Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence/Sources

Response to NYT
JFD has misrepresented it.

The sentence reads:-

Organizations such as the National Geographic Channel, British Broadcasting Corporation, the New York Times, The Hindu and the Discovery Channel to name a few, have also taken a note of the foreign influence.

From the New York times:-

The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it (the shoalin temple) was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk.

The establishment of the Shaolin temple.

Does the the New York Times take a note of the foreign influence? Yes it does.

Other Misrepresentations
Most of JFD's work in that section is taking one sentence from one talk page and the other from another and making it seem like it all happened on the same talk page at one time.

Aside of attempting to mesh sentences to form a conversation; JFD has also been trying to mesh Indian mathematics into all of this.

I'll let the arbitrators decide the context for themselves.

In any event, the dispute on Zen was on Taoist foundations and read the following:-


 * Ah, we have Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki himself writing down that Zen, a seperate faith, influenced by the seperate faith of Taoism.


 * And the confirmation of the religions being seperate, two religions and a subsequent Taoist influence.


 * Does the given material justify the original "Zen is a form of Buddhism practiced in China and Japan and is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism." statement in the introduction? Does the very formidable one sided mention of Taoism only, in a misleading context, in the introduction suffice when Zen has been influenced by Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism as well? I will accomadate the opposition without any mention of Hinduism though, which I'm sure they'll not find palatable at all. I will incorporate the very well written "Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these two religions during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school. - Heinrich Dumoulin (Zen Buddhism: A History)" paragraph in the history section of Zen.


 * Daoism should be mentioned (with the strength of solid references, of course). From what I know of the subject—which I admit is not perfect—virtually every scholar on Zen (not to mention practitioners) admits that Daoism exercised some sort of influence, probably quite large, on the development of Chán in China ... the real issue in that area is not really whether or not Daoism had an influence, but rather what the nature of that influence was—and on that subject, the jury is still out (and, I suspect, always will be, barring another semi-miraculous discovery of early texts à la the Dunhuang manuscripts that might, ahem, enlighten us on the matter).


 * Taoism had a subsequent influence on this form of Mahayana Buddhism. That influence has been mentioned as found in the works of Duomlin.

JFD is misrepresenting it with selective mentions in dribs and drabs from the edit summaries.

JFD's sources are incorrect
JFD's sources are demonstrably conflicting. Matsuda Ryuchi dates the Yi Jin Jing, a text often associated with Bodhidharma, to 1827. Lin Boyuan, dates it to over two centuries earlier in 1624. Ling Tingkan concluded that the author of the Yì Jīn Jīng must have been an "ignorant village master." This claim has also been rejected by Lin Boyuan who attributes the Yì Jīn Jīng to the Taoist priest Zining writing in 1624. Historian Paul Pelliot presents a version claiming that Bodhidharma did not exist at all, he is an entirely fictional creation, a proposal which conflicts with results of research conducted by Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan.

Of course, reputable, mainstream media, such as this, does not take from the conflicting sources citing the zen patriarch Bodhidharma as fictional (as has been JFD's attempt), but present the traditional claims of the Shoalin temple authorities, such as Shi'fu Wong Kiew Kit.

And the list on the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection has yet to be verified.

JFD has mocked the BBC and the NYT citations now; Before this creative misinterpretation the discussion between JFD and myself went something like this:-

---


 * The BBC article is beyond shit.


 * According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago.


 * Differing primary sources date Bodhidharma's arrival in China to either the Liu Song Dynasty (420–479) or the "third year of Emperor Xiaomingdi's Xiaochang reign period," i.e 527. According to all accounts, Bodhidharma had either died or left China by the Tang dynasty.


 * He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples.
 * It is only the youngest of the primary sources that makes any kind of connection between Bodhidharma and the Shaolin Monastery. In it, the Shaolin Monastery has already been built by the time Bodhidharma reaches its environs. Moreover, it contains no reference to Bodhidharma teaching martial arts.


 * But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe.
 * This sounds like an extremely bastardized version of the story of Jee Sin, which is as ahistorical as the story of Bodhidharma. And if it is, his story took place about 200 years ago, not 100.


 * The one thing I've noticed about British journalists is, what they gain in brevity and concision, they more than pay for in accuracy.
 * JFD 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)