Yi Jin Jing (Qi Gung): muscle and tendon washing forms originate with the Buddhist Da Mo in 527 A.D., when Emperor Liang Wu Di invited him.
Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming also makes note of the Buddhist origins of Martial Arts.
Hsing-i and Tai Chi use Qigong as their foundation.
[QUOTE=Foiling Fist;1142103]Yi Jin Jing (Qi Gung): muscle and tendon washing forms originate with the Buddhist Da Mo in 527 A.D., when Emperor Liang Wu Di invited him.
Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming also makes note of the Buddhist origins of Martial Arts.
Hsing-i and Tai Chi use Qigong as their foundation.[/QUOTE]
Except that Nei Qong in Taoism, in a written form, goes all the way back to 350 B.C. only 250 years after Buddha, AND it is thought to have been an oral tradition that goes back possibly another 1,500 or more years BEFORE that, AND Buddha frowned upon such behaviors AND, mirror wiping is the antithesis of even EARLY Ch’an which is demonstrated by the earliest extant Ch’an writings, AND it is most likely originated in the Upanishads, NOT Buddhism, AND there is not much difference between Qi Qong and many shamanistic practices found in just about every culture known to man, AND…
Nice try though! 
in general, qigong has two main branches of origin: indigenous, which is based on proto-Taoist / shamanic practice (e.g. - Five Phase Walking, Six Healing Sounds), and exogenous, primarily importation of Indian yogic practice (the bulk of Yik Gan Ging is probably the latter, but it is not by far the oldest practice), although there are instances of Tibetan “yogic” influence as well; as far as this being Buddhist per se, that piece probably got superimposed onto extant practices (India did have some slight history prior to Buddhism, or thus have I heard…)
I gotta throw in with Scott and TGY on this. Buddhism is not the origin of qigong.
I would put breath work back further in time than that. 527 ad and TaMo? Definitely not and lets consider that even legendary Ta Mo was not Chinese and what he purportedly brought to Shaolin was not Chinese in origin either. In fact, it is highly likely that such a person did not exist at all and instead served as a model patriarch for the true lineage of zen. Due to the custom of attributing any ideas you had to someone else so as to not appear vain glorious. 
The earliest written evidence of qigong practice in China was carved on a piece of jade ornament discovered in Mawangtu in 1957, it goes back to the Warring States (475 - 221 BC) about 2,500 years ago. Buddhism was not introduced into China until the Eastern Han period (25 - 220 AD) and because the indigenous and the Buddhist practices are similar, gradually they merged to the present forms, where they are roughly grouped into one of the five “families” (jia): Daoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Medical and Martial Arts Qigong.
Below shows the archaic writing carved on the jade piece mentioned and my rough translation:
“To move the Qi, breathe in deeply to store, to store is to elongate, to elongate is to sink, to sink is to consolidate, to consolidate is to breath out (like young shoots), to breath out is to grow, to grow is to “retreat” (to repeat), to retreat is heavenly, Heaven is above and Earth is below, (therefore) to go with is to live, to go against is to die.”
“To go with”, is to breathe naturally and deeply, to follow the forces of nature (e.g. gravity), the time of the day and the seasons, is to live a long life, to go against them is to die early.
Awesome find extrajoseph!
Can you provide any history on this piece?
It predates the nei yeh!
The jade piece was buried with its owner, an important local Military Governor (a Fan Wang), so one can see the importance of Qigong in the military arts even as early as 2,500 years ago. It is a jade piece fitted to the head of a walking or a commander’s stick and has 12 sides with a total of 45 characters etched into the azure-green jade. Currently it is on display at the Tianjin Historical Museum.
Thank you, extrajoseph!
That is very facinating! If you come across any other ancient Taoist information/knowledge/literaure/inscriptions, heretofore unknown, or not very well known, here in the West, I would be very interested in learning about it!
Have you had the chance to personally view this piece of jade?
I also find it facinating it was afixed to a walking/command stick indicating it was considered important enough to be kept in a prominent and handy location to serve as a constant reminder!
Is there any other information you can find about Fan Wang?
From its shamanic origins, one may say that yangshenggong took many paths and they are not always distinguishable!
It is stated that Xianggong (Fragrance Gong) is Buddhist while Dayan qigong is Daoist but I am sure they intersect at various places where a main Buddhis or Daoist theme is able to be identified.
[QUOTE=Foiling Fist;1142103]Yi Jin Jing (Qi Gung): muscle and tendon washing forms originate with the Buddhist Da Mo in 527 A.D., when Emperor Liang Wu Di invited him.
Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming also makes note of the Buddhist origins of Martial Arts.
Hsing-i and Tai Chi use Qigong as their foundation.[/QUOTE]
I thought most of the people on here had already read Prof. Meir Shahar’s book about Shaolin or Brian Kennedy’s book on martial arts training manuals. You should check those out to understand the actual history of the Yijin Jing manual, which doesn’t go back any further than the 17th century. For a summary of several sources, read this article that I wrote:
http://www.historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/218-shaolin-bodhidharma.html
It’s not perfect by any means, but it is a nice introduction to the subject.
By the way, Dr. Yang is notoriously bad for passing legend off as history. He is not a historian. The doctorate is in engineering.
@ Joseph
Awesome find, thanks for that!
@ Ghost exorcist and others
In the villages of Song Shan and amongst the old masters of Shaolin JIN NA LUO WANG is always considered the founder and transmitter of Shaolin Wushu. His statue is worshipped in practice halls, not Damo’s. Damo is respected in relation to ‘Chan’.
Yijinjing and Xishuijing permeate all Chinese wushu styles, Taoist, Buddhist and otherwise. Their true origin is a mystery but the practices they include are natural and Shamanistic in nature and probably go back over 10,000 years.
The nature of Shaolin Wushu is inseparable from Chan. Since Damo brought Chan to Shaolin, then Damo can as much be considered the founder of Shaolin Wushu as can JinNaLuo. But in terms of technique and physical practices, that is ascribed to JinNaLuoWang.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1142604][…]
The nature of Shaolin Wushu is inseparable from Chan. Since Damo brought Chan to Shaolin, then Damo can as much be considered the founder of Shaolin Wushu as can JinNaLuo. But in terms of technique and physical practices, that is ascribed to JinNaLuoWang.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that a lot of people don’t know that Shaolin reveres King Jinalou as the source of their skill. The story about Bodhidharma is more prevalent in western martial arts circles.
Chinese records do not attest to Bodhidharma setting foot in Shaolin until the 8th century, which postdate his supposed time in China by hundreds of years. There are some historians who think he was just the poster boy for Chan, meaning he was not really the progenitor, and others think he wasn’t even a real person. Even Gene thinks that he is “historical dubious.” Therefore, one should be cautious about saying he influenced Shaolin Wushu in anyway.
At best, it is synthesis that is at the core of most systems.martial or otherswise!
Chen shi taijiquan integrated folk, Buddhist (look at some of the names of postures) and its Shaolin’ borrowigs’ with a wrapping od Daoist overtones and philosophy!
Aren’t soem CMA systems boorowed from Hui community, with both Buddhiist and Daoist overview. Now many are becoming more open about those origins and eschewing the Daoist/Buddhist links up to a point.
Some versions of xing-yi are acknowledging the Muslim background of their art in its change to the greater Han community with tours to these same cities!
Even lesser known non-Han systems are becoming more widespread!
[QUOTE=ghostexorcist;1142664]The problem is that a lot of people don’t know that Shaolin reveres King Jinalou as the source of their skill. The story about Bodhidharma is more prevalent in western martial arts circles.
Chinese records do not attest to Bodhidharma setting foot in Shaolin until the 8th century, which postdate his supposed time in China by hundreds of years. There are some historians who think he was just the poster boy for Chan, meaning he was not really the progenitor, and others think he wasn’t even a real person. Even Gene thinks that he is “historical dubious.” Therefore, one should be cautious about saying he influenced Shaolin Wushu in anyway.[/QUOTE]
Thats True I suppose. But Jesus is also historically dubious yet has had a gigantic effect on the world. If the stories of Damo going to Shaolin are over 1000 years old then the inspiration of these stories is as relevant as the truth.
But I was under the impression earlier records show Damo going to Luoyang? Shaolin used to be part of the Luoyang prefecture. In China there are 5 sacred mountains. They are in the 4 cardinal directions and one in the centre. The central one is SongShan. These mountains have been sacred in all chinese culture, not just Taoist. These 5 mountains are the only 5 which can use the character ‘Yue’ instead of ‘Shan’. Song Shans other name is ‘Zhong Yue’ the central sacred mountain. In fact Dengfeng is considerd the very centre point of Ancient China (before you include xinjiang, manchuria, etc.).
My point is that SO important is Songshan as the sacred mountain, if Damo went to Luoyang, then he certainly went to Song Shan (1 days ride away). If he went to Song Shan, then he would have gone to either Shaolin or Fawang temple, probably both. Since a vast amount of anecdotal evidence points to him being at shaolin, then that seems more likely than any other out come (I’m not aware there even are significant alternate stories). Shaolin is also significantly closer to luoyang than any other of Song Shans premiere temples. Going from Luoyang to Dengfeng, you must pass Shaolin.
Zhong Yue Miao is the oldest temple in DengFeng and is Taoist. It contains a lot of Info about the sacred mountians as well as extremely bizarre ancient symbols which signify them. Inside they have a boulder taken from each of the other sacred mountains.
All that said though, I say we bring back the cult of Jin na luo!
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1142788][…]
My point is that SO important is Songshan as the sacred mountain, if Damo went to Luoyang, then he certainly went to Song Shan (1 days ride away). If he went to Song Shan, then he would have gone to either Shaolin or Fawang temple, probably both. Since a vast amount of anecdotal evidence points to him being at shaolin, then that seems more likely than any other out come (I’m not aware there even are significant alternate stories). Shaolin is also significantly closer to luoyang than any other of Song Shans premiere temples. Going from Luoyang to Dengfeng, you must pass Shaolin.
[…][/QUOTE]
That is way too many IFs. This is what Prof. Shahar says about the issue:
[INDENT]“In the sixth-century Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang (Luoyang qielan ji) (ca. 547), he is said to have visited the city, but no allusion is made to the nearby Mt. Song. Approximately a century later, the Continuation of the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu Gaoseng zhuan) (645), describes him as active in the “Mt. Song-Luoyang” region. Then, in such early eighth-century compositions as the Precious Record of the Dharma’s Transmission (Chuanfa baoji) (c. 710) Bodhidharma is identified not merely with Mt. Song but more specifically with the Shaolin Monastery, where supposedly for several years he faced the wall in meditation” (The Shaolin Monastery, p. 13).[/INDENT]
What’s important about the first source is that it is, as the name implies, a record of the different Buddhist monasteries that were in 6th century Luoyang. Since the records do not allude to him going to Mt. Song, he had his pick of any number of monasteries there in Luoyang. There is not enough evidence to speculate that he went to Shaolin. If he had gone to Shaolin, it would have been recorded. Flash forward almost 200 years, and a different source says that he was in Shaolin. Where did this new information come from? Since his historicity is uncertain, I think the authors of the proceeding sources just built off of the last by adding new information.
There is evidence for this in other records regarding him. For instance, the Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang says that he was from Persia. Tanlin’s preface to the slightly later Two Entrances and Four Acts says that Bodhidharma was the third son of a South Indian King. Then, the 7th century Further Biographies of Eminent Monks states that he was originally from a Brahman family. Brahmans and Kings form two different castes in ancient India. Again, where did all of this new information come from? First he was Persian, then he was an Indian prince, and finally he was a former Brahman.
Come on, use some logic here. That evidence says little. Because all we can use is SURVIVING records. Where did the ‘new’ information come from? You think 1500 years ago all they had to go on were the ‘Record of buddhist monasteries in Luoyang’? Off course not. 1500 years ago they probably had 1500 other sources of information that are not around today.
Imagine in 1500 years time a load of professors are writing history based on the only surviving magazine which happens to be ‘Playboy’… How close to the truth could they construct?
Does the Luoyang record mention shaolin temple at all? If not it may just be a record of the monasteries within Luoyang City rather than the whole prefecture. In which case it shouldn’t say he was in Mt. Song really should it? If anything the fact that it is recorded that Damo WAS in Luoyang dramatically adds to the evidence that Damo was at shaolin, it doesn’t take away from it at all. How and why would that myth appear in the 160 years after that first record? More likely it is taken from more detailed sources.
Notice how NONE of those records are in any way conflicting? That is important.
When analysing history you can only base it on surviving records. The person who wrote the first record may not have thought it necessary to put down the whole life story. Or may not have known it. Only that he came to luoyang. The Fact that only 165 years later the entire story as it is known today is complete adds a great deal of credit. Since back then they had access to a great deal more info than we have now. The second record just 100 years later actually says Mt. Song and at the time Shaolin would have been one of the largest monasteries, and the closest of song shan to Luoyang.
Here is another quote from Shahar:
[INDENT]“For our purpose here, the significance of the Bodhidharma myth is its association with Mt. Song. During the last decades of the seventh century, this mountain became an important center of Chan learning, as eminent masters such as Faru (638-689) and Huian (?-709) took up residence at the Shaolin Monastery. These early Chan practitioners were probably responsible for connecting Bodhidharma to the Central Holy Peak” (p. 13).[/INDENT]
Shahar noted prior to this that “the attribution of the [Chan] school to him is considered a legend by most historians” (Ibid). Therefore, you can see the progression of the myth. As quoted above, The Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang (547) only has him in the city of Luoyang. But with the rise of Chan in the 7th century on Mt. Song, this “poster boy” for the sect was associated with that mountain. Then, in the early 8th century, he was finally associated with Shaolin. Another important thing to note is that the Monastery itself didn’t attest to his presence there until the raising of a stele in 728. This is no doubt connected to the Precious Record of the Dharma’s Transmission (710), which is the first source to connect him to the monastery. This all comes from a book written by someone who is far more qualified than both of us. You have to accept the fact that he had nothing to do with the monastery during his supposed time in China.
Look, Damo is a legendary character, a great deal that is said about him is obviously not true. Never the less there was probably a real man who inspired this legend. And there is nothing in the evidence that suggests he was not at shaolin temple.
Why did Faru and Huian go to shaolin in the first place, unless it was already associated heavily with Chan?
Obviously a Stele written about him was going to be put up a long time after his death, they wouldn’t have put one up while he was still alive now would they. Many masters are unapreciated in their own lifetimes.
Later accounts didn’t just make stuff up. They would have been copying info from earlier written accounts. Ones which wouldn’t necesserily have survived till today.
Another contempary account, by Tanlin, mentions wall gazing and says that Damo roamed about teaching. If his base was Luoyang and he went about teaching then there is no chance he didn’t go to shaolin at some point. Maybe not for 10 years but still.
People only bother reading a historians work when he says something controversial. All Historians ever do is try to say something controversial. Plenty enough equally and more qualified people disagree with him.
From when he arrived in China he stayed there till his Death. Most accounts put him in Luoyang. He stayed for certainly more than 10 years maybe even 30 or more. Think he didn’t go to song shan in this time? Really? The central sacred mountain with numerous buddhist temples? Off course he would have. And to come to Song Shan from luoyang you literally have to walk past the gate of Shaolin. Its only a days ride from luoyang anyway.
Maybe he didn’t really resurrect after death, maybe he didn’t really live 150 years, maybe he didn’t spend 10 years in the cave at shaolin, but did he go there and inspire people? I think so.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143225]Maybe he didn’t really resurrect after death, maybe he didn’t really live 150 years, maybe he didn’t spend 10 years in the cave at shaolin, but did he go there and inspire people? I think so.[/QUOTE]
Well one thing we do know for sure..,…
He DID cut off his eye lids and throw them away, or we wouldn’t have tea to drink.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1143225]
3. Later accounts didn’t just make stuff up. They would have been copying info from earlier written accounts. Ones which wouldn’t necesserily have survived till today.
[/QUOTE]
Why not? Fabricated historical narratives are a long and well documented tradition in China.
The Song Confucian texts that formed the basis of the Imperial civil service examination system were proven to be inaccurate almost to the point of forgeries by kaozheng scholars. If the very foundation of the Imperial civil bureaucracy can be based upon forgeries what does that tell you about religious hagiography?
Documents found at the Dunhuang caverns have been interpreted to suggest that the Chan school was nascent in the early Tang during a period of increased sectarianism among the already established schools of Buddhism. Inventing a patriarchal lineage that could be traced back to shijiamonifo was common practice among competing schools of practice.