Originally Posted by
RenDaHai
[...]
My point is that SO important is Songshan as the sacred mountain, if Damo went to Luoyang, then he certainly went to Song Shan (1 days ride away). If he went to Song Shan, then he would have gone to either Shaolin or Fawang temple, probably both. Since a vast amount of anecdotal evidence points to him being at shaolin, then that seems more likely than any other out come (I'm not aware there even are significant alternate stories). Shaolin is also significantly closer to luoyang than any other of Song Shans premiere temples. Going from Luoyang to Dengfeng, you must pass Shaolin.
[...]
That is way too many IFs. This is what Prof. Shahar says about the issue:
"In the sixth-century Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang (Luoyang qielan ji) (ca. 547), he is said to have visited the city, but no allusion is made to the nearby Mt. Song. Approximately a century later, the Continuation of the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu Gaoseng zhuan) (645), describes him as active in the "Mt. Song-Luoyang" region. Then, in such early eighth-century compositions as the Precious Record of the Dharma's Transmission (Chuanfa baoji) (c. 710) Bodhidharma is identified not merely with Mt. Song but more specifically with the Shaolin Monastery, where supposedly for several years he faced the wall in meditation" (The Shaolin Monastery, p. 13).
What's important about the first source is that it is, as the name implies, a record of the different Buddhist monasteries that were in 6th century Luoyang. Since the records do not allude to him going to Mt. Song, he had his pick of any number of monasteries there in Luoyang. There is not enough evidence to speculate that he went to Shaolin. If he had gone to Shaolin, it would have been recorded. Flash forward almost 200 years, and a different source says that he was in Shaolin. Where did this new information come from? Since his historicity is uncertain, I think the authors of the proceeding sources just built off of the last by adding new information.
There is evidence for this in other records regarding him. For instance, the Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang says that he was from Persia. Tanlin's preface to the slightly later Two Entrances and Four Acts says that Bodhidharma was the third son of a South Indian King. Then, the 7th century Further Biographies of Eminent Monks states that he was originally from a Brahman family. Brahmans and Kings form two different castes in ancient India. Again, where did all of this new information come from? First he was Persian, then he was an Indian prince, and finally he was a former Brahman.