Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 5

Solution?
Could this dispute be handled by simply rewording the sentence in question to "Some martial arts organizations recognize India as the origin of their martial arts?" Whether it actually is or not is not for us to decide, but it can be stated that some people think it is, unless we have a news report or a historian's work declaring it so. Cowman109 Talk 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually already did that before they initited the three-on-one revert war and tried to have me get caught in the 3RR cycle, my idea of an enclyclopedic take on the article was this :-


 * Many relevant martial arts, including those emanating from the Shaolin temple, Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu, Goju Ryu Karate and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu have officialy credited India as their origin.


 * This was done with official mentions from the Shaolin, Gracie family and Goju Ryu mentioned for everyone to see.

And for the Doss paragraph, I'll provide a rewriting suggestion in the next 24 hours, which should get rid of the Doss name but mention the train of thought endorsed by martal arts institutions world over.


 * Freedom skies 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the word officially should be taken out, as from my understanding some of those sources explicitly state that it is disputed. Cowman109 Talk 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The official Shaolin mention is:-

The Shaolin temple (chin.: shaolinsi ???) is a Chinese Buddhist monastery famed for its Chan Buddhism (?) and its martial arts (chin.: wugong ??). According to the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (chin.:xu gaoseng chuan ???? 645) by Daoxuan (? ? 596-667), an eminent Indian monk came to China in the fifth century right through India and China, crossing the huge barrier of the Himalaya (????) mountain range, teaching Xiao Sheng Buddhism (??). Emperor Tuoba Hong ??? (later Yuan Hong ??, posthumous Beiwei Xiaowendi ????? - 471AD to 499AD) enacted an edict to establish the Shaolin Si (Young --New Planted-- Forest Temple the famous Shaolin Monastery) for this Unknown Great Buddhist Monk of the west, called Ba Tuo Luo (???); on the north side of the Shao Shi Shan

The official mention from the Gracie family is:-

Jiu-Jitsu, which means gentle art is the oldest form of martial art. It originated in India more than 2000 years before Christ. It was created by monks who could not use any type of weapons to defend their lives against barbarian attacks. It spread through China, and eventually took root and was elaborated on in Japan becoming the first martial art style. The samurai clans in Japan adopted Jiu-Jitsu as their own traditional style to defeat an opponent regardless if the situation was striking, throwing or grappling. With the passing years, they split the techniques and developed other martial arts styles, such as judo, akido, karate, etc.

and

The official mention from Goju Ryu is :-

Based on mans' instinct of self-defense, different fighting arts were developed in most cultures, especially in central Asia, Egypt and Turkey. The principles of the Asian martial arts are believed to have spread from Turkey to India, where they were further developed to sophisticated arts ("kalaripayt").

The history of Karate as we know it today can be taken back to India, perhaps two thousand years before the Christian Era. India was the birthplace of a bare-handed martial art called, in Sanskrit, Vajramushtthi. Evidence seems to indicate that it was commonly practiced by the Kshatriya, which was the Warrior Class of that time, and which can be compared to the Japanese Samurai and the medieval Knights of Europe.

There are three types of sources mentioned in the argument:-


 * The official sources cited by me, which agree on officially mentioning India.
 * The non official websites mentioned by me which mention India as a vital influence,   these websites support official claims.
 * The professors, none of them either agree on one thing or authoritatively trace the origins back to one source, many of them credit India and some do not. I will be stating professors in the rewriting request for the Doss paragraph though.

The confusion that the disputes exist in the official sources is created by these guys, I have responded to them in the latest answer to User:JFD.

Once again, thanks for taking intrest in this. The voice of sanity and reason within the confines of this talk page is much appreciated. Freedom skies 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are only two types of sources mentioned in the argument:
 * The organization websites cited by Freedom skies
 * From Verifiability:


 * Third-party publications from Tang Hao, Matsuda Ryuchi and Stanley E. Henning. Two of Henning's articles, "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective" and "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts," have been published in the peer-reviewed academic journals Military Affairs and China Review International respectively.
 * From Verifiability:

The Chinese martial arts...are all too often wrongly associated outside of China with mystic, martial monks in their mountain monasteries, and called by the none too descriptive term "Kung Fu." This misunderstanding has arisen as a result of two widely accepted, deeply ingrained, and hard to quash myths: one attributing the origins of Chinese boxing to the Indian monk, Bodhidharma, who, according to tradition, is said to have resided in the famous Shaolin Monastery around 525 A.D.; and the other attributing the origins of taijiquan, or Chinese shadow boxing as it is sometimes called in the West, to the mythical Taoist hermit, Zhang Sanfeng...The groundless nature of these myths was exposed as early as the 1930s by the pioneer martial arts historian, Tang Hao (1897–1959), and his contemporary, Xu Jedong....[P]ossibly as early as the middle of the Qing period, boxing manuals began to refer to Shaolin Monastery as Chinese boxing's place of origin....By the close of the nineteenth century, these stories had been stretched to claim that the Indian monk, Bodhidharma, had introduced boxing to Shaolin Monastery around 525 A.D. Bodhidharma is traditionally said to have introduced Zen (Chan), the meditative school of Buddhism to China although, historically, this doctrine is known to have already been well-established by that time. He is also traditionally said to have introduced the Muscle Change Classic (Yijin Jing), Marrow Cleansing Classic (Xisui Jing), and Eighteen Lohan exercises, the latter supposedly providing the foundation for the development of Chinese boxing. None of these alleged contributions can be historically verified. Henning, Stanley E. (December 1981). "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective". Military Affairs 45 (5): 173–179. ISSN 00263931.The earliest extant written reference to Bodhidharma and boxing appears in Liu E's popular novel, Travels of Lao Ts'an (ca. 1907) Henning, Stanley E. (Fall 1999). "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts". China Review International 6 (2): 319–332. ISSN 1069-5834
 * The above quotations are from peer-reviewed publications. However, Henning makes his argument most clearly in "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan":While Shaolin was the ideal symbol to represent the more numerous, popular styles of boxing, this gave rise to serious misunderstandings and, as a result, later works, beginning with Zhang Kongzhao's boxing manual (1784), attributed the origins of Chinese boxing to Shaolin Monastery, (there is no mention of Bodhidharma until much later - c. 1900).

.... Why does there appear to be such concern to associate Taijiquan with the Zhang Sanfeng legend between 1912 and 1921, over 60 years after the style of boxing practiced in Chenjiagou village had been given the name "Taijiquan" and exposed to the big city? The answer may lie in a combination of events which began with the earliest reference to "The Dharma" or Bodhidharma as the originator of Shaolin boxing in a widely popular novel, The Travels of Lao Ts'an first published in Illustrated Fiction Magazine between 1904-1907. Henning, Stanley (Autumn/Winter 1994). "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan". Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii 2 (3): 1-7.
 * However, I will concur with Freedom skies in thanking you for your intervention. It's valuable to have the involvement of someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.
 * JFD 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias.

So, by that you mean that martial arts organisations from Japan, China and Brazil have a bias of associating their time honored arts with the civilization of ancient India ??

Come on, that's too lame even for you, I can see bias when they say their art is the ultimate or something on those lines but organizations across three countries and two continents conspiring to make India their origin ?? That's stupid.

No matter how desperately you scramble to save the remaints of your argument the international-institutions-saying-one-thing-makes-them-biased routine does'nt cut it, live with it.

Some more credible, third-party sources (the profs) which disagree with you are given below. Also, I'm begining to think if the vast-majority-of-profs-disagree thing was a drama played by you guys to divert attention from the official-mentions issue, every version I get shows the extent of penetration of the train of thought which I mentioned and which is in agreement with the official one. Oh well, since I've seen the get-him-caught-up-in-3RR-and-get-banned routine, let's-find-a-stereotype-so-maybe-we-can-hurt-him routine, be-a-nice-chap routine,  confuse-the-judge-with-mixing-official-and-non official-sites routine,  quick-do-the-flashback-because-he-kinda-mauled-our-arguments routine and  the-carneyboy-imitation routine,  I get it that you're not above finding another routine just so you could mumble something inconsequential and stall the process. My preference was for the the-carneyboy-imitation routine though, at least you were entertaining.

Anyways, as promised, more credible, third-party sources :-

Two of India's most well-received exports—its religions and martial arts—were enthusiastically embraced in other parts of Asia. - The Complete Idiot's Guide to Martial Arts  (recommended for ya)

His name was Bodhidharma in India, Ta Mo in China. ... virtues” of discipline, restraint, humility and respect for human life — to the martial arts - ''The Book of Soft Martial Arts: Finding Personal Harmony with Chi Kung, Hsing I, Pa Kua and T'ai Chi - Page 14 by Howard Reid''

Because of the proximity of Kerala at the southwest tip of India, influence from ... of a violent martial art with the usually tranquil spirit of Buddhism. - ''Karate's History and Traditions - Page 27 by Bruce Haines - Sports & Recreation - 1995''

In particular, when tracing the origin of an art of war, such as Escrima, ... postulated that the Filipino art of Escrima originated in India. - ''Filipino Martial Arts: Cabales Serrada Escrima - Page 21 by Mark V Wiley, Dan Inosanto - Sports & Recreation - 1994''

Many, how-ever, agree that karate as a martial art had its earliest beginnings in India thousands of years ago. - ''Tae Kwon Do: Secrets of Korean Karate - Page 14 by Sihak Henry Cho - Sports & Recreation - 1992''

And that's when I've always tried extra hard to avoid mentioning the Indian profs in all my arguments compared to the mentions by international ones.

I've got tonnes more of your credible, third-party sources, in addition of my sources, which are official and non-contradictory in nature.

Freedom skies 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your discovery of Google Book Search!
 * I have already restricted my sources to third-party publications. If you do the same, I'm willing to budge on peer review.
 * N.B. This means the inclusion of dissenting viewpoints—sourced, of course—in the article.
 * JFD 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second
You can't quote that one particular supposed authentic Shaolin Monks website as stating that the martial arts of Shaolin come from INdia and then state that they are the official website! anyone can create their website and claim to be the one and true shaolin monk website. We've discussed this before Freedom skies. How do you know that they are the official website or group??? If they are the true Shaolin website, why is it that they are not based in China? IF you want to take an authoratative look, then you should look at the official shaolin website from China itself (which is in Chinese) and the government and historical websites from china directly which do not make that claim. The official view of the government websites is that Shaolin kung fu is a subsidiary within Wushu which began sometime in the 7th century B.C.

Also, there are only about two to three random martial arts groups - not organizations mind you but groups ie. the group that is run by those Graycies and that one random martial arts group that you mentioned in Japan that support your view. they are one or two groups of people, not even disciplines. these groups do not represent the Jujutsu organizations in Japan nor do they represent the martial arts organizations in Japan or brazil or china as a whole. There are thousands of martial arts groups taught by thousands of martial arts teachers under hundreds of different martial arts styles in the whole country of Japan, China, and brazil with differeing views of how their martial arts began. Some even claim divine intervention and gods started their martial arts. Should we believe them? ARe they historians? So how can you state that one group of maybe 10-20 people represent a practice shared by millions of martial artists?

Second, the sources that you are quoting to support your theory that all of these martial arts supposedly come from INdia are popular magazines - and only one for that matter - "sports and recreation" - not historical research papers that are peer reviewed. They are further magazines that are written by various lay people who are not historians in the editorial sections (opinion sections) which are not reviewed and also written in the 1990's. And you are quoting them out of context. Most of these articles that you quote do make the distinction that this is a guesstimate or a theory on their part. All of the books, papers, and articles that JFD and I are quoting are written by historians and people who are on faculty at Universities. The one book that you quote only state that supposedly Bodhidharma brought some restraint and humility to humanity to the martial arts. The weight of evidence still lies with the fact that Bodhidarma is a legend, which you do state even in your article that you have written. It still holds true that for every one random magazine or website that you quote, we can quote 10 magazines and books and official websites that bear more weight than yours which support our view.

Finally, we have not broached the subject of your description of Indian martial arts history where you take some generalized description of wrestling and archery in religious textbooks (which all religious textbooks of all religions describe wrestling and archery and sword use) and then stretch it to state that from these generalized one to two sentence descriptions, a martial arts existed. And then guesstimate that since the religious textbooks might have started to be compiled in the 1000B.C. era (although none exist in writing until 200 B.C.), then the martial arts in india probably started then also. No evidence of any martial arts in India in any recognizable form existed in writing or any historical from until 1200A.D. or so. NOt only that, you take a generic word in Sanskrit for "wrestling", namely Mulla yuddha, and then state - oh, Mulla Yuddha was a martial art. And we won't even go into your idea of Yoga Martial arts - which does not exist as far as I can tell. the article that you have written stretches the truth more than a silly putty in a child's hands.... the ideas that it professes, would not be accepted in any academic publication. Kennethtennyson 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These are moot points if my proposed compromise excluding organization websites is accepted but here goes…
 * That "one random martial arts group" is not in Japan but Australia and it only supports Freedom skies' view if you quote one sentence…It is thought that as with most fighting arts of asia, it origins can be traced back to India.
 * …while not mentioning the others making the whole thing go out of context.This is based on the idea that the Chinese priest, Chin Genpin, brought the art of Kempo to Japan in 1659. He then taught three ronin (masterless samurai) who each intern founded their own styles of Jujutsu. However, there is evidence that jujutsu existed before 1659. For example, the most recent date given for the founding of Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu is 1658 (other dates are given in the 15th, 14th and 13th century).

It is more likely that Jujutsu evolved from indigenous and not foreign arts. There exists many technical similarities between Jujutsu and Sumo Wrestling. Sumo has its origins in the art called Sumai, which is documented as early as the 8th century A.D. Wresting in Japan, in general, can be traced back as far as 24 B.C.
 * If you take a look at the website itself, then you'll know it's one of the tricks he uses and that's about it.
 * That "official" Goju Ryu website represents only a single school. This is the official page of the International Okinawan Goju Ryu Federation. Their official history page makes no mention of India.
 * The URL for the official Shaolin website is http://www.shaolin.org.cn/html/index.html. The URL Freedom skies gives is http://www.shaolin.cn.com/. Also, that site cribbed some of its content from Wikipedia. Compare:"Yang Xuanzhi, (???) in the Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang (chin.: Luoyang Qielanji ?????; 547), and Li Xian (??), in the Ming Yitongzhi (????; 1461), concur with Daxuan’s location and attribution of the Shaolin Temple.""The Jiaqing Chongxiu Yitongzhi (???????; 1843) specifies that the Shaolin monastery, located in the province of Henan (??), was build, in the 20th year of the Tai He era (???????)) --the “Era of Supreme Harmony” (477-499)—of northern Wei (386-534), namely 496 AD. http://www.shaolin.cn.com/ March 2006 Archive""Yang Xuanzhi, in the Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang (547), and Li Xian, in the Ming Yitongzhi (????; 1461), concur with Daxuan's location and attribution.""The Jiaqing Chongxiu Yitongzhi (???????; 1843) specifies that this monastery, located in the province of Henan, was built in the 20th year of the Tàihé (??) era of the Northern Wei Dynasty (i.e. 497 CE). Shaolin 07:09, 31 August 2005 JFD"
 * Note that the date of my edit is 31 August 2005 and their Shaolin Temple entry is in their March 2006 archive. Also note that, despite their other modifications, they have not fixed my initial misspelling "Daxuan" instead of "Daoxuan" which I have since corrected in Wikipedia.
 * I didn't bring this up before because I was trying to "be a nice chap".
 * And because I'm still trying to be a nice chap, my offer still stands:
 * No organization websites—Third party publications only
 * Dissenting viewpoints included
 * JFD 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit I'm a tad confused by the complexity of all this. Can't we just leave it at saying that Some organizations believe that India is the origin of their martial arts (sources here), and then work on the specifics from there?. Cowman109 Talk 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that's fine with me if we state that but the devil is in the details... which opinion is the majority opinion and which one is the minority opinion and will Freedom skies agree to be the minority opinion? What about the statements that were put in regards to the history of indian martial arts which has no support whatsover?  Can we compromise on that?  Kennethtennyson 02:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of Freedom skies' early edits read "Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts"—without citation, mind you. Usage of weasel words aside, the problem is that Freedom skies wants the article to reflect a non-existent consensus, which just happens to coincide with the POV reflected in his edits on other topics, e.g. "This sentiment may catch new momentum if the archealogical survey near Dwarka completes the unearthing of an undersea civilization which might be the oldest in human history, thereby making India the cradle of human civilization" and 'The science of medicine originates in ancient India as "Ayurveda"', both completely unsourced.


 * There IS quality scholarship out there on the martial arts, including the Indian martial arts. For example, take a look at my edits to Kalarippayattu and Pehlwani. The source I cite for Kalarippayattu, Phillip Zarrilli, is a university professor who has published academic articles and books on Kalarippayattu and other Keralan arts. The source I cite for Pehlwani, Joseph Alter, is another university professor who has written FOUR books, all of them about Indian physical culture. So this stuff is out there, and it's available but, frankly, Freedom skies is more concerned about having Indian martial arts articles reflect his opinion that Indian martial arts are the oldest and that all other martial arts derive from them than he is about using quality sources to describe the arts themselves.


 * Hell, I'm the one who added a detailed description of Pehlwani training and information about the Manasollasa and the Malla Purana, the first detailed descriptions of Indian wrestling. The guy says he especially likes the "history of martial arts" and Indian wrestling in particular, but he's too goddamn busy making unsourced statements that martial arts, medicine and mathematics come from India to look this stuff up himself!


 * Cowman109, will you explain to Freedom skies the importance of quality (i.e. third-party, preferably peer-reviewed) sources and avoiding weasel words?
 * Maybe—emphasis on maybe—he'll listen to you.
 * JFD 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the notion that India is indeed the origin of all these martial arts is clearly disputed, so it seems the most neutral way to put it would be to say that some organizations believe India to be the origin of their martial arts. Saying that it officially is would be pushing the sources too far, unless we had a New York Times article declaring it so, for example. Is everyone alright with that for now? Cowman109 Talk 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Freedom skies himself has asked that you remove the "Alex Doss" paragraph.
 * And I demonstrate above that Tsutumi Hozan Ryu does not in fact believe that India is the origin of martial arts and that those are not the official websites of the Shaolin Monastery and Goju Ryu Karate, which are here and here respectively.


 * That is, however, Rickson Gracie's official website. So that can stay.
 * JFD 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Replies
As usual, more inconsequential mumblings, routines of confusion and plain lies.

As hard as it is to pinpoint the misconceptions in these guy's list, here is an attempt anyways.

1) The Shaolin website I mentioned is official in nature. The fact is there were two official Shaolin websites, one for the readers of English and the other for those versed in Mandarin, this is a trend in many websites of oriental nature, another popular example would be the official website from PRIDE Fighting Championshipss. I just opted for the english version version to be mentioned on the page in the intrest of the readers.

2) The Karate community subscribes to India being a founding influence on their martial arts, this view is held by legendary Karate pioneers, such as Funakoshi Gichin and others. If my opposition has been able to convince you in lesser or greater degree, about disputes about the origins of karate and India's role in this, I ask you to set up a challenge. Let's see who can bring in more websites substantiating their claim, more credible authors etc., citations by Funakoshi Gichin (the pioneer of Shotokan Karate) etc.

3) Another misconception created by them is that India is neglected or disputed as a founding influence of martial arts, the majority disputes the claims and such, for serving this purpose they used the the-vast-majority-is-against-you-and-you-represent-a-minority routine, one that is 100% fraudulent but does raise apprehensions nevertheless.

I once again challenge them, to display the extent of penetration of their point of view and I will display the extent of penetration of mine.

India being a founding influence is the overwhelmingly popular point of view, the view held by two people Kenny (who says he practices kung Fu) and JFD (who says he knows it) is strictly held by a couple of people with an affinity for Kung Fu and who can't bear to think about it's origins being outside of their comfort zone, no matter how microscopic their train of thought is.

4) Surprisingly enough, the sentences from my past works (none of them seem to relect the good work I did on various martial arts projects, just random lines, which when were turned enclyclopedic, I thanked the guy who did it in the talk page, even in the mentioned article Indian nationalism, I have done a lot of good work, adding full coulumns, citations, references and links) have found a way into this, to somehow discredit me and end all my arguments. I am not stating that "India is the home to every martial art on the planet", "India was IT, end of argument" or that "India is the only influence". This is the paranoia that these guys created in an attempt to try and have an argument against me.

I, like the Gracie family, Funakoshi Gichin and the Shaolin and an overwhelming number of pioneers and institutes, believe that India one of the founding influences on many martial arts of relevance including those emanating from the Shaolin, Brazillian Jiu Jitsu and Karate, alongwith arts developed in the indianized kingdoms.

There are also many things mentioned by me which were blown out of context and even as we speak these guys have mauled the content in many individal Indian martial arts articles by saying things like Mallayuddha is a generic term (I know sanskrit and boy ae you wrong) and else. Oh well, about the proposed solution.

Freedom skies 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with the lines Cowman109 suggested, my understanding is that the mentions of institutions will be made, India would be written down as "one of the founding influences" (I'm budging from the originally proposed "founding infuence", as suggested in the gracie family and Shaolin sites) and the language kept enclyclopedic.
 * The mention of Bodhidharma paragraph stays, untouched and undisputed.
 * The rewriting suggestion for Doss paragraph will be submitted mentioning India's role in the martial arts developed in the Indianized kingdoms, this could also be done in the manner suggested by Cowman109, on the same lines.

disputed sections
Look, Mallayuddha, if you read any textbook on Indian wrestling or history, is a Sanskrit term for wrestling... Nothing in the ancient texts describe a martial art of Mallayuddha - all they describe is this one god-king or that one god-king wrestled each other. And please do not state that you know ancient sanskrit... it's one of those languages you need to go to college to study on and get a Ph.D. It's like stating that you know ancient sumerian or egyptian heiroglyphics. all ancient texts of any sort describe wrestling. the oldest story in history is Gilgamesh and it describes archery and wrestling when the protagonist fought another protagonist. Does that mean that the ancient middle easterners had a martial arts based around wrestling and archery? and you are subscribing to a POV view of history. You mention only those sources and pieces of those sources that support your view. The same sources that you have mentioned in the past, have also stated that India gained its martial arts from the Middle East, yet you do not put that in the article at all. No credible martial arts textbook describes Mullayuddha as a martial arts...

Further, you have not shown anywhere that the British were instrumental in the destruction of Indian martial arts. The british only suppressed certain martial arts and they actually supported others whenever it suited them...Kennethtennyson 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, why don't you go to the ika website http://www.ikakarate.com/frames.html to see what they think of your views... as far as I can tell, they believe that karate originated from Japan solely... and this international karate association is not really the governing body on karate... there is the world karate federation, other karate federations and international and national karate organizations that do not support your views... Further, any chinese website including museums in china will reiterate the same history that we are telling you... Kennethtennyson 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)