Talk:Kalaripayattu/Archive 1

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!
List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

Preserving removed text
The following text was removed with a comment about "removing BS from nationalist". I have no idea of the facts of the issue, but I though that potentially true text should be preserved (not necessarily in the article) until it can be confirmed or refuted.
 * There is archaeological and textual evidence of Chinese martial arts that predate the introduction of Buddhism to China, however.

--Andrew 08:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright?
One of the pictures in article Kalaripayattu is also to be found on this website: http://www.ernakulam.com/kalari.htm What is the status on copyright?

Martial Arts in China and India
This is in response to the earlier version of this article that states that Kalaripayattu is the ancestor of all martial arts: The oldest evidence of Kung Fu, or Chinese martial arts, as it is practiced by the military goes back to the Zhou dynasty (1111-255 BC). The first written history of Chinese martial arts comes from the reign of Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor of the Zhou Dynasty (1122-255 BC). Huangdi was a famous military general, before becoming China’s leader and wrote a lengthy treatise about martial arts. He is also credited with being the founder of China’s oldest known martial art – chang quan (long fist). Further, the Taoist monks were practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi (or a soft form of Kung fu) at least during the 500B.C. era. There are texts referring to qigong like exercises from at least the 5th century B.C., and inscriptions from centuries earlier which seem to (although some dispute the interpretation). As well, there are a few statues of unarmed soldiers from the first Qin Emperor's terra cotta army that are in distinctly martial "kung fu" poses that date from the third century B.C. In 39-92 A.D., the "Six Chapters of Hand Fighting", in the Han Book of Arms were written by Pan Kuo. Also, the Hua To, "Five Animals Play" - tiger, deer, monkey, bear, and bird, was developed during 220 A.D. As stated earlier, the Kung Fu that is practiced today developed over the centuries and many of the later additions of Kung Fu, such as the Shaolin Kung Fu style, later animal forms and the drunken style were incorporated from various martial arts forms existing later on in China or have accurate historical data relating to their inventor.

The earliest written evidence of kalariprayyattu are from the Portuguese that state that it had been practiced by the members of Kerala during the 13th-16th centuries A.D.

Who is correcting this site? There is no evidence that Boddhidharma taught the Shaolin monks kalaripayattu!!! There is no evidence that he even existed in South India. No evidence from Indian historical texts. All the historical texts in China written posthumously state that he created the meditative exercises (2 of them) after meditating supposedly for 9 years in a cave and not to protect the monks from bandits but to help strengthen them during meditation. If you had actually practiced martial arts you would know that these meditative exercises are just that - exercises akin to stretching before working out. Most people believe that the monks already had self defense techniques that they learned from the retired soldiers that they would harbor during peace time. The only texts that exist stating that Bodhidharma might be from South India are Japanese texts and they only speculate centuries after his death when Chan buddhism came to Japan! The oldest text that mention kalaripayattu are western texts as there are no existing texts in India that mention it prior to the 15th century A.D. Thus the speculation that it might have originated in 1000A.D.

The Shaolin temple has been burned down three times and rebuilt three times during its history - those pictures that you speak of supposedly of one light skinned monk and one dark skinned monk fighting each other that you attribut to Indian monks teaching chinese monks self defense on the Shaolin wall were painted only recently and the translation that you have is a Japanese translation of dubious merit. If it was written in Japanese script on a Chinese wall it was most likely written by Japanese soldiers during WWII. Do not write information on this site if it is to further your nationalistic ideas as you are twisting history. You are writing historically bogus information. The religious texts in India - The vedas do not speak of kalaripayattu in any sense whatsoever. They only mention that an ancient god-king of india wanted kalaris (gymnasiums) built after he controlled south india. None of the religious texts mention any training or describe training that is even similar to kalaripayattu.

-Kenneth Tennyson, Ph.D

Kalaripayattu (comment)
It would seem that it is you who harbours a nationalistic agenda by taking a jaundiced view of history.

It is clear that you are intent on manipulating evidence to push your theory of a Chinese history that has not been influenced by its neighbours.

What do you intend to prove next, that Buddha was chinese?


 * Hello I would like to add to this, that Boddhidharma was in fact an Indian, His very name immplies that to be so. It's Sanskit, in case those of you who are claiming otherwise had not noticed. The only reason why the Chinese are considerd such a great race is because of the bhuddist philosophies they claim as thier own, so thats why all their temples face India huh!

Who are you?
Look, why don't you open up any edition of Encyclopedia brittanica or any historical textbook. You are making up history. There is no evidence to show that Bodhidharma was a martial arts practitioner of kalaripayattu and no evidence to show that kalaripayattu existed before the 13th century A.D. None at all. Your legends of bodhidharma are all from Chinese legends that were written centuries after the creation of Zen (Chan) Buddhism in China. No historical texts from the 5th century A.D. in India mention kalaripayattu or Bhodidharma. Go and read some textbooks before you make crap up and put it online. You keep on referring to some "ancient" textbooks that talk about the creation of kalaripayattu but there are none. Then you refer to religious textbooks that don't even mention kalaripayattu. There is no evidence. You base your history on legends. IF that were true, then why don't you mention the legends of the origin of kalaripayattu from the Middle East or from some God-King? This is history that we are dealing with, not mythology. You are only doing your history a disservice as very few people when they read this believe what you are writing. kennethtennyson


 * While I have no dog in this fight, and the above paragraph is not directed at me, since the user who wrote it&mdash;&mdash;protested to my reversion of his/her reversion, I'll explain my actions here. This user did what looked like a wholesale reversion to the June 8 revision of this article, completely disregarding edits made in the intermin. No edit summary was given. The revision the user reverted to was also suspect in its improper use of a byline (user signature). I suspect this anonymous user is in fact either User:Vrmanoj or User:Kennethtennyson. I will not revert again provided that care is taken to preserve uncontroversial edits and that the byline is not included. -- Hadal 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to change the article to reflect a NPOV. The current version is a NPOV and doesn't involve odd stories about the semilegendary figure Bodhidharma traveling up and down India learning kalaripayattu prior to any mention of kalaripayattu and then going to China to teach it to the monks. kennethtennyson

Whoever has been trying to edit article please read
First, please do not quote any books by the author Terrence Dukes. Unfortunately, he is not a trained historian, rarely visited East Asia before writing his historical book on Martial art and its link to religion, not trained by any true martial artist, wrote articles under a dubious Japanese name, plagiarized what he did write from previous historians, and after plagiarizing what he wrote historically, made dubious conclusions from tidbits of facts. Further, he began training other students during the 90's and was involved in an unfortunate scandal with his female students. His book has lead to terrible interpretations of martial arts history.

Second, legends on Bodhidharma are just that legends. He probably existed but if you really read the first few stories cited about him by Chinese historians he was from Central Asia. His origins and his life story has changed and evolved throughout history.

Third, Bodhidharma only existed in Chinese and Japanese literature. No reference to him in India.

Fourth, the earliest Chinese texts written a century after his death only speak of Bodhidharma teaching the monks meditative exercises and that was after meditating 9 years in CHINA. It wasn't until a few centuries after that, that his story changed and evolved and people began adding on to his legend.

Fifth, no chinese texts ever mention kalaripayattu. However, Many chinese texts mention the existence of martial arts in china going back to the Warring states period (700-300B.C or so).

Sixth, no kalaripayattu legends in India or texts in India have ever mentioned Bodhidharma and linked it with kalaripayattu. This link only began being fabricated recently in the last decade with the advent of the internet and on kalaripayattu websites. The Chinese legends are clear that if Bodhidharma did introduce something, he introduced meditative exercises to strengthen the monks and he did this while meditating in China. This whole bodhidharma thing with kalaripayattu is a recent phenomenon and the people spreading it are all kalaripayattu practitioners or people running Hindutva websites. If we are to go by oral legends (That constantly change) then we should write down in the history of kalaripayattu that it began in the middle east by some god-king as that is the legend. We date the origins of things by evidence. The earliest evidence for kalaripayattu date to 16th century A.D. (C.E.) descriptions and they mention that it might have been present in kerala during the 14th century. Some Indian historians try to pull it back to the 11th centruy A.D. but through speculation and without any evidence. If kalaripayattu was so evident throughout Kerala's history going into 200B.C. or so, wouldn't there be more evidence of it? Archeology? Written text? Further, using Christianity as an example of history without evidence of its existence is faulty because there was actually evidence in Roman literature dating to the time of Christ that state that the Romans were persecuting the early Christians.

Finally, ample evidence exists in China that Wushu (which the chinese call their martial arts) began sometime in the Warring States period 5 centuries before the birth of Christ. If Bodhidharma transfered martial arts to china from India along with Buddhism as many kalaripayattu websites contend in 500 C.E. (A.D.) or so, how could he have done it 1000 years before his birth and 600 years before Buddhism ever came to China? The fact that I've been trying to give hard evidence and I run up against the same arguments that base their evidence on rumor, legends, and facts that have no supported evidence suggests to me that I am dealing with radical and partisan elements. Kennethtennyson 08:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added Bodhidharma Legend
It would seem that someone is very persistent in changing the text to try to link kalaripayattu with Bodhidharma. Added Bodhidharma "legend" to alleviate the persistent person. Kennethtennyson

Article Protection
This article has been protected. Please come to a concencus over what the issue is and then notify an administrator. Thank you. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

The person reverting the article today is the same person: 172.196.101.9, 172.197.72.35, Martinmarginela who has been involved in vandalizing my site and the kalaripayattu website (placing fake biographies involving gay biographies). The current version was written by him/her and really isn't a history so much as a personal attack against me. Open up any encyclopedia on martial arts history, read encyclopedia brittanica's account of kung fu history on-line or martial arts history on-line, or read Zarilli's book online about kalaripayattu on his website. Everything that I have been writing is fact. Better yet, read Fire Star and her history of martial arts as she seems to be another administrator. This might sound crazy, but their are some elements out their that are extremely partisan in regards to Indian history. This is quite similar to the debate proposed by P.N. Oak on whether or not the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple vs. a Muslim temple. It is similar in that there really is no debate and most scholars agree that the Taj Mahal is a Muslim temple and P.N. Oak has been discredited as a historian. Kennethtennyson 29 June 2005 01:46 (UTC)

films's
especially in the light of upcoming films's When you've decided what to do with the controvery, please fix it to read "films". Brequinda 29 June 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Interesting controversey
This is an interesting controversy given the fact that I have never heard of this kalaripayattu. No textbooks on martial arts that I have even mention it. Went to the above websites mentioned and also to some of the external links. Also visited the Brittanica website. From what I can read, it would seem that I would weigh in with the belief that this kalaripayattu had no connection with Bodhidharma. I'm not even sure you could call it a martial arts. Most of the other websites that I went to that seemed neutral were actually from university departments related to Dance Groups and seemed to suggest that kalaripayattu had "murky" beginnings. The kalaripayattu websites seemed to suggest that it was some sort of dance. However, why is it that kennethtennyson is the only one writing in the discussion page? Where is the other person who disagreed with him? Anyways, an interesting discussion but not one that would seem to be worth all of this craziness. Steelhead 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Finally! and the Hundred Years War
Finally, someone is actually willing to look stuff up online. By the way, historians typically call the war between the Cheras and the Cholas in Southern India around 11th century A.D. as the "Hundred Years War;" no relation to the European war. Further, this is straight from Zarilli's book and from his website (Zarilli is a Professor at the University of Exeter in Britain): "It is to this extended period of warfare in the eleventh century A.D. when military training was "compulsory. . . to resist. . . the continuous attacks of the Cola army. . ." that historian Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai attributes the birth of the martial tradition now known as kalarippayattu." As I stated earlier, if you look online, most neutral websites that relate to universities or neutral parties consistently state that kalaripayattu probably developed during the 11th century A.D., though no evidence exists even for that. Kennethtennyson 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)

To Kennethtennyson
It is clear that you have chosen to view history from a purely Chinese perspective and from your previous modifications it is evident that you seek to academically eliminate India’s role in influencing Chinese culture. By systematically removing and adding material that conforms to your interpretation of history you have fulfilled this fact. What you’re doing is not editing but rather exacting a gross censoring of information which is in complete violation of what Wikipedia stands for.

To completely ignore and avoid evidence that may suggest an Indian connection to Chinese martial arts and manipulating the facts to serve a personal point of view you have initiated what is tantamount to a personal attack on Indians. Even your claim of being an academic is highly suspect given your frequent enthusiasm to cite the encyclopaedia Britannica and personal websites to bolster your highly fanatical point of view involving the origins of Chinese martial arts. And isn’t it your much revered Britannica which states that Boddhidarma is a “native of Conjeeveram, near Madras”, reinforcing the fact that he was indeed South Indian, a view you so aggressively challenge by suggesting that he was of Central Asian origin. The academic inconsistencies you display are clearly suggestive of an individual with a single minded agenda to distort existing evidence to portray an ethnically cleansed view of the past.

Your attempt at finding scraps of evidence to support your ludicrous claim is feeble at best. Remember no one is saying that there were no martial arts in China before the Buddhist intrusion. The fact is that there is no evidence of a ‘codified system’ with an integrated approach of martial arts before Shaolin, only inferences, claims and fabricated evidence from unverified sources by individuals of your moral integrity who fear that the proudest contribution of your nation might be tainted by an Indian. The point I’m trying to make is that Boddhidarma may have provided a more comprehensive school very much like Kalaripayattu, involving integrated yogic cultivation of mind and body through breathing and meditation which eventually filtered through and modified your so called Wushu and other east Asian martial art systems. The fact is you cannot conclusively prove that Boddhidarma did not teach his monks a form of martial arts. Given the existing evidence it is an extremely valid interpretation of history which you have no right to discount.

And please exercise some intelligence and not look for Kalaripayattu references in ancient history, the reason being Malayalam terms are near absent before about 1000AD. To understand the origins of Indian martial arts one would have to study the rigid code of the Kshastriya caste and its systems of combat and also to have deeply read the Mahabharata which describes the codified systems of war and battle. Much of which have been poorly documented in western texts and definitely would be beyond the comprehension of someone of your intellectual capacity. And please extend your research to more neutral sources and not just one or two of your favourite books and a bunch of personal websites that support your view purely because it makes a mockery of the institution you have come from and the organisation you represent. The internet is no place for proper research (for now at least), a fact known by most academics.

To the ones who have no knowledge of Kalaripayattu, its because India never brags about its treasures. 30 June 2005

Information out of Context
First of all user 220.253.117.216 and users 196.101.9, 172.197.72.35, and Martinmarginelais are all the same as user as they like to employ the same forms of vandalism. Not only that user 220.253.117.216 has just committed an act of vandalism by placing pornographic phrases on my personal page. Many thanks to Smoddy for reverting my page.

Now to respond to the above statement by user 220.253.117.216 ...

If you actually quoted the whole encyclopedia brittanica article on bodhidharma and books written about Bodhidharma, it does not mention Bodhidharma with kalaripayattu or any Native Indian Martial arts. You are taking tidbits of articles out of context. These books all state that he is a "semilegendary" figure in Buddhist mythology. There is no doubt in history that the very first texts to ever mention him state that he is a central asian monk and later texts mention him as being an Indian monk. I have never disputed that. I have never disputed that the Chan sect considers him to be their native founder of Chan buddhism. I have never disputed the fact that he "might" have contributed to the Shaolin martial arts although many historians are even skeptical of this. What I am disputing is the preposterous contention that Bodhidharma was a kalaripayattu practitioner and that he studied kalaripayattu in India and then brought it to China (all the legends that exist state clearly that he meditated in a cave for nine years and thought of his meditative exercises then.) Further, there is no evidence to suggest that kalaripayattu existed before the 11th century A.D. and even if that.

You and others like you are making a fallacy of reasoning - if Bodhidharma in 500A.D. contributed to Shaolin martial arts, and there seems to be a martial arts in Kerala in 2005 A.D., then henceforth Bodhidharma must have been a practitioner of the current martial arts and the current martial arts are from 500A.D. It's very similar to me stating that if there are legends of Icarus creating flying wings for humans in ancient Greece, and there are now airplanes flying humans in Greece from airports in 2005, then thus, Icarus is the inventor of airplanes and airplanes have been present since the time of Icarus. This is the fallacy that you are making as their is nothing to suggest that kalaripayattu is from 500A.D. or that Bodhidharma is a kalaripayattu practitioner.

Not only that, I have been reverting the article to change the following other ridiculous claims. The previous articles stated that all of Shaolin kung fu is derived from kalaripayattu that you and others like you are so fond of putting on this article which is patently false. You are making a second fallacy by stating that as a result all martial arts are derived from Shaolin kung fu. As a result since kalaripayattu is supposedly the originator of Shaolin Kung fu, kalaripayattu is then the mother of all martial arts, which is false. Not only that, almost everything that you have quoted to me in the previous page is straight from only a few kalaripayattu websites (not all of them make this claim) and Hindutva websites (such as the interestingly named website - "a tribute to Hinduism"). They in turn not only misquote but also use as their source one book and one book only - the Book by Terence Dukes (a.k.a Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio) which is the only book printed to state these claims. The author has a dubious history as a historian and a martial artist. He plagiarized work from previous authors and at the same time selectively misquoted various sources that he was plagiarizing. All other books do not even talk about this. Even the one book written by a western author on kalaripayattu (Zarilli) is explicit in not stating any connection with Bodhidharma and even going so far as stating that the first written evidence or any evidence of kalaripayattu was from Portuguese sources and that the earliest suggestion of kalaripayattu's existence is from the 11th century A.D. Kennethtennyson 30 June 2005 03:08 (UTC)

To Kennethtennyson
I would like to apologise for attacks on your intellectual integrity in my recent contribution. It was uncalled for and not in keeping with the spirit of a proper written exchange.

However, I do not agree with most of your points in your most recent discussion. As I have some pressing matters to attend to, I will provide you with a rebuttal as soon as I am done with my present responsibilities. Thank You. 30 June 2325hrs (+0800GMT)


 * Interesting discussion, user 202.156.2.162. It would probably by easier if you were to sign your posts with four tildes ~, that's our normal convention in discussion.


 * But interesting discussion. It would be good to have some non-Internet references in the article, if anyone can add them. Surely the subject is mentioned in printed literature as well as on the web? For the moment they can be added to the talk page here, until the matter of page protection is resolved. Andrewa 4 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

Constructional arguments???
Hi all

OK I barely want to get involved in this argument, but there a few things that i would like to mention as well.

There is a certain amount of texts written about the chinese martial arts, however there is barely anything written about karali. I heard of the form when I was studying kung fu sometime back, and my master had then jsut retruned from kerala after studyng basics of karali.

However I think that a few things could be added to the deifinition in the wikipedia discussion. And I would really really like if it doesnt contain politics, :( There are enough politicians doing it for us and the last thing we need is warfare in a knowledgebase.

Hope someone understands.

202.69.193.66 09:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Kulendra Janaka.


 * Almost every country and culture has a form of martial arts in its history. There's even a persian form of martial arts.  I agree with the politics statement.  Everybody of course would like to aggrandize there own form of martial arts but this is a knowledgebase that should report fact, not somebody's opinions or ideas.  Kennethtennyson

Disambiguation link repair request
When this page is unlocked, please fix the link to "British" in the History section so that it points to United Kingdom. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf 23:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection?
This page has been protected since 29 June, and it isn't immediately clear from this page whether the discussions have come to any agreements or not. If there is consensus here that protection is no longer needed please make an unprotection request at WP:RFPP (I will not be watching this page). Thryduulf 23:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
Obviously, there is a dispute going on between the history of kalaripayattu; I've placed the dispute tags and placed both versions of the history online. I've removed the long discussion about kalaripayattu and the conspiracy theories about people trying to "disrepect" the art as it seems more of an opinion than a text in an encyclopedia. Hopefully, this will prevent future edit wars. Mano1 01:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor revision
Made some minor revisions that were confusing to the reader (confusing to me also and I actually have read site over various iterations since it was locked). Hopefully this will make the text flow more evenly. The whole discussion on Hindutva and whether or not Chinese, Japanese, Indian or Buddhist religious entities were the people making the claim about kung fu being descended from kalaripayattu was confusing and distracting; as far as I can tell, only one or two people who have ever written a book ever mention kalaripayattu, bodhidharma, and kung fu in one sentence as most people were unaware of kalaripayattu until recently. But the question is not who is making the claim but what the true origins are. Regardless, this is an interesting discussion. Mano1 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
This entry really needs to keep its spellings of kalarippayattu terminology straight.

Let's start with the name of the art itself. I use "kalarippayattu" because that's the spelling Zarrilli uses, but the title of the page is "kalaripayattu" with only one "p". I've seen it rendered variously as a "kalari payatt," "kalaripayatt" "kalari payattu," "kalaripayattu," "kalarippayat," and "kalaripayit," all on a single web page.

There's already another wikipedia entry entitled "Kalari Payattu", though it's a poorly written, inaccuracy-ridden stub. (The author locates the Shaolin Temple in Tibet.)

I've already created two Redirect pages, one for "Kalaripayit" and one for "Kalarippayattu."

On this page, we have "verum kai" and "verumkai," as well as "mei payattu" and "meyppayattu". (Zarrilli uses "meippayattu".)

So are we going to render terms as one word or two? And how are we going to spell them?

JFD 02:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

These are malayalam words. (and Malayalam belongs to a completely different language tree -Dravidian- rather than English). "verum kai" is the same as "verumkai" and similarly "mei payattu" or "meyppayattu" or meypayattu" or even "mey payattu" is the different renditions of the same malayalam word. "varum kai" means "free hand" or just hand (not just as in 'righteous' but as in 'only')...and these are two words used at once. And there is no unified dictionary for spelling translations for malayalam (or any dravidian) words to english (or any of the Indo-European language)...malayalam is a predominantly phonetic language so spelling translations may never be accurate...so you can go ahead and spell them as you wish as long as you understand what you say... If you really wish to understand what Kalari is, I suggest you learn Kalari instead of debating the origins of it or how it lend itself to the origins of other forms of Martial Arts.

-KG

--

Malaylam spellings should be revised too. If everybody agrees upon "kalarippayattu", it translitterates to &#3349;&#3379;&#3376;&#3391;&#3370;&#3405;&#3370;&#3375;&#3377;&#3405;&#3377; (& #3349;& #3379;& #3376;& #3391;& #3370;& #3405;& #3370;& #3375;& #3377;& #3405;& #3377;, removing the spaces). At any rate, correct the 'ttu' final to be &#3377;&#3405;&#3377; (& #3377;& #3405;& #3377;), i.e. moving the & #3405; virama between the two &#3377; & #3377;. The same mistake is repeated in the Etimology section, about &#3370;&#3375;&#3377;&#3405;&#3377; (& #3370;& #3375;& #3377;& #3405;& #3377;).

I was directed to this page from the Talk:Malayalam_language page. The above action being completed and the spelling corrected, the pointing reference should be edited away. Thanks in advance. -- AntoineL 13:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTN: Mano1
Were there really no references to kalarippayattu in Indian sources earlier than Barbosa's Description?


 * [T]he question is not who is making the claim but what the true origins are.

True, but when a particular issue is highly contentious, citing sources becomes especially valuable.

JFD 01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you read Zarilli and other accounts, there are legends within kalaripayattu's history that speak of this god-king who brought kerala from the sea who created it. Also, within their oral traditions they speak of some legendary being from the middle-east.  Some people would like to state that the religious textbooks in india speak of some god-kings who had to learn combat by bow and arrow and by hand but it doesn't really describe it in any way.  But almost all religious texts speak vaguely of warfare and combat (think Gilgamesh and the bible).  That isn't really a description of martial arts as we know it and as far as I can tell no ancient texts have descriptions of how they trained in combat or any of the types of training that is associated with kalaripayattu.  Kalaripayattu is pretty unique.  If you read how kalaripayattu practitioners train and read zarilli's book, it is more of a war-like dance with some elements of self-defense than a full blown self-defense regime like you would associate with boxing, wrestling, or tae-kwon do.  There's also a lot of massage and ayurvedia associated with it.Mano1 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

ATTN: JD or KennethTennyson
If the Pro Chinese nationalists are intent on providing a biased view of History then more accurate views should be given fair recognition. User:Morfeen 06 Aug 2005 01026hrs (+0800hrs)

ATTN: JD or KennethTennyson- cont'd
With reference to Boddhidarma, do you not think that it is unusual that you have chosen to lock on to the few ambiguous references claiming he was Central Asian instead of the majority of your very own Chinese and Japanese references, citing him as being of Indian origin? His early sermons were not only rich in Indian linguistic flavour but were filled with Indian geographical references e.g. 'sands of the Ganges'..... To claim Boddhidarma was anything but Indian is to label one of your own grand masters, Hui Neng I believe, a complete fabricator. For wasn't it him that described Boddhidarma's lineage. Also to claim that Boddhidarma came from Central Asia does not discount the fact that he originally was from India. To label him semi legendary is to say that Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, etc were semi legendary. The fact is you cannot conclusively prove that these people even existed even if you had their bone fragments. How can we prove someone existed unless we knew him personally, had a photo of him, or knew someone who knew him/her, or had scientific evidence? That is why we base our theory on literary texts and historical references. This is all we have and the volume of information suggests overwhelmingly that he is Indian rather than Central Asian as you feebly claim. Right now most people know that Buddha was from India. I believe in another 1000 years or so people not unlike yourself would be fervently claiming that he was from China and aggressively trying to prove that no text can be found suggesting he was from India. You would even base your claim on the fact that there are more Buddhists in East Asia than anywhere else in the world. It still however doesn't change the fact that he was from India. Even as I write this I have noticed a number of Chinese nationalist websites sprouting and fanatically trying to disassociate the Chinese branch of Mahayana Buddhism form all its existing counterparts, even going as far to claim that Buddhism existed in China long before the Buddha was even born. Notice anything familiar with that argument?

I do agree with you that there is nothing to tie Kalaripayattu to Boddhidarma. But it is only because the term kalariupayattu is a south Indian dialect called Malayalam that does not have much history before 1000AD. The Malayalam dialect group have been very successful in preserving a number of hindu sciences that has lost prominence in India in recent times. Among them are Ayurveda and Kalari. It is only fitting that the present label for Indian martial arts be a term in the Malayalam dialect as they have so painstakingly preserved it over the ages. This does not however mean that the art was born at the time the Malayalam dialect was born.

Boddhidarma was described by your Chan Buddhist figures as being from the Kshastriya caste. If you're not familiar with this caste it means that they were born and bred as occupational fighters. They are born into a line that had primarily only one thing to do and that is to learn how to fight. As with all fields in ancient Indian times it was a perfected art form. They are initiated from the day they are born. There is even a whole science behind how the initial castes were formed based on their metabolism, physical form and psychological predisposition, etc. They are even taught to eat foods (rakshasic foods) that would heighten aggression and nurture tolerance to physical pain. They did not just learn martial arts but various fields that came with it like yoga, meditation, medicine, field surgery, etc. In the final stages it is revealed unto the students, primary marma points that can heal or do harm. One of which is a nerve cluster that can cause instant death from a single open hand strike. These were not just kalari practices but skills imparted long before the term kalari even existed. All this has been done since the earliest of times as described in all our early religious and mythical texts. These are not practices that have evolved over a few hundred years but a science that has evolved through the ages and is shrouded in antiquity. So of course Zarilli would not be able to find any connection with Kalaripayattu and Boddhidarma because how or where would he find it?

It is no wonder that the similarity in practices between shaolin and kalari practitioners is an area that is subject to much speculation. Such coincidences do not come about randomly. This is why the existence of Boddhidarma requires such great attention as he provides the link that explains these patterns. This is the exact same reason you are bent on casting doubt as to his existence and origins. If Boddhidarma did not exist or if he was not of Indian origin you have yourself a theory that eliminates any connection between Indian and Shaolin martial arts. I hope you are not naïve enough to think that your trickery is not evident. The crucial point I am trying to make is that Shaolin martial arts is greatly influenced by Indian meditational and fighting techniques. It would be simple to label me a liar but the evidence suggests a logical pattern as to how Shaolin martial arts evolved.

Your mistake is in relying on texts written by individuals who had no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history. You have taken their sugesstions as the premise of your argument, that Kalari is no older than 1500AD to support your claim. If Indian martial arts did begin in 1500AD than I admit I would have a problem. But it is much older than that. If it were not, there would be no kshastriya caste which we know did exist as it is in the Vedas.

These are different times, everyone speaks english and more information is at hand from the east. You cannot hide behind some obscure text written by an author you personally favour because he supports your view and slag the ones that run against the grain of your stand. You imply that kalari did not exist before 1100AD but what evidence do you have? A travelogue from some portuguese traveller and an author that supports your view who probably did not even understand the science and history behind it? As an example, If aliens came to earth today they would see us using telephones. In their log it would be that 'the first documented observation of humans using communication devices would be 2005AD earth years' But every earthling would know that phones have been in use for more than 150 years. The fact is you are in no position to discount the evidence that suggest a possible link between Boddhidarma and Shaolin martial arts purely because you do not have enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Your attempt at trying to cover up possible links would be nothing short of censorship. I am done with repeating myself and will not partake in this verbal exchange any longer. I will not tolerate gross censorship and the manipulation of literary material to serve personal ends; I will persevere in my efforts to promote the freedom to post material that will ultimately aid individuals on the path to making their own choices and forming their own opinions on the subject. User: Morfeen 06 Aug 2005 01026hrs (+0800hrs)

ATTN: Morfeen
[Bodhidharma's] early sermons were not only rich in Indian linguistic flavour but were filled with Indian geographical references e.g. 'sands of the Ganges'.

I would love to read these sermons. Are they collected in a book or can I find them online somewhere?

With reference to Boddhidarma, do you not think that it is unusual that you have chosen to lock on to the few ambiguous references claiming he was Central Asian instead of the majority of your very own Chinese and Japanese references, citing him as being of Indian origin?

This reference comes from a source you consider credible enough to cite as proof of Bodhidharma's existence.


 * Your words : On the internet, propagandists disclaiming his existence remark that historical record of Bodhidharma did not exist until centuries after his death. Yang Xuanzhi describes Bodhidharma in the earliest surviving mention of him in "The Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-yang", a 547 Chinese text. Yang tells of meeting Bodhidharma at the monastery of Yung-ning.

"At that time there was a monk of the Western Region named Bodhidharma, a Persian Central Asian. He traveled from the wild borderlands to China."
 * My words : [I]n the earliest surviving mention of him in the "The Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-yang" (547), Yang Xuanzhi describes Bodhidharma specifically as a Persian from Central Asia (Wade-Giles: po-szu kuo hu-jen) (Broughton, 1999).

And for anyone who cares to read the whole thing: "Yung-ning Monastery was erected by Empress Dowager Ling of the Hu family in Hsi-p'ing I [516 CE].... At that time there was a monk of the Western Region named Bodhidharma, a Persian Central Asian. He traveled from the wild borderlands to China. Seeing the golden disks [on the pole on top of Yung-ning's stupa] reflecting in the sun, the rays of light in the wind, the echoes reverberating beyond the heavens, he sang its praises. He exclaimed: 'Truly this is the work of spirits.' He said: 'I am 150 years old, and I have passed through numerous countries. There is virtually no country I have not visited. But even in India there is nothing comparable to the pure beauty of this monastery. Even the distant Buddha realms lack this.' He chanted homage and placed his palms together in salutation for days on end.... Hsiu-fan Monastery had a statue of a fierce thunderbolt bearer guarding the gate. Pigeons and doves would neither fly through the gate nor roost upon it. Bodhidharma said: 'That catches its true character!'"

[T]o claim that Boddhidarma came from Central Asia does not discount the fact that he originally was from India.

Here is what Stephen Broughton's endnotes for the above passage have to say: "The intriguing line, of course, is po-szu kuo hu-jen ('a Persian Central Asian'). According to Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica (1919; reprint, Taipei: Ch'eng Wen Publishing Company, 1978), 194-95, the term hu relates to Central Asia and particularly to peoples of Iranian extraction. What we seem to have is an Iranian speaker who hailed from somewhere in Central Asia."

''To claim Boddhidarma was anything but Indian is to label one of your own grand masters, Hui Neng I believe, a complete fabricator. For wasn't it him that described Boddhidarma's lineage.''

I do not claim that Bodhidharma was "anything but Indian."

I pointed out that Yang Xuanzhi says that he was Persian, which you omitted, even though you were otherwise happy to cite him.

Moreover, I also pointed out those authors who do say that he is Indian. And no, it was not Hui Neng who described Bodhidharma's lineage; it was Daoxuan.


 * My words : Of the primary sources on Bodhidharma, the "Xu Gaoseng Zhuan" (645), written roughly a century after Bodhidharma's death, and those texts which copy it, the "Zutangji" (952) and the "Jingde Chuandenglu" (1004), identify him not only as South Indian, but Brahmin."[Bodhidharma], the Teacher of the Law, was the third son of a great Brahman king in South India, of the Western Lands. (Suzuki, 1949)"The "Biography" (pre-645) by Tanlin, the original which the "Xu Gaoseng Zhuan" copies, does not specify his caste.

I presented what all of the primary sources had to say about Bodhidharma's origins&mdash;without self-serving omissions&mdash;and let the reader make up his or her own mind.

Boddhidarma was described by your Chan Buddhist figures as being from the Kshastriya caste.

The Chan Buddhist figures Daoxuan and Daoyuan both describe Bodhidharma as being from the Brahmin caste.

If you're not familiar with this caste it means they were born and bred to be priests, teachers, and scholars. The most observant among them eat a sattvic pure vegetarian diet, avoiding even vegetables such as onion and garlic because their pungency supposedly arouse base urges for violence and lust. Such a diet is followed not only by observant Hindu Brahmins, but also observant Jains and, yes, observant Buddhists.

''How can we prove someone existed unless we knew him personally, had a photo of him, or knew someone who knew him/her, or had scientific evidence? That is why we base our theory on literary texts and historical references.''

Exactly, so if you would be kind enough to cite the specific literary texts and historical references that you are basing your theory on, your readers would appreciate it, such as naming those Chan Buddhist figures that describe Bodhidharma as Kshatriya and in which texts they do so.

So of course Zarilli would not be able to find any connection with Kalaripayattu and Boddhidarma because how or where would he find it?

So how and where are you finding it, Morfeen?

Your mistake is in relying on texts written by individuals who had no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history.

Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki has no intimate understanding of Asian culture and history?

You cannot hide behind some obscure text written by an author you personally favour because he supports your view and slag the ones that run against the grain of your stand.

Suzuki is hardly obscure. Moreover, I'm not the one presenting distortions and misrepresentations of Yang Xuanzhi and Terence Dukes to support my view.

You imply that kalari did not exist before 1100AD but what evidence do you have?

All I do is note that the Barbosa reference dates kalarippayattu to c. 1500, Zarrilli to the 12th century, and Pillai to the 11th.

If you want Wikipedia to reflect your assertion that kalari existed before 1100AD then please name the sources that support that assertion unless, of course, you have something to hide.

''The fact is you are in no position to discount the evidence that suggest a possible link between Boddhidarma and Shaolin martial arts purely because you do not have enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Your attempt at trying to cover up possible links would be nothing short of censorship.''

As is your attempt to silence those who point out the gaping holes in your hypothesis.

If you'll note, Morfeen, I did not delete your interpretation of Terence Dukes' theories, the conflicting claims about Bodhidharma's birthplace (Tamil Nadu or Kerala), and the supposed inscription on the Shaolin Temple Mural ("Tenjiku Naranokaku").

I did little more than point out what the literary texts and historical references actually said.

The fact, Morfeen, is that it is you are in no position to discount, distort, or misrepresent literary texts and historical references purely because you do not have the evidence&mdash;direct or circumstantial&mdash;to make your case.

''I am done with repeating myself and will not partake in this verbal exchange any longer. I will not tolerate gross censorship and the manipulation of literary material to serve personal ends[.]''

If I were a "Chinese nationalist" manipulating literary material to serve personal ends, why would I have added all this: Kalarippayattu (Malayalam: &#3349;&#3379;&#3376;&#3391;&#3370;&#3375;&#3377;&#3377;&#3405;) is a martial art practiced in the Indian state of Kerala and the Kodagu district of neighboring Karnataka.... Tradition attributes kalarippayattu and indeed Kerala itself to Parasurama, sixth avatar of Vishnu.... Related to the point of indistinguishability to the Southern style are the Tamil martial arts practiced in the Travancore district of Kerala and the Kanyakumari district of neighboring Tamil Nadu that variously go by the names ati tata (hit/defend), ati murai (law of hitting), varma ati (hitting the vital spots), or chinna ati (Chinese hitting) (Zarrilli, 1992). These arts claim descent from the rishi Agastya and, compared to kalarippayattu, place more emphasis on empty-hand techniques and less on weapons. I, at least, have been doing heavy lifting to "clean up this page to conform to a higher standard of quality" while you abuse Wikipedia by doing nothing for this article except reverting to your POV rant.

Moreover, I made a point of citing sources precisely because this is clearly a matter of such contention while you either refer vaguely to "historical texts" or misrepresent those authors you actually bother to name.

I will persevere in my efforts to promote the freedom to post material that will ultimately aid individuals on the path to making their own choices and forming their own opinions on the subject.

As shall I.

At least we have that in common.

Good day.

JFD 21:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Further, Morfeen, you shouldn't imply that I am JFD, as I am not. He's done a pretty good job of cleaning up this page, though.  Kennethtennyson 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

..................... August 21 2005 May I help you a bit. I am French and studied Indian medicines, Ayurveda, Siddha, Varma and Yoga. I learned from famous scholars and doctors in South India. And because it was linked to martial arts and was historically unclear I decided to find out more.

It is difficult to say who created and when an Indian science was created. There are a lot of claims made by Indians but unfortunately for them, because by doing so they become ridiculous, they do not show any historical or written evidences, in short serious works do not exist.

If Indians or others want to say KalariP is the oldest martial art it is OK. But if they say KalariP is the mother of Chinese or else martial arts, this is not OK.

Monkeys sometimes fight. They jump, they use sticks too. So according to this fact and if I use a short, poor, inexact, ridiculous, injurious theory, I can say that monkey fight is the most ancient martial art and the mother of Indian KalariP.

One day, we will talk about ayurvedic massage which is another propaganda, this one made by west and propagated by Indians for lucrative purpose. In Ayurveda there is not a single treaty in the large corpus of Ayurvedic books, on Ayurvedic clinical massotherapy and no degree of ayurvedic masseur offered by official state university of Ayurveda in India. But this is another funny subject.

Another thing, last one I want to add. Chinese people developed medicine and martial arts much more than Indians have. If we have to pay a tribute I suggest Chinese people. Indians claim too much and this in contradictory to their secretive culture and religion based on truth and not time. In short: If you say something prove it or don't talk. Learn to accept your limitations and ignorance. Both buddhist and hindu teachings. ..........end of this post .............

edits to kalaripayattu for Kjrajesh
I'm reverting this to the edits by 136.42... I don't know about the accuracy of the statements that you have made to the site.


 * "The present practicing traditions origin can be traced back to the 12th centuary A.D. Some of the specific techniques still practiced today are part of the much older Indian martial tradition of which references can be seen in the Agnipurana; 'Natyashastra' etc dating back to the 4th century A.D. It can also be seen that this art as practiced today was at its peak of popularity and social interaction during 12th through 17th centuries when Kerala consisted of several and semi feudal principalities ruled by local chieftains. The art formed a regular part of the education of the youth especially the martial class called the Nairs. The training consisted of self disciplinary training, physical culture and finally training to become a proficient warrior."

This is the very first time that i have heard of this statement on the history of kalaripayattu and it is not present in any credible historical textbooks. In regards to why we should have that section on the Bodhidharma legend, if you were around earlier, kennethtennyson and JFD have had long long long discussions on the history of kalaripayattu with other users who were presenting a history of kalaripayattu that differed from accepted history and quite POV. It wasn't until JFD bought books and began to cite the references and talk in detail about the incorrectness of connecting the Bodhidharma legend to kalaripayattu that other users began to reconsider. It is vital that we leave that section in the history because it is still an ongoing debate. if you go to all of the links that are cited below, the websites continue to endorse that Bodhdiharma was a kalaripayattu practitionner (some even state that he learned both the Northern and Southern styles and went to southeast asia and then china influencing all martial arts in the region). Therefore, to educate the public, I believe that it is our duty to discuss the disputes in the main page and not just shunt it to some other page.Mano1


 * Hello Mano.. This is Rajesh who moved the disputed section to another section. You can see that i did not delete, the section was only moved with a proper link to avoid confussion and avoid clutterness.


 * Usually people come to Wikipedia to know the subject not to see some clutterd docúments. The previous section was mostly not realted to Kalaripayattu but related to the disputes and unknow facts.


 * We both know regarding Kalaripyattu but none of us know the actall history. Let people read the disputed section i as another section. If we add the disputed article in the main topic (Eventhough it relates to Kalari) its very anoying. Am I correct.


 * Give users more details on the correct topic (Which we actually know) and let the unknown and disputed topic be on other sections, but give a good link to get into it.


 * Sincerely


 * Kjrajesh|talk


 * Please read my statements on the discussion page. You only recently went into this kalaripayattu debate. Kennethtennyson and JFD and others have been trying to point that the Bodhidharma legend connection is totally unfounded for the last half year.  There actually is no debate on the origins of kalaripayattu.  Most historians can trace its developement and have found sources citing it. The only debate is the totally unfounded bodhidharma legend which was settled.  It is important that we keep that section as all of the websites that this article links to still continues to state the bodhidharma connection and we need to inform the public.Mano1 13:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ==Rajesh==


 * Hello manu i read your talk. Thank you.


 * See actually I am not in to the debate topic. The exact debate topic was in the Discovery channel (but as not as a debate :) ). In that the Shavolin monks themself speaks about Bodhidharma and etc.. etc.. So its not a topic for me.


 * The matter for me was the clutterness on the main page. Could you please look the previous page? The first thing when a new user see in the page is the dispute section not the real thing.


 * What you said was correct we can keep the desputed part in the main section itself, but it should not overide or overlook the main subject itself. Make it as simple as possible give a nice link as another section.


 * Actually this is how a professional web designer do.


 * Sincerely


 * Kjrajesh|talk


 * I don't know about the monks on the discovery channel, but this I'm actually seeing it from an encyclopedia or journal article section as this is considered to be a free encyclopedia. Although the Shaolin monks have a history of attributing everything to Bodhdiharma - whether or not what they attribute is true. The first references to him actually stated that he was central asian or persian.  However, the shaolin monks are adamant in stateing that their legends state clearly that began the meditative exercises after meditating in a cave in China with no reference to bringing it to China from India.


 * Regardless, people come to wikipedia for encyclopedic reference and as as an encyclopedia, it is important for us to present information to educate the public and to clear up rumors and urban legends, especially during the age of the internet. I really don't see how adding that section will change the aesthetics of the page. It's just another interesting section to read, it's short, and it directly clears up any confusion as the websites without having to search for another webpage. Mano1 14:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- Mano Rajesh once again. See I am not into the dispute of the subject. I am only saying that the the materials should be kept in 'proper shelfs'. If you have some hundred files how will you keep it in a computer? we keep it in folders and name it accordingly. Again when these each folder is filled with hundred of files we create subfolders according to their relevance and move it. This is the first thing we learn as an Administrator.

We do not put all files in the C: or / ! We create folders and sub-folders....

Same way we create a Web page. Once the content becomes larger we sub divide it (Care should be take not to delete or move importnat parts). Here in our case I only moved very very long lines, mostly discribing about Bodhidharma to another section and gave a link, that to highlighting it.

As I mentioned in my last talk that you are correct that we should keep some section regarding Bodhidharma in the main section, but not diverting the attention of the people by something else.

As you might have noticed Bodhidharma have 'his' on page in Wikipedis!

Kjrajesh|talk


 * Hmmm.... I still don't see how that ruins anything. It's just another subject relating to kalaripayattu. How about this. Let's compromise.  I'll reword the sections so that everything will flow well.Mano1 14:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Manu,

It would be better you shorten your section regarding the debate, from the main page. A topic Like Kalaripayattu means - a lot to lots of people. But just think we all reade the topic of Kalari first to know about the art, then we go for looking the history, then we go for looking the conflits of the subject if there is one (Usually there will be debate in history of any subjects).

When I first came through the wikipedian subject on Kalari, I was really sad to see the details, it was more on debate that the Kalaripayattu itself (am I correct, please chech the articles dated before 15th). As you can see from my user page Eventhoug I was born in Palakkad, I was in Kannur for 30 years, As you know most of the Kannurian practices Kalaripayattu, its in there blood. So as a KalariP practitioner I taught of keeping the page more relevent to the subject 'kalari payattu' by adding more details and pictures on the subjects to make it understandable. and moved the disputed section to another part.


 * Rajesh,
 * I'm sorry to hear that you are saddened about the debate. I know what it must be like to have something that you practice as a martial art debated about, but it occurs in every subject of history. By hiding it or not discussing it, it only contributes to speculation and misinformation.


 * But if you go to almost all of the kalaripayattu websites, the debate is generated by the kalaripayattu websites themselves and also the people in the past on wikipedia who were pushing the false bodhidharma connection. This is very similar to the Taj Mahal article where there was this huge discussion early on about the Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple (followers of P.N. Oak) and finally after debate, everyone agreed that it was not considered standard historical interpretation and had a small section about it.  The people pushing the taj mahal Hindu connection didn't like that section but it was a compromise everyone agreed upon.


 * As to shortening my paragraph, it seems a little clearer from reading your letter that you perhaps were originally diverting the debate section to try and avoid a discussoin of it? I know that it might be disheartening, but I've compromised on my end, got rid of the whole section on Bodhidharma and kalaripayattu,  and then shortened the whole section into a tiny paragraph.  If I shorten it anymore it becomes meaningless and only hides the true debate.  Perhaps a compromise on your end is necessary.


 * This discussion is necessary, I think, as there are a lot of people running around citing different versions of kalaripayattu history that are somewhat fanciful. I even went to one website of a supposed trainer in kalaripayattu who stated that Bodhidharma learned the northern and southern styles and all the other styles, went on a boat and then taught it to the indonesians, the southeast asians, the chinese and japanese, and that it is the mother of all martial arts. (Oh, by the way, I'm putting our discussion on the discussion page so others can read it in case questions pop up.)Mano1 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
This article is already under the category of Indian Martial arts. Therefore, it is redundant to have martial arts as one of the categories. This was already discussed in the Wikiproject martial arts discussion page. If we had every martial art article with a martial arts category, it would flood the category and cause a whole mess. That's why we have subcategories like chinese martial arts, japanese martial arts, and so on. It is no different that say the articles Tam Tuie and Liuhe Bafa. Most people have never heard of these but they are categorized as chinese martials arts..not martial arts.--Dangerous-Boy

Nonsensical Article
I am surprised to see such an openly biased and structure-less, illogical article as this. Has the article been hijacked by people with vested interests?

First the title of the article "Disputed History of Kalaripayattu" is way off the mark. The article mainly is worried about whether or not Bodhidharma took martial arts with him to China.

Somehow the thought that martial arts were taken to China from India seems to irk a lot of nerves. To disprove that Bodhidharma had anything to do with Chinese martial arts the author of the article adopts the approach of questioning everything that is known about Bodhidharma. By bringing everything about Bodhidharma into doubt he hopes to establish his claims in the ensuing confusion. If he consistently starts holding every bit of history to the same impossible criterion of truth that he expects of facts surrounding Bodhidharma then no history textbooks would exist!

The article says "Some martial arts claim descent from Bodhidharma...". Which martial arts are these? Is it Shaolin Kung fu? Now why would they claim descent from Bodhidharma if it wasn't true? To undermine this one claim the author of the article undertakes his ridiculous and openly biased examination of Bodhidharma's history. The main methodology of the author is "if there is even a seed of uncertainity the whole question has to be thrown out"! Thus, since there are two translations of the inscription on the mural, the whole mural evidence has to be thrown out! Even admitting that the mural has nothing to do with Bodhidharma, how does one explain the presence of a dark skinned figure in a Chinese mural on martial arts?

On the contradictory claims of Bodhidharma's origins:

1. the name clearly indicates his Indian origin.

2. Yang Xuanzhi's version that he was central asian can be easily reconciled with the versions that mentions Bodhidharma as Indian. Yang Xuanzhi's book was on Buddhist monasteries in Lo-Yang and was not specifically about Bodhidharma, unlike Xu Gaoseng Zhuan which is a biography. The first book presents the immediate region from where Bodhidharma appeared while the latter book, being a detailed biography, presents detailed origins of Bodhidharma. The latter book does mention that Bodhidharma spent time wandering around in central asia.

Is the author of the article incapable of this simple analysis? Just this evidence is sufficient to show how biased it is, not to speak of the general tone and wording in the article.

But there is more nonsense in the article. The author writes:

"Assertions like those championing Kanchipuram as Bodhidharma's birthplace are of recent provenance (Chou, 1955)."

So just because it is recent does it have to be wrong?! This statement is keeping in line with the general strategy of undermining anything that relates Bodhidharma to India and to martial arts. And every silly reason is used to undermine offending statements.

The article further says: "Moreover, they conflict. Was Bodhidharma a Brahmin born in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu or was he a poor hunter clan prince born in present-day Kerala?"

In Indian history many royal families have been brahmins. So a brahmin prince is not a contradiction. Tamil Nadu and Kerala are neighbouring states and the present states were created only fifty years ago. It is not as if we are talking about Iran and Indonesia. This is just the author's weird attempts to introduce uncertainities where there are none.

"None of the primary sources on Bodhidharma specifies either the year, the kingdom, or the jati into which he was born."

Such detailed information not available on most historical personages! Why demand it only of Bodhidharma? Does the author seek to impress the reader with buzz words like "jati"? "The first explicit association of Bodhidharma and the Shaolin martial arts is made in a text from no earlier than 1624, 1000 years after his purported death, written by Zining Daoren (literally "Zining, the Taoist") who also provided the Yijin jing and Xisuijing as Bodhidharma's written work."

Since the author has been so biased thus far, we need to ask if we can take his word for this. Even taking it for granted, so what if the association between Bodhidharma and Shaolin occurs 1000 yrs later? Does it invalidate the hypothesis? Ofcourse, the occurence does not prove anything but it definitely makes it more plausible that Bodhidharma was associated with Shaolin martial arts.

"There is physical and written evidence in China that martial arts as practiced by the Shaolin monks predate the 6th century CE and that most martial arts in most countries developed to some degree independently of each other."

This is fallacious. Fighting forms like wrestling, boxing are very different from martial arts like Kung fu, Kalarippayattu which are based on profound principles. They involve dedicated, life-long training. The primary aim of these martial arts is total control oneself, not just beating up the other guy. The concept of Prana, Chi is crucial in these martial arts. The principles involved are quite specific and not general or universal as the author glibly mentions. Given the sophistication and similarities, one school must have come from the other. The fact that there was extensive trade between China and India makes this only more plausible.

All available evidence suggests that the transfer was from India to China. The evidence is as follows:

1. Chinese sources themselves mention Bodhidharma as source of martial arts

2. Neutral Japanese sources too mention the same.

3. Tradition of martial arts in India goes back to ancient times. Just read the Mahabharata where several types of martial arts involving various weapons are mentioned. It even refers to various movements that fighters make while fighting. Cutting off Kalari from the larger tradition is a cheap trick.

4. Yoga has poses which are named after animals. This is similar to martial arts poses being named after animals. Yoga is undisputedly of Indian origin and is atleast 3000 yrs old (the oldest terracotta figures from Indus valley depicting yogic postures date to that period). Yoga also is based on regulating Prana as are martial arts.

This evidence should be sufficient for any reasonable person. It is strange to me that Chinese and Buddhist sources keep artibuting stuff to Bodhidharma which the author firmly believes is not the case. Why would they do that? Why would they paint murals showing dark skinned people (persumably Indians) teaching martial arts? Why would the Shaolin monks attribute "everything" to Bodhidharma? Is it so un-reasonable that we are justified in derisively dismissing it? Why else would Bodhidharma be remembered after so many centuries if not for his profound influence?

Unfortunately, the author of the article makes no attempt at explaining the Chinese and Japanese sources. He tries to dismiss the evidence one at a time by invoking strange and inconsistent reasons. Is it the case that the Chinese and Japanese being "irrational and mystical Easterners" never cared for truth until the "rational Westerners" forced themselves into the picture? Why would Chinese and Japanese sources repeatedly connect Shaolin arts with Bodhidharma? This has to be reasonably addressed.

The article is so biased and badly written that the whole needs to be thrown out. Also the author of the article must be prevented from writing any further articles until he learns to overcome his puerile biases.

Did you not read any of the discussion before this? You are writing the exact same thing that almost every other person before you have argued and it has been shown to be faulty. The legend of Bodhidharma is just a legend. It is a conflicting legend even regarding his origins and the first association of him in chinese texts with the Shaolin temple( in regards to Chan Buddhism) did not occur in chinese sources until centuries after he died. None of the shaolin temple written texts from the same century that he existed ever mention him. His association with shaolin kung fu did not occur until the 16th century ad, a thousand years after he died and it was written by a taoist monk who did not like the shaolin temple. the very first text that attribute him with the shaolin temple has been proven to contain false information. Regardless, there is no proof that kalaripayattu is connected to Bodhidharma or that he was a kalaripayattu practioner. I have no idea why you are focusing on bodhihdarma and kalaripayattu. The earliest texts that even mention kalaripayattu in the whole world come from 15th century AD sources and they state that kalaripayatuu existed since about the 13th century ad.

Please stop being intolerant and deleting posts in a revert/edit war. Let's debate the topics rationally and point by point, please! This is unproductive and you are deleting ideas that are just facts. You can't delete movies that Kalarippayattu is in just because you think that Bodhidharma doesn't exist and that the Chinese are superior to Indians and that martial arts could not have at all been influenced by India.

Wikipedia articles are not Internet discussion forums
Please remember that wikipedia articles are intended to be encyclopedic in nature, with a neutral point of view, and referencing. Please do not the treat wikipedia articles as opportunities to impose your own unreferenced and rambling and highly opinionated personal essays over existing text. If you want to introduce new content or views, treat the old content with reasonable respect (don't simply delete entire sections), write in a formal, neutral, encyclopedic style (NOT as if you're writing a personal essay or speech) and provide references for your claims Bwithh 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article drive
Ive been interested in this topic for a long time, and possess Zarrili's book on the subject. I will attempt to get this article to peer reviewed status over time, as this martial art deserves the exposure that being featured can give it. Featured aritcles tend to be short but comprehensive, so I will create many sub-articles, including ones for the specific styles - i.e. Northern, Southern and Central. I would appretiate any help that can be provided, however I am adopting a non-biased position in relation to the Bodhidharma issue, and constant edits either in favour or against the theory will only serve to make the article unsucessfull. Vastu 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

from looking at it, the article has had a few locks since it was created... and a lot of edits and re-edits.

"Origins"
Instead of a single "Origins" section for all styles of Kalarippayattu, the origins of the northern and southern styles should be addressed separately. Zarrilli provides little in the way of information on the origins of the Central style, but on the origins of the Northern style he says this……and on the history of the Southern style Zarrilli says this…

"Revival"
Excepting the eradication of the dronambolli style of kalarippayattu, there is nothing in Zarrilli about a ban on kalarippayattu in general. Also, the revival of kalarippayattu began in the 1920s, before Indian independence. Here is Zarrilli on the decline of kalarippayattu under western colonialism and the beginning of its revival in the 1920s.

"Components," "Stages" and "Kalarippayattu and other performing arts"
The material in these sections applies only to Northern Kalarippayattu so they should probably be moved to that article.

Analogous material on Southern Kalarippayattu can be found on pp. 108–111 of Zarrilli and, for Central Kalarippayattu, pp. 106–108 and pp. 148–149.

Bodhidharma
"Western Region" is a classical Chinese literary term for a territory that encompasses everything from present-day Kazakhstan to the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, the description does not "place [Bodhidharma's] origins exactly in Kerala;" instead of interpreting Tanlin to mean "Bodhidharma is from the western part of south India," the correct interpretation of Tanlin is "Bodhidharma is from South India, which is part of the Western Region."In the story, which dates to a thousand years after Bodhidharma's supposed lifetime, Bodhidharma does not teach the monks of Shaolin any art directly; instead he performs seated meditation for nine years and then disappears, leaving behind a book.There are no accounts of Bodhidharma practicing a physical discipline. Again, in the story Bodhidharma meditates for nine years and then disappears, leaving behind a book. As for yoga sharing much theory with Shaolin kung fu, I'll quote Gene Ching, Associate Publisher of Kung Fu Magazine on this one.Actually, it's very clear that Bodhidharma was not associated with the Shaolin temple until centuries after his death. JFD 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, those quotes were a great help, as I havent read the book in its entirity yet. I am trying to work out how the best adress the seperate origins of the different styles, which are as different as say White Crane from Wing Chun - I think I will mention them in the same paragraphs i.e. a different description for northern and southern, and an observation that central style is like a combination of both.  Do you know of any featured articles on a martial art?  I have been looking for one as a basis for comparison, but cannot find any - so im trying to come up with a layout that martial artists would appretiate - i.e. discussion of equipment, theory, history, forms, etc.  BTW, I am not clear on one of the quotes - when the person suggested that suggesting Yoga might be related to Shaolin was 'a way to dig a quick grave' - did he mean it was innaccurate, or just that people dont like that theory? Vastu 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to work out how the best adress the seperate origins of the different styles, which are as different as say White Crane from Wing Chun - I think I will mention them in the same paragraphs i.e. a different description for northern and southern, and an observation that central style is like a combination of both. The problem is that Zarrilli only gives us the origins of Northern Kalarippayattu. The most he tells us about Southern Kalarippayattu is that it's been practiced "at least for several hundred years" and he tells us nothing at all about the origins of Central Kalarippayattu.

I tried to address the separate origins of the different styles by creating a separate article for Southern Kalarippayattu, which Zarrilli calls Varma ati.

Bharatveer took rather strong exception to that, so I tried to differentiate between the separate styles by restructuring the organization of the article. That's why in this version of the article, "Training" is a subsection of "Northern". Because the material within that section really only applies to Northern Kalarippayattu.

''Do you know of any featured articles on a martial art? I have been looking for one as a basis for comparison, but cannot find any'' I took a look at the complete list of Featured articles but didn't see anything but maybe I missed something.

im trying to come up with a layout that martial artists would appretiate - i.e. discussion of equipment, theory, history, forms, etc. The layout ought to be determined by two thiings:
 * The relationships between different styles of kalarippayattu
 * The training curriculum

As I said, my initial impulse was to have two separate articles for Northern Kalarippayattu and Varma ati. However, there would have been no place for Central Kalarippayattu within that framework.

Your idea—using the main Kalarippayattu article as a nexus for sub-articles on the different styles—works, but you run the risk of duplicating some of the same material in four separate articles, which becomes a real pain in the @$$ should you find that you have to edit that material, because you have to edit it in four separate places.

If you want, you can take a look at what I did with Hakka Kuen, East River Fist, Southern Praying Mantis, Dragon Kung Fu and Bak Mei, which comprise a family of interrelated martial arts.

I am not clear on one of the quotes - when the person suggested that suggesting Yoga might be related to Shaolin was 'a way to dig a quick grave' - did he mean it was innaccurate, or just that people dont like that theory?

What he meant was the difficulty of trying to connect Chinese physical culture with Indian physical culture. Here's another quote from the same e-mail (the quote is from a Chinese martial arts mailing list).With regard to Bodhidharma, he has always been associated with the territory of the Northern Wei dynasty, specifically Luoyang and the surrounding area, which is not far from the Shaolin temple. But the first real association of Bodhidharma with the Shaolin temple is not made until the 10th century compilation of the Jingde Records of the Transmission of the Lamp, which contain no references whatsoever to Bodhidharma practicing any kind of physical discipline, martial or otherwise. JFD 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I have found it really helpfull - and those are some nice articles you have written - if I can sucessfully make this a featured article, I might work on other martial arts in future, such as Lathi, although martial arts arnt my main area of interest (at least not anymore, having once been very interested in all styles of asian martial art). Like you, I actually think Bodhidharma likely had nothing to do with Shaolin - but im presenting the theory as it hasnt comprehensibly been proven either way, and because many martial artists seem to believe it - i.e. wikipedia's policy of neutrality - might as well let people decide for themselves.  On the issue of commonality between different systems, I was once told that Chi/Qi was the same thing as prana (or perhaps kundalini or pranayama) - is this accurate, or is it mearly a laymen's connection?  I think ill stick with the current layout - but in future, leave it for someone else to decide whether the Marma ati and Southern style articles should be combined.  The impression I get from Zarrilli's lack of an explination of southern and central styles, is that they were variations of the northern style - i.e. marma ati took the empty handed form only - so ill have to just mention that it has been practiced for at least a few centuries - and try to expand other area of the article like forms, etc, to accomodate whatever I can find on Southern and Central style variations. Vastu 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When presenting the Bodhidharma theory, one has to be mindful of which version one presents. The very first account associating Bodhidharma with the martial arts is the Yi Jin Jing, which dates to the 17th century at the earliest, which may be "ancient" to you and me, but is young compared to the traditional sources on Bodhidharma: Yang Xuanzhi (547), Tanlin (6th century), Daoxuan (645), Daoyuan (10th century). The Yi Jin Jing is the account where Bodhidharma disappears leaving behind a book. But at least the Yi Jin Jing is a specific source that an editor can attribute this account of Bodhidharma to.

Because the topic is controversial, citing a specific source becomes so much more important. Heck, there's another version where Bodhidharma's legs have atrophied over his 9 years of meditation, which probably precludes the teaching and practice of any physical discipline, martial or otherwise.

I was once told that Chi/Qi was the same thing as prana (or perhaps kundalini or pranayama) - is this accurate You don't ask the easy questions, do you, Vastu?

Based solely on my subjective personal experience of physical sensations—keeping in mind just how unscientific this is—during the practice of both yoga (Iyengar and Ashtanga) and a variety of Chinese martial arts, I would personally answer yes.

But if you try to establish commonality at a deeper, more detailed level (e.g. Nadi (yoga) vs Meridian (Chinese medicine)) it just doesn't hold together. Commonality between Chinese and Indian physical cultures is like an Impressionist painting. What seems coherent from a distance breaks down once you look at it up close.

The impression I get from Zarrilli's lack of an explination of southern and central styles, is that they were variations of the northern style - i.e. marma ati took the empty handed form only

The impression I got is that Northern Kalarippayattu combines the martial practices of migrants from the north with Dravidian methods native to south India, i.e. Southern Kalarippayattu.

Also read the following passage from Joseph Alter's The Wrester's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India about traditional Indian attitudes towards armed vs unarmed martial arts.What I'm saying is that Northern Kalarippayattu places greater emphasis on weapons than Southern and Central Kalarippayattu because its Nair practitioners, as a professional martial caste, had greater access to weapons than practitioners of Southern and Central Kalarippayattu historically did. Southern and Central Kalarippayattu therefore ought to have smaller, less varied arsenals of weapons, which they do, and the logical response for these styles would be to adapt by placing greater emphasis on empty-hand tactics, which they do.

JFD 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

why did you remove the reference to dance? kalari is very closely associated with dance... my school practices kalari sometimes as a pre-dance exercise. Also, none of the books i have read in my studies on kalari talk of bodhidharma or this shaolin kung fu... that association with bodhidharma section seems to be the weak link... Elmo1 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, sorry didn't read your edits. Actually, a lot of people consider kalari to be similar to caoperia. If you've actually seen it in action, it does have elements of martial dance like caoeperia. A lot of the sword fighting and fighting in general is very coordinated. That's why it was accepted as an exercise form by some dance schools. Elmo1 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ill have to change it back though, for the sake of correctness - afterall, Kalari itself is not a dance art - rest assured however, there will be mention of it later in the article :-) Vastu 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

that's what i am trying to say, it has components of martial dance like caoperia. that's why outside of india, westerners who study it are mostly in the dance departments.Elmo1 if you look at people who have seen it in action and who practice, there is a lot of jumping... a lot of jumping! and posturing in many of its moves... the picture that you see on the page is not a blown up picture or an exagerrated picture. most people who practice kalaripayattu do perform those jumps. and there is a huge - huge - element of religion in it. it's not just healing, it's a way of life for kalari practitioners.Elmo1 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Elmo, which stage of kalaripayattu is designed specifically to teach dance? Im not sure that this should be included in a sentence designed to tell people what the martial art teaches as part of its normal regimen. Vastu 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

it's regimen includes martial dance like caoperia. many caoperia practitioners perform martial arts along with martial dance. the other indian dances have incoporated some kalari in it but the art itself has elements of martial dance. along with a heavy dose of religion. it's not just healing techniques. many of the movements are highly choreographed. if you look at that picture, he is not really just jumping. but jumping and fighting in a choreographed manner with his opponent.Elmo1 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I must again ask, which of the main stages teach this specifically? Or is it mearly a side-effect?  Kalari is designed to teach strikes, kicks, grappling, weapon use, and ayurvedic healing - it is not designed to teach dance, that is mearly a by-product, unlike in Capoeria where it is an actual aim of the martil art.  Furthermore, the dance aspect is mentioned further down in the article, so why should it be included amongst the martial applications?  Vastu 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

it depends perhaps on the meaning of the term martial dance. If you consider martial dance a form of choreography as applied to the martial arts, then kalari represents a martial dance because a lot of its movements are quite choreographed. If you actually see it in action, it does have many elements of martial dance. Many of the fighting styles and postures are similar to martial dance. they are quite choreographed. There is a reason why many of the schools that teach it now are tied to the performing arts, not an extension from it. But that's fine. If it's ok with you, I'll correct some grammatical errors. Elmo1 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

not to step on your toes, but can we add religious training to the introduction? there is a large element of religionin kalari and to state that it is just "healing techniques" does it a disservice. Elmo1 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, introductions are best kept as brief as possible.
 * JFD 13:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the image of that monk on the kalari page. He isn't mentioned in any books that i have read on kalaripayattu and Phil (Zirelli) makes no mention of him. None of the guest kalari teachers have mentioned him. As far as I can tell he and kalari is an internet phenomenon. Putting him on there and mentioning him is similar to putting on the George Bush wikipedia article that "some people believe that George bush is the anti-christ" and then having a picture of the devil. Although it's true that some people believe that George Bush is the anti-christ (4-5 webpages exist about him being the anti-christ) it's not a theory that many people who are normal would entertain. But we should leave the article mentioning bodhidharma there as looking at the history of this article, it would appear that there was a huge gigantic debate on it in the past. Oh, how do we archive the prior discussions? I've seen it on other articles but it doesn't seem to exist here. It seems a waste to remove all the prior discussions and then have to repeat ourselves in the future. Elmo1 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually elmo, while the image is irrelevent, its not quite as irrelevent as your example, seeing as numerous martial artists have written the theory in their books.

sangam literature
the source quoted is a travel agent website run by a travel agent who is quoting himself as a source of the history of kalari and the sangam literature. Kennethtennyson 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations
Wiki Raja 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kalari myth 2.jpg
Image:Kalari myth 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is it capitalized, like a proper name, or lower-case, like karate? It's not harmonized throughout (or even in sections), and it should be. If it's only capitalized because It Is Really Important, it shouldn't be per MOS:CAPS. Zarrilli, publishing in a peer reviewed journal, does not capitalize. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Arts and Marmam
In the TV documentary show "Deadly Arts" the host visits a Kalari guru who attempts to apply Marmam techniques on her. When they completely fail to do anything he brushes it off saying "well you are a woman" however the show pointed out that these criticisms are commonly levelled both at Kalari and other pressure point based martial arts. See: Josette_Normandeau for details on the program.64.201.173.189 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

New kalari ralated pages
please improve these two Kalarippayattu related pages,


 * 1) Kalari Exercises
 * 2) Vaytari

--V4vijayakumar (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and potential GA Nom
I just added a couple cleanup tags - they should be easy to take care of if the editor who placed the citations is still active here. I was looking over the article, and it seems to me that it is an excellent candidate for GA nomination. It is perhaps not quite there, but very close. Going ahead and submitting it might be a good way to get some feedback on where improvement is needed. Although there seems to be about a month turnaround for articles added to the GA nomination page, so if you submitted it now, you'd have about a month before anyone got around to reviewing it. Just a thought - the article is looking great. Bradford44 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the Ashans of the southern style of Kalari in the Kerala region are from the Nadar community and I have rectified the ommisions. For reference, please check Dr. Zarelli's book. If needed, I can quote other sources, including the recent book written by one of the royal princess of Travancore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.79.181 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
Huge sections of this article are either unsourced or poorly sourced. Examples include those concerning the various exercises and styles. I have tagged the entire article as a consequence of this. I have no reason to disbelieve any of the statements made but some additional verification would be useful, if only to eliminate the possibility of original research being present. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing
Please refrain from POV pushing in the lead. Hardly anyone will doubt that Nairs were the primary practitioners of Kalari. To say that Ezhavas were the principal practitioners is plain BS. If any one disagrees with this, then post the proof. A simple Scholar search for Kalarippayattu+Nayar yields 187,000 & 165,000 (for Nair) results. Compare this with the 29 results for Kalarippayattu + Ezhava and 587 for Thiyya. If vandalism continues, admin intervention might be necessary. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add some sources which mention Nairs as the practitioners of Kalari.


 * 1 - One among them was the institution for physical training called Kalari. The Kalaris gave physical training in all forms of martial arts to the Nayar youths.


 * 2 - They provide a well-knit national militia for the whole land. This was the famous Kalari system. Kalari was the institution which had kept up the martial spirit of the Nayars.


 * 3 - For every such village in the northern part of the State, there was also a Kalari Panikkan, with a Kalari (gymnastic or military school), where the young men of the village, chiefly the Nayars.


 * 4 - Kalari was originally indented to foster martial spirit among the Nayars and keep them fit to fight in battles. The Kalari schools were generally attached to Bhagavathi temples and it was presided over by Asans.


 * 5 - Every Nayar youth in ancient Kerala was bound to undergo rigorous training in Kalari.

I cant find any source stating that Ezhavas practiced Kalari. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

HI if no one finds proper sourses I think it should be removed. Since POV of a single author cannot determine anything.

Vineet Nayar1 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Adi Murai should not be linked to kalaripayattu since it is a different form of martial art.
Adi murai had been linked to kalaripayattu and kalaripayattu has been later claasified into northern and southern adding that adi murai is the souther kalaripayattu.

The references cited only mentions about adi murai and its detail. These changes should be reverted back to its original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet Nayar1 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Make another article for adimurai... This article should be only about kalaripayattu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.58.115 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues with references
As a non-practitioner of, & previously ignorant to, this subject; I find it extremely hard to help fix the references. I have what I believe is the necessary knowledge of WP-Markup to complete it, but there are two major problems with the current article's external references:


 * 1) There appears to a multitude of ref's to Zarilli 1992 & Zarilli 1998. I believe the former is meant to ref' "To heal and/or to Harm, which is readily available (on the www) @ Exeter Uni's site which is already in the recommended reading section.
 * 2) The ref's to the latter (of the above) don't appear to point anywhere, as I am struggling to find what exactly Zarilli wrote in '98. Bit of help, please?

I am readily available to take constructive criticism and any comments _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just finished cleaning the ref's, still with no idea as to what exactly "Zarilli 1998" or indeed "Luijendijk 2005" is supposed to direct to. When this is decided I suggest using the same format as that used on ref#2, complete with a URL!_> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, in the course of the cleanup I found that this reference was broken; it is now fixed & as a result the word-count of the Eytmology paragraph has increased. I hope this does not cause problems! _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim to be the oldest martial art in the world in the opening paragraph is supported with a single citation simply to the Discovery channel. I don't think such a large claim can be supported simply by citing an entire channel and not even a specific program, let alone a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.118.140 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kalaripayattu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628182657/http://www.phillipzarrilli.com/downloads/actualizing_power.pdf to http://www.phillipzarrilli.com/downloads/actualizing_power.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kalarippayattu.jpg

Why my contribution was removed?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/312156130 V4vijayakumar (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources in Lede
I've removed the citations from M. K. Agarwal and François Gautier as they don't look like reliable sources for history and engage in hyperdiffusionism and depict an unchanging ethnographic present. Agarwal's source, as with most or all of his other books, is self-published, and show definite fringe/pseudohistorical leanings. Gautier doesn't look so much fringe as simply not being rigorous history - his claim of Boddidharma teaching martial arts is well known as a 20th century creation, combining parts of serialized novels and folklore that had originally involved other figures. The notion that there is a fresco with the inscription Tenjiku Naranokaku, besides being unique to Gautier, is also rather silly: Tenjiku Naranokaku is Japanese, not Chinese, so we're apparently to assume that Chinese monks wrote in Japanese, or that Gautier and his editors don't know the difference, in which case they're clearly not reliable on the subject. His description of Boddidharma as "Father and founder of Zen Buddhism (called C'han   in China)" similarly confuses the languages and the relationship between the schools - Zen is a development from Chan/Chán, and didn't appear until several centuries later. The history of Okinawan/Japanese martial arts is also garbled: jiujitsu was not developed from karate. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Kalaripayattu centres in kerala
I edited on list of Kalarippayattu sangam but it was removed Aaquibmkk (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, it seems like the entire section containing the list was removed in a subsequent edit. Please feel free to restore your addition if you can appropriately incorporate it back into the article.– Aranya (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of redirected page from infobox
,,  Just removed a linked redirected page Aromal Chekavar from infobox as there seems some attempts from anonymous IP's to replace the contents with Thacholi Othenan who was also a famous practitioner of the same martial art. Both the pages are alredy redirected to the article Vadakkan Pattukal as of some edit disputes. I think it is fair to not include disputed articles linked on to the infobox to look the main article unbiased for readers. Outlander07 10:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Madhya Kerala Style
Hi

Have somme arguments related to madhya kerala style ,

So before making an arbitrary edit i thought of discussing with all and lets together agree up on things that are going to be added or removed.

I would like to pint here that

-> There is no such thing as Madhya Kerala, we cannot find those in ancient scripts or in history

-> They even the promoters of madhya kerala like alex chacko, are saying that the name is creaed for promoting this by conducting competitions , the real name is kalam chavittu , as you might have seen from many facebook posts and comments.

-> Kalam chavittu was introduced by attar bapu, a native of ponani malapuram who travelled to tamil nadu and even to sri lanka , these kalam chavittu is exactly same as angam pore of sri lanka , despite some minor changes

-> Kalam chavittu cannot be considered as a authenthic kalari and it is fro ponani and kondotty taluks of malapuram, which not under madhya kerala , the name itself is wrong.

-> introducing a new art from srilanka and mixing with some techniques of northern or southern doesn't make an authentic ancient style of kalaripayattu.

-> Kerala Kalaripayattu association did not recognized this for the competition citing it is not kalaripayattu

These are the points i would like to put forward.

I would like to point you that there exists many other authentic forms in akalripayattu which is not written down anywhere, so difficult give references.

Kadathanadan Kadhina Yoga is one such.

You cannot find any source other than a youtube video.

So as a authentic page like wikipedia, where millions of people are visiting daily, it is better that we keep only unambiguous and authentic orginal ancient stlyes in page , so that it would help the tourists and other martial arts lovers to pick up the real things easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalari Poothara (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR; whatever you say it require evidence from reliable sources (WP:CS), then only Wikipedia will accept it. This book do cites the existence of a madhya kalari as per Kerala Kalaripayattu Academy (KKA). I don't know much about Kalaripayattu, but just pointing that I found something. 2409:4073:1A:1213:4579:95EF:10C5:F4AB (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Kalam chaivittu is already mentioned in the page.

foreign author who studied this kalam chavittu under shariff gurukkal might have done some pov pushes in his books as instructed by people who have vested interests.book is not a valid source.

Kerala Kalaripayattu academy is one of the numerous private association, not a government one.

Philip zarelli,and many other indigenous keralite kalaripayattu gurukkal have written it as mix of both northern and southern.

Anyway the style kalam chavittu os also included in the page.

Your move to delete kalaripayattu with it's relationship with hinduism shows your intention here :-)

Good day fellow being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.75.172 (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You make allegations without validating it with evidences. You have cognitive bias, which is evident from your comment. Philip Zarelli is also a foreign author, indigenous gurukkals are also private tutors and have more vested interests than academic researchers. Talk page is not an online forum for posting your opinion, it has zero value. Bring sources for your claims. BTW, the statement about relation with Hinduism is unsourced. 2409:4073:2009:D208:64D6:5A5E:2252:ED08 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Poor sourcing, misinterpreting citations, and neutrality issues
Adding many weak references does not support a claim, if it's a strong source then one reference suffice. Several of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, which directly cites Kalaripayattu institutes or travel and tourism websites. Sources are cherry-picked to support a POV – when there are diverse claims and hypothesis, choosing a particular one and shopping references for it; an example is promoting only Parashurama legend, and the entire paragraph about southern style promotes only a single version (not to mention it uses a fake reference that cites nothing). While some content are left unsourced, for others verification partly fails, in other words, WP:OR is mixed with cited text. If this is the case for accessible sources then I doubt the verifiability of inaccessible books cited here. There is also a tendency for MOS:PUFFERY (like ). I have tagged the article. It requires cleanup and tags should be removed after that. 157.44.216.33 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Vaalum-parichayum.jpeg

Something wrong
QUOTE: 'Kalaripayattu underwent a period of decline when the Nair warriors lost to the British after the introduction of firearms and especially after the full establishment of British colonial rule in the 19th century.[2] The British eventually banned kalaripayattu and the Nair custom of holding swords so as to prevent rebellion and anti-colonial sentiments. During this time, many Indian martial arts had to be practiced in secret and were often confined to rural areas.'

I do not know from where this type of writing comes. It is either perfect imagination or some other issue. I do not know whether Kalari belongs to any caste as such. I belong to a Thiyya family from Tellicherry. I understand that many of my family members of the British period of rule did attend Kalari. There was no ban imposed by British rulers in Tellichery. That is my understanding. Moreover, Kalari was, even though a very good martial arts, was not a weapon of war against that British. Beyond all this, there was not much of an anti-British feeling in Tellichery area, or in Malabar as such, other than among a few persons and groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.95.236 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your ignorance. "This type of writing" comes from documented historical evidences. Anyone who has read Kerala history will come across the fact that Nairs were the martial class, who were the army and police of the kingdoms, there were also other Hindu castes and Christians and Muslims, but was minority compared to the Nair force. It's in almost every history books mentioning old Kerala and in the accounts of Europeans and other foreigners. Kalari certainly was associated with the Nair caste, as it was described as a "martial art of nairs" in Indian and foreign documentations. 117.230.184.180 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
To add in lead: "Kalaripayattu was predominantly practiced by the Nair community." Source:. 117.230.41.114 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources presented are not reliable and the claim is contradicted by reliable sources already in the lead. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2021
please include chenganuradi style within the sub style practiced regionally as it is practiced regionally in regions around chengannur mainly in a place called mannar of alappuzha 2409:4073:4E0F:5DDA:1095:B3B8:8DBA:D5DE (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Creator parameter in infobox

 * Stop edit-warring for a lost cause. Traditionally believed to be Parashurama is a direct violation of WP:AWW. Believed by who? Not everyone believes that legend, whether traditionally or contemporarily. There is also POV involved as there are multiple legends attributing to either Shiva, Parashurama, or Agasthya, and historical origin hypothesis attributing to Thiyya, Tulu Nadu people (and more), or as a result of constant wars, yet you chose Parashurama because it best fits your POV? You cherry-picked sources to project that specific legend, violating WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. I support the suggestion by, it should be left blank. Beside, Template:Infobox martial art describes Creator as "the creator of the martial art, if there is one". 157.46.141.57 (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with OP. Seems like the creator should be listed when it's a person/people (Jeet Kune Do, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu), or not listed at all (Karate, Taekwondo). It seems a bit odd to say a deity created something in a factual infobox. We do not list the Earth as being created by God on the Earth page. I don't feel strongly on this issue, but since I was pinged, that is my opinion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t edit warring. You appear to be edit warring with Outlander’s changes. I merely reverted the change in respect to what Outlander07 stated earlier to discuss it in the talk page. If you check the page history prior to me reverting it to the last version by Outlander, you will see that I actually left your changes to “Parashurama (as per legend)” alone. Also, the sources were not cherry picked, as they come directly from the official websites of governing bodies of Kalaripayattu that are literally listed in the article. Just because a source does not support your POV doesn’t mean it’s a “cherry picked source.”

Second, I never stated that Parashurama was absolutely the creator, hence, I used the terminology of “traditionally believed” to reflect that. This is because it is what is traditionally taught in Kalaris. I would know since I’m a student in one, and have visited several others. I stated Parasurama as the traditionally believed creator because he is typically the one who is most often referenced with its creation, whereas Shiva and Agasthya are not always associated with Kalaripayattu’s creation. Kalariwarrior (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion if there are too many opinions on the Legend as you have mentioned. Its better to create a separate section with the subtitle as "Legend" and write opinions with reliable sources and citations. -   MRRaja001  (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you were edit warring from the beginning, and I am the one who "first" said to discuss the issue in talk page, not Outlander07, what he did was reverting blatantly without providing any reason in edit summary, violating WP:REVEXP and refusing to go to talk page. Even in the above comment you are advocating and justifying your Parashurama POV. Websites of institutes and promotional bodies are not reliable sources as it's WP:PRIMARY. 157.44.216.33 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, when there are multiple legends and historical hypothesis, all should be mentioned in the History section, without projecting only a particular one, that is POV pushing. Creator should be left blank as there's no consensus among historians. 157.44.216.33 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * can speak for himself regarding his own reverts and edits. I never had much of a problem with your, or any other edits provided they were referenced and phrased with appropriate wording and grammar that would be legible to any random reader. I have zero problem with discussing various theories in the history section.


 * I am not justifying anything. I merely stated my reason for my wording around it. I’m not POV pushing. The fact of the matter is that Parashurama is the one who is most often referenced to as the martial art’s creator. Nowhere did I write or imply that he was the absolute creator, that his creating it was established historical fact, or that no one else had anything to do with it or that there were no other theories about it. What I wrote is what is typically taught in most Kalaris across Kerala, the martial art’s native state. Due to the subjectivity of the statement, I phrased it as “traditionally believed to be” to reflect that it is a traditionally held belief by most kalari practitioners. This is also why I didn’t change your edit to “Parashurama (as per legend). It reflects the same sentiment, and is the most popularly held belief of its origin.


 * Sorry, but I have to differ with you there. The word of an authoritative, governing body is absolutely a source, especially considering that Kalaripayattu is not a widely advocated martial art in terms of modern day scholarship and literary material beyond ancient texts and traditions. As such, a source from a governing body which is literally mentioned further below in the article is one of the few credible sources that can be used. No one else has had an issue with this prior to you, because what is present in the info box is the most widely held traditional belief. While discussing various theories is fine, as a Kalaripayattu practitioner myself, I simply wrote what I have been taught, as well as what is most popularly believed as per tradition. If you can find some sources that say that Parashurama is NOT the most popularly accepted creator of Kalaripayattu, I wouldn’t mind seeing it. Modern day literary sources are rare, and hard to come by for this topic, and a quick search can tell you that Parashurama is the one who is most often associated with Kalaripayattu’s founding. I’m aware that this is an idea based on legend, so I worded it as such, and have no issue with the wording right now. In fact, virtually no one on the page, particularly among actual practitioners of the art, has had any issue with the creator box or the phrase “traditionally believed to be Parashurama” or “Parashurama (as per legend). Kalariwarrior (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's 2 of us that want to leave the "creator" section of the infobox blank. Me and IP #57/33. Maybe has an opinion too. We'll see where the consensus goes. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

'Traditionally believed to be ' Parashura for Northern Kalari and Agasthya Muni for souther kalari.

This is the belief in kalari.

You cannot trace back to 2000 or 1000 years to the origin or any 2000 scriptures citing a name for creator.

If Vyasa Maharshi is the author of Mahabharata , If Valmeeki is the author of Ramayana

Modern day history is different, if someone ask do you have any proof that author of ramayana is valmeeki , no one can give you one. These are oral traditions, carried through generations that these these sages created this. Oral Tradition says kalari is created by Parashurama. May be you can find the same oral claim in keralolpathy, written some 1000 years back. Also if you take any book written by kalaripayattu masters who can see this.

If you wanted to negate this oral traditional claim, come with a reference saying another creator.

For thekkan kalari or southern kalari there are still books (very ancient, written in vattezhuthu script) written by sage agasthya himself like agasthyar kambu soothiram , njaranb soothiriam etc..for southern kalari since they have still the scriptures with them , it is very clear , but for northern style no ancient scriptures are available on kalari , yes there are some but not digitalized yet.

What you can do is that, come with a source negating the oral or traditional belief that parashurama is the creator of kalaripayattu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.195.164 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Also it is evident from your IP is that you are from kerala and is a malayali and not a foreigner. You are not a kalari practitioner nor you don't have any knowledge in these area. But you are a Wikipedia editor, a well experienced editor. Might be someone hired for you to edit this page, to remove all those related to India and its culture and tradition, that is why you are not coming in your original account.

I request the admins to block this IP for IP gaming, as already this issue has been taken to admins attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.195.164 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the general premise of IP range 42.107.195.164. Kalaripayattu is an ancient tradition, and as such, is tied in with Hindu traditional beliefs in Kerala. Sources on it in modern day scholarship is hard to come by. We do not have the luxury of providing perfect sources for this, even if we wanted to.
 * Second, I’m saying this again, just because a credible source does not support your views does not mean it is a “cherry picked source.” As the above editor said, it’s fairly clear that you do not practice the art, but are merely editing solely off of what you have read from the internet, otherwise you would have a better understanding of the subject material.
 * As I said above, credible sources are hard to find for this topic. As such, I can’t say I’m surprised that many sources come from tourism sites, as Kalaripayattu and its demonstrations are often advertised as a tourist attraction by the Keralite Tourism industry. However, a weak source is still better than no source at all. If you want more credible sources for this article, either find them, or go and study Kalaripayattu in a Kalari and write a book on it to create your own. Otherwise, the sources are limited to what little you can find online, and to the experience of editors who actually practice Kalaripayattu such as myself. IP range 42.107.195.164 had a point. If you have better, more credible sources than the sources on here that you claim are insufficient, or you have counter sources that counter claims made on here, I would be happy to take a look at them.Kalariwarrior (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Plus, with all due respect, I’m sure would agree, you do not appear to be in any place to advise anyone on Wikipedia’s rules and policies, as you not only hop from one IP to another, but also have multiple bans for disruptive editing, and block evasion under your name for this IP:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A2409%3A4073%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F34&type=block


 * With such a record, I’m going to respectfully take any of your words on Wikipedia’s rules and policies with a grain of salt. I’m only engaging in this discussion because I’m interested in keeping this page as accurate as possible.
 * Kalariwarrior (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * According to my research I found out that Northern style is created by Parashuram, while southern style is created by Agastya. If you guys are okay with this then we can add like this Parashurama (Northern style) and Agastya (Southern style) in the infobox. Here's the reference for it -  MRRaja001  (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure how well that solution will work. Here is why:
 * The northern form of Kalaripayattu is the original form of Kalaripayattu, and is almost universally attributed to Parashurama. Since this is the original and older form of Kalaripayattu, I stated that the traditionally believed founder of Kalaripayattu was Parashurama.
 * The southern form came about later on, and was influenced by martial arts from neighboring Tamil Nadu, that were, according to legend, created by Agasthya. I don’t see the point in addressing the creator of a specific branch of the martial art in a general info box about the martial art. Plus, the information on Agasthya’s influence on the southern form of Kalaripayattu, or Thekkan Kalari, is mentioned further below in the article.
 * In essence, Thekkan Kalari is just Kalaripayattu that has been influenced by Tamil martial arts such as Silambam, Adimurai, etc. Since the northern style is the older style of Kalaripayattu, and regarded as the “original form” of Kalaripayattu, I feel like a general infobox, if it is indeed listing a traditionally believed creator, should list Parashurama, as he is, as per traditional belief, the one who created the original form upon which the southern form (Thekkan Kalari) was based. That being said, I do not mind if Parashurama and Agasthya are both listed as traditionally believed founders.
 * However, this presents another issue, as alongside Parashurama and Agastya, the deity Shiva is also mentioned as a founder, as he, according to legend, is the one who taught the art to Parashurama. The whole reason I chose Parashurama as the traditional believed founder is not only because that is the way it is taught in Kalaris all over Kerala (including the one I studied in), but also because he is the most widely associated with the martial art’s creation. I felt like naming one creator, who is almost always associated with and taught as the traditional creator, would be easier than listing a number of people who are less commonly associated with Kalaripayattu such as Shiva, Agasthya, etc. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right. I got references for this. Citation 1, Citation 2. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am also interested in hearing what other regular editors of the page, such as and  have to say on the matter. I’m especially interested in hearing from the latter, as he, from what I understand, is also an actual Kalaripayattu practitioner. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay let's wait. Meanwhile I'll update these citations in infobox. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

, so you see my point. While there are other sources that mention other traditionally believed creators such as Agasthya and Shiva, none of them are associated with Kalaripayattu’s creation as often as Parashurama, which is why I put him there first, and left it at that. If we start listing ALL the other, less commonly believed creators such as Agasthya and Shiva, the list would be long, and it would undoubtedly make the infobox more cluttered and appear more disorganized. I believe it would be best if we waited to see what other editors have to say on the matter as well. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as someone mentioned here, the ip user who is a expert wikipedia editor is from kerala and has no knowledge regarding this.

This user is banned from editing wikipedia article Kodiyeri Balakrishnan and one can see his vandalised disruptive editing adding words on the politician page as 'Theetta commie' (a shit communist) and other high offensive usages. Foe this reason he has been blocked from editing the wikipedia article there.

I wonder why a guy from kerala is arguing like these on kalaripayattu.

This is an art article, a oldest martial arts. So the sources will not be always written. Kalaripayattu is taught in a oral tradition. None of the things are written down till 1940s when chirackal t sreedharan nair published first book in this field.

From 1940, including those old manuscripts one can see 'it is believed thar parashurama is the creator of northern style and agastya maharshi for southern. '

Coming to parashurama, he is not a god, but a sage like agastya, valmeeki or vyasa.

There are no multiple creators for kalaripayattu There is only these two gurus - parashurama and agastya.

Also i have added the salutation mantra in kalaripayattu. This ip user removed it citing lack of reference. The reference i have provided is clearly mentioning the mantra.

This mantra is unique to kalaripayattu.

I can provide numerous book references citing this.

Since this guy is a malayali, the sources are available to him.

I don't what is the problem with this malayali guy with kalaripayattu.

Also admin please note that this user has been banned from editing few pages for his offensive vandal editing.

Since he is coming in multiple ips, may be one from his phone another from system, another from his wife's phone, it is difficult block the user for disruptive edits.

As he is a malayali and know the things clearly, he has some other intentions here.

I request admins to set the page protection level to semi protected so that only registered users can only edit. This protection level is not useful in preventing those 'experienced vandals' like thia ip user. Kalari Poothara (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, semi protection might be a good idea. Semi protection might get some of these IP's to register, so we can see who we are dealing with, and increase accountability. Is it one person? Many people? One IP seems very wiki-knowledgeable and may be a banned user.
 * You or anyone else may make a request at WP:RFPP once we think semi protection is needed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , first educate yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That is an IP range which contains millions of IPs. Don't blame someone else's fault on me. Talk page is not an online forum, no one wants to hear your personal opinion and original research. It has zero value, unless you provide substantiating sources. And stop logged-out editing, you think you are making a fool out of everyone here? You admitted you're a Kalaripayattu trainer and here to promote the topic, so is it you or me who have ill-intentions? This is an encyclopedia and you have to abide by the policies. 2409:4073:9E:825:2164:A357:23C8:5EE0 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 42.107.195.164 and, I have moved your comments here as per WP:MULTI. Do not scatter discussion. Discussion of Parashurama is here. That section is for discussing sourcing issues. And the same comment given above to Kalari Poothara applies to you too. Do not cast aspersions when you lose arguments. Some of you said you are Kalaripayattu trainers and practitioners. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a space to promote your martial art. It's not edited how YOU want it to be. There are policies and guidelines. There was no need to write essays if your arguments were legit. You have made several claims above without providing sources, statements as such will not merit a discussion. Remember, what is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


 * I have to differ with you there. The word of an authoritative, governing body is absolutely a source: You cannot "differ" with me, because that's not my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY). Such websites are not considered reliable in WP as they have vested interest. Even the I.K.F website which you claimed as "authoritative governing body" says: It is traditionally believed that Kalarippayattu had been originated from Lord Siva, the great master of all Art form. What an irony that is.


 * , if you are adding cherry-picked sources to establish your and Kalariwarrior's POV, then I can also show cherry-picked sources for Shiva legend . It's not a matter of which legend. Deities are not creators. Like Novem Linguae said, Earth's article do not attribute God as creator. There are numerous sources out there citing Bodhidharma as the creator of kung fu, yet he's not mentioned as so in the infobox. 137.97.67.46 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations which you are showing are also saying the same thing. Lord Shiva is not creator of Kalaripayattu. For example let's take the case of Gayatri Mantra, Even though Goddess Gayatri Devi gave Gayatri Mantra to Vishvamitra, no one says the Goddess Gayatri Devi as creator of Mantra. Every one says that Maharshi Vishvamitra created the mantra. Why because the person who brought to mankind is important not God. God knows everything it doesn't mean that he is creator of any art. Parashurama is the person who established first Kalari, he is the first person who taught it to people, hence he is considered as the founder, creator and father of Kalaripayattu. Thank you. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the citations I provided was just for the purpose of showing you that other versions can also be cherry-picked. My argument was not about which legend. Beside, what you said is "your interpretation". Supporters of Shiva legend can also argue in the same way in the other direction. Deities are no creators and there's no consensus among historians about the actual origin of the martial art. Template:Infobox martial art says to add creator if there is one. There is none. It is also not a religious content template (like the one used in Ramayana) to add beliefs and deities. 137.97.96.216 (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been inactive for a while, so I'm going to assume consensus is approved for keeping the creator parameter in the infobox. As far as I can see in this discussion, the anonymous editor and Novem Linguae are for removing the parameter, whereas myself, Outlander07 and MRRaja are in support of keeping it that way. Kalari Poothara was confirmed to be a sockpuppet and banned accordingly, so I will not be counting their opinion here. Number of people for parameter removal is 2, and the number of people for keeping the parameter is 3. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Page cleanup and flag removal.
In light of the page being flagged and recent disputes regarding sources, I have gone ahead and gone through the entire page’s sources, removed broken links, unrelated sources, and other issues that were highlighted over the past few weeks. I’ve also made an effort to remove any caste-based issues or controversies to avoid edit warring, POV pushing and vandalism. I’ve also tried to keep the material in the article as neutral as possible in regards to WP:NPOV. Regarding the sources, I’ve taken special care to cite them in regards to WP:RELIABLE, and WP:SECONDARY and have tried my best to avoid usage of primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. , you were the one who went to find more reliable sources for the infobox in the article. Could you take a moment and go through the sources in the article now that they’ve been updated to more reliable ones? , feel free to take a look as well and tell me what you think. If everyone is okay with how the article is and thinks the tags can be removed, we can go ahead and remove them. Kalariwarrior (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and, just a reminder for you guys (if you get the chance) to please look over the new sources and page content that I've tried to fix in order to remove the flags. See above text for more info. If you guys think the page, the sources used, and the content is okay, I'll go ahead and remove the flags for the page. Kalariwarrior (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It is doubtful whether this is a reliable source. I think we should not rely too much on primary sources like these. It seems the mudslinging is almost over as the sockpuppets are blocked and tagged also partisan source additions should be avoided in future. Outlander 07@talk 06:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , is that a primary source though? That one is a news article on the subject, so I figured that was a source that would work. I’ve tried to remove most of the primary sources that were used for the article, and removed most of the broken sources as well. I admit that primary sources (such as those of the Kalaripayattu governing bodies), are used a little bit, but not more than twice if I’m not mistaken. Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSBLOG, the above source certainly fails on being much reliable. It is more like an online published piece of scattered colloquial opinions that are codified. It may fall under WP:QS. Outlander 07@talk 14:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the quick response! I’m not sure if that would count as a blog section of a newspaper. The article itself does not appear to be part of any blog, as mentioned in WP:NEWSBLOG. The author, a Ramya Velu, seems to be legitimate as well. Did you see anything that indicated it as such? As for falling under WP:QS, I don’t think they’re unreliable from the appearance of the article and other articles on the website, and most of the material in it also concurs with what I have been taught about the subject as well, but that is merely my view on the matter. If you want, I can try to replace that source, but I don’t think it’s a big deal. Are there any other sources you think have issues? Or is that the only one? Kalariwarrior (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As you said it can somewhat be a matter of individual perspective but it seems less dependable than other primary sources whatever the contents are. This one [] is definitely not a good source as it was cited by a sockpuppet. Moreover, it is a self-published source WP:SPS. Outlander 07@talk 08:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , that’s fair. I’ll replace the self published/potential sock puppet source when I’m free. As for the other source, I’ll try to find a replacement, but if not, I think I’ll leave it as is if that’s okay. Are there any other sources or issues that the page is tagged for that you think should be changed? If not, I’ll replace the source and remove the tags. Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

All right. I've removed the unreliable source as well as the information taken from it as per the discussion here. If there are no other objections, I'll remove the tags from the page. Kalariwarrior (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This follow-up discussion should have went below the original discussion Poor sourcing, misinterpreting citations, and neutrality issues. Anyway, the article (as of 2 January 2021 revision) is far from cleaned to remove tags.


 * 1) The Creator POV is still used in infobox.
 * 2) This website itself is a blog (they self-identify that in their About Us too). As the content is copy-pasted from Wikipedia itself it is also a circular reference, WP:CIRCULAR. Additionally, extraordinary claims like dates back to 3rd century BCE needs extraordinary sources as well, such as academic publications, historians, research authors etc - WP:EXCEPTIONAL. On another note, the source that was used to cite the claim earlier also failed verification, at the cited p. 89 there's no mention of any date except AD 510 (referring Bodhidharma). It is also factually inaccurate as so far no historical evidence has been found to date the origin.
 * 3) The Dutch author Arnaud Van Der Veere confers [...] - WP:UNDUE, a non-notable author, a martial artist who have written one book titled Muay Thai.
 * 4) "Like most Indian martial arts" - fails verification with the given source.
 * 5) Kalaripayattu differs from many other martial arts [...] - this is contrary to the southern style.
 * 6) Unlike other parts of India, warriors in Kerala belonged to all castes - Misrepresentation of source, source says "it was practiced by specific sub-groups of Nairs of Kerala, as well as one sub-caste of (Yatra) brahmans, Christians, Muslims, and one specific sub-group of Illavas (also known as Tiyyas)". There are no less than 100 castes in Kerala.
 * 7) The word Kalari [...] kalari kozhai meant a coward in war - OR, that reference only cites the follow-up sentence Each warrior in the Sangam era received regular military training. Additionally, it was originally added at Indian martial arts by a user (blocked for misuse of sources) with a poor source and copy-pasted here by an IP.
 * 8) In that period and during later periods [...] called Chekavar - Factually inaccurate and unsourced claim, OR added by IP.
 * 9) Elements from the yoga tradition [...] into the fighting arts - OR, fails verification with the given source.
 * 10) Other theories postulate [...] Thiyyar of the Malabar region of Kerala - Part mentioning the specific caste should be removed as it may constitute pov as no historical evidence have been found for originators and this is only one among several "theories". That circular reference should be also removed.
 * 11) Each kalari is built [...] and customs native to Kerala - OR added by Kalariwarrior.
 * 12) Historically, all Keralites of the Hindu [...] their education - Primary source and it only says "student in the kalari begins at a very early age of 9-years with an initiation ritual performed by the Gurukkal", others are OR added by Kalariwarrior.
 * 13) [...] among Kalari practitioners: the Northern Style and the Southern Style - Primary source, and three styles exist . No mention in styles section too. So there's an editorial bias too.
 * 14) These two systems are quite similar [...] soldiers at the time - OR
 * 15) Vadakkan Kalari, and is generally regarded as the "original," form of Kalaripayattu - OR added by Kalariwarrior
 * 16)  The origin of Thekkan Kalari is [...] flexibility like the Northern style'' - Large OR and POV added by Kalariwarrior . The one reference attached is WP:FAKE that does not cite any of the claim.
 * 17) It is claimed that experienced Kalari warriors [...] misuse of the technique - OR

These issues are serious as they directly violates all three core policies.--157.44.176.214 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input! I’ll try to look into the matters you addressed and get some more sources when I get the chance. Some of the edits there were made in reference to content disputes that occurred on the page over the past year or so, and were edited in compliance with those disputes while addressing the controversies that were discussed in them. A consensus was reached about certain things, like the Madhya Kalari issue, which was supposed to be the third style of Kalari that was initially included in the article, but removed after a few users spoke out against it, but I can see your points in a lot of things. That being said, I would disagree with some points you made on the sources. For instance, I would advise that you check the source for the “Like most Indian martial arts,” again, as the source states (in reference to Kalaripayattu) that: “Like most martial art forms in India, these have their roots in Indian myths that attribute the knowledge of these forms to the gods.” I do not believe this is a verification failure by any means.
 * I’m also surprised to hear that the source you mentioned first is a blog. I’ll have to look through it again to confirm, but I didn’t see any mention of a blog there. That being said, I’ll get to work on it as soon as I can, try to clear up some of the issues you mentioned and then maybe you guys can take another look at it. Kalariwarrior (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No consensus were reached for Madhya Kalari. This is just claims by sock IP of User:Adhithya Kiran Chekavar, that's his POV. On the contrary there are enough sources to establish the existence of Madhya Kalari. A blog can be identified just by looking at it, its using a blog template, beside, they self-identify as a "news blog" in their About Us. Additionally, it's a circular reference and fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL (for the content you have cited). 157.46.222.163 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see. Thank you for informing me of that. I did not realize that that user was confirmed as a sock puppet. I will restore the original information on Madhya Kalari as soon as I’m able, along with appropriate sources on the matter that you can look over. I removed it as about 3 users reached out concerning it. Then again, for all we know, they could be sock puppets of this Aditya Koran Chekavar.
 * Thank you for sharing the link. The article itself had pretty solid info (at least based on my experience practicing Kalari), but I was not aware that it was a blog. I’ll remove that source and try to find a better one if I can. Also, you claim that that source fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL and that it is a circular reference. Was it one? I didn’t see anything that referred to it as such, and I didn’t see any specific, word for word copies from this article on there either. How do you know that it is a circular reference? Is there a page that states this? I’m not asking this in reference to remove the actual source (I’ll be removing it anyway, as it is a news blog), but for personal reference so I can better deal with this sort of thing in the future. Kalariwarrior (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made some of the textual changes you mentioned above. As for some of the issues you brought up that requires sourcing, I am currently in the process of getting them. I've gotten a few already, and will add them when I get a moment. I'll also go back and re-add some of the tags that you mentioned earlier that you said were improperly removed (if the cited information is still present in the article). I'm still in the process of getting it all set up, but I'll add more responses on here as I go through more of the changes you mentioned. Kalariwarrior (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Been pretty busy of late. I’ve found a few sources to supplement some of the points highlighted above, and I’ll try to put them in as in-line citations either tomorrow or day after. Kalariwarrior (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So I finally got a bit of time, and after some research, I found an amazing, published academic paper on the history and training of Kalaripayattu to verify many claims on the article that you mentioned above. It's roughly 60 pages long, and honestly provides the biggest, published, verifiable amount of knowledge I could find on Kalari on the internet. I'll add it with in-line citations shortly. Kalariwarrior (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the sources and reference pages for said sources in appropriate places around the page, along with adding some new information quoted from the source. I'll address some of the other issues you mentioned above at a later date. Kalariwarrior (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Got around to removing the last primary source in the page that was addressed above. Going to continue making corrections as I get more time. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, on a side note, I also changed the article image to one that was put forth by the editor Fight Island. I felt like that image was more in line with the traditional kachakettal unform that is used in Kalaripayattu, which is mentioned in the article under the "Practice" section. If anyone has an issue with this change, feel free to voice your concern here. Kalariwarrior (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So after going through the article again, I want to say that it's safe to remove all page flags except the one for additional citations. If no one has any objections, I'll do that. I'll leave this open for a week for anyone to voice any objections they might have, and if I don't hear any, I'll remove all flags except the one I mentioned. Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been over 10 days, and no one has voiced any concerns, so I'm going to assume that there are no objections, and establish consensus in accordance with WP:SILENCE. Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

'See also'
Please remove 'Kalarippayattu stick fighting' in 'See also'. It only redirects back to this article. Or give me the allowness to can do it. Thanks. --Albrecht Eckert (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is done. R.C Outlander07@talk 05:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorret Information
It is stupid to categorise Tamil Martial Arts like Adi Murai(Marma adi&etc),silambam and etc as Southern style of Kallaripayat.I would like to stress that Kalaripayat and Various other Tamil Martial arts are different in terms of everything.Kalaripayat itself is formed just around 13th century while those other Tamil Martial arts that is claimed by baseless parties as a part of Kalaripayat is formed centuries earlier which were mentioned in Tamil literature of Sangam Age.This article needs a serious rewrite which must only include information about Kalaripayat and not other martial arts.--Rajendra Prasath Arumon 07:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajendra Prasath Arumon (talk • contribs)

I agree with Rajendra Prasath. Why dont people make another article called adi murai insted of classifying it as kalaripayattu and faking the entire article???? This is not acceptable at all.

Kalaripayattu its a fake one its a set of movementa taken from kuthuvarisai Sticks taken from silabamam Weapons taken from varamkalai ayyudha pirivu All tamilans arts copied into a one called kalaripayattu said by fake persons in kerala Jillayogesh (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of Modern Practice section, opinions on new additions to Notable Practitioners section, and removal of additional citations tag on page.
I think its high time the "Modern Practice" section was expanded. I went ahead and expanded the "Notable Practitioners" section after receiving a suggestion from an IP editor on my talk page. My additions are all sourced with reliable sources too. If anyone has any additions or suggestions for that section, I'd like to hear them. I'd also like to talk about removing the additional citations tag on the page. There aren't many places in the article that require sources, and the ones that do have a citation needed template on them, but I don't think there are enough areas in the page that require citations that the full page needs to be flagged as such. If no one has any objections to removing it, I'll remove it one week from now. If anyone has any concerns or objections to that, please let me know here. Kalariwarrior (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've allowed a bit more time to pass, and no one has voiced any objections, so in accordance with WP:SILENCE, I'll remove the flag. I'll work on expanding the "Modern Practice" section tomorrow. Kalariwarrior (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So its taken a few hours, but with a fair bit of research, searching for sources, and reorganizing of some aspects of the article, I believe I've adequately expanded the "Modern Practice" section. Does anyone have any suggestions on adding anything to that section? If not, I'm considering removing the tag for expansion on that section. If no one has any objections or additional suggestions, I will remove the tag in one week from now. Kalariwarrior (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Chavittithirumal.jpg

Division of "Modern Practice" section?
So I recently expanded the Medieval history section, but reading through the Modern history section, I realize that a large portion of it is written about the 18th and 19th century. I think it may be a good idea to make that into two sections. Maybe call it "18th and 19th centuries" or "Early Modern History," or something like that. After this, anything that occurred in the 21st century (eg. Sri Meenakshi Amma's winning of the Padma Shri) can be left under "Modern Practuce." Its just an idea, but I wanted to see if anyone had any objections or suggestions if such a change was made. As always, I'll wait 1 week for any responses before potentially implementing this change. Kalariwarrior (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Have no objection also, the source A. Sreedhara Menon is a better choice and a few more can be added from MGS Narayanan's work I believe. R.C Outlander07@talk 16:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sreedharan's work is academically well established, so upon finding his work in reference to Kalairpayattu, I thought it would be a good idea to include it, especially since I overhauled the sources of this page (in response to the whole edit warring anonymous IP/sockpuppet fiasco a while back). I'll try to add anything I can find as long as I can find a source that falls under WP:VERIFY. At the moment however, I seem to have been inadvertently blocked from editing via a Checklist block from Materialscientist which blocked the underlying IP range, which unfortunately affected me as well. Every now and then, I can edit, but other times the block comes up. I'm trying to contact various people to get it resolved, but haven't heard back yet. Once the issue is resolved, I'll get to work on changing the modern practice section and the like. Kalariwarrior (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of changes have been made to this page based on the works of only a single author 'Zarilli'.
A lot of changes have been made to this page based on the works of only a single author 'Zarilli'. Creating an entire article with POV of a particular author should not be a good practise. The old artice was well written. Moreover liking Bodhidharma and likes will only hamper the actual history. I personally dont believe he has anything to do with Kalaripayattu. Lets just keep it simple and meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet Nayar1 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Zarilli's source is a peer reviewed scholarly study, not just any source (like the ones you cherry-picked to support your POV). Beside, he has no COI unlike other authors related to Kalaripayattu or Malayali journalists who has every reason to promote their culture. You have to show other scholarly articles equal to or better than Zarilli, and what you "personally believe" has zero value. Wikipedia is not a space to write what YOU believe to be "actual history". That's your POV. The old artice was well written, how do you know that and based on what and which academic sources?--2409:4073:2013:2852:78D6:4EDF:E66:E535 (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Zarilli is a solid source, though I do believe that we shouldn't rely too heavily on one source. I've added a lot of reliable sources to the article to decrease the article's dependence on Zarilli's work. That being said, I don't think that he's somehow immune from having a COI. What makes you think he's immune to having one? Zarilli himself is a Kalaripayattu practitioner. It could easily be argued that he wants to promote the martial art he practices, which is very common amongst martial artists. Just because the person writing the source is a Malayali doesn't automatically mean they're, "promoting their culture." I understand that there are certain individuals who want to violate WP:NPOV, but that's the case with any group, and in regards to any article about any cultural phenomena, not just between Malayalis and Kalaripayattu. To say otherwise, in my humble opinion, is to paint a great many people with a broad brush.
 * I agree with the rest of your statement though. :)

Seeing that this post was made back in 2011 though, I think its safe to say the issue has been done with for a while haha. Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dating
The Hindu is not a WP:HISTRS. P. Zarrilli says "since at least the twelfth century A.D. and more specifically is an introduction to the history and a few of the assumptions about the body, mind, and practice shared with yoga and Ayurveda and which inform the way in which some traditional masters still teach kalarippayattu." Wareon (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply. I've been rather busy. I see your point. While I consider Zarrilli to be more of a martial artist than a historian, his work is reliable. I admit I'm a bit reluctant to use him as a source, as he's already been used extensively on this page, but I suppose one more time couldn't hurt. I've edited the article to reflect Zarilli's work. Let me know what you think. Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioning date on lead is WP:UNDUE. I have removed it from lead. Wareon (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it falls under WP:UNDUE. As I've understood it, WP:UNDUE refers more to minority viewpoints and uncommon views rather than historical dates. I don't see any undue weight being give there. Can you elaborate on what makes you think that it's WP:UNDUE? Kalariwarrior (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Date is undue for the lead because this form of martial art was not created in a specific century but it has origins from the ancient Sangam period. Its all in section. Wareon (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Issue in header
@Jagmanst, Hello! You seem to have an issue with the fact that Kalaripayattu originated in Kerala. This topic has been discussed a few times, and 3 reliable sources have been collected to support this as per WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. Academic and historical consensus agrees that it originated in the modern-day Indian state of Kerala. Most other views fall under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. If it did not originate in Kerala, please state where it originated and provide at least 3 reliable sources for the same. If you can find reliable sources, I’ll revert the text back to the version you wrote. Personally, I think the information that is written is in keeping with academic and scholarly consensus. As for the wording, this is the English Wikipedia, and as such, many people reading the article might not be familiar with India’s geography. As such, there is a definitive reason for a few words on exactly where in India Kerala is. This is why I included the description, “a state in southwestern India.” Please tag me with your justification for your changes and the sources as requested above. Thank you! Kalariwarrior (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Modern state of kerala began in 1952. Kalaripayattu pre-dates modern state of Kerala. So it is factually wrong to say it originated in modern day state of kerala. It would be accurate to say it originated in the geographic region that is modern day state of kerala. But that is long-winded. "Orignated in Kerala" is my proposed edit- short and accurate.
 * Kerala is a state of 30+ million people. I don't think there is a need to provide an explanation of where it is. If someone doesn't know where it is, they can click the link. Wikipedia doesn't need to be written for ignorant people, or prioritise non-Indian readers, who don't know basic facts. Jagmanst (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase, “modern-day Kerala,” refers to the geographic location with respect to modern times. It makes no reference to the modern boundaries of Kerala as a state. Similar phrases have been used in many instances when referring to geographical locations in history, and can likely be found on other articles on Wikipedia as well.
 * Wikipedia’s purpose is to provide knowledge in a free and open way to regular people who want to obtain it. Kerala is not the entire world, nor is India. The average person who isn’t from India does not know what the Indian states are, nor do they know where the states are. It isn’t common knowledge for most people outside of India. Your viewpoint would, in my humble opinion, would be more viable in Wikipedia in Indian languages, but not on the English one. Articles must be written in such a way that can be informative even to people who don’t know much about India. An extra dozen words to help avoid some confusion isn’t going to diminish the article in any way. I do not despise the other billions of non-Indian people who can’t rattle off Indian states off the top of their heads. We should be working to educate them, not look down on them, call them “ignorant people who don’t know basic facts.” Knowing the location of Indian states is only a “basic fact,” for Indians, and even then, many in India don’t know all of them or their location. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * why do you want to include the words "modern day". I dont understand what that adds except to imply wrongly that the martial art form was developed in modern day state of Kerala, which is factually incorrect.
 * If someone said "Mughals ruled in modern day India", it would be absurd. If they said "Mughals ruled in India", that is fine.
 * I disagree with this view that adding extra words to explain what Kerala is to non-Indians is required. It gives a feel this article is written for a western gaze, which I find distasteful.
 * the second point is a question of style. The first point however is a matter of fact and should be definitely corrected. 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Jagmanst (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it, but the usage of “modern day,” or “present day,” is a figure of speech in English that is used to refer to a historical event, practice, etc that is related to the modern day region’s history. “Kalaripayattu is an Indian martial art that originated in modern day Kerala,” means that Kalaripayattu originated in the region that, in modern times, is in the Indian state of Kerala. It is factually correct. I’m not sure sure if you’re familiar with that phrase. No one else has had a problem with it.
 * I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it, but the usage of “modern day,” or “present day,” is a figure of speech in English that is used to refer to a historical event, practice, etc that is related to the modern day region’s history. “Kalaripayattu is an Indian martial art that originated in modern day Kerala,” means that Kalaripayattu originated in the region that, in modern times, is in the Indian state of Kerala. It is factually correct. I’m not sure sure if you’re familiar with that phrase. No one else has had a problem with it.


 * Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the word, “modern day,” as, “often used to indicate that someone or something of the present is similar to someone or something of the past.”
 * You can find the link to the Webster dictionary definition here.


 * It even includes an example in the form of “modern-day China.”


 * You have stated that, “If someone said ‘Mughals ruled in modern day India’, it would be absurd.”


 * I’m afraid the BBC disagrees with you.


 * In fact, they have an article about Mughal rule in India with the exact wording that you claim is, “absurd.”


 * The article can be found here.


 * In the article is the following quote:


 * “The Mughal Empire began in 1526 and lasted for over 200 years. At its peak it covered modern day India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”


 * I think it’s safe to say the BBC is better versed in English than either of us.


 * As for your second statement, “I disagree with this view that adding extra words to explain what Kerala is to non-Indians is required. It gives a feel this article is written for a western gaze, which I find distasteful.”


 * I’m afraid I have to disagree with you, and so does Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is meant to provide knowledge to everyone. Not just one group. By claiming that the article should be written only for one group (Indians) or that the article is wrong for being more understandable to other groups or other perspectives outside of your own (eg. “A western gaze) is a direct violation of Wikipedia’s policy of content neutrality or WP:NPOV.


 * Articles and content are not written to your, or anyone else’s tastes or distastes. They are written in a manner that is neutral, easily understood and informative. This is not merely my opinion, but Wikipedia policy.


 * All information in any article is required by Wikipedia policy to be neutral and understandable to everyone, Indian or otherwise.


 * This is also the English Wikipedia. As such, it is primarily written in the English language for people who want to read the articles in English. As such, all articles are written in a way that is easy for native English speakers and others who read in English to understand, and should be written not for an Indian or Western gaze, but a universal gaze.
 * If you want to write something that is meant to be read by a more indian audience, you could attempt to do it on any of the Indian language Wikipedia sites. There are specific versions of Wikipedia in several Indian languages, which are read almost exclusively by speakers of those Indian languages. However, I will warn you that WP:NPOV also applies on those sites, so you may face a warning for potentially violating it if you choose to do so. Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oh dear.
 * What do the words "modern day" add to that sentence? Why do you insist on using it? I am finding it very puzzling why you feel so passionate about these two words. Since we could remove those two words and reach an consensus.
 * My view remains the same. Saying something developed in modern day Kerala means it developed in modern day kerala, i.e. since 1952 when modern day kerala existed. If it said it developed in a region that covers modern day Kerala, it would be fine.
 * My proposal is to say it developed in Kerala or perhaps ancient Kerala or region that is modern day Kerala.
 * Writing an article to favour of a western gaze is not a neutral point of view. The western gaze isn't the neutral universal view, even if for much of history it has pretended to be.

From above link: "The imperial gaze reflects the assumption that the white western subject is central much as the male gaze assumes the centrality of the male subject."


 * The article is perfectly understandable to all audiences without having to explain what Kerala is. Anyone can click on the link to Kerala. That is what neutrality looks like.
 * There will be no such explanations given to a similar reference to a state in a western country. In a similar situation, no one will explain where Portugal is or what part of the US, Texas is located in. So I don't understand why Kerala needs to be treated differently. differently.
 * Let's try one more round of discussion, before exploring a content resolution process. Thanks.
 * Let's try one more round of discussion, before exploring a content resolution process. Thanks.

I'll be happy for now if you could delete "modern day". Thanks.
 * Jagmanst (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2023


 * The reason I’m rather insistent on that specific phrasing is because the sentence in question has been the subject of a lot of vandalism in the past, with people frequently making edits saying that it originated in Tamil Nadu, “Chera Nadu,” and other places with unsourced viewpoints or statements that fall under WP:FRINGE. The phrasing currently used is the most neutral phrase that, so far, has kept vandalism to a minimum, though we still get the occasional vandal coming through making edits. I find it equally puzzling that you are so passionate about the removal of these two words, especially considering that no one else seems to have any confusion about what they mean.


 * Your view, as far as I can see, has been disproven with proper sources that firmly meet the criteria of WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. Just because you believe a word, phrase or expression means something, does not mean that that is what is means. I have provided proper sources to support my meaning of the words. You claim that they do not mean this. Can you provide sources to support your claims?


 * I do not believe the article has been written, “for a Western gaze.” It has, as far as I can tell, been written as neutrally as possible. I have no intention of writing this article that promotes a Western POV or any other POV. So far, no one else has had this concern about the article being written for a “Western gaze,” or Western point of view. This appears to be a matter of semantics and your personal opinions more than objective facts. I suggest we stick to objectivity and facts instead, since I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this issue of what, “gaze,” it falls under.


 * I can see where some of your confusion is coming from, but I’m trying to stick to the most neutral phrase that has worked so far that has minimized disruptive editing. That being said, would you be open to the replacing of, “modern-day,” to “present-day?” It might give a slightly different meaning that fulfills the criteria of removing the word, “modern.”


 * I have no issue going through a content resolution process, though I think it would be easier for everyone if it was settled here.


 * If you feel so strongly about it, I am open to removing the word “modern-day,” and keeping the rest of the sentence the same. It sounds like it would be the most balanced way to compromise in this and reach a consensus. That being said, I do want to know if you would be open to using the word “present,” instead of “modern.” Kalariwarrior (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 'present' will have same problem as 'modern'. I'll be happy with 'in the region of modern day Kerala". Or "in Kerala". Jagmanst (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. I’ve changed the wording accordingly. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. Jagmanst (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Has this article been gone through GA process? Jagmanst (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Name : Kalaripayattu or Kalaripayatt ?
I don't why we need to change the name of something in order to look anglicized. The actual name is Kalaripayatt, and not Kalaripayattu. Also Government of kerala has already passed a bill in kerala assembly to change the name of the state in english from kerala to keralam, realizing the msitake. This anglicization is observed commonly from people of kerala.

Just wondering do we need to change the name of a martial art to look anglicized or keep it as intact, for example name of kung-fu or karate is as it is and they never changes in english to look anglicized.

If agreed, we can change the name of the article to Kalaripayatt.

Afv12e (talk) Afv12e (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing up your concerns about the name of the page! As far as I’m aware, most of the source material (even those written by Kalari gurukkals), all of which fall under WP:RELIABLE, all refer to it as Kalaripayattu. This issue falls under WP:COMMONNAME, which states that the most well known and commonly English used name should be used as the main name of the article, as this is the English Wikipedia. As such, according to Wikipedia policy, the article must continue to be known as, “Kalaripayattu.” Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Kalari and Hinduism
There are myths of origins for kalari. However kalari is clearly based on hinduism ? As per the recent addition to the lead ? This need to be discussed as the artform is very old. Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * let's start simply like this :
 * What other philosophies other than hinduism can you see in kalari, also please provide the substantiate for your claim Afv12e (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Inspired by" is not the same as "based on." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * this is not inspired by, but based on hinduism.
 * hinduism is a way of life. Afv12e (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dead wrong. Mukherjee and Sen:
 * The sentence "Like most Indian martial arts, Kalaripayattu contains rituals and philosophies inspired by Hinduism." cannot be based on them. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Like most Indian martial arts, Kalaripayattu contains rituals and philosophies inspired by Hinduism." cannot be based on them. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

regarding this edit, edit-summary

which reinserted

Mukherjee and Sen do not mention Hinduism; that's your WP:OR. Nor do they state that "Kalaripayattu contains rituals and philosophies inspired by"; what they state (in a grammatically incorrect way; it is quite unlikely that these (unspecified) myths contain the specific knowledge itself) is that Kalaripayattu has an origin-narrative that says that the knowledge of this art came from the gods.

Your edit also changed

into

Zarrilli does not state that the concepts are based on Ayurveda; he states that in kalaripayattu concepts similar to those of Ayurveda are used. Please stick to the sources. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  12:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: Bilgiljilll makes a good point with his statement However kalari is clearly based on hinduism ? [...] This need to be discussed as the artform is very old. given that the Wiki-article says The combat techniques of the Sangam period (600 BCE - 300 CE) were the earliest precursors to Kalaripayattu. The Hindu synthesis emerged between ca. 500-300 BCE and 300 CE, so at the time that Kalaripayattu emerged Hinduism was not only starting to form. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  12:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for tagging me here. I can see your point on both replies. I think the issue here may be an issue of phrasing. It’s plain to see that the martial art is heavily influenced by Hinduism, including in its rituals and practices (seen further below in the same section regarding Hindu deities like Ganapati and Bhadrakali, as well as usage of Hindu architectural treatises like the Vastu Shastras, references to Hindu deities and figures in various forms of the martial art, etc. Perhaps a sourced phrase citing this influence would be best, as I think it would get the point across. Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the same situation applies with the usage of Ayurveda within Kalaripayattu. It’s plain to see, and obvious to anyone who reads about the martial art, but phrasing is the issue again. Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. It's obvious indeed that there are influences, but we should avoid the impression that kalaripayattu is 'monolithically' Hinduistic, to refer to Mukherjee and Sen's warning quoted above. Zarrilli's book was published by Oxford University Press (if I recall correctly); that's obviously a good source. Luijendijk's book also seems to be good.
 * What's needed is a better overview of the history of Kalaripayattu. While it may indeed have ancient roots, historically it seems to traceable to the 9th century CE (again, if I recall correctly), as a means of (communal) defense. Fighters took pride in their skills - I read this just a few hours ago, but I already forgit the details.... But the crux is, the article also needs to describe why Kalaripayattu was taught, what the use of it was, (and) the social-economical role it played in that society. From there, it cal so be explained how Hindu (Shaiva? Vaishna?) elements were incorporated.
 * I also notice that the article is messy; parts of the Practice-section belong in the History-section, and the practice itself could be divided into sub-sections (the archictecture of the fighting-area; teaching0style; techniques). Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but for all practical purposes, Kalaripayattu is, philosophically and ritualistically, monolithically Hindu. While it is recorded (and mentioned in the article) that people of other religious groups in Kerala practiced Kalaripayattu, there is no record (as far as I’m aware) of other religious ideologies beyond Hinduism influencing Kalaripayattu’s philosophies, practices or rituals.
 * Mukherjee and Sen warn against the idea that Kalaripayattu was exclusively practiced by Hindus, but that’s not what is being stated here.
 * The philosophies and rituals are inspired by Hinduism in the same way yoga is. Do people who are not Hindu practice yoga? Absolutely, but did other religions outside of Hinduism influence the creation or original philosophies of yoga? No.
 * This isn’t a matter of exclusivity or politics, but a matter of historical accuracy of influence. I think that is the point being made.
 * No one here is denying the practice of Kalaripayattu by various religious groups, and that fact was stated in the article even before this whole editing process was started.
 * I have both books, as well as some of the other books cited in this article, in my personal collection at home. I’ll try to see if I can find something there that might work. Kalariwarrior (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Unfortunately, as is the case with a good chunk of Indian history, records are sometimes hard to find, as Indians never placed as much emphasis on written records of their history. This has lead to scanty concrete historical records on actual practices. Finding properly sourced material that falls under WP:RELIABLE has been tough for this page, and sources are not easy to find. A. Sreedharan Menon has written a fair bit of work on why Kalaripayattu was taught and it’s place in Keralite society, and his work has been cited, but not in its entirety. Other works by other historians should be looked at and used as well. Kalariwarrior (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, in terms of reorganizing the article, I fully agree. You appear to be an experienced editor. Would you be able to help in that regard? Perhaps if the article was better organized and these other issues were taken care of, the article could even try for GA status. Kalariwarrior (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reorganized the info; I hope it's better this way. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to say:
 * Though there are no written records on kalari like for kungfu, just because people usually not write a book or article on anything during olden times in kerala lke those of chinese , we are still relying on book and articles written by foreigners like philipp zarelli on kalari.
 * Kalari is based on Hinduism. My basic points are here:
 * 1. Kalari poothara is a seven stepped semi con shaped structure representing 7 chakras, and on the top a shiva linga is placed.
 * 2. There are also other places of other 'devathas' like for ganapathy, ashtadikpalakar and guru - all hindu philosophy
 * 3. kalari begins with salutation to this poothara and ends with the salutation
 * 4. kalari moola mantra :
 * sarva thantra swaroopaya, sarva thantra swaroopini
 * sarvagaya samasthaya, SHIVAYA guruve namah
 * this is the moola mantra of kalari, meaning subtle core mantra and there is no other mantra in kalari. This is a salutation to shiva who is the master of all tantra, tantra means techniques to attain moksha. vignana bhairava thantra says about 112 such tantra techniques
 * 5.All other ritual including kalari pooja or stories associated with weapons are of hindu devathas (gods), also bare hand techniques are named as BALI-vazhi, HANUMAN-vazhi, SARAWASTHI-kayy , GANAPATHY-kayy , GANAPATHY-angam ect.
 * So it is just clear that kalari is based on hinduism and not just they inspired some elements from hinduism, just like how shaolin kungfu is related to zen
 * Also above mentioned is for northern Kalari, if we are talking of southern kalari, it is of agasthya sage, and there are even mantras and poojas in the southern kalari all are of hindu.
 * Hinduism is a broader way of life and not a religion.
 * So kalari is based on Hinduism, and not just inspired by it. Afv12e (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So kalari is based on Hinduism, and not just inspired by it. Afv12e (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:RS, instead of your own analysis. And, as a warning: take this advice seriously; the quality of your edits is sub-standard, and may result in a block if you're unable to follow Wiki-policies. Regarding the influence, it's obvious that Kalaripayattu is permeated with Hindu-elements, but if we are to say "is based on," then it's obvious that Kalaripayattu is 'based on', or developed out of, ancient military fighting techniques. Per zarrilli (1994), ancient Tamil combat techniques and Brahmanical fighting techniques. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Joshua, I have restored the reference about urumi used in medieval period.'Urumi' weapon is unique to kalari, and it's construction requires fine knowledge metallurgy. No where else we can find this flexible sword worn around waist and is a character of this period. Something like samurai sword. Afv12e (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [[File:Ethunu_kaduwa.jpg]] -

Urumi is something like this, but has only one branch and is more long. Afv12e (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I did check the source you provided along with your recent edit, which is edgur tugston, which says about the ancient dressing style of a hindu caste however it do not mention anything regarding kalari or it is based in kalari, it mainly says this religion /caste carried sword for their wedding. How it is related to it , can anything related to sword shall be added here ? I agree, kalari was practiced by vast majority of hindu communities along with other religions in the south indian state of kerala , but the lead you recently added that it is based on Hinduism as well as this seems like a form of coatracking to me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, what i have noticed from the recent edits , is that these groups are trying coatracking and are trying to make statements or claims that kalari is based on their religion or caste community . From majority of sources i have seen , kalari have influenced lot of religion , but it is a part of any religion . Also in kerala and parts of tamil nadu , lot of religion and communities practices it . Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sabarimala and Ayyappan
hi, there is a legend regarding sabarimala Ayyappan learning kalari it's very important can you briefly add it ? It's mentioned in the article sabarimala Ayyappan ?? Wannabesomething123 (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * bilgil ,Joshua, kalariwarrior If you are adding legendary people like aromal chekavar why are not you adding Ayyappan ? Ayyappan also practiced kalari just like they did, why no Ayyappan ? Wannabesomething123 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://englisharchives.mathrubhumi.com/travel/pilgrimage/chirakkadavu-where-lord-ayyappa-learnt-his-first-lesson-in-kalari-1.4314794 see this Ayyappan is very important to kalari he is mentioned as a kalari warrior too Wannabesomething123 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did add some popular legend to the legend section, with citation and from the main article created , please review my work , Thanks . Wannabesomething123 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * well its mentioned in the page and that source, i think it can be added , if clearly mention it as either 'legend' or 'mythology'. Bilgiljilll (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert - Chekavar
i have reverted your edits diff, again kindly discuss here before adding it. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) @Afv12e Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you can blatantly remove all the sourced content, and ask people to talk here like you were doing.
 * make your points here before removing. Afv12e (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about kalari an artforn ,its origin is very old ,this legendary part which is part of the religion is only a small part of it, why are you coatracking to the religion people here ? It is linked to the main page of vadakkan pattukal as it says it is a collection of malayalam ballads also people like Thacholi Othenan who is supoosed to be from other religion or community are also mentioned in the ballads , so how come you are so much interested to propogate it in this way ? Seems like you want a promotion. Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kalariwarrior @joshuajonathan what do you think ? Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The religious influence of Hinduism on Kalaripayattu (in its origins, beliefs and practices) is obvious, undeniable, and should not be ignored or downplayed, nor should it be emphasized to the point of violating WP:NPOV.
 * A good balance is ideal. It should absolutely be mentioned, but it shouldn’t be the focus of the article.
 * In regards to caste being mentioned, casteism has been a problem for a long time in this article. I’m going to change it to a more neutral wording, as this article is NOT about the Vaddakkan Pattukkal, but about Kalaripayattu. If people want to know about the castes and groups involved (Nair or Ezhava/Thiyya/Chekavar/whatever), they can go to that article. Information regarding caste in this article should, in my humble opinion, be kept to an absolute minimum, and added only if needed. Kalariwarrior (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, i would say its better to reduce the mentioning of this religion or caste , considering the fact that it is also mentioned that , 'everyone irrespective of religion practiced it. Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, i completely agree , i have neautralized stressing on to religion and ethnicity , the link to the article vadakkan pattukal is provided and a breif description is given in the legend section stressing more into kalari than religion or caste .Kindly do a review. Bilgiljilll (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging the correct username.  City o f  Silver  22:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Chekavar a surname or a title?
 * Afv12e, you state you can blatantly remove all the sourced content, but where's the WP:RS for "the Vadakkan Pattukal, a collection of ballads written about the Chekavar"? Menon (2011):
 * Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  06:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is surname or title as per the source, however lot of communities claim it as theirs from north and south regions and frm tulunadu. i believe mianly thiyya/ezhava and nair and bunt   There was disruptive editing in the page and clashes in the talk section, this is something related to this , usually they throw an unrelated  source which seems to be valid and write what ever they want , this is the pattern . Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also i truly support what @Kalariwarrior said, the caste or religious promotion linking to religious groups or caste whatever need to be neautralised , these people claim they invented it etc and use Wikipedia as a medium to promote the theory. These are mentioned in their ethnicity based article , The history section says like some religion created a martial heritage etc, people keeps on adding their religion names to it for promotion. I think the page need to be protected. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also there are some legends like bodhidharma buddhist monk introducing kalari to east asia, the thing is that there is huge diversity in these legends, leaning to the assumption that it is an artform developed by ancient buddists as kerala or south india's buddist past before arrival of hinduism is well recorded and even an article is created for that . However in the history section it seems to be highly related with hinduism alone in the book by mukherji and also from the article itself , they clearly mentions that all religions and communities ,lived in this region influenced kalari and vice versa , I dont know as a person who is reading about kalari, kungfu and other artforms i feel like only hindu leaning things are higlighted here while its relations to sramana religions are completely ignored , I even remember seeing a documentary where a group of kunfu practioners from  North east asia remembers bodhidhamma introducing buddhism and kalari  (variations) to it. Again i currently dont have text based references .But my point is while talking about legends and focusing on that , we need to remember that lot of religion have influenced it , hinduism is indeed a late influence considering the timeline. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I just checked the main page Vadakkan Pattukal In the history section the sources say it is an oral culture and the time and its validity seems to be unstable as its before 16th century , this also need to be considered. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I just checked the main page Vadakkan Pattukal In the history section the sources say it is an oral culture and the time and its validity seems to be unstable as its before 16th century , this also need to be considered. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)