Talk:Dantian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.
Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Kanji character
Pleae add the Kanji characters to this page, as well as to the one on Hara (Fu), if you know them. This needs to be fleshed out, as presently this deep subject is dealt with simply as a dictionary entry. The depth of the subject matter is definiely Kurobi material, and well beyond me at this time. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 23:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I done added the characters. I also merged this page with Hara (Martial Arts) -- as that talk page mentions, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, provided that I have the character correct, the Chinese (at least, the modern Mandarin Chinese) for "hara" is not "fu" but "du" -- which is certainly a commonly heard everyday Chinese word for the stomach. - Nat Krause 15:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A-cai 10:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chakras and Dantians
Hi, it would be great if a Qigong master could expand this. I'm not sure about trying to correspond the Dantian to the Svaddhisthana chakra, since the position in the belly and seeming role it plays seems more akin to Manipura. But also, there are also 3 Dantians, Upper, Middle and Lower. Different systems seem to place them slightly differently. Always the Upper Dantian is in the forehead between the eyes, at the Ajna chakra. Then either the middle dantian is at the solar plexus, and the lower in the belly OR the middle is in the belly, and the lower at the position between the genitals and the anus, at the base of the spine.
These correspond to Anahata chakra at the Solar Plexus, Manipura in the belly, and Muludhara at the base of the spine.
Some traditions comparing Chakras and Dantians even say that all 3 bottom chakras constitute the lower dantian.
Anyway, it is interesting to see the comparisons between different spiritual traditions, and where they come into agreement, but that point in the article needs more elaboration. But also, someone well versed in Chinese philosophy really needs to flesh this article out.
- As I understand it, there are actually many more than 3 dantians. A dantian is anywhere in the body that stores and passes qi. When people use the word "dantian," they are typically referring to the lower dantian. The upper middle and lower are the three most important and powerful dantians, but almost any acupuncture point can be considered a dantian. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. - Shaggorama 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More common spelling
I've moved the article over from Tanden, to the more common spelling (in the sense that there are more Chinese than Japanese speakers in the world, if nothing else). --Fire Star 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dantian, Tanden and Hara
Currently this article assumes that all three are one and the same. For studying both chinese and japanese arts I would say that while they are very similar, but not identical. Should this be made clear in the article. --Salix alba (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
For opinions on the merge please see/comment at: Talk:Dan_Tien. Thanks Triponi 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- The merge has now been performed Triponi 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unrelated terms
The descriptions in the article are all for the East Asian concept of a point in the acupuncture meridian system. The point is designated in Chinese as dantian. For us to associate outside concepts (especially something as obscure as "one-point" for which I get very few Google hits together with dantian and nothing that I saw about dantian or similar concepts) with this common terminology is original research on our part, and doesn't belong in the main body of the article. If the concept is notable enough, we could link to it in the See also section, perhaps, but the main body of the article is about something else, a well defined cultural concept, not about every word from every language in the world that means the area around the human belly-button. That is my logic for removing the terms. --Fire Star 火星 23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
two things, 1)why be a divider instead of a uniter? China noteably has a very ancient culture, and the idea of dantian has obviously filtered into korea, japan, india, and the middle east. The name has noticeably changed, but the point from which all life begins (where the zygote and placenta connect) is a universally acknowledged part of the body. Maybe the presentation within the article could be changed, say, a nice box listing them all, in their corresponding cultures. I'd like to help work on this article and expand it to include knowledge and information that it merits, but if Firestar is going to jealously defend the page from any alterations, I'll create an alternate page with a different title.
2)since when is a 'google search' a determiner of whether something is factual or noteworthy? Am I just old, or is that hogwash?
Wwilson 1 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I bet there are quite a few sources who have made this connection. The challenge is to find them! --Salix alba (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Umm, since when have I "jealously" prevented this page from being altered? Instead of reverting, I left the article alone and replied here to an edit summary saying my (explained in my edit summary) edit was "illogical." Saying that I am doing something that I am not with defensive accusations and ultimatums isn't going to help an argument. A Google search is often used at Wikipedia (see articles for deletion) as a way to establish preliminary notability for a term. So far, I don't see any for "one point" in this context, which leads me to believe it is a neologism, which is another reason to discourage its being equated with the subject of this article. If verifiable references could be provided it would ease my mind a bit. My concern is partly that the article conform to Wikipedia policy, but mostly that it be a good, scholarly article on a Chinese cultural phenomena that did indeed diffuse to Japan, Korea and SE Asia. For us to purport in the intro to the article that other cultures' linguistically unrelated usages are direct translations of 丹田 is inaccurate at best and disingenuous New Age "hogwash" at worst. I have been here for a long time. I know how Wikipedia works and what to do and what to not do to resolve an issue like this. I'm not an unreasonable person, and I think we could link to these concepts if they can be shown to actually exist. My point is that I don't think they belong in the first line of the article. --Fire Star 火星 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- One point is used in Ki Aikido, one of the four basic pinincipals. --Salix alba (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that having them in the first line is not a good idea. However I do think they should go in a related concepts section. --Salix alba (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Then I'd agree that we should mention it, even as it's own paragraph in this article, or perhaps in with its usage by other martial arts, and directly attribute it's use to Ki Aikido. Does it translate another Japanese term for "one point" that we could mention? --Fire Star 火星 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
