Challenge to specific assertions

[Josh Young]

After Bodhidharma (Da Mo) passed down his qigong (chi kung) theory at Shaolin Temple around 550 A.D., the Shaolin monks trained the cultivation of Qi, and realized that from this cultivation, muscular power could be enhanced to a tremendous level, which could make martial techniques more powerful and effective. This was the beginning of internal cultivation in the martial arts. According to ancient records, it was only about 50 years later that internal martial art styles based on Da Mo’s internal Qi cultivation were created.

I challenge the above assertions for the reason that Bodhidharma was martial artist and his art is an internal martial art of India going back over 2000 years. The postures of this martial art are found in religious art and bear uncanny similarities to the postures of taiji.

I challenge the assertion that taiji is a defendant of Shaolin art. I also challenge Dr. Yang to participate in the forum, in particular this discussion relating to the history he presents.

There is also a very strong martial theme in Buddhism, many of the symbols of it are Indian weapons, including the sword. Buddha was born a warrior prince, martial arts are associated with Buddhism across the world, often in disguised form in temple dances.

I propose that what Dr. Yang presents is a theory lacking major substantiation based on the belief that the internal arts did not exist before Bodhidharma visited to Shaolin. I challenge Dr. Yang to explain where Bodhidharma came from, who he was and why he went to China.

Some argue Bodhidharma did not exist, however his name is recorded as a martial artist in India, associated with a temple. The purpose of this art was multifaceted, it allowed monks to defend the temple and themselves, but more importantly prepared them for their spiritual meditations. This is no different than the purpose of Shaolin martial art.

When the cup and robe went with Hui-Neng, the martial teachings did not. At this point in the history of Buddhism there was a major break between the martial art of Buddha and the teachings of Buddha, which before the break had been integrated. This is part of the very reason that when he received the transmission of the cup and robe Hui-Neng was told to flee for his life as that the other monks were likely to kill him.

I also know that these arts do not appear to have originated in India, but have passed through there.

I want to note that animal form play rather similar to that of Shaolin martial arts is found in the Indian martial art that Dao Mo was recorded to have practiced.

I find Dr. Yang to be a good scholar, however I believe that this subject is very complicated and that it has been tainted by ethnocentrism in the past.

The fact is that in every region where the Buddhist martial arts spread, it is claimed the descendant arts are original inventions of that region. These places include Java, Sri-lanka, Malaysia, and other places as well as China and India. The evidence against this however is overwhelming if you take the time to look and compare the martial arts of India, Asia, Northern Africa and Arabia. The evidence is also found in the texts, the histories and the religious art.

I plan on writing a book on this topic myself and have been putting a great deal of study into it. MY conclusion is that the tale of what was passed on at Shaolin simply does not add up when the larger picture is examined.

[Dvivid]

Hi Josh, Your challenge is duly noted. It is also entirely unfounded.

It is common knowledge that Bodhidharma was a martial artist, and that the Taijiquan-like art of kalari payattu pre-exists Chinese internal arts (and Buddhism). If you search this forum, there are a few threads about these topics from a few year ago.

Dr. Yang is quite busy, and I think all of your questions are already answered in this forum, from well-sourced publications, usually those of Dr Yang.

Part 2 of my article last year about the root of taijiquan also discusses the Buddhist root of taijiquan at length, mentioning for instance the 'vajra', which pre-dates Chen Taiji, and Shaolin kungfu, and buddhism...
http://www.ymaa.com/articles/origin-of-taijiquan

Vajra means thunderbolt, and can be traced back thousands of years, before hinduism, to the ancient Aryans, a la Thor.

It is obvious to anyone who looks at it, that martial arts existed everywhere on earth that humans were. It is also obvious that the movements of taijiquan have their root in Buddhist and pre-Buddhist martial arts. Noone claims otherwise. In fact, Dr Yang is one of the few authors who has published this fact widely.

I think the point of this week's article,
http://www.ymaa.com/articles/shaolin-the-root-of-taijiquan
which you may have missed, is that in his written works, the Yi Jin Jing and Xi Sui jing, passed down at Shaolin temple, Bodhidharma was the first to present a detailed written theory of how and why Qi can be developed and used for health, martial arts, or enlightenment. He translated his knowledge so the Chinese could understand. This theory changed the way the monks at Shaolin trained, and it is considered by the Chinese to be the root of Chinese internal martial arts, including taijiquan. The article assumes the reader has some basic knowledge of Da Mo.

I challenge Dr. Yang to explain where Bodhidharma came from, who he was and why he went to China.

??? Its well documented that Bodhidharma travelled from India/Nepal to China to teach Buddhism, and he is the 28th patriarch of Buddhism, and the 1st patriarch of Chinese Chan buddhism. Though some Westerners and Chinese revisionists try to say Da Mo didn't exist, his life and that of each and every patriarch going all the way back to Siddhartha Gautama is well-documented in temple records.

Plus he wrote two texts that changed Chinese culture forever, so he's pretty well known. Not really any question there.

Glad you're going to write a book. You might want to read this one for some data:

http://www.ymaa.com/publishing/books/qigong/qigong_the_secret_of_youth

http://www.ymaa.com/articles/history/history-qigong

[Josh Young]

The Aryan origins of Vedic culture has been refuted rather well.

Bodhidharma Chadili is an interesting topic.

Has Dr. Yang read the Shaolin temple records?

[Josh Young]

This theory changed the way the monks at Shaolin trained, and it is considered by the Chinese to be the root of Chinese internal martial arts, including taijiquan. The article assumes the reader has some basic knowledge of Da Mo.

The last line here makes a great deal of sense.
However the idea that internal arts did not exist before the qigong was combined with the martial arts at Shaolin is precisely the notion I am challenging.

I believe that knowledge of Da Mo entails the realization that internal arts predate his visit to China. The role of Marma in Kalari is very strong evidence for this. That such a close parallel of meridian theory is an integral part of Kalari is very significant, for it indicates that the combination of martial and energetic work found in Shaolin is the same as that of Kalari, this cannot be the case if the combination was made in China.

I do not claim that this integration of martial and yogic elements was borne in India, currently there are two major candidates still, one is that before it came to India it was found in China. The other is that it may relate directly to Egyptian martial arts. There is very strong evidence for both assertions actually and perhaps some contact between Egypt and China occurred in ages past.

Genetic evidence uncovered in the last decade puts the colonization of the region of India and Asia including China around 60-70K years ago. There was a population expansion and then a huge decline, there was a bottleneck that was cultural as well as genetic and I believe that evidence suggests that martial arts, as well as agricultural technologies and spiritual traditions were all preserved in this bottleneck and then influenced the descendant cultures.

Most of the cultural arts and technologies of the old world are regional developments of the ways that endured with the few who survived the change of what are commonly known as the Yugas. There is some evidence this includes arts of battle, combat and yoga traditions.

I do not mean to pick on the Chinese in their view that the internal arts were their invention, similar precepts exist in many nations in regard to identical situations. The influence of China in this regard is also profound, who can deny the influence of both Chinese and Vedic cultures in Japan?

Please consider my challenge issues in the politest sense, I will take no offense if Dr. Yang does not participate, however I lack the ability to engage in conversation with him otherwise.

[taiwandeutscher]

Even I respect Dr. Yang for all he has done and is doing for martial arts, and I often wonder about the statements of Mr. Young, the response here is not up to modern sinological standards, concerning what Mr. Young was quoting of Dr. Yang.

Boddhidarma didn't have any connections to Chinese MA, he even didn't invent the Yijinjing or any other set of exercies at Shaolin, most of those where existent before his arrival, the monk was a monk and became a buddha, but that's it.

That's the state of historical proof from Chinese writings, there might be other ways of reasoning, though.

[Josh Young]

That's the state of historical proof from Chinese writings, there might be other ways of reasoning, though.

This proof of which you speak is but opinion.

The scholars change opinions every generation, this so called proof has no real meaning. Oral records are far more significant, but more meaningful still are several forms of evidence taken together including social, biological including molecular data, linguistic and religious. These forms of evidence are far more objective than any written version and I favor them over the so called scholarly view, which has always been biased and changes over time.

The connection of Buddhism and martial arts relates to the martial arts of the caste Buddha was born in. That Chinese Buddhist monks should practice martial arts so similar speaks far more clearly and loudly than any written record. Written records have their value, but they are but opinions themselves and are the works of people and so cannot be taken as being objective in claim and content. This counts for all written works and spoken words, yours, mine, it really doesn't matter whose.

However there is another story, it is one without words. It cannot be discerned perhaps, without someone to look for it. I enjoy your literary scholarship no doubt, please continue it for the benefit of all who may appreciate it. I would also not be surprised if you also regard other evidences, such as film records... Still I seem to have formed different opinions regarding some things, compared to to what you have formed.
Please forgive my view if it offends.

[taiwandeutscher]

No offense taken, couldn't hurt me, anyway, lol.

As a scholar, I stick to what we call objective reasoning and commonly agreed on methodology.

And of course, I also use experiences out of my personal training in Taiwan/China for some 17 years.

Your orientation might be totally different, nobody wants to negate your personal freedom, but how can we have a civilized discussion when we have no common ground?

So, you go on challenging Dr. Yang's point of view. Have fun!

[Dvivid]

As far as I have understood this topic, there have been at least two Chinese revisionist efforts to denounce Da Mo, and Buddhism in general. I guess it depends who's history books you are studying.

All aspects of Buddhism were declared illegal in the 800's AD, in an effort to assert Chinese national pride at a time when Buddhism from India/Nepal had become so widespread in Asia. Buddhism slowly entered China via the Silk Road starting in the first century, and the teaching of Bodhidharma (Da Mo) around 500 AD, the 28th patriarch of Buddhism, impacted China so deeply that at one point there were as many as 10,000 Buddhist temples across China. Daoism and Taijiquan were considered "indigenous Chinese", and were therefore sometimes exonerated over the imported Indian Buddhism for political reasons.

At the end of China's 'Golden Age', in the last century of the Tang Dynasty, the Daoist Emperor Wu Zong (born Li Yan 李 炎) deemed that Buddhism was a foreign religion that was harmful to Chinese society. He seized the assets of the wealthy Buddhist temples, closed them down, and sent the monks and nuns home to lay society. An imperial edict during the "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution" of 842-845 stated the case against Buddhism as follows:

"...two hundred and sixty thousand five hundred monks and nuns are returning to the world, both to be received as tax paying householders. Refuges and hermitages which are destroyed number more than forty thousand..."

Simultaneously, he promoted Daoism widely, and during this period all public display of religious and martial art practice were exclusively Daoist. Buddhist practices went into hiding, or were absorbed into Daoism.

And again, since the rise of Communism, Buddhism and Da Mo are under attack again...

But is known widely that Da Mo did bring Buddhism to China, and he is the founder of Chan Buddhism, and the facts are the facts.

[Josh Young]

As a scholar, I stick to what we call objective reasoning and commonly agreed on methodology.

I am not a scholar, but I too employ these methods.
However I am not a sinologist like you, so while you study China in specific terms I am free to study what I will including much larger geographic regions and time frames. I have no concern for the views of literary scholar but rather am interested in letting the facts speak for themselves. The art for example, speaks far more loudly than any written record.

But is known widely that Da Mo did bring Buddhism to China, and he is the founder of Chan Buddhism, and the facts are the facts.

And indeed this is what the artwork suggests. Including from Chan sects and their Indian counterparts. However what Buddhism is, is another related topic that does not for the most part take place in China, but China is undeniably involved with the development and spread of Buddhism. The postures and marks of the statue of Buddha are key to this topic. For example the common marks on Buddha include a 3rd eye dot, and three lines or a swastika(a form of yin/yang solar symbol) on his chest. The weapons of Buddha are the sword, the Chakram or dharma wheel (symbol of duality) and the dorje or vajra. All of these symbols and weapons are significant to this topic and are found in Chan Buddhism.
That Amida and Narayana both reside upon the lotus upon the water, both bearing the same symbol. This is significant.

Buddha, like Dao Mo, did not invent a tradition, they passed on a system that was in place before them. Over time this system has accumulated much revision, however it is a tree with many branches and one root. This is also true for martial arts. Please do not take my words as undermining the role of any culture in the progressive refinement of their cultural traits which they inherit, however we must endeavor to avoid preconception regarding what we may learn or we will be unable to acquire new and valid information when we are exposed to it.

I am not challenging a view point of any individual so much as I am sharing my own view gleaned from my own research. The test of the falsification of the evidences upon which I draw, cannot however, be had from the narrow viewpoint of literary records alone. Indeed as far as history goes what is capable of being more in error than written versions of events? While genetics and forensic evidences have no agenda, authors surely do. Why then should I waste my time upon branches like sinology or the Hindu version of this? Or even Egyptology, for the symbols and weapons involved are not so far removed from those of the old Egypt which sent scribes, emissaries and warriors to lands near and far.

Needless to say while Dr. Yangs subjective authority does impress me, the sinological perspective strikes me as no less ill informed than the perspective of any nationalistic approach, regardless of the region of focus. In the states our own study of our own history in terms of literary record has been utterly corrupted with lies of justification. The facts no longer match the consensus of the scholars.

There is a reason oral records are better than written. A written version that is wrong is easy to make, you just make it, however oral records involve a standardization that is profound. If any version of an oral history is altered by a single word that becomes immediately apparent unless the oral tradition is one that is all but lost. One can fake may types of records, but cannot go back in time and teach many people oral records, you simply cannot fake oral traditions because there will be no supporting evidence in the form of such tradition existing in widespread form, however this is not true for written records and often minor alterations occur at every printing or recording. While I take oral traditions very seriously, I cannot take the view of literary scholars to be much more than pseudointellectual pomp. Consensus never justifies itself as truth, it can never be more than an opinion.

[Josh Young]

I think the point of this week's article,
which you may have missed, is that in his written works, the Yi Jin Jing and Xi Sui jing, passed down at Shaolin temple, Bodhidharma was the first to present a detailed written theory of how and why Qi can be developed and used for health, martial arts, or enlightenment. He translated his knowledge so the Chinese could understand. This theory changed the way the monks at Shaolin trained, and it is considered by the Chinese to be the root of Chinese internal martial arts, including taijiquan.

You are correct, I missed that point.
I believe it to be a valid point too and find nothing to disagree with there. I would only add that evidence suggests that martial teachings were transmitted as well, but that the evidence does not suggest that Shaolin lacked martial arts before Dao Mo, so I would say it seems that Dao Mo transmitted martial art teachings to those at Shaolin, but did not found their martial art.

One thing that strikes me, the connection of marma and meridian theory and their relationship to internal energy involving animal form martial arts in India and China has yet to be explained in a satisfactory way. The statues of the postures in India suggest that the martial art involving this goes back over 2000 years there, and is not the only form of evidence suggesting that these arts in India are not a recent introduction from another area. And then any version of events that correlates Indian and Chinese martial arts should address those of other nearby regions that are clearly related and tied to the spread of Buddhism.

The relationship of temple dances and martial arts in Indian and Asian cultures relates to this.

[Dvivid]

Agreed. Id be interested to see the statues you're referring too.

I think the point is that Da Mo's teaching transformed the martial arts at Shaolin, and ultimately Chinese culture on the whole.

I think it is clear the marma/qi system is the same. The 7 chakras correspond with the seven pairs of matching gates in qigong/acupuncture.

[Josh Young]

I believe this image to be one of many related to the martial arts.

[Josh Young]

I believe that the similarity of this posture to brush knee twist step is not a coincidence.

The Chan and Zen sect art includes specific weapons and themes, the development and influence of these themes suggests a direct connection with vedic teachings. What i want to stress is that several old vedic religions had martial arts teachings, this is openly states in several works including the Mahabharata.