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.