Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

why the need to create this page ?? well,the idots who created the other category did so in a way that did'nt show on the search+their list was extremely abridged,now it would help if someone did the introduction and write a bit about indian martial arts —This unsigned comment was added by 59.94.96.91 (talk • contribs) .

What exactly are you talking about? Arundhati bakshi 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

1 Did my bit
2 To the guy who went "India did not exist before 1947"
3 Not a well written article - keep your confused sense of patriotism out of encyclopedia entries
4 horrible horrible article
5 About the panic in the encylopedic squad
6 References
7 NPOV and historical accuracy
8 Removal of objectionable portions, adding official citation and trying to keep the tone encylopedic
9 still not fact
10 Still no proof

Did my bit

Ans since i did it in a hurry, it would be nice to see someone from the encylopedic squad to help clean up he article and the articles in "various Indian martial arts" category. They could use enclyclopedic tone and grammer cleanup. Freedom skies 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To the guy who went "India did not exist before 1947"

The guy who went "India did not exist before 1947" needs to take a closer look at the history of India. Yes, the 16 mahajanapadas did exist and they shared the history of a common entity called Bharat, as cited by Magesthenese when he said Indica and the British before they came to India formed the East India Company, why form a company for a country that did not exist ?? Did India not Exist as an entity during the Kuru dynasty ?? or the Magadh empire ?? or the Mughal empire ?? Try getting your facts straight before you deliver a half baked monstrosity of a lecture on Indian history.Freedom skies 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is for 71.146.67.156 and 68.108.208.158, get your facts straight before you go all argumentative and profane on the article. In other words, try arguing it out here, rather than on the article itself. Freedom skies 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a well written article - keep your confused sense of patriotism out of encyclopedia entries

This article isn't very objective, and the author has either not done the necessary research to verify what he has written, or he has deliberately presented incorrect information. The very first lines of this article show that it's not becoming of an encyclopaedia entry:

"Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts" - widely considered by whom? Martial Art historians agree that the oldest recorded evidence of systematic practice of martial arts comes from the Mesopotamian civilization, between 3000BC and 4000BC. There are also frescos and paintings from Egyptian pyramids from around the same period, that depict martial art forms.

But that apart, it is only common sense that wherever there were men with their senses and limbs intact, they would have taken to fighting and tried out various methods, and over a period of time, set techniques of fighting would have evolved. So it is highly unlikely that all or even most of the world's martial arts originated from any one particular place.

--Witnwisdumb 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

horrible horrible article

i'm sorry but this artgicle does not even come close to being truthful. I've read all of those ancient religious texts deemed to be talking about martial arts and none of them.... none of them speak about any form of martial arts. the most detailed that they speak about martial arts is that this god-king or that god-king wrestled (vaguely) or had to train in what was called archery at the time. None fo the religious texts go into detail about anything that even looks or seems like martial arts. You can not make assumptionns about general statements on fighting or even use of a sword to "martial arts". If that was true, then Gilgamesh is the oldest martial arts textbook because it is the oldest known written work in the world and it talks about "fighting" and "wrestling". Kennethtennyson 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

About the panic in the encylopedic squad

Wow, the way you people went all "horrible Terrible, someone get Ye Pithcforks, we'll burn the munsta !!" and deleted the whole thing instead of modifying the content or turining it more enclyclopedic was kinda unexpected. First that Tamil guy who posted argumets in the article itself and now this ?? ?? Anyways, on the positive side I did not expect such lively remarks about what I thought was a sidey article, guess more editors are good.

Listen, If you're going to mention frescos from Mesopotamia and Gilgamesh then please do, I'll cite both Yoga and the defined system of Mallayuddha (with four distinct forms). If Indus Vally and Mehrgarh have anything to say about it, Yoga predates the frescos and The epic of Gilgamesh so good luck with operation "friscos and gilamesh predate yoga".

And, major fighting systems credit India to be the home of martial arts, including grandfather arts like those from the Shaolin, Jujutsu, Karate and even Modern Systems like BJJ. It's a fact, try living with it. and read a few official websites before you disagree. Even, Alex Doss, President of the Tamil Sangam at San Diego State University has said that "In conclusion to this topic, Martial arts were introduced by the Tamil civilization to China and Southeast Asia."[1]. Guess the thing about someone screaming "your patriotism is misplaced, die !!!!!!!!!!" does sound a bit funny huh ?? Plus, The Tsutumi Hozan[2] and Gracie lineages of Jujutsu [3][4][5] trace their ultimate origins to India. The Yi Jin Jing credits Shaolin Kung Fu to Bodhidharma, described as South Indian in primary sources. Also, ever heard heard of Rickson Gracie ?? here, go to his website and hear what "the experts" have to say [6].

Anyways, with all the commotion I did edit the article suitably enough before someone had a panic attack. So, Happy Now ??Freedom skies 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

References

That's some list of references. So which statements come from which books?

Even, Alex Doss, President of the Tamil Sangam at San Diego State University has said that "In conclusion to this topic, Martial arts were introduced by the Tamil civilization to China and Southeast Asia."

The head of a Tamil identity group giving credit to the Tamils for the martial arts of China and Southeast Asia?

How shocking!

And it's funny how you'll dump on Tamil nationalists one sentence but cite one the next. Shall we ask Mr. Doss if he believes in the ancient nature of an undivided India? JFD 06:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't the "cite it" guy again !! anyways. The head of the Tamil identity group has reached the same conclusion as the Gracie family and the Shaolin, how shocking ?? Did you even read the article before you went all argumentative this time or your vow of eternal abstinence from reading articles such as that of Alex Doss's is still on ??

Anyways, the facts written about the Kshatriya systems are enclyclopedic, they have been mentioned in the Rigveda, ditto for Yoga (general facts, you should find all of them at the given list I'll provide below). The only concern is about the "widely considered to be the origin" thing, since the enclyclopedic squad went all "humans had hands and legs so there is no common origin" and "India is not widely considered to be the home as there have been frescos, though more recent than Yoga but this argument is widespread anyways" I edited the article to suit a more common tone. The article says that India is the home to relevant arts like Jujutsu , those from the shaolin and many others, that much is undisputed and can be backed up.

anyways, it would be nice if someone actually did point out the lines to which they object to before going vaguely argumentative and profane (horrible terrible, get ye pitchforks !!), the fact is that the Kshatriya systems have been mentioned in the Rigveda, Yoga is exceptionally old in nature and the relevance of the Mallayuddha is mentioned in the Mahabharata AND India is the origin of martial arts such as those from Shaolin and Japanese martial arts such as jujutsu and Karate.

YOGA http://www.gandharv.com/, http://www.atmajyoti.org/meditation.asp, http://www.hinduism.co.za/yoga.htm, http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/ay/index.html, http://www.journalofyoga.org, ~~kalakendra.com/?cat=14~~ (blacklisted link -- see m:Spam blacklist), http://www.rasas.info, http://yogayogini.com, http://www.yoga.dk, http://www.associacaodeyoga.com, http://autobiography.swami-center.org/page_20.shtm

And about the ancient nature of Undivided India thing, Akhanda Bharatam (literally "undivided India") is the historic homeland of the Hindus, before Islamic conquest and colonial partition, which resulted in the subsequent conversion of a significant number to Islam and Christianity. It includes all of present day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and some areas of Tibet.

The geographic frontiers of this region range from the Himalayan region in the north to the ocean in the south. This is derived from the Vishnu puranam text of India.

Uttaram yad samudrasya himadreschaiva dakshinam

varsham tad Bharatam naama Bharati yatra santati

also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauryan_map.gif should help a bit before you try and go all argumentative about countries you don't know about. Freedom skies 09:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the article before you went all argumentative this time or your vow of eternal abstinence from reading articles such as that of Alex Doss's is still on ??

Yeah, that's how I knew you just cut and pasted his bibliography and slapped it on this page. I should have made that clearer instead of just hinting.

As for Doss' "scholarship", the guy believes in Lemuria. But then, I shouldn't expect any better from someone whose sources on the ancient nature of Indian civilization include Madame Blavatsky.

From Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind)."

And how about giving dates and sources for those dates instead of just saying "oldest, oldest, oldest, older than pankration, older than kung fu..."

The only concern is about the "widely considered to be the origin" thing, since the enclyclopedic squad went all "humans had hands and legs so there is no common origin" and "India is not widely considered to be the home as there have been frescos, though more recent than Yoga but this argument is widespread anyways"

From Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion."

From Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words: "Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):

"...is widely considered to be..."

Regurgitating a list of URLs is not citation. Which claims come from which pages?

....

also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauryan_map.gif should help a bit before you try and go all argumentative about countries you don't know about.

So what's that yellow part at the bottom? JFD 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and historical accuracy

This is a continuing problem that we seem to be running into especially online when dealing with any aspect of Indian history. It's not just a problem that JFD and I am haveing but one that harvard historians are having and almost any historian of indian history. You need to separate true history from made up history or religious history. First and foremost, it seems like almost every indian nationalist online is using religious textbooks and even a vague mentioning of wrestling or archery and drawing vast assumptions and conclusions that these textbooks are talking about martial arts in general. they then say - oh, this is thousands of years old because we believe that the oral texts began to be spoken of thousands of years ago. of course, no one mentions that the oldest text in india in written form can only be dated back to the 3rd century b.c. or so. Further, None of the indian religious texts discuss anything about martial arts that are current either in name or in content. All of these names are not martial arts that were mentioned in any religious textbooks. And please do not presume that india could be the birthplace of martial arts when most historians believe that martial arts were invented in various regions separtately. Further,if you did your homework it would occur to you that all of those sites that you mentioned are just websites that anyone can make. I can make a website that says that the earth is square shaped, does it mean that it is true? If you would polish your English, you would understand that i'm using Gilgamesh and the bible as an example of why no one believes that martial arts originated in the mideast. Gilgamesh is the oldest known story in the world and it talks about wrestlign and archery - does that mean that the mideast invented martial arts? Secondly, YOGA is not martial arts! there is nothing in yoga as far as i can tell that can help you defend yourself against an attacker except perhaps stretch better before a fight. Nothing at all! How can getting into a lotus position help with martial arts??? Kennethtennyson 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Gaycie did not invent jujustu - he was taught by a japanese person and he later modified it. Further, he is not a historian so i don't know how credible he is as an authority on the history of martial arts. If that were true, then maybe we should ask Chuck Norris his ideas on the origins of Karate. Most japanese, koreans, and chinese historians including most credible historians in general do not follow your belief on the origins of martial arts through india. You cite a few random people and a few random websites and state that it is "fact" to buttress your support. further, you cite a chinese text that attributes bodhidharma to shaolin kung fu which has been shown to be a ridiculously made up text by a Taoist writer against the shaolin temple during the 19th century. The bodhidharma legend is just that - a legend- that has 10-20 totally different versions and if you actually believe in that legend, then the first mention of bodhidharma ever in history (and probably the most accurate) stated that he was in Fact Persian from Central Asia/Tibet so if you are willing to follow legends, all martial arts in the world by your reasoning must have originated in Central Asia/Tibet. 20:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know what we object to, we object to the whole article - almost everything written in it... from the statement india is the birthplace of these various martial arts... to your attribution of the birth of indian martial arts in religious texts using archaeastronomy! (which no one credibly believes at all)... to your attempt at stating that the various mythological god-kings in Hindu religious texts knew martial arts...to your attribution that it spread to southeast asia and indonesia (no proof at all)... almost everything unfortunately. Kennethtennyson 20:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of objectionable portions, adding official citation and trying to keep the tone encylopedic

Thanks for the ton of help in the article itself, by way the people. Could not have done it without the excess help I had in typing and writing the article. Thanks a bunch.

Anyways, the official citation by the Shaolin and Gracie sites is available, the language will soon be turned more encyclopedic, several other sources of official nature will be cited thus ensuring greater credibility.

Thanks once again for your shaking your head in mock-panic-attack-i-disagree-with-sim-ply-everything-every-word, I get the vibe that writing in India is just 2300 years old because Rigveda is something I never heard of, horrible-horrible (the amount of comic relief really is appreciated) and trying your hand at being sarcastic about professers, countries, Madame Blavatsky and official versions, could not have done it without you I'm sure.

As usual, the panic reactions and attempts to sarcasm are awaited.Freedom skies 04:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put down the straw man. No one is saying that India is "just 2300 years old". However,

Not everything comes from India, whether it's martial arts, medicine or mathematics.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. So you love India and think it's great. Good for you. That tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nor, more importantly, are false, hyperbolic and unsupported statements which reflect that sentiment.

JFD 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great lecture, almost humourous. I could reply in the same language and go not-everything-is-as-your-mind-wants-it-to-be-and-official-statemets-kinda-make-your-attempts-of-substantiating-your-personal-opinions-look-fradulent but apparently, the Tsumi Hozan, the Gracies, Goju Ryu and the Shaolin seem to have done my work for me. So. Freedom skies 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

still not fact

I applaud you for making an attempt at redoing the article as more "encyclopedic," however the fact remains that you are still unfortunately using one-sided sources on the internet that are not books but random websites to support your notion that various martial arts came from india. You are still not acknowleding the fact that those religious textbooks don't name any of the martial arts that are existent in india today nor do they describe in any way a form of fighting that appears to be martial arts. All they talk about is "this god-king learned archery", this "king wrestled that king..."; further, for every one random person or website that says that bodhidharma invented this or that martial arts, I can give you ten or more books written by historians, authoritative textbooks and volumes of encyclopedias including websites that say that bodhidharma is just a legend, that the first reference to bodhdiharma in any chinese textbook says that he is persian or central asian, and the only - the only reference to bodhidharma and shaolin kung fu was written by a taoist ( who disliked the Shaolin monks) in the 18th-19th century A.D. a thousand years after he ever was mentioned in any chinese textbook. Further, if you want to use the legend to support your claims, then why don't you mention the fact that all of the chinese legends state that he created stretching exercises (not martial arts) to make the monks stronger - and that he created these exercises in China after meditating in a cave for 9 years. None of the chinese legends stated that he brought it from india! you're currently making a random educated guess that since there are currently some indiginous martial arts in india today that it might have existed in India way back in the 6th century A.D. and warping the legend to state that bodhidharma instead of creating it in a cave in China in the 6th century or so (after meditating without moving for 9 years) must have brought it from india to china. Further, you don't seem to want to cite the sources of literature (and these are actual historical texts not websites) in china that state that the shaolin monks already had martial arts before the purported arrival of bodhidharma. Not only that, why do you keep on citing Alex Doss (the president of some Tamil independence movement - who is not a historian) when he says on his website that Bodhidharma (suprise suprise!) is actually Tamil! and that bodhidharma's martial arts were Tamil based! Further, why in the world are you citing a Brazilian who is not a historian who did not invent Jujutsu as to the origins of Japanese Jujutsu? While you're at it why don't you just ask Jet Li or Chuck Norris their ideas on the origins of kalaripayattu. As a result, the article's factual accuracy is open to interpretation and the neutrality of the article is open to interpretation. But once again I appreciate this dialogue. However, Freedom, you seem suprised that we would be so disagreeable to your notion. If you had been around 2-3 years before, you would have discovered that this is not the first time that this has happened. Almost every 3-4 months, some random national from some country - pakistan, the middle east, europe, and especially India seems to come onto wikipedia and decides that their country is the progenitor of this or that martial arts because he heard this or that rumor online or at home. I guess everyone is crazy for martial arts these days. This has been ongoing i believe since the beginning of the creation of wikipedia. Regardless, this is not the first time that this has happened and i guess it will not the last time. Please have an open mind Freedom. Kennethtennyson 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-edited everything in the text to a more accurate interpretation of the history of indian martial arts. I removed anything that Alex Doss wrote as he is not a historian and there is nothing to substantiate anything that he has written online. I also removed what was mentioned about Gracie. He is not a historian either - just a random martial artist with his own website. Kennethtennyson 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no proof

You still haven't given the name of that Taoist monk who was a dissenter of the Shaolinists. Also, where are your sources (quotes from books, at least a web site)? It seems that as though what ever you say should be already official which makes you "sources exempt". I have seen many of your posting on various other martial arts forums. It looks like as though you are on some kind of campaign to discredit the fact that martial arts was introduced from India to China. Also, you still think that India we see today existed thousands of years ago, as ancient India? It's like saying there was an ancient Canada. Was there? As one person stated, of course, there was the 16 mahajanapadas (republics) of Bharat, which some people consider to be another name for India. However, these mahajanapadas basically covered as far north as Afghanistan and no further south than present day state of Maharasthra, Central India. The ancient texts you speak about such as the Mahabharata mention of these 16 North Indian kingdoms. You are correct that they do not mention about the martial arts, except for the wrestling, and archery. Basically almost every civilization had their own cavalary, infantry, archers, etc. And China indeed had a combat system just like Greece and Egpy. However, you over look the Dravidian country of Southern India which has its own ancient literature such as the Silappadikaram, and the Purunanuru amongst others. In these texts they mention of the martial arts of Southern India, or Tamilakkam as what that region was called at the time before the creation of India by the British. Silambam (Silambattam) is one of them. Another good text to look at is called the Varma Cuttiram translated from the old Tamil manuscripts into English and published by the University of Madras. I see that you have an interest in Chinese and Indian literature. However, Indian literature is basically the Sanskrit literature. Dravidian or Tamil literature has pretty much been left out of general Indian literature. It would be good if you could look into Tamil literature since there is a lot of history being left out. Especially regarding the sea contact between various cultures and the Dravidian south or Tamilakkam.

On the subject of Daruma Bodhidarma, what makes you think that he was not Tamil? Isn't Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu? Please tell me that Kanchipuram is not in Tamil Nadu and I will believe you. I could be wrong. Wasn't Kanchipuram the Capital of the Tamil Pallavas? For your information, Buddhism was also practiced during certain time periods in Tamilakkam by the Cholas and Pallavas. Another piece of Tamil literature called "Manimekalai" written by a Chera prince named Ilango Adaigal is about a Buddhist nun. Why do you discredit Tamil martial arts or culture in general. Could it be the fact that the Tamils or Dravidians in general share a lot of commonalities with cultures from Eastern Africa and the aboriginals of Australia? Is it the fact that the Tamils believe in Lemuria? The most recent proof was the 2004 tsunami which unvieled more artifacts from the Bay of Bengal. A couple of years prior to that, scientists have conducted some underwater excavations thus revealing more structures and articfacts in the Bay. The Silappadikaram mentions of a great flood or tsunami.

Lastly, I would like to know if you have anything against Tamils or Brazilians? Here is your quote:

"he says on his website that Bodhidharma (suprise suprise!) is actually Tamil! and that bodhidharma's martial arts were Tamil based! Further, why in the world are you citing a Brazilian who is not a historian who did not invent Jujutsu as to the origins of Japanese Jujutsu?"

Is it offensive to state that Bodhidarma was a Tamil? Is it because Tamils resemble that of African decent and are not of a somewhat purer race as you might imagine, lets say the "Persians" or "Central Asians". So since, Gracie is a Brazilian, does that disqualify him as a source for Japanese Jujutso? What makes you more of a credible source of information on Indian or Chinese heritage? Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself when you state that we shouldn't quote from a Brazilian on Japanese Jujutso, while you are a non-Indian and a non-Chinese speaking on Indian or Chinese culture?

How do we all know that you are actually a Phd. scholar? You're probably just another bum off the streets of Sunset Blvd. using the library internet. I don't care if you get upset or not. A lot of racists tend to, when they get confronted with the truth...

Categories: Talk archives