ancient Indian sources or archaeological evidence to back your views? I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just making sure the page remains balanced per WP:NPOV. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear moderators : as many have pointed out the sentence "brahmin family or royal lineage" is self contradictory. brahmin and kshyatrias are totally different caste. Also brahmin is Hindu by religion and cannot be a buddhist. At the meantime during that period pallava kings converted to buddhism and were ruling tamilnadu. Hope this clarifies.

Also please include bodhidharman name in tamil. Its a matter of pride for tamils :) this in know affects any language person reading the page. Hope you would consider the same. - 117.193.33.0 (talk)

Now again the article is saying "but some accounts state that he was from a Brahmin family in southern India and possibly of royal lineage". I don't see any discussion that happened in the talk page before this is changed to Brahmin family again from Brahman family which is given in the citation ? If this is how editing is done here, then all the best :)

Thamizhsasi (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If Broughton indeed says "Bodhidharma's royal pedigree implies that he was of the Kshatriya warrior caste as royals cannot be Brahmins as per the Indian caste system", then this makes more sense than the quote that is now in the article. I've ordered the book, I'll check it. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't received the Broughton-book yet, but I hope that the formulation I put in is, on the one hand, in accordance to the Indian nuances of the caste system, and, on the other hand, meets the requirements of a balanced, NPOV, and referenced article. I'll check Broughton anyway, when I receive the book. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharman can't be a brahmin because brahmin can't be kings and they are never been. Brahmins are from central asia. Bodhidharman was from a royal family i.e. from a King family. I think that the word brahmin must be removed from the page. Brahmins are always advisers of kings. They never lead a country nor ruled a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madi Carlo da Silva (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My complimets, Madi Carlo da Silva. I took Dumoulin from the shelves, thinking "Here we go again" - but Dumoulin writes Brahman, not Brahmin. Good lesson: never think you know it all. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But, I checked page 89 too, and Domulin quotes Tán-lin as "Brahmin". So, the confusion will stay... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading too fast, reading Brahman king as Brahmin. Sorry... (Somebody else care to check out again?

But, Madi Carlo da Silva, is it right that "brahman" also can mean "noble"? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahman is a ethical character in Hinduism who is considered to be created this world. Brahmin is one of the caste who perform poojas.....they are similar to priests.....In Tamil, we used to call them as iyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madi Carlo da Silva (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pallava prince, a brahmin, or a Tamil

Could we please get over with this endless discussion about Bodhidharma being either a Pallava prince, a brahmin, or a Tamil? It seems that there is no way to get totally clear which source is "true", so the discussion is pointless. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I have been trying to reiterate. Very few people (you, me, and SudoGhost) are sticking to the NPOV policy. Thanks for insisting on keeping the page balanced. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharman is a tamil men from a Pallava royal lineage who born in Kanchipuram...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madi Carlo da Silva (talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's birthplace

I have created a separate page on Bodhidharma's birthplace, to provide lenghty quotations from the various references which ware being mentioned regarding Bodhidharma's birthplace. I sincerely hope that this was a wise thing to, though it could also provoke further heathed discussion. again, let's not forget: why did Bodhidharma come from the west? Friendely regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The page on Bodhidharma's birthplace has been move d to a subpage of the Bodhidharma-article: Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. See Talk:Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources for an explanation why. Anyway, this gives a link to provide all the sources when necessary. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma is an INDIAN MONK

please change Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk to Bodhidharma was an Indian monk because he was born and raised in India. One of his talent is martial arts which he taught and spread it in Da Mo. Sources:

• Wendell E. Wilson (2010), Bodhidharma
• usashaolintemple.org, The Story of Bodhidharma

hope you will concern my requestHastha96 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that scholars don't agree on his place of birth (as can be seen via this talk page), I'm not sure this change is necessary. Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk, not all scholars agree he was an Indian monk. - SudoGhost 06:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Buddhist" is more neutral than "Indian", indeed because of all the discussion about his birthplace. It's also more to the point, to my opinion; the issue at stake in Bodhidharma's coming to China is Buddhism, not India. PS: thanks for the weblink. I'll check it and add to Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wendell E. Wilson (2010), Bodhidharma Wendell E. Wilson has already been mentioned as a websource mentioning Kanchipuram.
• usashaolintemple.org, The Story of Bodhidharma Nice. We could mention "South India" in general at the birthplace-page, but south India is already being mentioned in T'an-lín's preface to the Two Entrances and Four Acts (6th century CE), Dàoxuān's (Tao-hsuan) Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (7th century CE), and modern interpretations mentioning either Kanchipuram, Muziris and Koch. So it seems to me that this would be a repetition of arguments. Also, this specific website does not mention it's sources, so also in this regard it does not have additional value. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nagarjunakonda

I've update Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources for Nagarjunakonda. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidharma birthplace piecing together the information

The extensive wiki talk to identify Bodhidharma's birth place prodded me to try and connect the pieces of information into a logical puzzle that results in hopefully a better understanding.

One focus and train of thought is to establish Kanchi which finds a reference as one of the possible birth places for Bodhidharma and it's significance during the period between 4th and 9th century in promoting Buddhism and the mastery of spiritual (not to be confused with religious) practices.

We start by asking a few questions that demonstrate the relevance of picking Kanchi as a place to investigate:

1. Do we know if Bodhidharma was a buddhist monk? The various sources quoted in Wiki article establishes this as a fact. The answer is YES.

2. Are there any reasons to believe Bodhidharma can be from the region known to be South India? We know the words Bodhi and Dharma both exist in Sanskrit with specific meanings given to them. Sanskrit is an ancient language that has its origin in the Indus valley and its position in the cultures of Greater India is akin to that of Latin and Greek in Europe. This gives us a reasonable assurance that the region of this ancient could be what we now call as India - if his name is historically recorded correctly. Besides, if there is one region in this world that has done immense study of spiritualism (not to be confused with religious paths) that was the essence of Buddha's teachings for centuries, it is India. Meditation is an integral part of this process. We have references that Bodhidharma is a Meditator.

Now to establish the significance of Kanchi as possibility, here are new questions we ask,

3. Is Kanchi the center of buddhist tradition during any part of the time frame between 3rd and 9th century? When you look at what kind of place Kanchi was and the role it played during the period between 4th and 9th century, one comes across references by Xuanzang, the great Chinese traveler, who visited the city in the 7th century and said that this city was 6 miles in circumference and that its people were famous for bravery and piety as well as for their love of justice and veneration for learning. He further recorded that Buddha had visited the place. That Kanchi was a place of Great Buddhist scholars is seen from such scholars as Dignaga, Buddhaghosa, and Dhammapala lived here.

4. Did Pallavas rule Kanchi during this time frame? Yes. Kanchi was under Pallava rule.

5. Where Pallavas the dominant force at this time in S.India? Wiki article quotes Pallavas ruled with Kanchi as their captial were a great maritime power through their chief port Mahabalipuram. They had contacts with far-off China, Siam, Fiji. But it is known history that Pallavas colonized Sumatra, the modern day Indonesia.

6. The final piece of the puzzle is the question, was there evidence of martial arts being practiced in Kanchipuram, the region now known as Tamil Nadu Kutthu varisai (Tamil: குத்துவரிசை) is the unarmed component of silambam (Tamil: சிலம்பாட்டம்) and Varma Kalai (Tamil: வர்மக்கலை) , a Dravidian martial art from Tamil Nadu in south India but also practiced by the Tamil people of Malaysia and northeast Sri Lanka. The term kuthu varisai means empty hand combat in Tamil and was first documented in Sangam literature of the 2nd-1st centuries BC. It is also called kai silambam which means hand silambam. Here is the Wiki article that on Kuttu Varisai.

Rkumar-connected (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources, which investigates a series of supposed sources for a range of suggested birthplaces. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Italics

In my browser, the contents are suddenly in italics. Is that caused by my browser, or went something wrong with the last edit? Anybody a clue? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Caste

Please refrain from citing his caste without formal references. There are no official references available (and no.. independent self-proclaimed experts are not proper references). People having watched the 2011 movie 7am arivu, stop your incessant claims for the person being from your region - tamilnadu or kerala, and also the claims for him having belonged to your particular caste. This is backward behavior, admins please take notice of these edits being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intwizs (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In case of dispute, secondary and tertiary sources are to be relied on. Though "brahman" may be an odd translation in an Indian context, it is the translation being offered by several translators. and please note, these are translations from Chinese texts, not Indian. Who knows what misunderstandings the Chinese had of the Indian caste-system? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's Birthplace (oct. 2012)

Thread copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Bodhidharma's Birthplace:

Excuse me.I have sound knowledge in that field related to bodhidharma.Please recheck your work.IT has be confirmed by many scholars that bodhidharma is and always been a south indian prince..He is the 3 son of King Janaka of India.The period between the time bodhidharma was on this earth is the same point of time of many kriya yoga masters.He was thought by one of the 18 siddhas of south india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKveeru (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for "sound knowledge" and "many scholars"? This subject has been discussed before. See above, and see Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. The removal or change of quotes on Bodhidharma's birthplace from reputable sources is not acceptable. Additional opinions and sources are welcome, but it will be assessed if they are WP:RELIABLE. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Persia

Compliments to User:98.217.194.34: he did add a new source to the birthplace-discussion which is really an addition. Now, let's see how long it takes for this one to be deleted... Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Zen Buddhists and Indian Expatriats

"Indian Expatriats" is irrelevant to this article; and "Indian Zen Buddhists" is a nonsense category and should be deleted. "Indian Buddhist missionaries" is relevant, though. Copperchro may be right that "Indian" is an anachronism, but it does not only refer to the modern state India, but also to the subcontinent. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin-related Categories

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)

"May have been" isn't sufficient reason to put a category there saying that the individual is from there, because that hasn't been established, it's one of several theorized locations. - SudoGhost 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please refer to the article and see that of the many options only one is Tamil Nadu. Two options are from the state of Kerala, one is Nagarjunakonda and one is Sri Lanka. And those are just the Indian possibilities. Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. Helpsome (talk) 15:05, 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:

1.http://www.purple.dti.ne.jp/kambe/BodhiDharma-IDS.pdf

2.http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/602960?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101957504661

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".[11] Based on a specific pronunciation of the Chinese characters 香至 as Kang-zhi, "meaning fragrance extreme",[11] 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". [3] 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)

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)~

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)

Please read the discussions above. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:09, 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 98.234.168.246 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated sentence

"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)

about india

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."

77.98.32.90 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Yang's book: www.ymaa.com/publishing/books/qigong/qigong_the_secret_of_youth . ISBN: 1-886969-84-1 77.98.32.90 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

<<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).>>

I'll continued my contributions to the discussion over on the Yijin Jing talk page.77.98.32.90 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bodhidharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/glossaries/files/soothill-hodous.ddbc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodhidharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901213528/http://www.wwzc.org:80/translations/denkoroku.htm to http://www.wwzc.org/translations/denkoroku.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What the cited references say

@Piledhighandeep: thanks for this correction! This little piece of pov-pushing was made at 16 october 2016; usually it's reverted at the spot; curious that this one slipped through. I've replaced your sentence "but researchers have concluded that he is either from" with the original sentence "giving either an origin from"; I'm not sure researchers have drwan definite clonclusion; they've pointed out that various places of origin are mentioned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! There is, I think, a possible social phenomenon here at play. On the one hand there is a vibrant living Buddhist community in the Indian subcontinent with an interest in remembering that region's important Buddhist heritage, while on the other hand there is no longer much of a Persian Buddhist community, and so, I think, the possible contributions of Persian Afghanistan and Central Asia to Buddhism will, without vigilant editors, tend to lose out. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, any reason not to say Persian Central Asia? It seems that those sources supporting a Central Asian origin agree on localizing that origin to a Persian region thereof. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Persian Central Asia? Pfoo... I don't know any more! I recall that "Persian" may be a catch-all phrase for central Asia, but I'd have to read the sources again to remember. Regarding the Buddhist community in India: this pov-pushing comes from Tamils, not Buddhists. Indian Buddhists have other concerns. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Iranian may be a better term. See this edit by PericlesofAthens, who may know more about this. See also History of Buddhism, especially Buddhist expansions, and also Sogdia and Turpan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. It is probably impossible to determine whether someone came from the Buddhist Persian language communities along the Silk Road (such as Nava Vihara), or the Buddhist communities within the broader Iranian language family (language map), including Bactrian, Sogdian, and Saka (eg. Kingdom of Khotan), so I agree that the more inclusive term Iranian is better if understood in the linguistic sense, but I worry that "Iranian" might be misinterpreted as a less inclusive term, that is as denoting historical residents of the area that we now call Iran. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have more emphasized now the term "Western Regions"; readers can draw theirr own conclusions from that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks nice. Piledhighandeep (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodhidharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304064306/http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/387.pdf to http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/387.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bodhidharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605003344/http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T50/2060_016.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T50/2060_016.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605003404/http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T85/2837_001.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T85/2837_001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Acharya Raghu

An author who claimes that "Bodhidharma, the founder of Chan (Zen) in China has deep roots in Andhra Pradesh and belongs to early Pallava dynasty from Srisailam region" source, is a priori questionable. This text from SAILUM MARTIAL ARTS ACADEMY OF INDIA does not help to give a better impression:

In a revolutionary effort, by drawing several parallels between the culture of Chan and Indian esoteric Buddhism, the study proves that Shaolin Kung-Fa finds its roots in Indian Hatha Yoga. In the process, several historical ‘black boxes’ have been scrutinized, leading to some radical findings that are certain to go against a few deep-rooted beliefs related to the life of Bodhidharma and provide a paradigm shift in this field of research.

I have reverted the additions based on this source per WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this was WP:UNDUE. Exceptional claims need exceptionally good sources. This is not the first time I see potentially ahistoric claims about the history of martial arts. JimRenge (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The claim is based on the research work 'Bodhidharma Retold - A Journey from Sailum to Shaolin' written by Acharya Raghu, published by MLBD, one of the leading publishers for indological works, and formally released on October 10th 2017 (ISBN 978-8120841529. Whether any website chooses to write about the book is up to that website - as long as it is not the primary source, it shouldn't matter. In this case, the source is the book itself, NOT the website mentioned. As it is a formal work of research, I believe stating the findings within is imperative - the veracity of the claims can only be judged once any researcher specific to the field reads it and can come up with a constructive counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidharthshanon (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Motialall Barnasidas is a great publisher, which has made many excellent sources on Buddhism and Hinduism available for a wider audience. Unfortunately, this does not mean that all of their publications are WP:RS. As explained, or indicated above, an author with zero academic credentials or publications, is definitely not a priori WP:RS. Claims that Bodhidharma came from Andhra Pradesh; that he brought Hatha Yoga to China; and that the author provides "some radical findings that are certain to go against a few deep-rooted beliefs related to the life of Bodhidharma and provide a paradigm shift in this field of research," are an an example of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Contary to your argument that "the veracity of the claims can only be judged once any researcher specific to the field reads it and can come up with a constructive counter-argument," it's up to you to provide additonal sources which support the claims made by this author. As long as this is not the case, tha claims are exceptional, and cannot be included. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the credentials of Acharya Raghu (which seem to be copied from the cover of the book):

• "As a psychologist, he is deeply involved in the study of the bio-psychological effects of meditation practices" - there doesn't seem to be any publication by him on this topuc;
• "A qualified historian and archaeologist" - where did he graduate?
• "After over 20 years of thorough study, he is now considered as one of the leading experts in the subjects" - by whom?
• "Equipped with a Masters degree in both History and Psychology, he holds the distinction of being possibly the only person to treat the subject as a historian and archaeologist, a philosopher and psychologist, a martial artist, and a Yogi." - great; I've got two masters degrees too.
• "The title 'Acharya' refers to the 4 decades of Hatha Yoga and Martial Arts training that Acharya Raghu has imparted as a teacher., and is not related to academics" - so, which teacher qualified him as an acharya, a teacher?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I understand my changes from 26-02 mainly included only this book as the source. But assuming that this was the problem, I made changes today (27-02) that were backed by numerous sources. One change that I made quoted from Acharya Raghu's book, regarding association of Bodhidharma with physical / psychic culture before the 17th Century. He has only mentioned one 11th Century Daoist encyclopaedia, which is a well-known treatise, two song dynasty manuals and one Tang dynasty tradition, both of which are mentioned explicitly by scholars such as Meir Shahar as well. The second change was regarding abode of Bodhidharma in China. Again, these are abodes mentioned by numerous scholars like Andrew Ferguson and Dr. Wang Rutong, whom Ferguson himself quoted. What was the problem with these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidharthshanon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Shaolin Kung-fa," you added two pieces of info, both based on Raghu's book:

Acharya Raghu opines that we would be mistaken to conclude that the association of such a culture with Shaolin Kung-Fa calisthenics or psychic acts started only from this 17^th century text. He states that "Almost half a millennium before this publication, the Daoists acknowledged the existence of such acts"

and

and that "the Song dynasty history listed two breathing and gymnastic manuals" (on the name of Bodhidharma) and "even a Tang dynasty tradition mentions the existence of Brahminic gymnastics (Puluo Men Daoyin)."

It's not very clear what "such a culture" refers to, but it seems to refer to qigong. It's not clear, though, what "such acts" refers to. Does it mean that Daoists in the 12th century were already familiair with qigong? Or does ot refer to Kung-fa? Anyway, the second piece of info is still soleley based in Raghu's book, and as such still WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Regarding Bodhidgharma's association with various temples, you wrote:

Dr. Wang Rutong, Ferguson and Acharya Raghu mention Changlu Temple (长芦寺) or Long Reed Temple, Dingshan Temple (定山寺), and True Victory Temple (Zhensheng si 真胜寺) as other locations closely associated with the life of Bodhidharma

References

Ferguson's paper is about the question whether Bidhidharma really met Emperor Wu. The aforementioned temples arementioned on the context of this question. What Ferguson writes is the following:

In a paper entitled “A Talk on Bodhidharma,” by the Chinese scholar Wu Rutong, delivered in 2003 to a gathering of Buddhist organizations, Wu offered a long reference list of both existing and lost historical documents, locations, verses, legends, fables, and more about Bodhidharma’s life. xix Among this wealth of material, various geographic locations related to Bodhidharma are listed. Of interest here are certain temples in the general area of Nanjing that claim a connection with Bodhidharma. At least three of these sites offer landmarks that can be visited and examined. These three include the ancient sites of Ding Shan [Samadhi Mountain], Chang Lu [Long Reed], and Zhen Sheng [True Victory] Temples.

So, not "closely associated with the life of Bodhidharma," but claimed by these temples to have a connection woth Bodhidharma. Regarding Ding Shan Temple, Ferguson writes:

Unquestionably, aspects of the temple’s self-proclaimed connection with Bodhidharma contradict with the most reliable historical records of his life [...] the confused legends and later records saying that Bodhidharma lived at the site are suggestive, but inconclusive.

Regarding Chang Lu Temple, Ferguson writes:

...this location shows the clearest evidence that a history about Bodhidharma was created for the place long after he lived.

Regarding hen Sheng (True Victory) Temple, Ferguson writes:

...ancient records contain contradictions about the dates of Bodhidharma’s stay around Nanjing. If Bodhidharma’s history was compiled from early, obscure and/or local records, then compilers may have needed to make an “official” version of that history that was at odds with local evidence and stories.

So far for Rutong and Ferguson... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't this page protected?

This page receives so many biased, uninformed edits from random anon editors that it should be permanently protected. I know it's been protected numerous times before, but I think it's time to think about a long term option. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

typical european racial propaganda

this article is more about the race and ethnicity of bodhidharma more on hitler and aryanism than anything else, the picture of a blue eyed red haired buddhist monk with caucasian features in this article in relation to bodhidharma's origins is totally irrelevant as no sources mention him with blue eyes and red hair, is specifically shown to propagate this eurocentric racial BS, i suggest that it should be removed from the article and buddhist non racial, non discriminatory sanctity should prevail, whether bodhidharma was from central asia or south india, it should not matter whether he had blue eyes or red hair or his skin was white or dark, to conform to typical racial propaganda of the europeans. Every world history should not be given european racial colour 60.52.50.71 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See Godwin's law for your comparison with Hitler. Please refrain from such rants. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

i have started this threat to remove racist caption from the article, i think that the descriptions of bodhidharma and historic references are enough, there is no need to post a picture of blue eyed monk and a mongoloid monk with asian features, which in my opinion is inclined to racial bias and racism and picture is irrelevant to bodhidharma, this article is also not about ethnic profiling of a roup of people, but a religious buddhist figure, racial profiling is completely irrelevant to this article. If article wants to maintain neutrality, i suggest posting a multiple image template, one image depicting this monk and another depicting indian monk in central asia and only a small caption indicating presence of both indian and central asian monks in central and east asia. 60.52.50.71 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Disputing "The Xisui Jing has been lost"

I would like to propose revising the statement, "The Xisui Jing has been lost," which is in subsection "Bodhidharma at Shaolin" of section "Legends about Bodhidharma." I have a book Jwing-Ming, Dr. Yang (1989). Muscle/Tendon Chaning and Marrow/Brain Washing Chi Kung: The Secret of Youth. Hong Kong: Yang's Martial Arts Association (YMAA). p. 214. ISBN 0-940871-06-8. which states:

According to the available documents, there are two sources which claim to be the original Shii Soei Ching. Before we start discussing the techniques, I would like to first translate the portions of both documents which deal with training methods.

While apparently there is some disagreement about which document is the true original, this quote clearly refutes the idea that "the Xisui Jing has been lost." How should we incorporate this into the article?

Feugene (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not incorporate anything from this book into the article because it is not a reliable source on the biography of Bodhidharma. JimRenge (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that the existing statement, which I'm disputing, also cites a source, Haines, Bruce (1995), Karate's history and traditions, Charles E. Tuttle Publishing Co., Inc, ISBN 0-8048-1947-5? Do you think that book is a reliable source on the biography of Bodhidharma? What criteria are you using to gauge reliability? Regardless, the statement is about The Xisui Jing, not about Bodhidharma himself, so why should the reliability on his biography be at issue? Furthermore, the section I'm proposing to change is under "Legends," so shouldn't that afford some leniency with regards to "reliability?" Feugene (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Bodhidharma is from Kancheepuram,India

HI please refer to this video about bodhidharmas carving form Mahabalipuram,India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23OI7Cv58do

There is also a site where a monastery has existed built by him with an inscription of his donation as the Son of the pallava king to the monastery and the buddha statue worshipped by him has been recovered about 5 years ago in Kancheepuram,India.

There is also a movie named "7aam Arivu" which depicts bodhidharmas journey to china. Hari147 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RS, and User:Joshua Jonathan/Birthplace of Bodhidharma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be more ecplicit:

• YouTube video: not WP:RS.
• Monastery-site: source? www.bodhidharma.co.in, I guess? They copied info from our page, with some major changes...
• 7aam Arivu: that's a movie, not a source.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hari147's finding is not without merit.

"Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for him (written by Heinrich Dumoulin) that identifies him as a "native of Conjeeveram, near Madras".."[4]

Link to original Britannica's information:[5]

It is not hard to find more sources.

Conjeeveram and Kanchipuram are same thing.[6] Lorstaking (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

South India is one of several possibilities; none of them is sure. Dumoulin is outdated; see McRae's Introduction, and James W. Heisig, Note to the 2005 edition, in Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History. India and China. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the first link you provided is also from McRae:

Presentations of Bodhidharma's biography that are unreasonably detailed— such as the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for him (written by Heinrich Dumoulin ) that identifies him as a "native of Conjeeveram, near Madras"12 — exemplify the

The quote is incomple; it comes from Google. but read p.26-27 of McRae; he clearly explains the problems. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"South India" in this context, of Bodhidharma, concerns larger area than the present day South India. A mention of Conjeeveram aka Kanchipuram is still necessary to reflect the possibility. Lorstaking (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The indian information is correct. But, someone has to write it down in a book, first.

Samething with the Covid-19 cure/treatment.

I have written the meaning off his name.

Bodhi means awakening. https://www.britannica.com/topic/bodhi-Buddhism

Dharma means code. Although it's writen as law. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharma

Another editor removed it, without improving the page... Or looking into that information. Please do not waste ones time. Be helpful to accommodate the volunteer. Plus I'm doing this from a phone/mobile. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Chinese name

Shouldn't his Chinese name be featured prominently in the article? I find it very weird that his Chinese nickname is in the first paragraph, and his successors' names are given in Chinese and roman letters, but not his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.244.157 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning since Chan/Zen/Son,Thiền are major components of Buddhism in their respective countries i.e. China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam all of them with long histories acknowledging Bodhidharma as the first transmitter of Chan,Zen,Son, Thiền into East Asia. Therefore I am going to add his name in those languages as the overwhelming majority of believers still come from those countries.Hanbud (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You agree that Bodhidharma's name should also be given in Chinese, and therefore you're going to add the Korean and Vietnamese names? I had to read your reply three times before I understood what you wrote. Forgot "also" in "Therefore I am [also] going to add"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't add it yet. But if I am going to add the Chinese name, should also add Japanese (since they use an older name), Korean and Vietnamese name as well as they are the majority of Chan practitioners in the world both inside Asia and outside even nowadays. Do you disagree?Hanbud (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Just had a problem following your logic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. The man is an indian. I have explained below on the thread. Today's freeworld, needs to know the truth. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Monk

Some facts:

- He was brown skinned. - He had a name from the Ashoka empire in india. - His name BodhiDharma, breaks up to 1) Bodhi which means Awakening in Pali , which is like Sanskrit, very similar to it.

And 

2) Dharma , which is basically Hindu core philosophy.

Therefore, his name means Awakening Code. ...Yoga, is a branch off some off these lost scriptures that is still practiced today in india. It's purpose, is to awaken one.

Buddha, is the 7th Avitaar of Lord Vishnu 🔯🕉️☸️🇮🇳 ( From Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma )...which is, a way of Life , that has a code of life.

Thank you.

You welcome. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The debate regarding his origin is discussed in the introduction. In order to edit the article, you must provide sources which support your assertions. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BodhiDharma the indian name meaning.

Hi. You welcome.

Bodhi means awakening. ( In Sanskritam. NB: sanskrit is an has a more correct name ie. Sanskritam. ) https://www.britannica.com/topic/bodhi-Buddhism

And Dharma means a code. ( The people have written law, but it's a code. ) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharma

Thank you. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your source does not support the translation that you supplied. Translating 'dharma' as 'code' is idiosyncratic and not the choice made in most sources or dictionaries, nor was it in the source you posted. There is also already a section (Bodhidharma#Name) that discusses the meaning and alternative forms of the name. Finally, per WP:MINOR, changes that add or change material in an article should not be flagged as minor edits. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's even written here. The Tibetans say the same thing. Ie. Awakened Dharma.

More Professional editing would put this right in the front , at the beginning of Bodhidharmas introduction.

[80] Goodman & Davidson 1992, p. 65. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Translating dharma as 'code' us idiosyncratic and not supported with any of the references your provide. I've added the translation to the introduction but chosen to link to dharma rather than attempt a definition. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice day. You 4years more Professional then me... So I'm happy with your call. Kajan Lakhan (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

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

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

Bodhidharma was a semi-legendary????

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

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

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

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

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

remove that.

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

Wall-gazing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the context:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is daoxuan considered a good/reliable source again?

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

BERNARD FAURE (1987) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

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

Note the: Until modern research proved otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

Shaolin boxing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bodhidharma

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

- the added text says theoricise that this might be - so this is speculation and needs to be backed up by other reliable sources to confirm the facts, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY - cheeers - Epinoia (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC Wall-gazing section

This is not an RfC. OP blocked for abuse of our processes. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Content is not being given it's due weight and I suspect editorial bias, which isn't soothed by the editor's unwillingness to cooperate. Tried DRN but I don't see it going anywhere and would like some neutral input instead of input from people who are invested in the topic in some way. Sorry if I'm doing this too early, but I don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in and don't see DRN or the discussion with joshua jonathan going anywhere atm. Be sure to read everything carefully, it's not an easy topic. I'm 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 in the discussion above, seems like my ip changed today. 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Indian monk

Copied from user talk:Joshua Jonathan#Bodhidharma

They ain't Chinese sources and is contrary to what's been mentioned. I tried to correct precisely but you removed even with giving reliable sources. Major sources cite him Indian buddhist monk not a central Asian. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arorapriyansh333: the sources you added are crap. This is a contentious subject; just stick to the sources - the good ones. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Business insider is crap? So what you added is only good? Bcoz of ppl like you wiki has become such an untrusted place. No one has right to edit and correct anything. Only what you think is right. And you own everything. Nearly all sources I encountered cite him as indian monk. I've yet to encounter any source that clearly state he is central asian. Even the sources you mentioned cite him as Indian buddhist monk on 8th page. Even Chinese sources cite him Indian monk. Honestly, if I had to rate this article I'd give it F grade. No proper formatting, factually incorrect written article that do not match the sources. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(guest comment) Arorapriyansh333, newspapers are not the best sources for historical events; academic sources are preferred in wikipedia. Per WP:BESTSOURCES "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources." JimRenge (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Even the academic source that are mentioned cite Bodhidharma as Indian monk clearly in it's first page of introduction so how he became central Asian? Although there are arguments regarding this in a page 53 to 54 but rest of pages clearly cite him Indian monk. And this is what I tried to correct. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Try to learn the basics of Wiki-editing, such as WP:RS and indenting your replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

End of copied part

You changed

According to the principal Chinese sources, Bodhidharma came from the Western Regions, which refers to Central Asia but may also include the Indian subcontinent, and is described as either a "Persian Central Asian" or a "South Indian [...] the third son of a great Indian king."

<!---PLEASE NOTE: Kanchipuram is being mentioned under 'modern scholarship', including a reference. Please read that section---> [...]

Aside from the Chinese accounts, several popular traditions also exist regarding Bodhidharma's origins.

Notes

Reference

into

According to the principal Chinese and other sources, Bodhidharma is said to be described as an Indian Buddhist monk, whereas some sources cite him as either of Iranian descent from Central Asia or a Buddhist monk – the third son of a great Indian king, hailing from South India. [...] Aside from these accounts, several other popular traditions also exist regarding Bodhidharma's origins.

Notes

Reference

• You changed "According to the principal Chinese sources, Bodhidharma came from the Western Regions" into "According to the principal Chinese and other sources, Bodhidharma is said to be described as an Indian Buddhist monk." This edit removed the crucial "wetsen regions," which you replaced with the dubious Indian origins, using two unreliable sources:

• "Inside Shaolin Monastery, the home of kung fu and Zen Buddhism, where thousands of boys as young as 5 train to be martial arts masters". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-11-18.
• "Nanjing Ancient Bodhidharma Cave opens to public - China - Chinadaily.com.cn". www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 2021-11-18.

• Your edits removed an extensive note with a large amount of sourced info from WP:RS;
• You removed a cautionary note

All in all, what you did is utterly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

Bodhi Dharma was an South Indian Prince The nationality of bodhidharma as Indian should be mentioned in wiki page 2402:3A80:96B:1ECA:BB56:E5E4:E0E8:9468 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Legendary

The page went from semi-legendary to legendary in a drive-by edit. I have removed that description as the person is clearly historical (though with mostly legendary accounts). Gotitbro (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pallava...

.. was added here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

119.82.120.65 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Birth place : Tamil Nadu

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Transmitter of Buddhism or of Chan Buddhism

The heading of this article states: "He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and regarded as its first Chinese patriarch". Shouldn't it be "transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China...". Nazroon (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Martial arts

I have removed the section of martial arts since the story was debunked by historians saying it is inaccurate and Shaolin Kung fu may be originated from chinese form of kungfu like wing chei. Obiwana (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to remove this; it is relevant, and contextualized. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Can someome add this

the legend about shaolin kungfu The idea that Bodhidharma founded martial arts at the Shaolin Temple was spread in the 20th century, however, this idea came from a debunked apocryphal 17th century legend that claimed Bodhidharma began the physical training of the monks of Shaolin Monastery that led to the creation of Shaolin kung fu. The idea of Bodhidharma influencing Shaolin boxing is based on a Qigong manual written during the 17th century. This is when a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' wrote the Sinews Changing Classic in 1624, but claimed to have discovered it. The first of two prefaces of the manual traces this succession from Bodhidharma to the Chinese general Li Jing via "a chain of Buddhist saints and martial heroes"

Shahar, Meir (2008). The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press p165 2001:999:785:D8DE:D94:6761:4092:6025 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)