Talk:Bodhidharma

What does "semi-legendary" mean?

That term is used in the lead sentence, but it's unclear to me what it means or how it's sourced. It sounds like prose and seem inappropriate for Wikipedia. Could someone clarify / tell me if I'm missing something? Actualcpscm (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

same thing, came here to start discussion on it.

word semi legendary is like 'semi-existence' , which is an oxymoron, which is used to dilute his historical background. Afv12e (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerning it sounds like prose I don't think that's the right word, as all of the text in the prose is prose. As far as "semi-legendary" I'm not sure if that's the right word to use or not but it's not an oxymoron, as it's being used to describe a person where there is agreement among scholars that the person existed, but a lot or most of what is known of them is attested in legends (hence semi-legendary, what we know is a mix of what scholars consider both legend and historically accurate). This is similar to how Ragnar Lodbrok is semi-legendary, contrasted to Sveigðir who is considered fully legendary, and Sweyn Forkbeard whose historicity is not in any serious dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I meant creative prose, as in non-encyclopedic, creative writing. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I also was confused by the term "semi-legendary", but this is a matter of English usage. There are ways of conveying uncertainty without using this term. Accordingly, I modified the lede slightly to eliminate the term. Respectfully Tachyon (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

My change was quickly reverted ostensibly because my revision was considered to be ambiguous as well. Still the term "semi-legendary" is unnecessary. Tachyon (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Slightly? You changed diff

Bodhidharma was a semi-legendary Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch.

into

Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century CE who is believed to be the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China. He is also regarded as its first Chinese patriarch.

• I don't see the problem with "semi-legendary." He may or may not have existed; we can't know for sure, and it doesn't really matter; it's the legendary stories which are relevant for Zen;
• "Believed" is a weaselword; who "believes" so? Is this transmission a historiv fact? What's relevant is that he is credited with this transmission;
• "also"; no, not "also"; attributed transmission and legendary first patriarch are a cloth of one piece.

We're not talking about history here, we're talking here about legends and narratives. But the legends and narratives as subjects in themselves are historical artifacts, and most relevant to the self-understanding of the Zen-tradition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow Joshua. I'not talking of history, or legends and narratives, I'm talking of English usage for a term I found and others found others found to be less than clear. I did not revert your revision. Respectfully, Tachyon (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, somewhat grumpy; in two days three disruptive editors I interacted with blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters for Bodhidharma

菩提達磨 Putidamo : traditional characters with Pinyin used for pronunciation. He is called Damo because a personal name is usually, but not always, the last two characters of a name with the first one or two being their xing so in a sense it can be seen as the name Puti Damo. This is a transliteration of the term into Chinese. Chinese names can be complicated. 2600:1700:DE60:3320:A196:ADD7:56EE:7127 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

How the word Barbarian is added

I having seen that the word barbarian whose chinese letter can also be translated in english as Foreign,Foreigner,etc. But it is added as something that cause misconceptions and that should be corrected.THANK YOU. 2409:40C4:3010:97AA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foristslow and Likes Thai Food: thoughts? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the original sense should be retained. The question is, what was the original sense? In the Platform Sutra, Hongren uses a slur for barbarian when addressing Huineng. In the Platform Sutra at least, it is likely that its author intended for the word to be derogatory. It's not that I am promoting the use of slurs. But I do think we have a responsibility to accurately show the way in which the tradition historically used these terms. Likes Thai Food (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The character eludes to someone that has no restraint, so historically the underpinning principal translation will change depending on social religious and political position. So at this point it is really about what is the purpose of this article a) historical being early reference to phenomenon outside of Chinese influence and opinions held in history or b) education. As this is considered Dharma I adhere to tradition with a note explaining context for education. Hope this helps.🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

@JGallagher83: why do you want to change the lead-image? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Chan Buddhism.

Arbitrary header #1

please explain why when you know the history that you would negate all other pre-existing forms of Buddhist's culture and jump straight to a later evolution, there is no reference for the Shaolin edit. The first recognised Abbott of the temple was Batuo Buddhabhadra a Chinese monk that had indian heritage(but was Chinese- so binary in ideas to say he is indian) and as legend has it he was trained in the indigenous arts of qigong and taoist baguazhang, zingyiquan for the emperor's cort. As the Chinese Emperor was the benefactor of the temple, that would make sense right, Verse funding a foreign munk ???. [User:Foristslow|Foristslow]] (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Taoism influenced Chan Buddhism in many ways, including the incorporation of the concept of non-duality and the adoption of the idea of an "empty-mind":

Non-duality

The concept of "emptiness depending on matter" and "matter depending on emptiness" is a Taoist concept that was incorporated into Chan Buddhism in its early days.

Empty-mind

The "empty-mind" goal of Zazen is a Chan concept that is rooted in the Taoist sage's identification with nature and going with the flow.

Syncretism

There was extensive syncretism between Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Taoism, including the adoption of the Taoist Lo Shu Square and the I Ching in the Mandala of the Two Realms.

Two schools of thought Some scholars believe that Chan Buddhism developed from the interaction between Taoism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. Others believe that Chan has roots in yogic practices. In any case Taoism and Buddhism were both postering for kings favour over Confucianisms and the remnants of legalism. Foristslow (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Shaolin is attributed, and sourced in the body. Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's viewed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is one western reference Only part but to the point and there are lots more

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

12]Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Or Dr William cc Huo translated the Yijin Jing in Chinese talking about qi(Chinese) not prana (indian) no mention of India involvment. Talking about Taoist longevity and and and... exactly what I have read. What we are talking about to the best of our knowledge facts. And the only way this is done here is by reliable and credible sources being tricky about viewed or blind is miss leading. He is not by credible sources a real historical figure and you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero, and at the same time completely negating and marginalising real historical monk/public health figures figures that should be attributed to their deeds and historical influence, Societal health through religion or philosophy is nothing that should be misrepresented. Looking forward to talking more, best to set things straight, best wishes Foristslow (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link again let's discuss this first thanks https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false Foristslow (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE is required; the mess you're creating is painfull. Your latest edits diff contain a number of errors:

• addition of "fictional" to "semi-legendary": unsourced, and conflicting with "semi-legendary";
• "In martial arts pop culture, He [sic] is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch, an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san," - Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years;
• "an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century Qigong manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic Yijin Jing" - grammatically incorrect; was the novel published in the Yijin Jing? And what exactly is "debunked" with regard to the Yijin Jing?
• "This fictional character" - again, unsourced;
• Changed "His name means "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" into "was named after the Buddhist word "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" in Sanskrit" - named after a Buddhist word?...
• "According to the fiction [sic] principal Chinese sources" - unsourced; grammatically incorrect;
• "Brahmin lineage" - source does not use a capital;
• "essence"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rinpoche |first=Thrangu |title=On Buddha Essence |date=2006 |publisher=Shambhala |isbn=9781590302767}}</ref> - WP:SYNTHESIS; MaRae writes "True Nature."
• Regarding you are arguing about nothing more than a comic book hero, that is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read here at Wikipedia.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok wow Joshua, can you help to put get this on track. Your fix was not so eloquent. My comments are ment to be humorous as you have a lot of experience. I think the point is that it needs to be pointed out right at the start that it is fictional to the reader. Your comment above that "Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder; as such, it has been documented for more than 1000 years". Is from the evidence maybe not that is not so true. There are many more credible sources that I have to back up this claim. I do not see much to back up what was there for you to be so defensive.The Chinese author of the Work Yijin Jing bring reference to Bodhidharma has been debunked by academic scrutiny and that puts into question the Shao lin conection, so that is where the "fictional" principal Chinese authors is coming from and that had no citation to begin with. And the reference towards true nature is not a statement but is used in the reference in the spirit and context of " the true nature of the beast..." so the essence of Buddha nature is less confusing and has thousands more references than just the one that you can find to kind of push your pov on that subject. Maybe instead of sitting in the sidelines waiting to find fault you could help out with the grammar. Kind Regards Foristslow (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You seriously want to argue that the Chan-traditiin does not regard Bodhidharma as it's founder? Looking forward to your sources for such a statement... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok Joshua, here is what you said above "Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questiinable, but that's not what we're talking about here: Joshua Jonathan.

I have never said that Bodhidharma wasn't recognised by some sects within the Chan styled movement.It is that he is fictional. So from your previous response we agree that him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with. Nextthe Yijin Jing manual that is the evidence for the claim that he had a large part of the development of Shao Lin Kung Fu. Can we agree from evidence that this manual being of India origin is also debunked?. Foristslow (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't agree that him bringing Chan to China is suspect to start with, and we certainly don't agee that he is a fictional character. I've already noted that "fictional" is unsourced; nevertheless, you've re-added it. Your edits are WP:DISRUPTIVE. @Bishonen and Doug Weller: would one of you be able to explaain to this editor that they are crossing lines here? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

More regarding your most recent reverts:

• diff: moved back nav-boxes to article sections, without explanation; these belong in the lead;
• diff:

• changed

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China

into

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China

Obviously a big error, and no explanation provided;

• changed correct link [[:Shaolin kung fu into incorrect link Shaolin boxing;

• diff, edit-summary Please to talk page, the edits are supported with reference for claims. More than what was there initially. reinserted a number of errors:

• Changed

was a semi-legendary Buddhist monk

into

Is [sic] a semi-legendary fictional Buddhist monk

Grammatical error, and "fictional" is unsourced, as noted before,

• Changed

He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch. He is also popularly regarded as the founder of Shaolin boxing, an idea popularized in the 20th century based on the 17th century Yijin Jing.

into

In martial arts pop culture, He is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China, and is regarded as its first Chinese patriarch, an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907 and a debunked 17th century Qigong manual compiled by a Taoist with the pen name 'Purple Coagulation Man of the Way' that wrote the Sinews Changing Classic Yijin Jing.

References

• The link for Stan Henning goes to a page which copies this Wikipedia-page...
• He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism should be {{tq|He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism; a leftover from another one of your edits;
• In martial arts pop culture [...] He [sic] is the character traditionally credited as the transmitter of Buddhism to China - as noted before, in the Chan tradition he is regarded as the one who transmitted Chan from India to China; what you're writing her eis complete nonsense, and not supported by your source;
• Bodhidharma is not the first patriarch of Chinese Budddhism, but of Chan Buddhism;
• an idea popularized in the 20th century novel called The Travels of Lao T'san [...] published [...] in [...] a debunked 17th century Qigong manual - as noted before, The Travels of Lao T'san was not published in the Yijin Jing;

• This fictional character of Bodhidharma - again, "fictional" is unsourced;
• "affectionately" according to which source?
• named after the Buddhist word "dharma of awakening (bodhi)" - as noted before, Bodhidharma was not "named after" this word; "dharma of awakening" is what "Bodhidharma" means;
• "fictional Chinese sources" - which source says that these Chinese sources are "fictional"?;
• "Brahmin lineage" - the soyrce doesn't use a capital B, as noted before;
• "true nature of reality" was changed in "true essence"; as noted before, McRae uses "true nature."

Obviously, you completed ignored my previous comments, to reinstate a number of changes comprised of multiple mistakes. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE in multiple regards. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, ok wow, please read what I have said above, the only reason I appear to have ignored your message is one that I was waiting for you to add something constructive and two you are being aggressive. You need to understand that you are having a bit of cognitive dissonance. Again you are ignoring your words

"Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as bringing Chan to China, of course that's historically questionable, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about he's viewed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)"

On page just under the lead information this is what is written.

"Little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend and unreliable details"

Historical negativism is not good as the monk Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 was the first Abbott, it was his students that ended up in the Chinese Buddhist's cannon for martial arts achievement and not Bodhidharma's influence.

And second the link between him and the Yijin Jing is debunked so that is the link between him and the Shaolin temple debunked.

I have read it myself and the copy that is considered authentic has Chinese medical terminology and is Taoist in origin and not Vedic medicine. Here is a quick link and it makes reference to other more credible versions.

William C. C. Hu (1965), Research Refutes Indian Origin Of I-chin ching, Black Belt (journal)

Please for those that are trained in it as "I am" it is very obviously Chinese and don't get me wrong Indian Vedic medicine has a lot to offer but is not here in this manual. Although you s em very passionate about this page I am only trying to rectify the misinformation with referenced material and recognised historical context by understanding the implications of the Chinese cultural revolution as Shao Lin temple was closed and training forbidden. So what changed in its reopening and who became their benefactors???.

Foristslow (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no "misinformation" to rectify here. Bodhidharma is regarded by the Chan-tradition as it's founder. That's not a statement of fact; that's a statement of belief (which, as such, is a fact). Nuanced tretises of the history of Chan can be found at Zen and Chinese Chan; the Bodhidharma-page is not the place for detailing the history of Chan/Zen.

Regarding Bodhidharma being regarded as the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu: that too is a beief; the lead does not pretend otherwise. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Understand Jonathan, but my interest is not in faith but truth. This is a encyclopaedia when information is there we should consider it and bring balance to the page. Chinese history is open to scrutiny especially after the Chinese cultural revolution and with industrialization, History of all religions should be questions including Chan's. I have supplied more initial references to question the authenticity of this semi/legendary personality and the conection to Shao Lin Kung Fu. Also I am not sure but some of the edits that are listed above aren't my mistakes. Foristslow (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll check Shahar again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

hi not confident that I understand the meaning of Shahar, please explain Joshua Foristslow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Shahar (2008); see the sources. It contains a link to the book itself, which can be accessed; p.164 (or 166) to 172. It's very interesting, especially the last two pages. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

thankyou Jonathan Foristslow (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I did; the attribution of Shaolin martial arts stems from the Yijin Jing, and has even older roots in the daoist association of daoyin gymnastics with Bodhidharma. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

did you look at the link to a article that i have include above thanks we can start there and move forward as a starting point? Foristslow (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link again https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tkDAAAAMBAJ&q=i+chin+ching+intitle:black+intitle:belt+intitle:magazine&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=i%20chin%20ching%20intitle%3Ablack%20intitle%3Abelt%20intitle%3Amagazine&f=false Foristslow (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Buddha-nature/essence

Also think Looked at the reference for True Nature, quick question why are you so stuck on including True nature over or beside Buddha nature on multiple pages when it is historically a very obscure definition ?. Foristslow (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what McRae writes; if we use a source, we follow that source. In this case, "Ultimate Principle," "True Nature," and "Buddha-nature" are synonyms. NB: "true nature of reality" also was not exactly what McRae wrote; he 'simply' writes about Buddha-nature. 'Simply' because, of course, it's a very complicated term to 'translate' in a western idiom. Thrangu Rinpoche uses the term "Buddha essence (see here), but of course "essence" has 'essential' connotations, that is, eternalism. A never-ending discussion. The term "Buddha-essence" may be relevant for the Buddha-nature page, but that page really needs to be edited very carefully, due to the necessary nuances and subtleties. Rangjung Yeshe Wiki gives a long list of possible meanings/translations for snying po; "essence" is just one of them. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the Chinese characters that he translated ?. Foristslow (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Augh... I'll try to find it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, but I'll bet it's 佛性; see Buddha-nature#Buddhadhātu. Red Pine, The Zen teaching of Bodhidharma, contains the Chinese text; see here. Red Pine also translates "true nature. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

what great characters, I love the language, the language is polymorphic meaning we will choose meaning based on our stages of life. In traditional character representation the truth can never be hidden or misinterpreted, not the way the western language can. If nature is what you wish to go with then, so it is. But consider this that this speaks more about the author than the truth of the character. Essence is a better translation because you can't go past that in this world, therefore the foundational building blocks from there on, and therefore less chance of doing harm. Foristslow (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)