What if Bodhidharma's Kungfu was fake?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
,
1

In Ferguson’s new work, the now indispensible Zen’s Chinese Heritage, he brings up the dubious connection of Ta Mo and Kungfu.
“…stories linking Bodhidharma to Chinese martial arts, or gongfu, have no historical basis. No evidence exists of any relationship between Bodhidharma and Chinese Martial arts beyond their common connection with Shaolin Temple. A millenium separates the time of Bodhidharm’s residence a that temple with the first mention of his supposed link to the martial arts…” Other Buddhist text have made similar assertions, and it is porbably concurs with the general opinion of the American sangha.

Does this notion affect your practice of Kungfu?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

2

I don’t think so. What I practice now is real enough. I don’t care what happened 1500 years ago. Even if Damo did create Shaolin Kungfu over the course of it’s history it has been changed so much that some 1500 year old history really has no impact on my Kungfu now.

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net

3

I agree, it’s pretty much a moot point.
It’s a fairly common practice throughout Chinese history to attempt to legitimize something by giving it an ancient, semi-mythical origin.

4

I find it humorous that folks are answering that it doesn’t matter…especially anyone that might have attacked Shaolin-do’s credibility and history previously. How ironic, if the base of shaolin history is fiction as most claim Shaolin-do’s history to be. Makes the whole issue of “is this shaolin, or is that shaolin” seem even more pointless, in my opinion. Obviously, I agree that it doesn’t matter. :wink:

-Radhnoti

5

well, whether or not Da Mo taught gongfu at the shaolin monastery, we do know that from the Song dynasty onwards there were huge developments in Shaolin gongfu, and it is from this period that modern Shaolin gongfu traces its lineage, up until the burning of the temple, etc. so the criteria for “legitimate” shaolin gongfu is still the ability to trace the style or lineage back to the temple, whether or not Da Mo actually taught there.

I’m not trying to say anything about Shaolin-Do as I know nothing about it, so don’t take this the wrong way.

6

I really don’t want to go through this again

Even if the Damo story is fake a style could have a few hundred years of experience behind it. My point was that history that old is bound to be exagerated or not true. That doesn’t matter because the kungfu we practice now has been shaped by more recent history (past 200- 300 years) giving it a solid base. If it turns out that the Damo story is fake that doesn’t mean it is ok for anyone to start claiming they are part of Shaolin and inherited hundreds of forms from the original fukien temple destoyed like 200 years ago but the forms were created in the 50’s. Don’t confuse legend and folk tales with lying. This is not going to be another Shaolin Do thread I am so damn sick of those :mad:

Witness the Dynasty!!!
New Site! www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net

7

Give it up…

Damo being involved in the development of Shaolin kung fu is propably apocryphal. This does not mean that there isn’t legitimate Shaolin skills, just he did not invent it. And even if he did, it certainly evolved since then.

Saying that this somehow makes SD CMA is pretty sloppy logic. This is typical of the SD paralogical cult like arguments. “Ducks come from Canada, I am Canadian, therefore I am a duck.”

Followed by the: I will not talk to anyone who might tell me I’m wrong or actually investigate the facts.

Fun question Gene.

I am a big beleiver in luck. The more I work, the more luck I have.

8

He gene what’s up? Remember me from last years Tai Chi Legacy? e-mail me, lets chat..

regarding Damo. I believe he’s just the george washington of shaolin temple. Perhaps he did teach some health exercises (yoga) and perhaps some self defense skills too. Whatever it was it sure had an impact on his followers.

Here’s a question. when did the Shaolin Temple convert to Damo’s Chan method over there mahayanna method (most definitely botched the spelling)

eric Hargrove
ngokfei@juno.com

9

I could be wrong

I think Damo laid the foundation of kung fu by showing shoalin breathing and muscle control techniques. I think it became kung fu over time.

10

hi gene. my sifu always told us bodhidharma
had nothing to do with gungfu.
maybe because he trained at wudang.

“when you expect your oppoent to yield/you also should avoid hurting him”

11

DaMo’s Gongfu

From what I know, the sets/ movements “allegedly” conceived by Bodhidharma did not resemble the myriad external systems practiced today. From the demonstrations of YiJinJing, XiSuiJing, and LohanShiBaShou (the 3 “core” forms credited to DaMo’s Shaolin meditation) that I’ve witnessed, I too would agree that they appear more like the Qigong or stationary Taiji routines people do today. On the other hand, it’s not hard to imagine the “DaMo core forms” as a rudimentary basis for the complex and dynamic forms we know now as gongfu. I have also learned that the popular Bodhidharma Sword and DaMo Staff forms (from the Songshan system) credit Bodhidharma only in name–they were not created by him 1500 years ago. Very interesting topic!

**Siu Lung

12

Why did Bodhidharma travel West?

It’s an old koan (gungan for you Chinese dogmatists :wink: ) Penetrate it, an it is the essence of Zen/Chan, or at least so I’m told…

To me, the Tamo/kungfu question is really the tip of the iceberg of faith. There is a leap of faith in Zen and, if I read Herrigal right, it has to do with the belief that there is something beyond these demanding disciplines, something almighty. Perhaps ‘thing’ is the wrong word entirely - it might be better just read Herrigal’s Method of Zen. Personally, I don’t agree with Herrigal, but nevertheless, faith is really a major underlying issue on this forum; whether it be shaolin-do, bjj or Bruce Lee, the core issue is one of faith.

So let’s get to the root of faith through the alleged root of kungfu.

Now there is even some research that denies the very existence of Tamo. So a bigger question might be “What if Bodhidharma was fake and how does that affect your practice of Zen?” But of course, this assumes you are a zennist, so the kungfu question is more immediately relevant.

Evidence of both Buddhism and Kungfu predate Tamo. Remember Shaolin Temple was built for another earlier Buddhist monk, Batuo, who disciples were noted for their kungfu skills. Tamo came after them.

Before we go further, I should state that I’m taking a devil’s advocate position on this (or maybe I should say Yamataka’s advocate.) I honor Tamo with an altar in my home and here at work. I have great faith in Tamo, but not for his literality.

ngokfei: Hey Eric, we missed you this year. I think I still owe you a drink :cool: It should be a double for that george washington comment! As for your question of Chinese Chan, well, like anything in China, it’s all mixed up. Examine the root of Amitabha/amitoufo, so frequently heard in the Shaolin circles, but (obviously) from Pure Land sect.

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

13

Oh NO

Then where all doomed. (LOL)

I dont really think he is a fact he probably really did extist through I am sure people had made ficitous “tales” of him. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story similar to the story of Noah in the Bible. ofcourse only on is true. and the others are just exgagertions when talking about something that occured the the tale of the thing.

Andre Lashley

14

Gene - what is the work by Herrigal which you are citing? I disagree with the idea that Chan requires any “faith” on the part of the practitioner (at least, “faith” as I understand it in a Western[Judeo-Christian] sense).

15

Okay, I don’t have my resources here so I’m going from memory, BUT…I believe that it was stated that martial arts were practiced at Shaolin long before the arrival of Boddhidarma, BUT…he brought the ch’i kung to shaolin, combined it with the martial arts, and that is when the level of martial arts began to develop to the degree that Shaolin was famous for. It’s as if the engine was there, but Bodhidarma added the nitrous. If you study yoga,pranayama, and hei-gung. you will see the striking similarities. My two cents

16

post crash

Sorry my last post crashed, so if it appears again later and this becomes weirdly redundant, I was trying to reiterate what was lost.

beiquan: I don’t agree with Herrigal at all, but the book was his posthumous work Method of Zen. And I was paraphrasing him, I’m not sure that he was refering to Judeo-Christian ‘faith.’ I think his comment was more of the view that you had to had some faith to endure the discipline.

tentigers: Tamo as the nitrous of kungfu - that’s even better than the washington comment!
I’ve heard the pranayama connection discussed in martial circles before and actually went to India to study it. While there is parallels between yoga/kungfu, meridians/nadis and pranayama/qigong, it’s a misuse of the terms and an oversimplification, I think. Chan and Zen descend from the terms Chan Na and Zen Na, both translations of Dhyana. Dhyana is a different limb of yoga than pranayama. So by defination, it’s not pranayama, it’s dhyana. Actually I believe this is the key…

Any thoughts
Any one?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

17

Hey Gene,
Don’t know if you remember me, but you and I had some REALLY long phone conversations when I was doing historical reseach and buying books from Wing Lam.

Basically, I have to agree with the Nitros comment. Martial arts are as old as man. they were ther LONg before Da Mo and grew and blossumeed LONG after his death. My guess, is his Chi Kung/Yoga methods are what really elevated Shaolin’s Kung Fu to un precidented hights as far as skill and strength go. He may also be the one that taught us how to combine movements into a formal routine so as to develop considerably more effeciant(ly?)

On a closing note, I have to admit, I’m sitting here eating left over Italian and Chineses from the past few days for lunch.

I don’t care WHICH one invented the noodle, I LOVE’EM!!!

Royal Dragon

“Mmmmmmmmmmm, Yummmmmmmmmm”
The preceeding is a direct quote from my daughters Furbie

18

damo

What’s the difference between asian martial arts and martial arts (empty hand) from places like Europe or the Americas? The methods of strength training I’d say. Damo probably introduced some Indian exercises and buddhism, and the monks there developed it over time. Incorporated it into their martial training, it left the temple, developed again in many different ways. It comes to us 1500 years later, probably nothing like Damo taught, but the same essence, same purpose (health). We sometimes emphasize fighting, but isn’t self defence a way to maintain your well being? After all, you can’t seek enlightenment in this world if your stay here is cut short. 1500 years of development, that is a long time. No wonder Shaolin arts and it’s relatives are the best under the sun! Practice kung fu without force training and you achieve little. How will you stop someone trying to hurt you? You need force. Look here in the west, people lift weights to get stronger. Hey, a method of strength training! Only in Shaolin, the training is more advanced, but not always understood. It aims at more than just physical force. After all, getting attacked isn’t the only way you can die. I believe it was later monks, and not just one, or even ones from the same time period, that developed Damo’s exercises into what they represent today. There is so many variations, some maybe not even connected to Shaolin. One man never invents something, at least not in our history. Who invented speech? Different people from different places probably came up with the same things, at different periods in time. No one can “claim” anything. We lose it and find it again. We’ve lost it, but it’s still there. It will be found again. It was never really lost. How human of us, to not see the big picture. Our perception of things is very narrow. I also think that Damo had a part in what is thought of as Zen today, but not the inventor of it. It makes a great story! That’s why legends are emphasized over truth. It is the truth! Just not as we know it in our scientific minded views.

19

royal dragon: Thanks for touching base. I apologize that I don’t remember you, but if you refresh me on what we might have talked about, it might jog my poor memory.
Fighting is older than man certainly, but this makes the key question here When does it become “martial arts”?
Love the noodles allegory. China invented them…

shaolin knight: My small ventures into western martial arts trained strength, even stuff that borders on mysticism if you go back to before the industrial age. I would say the difference is poetry vs. science. Beyond that, I lost track of your point exactly (sorry, it’s late and I’ve had a really hard week.)
I think legends are retold not for their truth but for their justice. The truth is unjust. So if we just accept this legend as legend, the question becomes Why Tamo? Why not Guan Gong? He precedes Ta Mo by a few centuries.

Why would the legend that Tamo the beginning be sustained?

Gene Ching
Asst. Publisher
Kungfu Qigong Magazine & www.KUNGFUmagazine.com

20

Boddhidarma was supposed to be Persian (his family name was Sardili and he had blue eyes: he wasn’t strictly speaking Indian), but nevertheless we haven’t recovered endemic and specific persian empty hand fighting arts other than these existing in the Greek world and those employed by fighters all over the worl at the time.
Furthermore, lots of persons including Adam Hsu and Kang Ge Wu even question the fact that genuine Shaolin gong fu existed back in the days…they claim that the only true endogenous technique in Shaolin was their staff fighting, the rest came from outside…
Anyway, we have to face it: it’s very chinese to have legends transformed over time as historical facts and it’s very chinese to try to root something to great persons…Xing Yi, for example, is believed to have been created by famous Marshall Yue Fei, whereas all the evidences point to Ji Ji Ke much later, who claimed to have retrieved a document written then lost by Yue Fei.
But in the end, that doesn’'t matter: it doesn’t make the styles less efficient or worthy, for example White Crane remains a good and deep style whoever the creator is and wether or not you can really trace it back to Shaolin (which a lot doubt).
Bagua was taught to Dong Hai Chuan by taoists or hee invented it? WHO CARES, bagua is deep and good and it’s all that counts in the end.
So no, it doesn’t really wake me up in the middle of the night wether or not Damo brought gong fu to China, or if Shaolin never really had a style of its own back then…
Just my two francs heheheheh

Phoenix