Origin of Kungfu?

[Ging Mo Fighter]

Hey ive heard that most styles of kungfu came from the old techniques that were taught to the monks by travellers form india, in the form of yoga? does anyone know anything more about this, and whether it was just shaolin kungfu that came from this - or all styles of kungfu?

I also read that the indian travellers were taught yoga originally by whites, from northen india (mabye vikings or something) but they were white skinned aryans of northern india?

seems funny that whites taught indians, indians taught chinese, and now we have the chinese teaching the whites again

i guess thats the cyclical nature of things

anyone got anything more on this ????

[Daelomin]

I don't think it's just that simple, whites taught indians, indians taught... etc. Martial arts have allways existed in cultures in some form. It's a possibility that yoga influenced chinese martial arts somewhat. But china is a big area, i doubt that everything that we call kung fu got this influence. IMHO qigong is something that is heavly influenced by Indian yoga, i don't belive the same for fighting techniques.

[Sho]

I believe combat skills developed naturally over time and experience. It's very eccentric to say that kungfu, as a whole, originates from one single source - some say Bodhidharma. You can, however, say that fighting styles derived from Bodhidharma's Eighteen Hands of Luohan (such as Luohanquan) have their origins at the Shaolin Temple, heh obviously. But kungfu has such a broad definition that it's incorrect to say where it originates.

[chen zhen]

GMF, I don't think vikings taught indians MA;) , I guess when you say "whites", you are confusing with the indo-aryans, which is the race nearly all indians belong to, but they are not "white"..
there's also a story that says that the greeks taught the indians boxing and wrestling methods ( the greeks dominated western india at one time), and the indians then brought that to china. maybe it's those "whites" you're talking about.

[Lions Roar!]

www.tibetankungfu.com

The above is a very large site, but most of your questons are answered in detail there: Bodhidharma as a lineage Indian Kalari Pyatt Master (still remembered as such in Kerala South India, the home of Kalari), Greek Pankration meeting with Indian martial arts during the centuries of Greek (Hellenistic) ocupation of North West India and Bactria (Afghanistan). Buddhist, Hindu religion and culture, Tibetan Martial Arts (Lama) their religious/Tantric roots and eventual migration into China.

[David Jamieson]

Kung fu has it's origins in neccessity.

The connection between countries and religions really is irrelevant and there is not one scrap of evidence or proof that anyone begat anything to anyone else other than religious transmissions.

The Scythian horde,the Aryyans, the Indians, the Tibetans, the Chinese etc etc etc. They knew of each other, they warred with each other.

But was there a continuous and full transmission of the idea of Kung Fu from one culture to another? No.

The subject matter is moot and is completely subject to speculation and conjecture. Which I might add, causes a lot of problems in the perceptions of what Kung Fu is to begin with.

There is no written record that Ta Mo (Bhodidharma) was an adept at Kallari Payit. Just because he was noble doesn't mean he was a master to transmit that particular art.

The Dhayana exercises were being practiced in China before his arrival. He did pass some dhayana exercises to the monks at Shaolin Temple in order to bring them strength and the ability to attempt to meditate upon the nature of their individual souls.

Kung fu's martial aspects were indeed born of necessisty to protect and as part of the buddhist ideal that one cannot truly know without truly knowing. :)

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

I take it that you are familiar enough with Kalari as practiced and taught in Kerala South India to imply that Bodhidharama was not a Lineage Master of Kalari? In contradiction to the Masters of Kalari and keepers of the heritage in Kerala?

Lack of written records is the norm in ancient martail arts cultures.

Oral narrative histories are not necessarily false simply because there are no written antecedents for them that survive today.

There are other means to identify connections between arts. Manifest practices compared anthropologically are an example. There are strong connections between Indian kalari as practived in Kerala and some branch lineages of Tibetan Lion's Roar Lama martial arts.

The connection between religions and martial arts are never irrelevant, unless in the case of a valid religious-martial connection, you want to judge the originating context of martial arts as being irrelevant. In which case you shouldn't comment about the arts origin, only its contemporary practice.

Shaolin has had its own pervasive origin myths regarding its martial culture. No doubt whatsoever that martial arts existed in China before Bodhidharama.

The history of China and its religions parallels the evolutionary process of many of its martial arts. The influence of the great faiths in China on its arts has been enormous.

The Chinese however are often recalcitrant when it comes to overwriting the influence of foreign cultures on their martial arts.

[David Jamieson]

In contradiction to the Masters of Kalari and keepers of the heritage in Kerala?

Why not make this contradiction? It is uncertain whether or not Bhodidharma was of Persian or Indian origin. If he was persian which many scholars think (there are also scholars who do not believe he existed at all) then he would not be versed in the martial arts of India at all. He would be a convert and a transmission vessel charged with spreading the word and the teachings of the Buddha Guatama.

Kalari Payit has only recently emerged in the western eye and mind and there are many who make these claims of connectivity to Shaolin.
These are shaky and unsubstantiated claims based on supposition and not on facts.

Can you name these Masters of Kalari who would make these claims? Can these masters show their source that they were the wellspring of Bodhidharmas martial knowledge? I think not.

I will reiterate that Buddhism was transmitted from India, to Tibet and China and beyond. Buddhism, not martial art. Buddhism in and of itself has no martial teachings. The crossover stems from necessity to defend those who cannot defend themselves and the temples themselves from thieves and the monks from bandits and animals.

To make "certain" connections is mistaken. There is only maya in this regard.

I would also venture that there are very very few Kalari masters and I would cast an eye of doubt as to whether or not they are even outside of India at all. Perhaps a student here or there, but I don't think there are bonafide masters outside of India spreading the true art of Kalari Payit at this juncture in time.

I will also restate that Taoist martial arts pre-existed the transmission of Buddhism into China. The dhayana practices (yogic exercises, chi kung / prana veda, martial postures, etc) were being practiced both in their buddhist and Taoist manifestations in China before the arrival of Ta Mo. remeber that by the time Ta Mo is recorded, Buddhism has already been around for 1000 years or so.

Martial arts are based on many truths that do not have anything to do with religious thought. They have more to do with hard realities such as bio mechanics and physics refined to the human form. This is the goal of many martial arts. To further develop human potential as a body and mind and a spirit yoked together and working together as one.

So, conceptually, how can these ideas not be shared and developed independently of each other? the human form is the human form. It operates in a sphere of influence that is common to all it's manifestations. If a civilization has enough time to explore these manifestations, then it will. All cultures have some form of warring arts. It is not necessary to preclude that there is a single point of departure on this knowledge.

There are definitely notables, such as Shaolin and Wu Dang and Emei for instance where these martial arts were refined and refined over hundreds of years. The same can be said of Japanese and Okinawan arts and Indian and Irish and German and ... well, you get the point.

It is also important to remember that for the most part, martial arts schools are not a good starting point for factual history lessons :) They are martial arts schools and that is what you will learn there. You can know your teacher and perhaps a lineage that traces back to the founder of the style you are practicing. But how much of that is made muddy by the fighters pride, or injury of that pride over the timeline?

Many a person has had their name erased from history because of their dislike by a following generation.

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

I think your getting away with yourself here.

There are Kalari masters outside of Kerala. There are many here in the UK. Your notion that there are 'very few' Masters of kalari is grossly inaccurate

There was a BBC film documentary in 1981 which filmed Northern and Southern Kalari Pyatt Masters, filmed their schools, rituals, forms, interviewed the Masters about Marama-Adi, Bodhidharama etc: 'Kalari The Indian Way' BBC Televsion 1981. There was a BBC book from theis documentary series called:'The Way Of the warrior' which included the Kalari. I still have access to the original 1981 video. One of my 'Chinese' lineage Tibetan Hop-Gar Lion's Roar forms is near identical in structure, form and sequence to one performed by an Indian Kalari Master from Kerala in that 1981 film. taken on its own that is not 'proof' of any connection, but, it is not the only evidence of past contact.

If you doubt that Kalari flourishes in Kerala, use your browser and contact the many, many Kerala schools of kalari Pyatt that are on the internet. Conatct the Indian Tourist Board and arrange a visit.

There are Masters of Chinese Martial Arts in the UK who are also Kerala trained Kalari Pyatt Masters, Paul Whitrod, the UK Representative of Chow-Gar Southern Praying Mantis Grandmaster Ip-Shui is one of them. Paul is also adept at Chinese internal styles and one of the most authoritive practitioners in martial arts in teh UK of his generation.

Your standard regarding 'evidence' is interesting.

"...not one scrap of evidence..." as you say it, refers NOt to lack of evidence at all. There is a whole world of difference in law (which you should know) between evidence and proof. Sufficient evidence to bring a case is not necessarily the same thing as sufficient evidence to prove a case. Often people who are nihilistic about evidence as in: 'There is NO evidence' really mean that there is no proof that would satisfy them (for whatever reason). Proof and evidence can be different things. If you are constitutionally set against a certain idea, or if it arouses strong emotions, you might start to mistake evidence that you find disagreable, for there being no evidence at all. That, is certainly your right and privilege.

You are very wrong about Buddhism having no martial teachings. Tantric Budhism has produced Tantric Buddhist Martial Arts. NOT just Tibetan Lion's Roar Lama, but others, including Dorje-Lam, which is not only Tibetan but pure Tantric Buddhist. The Lion's Roar Lama martial arts were conceived as a Buddhist martial art, created out of Tantric Buddhist processes, for Tantric Buddhist goals.

Buddhism is not limited to Ch'an, Pure Land, or even the Theravada.

If you had any knowledge of the Tantrayana and Sidda Traditions, you would not have made that remark.

You mix up martial arts and martial systems, they need not be the same thing. They can develop separately. By your standard of 'evidence' (written records) the origin of martial 'Arts' is completely unknown, as, developing methods for combat and survival must have occured many thousands of years before the invention of written records (by recent calculation writing having been invented near simultaneously in BOTH Mesopotamia AND Egypt).

The 'evidence' for martial combative methods existing prior to the invention of writing comes from the archeological record, from finds of weapons, and, from studies on primatology and ethology.

The 'conclusion' that human combative forms existed (prior to the invention of writing) is conjecture, but, it's reasoned and rational conjecture.

By the time we have the development of historical records, we already have the development of 'civilisation' and already have established religions, that form the cultural matrix out of which everything within the early historical civilisations developed, including, martial 'Arts'.

You can't take Chinese martial arts out from their originating cultural matrix. What makes them 'Chinese' in an identifiable sense, is that cultural matrix, and, also the broader history of China and Chinese civilisation. This includes (sometimes) influences from 'outside' cultures on those martial arts - howsoever disagreable some may find it.

Combative methods almost certainly developed out from the Darwinian necessity of survival, but, martial 'Arts? How do YOU define a martial art? Did Kano Judo develop out from combat and survival necessity? Did Aikido? NOT Ju-Jitsu, but Judo, and Aikido. Did the ****genised Mainland China Wu-Shu develop out from survival neccessity? They all evolved out from pre-existing cultural forms (martial arts) which themselves developed within specific cultural contexts over historical time periods. In many cases, these cultural contexts included 'religion' in one form or another, and the development of those martial 'Arts' even where they were used as practical fighting systems included that religious context.

'Necessity' as you call it, can of course be something other than for combat. There are many 'functional imperitives' behind the practice of abstracted martial 'arts' methods.

As for oral narrative histories, anthropological research has shown that immense amounts of information and knowledge can be accurately passed down over many, many generations by this method.

None of that proves of course, anything about Bodhidharma and kalari. 'Evidence' exists however, and it is important for the sake of these martial 'arts' to research that evidence.

It's a shame that you alowed yourself to get carried way

[David Jamieson]

LR-

Tantric Buddhism had more to do with bringing buddhism back to the lay people and to bring buddhism into the mainstream thought of India at the time of it's rising.

As a precept, it moves away from the quelling of desires and instead takes the approach of immersing oneself in their own desires to understand them in their essence. There is also quite a lot about sexaul intimacy practices associated with Tantric tradition.

But, I feel pretty assured and safe in saying that Buddhism does not include instruction in Martiality. Instead, buddhism can be and is used as a ways and means of tempering the martial mind by giving it ethical ground and a moral outlook.

I am also going to have to say that there are similarities across multitude martial arts. The "origin" of this thread was pointing a finger towards Kalari being the foundation of Chinese Kung Fu practice. I disagree. Chinese Martial arts, the practice of Kungfu and martial arts predate contact with India at the level of Buddhism migrating there. To assume otherwise is speculation and conjecture only.

When I first learned of Kalari Payit, It was clear that this was not a widespread art and that students were and are still chosen very carefully by the masters of it. The Marman (Dim Mak) techniques aren't even taught for 10-12 years to a student! I'm getting this information from a family friend btw who was a student but never completed his study of the art, he is in his fifties now and is quite formiddable.

I don't know how Kalari Payit would spread so far and wide with what I have been led to understand are the criteria for becoming one who can teach the art wholly.

It is the same with Kungfu, there are many who claim mastery but very, very few who are Masters.

I've seen so many shows now about this martial art and that martial art that are completely misleading. It is better to just learn and practice what you are able to.

What I know for sure is that Kalari Payit became recently known and since then there have been many who claim to have deep knowledge of it. It is more than a curiousity to me that this occurs.
It takes a revivalist view of something that doesn't need reviving. It exists and it works in the boundaries of it's own creation.

BTW, I am quite aware of the many faces of Buddhism. I am certain you would be hard pressed to find instruction in martiality in it's formal offerings.

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

It seems that Kalari Pyatt became "only became recently known" to you.

My Father who was in the Royal Navy in the 1930's served in India and in China (Mainland China - fighting with Bandits and river Pirates). He told me and my elder brother about Chinese and Indian Martial arts in the early 1960's.

When I started Karate in 1966, a lot of people had a similar attitude to Chinese martial arts as you have to Kalari Pyatt - if it was not in their own immediate experience, then it couldn't be in anybody elses either.

To derive from limited personal contact with an single inexperienced student that an art is rare only shows that you haven't made the right contacts.

The 'TV Show' was a serious BBC TV documnetary, filmed in India, in Kerala, with Indian Masters and Disciples. As a result of that 'show' a number of Westerners have been studying Kalari Pyatt for 22 years, a greater length of time than many members of this forum have studied Chinese martial arts.

Kalari hasn't had the popular exposure thru the likes of Bruce Lee and others, and so it tends to remain within its originating community. People only have to make the effort. Most Kalari is Hindu. Despite the caste system, the Hindu faith is very open to inquiries from non-Indians, and so are many Kalari Masters. Its just a question of the right approach.

It helps if you don't suggest to these people that their art either doesn't exist, or that they (as Masters) aren't Masters at all, or that (you) the inqurier, knows better than they do about the art and culture that they have spent their lives practicing.

Before they became publicly known, and therefore part of the popular immagination, Chinese martial arts where just as widespread in the West as were the overseas communities of Chinese themselves.

As with Kalari, to get beyond the 'pulp' in Chinese martial arts, you have to make the right approach, which I was fortunate to have been able to do more than 30 years ago.

Buddhism does not have to be practiced with a martial art to be Buddhism, likewise, martial arts do not have to be Buddhist to be martial arts. However, some forms of Budhism are martial arts, as 'Yana's in their own right. Tibetan Tantric Martial Arts for example.

Tantra is an area that without immediate, direct and personal involvement in it, then, as an 'outsider', a person has no knowledge of it at all.

You seem to want to reduce Buddhism to such things as the Three Jewels, The Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path. None of which describe anything martial in themselves at all.

Buddhism, however, evolved and diversified into many forms (as you should know very well). The Tantrayana, specifically the Siddi tradition of Tantra excludes no means, no path, no method as a vehicle to achieve Tantric Buddhist goals.

The Tibetan Lion's Roar Lama system was conceived from within the Siddi tradition, as a Tantric Budhist Martial vehicle. The Lion's Roar Lama martial arts without Tantric Buddhism, are not The Lion's Roar! of the Buddha's Dharma. They are in isomorphic relationship to one another.

The very essence of Tantra is in its lineage transmission and Tantric Buddhist empowerments. If you cannot accept this from a 30 year practitioner of the system, then what kind of evidence as an 'outsider' would you need?

It's clear that for your own practice of whatever it is that you do, that you, do not need Buddhism, or any other such approach, to be a part of its originating matrix.

There is nothing remotely wrong in that at all.

You should be careful though, not to assume that your understanding of things is the truth of the matter in contexts outside of your own.

It may be agreable for you to dismiss out of hand oral narrative histories and traditions. Again there is nothing wrong in that as a personal perspective.

If however, you make implicit claim to some kind of objectivity for your belief, then be prepared to be sceptical not only of those traditions, but also of your own reasons for holding firmly and emotionally to that belief.

[shaolin kungfu]

You have yet to prove that kung fu originated in india. Not saying your wrong, your theory is as good as many others, but it lacks any real, hard evidence.

To ask where kungfu originated is an excersise in futility. You will never get an answer that is 100% accurate or reliable. To say it originated in china is probably the best answer, as that is where it really took root and flourished, and where most styles trace there lineage back to.

[Lions Roar!]

I didn't make claim that it did, and it isn't my theory.

Firstly, there is a distinction between Shaolin, and Kung-Fu, in that Shaolin is not all of Kung-Fu and Kung-Fu is not reducible to Shaolin.

Secondly, I mentioned that oral narrative histories in absence of written records are not 'necessarily' false or unreliable - as KL implied.

I mentioned that there was a tradition in Kerala that Bodhidharma was a Kalari master.

On my web site, I expand on this and include the tradition in India and in some popular Chinese/Western accounts that Bodhidharma seeded Shaolin martial arts.

Much of my posts content have been to do with Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Buddhist martial arts - which are not Shaolin in origin.

There is no reason at all to doubt that Chinese martial, arts existed before and independently of Shaolin, and of any influence of Bodhidharma. There is also no reason to doubt that much of Chinese martial arts developed after, and independently of, the Shaolin Temple.

If you re-read the whole thread, your question would be better put to an earlier poster.

[shaolin kungfu]

Secondly, I mentioned that oral narrative histories in absence of written records are not 'necessarily' false or unreliable - as KL implied.

No, they are not necassarily false, but they are certainly unreliable. Everything that is passed down orally is prone to change, much more so than if it was written.


I mentioned that there was a tradition in Kerala that Bodhidharma was a Kalari master.

So what? This doesn't make it true.


On my web site, I expand on this and include the tradition in India and in some popular Chinese/Western accounts that Bodhidharma seeded Shaolin martial arts.

Again, what does this have to do with fact?


There is no reason at all to doubt that Chinese martial, arts existed before and independently of Shaolin, and of any influence of Bodhidharma. There is also no reason to doubt that much of Chinese martial arts developed after, and independently of, the Shaolin Temple.

I agree completely.



I didn't make claim that it did, and it isn't my theory

Maybe it's not something you came up with, but it is definitely a theory which you beleive in.


Firstly, there is a distinction between Shaolin, and Kung-Fu, in that Shaolin is not all of Kung-Fu and Kung-Fu is not reducible to Shaolin.

The original post was asking about the origins of kung fu in general, not just shaolin. To him you gave this...


www.tibetankungfu.com

Along with this claim...


The above is a very large site, but most of your questons are answered in detail there: Bodhidharma as a lineage Indian Kalari Pyatt Master (still remembered as such in Kerala South India, the home of Kalari), Greek Pankration meeting with Indian martial arts during the centuries of Greek (Hellenistic) ocupation of North West India and Bactria (Afghanistan). Buddhist, Hindu religion and culture, Tibetan Martial Arts (Lama) their religious/Tantric roots and eventual migration into China.

Now, if you truly were talking about the origins of shaolin and shaolin only, this explains your opinion of it pretty well. But given the context of the original question and the fact that you said this would answer most of his questions, I am forced to believe that you originally meant all of kung fu.


If you re-read the whole thread, your question would be better put to an earlier poster.

Where did you see a question, and to which earlier poster should it be directed?

[Lions Roar!]

Abstracting quotes out of their context and then mistinterpreting them is ill mannered, as is; telling people what they themselves, 'certainly' believe to be true.

I'm sure that you didn't want to suggest that you have added mind-reading to your two-year martial arts career?

I suggested to you, that you re-read the whole thread, not, to abstract the first post from that thread and then interpret a later post as if the whole thread were just the first one.

I offered the url to the 4th poster, not the first.

So, I wasn't 'truly' (as you put it) talking about the origins of Shaolin, I had offered a url as a potentially informative source regarding a number of issues. Your abstracted quote only refers (and then only in part, along with other points) to a tradition within Kalari Pyatt in the Kerala region of Southern India. That point was contextual, with the other points in the same post.

It seems you want to raise the issue of Kalari and Bodhidharma, and Shaolin as if someone had made the definitive statement that Shaolin was indeed Indian Kalari and that all Chinese Kung-Fu comes from Shaolin, so therefore, definitively all Chinese Kung-Fu is from Indian Kalari Pyatt?

If so, then no, I didn't say that. It may be important for some to project that into what I did say, in order to releive inner tension over an issue that causes some people distress, but I did not say that at all.

The debate with KL has (in part) been about the potential authenticity of oral narrative histories and their transmission. Also of course, about Buddhism and Tantra in martial arts. The tradition within Kalari that Bodhidharama was a lineage Kalari Master was mentioned by me. From that, it seems that you have perhaps (?) made a leap to a statement that was not made, about Bodhidharma founding Shaolin and/or Chinese Kung-Fu as a whole?

You mention truth and fact in your last post. To approximate truth in anything, its important to understand the context. As for factual statements, they can be true or false merely by being stated a statement becomes a 'fact' by virtue of it being made.
This doesn't make its content true, or indeed false, however.

Your last remark, about where did I see a question?

I saw it in your reference to a question in the last paragraph of your previous post - the one you called "an exercise in futility".

It seems it was futile as you didn't even see it as a question at all.
And yet, going back to your remark about the original post, the poster DID ask a question about the origins of Kung-Fu.

[David Jamieson]

A few years back, Robert Young wrote this article that I am posting here now. From cross referencing with various other surveys and texts, I am more or less inclined to agree with this perspective for the most part.

anyway, here's the article:


History tells that an ascetic monk named Bodhidharma journeyed from his Indian homeland to a Chinese Buddhist temple called Shaolin Ssu early in the sixth century and proceeded to introduce his meditation-intensive form of Buddhism to Chinese disciples. Since that time, both the man and the monastery have been the subjects of widespread rumor and speculation, for the Buddhist school is believed to have evolved into Ch’an—which would be called Zen by the Japanese when it flourished there in the 12th century—and the physical teachings are thought to have either inspired or effected the creation of a formidable band of fighting monks and to have formed the basis for a comprehensive martial art known as Shaolin kung fu. Even today, after a lapse of more than 1,400 years, Zen Buddhism thrives in the East and West, and the Shaolin martial tradition continues as perhaps the best-known and most influential entity in the history of the Asian martial arts.

<B>Bodhidharma Legends</B>
According to legend, Bodhidharma was born into the priestly Brahmin caste in the town of Kanchipuram, India, and decided while still young to dedicate his life to the propagation of the Buddha’s teachings. He was eventually named 28th patriarch of the meditation-intensive Dhyana (Pali: Jhana) school of Buddhism and departed India for China in the late fifth or early sixth century. His Hanging above the entrance to Shaolin Temple is a plaque featuring the calligraphy of the Ch’ing dynasty emperor Kang-hsi. The gate was reportedly destroyed on several occasions; the current structure dates from relatively recent times.

Bodhidharma journeyed to Songshan, a mountain in China’s Henan province, and settled at Shaolin Ssu, a temple founded some 30 years before by another Indian monk, Bodhiruchi (Chinese: Batuo), who had come to China in 508. Bodhiruchi whiled away the days translating Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit to Chinese, while sexagenarian Bodhidharma passed long hours in a cave atop Songshan, meditating in front of a cliff and eventually earning himself the appellation of the “wall-gazing Brahmin.” To the monks, Bodhidharma was known by the transliteration of his name into Chinese: P’u T’i Ta Mo, or Tamo for short. In Chinese, his doctrine of Dhyana became Ch’an-na, most likely a transliteration of Jhana, but the name was later shortened to Ch’an. When Bodhidharma descended to the temple compound, he was appalled by the poor physical condition of the monks, so much so that he resolved to instruct them in the rudiments of abdominal breathing and chi (internal energy) development to keep them alert during long meditation sessions.

The legend states that these skills, along with basic Indian martial techniques often used by monks for self-defense, were practiced with such zeal that the monks eventually transformed themselves into superb fighters. When unknowing bandits swooped down upon traveling Shaolin priests, they were repelled with ease. Stories of such incidents were told again and again, thus giving rise to the reputation of Shaolin’s unbeatable martial monks.

Bodhidharma oversaw the physical and spiritual training of the monks for some nine years. As soon as the patriarchate of Ch’an was transferred to Hui K’o, his senior Chinese disciple, Bodhidharma passed away. It happened on the fifth day of the 10th month, probably in the year 536. Bodhidharma was reportedly poisoned by a jealous monk.

The legend also explains the rise and fall of Shaolin Temple. History of Shao-lin Monastery, a four-volume account by Yang Ya-shan, says that the martial monks, at one time rumored to have numbered 5,000, were called upon by the emperor to round up a renegade general and his followers. Thirteen priests were dispatched to the outlaws’ lair, where they engaged them in combat and eventually captured the leader. T’ai-tsung (r. 626-649), second emperor of the Tang dynasty, then bestowed great honor upon Shaolin Temple and proclaimed it “First Temple Under Heaven.”

The temple’s involvement in secular affairs is confirmed by Chinese sources which say that Shaolin Temple “first served military purposes in the early Tang Dynasty (618- 907) when the emperor, Taizong [T’ai-tsung], appealed to the monastery for reinforcements against Wang Shi-chong [Wang Shih Ch’ung], who was seeking to establish a separate regime.”

Similar political incidents arose years later, and the priests were once again required to aid China in its battle against enemies, including the Red Turbans, a rebellious group active during the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), and Japanese pirates who raided the coast during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644).

The temple’s popular history purports that after many decisive victories of martial monks, government officials recognized the military efficacy of even small groups of Shaolin fighters, and when they discovered the actual number of monks quartered in the temple, the officials grew suspicious and fearful. The verdict was clear: Shaolin Temple and its military force were a threat to the realm—one that demanded immediate eradication. The Shaolin monks were prohibited from practicing the martial arts at various times, and their monastery was attacked and burned on several occasions.

continued....

[David Jamieson]

(continued from above...)


<B>Skeptical</B>
Opinions Some historians and martial arts researchers question the existence of Bodhidharma and doubt all accomplishments attributed to him, including those related to Ch’an Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu. They cite the existence of records of Indian meditation masters who lived much earlier than Bodhidharma, then argue that if Bodhidharma had, in fact, been a real person, he and his accomplishments would have been similarly documented in India. In particular, the absence of Indian records of the mission Bodhidharma is said to have led to China, a religious embassy which must surely have been considered worthy of a document or two by official scribes, also lends support to their case. Howard Reid and Michael Croucher wrote, “Biographies were written of many of his contemporary monks, but he, most important of all to the followers of his teachings, is ignored.”

Doubters also claim that no records of Bodhidharma can be found in Chinese religious or martial arts documents until early in the 11th century, when Transmission of the Lamp told of the formative years of Ch’an Buddhism in China and included frequent mention of Bodhidharma. Only thereafter, they say, was much acclaim given to him for both founding Ch’an Buddhism and creating Shaolin kung fu. They add that much of the fame currently associated with Shaolin kung fu derives from the unreliable historical accounts of China’s infamous secret societies and other anti-governmental movements, which in recent times have aligned themselves with the legendary fighting temple simply to enhance their reputations.

Skeptics also refute statements ascribing the origins of the martial arts to Bodhidharma by arguing that numerous fighting styles predate Shaolin Temple by thousands of years. Among other relics, a 5,000-year-old stone carving from ancient Babylon shows easily recognized martial techniques—an outside forearm block and preparation for a reverse punch with a fighter’s fist chambered near his hip. Another piece of art, a copper sculpture more than 4,000 years old, depicts two figures preparing to grapple in much the same way modern practitioners of Mongolian wrestling and Japanese sumo begin a bout.

Distinctly Chinese evidence of pre-Shaolin martial arts can also be found. Draeger and Smith wrote that, although the martial arts existed earlier, probably their first written description was made in the Han dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220) when “Six Chapters of Hand Fighting” were mentioned in Han Shu I Wen Chih (Han Book of Arts). Unfortunately, the chapters were lost centuries ago. And in the following dynasty, still nearly three centuries before the birth of Bodhidharma, a well-known physician named Hua Tuo (220-265) described the movements of the bear, tiger, monkey and stork. Chinese scholars believe they have identified correspondences between these animal movements and the animal-based techniques of some early styles of kung fu.

Additional support for the skeptical view can be found by examining the skills included in the Shaolin martial art. The title “Shaolin chuan” (Shaolin fist) encompasses an incredibly broad assortment of animal forms, along with both hard and soft techniques which draw upon the body’s internal and external power reserves. Many kung fu stylists, including some in mainland China, say much of what constitutes the hard, external, long-range subset of Shaolin fighting techniques closely resembles the popular martial art of northern China known as chang chuan, or “long fist.” They also insist that a more subtle side of Shaolin kung fu—often termed “southern Shaolin kung fu,” a system which teaches students to keep all kicks low or to forego them altogether in favor of hand techniques executed from a steady, rooted stance—is quite similar to the Chinese fighting system of nan chuan, or “south fist.” Both long fist and south fist are believed to predate the founding of Shaolin Temple and the arrival of Bodhidharma in China.

Several authorities on Chinese religion doubt that Shaolin Temple, first and foremost a monastery dedicated to Buddhist studies, ever housed an army of fighting monks. They argue the tenets of Buddhism could never coexist with the ways of the warrior, and, therefore, that all accounts of the martial exploits of Shaolin monks are false or greatly exaggerated.

Many of the most vehement arguments against the historicity of the Bodhidharma legend come from modern Chinese martial artists. These people chafe whenever a Bodhidharmabeliever voices support for the theory that the martial arts of the world emanated from Shaolin Temple and that the whole of the Shaolin martial art came from Bodhidharma. They brand as foolishness the popular Chinese adage, “All martial arts under heaven come from Shaolin,” perhaps because agreeing with such a premise would relegate this most significant aspect of Chinese culture and history to a mere import from ancient India. Yet even when their voices are discounted as the product of ultra-nationalistic feelings, enough credible arguments remain to necessitate a careful examination of all available evidence of Bodhidharma and his activities at Shaolin Temple.

continued....

[David Jamieson]

continued from above...


<B>Historical Evidence</B>
Any effort to identify and substantiate Bodhidharma’s contributions to the development of the Shaolin martial arts must logically begin with an argument that the historical personage did, in fact, exist.

Transmission of the Lamp, perhaps the most comprehensive source for details on the early history of Ch’an Buddhism in India and China, provides a wealth of information about Bodhidharma. Author Tao Yuan wrote in 1004 that Prajnatara, the 27th Indian patriarch of Dhyana and the man who taught the dharma (teachings of the Buddha) to Bodhidharma, said to his student, “You should ... go to China. There [you should establish] a great foundation for the medicine of the dharma.”

Further Lives of Exemplary Monks, the first draft of which was written in 645 by Tao-hsuan, a resident of Loyang, records that Bodhidharma arrived in China around 475. It also records Bodhidharma as having ordained a Chinese monk named Sheng-fu around 490 on Songshan’s western Shaoshih peak.

Another text, A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang written by Yang Hsuan-chih in 547, contains one of the few eyewitness accounts of a meeting with a monk from the West named Bodhidharma who was visiting Yungning Temple, some 35 miles from Shaolin Temple, to observe a newly constructed 400-foot-high pagoda. Reid and Croucher, researchers for a British Broadcasting Corporation documentary about the Asian fighting arts, attempt to precisely date the encounter: “The [Yung-ning] temple was built in 516. It burned down in 535, but from 528 troops were billeted in it, so the meeting must have taken place between 516 and 528.” This is quite plausible, as Bodhidharma is believed to have spent more than 30 years in China.

A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Loyang is said to have once contained a preface by Li Ching, a great Han Chinese military officer of the Tang dynasty, in which it is written that Bodhidharma “arrived at the court of Wu-ti, the first emperor of the Liang dynasty, where he first dwelt. Afterward, he removed to the Kingdom of Wei and dwelt at a temple called Shaolin Ssu. After a residence of nine years (he was 69 years old when he arrived in the year 526 and was the 28th Indian patriarch), he died and was buried at the foot of Hsiung-erh Mountain (between Henan and Shanxi).”

Details of Bodhidharma’s audience with Emperor Wuti lend additional support to the argument in favor of his existence. Known as the “Emperor Bodhisattva,” Wu-ti was an outstanding patron of Buddhism in southern China and reigned from 502 to 549 during the Liang dynasty (502- 557). He is said to have questioned Bodhidharma about the merit of his pious acts and to have been somewhat upset at the monk’s honest replies. The two supposedly met in the capital of Chien-k’ang, modern Nanjing.

At this point, researchers encounter the only major discrepancy in the historical accounts of Bodhidharma: One says he arrived in China in 475, and another in 526. No irrefutable evidence has been cited either in favor of the earlier date recorded in Further Lives of Exemplary Monks or that given in Transmission of the Lamp. Some scholars hold that both accounts are true and blame the conflicting dates upon a mere error in transcription.

Other than these three texts, Chinese records of Bodhidharma are few. This scarcity has been explained by Reid and Croucher as occurring because of the radical differences of Ch’an Buddhism, which often led to persecution by suspicious Confucianists and Taoists. Other scholars even argue that orthodox Buddhist sects resented the followers of Ch’an. C.W. Edwards wrote that Bodhidharma, in his interview with Wu-ti, declared: “The emperor’s temple-building and sutra-copying to be of ‘no merit whatsoever’ and the ‘holy doctrine’ to be ‘vast emptiness, with nothing in it to be called holy.’ ”

Regarding the unconventional teachings of Ch’an, another scholar wrote, “It was reasoned that, if all things contain the buddha-nature, then the Buddha could rightfully be equated with a dung heap.” Statements such as these could easily have incited those orthodox Chinese Buddhists who tended to revere the Buddha as a god and could easily have convinced Ch’an followers that secrecy was necessary for the safety of themselves and their temple.

An additional reason has been offered for the perceived secrecy concerning Bodhidharma and Shaolin Temple. The special privileges and great economic power of Buddhist temples often brought about anti- Buddhist campaigns and governmental restrictions upon religious practice. In particular, the destruction of the campaigns that took place between 446 and 452, and again between 574 and 578, was widespread. A later crusade against Buddhist monks was conducted by the Chinese government in 845, reportedly resulting in the destruction of more than 4,600 large temples and 40,000 hermitages. Any type of temple record, whether related to financial matters or monastic lineage, might have been incriminating enough to incur the wrath of marauding government troops. The safest course, once again, would have been to avoid keeping any records.

The practice of keeping records of temples and notable monks became more commonplace during the Sui/ Tang (581-907) and Sung (960-1279) dynasties, often referred to as the Golden Age of Chinese Buddhism. All religions flourished in China, and Ch’an was one of the four major Buddhist sects to gain considerable popularity. The changing norms of Chinese society probably encouraged the keeping of official accounts of important people and events, and after the 11th century, a more open and stable society did, in fact, accord Bodhidharma great praise for founding Ch’an Buddhism and Shaolin kung fu.

These arguments, convincing as they are, still do not prove conclusively that Bodhidharma ever lived or traveled to Shaolin Temple, so research continues. Hakeda, Yampolsky and de Bary observed that recent finds, including discoveries at the Dunhuang Buddhist caves in northwestern China, point to the historical existence in China of a man named Bodhidharma who taught a form of meditation based upon the Lankavatara Sutra. Meanwhile, Alan W. Watts, a noted author of Buddhistic texts, looks suspiciously upon all those who would deny the existence of Bodhidharma: “It is hard to say whether the views of these scholars [who are skeptical of the Bodhidharma story] are to be taken seriously, or whether they are but another instance of an academic fashion for casting doubt upon the historicity of religious founders.”

Watts concluded his examination of the arguments for and against the existence of Bodhidharma by adopting a most pragmatic attitude: “We may as well accept the story of Bodhidharma until there is some really overwhelming evidence against it.”

Cheers

[Lions Roar!]

Thank you for your efforts.

A most interesting contribution to the overall debate.

[MasterKiller]

Any effort to identify and substantiate Bodhidharma’s contributions to the development of the Shaolin martial arts must logically begin with an argument that the historical personage did, in fact, exist. The previously men- In this rare set of Shaolin Temple kung fu videos, Steve DeMasco, an honorary ambassador of the Shaolin Temple, shares with you the knowledge he has gained through his many years of arduous training in the martial arts and the highly specialized direction he received from the warrior monks of Shaolin. Learn how to fight like a traditional Shaolin warrior as this outstanding video series breaks down each move into specific Shaolin fighting techniques.

What the heck does Steve DeMasco and his "rare" Karate style have to do with anything about Shaolin history?

[David Jamieson]

sorry about that, an extra piece on the clipboard :D

i took it out.

cheers

[yuanfen]

Many thanks to Kung lek for reproducing the nice article about the Boddhidharma. My interest in the subject is long standing-
I am originally from India- and shifted the compass of my inner life from Hinduism to the more universal Buddha Dharma many years back to the Mahayana- Dhyan perspective. My interest in China is also considerable and I have been doing Wing Chun since 1976.
As an academician of sorts witha a background in comparative philosophy, I have an additional level of interest in the subject.

With the rise of "nationalism"- Chinese and Indian- much parochialism has entered in -in these kinds of discussions. In the 1991 January issue of Inside Kung Fu there is an article of mine which without academic jargon chews on this subject. Its entitled-
108 Steps- The Sino Indian connection in the Martial Arts. The article was written prompted bya previous quite shallow attempt by Brian gray of iron Palm fame attempting to debunk the existence of the Boddhidharma.

In brief, in my view 1. there is no question of the existence of the Boddhidharma. 2, the Dhyana-version of Mahayana that he taught did not exist in China in the earlier Buddhist transmissions.
3. The Chinese travellers generally travelled to Bihar, Kashmir and the
northern regions. Boddhidharma was from the south in the hey day of the Pallava dynasty. The latter dynasty hada maritime presence-their ships went to Danang, Vietnam and connected to the canton trade. Sometimes I wonder whether his family was kshatriyaor brahmin- though there were Brahmin kings as well.
Doesnt matter.
In any case Royal families had extensive access to martial training.Early
Buddhism even in India had martial arts in the curriculum at Nalnda(archery etc) to conquer the body before the mind and spirit- the three battles.
The Boddhidharma did not invent Chinese martial arts.Martial arts are old in many societies. But Damos perspective and transmission pointed towards historically unique and unprecedented unity of body, mind, spirit(prana and enlightment-
and seeing things without preconeptions).
Acknowledging the transmission of Dhyan- does not take one iota of credit away from the creative diversity and continuities of TCMA.A brief take on a complex subject. Sorry for keyboarding errors.

Joy Chaudhuri

[yuanfen]

A postsript--- Tonight is a full lunar eclipse. The study of eclipse cycles was quite advanced in ancient Inida...they knew about the Saros cycles of eclipses(a little over 18 years)---six saros cycles
(108 and "harmony of the spheres") would bring the full eclipse to the same region. Loyang once had an entre colony of Indian astronomers (See Needhams multi volume monumental work on Science and Civilization in China)).

The 108 ( and its constuents--- 3, 9,18, 36,etc) provided major organizational schemes of knowledge in many fields- including kung fu--- the 18 hands of lohan, 108 motions in lao jia in chen style
and old form in yang, 108key motions in sil lim tao-in Ip Man's organization of the subject.

[David Jamieson]

If you visit the site http://www.atributetohinduism.com you will find in there the view of the kalaripayit schools of the south. THere is not much mention of the North.

However, one interesting point is that the site clearly states that the only place where Kalari Payit is taught still today is in southern india in Kerala and no where else.

Which is the view that I have had. I am unaware of genuine masters of Kalaripayit out in the world propogating the art in the same way that Karate or Kungfu is.

So, I do have my reservations about those outside of the Kalari Payit region making claims to mastery of it and offering it as a course in martial arts.

BTW and FWIW, this is also what I have been told personally is that this art has yet to leave the country with a master.

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

I'm sorry you have to cast doubt on people of say Guru Paul Whitrods standing in the martial arts. Paul is a Kerala trained Kalari Pyatt Master, and someone who has practiced Chinese martial arts for 30 years, being the Official UK Representative of Chows Family Praying Mantis Grandmaster Ip-Shui. He is also an internal stylist and one of the best known and most well respected martial artists in the UK.

You may not have intended to do this, but I've mentioned Guru Whitrod before in a post to you about overseas Kalari Pyatt Masters and yet, you insist on making a point which is both false and insulting.

You do not know enough about the art, nor do you know enough people in the art to make claims like that, its sheer ignorance.

Why do it? Wouldn't it be better to find out in person if you have such doubts?

Are you suggesting that Guru/Si-Fu Paul Whitrod is a fake? That is what you are manifestly implying.

You are acting like a troll, which, I would have thought would have been below you.

[David Jamieson]

Not so LR.

Whitrod doesn't claim mastery of KalariPayit. Only that he has studied for 10 years and that he has been asked to teach in the UK by his teacher.

So, do you think this one person qualifies as a large diaspora of Kalari in the Western world? And what would he have to say about the differences between Chinese martial arts and this art? I would suppose that he would have quite a bit to say about the differences, simply because there are huge differences between systems from india and systems from china, which is what this thread was about in the first place.

According to his own site, he teaches them seperately from his kungfu curriculum. Anyway, I'm not trolling, I am stating my point of view that Shaolin martial arts while influenced by indian buddhism to some degree do not owe their totality to specific Indian martial arts.

I am also stating that the history of Kalari Payit itself is not 100% solidified in historical record with people generally believing it is anywhere between 1400 and 4000 years old!

Quite a spread. Not to discredit the art, clearly it exists and is a bonafied and codified system of martial arts of india that has indeed been around for quite some time. In combination with all the other gifts both martial and esoteric, of India, I would agree that the system is fascinating and has depth and breadth in it's offerings as a martial art.

cheers

[yuanfen]

I dont think Kung Lek was criticizing Whitrod.

Phillip Zarilli has done a very good job in his writings including his good book
"When the body has a thosand eyes".
But even Zarilli goes back to the kalari source from time to time for continuing education.

India traditionally was a great and rich source of many martial arts. But much has withered on the vine- because of many factors--- the breakdown of the guru-chela teaching systems, the akharas,
the kalaris, the sanghas ...together with political changes and so called modernization. Lathi khela, real kusthi in pits, vajramusthi,
marma sastra, gathka, various kinds of sword, dagger, archery
etc have withered--except for bits and pieces here and there.
Take stick fighting for instance... in Bengal-- Draeger and Smith mention in passing Pulin Behari Das asa master teacher of various kinds of stick fighting. H e died and later his son closed downthe akhara.
My mother took lessons from him ( and practiced on me ---<g>).
I havent had a chance to translate two of his stick fighting works.
Some day....
Pulin Babu's stick fighting concepts were deep and impressive.

[Lions Roar!]

KL

What he (Paul Whitrod) says about Kalari and Chinese Martial Arts
is (amongst other things) that Kalari is 'similar' to Choy-Lay-Fut.

This does not mean any common origination, he does not say that, but in comparisson between Kalari and Chinese systems, its a point he makes.

Choy-Lay-Fut isn't identical to Kalari, anymore than it is to parts of my Hop-Gar lineage. However, there are parts of Kalari, including some of its forms which are 'near identical' to forms in my Tibetan Hop-Gar lineage. There is also an oral tradition of influence (direct) on Tibetan Lion's Roar by Kalari. This oral tradition comes from Hop-Gar - 'Chinese' Hop-Gar, as a branch system of the original Lion's Roar Lama martial art.

Paul is far too humble to claim Mastery of Kalari, but de-facto that is what he is. Your remarks do cast a slight against anyone teaching Kalari outside of the Kerala region, and, yet again, you limit the compass of that's systems Masters to people you have heard of, as if to be qualified as a Master of Kalari a person has to be known to you, and that your acknowledgement confers their status.

That apaprent belief of yours will of course have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Kalari teachers abroad.

As for Kalari's written history, it goes back to around 1000 CE, but it's oral traditions go back much further. The point I made was to raise an issue regarding the relative merits between written and oral traditions. This was NOT to say that oral traditions are necessarily correct or 100% accurate, but, that they can be suprisingly accurate as is well known in anthropology. Written records are not more accurate by virtue of their being written, written histories often contradict other written accounts and can easily be fabricated.

You may not have intended to troll any named person, but your attitude is suggestive of trolling. You were given a very respectable persons name as a Master of Kalari (whose standing you still dispute - which as an opinion is fair enough, but that is all it is, an opinion and not something based on immediate knowledge of the man or his art).

If you had simply said that you didn't know, personally of any person outside of Kerala or India itself who was a Master of Kalari, that would have been different. Instead you decided to pronounce that no such person existed, thereby slighting anyone of standing who does in fact teach the art abroad.

I don't think that anyone on this thread has claimed that Shaolin owes its specificity as a martial art to Kalari. There may be no influence at all. There is certainly more evidence for influence on Tibetan martial arts, even those that having originated in Tibet, subsequently went thru a period of evolution and localised adaptation in-transit thu China.

These are reasonable things to debate, and hopefully informative too. But, the negation of people simply because you have never heard of them is ignorrant, quite staggering ingorance at that

YF

Thank you for your interesting information, much appreciated.

[David Jamieson]

LR-

You have a great affection for Mr. Whitrod apparently and that's fine, but please, don't explode what is my opinion. It is just my opinion afterall.

Consider that it is you who is stating names and holding them out like icons. In my opinion, this in and of itself is erroneous. Are you Whitrod? If not, what place do you have speaking for him? None.

I am speaking from personal experience and what I have garnered from the communities and people that I live with and around. I don't seek to slight anyone and I haven't brought anyones name into this, it is you who did that.
Cheers

[Lions Roar!]

No I'm not Paul Whitrod, he never posts of forums of any kind, ever. I do know him, and I do have the highest regard for him. He doesn't practice the same arts as me, so there is no fraternal loyalty as such. He is however an acomplished Master of his disciplines and a very spiritual man too.

Yes, I introduced his name, and rightly so, and ALSO yes, you decided to pronounce him as unqualified as a Master, as well as any other Master of Kalari who teaches abroad - as if you are some authority of standing on these people and as if your acknowledgement was necessary for them to be Masters of THEIR art (NOT YOURS).

Your personal experience is limited, and yet in your arrogance and ignorance you extrapolate this to negate people you have never met and whose teachings you know nothing about.

As for your opinion about Bodhidarma: Shaolin; influence of Kalari on Shaolin, I have no problem whatsoever with your 'opinions' and fully support your right both to hold them and to express same.

You remind me of my Karate teachers in the 1960's who said that Chinese Martial Arts didn't exist outside of Mainland China, on the basis that they had no experience of them. Unless you are privvy to closed Indian communities in Britain, and Britain has very large and widespread Indian communities, who keep themselves to themselves: and unless (as the Chinese once did) they invite people like you 'in', then you do not 'know' beyond your very immediate and limited experience, plain and simple.

You were equally as sure that Buddhism had produced no martial arts as such (Tibetan Tantric Martial Arts e.g. Lion's Roar and Dorje Lam), you pronounced that too with definitive certainty, and you where wrong about that also.

All you would need to do is to keep the relativity of your experience clearly in mind. Simply because you don't know something doesn't mean that it does not exist, and does not flourish. If you did that, you'd know how to ask questions, rather than to make pronouncements, and then there would be hope that you might actually extend the limits of your current knowledge.

[David Jamieson]

LR-

You are making presumptions and you are posturing that you are "in the know" and everyone else is not. You marginalize my opinion by stating that yours is deepr and more informed. :rolleyes:

Let me tell you that your experience is limited as well as your own perceptions, but I won't deny you your opinion or views.

I am speaking to the topic while you insist on celebrating individuals who may or may not have mastery of Kalari. You also belittle people who would post their opinions on forums as if they are a dirty and ugly place.

A public forum is a place that is shaped and formed by it's members. The discussion therein is and can be a search for a wider view. Debates are started, points are made and in some case facts presented.

Just because you feel strongly about your view doesn't make it "right" and the same can be said for mine. Please recognize that my statements and views are as limited and as wide as anyone elses.

Geographically, I cannot speak about you corner of the world anymore than you can mine. Please, let's not let the discussion regarding the connections between Kalari and Chinese Martial arts degrade into name calling and mudslinging.

I don't know you, you don't know me and our opinions differ. That's all there is to it as far as I am concerned.

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

KL

You marginalized your own opinion by extending the little you know to cover the entire globe.

Where did I say that my opinion is deeper or more informed, excepting where you were manifestly in error regarding Tantric Buddhist Martial Arts and the existance of Kalari Masters outside of the Kerala region of Southern India?

You knew nothing of Tantric Buddhist Martial Arts and your 'definite' remarks about Kalari outside of India where wrong also.

So, it isn't really about opinion, its about you being in error about these things and then being unable to admit to it.

You are quite right about debate and public forums, it's just that you find it (debate) disagreable and prefer to make dogmatic edicts based on ignorance rather than listen to others and to be open to possibilities outside of your own personal experience.

Indeed, it is YOU who feel strongly about certain things, which, is I suspect (but I am not certain of course) why you started out as you did on this thread. Your feelings may have been so strong that you where unable to frame a 'debate' about the issues, rather you made edicts, which when they were disagreed with, thru debate, you simply ramped up the concretization and inflexibility.

Your attitude brought this on yourself. A debate would have been a far better option.

You are quite right about the geography issue, indeed it was me who pointed that out to YOU whilst you where busy extending your knowledge of your locality to cover the entire world.

You seem to value the veracity of the 'written record' so why not read over this thread again, and examine yourself. What has come back at you was created by you.

Maybe a debate will then be possible.

[David Jamieson]

LR-

Well, you certainly do hold strong to -your- opinion.

First of all, we didn't even get into the Tantric Buddhism beyond a tiny scratch on the surface, and I still take the stand that immersion within a given desire (the precept) does not say much for martial arts instruction, methods and systems being transmitted directly through this vehicle of buddhism.

Second of all, because I disagree with your opinion in the regards of the spread of Kalaripayit does not constitute my opinion of the state of that as being wrong. It simply is a disagreement with your opinion that it is. It is a fair assessment in the wider picture, barring your one example of someone who indeed is a practitioner and is involved with it's propogation. A person who I might add -primarily- is a Mantis practitioner by his own promotion.

Thirdly, the issue isn't about you or me. Again, revisting the topic, Chinese Martial arts are in a class by themselves and are not a hybridized offspring of a specific Indian system.

You've certainly got an accusational tone telling me about attitude. It's a forum for cripes sake! I don't care much for your pompous attitude either, so maybe we shouldn't play in the same sandbox?

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

You could make you point about Chinese Martial Arts being an entirely indigenous phenomenon, without any influence from Indian Kalari Pyatt, and your further point that Bodhidharama may not have existed, without pronouncing as a truth (NOT a 'belief') that there are no Masters of Kalari overseas, and, that Buddhism has not, or could not, produce a martial art out from its basic structures and practices.

Your belief about Chinese Martial arts and Bodhidharma are as you say opinions, indeed moot points worthy of discussion.

However, when you repeatedly say that there are NO overseas Kalari Masters, simply because you don't know who they are, and that Buddhism cannot have produced a series of Tantric Buddhist Martial Arts - the martial art not being necessary for Tantric Buddhism (even in the context of the Tantra from which these arts were conceived as Buddhist Tantrayana's) - then you move from an opinion based on a belief to a dogmatic declaration that flies in the face of truth, and along the way, you add insult to Kalari Masters and practitioners of Buddhist Tantric Martial Arts.

Unless you know Paul Whitrod personally, which you do not, then you can only derive what you 'believe' to be his main practice from how he appears externally and publicly.

I'm well known in the UK as a last generation Disciple and co-inherritor with a blood Hakka Chinese, of a Hakka Southern Mantis System, this is what I've been publicly 'badged' as for the last 23 years. However, it is NOT my main system, and it never has been. I've been a practitioner of Tibetan Lion's Roar for 30 years and that IS my main system, as is known to and accepted by, my Mantis Master.

Things are often not what they seem on the surface, unless people insist that they are because it suits them to be superficial and dismissive.

Your knowledge of the dissemination of Kalari is superficial, and your attitude about overseas Masters is dismissive. You are also ignorant of the depth of knowledge and practice of Tantric Buddhist Martial Arts. Ignorance is no sin, if you don't know, you don't know, as you raised on one of your earlier posts. Not to learn, and not to accept ignorance is however stupid.

You created the reaction towards you because you failed to keep your opinions to things that you might reasonably know something about. Instead, you made 'pompous' pronouncements and so invited correction, which it seems you are too small a character to be able to accept.

A 'Sandbox'? An appropriate metaphor for ostrich like behavior as in if you can't see it 'It's not there....'

[Shaolin Master]

Bodhidharma's contribution (if any?) was religious it is this and only this that is confirmed.

Chinese Wrestling methods have existed for thousands of years, just as they have worldwide.

Kunlun mountain methods are ancient and predate Boddhidharma by over 500 years (and that is only the known history) this became Meihuazhuang and Baguaquan. As are old Wen methods that eventually became Chuo Jiao.

Qigong and internal practise dates back a very long time as well (Daoyin come to mind immediately). They differ from popular yogistic practises.

The origins of things are often subject of dispute but all have their reasoning. The fact is that martial arts are progressive (well maybe not in this generation) so that they improve and develop to a much more complete and effective martial art.

It is no use to drive around in a model-T ford if a Merc is better. It helps to understand the fundamentals of motor-vehicle mechanics in its most elementary form but in the end it is historical not practical.

Fact is that Kalari practises are fantastic, tantric buddhist methods have their place, tibet was a place of great learning......
but the martial practises of china have developed to a level unbeknown elsewhere.

Without China, Lion's Roar would not be effective as it is today for it borrowed heavily from chinese systems (irrespective of origin).

Even if the water originates in the mountain it doesn't mean that it isn't purer at the bottom!

Terms of the martial growth cycle :

cr@p -> wrestling -> Striking with grappling -> striking -> Power Generation -> internal sophistication -> fantastic obtainment -> popularised simplistic -> form based -> striking -> striking with grappling -> wrestling -> cr@p.

Well in brief

:) JUST KIDDING!!!

[David Jamieson]

LR-

I can appreciate that you have had some taste of martial arts practice in your life.
I can also appreciate that what I don't know can fill a warehouse.

My views on the subject are not entirely external. Regarding the person who you are upholding as a Kalari Master. well, I guess as time passes I will understand more about him, for now, I can only speak to it in the context of his own promotional material and his own words on the matter as published for all of us to see.

I have studied and practiced asian martial arts for 27 years with the mainstay of the last 10 being strictly Chinese Martial Arts, I have seen a lot of hype and a lot of BS claims.

It has emerged only in the last little while amongst us western folks that a larger group of people is being exposed to some of the simple truths about Martial arts practice. Slowly all the mysticism is being stripped away. Cultural rituals in my eyes are in some ways important to the preservation of a martial art because they are in fact part of the ritual flavour of it.

What I know for sure is that one shouldn't take all claims to heart and that just because a "titled" person says it, doesn't make it so.

I only cast a questioning eye because it's been poked before :)

cheers

[Lions Roar!]

SM,

A well stated and reasonable summary. Lion's Roar has always borrowed heavily, and, has reciprocally influenced other systems too.

Ultimately, only 'insiders' know the truth about practices in close-knit systems. The Hakka are famously secretive, so are Tantrayana Systems - as Lion's Roar properly is.

KL,

If you knew me beyond this thread (i.e. personally) you'd know that I've spent many years stripping away mysticism and ocultism from TCMA, and I've been more than poked in the eye (metaphorically) for it. I've had curses put on me, my family (my Wife and Children) have been attacked, vilified on the internet, 'death curses' put on my then new born daughter, all sorts of Sun-Dar nonsense used against me, and when that didn't work, plenty of old fashioned intimidation and reputation wrecking.

I've used the arts for 'real' in front line Policing in one of the UK's toughest cities, I've been attacked with knives, threatened with firearms, faced the threat of terrorists, been jumped by gangs, attacked with crossbows, petrol bombs, had dogs set on me, been thru the worst urban riots in UK history, hit in the head with lumps of rock, hospitalised more times than I can count, had colleagues die violently on the ground in front of me.....

Despite that, there is a place for Buddhist Tantra and its mysticism, which I also appreciate from my other career as a Depth psychologist and Jungian analytical psychotherapsit.

The police, psychotherapy, both battlegrounds of the soul.

You are right that just because a person 'says its so' does not mean that it is (or is not) be they titled or otherwise.