Talk:Zen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Archives

1 2

[edit] Merge Zen and Chan Buddhism Please

Merge Zen and Chan. Have the Chan link lead to the Zen link.

-intranetusa

[edit] Zen in East Asia

Zen is basically just the Japanese word for Chan. Zen and Chan Buddhism are the same thing. Zen Buddhism is Buddhism which combined with Daoism & Confucism, and originates from China.

Added wiki project

-intranetusa

[edit] Topic: Zen in Japan

The following paragraph combines two unrelated ideas and the second ("This openness...") seems to have nothing to do with the topic "Zen in Japan":

"The Japanese Zen establishment—including the Soto sect, the major branches of Rinzai, and several renowned teachers— has been criticized for its involvement in Japanese militarism and nationalism during World War II and the preceding period. A notable work on this subject was Zen at War (1998) by Brian Victoria, an American-born Soto priest. This openness has allowed non-Buddhists to practice Zen, especially outside of Asia, and even for the curious phenomenon of an emerging Christian Zen lineage, as well as one or two lines that call themselves "nonsectarian." With no official governing body, it's perhaps impossible to declare any authentic lineage "heretical." Some schools emphasize lineage and trace their line of teachers back to Japan, Korea, Vietnam or China; other schools do not."

Yes, it looks like I did that while revising some sections back in May. In any event, it was certainly inadvertent. I probably meant to delete that passage, but ended up removing it from one section to another. I'm going to delete it now.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Teacher

"Direct pointing to the soul of man:" is problematic. "Direct pointing to the Mind" is better. Gender reference is not necessary. Look to Lankavatara Sutra for an explanation of Mind. 216.114.170.164 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zen in the Buddhism article

Could somebody please check the correctness of the references to Zen at the beginning of the Buddhism article? --Klimov 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly Tables

What's with the ugly tables? Why two tables? Can they be combined into one? Details of the how the name is spelled in various languages should not dominatate the page, so I moved them to the end until we can decide what to do with them. Hu 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the second table is an improved augmented version of the first table, so I will remove the first table. Hu 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zen Picture

The picture is a wonderful picture and should not be deleted. Ideally the picture should be on the right because then the patriarch would be looking into the article, but the Table of Contents are getting in the way a bit. Hu 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it to the top and right so that now it is looking into the article. Hu 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view the picture of Yoshitoshi, while having artistic merit, does not portray the spirit of Zen, so it should be removed or replaced with a more appropriate picture.

[edit] Common Knowledge (?)

I am not a native English speaker, so I don't want to edit pages myself, hence my use of the Discussion page. Plus I am not acquainted with Wikipedia yet (apart from being a regular user).

"Some contemporary Japanese Zen teachers, such as Daiun Harada and Shunryu Suzuki, who also taught in the United States, have criticized Japanese Zen as being a formalized system of empty rituals with very few Zen practitioners ever actually attaining realization. They assert that almost all Japanese temples have become family businesses handed down from father to son, and the Zen priest's function has largely been reduced to officiating at funerals."

1. As fas as I know, the assertion that many Zen temples have become family businessess handed down from father to son etc. is extremely common and can be found in many scholarly books (is it even contemporary?). I thus find it inappropriate to link this statement to Daiun Harada and Shunryu Suzuki (or anyone else). If their originality in this matter lies in that they say "almost all" temples instead of "many" or "most", then let's say so (if it is relevant to the scope of this article).

As this assertion is simply common knowledge in Japan, I wonder what is the relevancy of mentionning a foreign country (here the US).

2. Do Zen practitioners outside of Japan attain realization in greater number than in Japan?

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, Wikipedia encourages you to cite sources for any given piece of information. This often takes the form of "X says Y" This is meant to prove that the statement is true; it is not meant to imply that X is the only one who says Y.

2. I have no idea, and, in any event, there's no data one way or the other. I don't think this passage was intended to imply that they do. If it does imply that, that's a real problem, but I don't get that impression myself. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archery and Zen

To:

"Eugen Herrigel's book Zen and the Art of Archery (ISBN 0375705090), described his training in the Japanese Zen martial art of Kyudo [4], which inspired many early Zen practitioners. However, many scholars are quick to criticize this book and others listed here as "orientalist," based on a western perception of Zen, rather than in-depth scholarly study of its origins.",

I would like to add:

For example, The Myth of Zen in the Art of Archery relates that Herrigel's archery teacher had no experience of Zen (nor pretended to have any). Furthermore, the testimony of the Japanese-English interpretor supports that events considered by Herrigel as very significant Zen-wise were in fact nothing but misunderstandings due to language barrier.

I am not sure whether this link should be added here or not (relevancy).

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commented bibliography within the article: NPOV?

"For examples of 'successful' koan practice resulting in enlightenment experiences, see the anecdotes of Rinzai koan practice recounted in the first book in English to engage Zen as a practice, The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau (ISBN 0385260938). For examples of years of futile and fruitless koan practice, see the book AfterZen by Janwillem van de Wetering (ISBN 0312272618). The most important book on the subject in English is probably Isshu Miura and Ruth Fuller Sasaki's Zen Dust (ASIN B0006BNOZG), sadly long out of print. Fortunately the text, while lacking the extensive footnotes, continues to be available as The Zen Koan: It's History and Use in Rinzai Zen (ISBN 0156999811). Probably the best relatively brief survey of koan study is the introduction to Victor Sogen Hori's Zen Sand: The Book of Capping Phrases for Koan Practice (ISBN 0824822846) which can be found on the web. Also of importance, although marred by the ideological perspectives of several of its authors, is the anthology edited by Steven Heine and Dale Wright, The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism."

I have not read most of these books, but it sounds more like a personnal commented bibliography than a NPOV.

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sambo Kyodan

"A Soto reform school which emphasizes lay practice as well as incorporating a full koan curriculum, the Sanbo Kyodan (or Order of the Three Treasures) is represented in North America by Ruben Habito Roshi, as well as Robert Aitken Roshi's Diamond Sangha network, the Pacific Zen Institute led by John Tarrant Roshi, and Boundless Way Zen led by James Ishmael Ford, Roshi." I would add this link: A study of the Sanbo Kyodan taken as a New Religious Mouvement

[edit] Scandals

Since this article is, inevitably, "Zen seen from the West"-oriented, it may be fair to mention that many Western Zen masters have been involved in financial and sexual scandals.

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A great many of the scandals in Western Zen actually have involved Asian teachers. I am not interested in dragging anyone's name in the mud - but simply to clarify that "Western Zen masters" hardly have a monopoly on "scandalous" behavior. User:Durruti36 Wed Jun 21 15:50:25 EDT 2006

[edit] American Zen

Deleted the Master Hughes reference as POV. Apparently a self-declared Zen master, certainly not the most prominent Zen figure in Texas.

Thanks. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

Well, this article as it stands could certainly use a thorough overhaul. This is precisely what I plan to do (fair warning) after I get back from my vacation in a couple weeks. Anybody who wants to get started giving it a once-over ahead of me is welcome and encouraged to do so. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Indian Cholas?

The article mentions of North Indian Chola dynasty, which i have never heard of. Chola dynasty was based in southern India, though they have invaded northern India, they never established their kingdom there. Will the author check the validity and correct it?

Well, judging by the article Chola, they did rule eastern India, e.g. Bengal, which one might consider sort of northern. However, there generally seems to be a lot of sparsely-cited information about Bodhidharma floating around, so I'll take that out. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Removed the following paragraph. The aim of the paragraph is to some how show Zen is more advanced than Indian Buddhism and it is completely off the mark. Buddhist monastries were very much a part of the Indian scene. Not all Buddhists ended up as wanderers. In fact, the new element introduced by Buddhism in India was the sangha.

The offending paragraph follows: The Japanese Rinzai Zen philosopher D.T. Suzuki maintained that a Zen satori (awakening) was the goal of the training, but that which distinguished the tradition as it developed in China, Korea, and Japan was a way of life radically different from that of Indian Buddhists. In India, the tradition of the mendicant (holy beggar, or bhikku in Pali) prevailed, but in China social circumstances led to the development of a temple and training-center system in which the abbot and the monks all performed mundane tasks. These included food gardening or farming, carpentry, architecture, housekeeping, administration, and the practice of folk medicine. Consequently, the enlightenment sought in Zen had to stand up well to the demands and potential frustrations of everyday life.

[edit] Dhyana

Might someone like to mention the fact that "stillness" or "meditation" is not the exact meaning of Dhyana/Zen and that it's sometimes translated to English as "no thoughs" (noun)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dhyana", unless I am quite mistaken, has a fairly specific meaning in Sanskrit, which is something along the lines of "meditation" or "mental concentration", etc. I've never heard it translated literally as "no thoughts". - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall revision

I've finally gotten started on the major copyedit/minor refactoring of this article that I had promised to do. Here are some notes on the changes I'm making:

I believe that this article should primarily be about the entire Zen school from Bodhidharma to the present. To insist that "Zen" cannot be used to refer to Chinese 禪 is pedantic to the point of being just plain wrong; chán is the modern Mandarin Chinese word for Zen ... it's certainly not how Huike or Huineng or Yunmen would have said it.
In theory, we could have a separate article on Japanese Zen, but, for the moment, I think it's fine for this article to serve a dual purpose and cover that topic as well.
I trimmed the details of Bodhidharma's life a bit, because it was taking up slightly too much relative space in the history section.
Writing about early Zen history is a thankless task because it is filled with well-known stories which scholars regard as doubtful at best. I have opted to move briskly throught the more central points, and not spend a lot of time on their historical inadequacies. I hope that this won't create too strong impression that of historical adequacy. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I took this out of the "teachings and practices" section for the moment: " The heavy influence of the Lankavatara Sutra, in particular, has led to the formation of the "mind only" concept of Zen, in which consciousness itself is recognized as the only true reality." This struck me as doubtful, as I've never heard of a mind only concept of Zen, although this of course reminds one of Indian Yogacara philosophy.
I took out a short passage about martial arts; the statement that Zen influenced "most notably Aiki jujutsu, Judo and especially Aikido, sometimes considered the most religious martial art, in Japan and Kung Fu in China" seems odd. For one thing, "Kung Fu" isn't a particular martial art, it's a blanket term for Chinese arts in general. Plus, I don't know that Zen had any particular impact on judo or aikido. I checked the Wikipedia articles on judo and on its creator, which seem fairly complete, and they don't mention Zen at all. As for aikido, unless I'm mistaken, O'Sensei belonged to some particular Shinto group. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The article read: "Because the Zen tradition emphasizes direct communication over scriptural study, the role of the Zen teacher is important but not entirely crucial." To say that the teacher is not crucial to zen strikes me as plausible, but distinctly POV and an unnecessarily presumptuous for an encyclopedia article. I replaced it with "the role of the Zen teacher has traditional been central", which I don't mean as a comment on whether or not it's crucial.
I didn't want to do much with the section on koans because I don't know very much about that. I did rewrite the intro and I took out the sentence, "Through assimilation of a koan it is possible to 'jump-start' an altered mindset that then facilitates enlightenment", because a) it introduces a mixed metaphor when juxtaposed with the previous sentence, and b) it doesn't really add much that isn't said in the preceding text.
And yet ... I took out this entire paragraph: "An example of a Zen koan is: "Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?" It is sometimes said that after diligent practice, the practitioner and the koan become one. Though most Zen groups aim for a "sudden" enlightenment, this usually comes only after a great deal of preparation." The reader can find lots of interesting examples of koans at the koan article, for one thing. Moreover, this paragraph consisted of three unrelated sentences. The second sentence makes a factual claim that is basically meaningless to those who are outsiders to Zen. The final sentence is internally confused, because "sudden" does not mean "fast", and thus is not in conflict with "a great deal of preparation". - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
And then, continuing my deletion spree, I took out another paragraph after that, which read, in full:

For examples of 'successful' koan practice resulting in enlightenment experiences, see the anecdotes of Rinzai koan practice recounted in the first book in English to engage Zen as a practice, The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau (ISBN 0385260938). For examples of years of futile and fruitless koan practice, see the book AfterZen by Janwillem van de Wetering (ISBN 0312272618). The most important book on the subject in English is probably Isshu Miura and Ruth Fuller Sasaki's Zen Dust (ASIN B0006BNOZG), sadly long out of print. Fortunately the text, while lacking the extensive footnotes, continues to be available as The Zen Koan: It's History and Use in Rinzai Zen (ISBN 0156999811). Probably the best relatively brief survey of koan study is the introduction to Victor Sogen Hori's Zen Sand: The Book of Capping Phrases for Koan Practice (ISBN 0824822846) which can be found on the web. Also of importance, although marred by the ideological perspectives of several of its authors, is the anthology edited by Steven Heine and Dale Wright, The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism.

Where to begin? Why the scare quotes around "successful"? Who says Janwillem van de Wetering's experiences were futile and fruitless? He himself? Is he right or wrong about that? My point is, there's no objective way that we as encyclopaedia writers can decide what is successful and what is unsuccessful koan practice, so why should we even get started introducing the reader to examples of each? Now, who says Miura and Sasaki's book is the most important book on the subject in English? Who says it is "sad" that it's out of print (I quite agree, and I suspect few would differ with any enthusiasm, but this is the sort of petty POVry that serves no good purpose in an encyclopaedia)? Who says that Victor Sogen Hori's book's introduction is probably the best of what it is? Who says that Heine and Wright's antology is of importance, and who says it is marred, rather than enhanced, by ideological perspectives? What are the perspectives in question?

I think that, even if we could get an NPOV'd version of this bibliographical material, it would belong in the koan article rather than this one.

I then chopped out, "The answer to a koan is more dependent on "how" it is answered. Or, to put it somewhat differently, the answer is a function not merely of a reply, but of a whole modification of the student's experience; he or she must live the answer to the koan rather than merely offering a correct statement." First, I pointedly scoff at the idea of a sentence which uses "more" with no reference to what thing is more than what other thing. Second, this explanation is fairly redundant with the previous paragraph. I also added the sentence, "Koans do not have 'no answer'" to that paragraph in order to make it flow better—I sure how that's accurate.
I modified the sentence: "there are compilations of accepted answers to koans to help understand the paradox, and prepare for the interview" to "there are compilations of accepted answers to koans that serve as references for teachers". I'm not aware of any Zen practice in which the students are supposed to have access to the "answers" before the interview.
Lastly, I deracinated and destroyed the paragraph: "Following the tradition of "living koans," a number of western Zen teachers supplement the traditional koan curriculum using various western sources, such as apparently paradoxical sayings from the Bible." For one thing, what a "tradition of 'living koans'" might be is left unexplained. Moreover, while the factual claim that western Zen teachers are using the Bible in koan practice might be true, I don't know it to be so, and no evidence is given. Once it substantiated, this information, like so much else from this section, should go in the koan article, not this one. And so, in the foregoing, we have seen what happens when I set out to not make major changes ... - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I took out some speculative material and the beginning of "Zen and Western culture" about Zen being used as a brand name and such. Really, this section is quite scattershot, and I have tried to do some shifting around and minor additions, but I am not planning on a wholesale rewrite just now.
I'm not sure about "However, many scholars are quick to criticize [Zen in the Art of Archery] book as 'orientalist,' based on a western perception of Zen, rather than in-depth scholarly study of its origins." I'm sure there are things to criticise about Herrigel's book, but this critique is incoherent, on grounds that the average Zen Buddhist ought to be able to spot: of course a book on Zen is based on somebody's perception of Zen. Scholarly study is a type of perception, so it doesn't make sense to counterpose the two. For the time being, I have curtailed this sentence after "book", leaving it rather terse and vague.
I chopped this whole paragraph out:

Many youths in the Beat generation and among the hippies of the 1960s and 1970s misunderstood the goals and methods of Zen. While the scholar D.T. Suzuki may have brought attention to concepts basic to the Zen tradition — such as humility, labor, service, prayer, gratitude, and meditation — by contrast the "hip" subculture often focused on states of consciousness in themselves. Japanese Zen master Zenkei Shibayama commented: "It may be true that the effect which such scientifically prepared drugs as LSD produce may have some superficial resemblance to some aspects of Zen experience.... When the effect of the drug is gone, the psychological experience one may have had is also weakened and dispersed, and does not endure as a living fact."

I'm really not sure what the subject of this paragraph is. The first sentence gives an opinion about the low understanding of some people in the old days. The second counterposes "concepts" with the "states of consciousness", implying that Zen favours the former, which, if you read it as written, is the opposite of fact. And then we have a quote where a Zen master talks about drugs, a topic which had not been previously introduced.

I took out the short passage on Fritjof Capra, because it isn't clear to me how relatively significant this is to Zen in the West. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I took out a short paragraph in "Zen and Western culure" which began, "Many modern students have made the mistake of thinking that since much of Zen, and particularly koans, sound like nonsense (especially in translation and out of context), any clever nonsense is also Zen." I'm really getting sick of passages in this article which are there to disparage somebody else's understanding of Zen. There's no obvious reason for this to appear in the "Western Zen" section, since there is no evidence given that this misconception is more common in the West than in the East. The comments that follow about misuse of the word koan are a bit unclear and the referent of "neither usage" is ambiguous. I shifted the suggested books to a new "bibliography" section, but I couldn't find anything useful to do with the rest of the text, so it's on the cutting room floor as of right now.
Speaking of the cutting room floor, I took out the entire "Zen in film" subsection, because I didn't see anything there that seems relevant enough to Zen to mention in an article on that subject. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that most of the material in the "Zen and Buddhism" section duplicates the topic of the "Zen teachings and practice" section. So, I have merged them. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chan

I still don't think it's really necessary to introduce the word "Chan" in the intro to this article. The reason that "Chan" appears unexplainedly in the history section is that I started to rewrite that section but didn't finish, so that's my fault. I won't remove it from the intro until I sort out the history section. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Chán will immediately be recognizable to people familiar with Chán. And vice versa for Zen. I think it's helpful, so what does removing one word really save us? The Chán article introduces Zen in its intro and that doesn't seem surprising or out of place at all. We're sort of teasing with the "school in China" so if we don't add a single, hyper-linked word for it right there, I think we're ignoring a bit of the value that Wikipedia allows. --Ds13 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the relationship between the words Zen and Chan (as well as Sŏn, Thien, etc.) is unavoidably confusing. Are Zen and Chan synonyms or do they have different meanings? They are both written 禪 in their native languages. However, I think the way Wikipedia has been using them so far, they are not the same. The Chan article is about Chinese Zen, just as the Seon article is about Korean Zen, and the Thien Buddhism article is about Vietnamese Zen. Those are subtopics of the overall Zen article. However, because these words could be taken as synonyms, it will naturally be confusing when the reader first encounters the distinction. I prefer not to broach that in the intro, unless it's quite necessary. I don't really think it is quite necessary, because almost any English speaker who understands the word chán will also know what Zen is (and non-English-speakers will read the Chinese character instead).

It's interesting (albeit inconclusive) that Chan and Zen both interwhiki to the Chinese article zh:禅宗 (Chanzong), but the Chinese page links back to Zen. The Chinese article's See also contains a red-link to zh:中国禅宗 ("Chinese Chan sect") and a blue link to a stubby article on zh:日本禅宗 ("Japanese Chan sect"). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as the intro mentions (and I think it should) Zen coming from "a distinct School in China", why not include and link to its name, Chán? Schools have names; this shouldn't cause readers confusion. Or are you suggesting we drop the "school in China" from the intro altogether? That would make for a really minimal intro.

All these words and analysis of Zen. Pretty ironic... ;-) --Ds13 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But Zen didn't come from a distinct school in China, it emerged as a distinct school in China. At least, that's the way I would put it, and that's what the intro to the article says (since I wrote it). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake; I'll rephrase... Since the intro claims Zen emerged as distinct school in China and since that school has the name Chán and has its own article, why delay calling that school by name and linking to that very relevant sister article? --Ds13 23:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But, it seems to me that it is confusing to say in the intro: "Zen began in China; that school is called Chan" and then link to the article on Chan. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But it did and it is. Hyperlinks will take care of the drilling down required by those confused or desiring. --Ds13 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The tricky part is that this article is about Zen as a whole, and that is not generally called Chán (I mean, it would seem quite odd if someone were to refer to "Japanese Chán" or "Vietnamese Chán"). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nat, I'm really not following this line of reasoning now. Yes, "Japanese Chán" would be an odd thing to refer to. Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Zen is Zen, Chán is Chán — separate but intimately connected articles, and we have to live with that for now. I'm weary from this discussion and can't help you come up with a change because I don't share your belief that things are confusing or tricky in the article as it stands now. I'm sorry. --Ds13 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that we don't seem to be catching one another's drift quite yet. That's a good thing! It shows that our disagreement isn't personal. I shall attempt to rephrase. Chán is a subset of Zen, and it is also a foreign-language word which means the same thing as Zen. It is the relationship between these two senses of the word that is confusing.

I don't think the current wording of the intro is acceptably clear. I'm not really sure what it means. It says, "[Zen] emerged as a distinct school in China (as Chan) and

spread to ..." What does it mean to say that it emerged as a distinct as something else? If we are going to keep Chan in the intro, I'm concerned about how we're going to reword it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently studying world religions, and I'd like to point out that the offical textbooks I use all say that Zen and Chan Buddhism are the same exact thing. Zen is merely the Japanese word for Chan.

-intranetusa

[edit] Spam

There are way more external links than would seem to be neccessary. I've done a little trimming, but would someone who knows this area care to do some deeper cutting? Check WP:EL for guidelines. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 13:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

I took this paragraph out of the "radical teachings" section:

Similarly, Seung Sahn, a contemporary Zen teacher, has said that, in this life we must all "kill" three things: first we must kill our parents; second we must kill the Buddha; and last, we must kill the Zen teacher (e.g. Seung Sahn). Of course, kill here is not literally killing. What is meant is to kill one's attachment to teachers or other external objects. Rather than see concepts outside of themselves, Zen practitioners must integrate these objects with their concepts of self.

I don't really object strongly to this material but the problem is that it is unsourced material. We have a paraphrase (should be a quote) from Seung Sahn that doesn't say where it's from. Worse, the paragraph then interprets the meaning of what he said. How do we know what he meant? Who has the authority to interpret Seung Sahn's words for him? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good removal. Not only did the removed paragraph mis-attribute this old saying to Zen Master Seung Sahn, it wildly misinterpreted Seung Sahn's manner of teaching it. As far as I know, Yun Men was the first to use this teaching expression, when he said: "First you must kill you parents so you can take refuge in the teachers and bodhisattvas. But then you must kill the teachers and bodhisattvas so that you can take refuge in the Buddha. But I have already killed Buddha with my Zen stick and fed him to a hungry dog. So then in whom can you take refuge?" As a koan, Yun Men's words asks us to perceive our situation very meticulously and respond accordingly. It has nothing to do with integrating objects with concepts, whatever that means.

[edit] I thought Zen translated as "simple"

I remember reading in a text on zen meditation that zen translated as simple. One of the meditative techniques within the text was that you should seek to find the nothing in your mind. By absolutely emptying your mind of thought, the one thing that you should do in your life will come forth. Absolute simplicity in all forms of life and meditation is the goal of zen meditation.

I'll look around for this definition, as I'm not sure if I still own the book, or even where it is for that matter.

Zen as in "Zen Buddhism" does not translate as simple. However, there are many homophones in Japanese, so the word "zen" actually has many meanings. It means "good" and it also means "whole", but these are completely different words with different etymologies. It might mean "simple", too, for all I know. In this case, the text you read would be using a poetic comparison to explain zen meditation by using a different word that has the same sound. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

EDICT [1] comes up with no kanji that have the on'yomi zen that mean anything like "simple". Perhaps the author was merely being metaphorical? –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the word Chan (Zen) that means simple.

[edit] External link

copied from user talk:Rick Block

Dear Friends,

I'm confused. I wanted to contribute by adding - as external link to "Zen" and "Buddhism" - the link to www. bodhidharma.it or in the English version: http: //users.libero.it/seza/indexgb.html - The Flower of Bodhidharma

I noticed that the link was systematically removed. Now, it even seems to be blacklisted. Please note The Flower of Bodhidharma is a web site of an Italian Monastery (Musang Am) associated with UBI (Italian Buddhist Union) and linked with many important Temples around the world.

On the web site are available not only examples of what zen teachings are, but also original teachings of our Master Tae Hye sunim, a Zen Monk ordained in Korea and now resident in Italy, probably one of the most credited Teacher in Europe. I wonder if I made any mistake in proposing the link the way I did, maybe there was a misunderstanding due to my inexperience? In this case I am awfully sorry. Thank you for your help.

Sergio Zaccone (Upasaka Tae Bi)

_/|\_

---- --- ---- --- ---

And this was the suggestion:

What should and shouldn't be added to the external links sections of articles is discussed at Wikipedia:External links. After reading this, if you still feel this link should be added to these articles please discuss it on the articles' talk pages. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---- --- --- --- ----

So I tried to read (I’m not English mother tongue) the instructions about what should and what should not be linked.

Well, if I take the first point:

• Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

From this point of view there is no reason why www.bodhidharma.it should not be included in the external links of “Zen” or “Buddhism”.

In fact it is the official site of the Comunità Bodhidharma – Bodhidharma Community which is an organisation recognized by Italian Law and regularly included in the UBI (Buddhist Italian Union). We also have contacts with many European Zen Organizations, for example in Hannover (Germany) and Helsinki (Finland).

On the other hand, please note I did not find any reason why it should not be included in the external links. We have nothing to sell, there are no banners to click, even the activities like retreats are completely free (and believe me, I think this is really rare!).

The only goal is to communicate our existence to explain better the Zen teaching.

Of course the last decision is yours, and we shall accept and respect it.

Thank you for your time and your answer,

Upasaka Tae Bi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.42.157.93 (talk • contribs) .

The quoted point (links to official site should be added) means this link should be added to Bodhidharma Community, not Zen or Buddhism. The intent sounds more like #3 under Links to avoid, i.e. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming. In my opinion (and I have no more authority than any other editor), this is not an appropriate link for these articles. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inadequacy of the existing introduction

The introduction to this article is insufficient and misleading. It gives no sense of the Zen school's distinctiveness and what characterises that distinctiveness. All schools of Buddhism worthy of the name emphasise meditation (citta bhavana) so it asserts nothing meaningful or significant to say that Zen Buddhism 'strongly emphasises meditation'. Zen's uniqueness comes rather from its style and method of teaching which originates in the tradition's emphasis on mind-to-mind transmission. As it stands the current introduction seems to shy away from defining Zen in a scholarly and accurate way. User:Langdell June 19th 2006

Please go ahead and revise it.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at a better definition. --MichaelMaggs 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm still getting used to the codes and what not. Anyway I study Japanese arts and religions, so I know alot about zen. I'm going to try to add to and change the introduction somewhat, and also add a paragraph in the basis of Zen practices about menial tasks. Please feel free to scrap my ideas or reformat them, becuase I might not get the formating right or whatnot. Haha oh well, its worth a try! N_Fwiff 16:46 November 19 2006

[edit] History of Stone in Zen

Where does the use of stone as part of zen meditation begin? i AM CURIOUS,since i am studying an interactive project called, 'Zen in a Stone' and i'm wondering where the historical significance of using a stone came from. Is it a symbol of some kind? and what does it represent? why is it used? something to do with minerals in the earth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngenius (talk • contribs) .

I've never heard of stone being used in this way. Do you have a reference explaining what you mean? Jeff Woad 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this has more to do with I Ching than with Zen? The only half-relevant reference I could find about an interactive project called "Zen in a Stone" on the web was this thing here. --Andkaha^(talk) 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, not really Zen at all, methinks. Jeff Woad 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the significance of stone in Zen gardens.... ref.......... http://www.shadesofmaybe.com/grok/2003/05/magical_zen_rock_gardens.php "Japanese Zen Rock Gardens are fashioned by strategically placing rocks in containers filled with sand traced with waves and lines. These landscapes blend into their natural layout of one's surroundings providing good places for meditation and connecting back to the natural world. The rocks and sand designs display the Zen concepts of balance, simplicity, and harmony in Nature. The rocks symbolize mountains and the Earth; the sand and its patterns represent flowing water." I'm curious if the people that created 'Zen in a Stone' the design, got their reference all wrong by mentioning the book of changes, which i'm sure is I-Ching - not Zen.... .......hopefully anyone with more experience in Zen or I-Ching can enlighten me if th abstract from the design and it's prototype are right or wrong??.... Ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngenius (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Revised introduction by User:Langdell

Hi Langdell, thanks for your contribution to the Zen article. I've reverted your suggestions, at least for the moment, as I think they are far too fundamental and indeed contentious to be included without a full discussion on this talk page. Perhaps you could post, here, your thoughts as to why you think your wording is an improvement on the existing? My main issue is that you've characterised Zen primarily in terms of Yoga, about which it has little to do. Zen is essentially a Mahayana Buddhist practice, as the introduction currently says. I don't deny that the term 'zen' has been misappropriated for a variety of peripheral meanings over the years, but that doesn't in my view mean we should competely unbalance the article by relegating its primary (and indeed technically correct meaning) to paragraph two. Look at virtually any serious book or web site on Zen and you'll see what I mean. Also, you've indicated that Zen is short for Zenna. That's been discussed before and has been removed as there appears to be little or no relaible evidence for it. Do you know of any? Regards. --MichaelMaggs 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Response to Mr Maggs

Hello Michael. I am sorry to tell you that you are labouring under various misconceptions about what Buddhism is. I can understand why somebody without any real knowledge of the subject might believe that Zen has little to do with Yoga but if you go and read the words of the Buddha in the original Pali you will find the Teacher talking frequently about Yoga as central to the path of practise. The buddhadharma is frequently characterised throughout the Tibetan buddhist world as guru yoga. The problem is that Westerners have various delusions and misconceptions about what zen is and my introduction is a small attempt to redress this. You are incorrect to assert that the word zen is not shortened from zenna. This is such an elementary truth that i can only recommend you read some literature on the subject before making your pronouncements. With the greatest respect the current introduction demonstrates that its author has no real understanding of what characterises and distinguishes zen buddhism from other schools of Buddhism. The existing introduction could be uncontroversially describing the Theravada school. Though Zen and Theravada have a great deal in common the zen school is unique but the current introduction does not explain why. I can assure you that everything i wrote is factually correct and can be validated by reading any reputable authority on the subject. If there are concerns about the length of the article it may be prudent to have two separate articles, one called 'Zen' and the other called 'Zen Buddhism'. Best wishes. Glenn Langdell. 00:03, 13 August 2006.

Hello Glenn. I can see you have some rather definite views on this. On the question of 'zen' coming from 'zenna', I asked whether you knew of any reliable evidence, and you've replied that this is "such an elementary truth that i can only recommend you read some literature". But Wikipedaia needs solid and reputable sources to be quoted, not simply assertions, however strongly held. You appear to have read widely in this field, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find a reputable published source for this statement, surely? Have a look at WP:VERIFY which explains that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. On the overall focus of the article, do bear in mind we are writing an English language encyclopedia entry, not a treatese on how the word was originally used in the Pali more than two millennia ago. As I am sure you know well, there has been more than a thousand years of active Zen buddhist tradition in the monasteries of Japan, Vietnam and elsewhere, a tradition which in the mid twentieth century was introduced to the West. My contention is that the focus of the article should reflect that tradition which is by far the best known (if not understood) by the typical reader of this English-language encyclopedia. It goes without saying that we need academic accuracy, but if 99% of readers understand zen to mean zen buddhism, that's what the article should concentrate on. It's not correct from an encyclopedic point of view to start off with what to almost all readers would be an extreme minority viewpoint, whether accurate or not. I think the main article should stay clearly focussed on zen buddhism, but I've no objection if you wanted to do another article on, say "Zen in Yoga". Let's hope we can work constructively in improving this article which, at present, does leave a lot to be desired. Regards--MichaelMaggs 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources

Michael. There are two glaring shortcomings of the present article. Firstly, its authors have failed to convey what it is that characterises Zen Buddhism. It is not as the Introduction suggests 'moment-by-moment awareness and seeing deeply into the nature of things' - this is a practise advocated by all schools of Buddhism. Rather what characterises Zen Buddhism is 'transmission outside the scriptures / not relying on words / pointing directly to mind for the realisation of self-nature' (Bodhidharma). The present article as a whole does not convey that its authors understand this fully. If so why is it not mentioned in the Introduction? Secondly. It is impossible to understand what Zen Buddhism is without understanding what the word Zen means. The word Zen (actually Zenna - look it up in the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) means Dhyana which is of central importance in the teaching of the Buddha and all India's great Yogis - Patanjali, Mahavira, Sankara - the list is rather long. The Buddha calls Dhyana (Zenna) 'the footsteps of the tathagata' which is to say the path beings must take to realise their buddha-nature. This is not 'an extreme minority viewpoint' this is actually rather basic Buddhist teaching. I don't want to hurt your feelings, Michael, but you really need to do some study before acting as an arbiter of truth on the subject. Zenna is yoga. The whole Buddhist path is yoga. Again this is not some perverse academic viewpoint but you would need to understand what yoga is, what Buddhism is and what Zen is to make sense of all this. If you spend a bit of time studying the subject (the wikipedia articles are sufficiently good) you will come to a better understanding. It is true that etymology is not always necessary but in this case it is helpful for people to understand what the word Zen means. Lastly, the reason I have 'rather definite views' (they are actually uncontroversial) is because there is a great deal of woolly-mindedness in the teaching of Zen Buddhism in the West even though scholars such as D.T. Suzuki made great efforts to clear this confusion up. Lost in the romance of 'the other' Westerners have failed to grasp the actual facts about Zen and what it means. I hope the present article will provide one means for this to be redressed. Best wishes.User:LangdellSunday 13th August 2006.

The last thing I would want to do is to set myself up as any sort of arbiter of truth, on this or indeed any subject. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth, and asserts the primacy of published sources over the views or private knowledge of any one of us, however expert we may be. I'm perfectly happy with the primary characterization of Zen as being a 'transmission outside the scriptures/not relying on words/pointing directly to mind'. That is quoted in numerous works, and it should be an extremely easy matter to cite, should anyone dispute it. I'm much less happy about the Zenna is yoga angle, as an introductory statement, firstly because it's not yet been sourced and secondly because that is simply not the direction the subject is approached by any modern Zen Master that I'm aware of, writing in English. That may simply reflect my lack of complete knowledge of their writings, of course, but are you able to point to this primary focus within the works of, for example modern(ish) Masters/scholars such as DT Suzuki, Shunryu Suzuki or Thich Nhat Hanh? Finally, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I must confess I'm a little concerned that you're quite quick to belittle a fellow editor; I count at least five derogatory ad hominem statements so far concerning my alleged lack of knowledge. Working together is the key. --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael. The democratic spirit of Wikipedia is very noble and I personally believe ultimately a superior approach than that of a cult of 'experts'. I rejoice in your adherence to the policies of Wikipedia with respect to verifiability but your conceit deceives you. Though you disclaim yourself as an arbiter of truth in this subject you then go on to make rather high-handed remarks such as 'I'm perfectly happy with the primary characterisation of Zen as being a 'transmission... etc.' and 'I'm much less happy about the zenna is yoga angle.' Your behaviour is like a person such as myself attempting, for example, to pass judgement on contributions to the Wikipedia entry on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is a subject which interests me but about which I have no specialist knowledge. In the present case your statements about Buddhism reveal that you have at best the beginnings of an interest in the buddhadharma but you are ill-informed and your understanding is inchoate and lacking a thorough basis in fundamentals. Therefore you only reveal your foolishness by continuing to make these embarassing remarks that display your amateurish level of comprehension. If you were more sophisticated you would at least consider the possibility that your knowledge in this subject is very basic and that there is a great deal that you do not understand. If you had the strength and courage to admit this you would create the space within yourself to receive the knowledge that your heart yearns for. Your rather fragile ego is standing in the way of your receiving this knowledge. Hence your concern with being 'belittled'. What concerns me most of all is that you are setting yourself up as someone who is qualified to act as editor-in-chief of this article when it is abundantly clear that you are in no position to be doing so. You have not read D.T. Suzuki's corpus of writings as I have or else you would not make such foolish remarks about zen having nothing to do with yoga or there being 'no reliable evidence' for the word zen being derived from zenna. If you can hold your horses, Michael, sit cross-legged on the floor, take some slow deep breaths and say "I trust that in letting-go, the universe will provide me with what I need" then perhaps you may discover the generosity of spirit to consider that just possibly this fellow Langdell (whoever he is) can teach me something. User:Langdell 16:21 GMT 14th August 2006

Dear Glenn. You are writing about me, and not about the article which I hope we both want to make better. When I say "I'm perfectly happy with ..", please take that at simple face value. I offer my opinion in the same way that I might say "I'm perfectly happy having tea for breakfast, even though I might prefer coffee". You don't need to agree, others don't need to agree, but that's just what I, personally, happen to think. The pertinent issue isn't my view as to whether or not X is wrong, but rather that if you assert X you need to supply a valid source to back it up. Perhaps we should bring the conversation to a close, as I don't see we're getting any closer to having a citation we could use for the proposed primary focus on "zenna is yoga". If you haven't already done so, you might like to review WP:RS. All the best --MichaelMaggs 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now the sources and the links are thoroughly mixed up. kh7 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zen history

we should really focus on Zen history being Japanese Zen as the Chinese originally had it and called their's Chan. It's confusing currently as it is. Also, no historian actually believes in the Bodhdiharma legend. There are too many conflicting stories as to what he did in his life. Hence I added the disclaimers. You can't cherry-pick the version of his lifestory that you want. The very first version of his story actually states taht he is Persian not Indian. Kennethtennyson 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's ethnicity really ought to be addressed in only one article: the "Bodhidharma" article, where it already is. If we get into the differing versions of the Bodhidharma legend in the "Zen" article, then we're going to have to do it for the "Chan" article or any other article that brings up Bodhidharma's biographical details.

And when I find something new in my reading, I hate with the burning fire of a thousand suns having to enter it in the "Bodhidharma" article, and then the "Zen" article, and then the "Chan" article, and then the "Shaolin" articles, etc, etc, etc. JFD 00:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The history section also contains very little as to Japanese Zen history... mainly Chinese Chan history. Kennethtennyson 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zen in Japan

This does not make sense to me (quote from the article page). Look at the last line.

"This openness"? Refering to what - Japanese Zen's involement in war?!

[edit] Pardons

I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to make this excellent article. It's quite beautiful.
Perhaps just a few days a year, the page could be left completely blank. Or perhaps a link at the top of the page could point to a blank page called Zen (disambiguation).
"It takes a long time to understand nothing." Twang 08:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] read the brittanica encyclopedia article in its entirety

the encyclopedia brittanica article in its entirety states that most stories surrounding bodhdiharma are legend. it further does not even credit bodhidharma with founding zen and states that the formation of zen/chan is due to indiginouse developements within china. quit pushing your pov pro-indian edits freedom skies. not everything came from india.

encyclopedia brittanica

"Chinese Ch'an (from Sanskrit dhyana, “meditation”), important school of Buddhism in Japan that claims to transmit the spirit or essence of Buddhism, which consists in experiencing the enlightenment (bodhi) achieved by Gautama the Buddha. The school arose in the 6th century in China as Ch'an, a form of Mahayana Buddhism; though introduced centuries earlier, Zen did not fully develop in Japan until the 12th century. In its secondary developments of mental tranquillity, fearlessness, and spontaneity—all faculties of the enlightened mind—the school of Zen has had lasting influence on the cultural life of Japan.

Zen teaches that the Buddha-nature, or potential to achieve enlightenment, is inherent in everyone but lies dormant because of ignorance. It is best awakened not by the study of scriptures, the practice of good deeds, rites and ceremonies, or worship of images but by a sudden breaking through of the boundaries of common, everyday, logical thought. Training in the methods leading to such an enlightenment (Chinese wu; Japanese Satori, q.v.) is best transmitted personally from master to disciple. The methods recommended, however, differ among the various sects of Zen.

The Rinzai (Chinese: Lin-chi) sect, introduced to Japan from China by the priest Ensai in 1191, emphasizes sudden shock and meditation on the paradoxical statements called koan. The Soto (Chinese: Ts'ao-tung) sect, transmitted to Japan by Dogen on his return from China in 1227, prefers the method of sitting in meditation (zazen). A third sect, the Obaku (Chinese: Huang-po), was established in 1654 by the Chinese monk Yin-yüan (Japanese: Ingen). It employs the methods of Rinzai and also practices nembutsu, the continual invocation of Amida (the Japanese name for the Buddha Amitabha), with the devotional formula namu Amida Butsu (Japanese: “homage to Amida Buddha”).

During the 16th-century period of political unrest, Zen priests not only contributed their talents as diplomats and administrators but also preserved the cultural life; it was under their inspiration that art, literature, the tea cult, and the no theatre, for example, developed and prospered. Neo-Confucianism, which became the guiding principle of the Tokugawa feudal regime (1603–1867), also was originally introduced and propagated by Japanese Zen masters.

In modern Japan, Zen sects and subsects claim some 9,600,000 adherents. Considerable interest in various aspects of Zen thought has developed also in Western countries in the latter half of the 20th century, and a number of Zen groups have been formed in North America and Europe."

Bodhidharma article - the other two paragraphs that you can see if you were willing to look-

"Considered the 28th Indian patriarch in a direct line from Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma is regarded by the Ch'an as their first patriarch. Because he taught meditation as a return to the Buddha's spiritual precepts, his school was known as the Dhyana (meditation) sect. The word was converted in the Chinese to Ch'an and in the Japanese to Zen.

The accounts of his life are largely legendary. According to one such story, he cut off his eyelids in a fit of anger after falling asleep in meditation. On falling to the ground his eyelids grew up as the first tea plant. The legend serves as a traditional basis for the drinking of tea by Zen monks in order to keep awake during meditation."

Kennethtennyson 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the encyclopedia brittanica article in its entirety states that most stories surrounding bodhdiharma are legend.

Yes Ta Mo has legends surrounding him Kenny. I already know that.

it further does not even credit bodhidharma with founding zen and states that the formation of zen/chan is due to indiginouse developements within china.

No original research Kenny. It's against WP guidelines to do so. Do not derive meanings that fit your agenda from a perfectly harmless enclyclopedic article which you have, no doubt, selectively quoted out of context like you attempt to do often.

Clarity itself is:

Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) sect of Buddhism. A native of Conjeeveram, near Madras, Bodhidharma in 520 traveled to Kuang (modern Canton), China. He was granted an interview with the Liang emperor Wu-ti, noted for his good works. To the emperor's dismay, he stated that merit applying to salvation could not be accumulated through good deeds. Soon afterward he went to a monastery in Lo-yang, China, where he is said to have spent nine years looking at a cave wall, a legend that some scholars believe refers simply to a lengthy period of deep meditation. Considered the 28th Indian patriarch in a direct line from Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma is regarded by the Ch'an as their first patriarch. Because he taught meditation as a return to the Buddha's spiritual precepts, his school was known as the Dhyana (meditation) sect. The word was converted in the Chinese to Ch'an and in the Japanese to Zen.

You'll understand my rejection of your original research and personal opinions and my endorsement of very clear sourced text.

quit pushing your pov pro-indian edits freedom skies. not everything came from india.

Who said everything came from India Kenny?

Freedom skies 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

where in the encyclopedia article on zen or chan does it state that bodhdiharma founded it? In the encyclopedia brittanica article it states that most of the accounts on his life are legend. further, the encyclopedias state that chan was from china. You've got professors from universities like paul pelliot and jag roberts who write whole textbooks for college students to read on the history of china whose lifeworks and reputation is built on accuracy who even state that it was an indiginous development from china and yet you, freedom skies, are willing to discount all of those textbooks as part of a "han chinese cabal". Kennethtennyson 17:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/n/Talk%7EZen_c1f4.html"

Talk:Zen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Merge Zen and Chan Buddhism Please

[edit] Zen in East Asia

[edit] Topic: Zen in Japan

[edit] the Teacher

[edit] Zen in the Buddhism article

[edit] Ugly Tables

[edit] Zen Picture

[edit] Common Knowledge (?)

[edit] Archery and Zen

[edit] Commented bibliography within the article: NPOV?

[edit] Sambo Kyodan

[edit] Scandals

[edit] American Zen

[edit] Copyedit

[edit] North Indian Cholas?

[edit] Edit

[edit] Dhyana

[edit] Overall revision

[edit] Chan

[edit] Spam

[edit] Removed paragraph

[edit] I thought Zen translated as "simple"

[edit] External link

[edit] inadequacy of the existing introduction

[edit] History of Stone in Zen

[edit] Revised introduction by User:Langdell

[edit] A Response to Mr Maggs

[edit] sources

[edit] Zen history

[edit] Zen in Japan

[edit] Pardons

[edit] read the brittanica encyclopedia article in its entirety

Views

Navigation

Search