Talk:Zen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China     (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Japan      (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list WikiProject Korea     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Zen, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) This article has good information. However, references are unclear, and the format of the article needs some work (more sectioning). --Danaman5 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.

WikiProject Echo has identified Zen as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Vietnamese language Wikipedia.

List of archived discussions
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive3 /Archive4

Contents 1 History in India 1.1 Reply 1.1.1 1 1.1.2 2 1.1.3 Article length 1.1.4 Improvement 1.2 Further discussion on historical roots (India) 2 Introduction 3 The same argument 4 Response To Kennethtennyson 4.1 Bodhidharma 4.2 Taoism in the article 4.3 Further discussion 5 Endmatter 6 Introduction redux 6.1 Possible second paragraph of intro 7 Yo, where's the upekṣā? 8 Meanwhile ... a restructuring ... 9 Lede 9.1 Introduction threedux (yes, I know that's not a real word) 9.2 Second paragraph 10 Teachers 11 Zen Rejects Rebirth 12 Zen and Rebirth 13 There are hundreds of passages teaching rebirth in tipitaka 14 Clearer Introduction? 15 Zen in China: Disputes 16 "Zen" vs "Zen" + "Chan" + "Seon" + "Thien" 17 Etymology section 18 Merger with Zen Teacher/Zen Master 19 Alphabetical Order 20 Beliefs and Practices 21 Basis 22 Working on the etymology chart. 23 Two schools? 24 Why? 25 Books of Brian Victoria 26 Belongs here? 27 Clean-up 28 Undue weight to criticism in "Zen in Japan" sub-section 29 Ch'an, Seon, etc. 30 Sect vs School 31 A good source for you.

[edit] History in India

I don't see the purpose of this section. There is no discussion of any "history" or events that took place in India. --Knverma 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from blanking sections or distorting citations. I've restored blanked material and will report any further blanking or distortion of sourced text. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. Knverma has a point. The section does not actually discuss the history of Zen in India, which one might expect with that title. Maybe it would be better to rename the section Historical roots of Zen or Origin of Zen or something similar? Andkaha^(talk) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies, you even reverted back some small typos that I had corrected. --Knverma 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Duomlin calls it The earliest conceptual and practical beginings of Zen lie in India so I'll fix the typos and write Historical roots of Zen. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

why is there a history section on buddhism? It not only seems extraneous in this section and article on zen buddhism. One assumes that zen buddhism is a subsection of buddhism. It also focuses to an extreme on yoga oddly enough. I've touched up the section and shortened it as we don't need a discussion of buddhism history but zen history. Further, i've made changes to the history section. The traditional tale of bodhidharma is a traditional tale that needs to be fleshed out as to what most historians believe is true history. Kennethtennyson 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about Yoga and history of Buddhism section. They are not relevant for this article. They can be discussed in other relevant articles. What do the other editors think of it? --Knverma 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies, do you agree to move the material about history of Buddhism and Mahayana in general (in India and China) to articles like History of Buddhism, History of Buddhism in India, Buddhism in China, Silk Road transmission of Buddhism? This will give us more space for material more specific to Zen, while still keeping the article short. There is no point repeating material about general Buddhism which are already covered in other articles, wikilinks are meant precisely for avoiding such repetitions. Short articles are also considered more valuable. --Knverma 11:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism articles are well written; You would do well to check their article length. This article is in need of shortening later sections, fixing typos, sourcing, image formatting etc. The last thing this article needs is the removal of history sections extracted from peer reviewed journals. _{Freedom skies| talk}  12:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to work on the later sections also, I partially did that in the past.

That other articles couldn't or have not yet been shortened doesn't justify not trying to shorten this article. Note that size was one of the arguments against Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity being featured articles.

I haven't questioned your sources, I merely asked for putting the material in more relevant articles. How come the yoga connection is discussed in the Zen article instead of the Mahayana article? --Knverma 12:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

[edit] 1

Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. ISBN 0941532895

• Part One: Beginings and roots in India

1. Sakyamuni, the Enlightened one

2. The Yogic element in Buddhism

3. The Essentials of Mahayana

4 The Mahayana Sutras and Zen

[edit] 2

The Complete Book of Zen By Wong Kiew Kit. Published 2002. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 0804834415

7. The spread of Zen from India

8. Early history of Zen in China

[edit] Article length

• Hinduism - current good article - former featured article - 82,339 bytes on 20:12, 23 April 2007
• Christianity - current good article - former featured article - 95,606 bytes on 01:14, 24 April 2007
• Judaism - current good article - 87,979 bytes on 04:55, 24 April 2007

[edit] Improvement

Reference sections for Hinduism and Christianity.

Zen

• Three footnotes
• No footnotes
• No footnotes
• Three footnotes and some unformatted ref tags

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion on historical roots (India)

Please explain briefly what you mean to prove by giving this long list of facts. --Knverma 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you clicked on the links and found out for yourself how many of this article's sections are unsourced.
I would suggest doing that before asking for removal of material supported by peer reviewed journals from this article in the name of article length and improvement.
Articles with more length than this one are good articles eg. Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism; I have provided a list of their references. _{Freedom skies| talk}  13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I already said that the other sections also need improvement. Why should you insist on retaining one problem until the other problem has been removed? --Knverma 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to you, statements based on peer reviewed journals pertaining to Zen history are problems ? _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also answered this question. I am not questioning your sources. I merely said that this material is more appropriate for Buddhism and Mahayana articles, and need not be repeated here. --Knverma 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're trying to say that the material from Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) does not belong in the History section of Zen Buddhism article? You would do well to read the lines such as Zen is often set alongside Yoga, the two schools of meditation display obvious family resemblances. These lines are from Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) and deal with Zen by name. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it quite difficult to follow this discussion, since it somehow seems not to proceed in a straight line. However, I felt I should point out that it is obvious that Zen Buddhism: A History' is going to be a much longer work than this article; therefore, there will certainly be a lot of material included in that book that is not included here.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's also my opinion, but it seems like I will have to discuss with Freedom skies each line in this section one by one.

Freedom skies, do you first of all agree to discuss just the statements in the book rather than the book title? --Knverma 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The statements pertinent to the history of Zen have been included in the history section using a peer reviewed works. There has been no discussion regarding the title of the book so I don't see how any of the following statements or assumptions are of any use to this article. I'll have to ask you to refrain from strange statements like the one you have made above. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your putting "Zen" and "history" in boldface above, in the title of the book, as if that is also some proof of something. I am just saying that on the talk page, we can restrict ourselves to discussing the statements in the book rather than the book title. --Knverma 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to ask you to not make statements like your above boldening of "Zen" and "history" in the title of the book, as if that is also some proof of something as well.
The boldening was to demonstrate that your personal opinion this material is more appropriate for Buddhism and Mahayana articles is in contradiction with the peer reviewed, mainstream works dealing with the history of Zen.
_{Freedom skies| talk}  18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the title mentions "Zen" and "history", but we can't put every line from this huge book into this article because of that. That's why I asked that we discuss the individual statements to be included, and forget about the book title. --Knverma 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Part One: Beginings and roots in India

1. Sakyamuni, the Enlightened one

2. The Yogic element in Buddhism

3. The Essentials of Mahayana

4. The Mahayana Sutras and Zen
The book has a four chapters on Beginings and roots in India. The We can't put every line from this huge book into this article because of that statement is unwarrented as every line from this huge book into this article has not been done in the first place.
I should be working extensively to provide citations for most of this article in the near future. If every statement in this article is as well sourced as this section than the statements can be retained and article can be nominated for GA class soon enough.
I don't think forget about the book title would do the citation tags any good.
_{Freedom skies| talk}  18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant forget the importance of book title as far as discussions on talk pages are concerned. --Knverma 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FreedomSkies, perhaps you should not be so quick to say things like, "I'll have to ask you to not make statements like your above boldening of "Zen" and "history" in the title of the book, as if that is also some proof of something as well." It seems that Knverma was making a sensible point that you neglected to notice.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with two individual statements. There are more to be discussed.

• The Mahayana school of Buddhism is noted for its proximity with Yoga.

This doesn't talk of Zen in particular, but Mahayana in general. And proves nothing about "historical roots" of Zen. Book title doesn't justify it's inclusion.

• In the west, Zen is often set alongside Yoga, the two schools of meditation display obvious family resemblances.

Again says nothing about "historical roots" of Zen. We are not writing a voluminous book here, every line should have substantially new content with clear relevance to the particular section.

(Anyway, these statements are already present in Yoga#Yoga and Buddhism and Yoga and Buddhism, why repeat them here?) --Knverma 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The complete statement:-

The Mahayana school of Buddhism is noted for its proximity with Yoga. In the west, Zen is often set alongside Yoga, the two schools of meditation display obvious family resemblances. The melding of Yoga with Buddhism--a process that continued through the centuries--represents a landmark on the path of Yoga through the history of India. This phenomenon merits special attention since the Zen Buddhist school of meditation has its roots in yogic practices. Certain essential elements of Yoga are important both for Buddhism in general and for Zen in particular.

From a reliable, peer reviewed sources. The paragraph is in the history section as it deals with the history of Zen. _{Freedom skies| talk} 

Again the issue is WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight. You put one line in boldface. Then why are the other lines present in the article.

Also, you are fond of copying entire paragraphs from sources. Please also check copyright issues. --Knverma 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If multiple sources are provided then a violation of WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight does not arise. The you are fond of copying entire paragraphs from sources is incorrect and I'll have to ask you to refrain from making claims like these. Using complete paragraphs in article is one thing and quoting them on discussion to demonstrate the extent of a POV is another.

You're beging to act very disruptive and immature.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Using complete paragraphs from other sources is no problem? I will look into it. --Knverma 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

My assertion

Using complete paragraphs in article is one thing and quoting them on discussion to demonstrate the extent of a POV is another.

"Knverma"'s reply

Using complete paragraphs from other sources is no problem? I will look into it.

I thought it would be pertinent to clarify that Knverma has been trolling here for some time and Using complete paragraphs from other sources is no problem? is his assertion not mine.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I have the following comments on the current introductory section.

• It talks of "Japanese Zen" but not "Korean Seon" and "Vietnamese Thien". But we created this article by merging Zen, Chan, Thien and Seon.

• Problem still not addresed. --Knverma 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The introduction is getting into too much technical details like the philosophy of "voidness", "tathata", which is better discussed later in the article. Besides, these are not really specific to Zen but to Buddhism in general. The material specific to Zen was about the emphasis on practical life, koans, de-emphasizing scriptural study, etc, which now stands deleted from the introduction.

• Partially addressed. The material about practical life, etc still stands deleted.--Knverma 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lastly, I would like to confirm that there are no copyright violations in copy-pasting a paragraph from Encarta. --Knverma 09:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Problem addressed. --Knverma 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The same argument

This is ridiculous... we go around in circles and make the same arguments again and again. Freedom skies, you continue to edit war with me and do not explain why you remove what i have added.

1)why do you continue to remove cited sentences that i have placed there? You have not explained as to why you remove perfectly well cited sentences.

2)Why do you continue to push a POV that does not include the fact that most historians do not believe in the traditional tale of bodhidharma? You selectively use wording and then selectively quote authors to suggest that the bodhdiharma legend is truth... Further, if you would read some of the sources that you selectively quote, it would occur to you that many of them concur on the disputed nature of the bodhidharma legend. The encyclopedia brittanica has shorter versions for high school and college kids and a much longer version. From the online version on buddhism, is the following text on ch'an buddhism... "Chan, which was also influenced by Daoism, promotes special meditation training techniques and doctrines. Despite Indian influences, Chan is generally considered a specifically Chinese product, a view reinforced by the fact that 4th–5th-century Chinese Buddhist monks, such as Huiyuan and Sengzhao, taught beliefs and practices similar to those of the Chan school before the traditional date of its arrival in China. " Further, you have not addressed the issue that historians such as JAG Roberts states that the traditional tale of bodhidharma is not considered the true history. Please stop edit warring with me.

3)Why do you keep on talking about yoga and buddhism in an article about Zen? Although it is true that yoga has an element within buddhism, you make it seem like it is the major defining influence, which is a one sided view.

4) As i have stated earlier, if you feel that the authors on here are wrong in their assertions, please agree to the arbitration that I requested earlier for this article to the pertinent matters. If i remember correctly, You would not sign in agreement for the arbitration. Everyone else did. Kennethtennyson 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response To Kennethtennyson

Bodhidharma has been mentioned in sources such as the ones mentioned below as the founder of Zen Buddhism. Taoism has found mention in the article; I'll produce the lines which I have put in the article that deal with the Taoist inlfuence.

[edit] Bodhidharma

The founder of Zen in China was the legendary Bodhidharma, who came to China from India in the late 5th cent. AD He taught the practice of "wall-gazing" and espoused the teachings of the Lanka-Vatara Sutra (whose chief doctrine is that of "consciousness-only" ; see Yogacara ), which he passed on to his successor Hui-k'o (487-593). -- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2006 Columbia University Press

Besides these mythical personages the Zen monastary gives shelter to some other historical charecters deeply rooted not only with Zen but with Buddhism as a whole. Bodhidharma as the founder of Zen Buddhism naturally occupies a chief seat of honor besides Buddha sakyamuni. - Manual of Zen Buddhism: by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki

Bodhidharma (6th century CE), legendary Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Chan (Zen) school of Buddhism that flourished in East Asia. Considered the 28th Indian sucsessor in a direct line from the Buddha Gotama, Bodhidharma is recognized by the Chinese Chan schools as their first patriarch. - Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, Merriam-Webster

All Zen masters, again without a single exception, accepted and honred Bodhidharma as the first patriarch. - Complete Book of Zen by Wong Kiew Kit

It was due to Bodhidharma that Zen came to be the Buddhism of China. - Essays in Zen Buddhism By Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki

All Zen masters accepted and honored Bodhidharma as the first patriarch. Genalogies were well maintained by Zen masters and students, all genalogies without exception started from Bodhidharma. The koan "What is the intention of the first patriarch coming from the west?" was frequently used to test the student' development in Zen cultivation. - Complete Book of Zen by Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

In the Shaolin Monastary, huge charecters for "Shaolin Zen Monastary" were written on one of it's long walls. The building were Bodhidharma taught Zen was named the Bodhidharma chamber. The pavillion named after Bodhidharma is in the main building of the Shaolin monastary, the First patricarch temple built in his honor still stands in the monastary complex some distance from the main building, and the cave behind the building is still called the Bodhidharma cave. - The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense, Health and Enlightenment By Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

Arising as Chan in China in the 6th century (introduced by Bodhidharma), it divided into two schools, the Southern school, which believed in sudden enlightenment, and the Northern school, which believed in gradual enlightenment. -- 1994-2007 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.

Zen Buddhism , a Japanese version of the meditative and ecstatic form of Mahāyāna (see Mahāyāna ) Buddhism, is said to have been brought to China from India by the fifth century CE Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth successor to Gautama Buddha (see Gautama Buddha ), the Buddha Sākyamuni. -- Dictionary of Asian Mythology 2001, originally published by Oxford University Press 2001.

Bodhidharma East Asia Ta-mo of China, Daruma of Japan–the founder of the Ch'an Tsung, or ‘inner-light school’ of Buddhism. This sect was one of the most distinctive and original products of the Chinese mind, while its culmination as Zen in Japan has had a profound influence not only on East Asia, but even on the West. -- Dictionary of World Mythology 1997, originally published by Oxford University Press 1997.

Bodhidharma (Chin., P'u-t'i-ta-mo or Tamo ; Jap., Bodaidaruma or Daruma , c. 5th cent. CE). The 28th successor ( hassu ) in line from Śākyamuni Buddha, and the first Chinese patriarch of Ch'an/Zen Buddhism. -- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions 1997, originally published by Oxford University Press 1997.

[edit] Taoism in the article

The entry of Buddhism into China was marked by interaction and syncretism with Taoic faiths, Taoism in particular.^[1] Buddhism's scriptures were translated into Chinese with Taoist vocabulary, because it was originally seen as a kind of foreign Taoism.^[2] In the Tang period Taoism incorporated such Buddhist elements as monasteries, vegetarianism, prohibition of alcohol, the doctrine of emptiness, and collecting scripture into tripartite organisation. During the same time, Chan Buddhism grew to become the largest sect in Chinese Buddhism.^[3]

Buddhism was not universally welcomed, particularly among the gentry. The Buddha Dharma seemed alien and amoral to conservative and Confucian sensibilities.^[4] Confucianism promoted social stability, order, strong families, and practical living. Chinese officials questioned how a monk's monasticism and personal attainment of nirvana benefited the empire.^[5] However, Buddhism and Confucianism eventually reconciled after centuries of conflict and assimilation.^[6]

Ideological and political rivals for centuries, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism deeply influenced one another.^[7] They did share some similar values. All three had a humanistic philosophy emphasizing moral behavior and human perfection. In time, most Chinese people identified to some extent with all three traditions simultaneously.^[8] This became institutionalised when aspects of the three schools were consciously synthesised in the Neo-Confucian school.^[9]

1. ^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 46. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
2. ^ Prebish, Charles. Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Pg 192. Penn State Press, 1975. ISBN 0271011955.
3. ^ Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). Pp 166-167, 169-172. World Wisdom, Inc, 2005. ISBN 0941532895.
4. ^ Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). Pp 189-190, 268-269. World Wisdom, Inc, 2005. ISBN 0941532895.
5. ^ Prebish, Charles. Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Pg 192. Penn State Press, 1975. ISBN 0271011955.
6. ^ Moore, Charles Alexander. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Pp 133, 147. University of Hawaii Press. 1967. ISBN 0824800753.
7. ^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu . Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. pp 248-249. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
8. ^ Windows on Asia Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University.
9. ^ Moore, Charles Alexander. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Pp 133, 147. University of Hawaii Press. 1967. ISBN 0824800753.

---

Because Zen developed as a distinct school in medieval China, it reflects the influence of Chinese philosophy, including Taoism and, to a lesser extent, Confucianism. Taoism played a pivotal role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. The two religions enjoyed close relationship during the early years of Chinese Buddhism. Taoist influence on Buddhism was later visible in the teachings of the Zen school.^[1]

_{Freedom skies| talk}  21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

Here is the edit of Kennethtennyson, for discussion and possible improvements.

• It must be noted, however, that this traditional tale regarding the origins of Chan/Zen Buddhism is not considered historically accurate as many historians have noted the existence of Zen Buddhism before the purported arrival of Bodhidharma and have suggested that Zen is a unique development of Buddhism influenced by Chinese philosophical thought, especially Taoism.[1],[2], [3], [4], ^[2],^{[3] [4]}.[[5]]

As I had suggested earlier, this point of view can co-exist in the article with other, possibly even contradictory, points of view. For me, one of two citations for both points of view are enough. The long poems currently in the article are not even necessary to prove the well-known emic perspective. --Knverma 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

That has actually been done excellently already:-

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. His arrival in China is variously dated to the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) in the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (645) and to 527[20] during the Liáng Dynasty (502–557) in the Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall (952). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

There is no need for excessive, poorly done editorialization when the point has already been covered in detail.

Suggesting for inclusion of It must be noted, however, that this traditional tale regarding the origins of Chan/Zen Buddhism is not considered historically accurate as many historians have noted the existence of Zen Buddhism before the purported arrival of Bodhidharma and have suggested that Zen is a unique development of Buddhism influenced by Chinese philosophical thought, especially Taoism. while advocating deletion of "Mahākāśyapa was the first, leading the line of transmission; Twenty-eight Fathers followed him in the West; The Lamp was then brought over the sea to this country; And Bodhidharma became the First Father here: His mantle, as we all know, passed over six Fathers, And by them many minds came to see the Light." and "I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa." highlights a point of view that is bent on erasing every mention of Bodhidharma and giving undue prominence to a certain point of view.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about having exactly two lines and two references for each point of view? Would you agree to that? --Knverma 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the point of views have already been covered here, rendering the placing of further excessive editorialization as useless as per WP:Undue.:-

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. His arrival in China is variously dated to the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) in the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (645) and to 527[20] during the Liáng Dynasty (502–557) in the Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall (952). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• What about some historians talking of "existence of Zen prior to the arrival of Bodhidharma", is there some problem in mentioning that line in the article?
• What about the number of lines for each point of view, per WP:UNDUE? That poem takes up quite some space just to prove the already well-known fact that Zen practitioners consider Bodhidharma as the 28th patriarch --Knverma 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The Chinese classical texts are reproduced because they are relevant to the Zen tradition; just to prove the already well-known fact that Zen practitioners consider Bodhidharma as the 28th patriarch highlights your limited understanding of zen tradition and texts. It also exposes a POV to supress texts related to Bodhidharma and some other sbjetcs, no matter how well sourced.

Kennethtennyson does not research properly; he seems to be content with outbursts complete with grammer and spacing mistakes. You have to demonstrate the assertions by producing multiple, reliable, peer reviewed sources.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Song of Enlightenment was written by a Zen Master, it is not some peer-reviewed publication. --Knverma 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

That is wrong.
The Song of Enlightenment of Yongjia Xuanjue was written between 665-713 and is an old Chinese text.
The citation came from Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki and was vandalized.
Given your lack of knowledge and forceful pushing of material with a strong bias I'll have to ask you to not vandalize sourced citations. It's time to stop Pestering.
_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of one translation of the Song of Enlightenment [6]. I am not disputing its date of appearance of whether it has been quoted by other authors or not.

The link about pestering is interesting indeed, I hope you enjoyed reading it, I certainly did! Given the nature of Wikipedia, long discussions are sometimes unavoidable. As you are aware, I am not the only Wikipedian who disputes your edits. Take a deep breath, relax (meditate?), and carry on :-) --Knverma 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Stop trolling and making incorrect statements like The link about Pestering is interesting indeed, I hope you enjoyed reading it, I certainly did!
The link I provided was to WP:TROLL#Pestering and conflicts with your claim of having read Pestering.
I have no interest in interactions with trolls.
There is no discussion, just you trying to remove academic citations belongig o Bodhidharma and India and pushing POV.
_{Freedom skies| talk}  14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have made the corrections. Stop fabricating a content dispute. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read it and enjoyed it too :-) As you can see from edit history, I corrected the wikilink before your comment.

As Saposcat suggests, the discussion has been somewhat unproductive. It may also have been somewhat un-Buddhistic unfortunately, though I don't know what alternative there was other than Saposcat's intervention which has been quite helpful (thanks!).

Yes, as I said, I was not completely sure what constituted copyvio and wanted to confirm that, thanks again for the confirmation. --Knverma 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endmatter

What is all this material doing here at the bottom of the page? It is signed by Freedomskies, but it does not appear to be part of the talk page discussion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, That was meant as a response to Kennethtennyson's assertion of most historians do not believe in the traditional tale of bodhidharma and Taoism not finding a mention in the article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These citations appear ambiguous at best. Several of them describe Bodhidharma as the founder while also describing him as "legendary", implying that he is not within the province of history. The Dictionary of World Mythology seems to contradict itself: first it says that Bodhidharma (an Indian) founded Zen, but then it says that Zen is a product of the Chiense mind. D. T. Suzuki is not a modern historian. I'm not familiar with Wong Kiew Kit; what are his bona fides?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These citations from various acadmic, mainstream sources describe him as the founder in the same manner that is used while addressing Laozi, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama etc. who have legends surrounding them as well. These figures also are not within the province of history and most of them existed before the era of fully recorded history. Muhammad is an exception but the prophet has legends surrounding him as well.
Wong Kiew Kit is the fourth generation successor from the Shaolin Monastery and a best selling author on Zen and the Shaolin arts. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction redux

I have to say, the introduction, as it stands now, is frankly pretty piss-poor. How about something along these lines for the all-important opening sentence:

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of an enlightenment experience equivalent to that of the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it deemphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" of each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

Yadda yadda yadda. I doubt there's anything (or certainly not much) in there that needs to be buttressed with footnotes in the manner of that horrid-looking string of footnotes appearing after the first mention of Bodhidharma (which, by the way, really is unnecessary: scholars may differ in their interpretations of that subject, but it is acknowledged that, within Zen, he is universally considered the founder). I grant that it's slightly complex as an opener, but I doubt it's excessively so ... and anyway, Zen's hardly the easiest thing to summarize since sliced bread, is it?

Anyhow, them's 2 more cents for ya. Tell me what you think. —Saposcat 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the given situation everything had to be sourced and the opening was sourced using Brittanica. I'll just go ahead and implement the introduction right away as it's amazingly well written and consice. I'll also remove the quotes. _{Freedom skies| talk}  10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump into implementing my proposal right away; let's see what others have to say about this as an intro first. —Saposcat 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your message came on 10:50 and I had enthusiastically implemented the excellently written intro by then. If other editors feel that the current intro is in need for changes then the final decision will be implemented in any event. I'll let it stay till then. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good opening of the article in terms of content. I can suggest minor rewordings like

"special transmission outside the scriptures" pointing to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature (not that it makes any serious difference in meaning or that Zen practitioners should be bothered about the correct English expression for enlightenment).

in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama (my obsession with minor rewordings may look funny; I am trying here, as Zen teachers often recommend, to avoid setting a certain experience as a goal).

For the rest of the introduction, Wikipedia recommends that we summarize the whole article in a few lines. Controversial or disputed matters are best discussed as late in the article as possible, and certainly not in the introduction, by a short enumeration of all the different points of view. That will certainly be helpful to many readers who may be interested in just some basic information about Zen without bothering about all the technical disputes among the editors. --Knverma 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with the wording changes you propose here: "pointing to" is, of course, consistent with the phraseology typically used in Zen discourse (which could, however, also be a reason to avoid it, though I doubt that would be excessively controversial); "as experienced by" seems fine as well (even though the very word "attainment" hints at "setting a certain experience as a goal", but that's mainly the fault of English—or even of language as a whole).

As for the rest of the introduction, see below for my proposal for a second paragraph that can (hopefully) please everyone. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible second paragraph of intro

The second paragraph of the intro, as I see it (and, incidentally, we may not really need more than two paragraphs of introduction), should be a neat summation of the history of Zen—as we've all seen, that's much easier said than done. Something along these lines, perhaps:

Zen first arose in China sometime around the 6th century CE. It is thought to have developed as an amalgam of various currents in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought—among them the Yogācāra and Madhyamaka philosophies and the Prajñāpāramitā literature—and of native Chinese traditions, particularly Daoism. From China, Zen subsequently spread southwards to Vietnam and eastwards to Korea and Japan. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Zen also began to establish a notable presence in North America and Europe.

I don't think that's hedging too much. Any references that anyone feels might be needed there shouldn't be hard to find at all, though I doubt there's really any serious bones of contention in the paragraph.

Anyhow ... any further thoughts anyone? —Saposcat 11:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not much objection. I don't know about this, but if you have checked the references about the Madhyamaka and Yogacara influences then it is fine for me. Anyway, mentioning a word about influence of another school cannot be much objectionable, and the introduction certainly shouldn't be cluttered with references. BTW you may like to also look into whether the Hua-yen school has any relevance here. --Knverma 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course North America and Europe certainly. I don't know of the extent of Zen's popularity in other countries. At least I know that a few Zen centers have been established in Australia, Singapore, South Africa, etc etc. but may be they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Anyway the rest of the article is currently talking of only Europe and North America among the newer countries to adopt Zen, so the current introduction could be accepted. --Knverma 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yogacara, I'm remembering offhand, has already been sourced in the article (though if not, I'm sure I could find plenty of refs). Madhyamaka influence comes through by means of the Prajnaparamita literature, on which it had an influence (if I remember aright). You're also right about Huayan Buddhism, which is generally thought to have had a strong effect on Zen (they arose at the same time, in the same places, and—again, if I remember aright—often shared monasteries). That, then, could be slipped into the paragraph somehow. Anyhow, I won't go putting the paragraph into the article until I get another opinion or two (or three, or more). Cheers. —Saposcat 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Madhyamaka influence cannot be disputed much, only I didn't have much information about Yogacara, so I asked. --Knverma 12:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, here's a (I think) reliable reference supporting both Yogacara and Madhyamaka influence (and a few others besides) ... and, just to play devil's advocate, here's another that disputes Madhyamaka influence. It's a real can of worms, this whole question of influence. —Saposcat 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Zen Buddhism Buddhist sect of China and Japan. The name of the sect (Chin. Ch'an, Jap. Zen ) derives from the Sanskrit dhyana [meditation]. In China the school early became known for making its central tenet the practice of meditation, rather than adherence to a particular scripture or doctrine.

The founder of Zen in China was the legendary Bodhidharma, who came to China from India in the late 5th cent. AD He taught the practice of "wall-gazing" and espoused the teachings of the Lanka-Vatara Sutra (whose chief doctrine is that of "consciousness-only" ; see Yogacara ), which he passed on to his successor Hui-k'o (487-593). ---- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press

Sorry for the intrusion but I read this source recently and was tempted to produce it here in case it may come useful.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo, where's the upekṣā?

There's a lot of disagreement and name-calling and the like going on, for example, here and here. This is unproductive, and—just look at it from outside for a second or two—no real progress seems to be being made there. In people's apparent hankering to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, there are pseudo-falsities being asserted (e.g. the "Song of Enlightenment" is by a Zen master, whether it's an "old Chinese text" or not), and judgment mistakes being made (using entire paragraphs from sources is not generally a copyright violation at all—though it's usually unnecessary).

Let's just try to calm down, agree to disagree on certain issues, and actually work to get the article shaped and improved, shall we? Cheers. —Saposcat 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This account blanked Yoga and distorted citations here, This account distorted The earliest conceptual and practical beginings of Zen lie in India, its formation and evolution as an innovative religious movement lies in China. to The formation and evolution of Zen as an innovative religious movement lies in China. and This account blanked An Shih Kao and a reference tag.

That's just the first few edits. The account has been trolling here for a while and has been engaing in disruptive tag warring and edit warring while not showing any familiarity at all with the subject. The account has yet to show even the faintest of familiarity with Zen or produce a peer reviewed source while I'm losing my eyesight working to procure respectable sources.

The account has also been trying to remove sourced content from peer reviewed journals after himself having said I haven't questioned your sources, I am not questioning your sources. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but maybe think about upekṣā a bit more, and—more importantly in a Wikipedia context—look closely at the nature, content, and edit summaries of those edits and consider that they may well have been done in good faith, as it seems (to me, at least) they were. Cheers. —Saposcat 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile ... a restructuring ...

Just thought I'd give a sort of a heads-up warning to y'all that, along the be bold guidelines, I'm going to restructure the article by moving the entire "Zen teachings and practices" section to just after the "Etymology" section. I see this as being a more appropriate approach (at least for a religion that continues to be practiced) than to highlight the history. Perhaps I'm favoring the emic over the etic in this, as that's where I'm coming from, but if anyone strenuously objects, they can simply revert the restructuring and discuss it further here. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem, and it also helps in moving editorial disputes to later sections, as I wished. --Knverma 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are already aware of this, but just to make sure, "paramita" is probably used by Theravadins to refer to a list of ten perfections, but as used in Mahayana, it normally refers to a different list of six perfections (sometimes complemented by four more). Whether these are equivalent or not is of course further philosophical debate. But these six paramitas are somewhat characteristic of Mahayana and not so commonly talked about in Theravada (though I have less knowledge of the Theravada tradition). --Knverma 21:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know; that's why I phrased it as "emerging from Theravāda Buddhist thought". The six Mahāyāna fellows, which tend to be more important in Zen, are essentially just a trimmed-down (and—as you point out—philosophically perhaps subtly different, but probably not immensely so) version of the Theravāda ones. It is true that the paramitas are generally given more emphasis in Mahāyāna Buddhism, but they did emerge from the original Theravāda teaching. Cheers. —Saposcat 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed (i.e., simply removed) the number "ten" from the text. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lede

[edit] Introduction threedux (yes, I know that's not a real word)

What are everyone's thoughts on the opening sentence I came up with?

Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism which emphasizes the idea that ultimate truth must be experienced firsthand rather than pursued through study.

Starting the article with references to "praxis," "experiential wisdom" and "special transmission" goes straight to specialist technical arcana without really providing basic information in layman's terms.
JFD 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you joining in. The main problem I really had before (and, incidentally, probably still have) with your proposal of an opening sentence—which, I admit, is as accurate as any in trying to sum up such an essentially unsum-uppable subject as Zen—is that phrase "ultimate truth". Two reasons for this: (1) a gut reaction as a Zen practitioner against anything that smacks of "New Ageyness" (not that I'm "accusing" you of that, but rather that that sort of phrase, unfortunately, has come to be associated with New Age-style rhetoric, at least in the American idiom from which I'm issuing); (2) the phrase "ultimate truth" could be something of a bit of arcana in disguise by referring to one half of the two truths doctrine, which can be quite an abstruse subject. But: those objections registered, it's certainly better and more accurate as an opening sentence than the previous version, "sourced" though that may have been.

As for my sentence, I was aware of the difficulty of something like "praxis" (though I don't think "experiential wisdom" or "special transmission"—especially with links provided—are too hard, as a reader can do as I tend to do and look quickly at the linked articles, get the general idea, and then return; though perhaps a bit more in the way of buttressing explanations might be in order in the intro). I wonder, though, if just replacing "praxis" (more accurate; more difficult) with "practice" (slightly less accurate; much less difficult) might not fix things up a bit? —Saposcat 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably its partially the words "praxis" and "experiential wisdom" that sounds a bit confusing (perhaps having to do with Saposcats good command on languages) but it could be easily rephrased just to say that there is emphasis on practice rather than philosophy. I am also not in favor of using the words "ultimate truth", again it introduces some philosophy. The words "special transmission" come more from an emic perspective, and I can agree to using these words later in the article, and a simpler rephrasing in the introduction. --Knverma 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hmm...how about

Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism which emphasizes the idea that enlightenment must be pursued through firsthand experience rather than study.

JFD 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a very basic problem with this sort of vagueness. The phrase "emphasizes the idea that enlightenment must be pursued through firsthand experience rather than study" can apply equally well to just about any flavor of Buddhism, insofar as the primacy of "firsthand experience" has been fundamental to Buddhism from its very inception. Adding "a school of Mahayana Buddhism" narrows it somewhat, but it still doesn't—I think—actually give us a clear idea (inasmuch as such a thing is possible) of what Zen is/does. That's why I still would prefer to hold to the triumvirate of phrases in the opening sentence: "praxis" (or "practice"), "experiential wisdom" (which links to "Prajñā"), and "zazen". Taken together, I think these three come about as close as can be done (or at least, as close as I presently think can be done) to clarifying what is most fundamental to and unique about Zen. Cheers. —Saposcat 07:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I chose the phrasing "emphasizes" rather than "is distinguished by". I would say that, for contrast, Pure Land Buddhism has a markedly different approach to salvatiion than Zen. What distinguishes Zen is its emphasis on the idea that salvation is not to be found in the pages of a book or by imitation of role models. JFD 13:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

I would probably reword the first sentence from "Zen first arose in China sometime around the 6th century CE" to "The emergence of Zen as a distinct school of Buddhism was first documented in the 7th century CE".
As for the rest, I would probably leave it for the history section. I think it's a little too esoteric for the introduction and I tend to follow the "terse lede" school of thought to begin with.
JFD 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with your more accurate revision of the first sentence. As for the rest, though, I still think that these, though somewhat esoteric, are still fairly vital insofar as my thought is that lead paragraphs should sum up whole articles (a nice and fairly impossible task, that), and so this lead paragraph's basic shape is: (1) basic thrust of Zen; (2) basic history of Zen. The basic history of Zen is, frankly (as I see it, at least), inconceivable without just that mix of influences mentioned, difficult as they may individually be, and I personally doubt that name-dropping them will excessively obscure the issue. Your average reader, I think (hope?) can pull out of the paragraph that Zen comes out of a mix of Chinese and non-Chinese elements. (But also, we may have differing "philosophies" about intro sections, the two of us.) Anyhow, them's my thoughts? Yours? —Saposcat 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we just have different philosophies about intro sections. Like I said, where possible I prefer brief, terse ledes which leave detail and controversy to the main body of the article rather than "ledes as article summaries". No big, just my druthers. JFD 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teachers

This section would do well to be shortened. There are too many minor details. All the debates and details about Zen lineage, teachers, transmission, etc could actually be put in the Dharma transmission article, letting this section be a summary of that article. --Knverma 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And one of the emic perspectives regarding not depending on teachers could also be mentioned, though controversial quotes like "kill Buddha, kill patriarchs" may not be necessary. --Knverma 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most of the (interesting only to specialists) debate about the veracity of Dharma transmission should probably be shunted off to that article, keeping perhaps just one short sentence along the lines of "Many scholars, however, question ..." etc.

There is, though, other stuff concerning teachers' roles and duties that would do well to receive mention: teisho, dokusan, and the like. In any case, I'm planning—whenever I find the time—to continue working systematically through at least the "Zen teachings and practices" section, and possibly the whole article, to try to get it up to snuff. Cheers. —Saposcat 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw there is even an article called Zen teacher. We should figure out how to merge articles and/or redistribute contents. --Knverma 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zen Rejects Rebirth

A added this:

"Zen Buddhism teaches that there is no life after this life and there is no Rebirth.Thus Zen teaches the exactly same thing (annihilation of the mind) with materialism but with different words, as master Fa Jian shakya says, that life is "the only life that we have" thus Zen also doesn't accept the authenticity of Tipitaka or Gautama's words."

But someone keep deleting that reality claiming it is "vandalism".

PLEASE read here:

http://hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/FaJianShakya/reincarnation.html

AND here:

http://hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/reincarnation.html

Please tell me how my sentences are "vandalism"????

thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.41.71 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Please notice carefully, I used the words WP:OR (original research), not vandalism.

Regarding the content, firstly you seem not to be using the words from that article, but have also added some of your own ideas. That is the first concern, besides of course that Fa Jian Shakya himself seems not be a notable authority to quote. If we have to use some text, why not use the words of Bodhidharma or, better, the sixth patriarch? --Knverma 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the word "vandalism" was used by another editor, for your edits on some other article, not for the Zen article. I would suggest, instead of re-adding deleted text, you first discuss it on talk page. Also please take some time to check out Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Knverma 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Like a lot of American Buddhists, I think rebirth is silly tii, but most traditional Buddhists (including most Zen Buddhists) accept rebirth, including the head monk at my local Zendo. No POV-pushing, please. Zenwhat (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zen and Rebirth

I did not edit any other page so I do not know what the other editor was talking about. Anyway, Zen master Brad Warner also says in his article called "REINCARNATION and ALL THAT"

"And, as usual, Nishijima expressed his opinion that there was no such thing as reincarnation and that the belief in reincarnation is not Buddhism...."

"When we die, we die. We never appear again"

"Forget about reincarnation. Look at your life as it is right now and live it."

Zen/Chan is not Buddhism, that is why They reject rebirth, Pali Canon and the words of Siddharta Gautama. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.105.20 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Odd to hear that "[Zen practitioners] reject rebirth, Pali Canon and the words of Siddharta Gautama", insofar as I am a Zen practitioner who does not reject rebirth, the Pali Canon, or the words of Siddhartha Gautama. Guess I must be some kind of heretic.

Seriously, though, although some of the references you've given do seem to reject the notion of reincarnation (incidentally, even those poor benighted Theravadins generally don't go in for reincarnation, but rather for rebirth, which is a whole different kettle of fish), they're not necessarily roundly rejecting it, but rather—as a phrase like "Forget about reincarnation. Look at your life as it is right now and live it" hints—emphasizing its irrelevance to daily practice ... the same thing Siddhartha Gautama seems to have done on, for example, the subject of God. And apart from that, the sources being referred to represent one point of view, so—even if they were to be included, which I'm not entirely against personally, but not entirely for, either—they need to be stated as such. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The dissociation of Zen from Buddhism and its rejection of rebirth, the Pali Canon and the words of Siddhartha Gautama are not supported by "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" and we must be careful not to given them undue weight. JFD 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above two comments, see also that Buddha taught in the Tipitaka that there is no self. No self also means no birth, no death, hence also no rebirth. Also the Heart Sutra (supposed to be approved by the Buddha, and recited in Zen centers world wide) says that there is no old age and no death. How does this fit into the point of view regarding Zen being materialistic and contrary to Buddha's teachings?

The problem lies in selective quoting of religious texts (which are full of apparent contradictions) and then interpreting them in different ways. --Knverma 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are hundreds of passages teaching rebirth in tipitaka

"No self also means no birth, no death, hence also no rebirth."

You knew nothing about Tipitaka, Rebirth is a fundamental teaching of Tipitaka an there are hundreds of passages teaching LITERAL rebirth in it. There is no "self" to transmigrate but there are kammic accumulations.

Here are JUST SOME of the suttas in tipitaka that talks about literal rebirth:

"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html

i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.4 On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

(ii) "But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world."

"on the dissolution of the body,after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

"at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a realm of misery, in an unhappy state, in the nether world, in hell"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

"But since he has abstained from killing living beings here... has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

"someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs "

""What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process (bound up) with affliction,2 he produces a (kammic) verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic) mental process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a world with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts3 touch him. Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

"Also an enemy wishes thus for his enemy: 'Let him on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.040.than.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.106.147.105 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the long list of references. I already know that the Tipitaka also talks about rebirth. That's why I said that religious texts are full of apparent contradictions. Zen masters also talk of rebirth. If you wish, I will search for references and list them here. Are you interested? --Knverma 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the interest of everyone, let me just cite a Zen koan regarding rebirth, karma and speech: the case 2 [7] of Mumonkan. --Knverma 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"That's why I said that religious texts are full of apparent contradictions"

Why should rebirth be a "contradiction" ?!? -- 88.224.107.63

It's not. I just said the texts may appear to be contradictory. Anyway, I guess you now agree that Zen doesn't completely deny rebirth. Regarding "contradictions", here is a quote from the Platform Sutra by the sixth Chinese Zen patriarch:

• Whenever a question is put to you, answer it in the negative if it is an affirmative one; and vice versa. [8] --Knverma 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer Introduction?

The article is currently unenlightening (if you will excuse the pun). I came here looking for basic information on Zen but have come away confused. Is there any way that a simpler introduction can be created? A sort of...

• Zen is... A
• Zen is... B
• Zen is... C
• Zen Buddists beleive X Y & Z

... and sums up the absolute basics in 2-3 sentances? Currently it (the introduction) reads: Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

I'll highlight the links I had to follow and words I had to look up in order to try to grapple with it's meaning.

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

Would it be possible to have an introduction that a layman could understand? Something like:

Zen is a form of Buddhism notable for its emphasis on putting theoretical knowledge into practice and on wisdom gained through experience, particularly as realized in the form of a type of meditation known as zazen. Zen concentrates on the attainment of total understanding of the nature of existence and the nature of self. As such, it concentrates less on theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts than other branches of Buddism.

Hell, I had to look up Buddha-nature and still came away confused. ASH1977LAW 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We partly discussed this before and the language could be somewhat simplified. "Mahayana" seems a well-known term, and anyway there is a link. "Total understanding of the nature of existence and of the nature of self" is not any more enlightening than the word "enlightenment" itself. Your other suggestions are fine for me, let's see comments from other editors. --Knverma 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, how about some changes like these:

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on practice and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

The problems I saw with your rewrite of the paragraph (and hence haven't implemented above) are these:

1. "[P]utting theoretical knowledge into practice" is far too roundabout a way of saying "praxis"; since that word is apparently too complex or difficult, let's just put "practice" (it's close enough meaning-wise, even if ever so slightly off).

2. "[W]isdom gained through experience" is again too roundabout and verbose; unlike "praxis", I seriously doubt that "experiential wisdom" is a difficult phrase to understand at all (it's just a clearly adjectival form of "experience" + the noun "wisdom", after all); therefore, I think it can be kept.

3. "[I]n the form of a type of meditation" is unnecessary redundancy; "in the form of meditation" is enough.

4. As Knverma pointed out indirectly, the notion of "enlightenment" can't be summed up handily like that; it's simpler and easier and ultimately more correct to leave it as is.

5. Although you may be baffled by "Buddha-nature" (which is only natural), it is—as you seem to be requesting—one of the "absolute basics" of Zen, and fits into the "Zen Buddhists believe X, Y, and Z" paradigm that you're wanting. However, a few explanatory words on what "Buddha-nature" signifies—quite the task, that—might well be in order.

6. As for the "special transmission" spiel, it's not absolutely essential, but it does give a direct quote that is universally fundamental to the Zen tradition and that—without, I think, being too difficult a phrase to grasp—adds a little something something to the de-emphasis on theories and texts spiel immediately preceding it. Though, again, perhaps the all-important word "transmission" there could use some explanation (another toughie to do succinctly, but possibly not impossible).

Anyhow, there's what I'm thinking. Y'all? Cheers. —Saposcat 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Saposcat's new one. There's minimal jargon and it's clear enough for a layperson to follow and understand. JFD 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize it before, but changing "praxis" to "practice" made a world of difference in how it read. JFD 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I've always been pushing for "praxis", I suppose—it's the right word, I think, being more exact (in my quite possibly flawed interpretation) than mere "practice". I have my doubts, too, that it's an excessively difficult word to comprehend, and even then, a quick look over at the praxis page will clear that up in a few seconds. And then, if the very clear opening phrase "Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted or practiced" is not enough (which it probably should be), then a glance down at the relevant "Spirituality" section and its "Praxis is also key in meditation and spirituality, where emphasis is placed on gaining first-hand experience of concepts and certain areas, such as union with the Divine, which can only be explored through praxis due to the inability of the finite mind (and its tool, language) to comprehend or express the infinite" should probably clarify even more (despite a few phrases in that sentence that don't quite jive with Zen). Cheers. —Saposcat 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you still prefer "praxis" to "practice"? JFD 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would still prefer it because I do feel that it's ever so slightly more accurate (but, as you say, somewhere inside that "ever so slightly" there really is "a world of difference"). I'm not vehemently opposed to "practice" or anything—it is a less specialist word, thus somewhat clearer if also somewhat less exact (as I see things, at least)—but personally I'd still opt for "praxis". Cheers. —Saposcat 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me also point out why I think we can afford to make the other change (i.e., the removal of "as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama") my revised intro paragraph above would make. The short of it is that it would create a sort of slight logical disjunction with the mention of "Buddha-nature" that follows. The long of it is that, insofar as a basic and central notion in Zen is the inherent capacity for enlightenment that every individual has (which is more or less what "Buddha-nature" refers to), it is not necessarily "enlightenment as experienced by" the historical Buddha, but rather enlightenment pure and simple, as experienced by any Buddha or semi- or pseudo-Buddha (e.g. just your average Joe) you care to mention. As I've pointed out somewhere else with regards to Bodhidharma's place in Zen in contradistinction to Jesus' in Christianity and Muhammad's in Islam: the founder (Bodhidharma, Buddha, what-have-you) of the religion is entirely imitable, from the standpoint of Zen (as I see it, anyways) ... and so mention of that "as experienced by" bit doesn't necessarily need to go in, and may in fact be more correctly removed. Thoughts on that one, if any? —Saposcat 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is fine. Regarding "praxis" and "practice", I myself didn't know the subtle distinctions in meaning. I somewhat appreciate the concerns of ASH1977LAW, in that this could also be the situation for many other readers. Of course there are wikilinks, but we shouldn't force the readers to click on too many links for the opening sentence. So at the cost of losing some precision, I would still suggest the word "practice". --Knverma 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it back to "practice" because accessibility to laypeople is paramount in an encyclopedia entry. But I'll keep the wikilink to "praxis". JFD 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I had to follow the link to budda nature, then to budda in order to understand that budda nature means 'truly enlightened being'. Would it make it clearer if the 'budda nature' part read instead 'truly enlightened being' with a link to budda nature? Also please bere in mind that I am a bear of very little brain. Zen buddists, or those who at least familiarize themselves with it's teachings naturally will know the meaning of words such as "praxis" and "experiential", "enlightenment" and indeed "special transmission" and will be able to use them in everyday conversation, but these words are tangled puzzles for the layman, and are as specialized and arcane as medical terms or terms used in quantumn physics or higher maths. I've no objection to the use of such words in the article, but the introduction should be like a toe lowered into a bath, not like being plunged into ice water. Perhaps simpler (though slightly wordier) terms could be used in the introduction and these terms could be explained in a 'basic beleifs' section immidiately following the introductory paragraph, expanding upon these points so that a layman is enlightened as to their usage and is able to follow the rest of the article more clearly?ASH1977LAW 09:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we editors are more familiar with the topic, and at some point reviews from others would be useful. I can suggest the following alternatives:

• For enlightenment, we could say "awakening" or "spiritual awakening" or something similar, which are also commonly used terms. We can keep the same wikilink.
• For "special transmission outside scriptures", something like "teaching beyond/outside of words and speech".
• For "Buddha nature", may be "awakened nature", "true nature", "true self" or something similar, keeping the same wikilink.

Comments? --Knverma 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking it point by point:

1. I'm all in favor of "awakening" instead of "enlightenment" (though "spiritual awakening" seems a bit too heavy-handed, and perhaps even somewhat inaccurate in its use of the term "spirit"); "awakening" is, anyhow, a more accurate rendering of the word bodhi, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "light" (I've always thought that was an unfortunate translation, although it's become fairly standard by this time).

2. Rather than trying to rephrase the direct quote "special transmission outside the scriptures", we would probably do better to just say something along the lines of "in favor of a direct experience/perception/etc. of", etc.

3. As for what comes after that "of", we definitely shouldn't use the word "self", as it is categorically denied in every currently extant school of Buddhism (and, thus, is inaccurate). "Awakened nature" is probably the most accurate term—however, using it would lead to the confusing-to-the-layperson problem of "awakening to one's awakened nature", which seems relatively as accurate as words can get from the Zen standpoint, but is probably massively confusing to those not aware of that standpoint. So, I would go for "true nature" (with a link to Buddha-nature) as the best of the bunch overall.

Them's my comments. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just be bold and stick in some o' them changes and see what's what and what's not. Cheers. —Saposcat 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Awakening is no clearer than enlightenment to a poor addlebrained layman like me. Attaining a state characterized by consciousness, as opposed to being asleep? In that case surely an alarm clock serves? Awakening (that is to say a state of enlightenment whereby the individual is XYZ) would be a better wording... I would change this myself but I do not know what XYZ is. ASH1977LAW 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is precisely in coming up with this list of XYZ. The wikilinks, the reference to "true nature", and the fact that we are talking of a branch of Buddhism, would clarify that we are not talking of the alarm-clock awakening. Other than that, coming up with our own words to describe awakening is quite a challenge (especially in a few lines suitable for the intro), and I am not going to try it. --Knverma 11:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually on the fence when it comes to "enlightenment"/"Buddha nature" vs "awakening"/"true nature". "Enlightenment" is a term which even laypeople with only a passing familiarity associate with Buddhism and "true nature" sounds a bit New-Agey. JFD 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zen in China: Disputes

What I meant is that it is not necessary to create a separate section heading. It is not done in the other sections where we talk of disputes among historians. Plus, the title gave the impression that it is some dispute within the Zen tradition (that's what I thought of when I first saw it) while the dispute is among historians. --Knverma 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's broken off into a separate section or not, it desperately needs sources and de-weaseling ("recent opinions," "many important texts," "most scholars," "much of current scholarship").

Whose opinions? Which texts? Which scholars? Whose scholarship?

JFD 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This particular section does seem to be written from a biased perspective, as it is criticizing certain scholars of bias, without providing any justification. If there are serious doubts concerning accuracy and no one is able to find sources then we can be bold in deleting objectionable portions. --Knverma 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Zen" vs "Zen" + "Chan" + "Seon" + "Thien"

I agree, the current section's wording is messed up. Beyond the mixed metaphor of "Zen in China" the weasel wording is pretty obvious. I've got some of my source books out on loan right now for Chan practise in China, but when I get them back I'll have a go at the section if no-one beats me to it. --Fire Star 火星 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the consistent usage of Zen throughout the article as opposed to using "Chan" for the China section, "Seon" for the Korean section, and "Thien" for the Vietnam section. JFD 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference is based on that Chinese Buddhists (and probably Koreans) would never themselves call their practise zen, so it seems inaccurate. Especially with the lingering anti-Japanese sentiments in those countries. --Fire Star 火星 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Chinese and Korean Buddhists would certainly not call their practise "zen" when speaking in Chinese or Korean. They very likely would when speaking in Japanese. But, what would they call it in English? That's harder to say.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese speakers generally call it "Chan" when speaking in English. Zen is a regional pronunciation, as is Chan, etc. When speaking of the region, it makes sense to use the regional pronunciation. Speaking of "Chinese Zen" seems inelegant at best, inaccurate at worst. It may sound paranoid, but shouldn't we avoid implications that Japanese Zen is the representative branch - more important, more doctrinally pure or otherwise superior, or that Chinese practitioners are supervised by Japanese authority? None of this is explicit, of course, but if there are differences, shouldn't an encyclopaedia report those differences in a way that is sensitive to the differences? Zen and Chan aren't the same; different lineages (after a point many centuries ago), different languages, different locations, different practises. When by virtue of not being paper we don't have to equate them, why should we, even by implication? --Fire Star 火星 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of us editors has a Japanese bias, rather we had to choose one name, and we chose the one which is most commonly used worldwide. The latter may be because Japanese teachers were the first to teach in the west. When Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn started a school in the west he called it a Zen school. Vietnamese Thich Nhat Hanh is also referred to as a Zen monk. Perhaps Chinese practitioners prefer the term "Chan" more. But I saw that students of Hsu Yun have started an organization which they call "The Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun" [9]. All this just tells us we shouldn't be so concerned about differences in terminology. --Knverma 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't see a big problem in using a bit of regional terminology in different sections. It makes clear the historical development in different countries, and I think the readers are smart enough to figure out what's happening. --Knverma 09:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology section

In a moment I'm going to put the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag on the article. The purpose is not to transwiki the entire article, of course, just the section on Etymology. After the transwiki is done I hope the folks at Wiktionary will integrate the etymology content into their article, and I propose to remove that section from the Wikipedia article. People reading this article do not expect to find information on the name Zen but on the actual religion known as Zen. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that etymology is irrelevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. There are two particular bits of information which strike me as particularly relevant: What 'Zen' refers to (meditation type) and that Zen, Chan, Seon, and Thien are the same thing. These two things combined account for at least half of the etymology section. So there's one other sentence which is maybe not needed for an encyclopedic understanding, but I don't see a particularly strong case to remove it, other than "not strictly needed". Arturus 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the keeping at least part of the section will be better. Besides the above points, the mention of "dhyana" is also connected to the historical origins of Zen, although it is currently not made evident in that section. --Knverma 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to manually import this page to Wiktionary, but a lingering MySQL bug seems have prevented the full history import. In lieu of that, I have imported only the most recent version. I then removed everything except the Etymology section, from wikt:Transwiki:Zen and removed the tag here. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Zen Teacher/Zen Master

It was proposed in September 2006 that Zen Teacher/Zen Master be merged into Zen, but no discussion was made of it. JohnnyMrNinja 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at least until someone comes along who truly has a lot of worth to say about Masters/Teachers. LordAmeth 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it before. But there is also the Dharma transmission article and we discussed earlier about moving some too much detailed material from Zen to that article. It would make sense to merge Zen Teacher/Zen Master with Dharma transmission. I am assuming that Dharma transmission refers only to transmission inside Zen. Of course we already have the Lineage (Buddhism) article for transmission in other traditions. --Knverma 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Zen#Teachers. --Knverma 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, then, there you go. LordAmeth 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the reasons supporting the merge? I don't know much about this topic to stand with anything. (Wikimachine 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

I guess you are referring to my suggestion for merging Zen Teacher/Zen Master with Dharma transmission (I'll put the appropriate merge tags soon). A Zen Master can declare one or more people (usually his/her students) to be Zen Masters. The process is called Dharma transmission and the new Zen Masters are the successors of the older Zen Master. In this way we have lineages of Zen Masters, all of them supposed to be going back to The Buddha. Hence, Zen Masters, transmission, lineages are distinct but closely connected concepts, and it is best to discuss them in one place. --Knverma 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical Order

The Zen infobox should be in alphabetical order, china first, japan second, etc. The articleLiancourt Rocks was heavily argued by Japanese users over alphabetical order. Why is this article so quiet about it? Let's please be all fair. I am starting to have some suspicion. Amphitere 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but unlike Liancourt Rocks which is a hotly contested topic, Zen is purely innately Japanese. If this were the Ch'an article, I'd put China first, but it's not. Should we put something else ahead of China on the Chinese character article simply because it's alphabetical? I think we try too hard to not step on anyone's toes; rather than creating blanket rules by way of some kind of compromise, why can't we simply suck it up and act like mature adults? It's like political correctness - calling things by some name other than the most accurate/appropriate one just so as to not offend some fragile egos. LordAmeth 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing here is to make things NPOV. Zen is not 100% Japanese, it exists in other countries also. If one thinks that Zen should be considered Japanese, because the majority agrees, that person is wrong, because Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea, and registered as Korea by UN. If this reason is disregarded in the article Liancourt Rocks (and puts Japan before Korea), we should make it fair, and put this article in alphabetical order also. I am sick of JPOV. Extreme ethnocentrism is certainly not welcomed in any wikipedia what so ever. Your incorporation is greatly appreciated. (PS. I want to relax and keep a cool head while working for wikipedia. I am not here to make things KPOV, but to make things NPOV. As you said, "calling things by some name other than the most accurate/appropriate one just so as to not offend some fragile egos. LordAmeth 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)", I strongly agree with you. Why can't the Japanese just leave Liancourt Rocks alone, and keep it as it was a year ago? But since it already happened, we can't do anything about it. But, what we can do is make it fair for other articles too. [If Japan didn't start it in the beginning, I woudln't be caring about this, and nor would there be such a huge argument]). I mean and bring no harm to the English Wikipedia, and its fellow contributors. Amphitere

I didn't bring up the Liancourt Rocks, and I have no interest in arguing about them here. In fact, I have no interest in arguing about it at all. I wish the Japanese and Koreans would both just give up on it and stop arguing over such a tiny spit of land. As for Zen, I maintain that it does not, as you say, exist in other countries also. Ch'an exists in China, Son exists in Korea, and Thien exists in Vietnam, but Zen is a specifically Japanese concept. I really must admit, I wouldn't care about this one bit - the alphabetical ordering of the infobox is such a minor issue - if one were to be asking nicely about it and not making it into a race/nationalism/POV issue. You accuse people of being ethnocentric, of being unfair, and suspicious, and as a result I am not inclined to be friendly towards you or to assume good faith. I understand that Koreans suffer from an inferiority complex and that seeing themselves as the eternal victim is central to their national/racial identity, but I ask you to please rise above that and take things objectively, rather than accusing people of ethnocentrism, bias, etc from the very get-go. And just for the record, I'm not Japanese, so please don't accuse me of ethnocentrism for a race/country to which I don't even belong. Cheers. LordAmeth 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this, but would just like to mention that Chán, Seon and Thien were merged into this article few months back. --Knverma 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese article on Zen starts by saying "Zen is a sect of Buddhism which is claimed to be transmitted from India to China by Bodhidharma", then continues for four lines about its (legendary) history in China, before describing how it came to Japan. The description of its Chinese origins and various Chinese Zen sub-sects are longer than the corresponding Japanese ones. For Zen practitioners in Japan, the Chinese roots and history of their religion are very important. Buddhism cannot become a nationalistically-charged issue for Japanese (the nationalists like Shintoism, not a "foreign" (to them) religion like Zen), so putting the two language versions in normal alphabetical sequence should be fine --Uleglass 25 November 2007.

@LordAmeth "but Zen is a specifically Japanese concept." LordAmeth, Zen is the Japanese pronunciation of a Chinese character. Chan is the Standard Mandarin pronunciation, Seon is the Korean pronunciation of the SAME EXACT CHARACTER. Considering Zen evolved from Mahayana by combining with Daoism in 8th century China, I don't see how Zen is a Japanese concept. "Zen in Japan" is unique since it incorporates various Shinto elements, but Zen as a whole is originally part of "Chinese Buddhism" that dates back to its foundations in Tang China. Intranetusa (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs and Practices

I felt that the Basis subsection started too abruptly ("Zen is not A B C"), so I added one descriptive paragraph at the beginning by translating the Japanese article on Zen. It does not read very well so I hope a native English speaker can clean it up --Uleglass 25 November 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basis

The sentence which begins this section: "Zen asserts, as do other schools in Mahayana Buddhism, that all sentient beings possess a Buddha-nature, or pure immortal part, which lie hidden in the depths of their minds." contains a several misleading ideas from the perspective of Zen Buddhism. In the first sentence "or pure immortal part" is problematic. There is no immortal part of us. One of the first tenants of Buddhism is the impermanence of all things. There is no exception to this from the Buddhist point of view. Many Buddhist assert that the Buddha Dharma itself is only temporary. The sentence implies that there is some part of us which is not Buddha. But again from the Buddhist point of view this is impossible as all things are an insoluble one. It is also slightly misleading to say we "possess" Buddha Nature. It is more accurate to say we "are" Buddha Nature. The seperation between ourselves and our true nature is a dillusion. This is one of the basic concepts of Zen. It is further misleading to say that our true nature is "hidden in the depths of our mind." Once again from the Zen Buddhist perspective true nature is located everywhere at once and nowhere. If one looks for it "hidden in the depths" of one's mind one will not find it.

--Hbwade (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working on the etymology chart.

The etymology chart as a part of the main infobox is ugly and seems to violate Wikipedia's manual-of-style. Since it's a somewhat specific issue and there's a section it, I've created a wikitable in the etymology section instead. Zenwhat (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two schools?

There is strangely no information about the main two divisions in Zen:

• The Soto school -- achieving enlightenment from sudden insight
• The Rinzai school -- achieving enlightenment through diligent dharma practice

It's important to note that both schools aren't exclusive -- Soto does not suggest ignoring sudden practice and Rinzai does not deny sudden insight or sudden enlightenment. Both schools just think that overall focusing on one approach over the other is better.

Anyone have a problem with me starting a section on this? Zenwhat (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Looking more closely, I did find some information, but it's strange to see there not be a whole section on it. Zenwhat (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have read, both schools would stress that you ignore the goal of enlightenment itself and simply perform whatever practices they advocate because in doing so you are being most true to yourself. Sitting just to sit, not to get Buddhahood. Rinzai adds koan work to the zazen practice. I advise you to read the section starting on the bottom of page 145 of this book, though the treatment there may be a little dry. Thanks for getting rid of the picture of the Buddha with the broken arms, by the way. Excellent essay too. Mitsube (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

• WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition by Heng-Ching Shih

Anything wrong with this link? Why has it been reverted?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.231 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi XLinkBot, I feel this to be a good link, there is plenty of information about women in Buddhism. On the mainpage there is nothing about this subject.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books of Brian Victoria

I've added one of them - Zen at War - to the section References but maybe it better should be mentioned within the text. There has been some profound discussion about it, as you know. Have a look at the review written by David Loy. Loy states in 1997: "Now we need to begin considering the various implications of this complicity. For example: if Buddhist awakening truly overcomes our delusions, why didn't it do a better job of inoculating against ultranationalist propaganda?" this is an important question to be dealt with, at least it should be mentioned here and now, too. [10]

There is also a review by David Loy on the Book Zen War Stories , [11].

More reviews can be found on this site [12].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belongs here?

Maybe this essay written by Stuart Lachs belongs to page "Zen Buddhism in the West"?

• Means of Authorization: Establishing Hierarchy in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism in America

Revised Paper from presentation at the 1999 (Boston) Meeting of the American Academy of Religion

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.242 (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I did some major clean-up. Also added info about the Five Houses. Anyone has any problems, let me know.

Also, the references need to be combined into one section. Currently, they're split into the "Notes" and "References" sections. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up more of the references. Some of them don't seem to be good, but are just links to what appear to be self-published websites. Also, referencing D.T. Suzuki is redundant, so I'm combining the references all right now. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of work, again. It would be redundant to itemize every change I made, so simply look at diffs of the article to see what I did.

There is one thing I will note, though. I merged the notes and references sections (as noted above). In doing so, I removed the following sources, as they were ambiguously cited, not being clear exactly where they were being cited and how:

• Hori, Victor Sogen, Zen Sand
• Nagatomo, Shigenori (2006-06-28), “Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
• Blackman, Sushila (1997). Graceful Exits: How Great Beings Die: Death Stories of Tibetan, Hindu & Zen Masters. Weatherhill, Inc.: USA, New York, New York. ISBN 0-8348-0391-7
• Brian Daizen Victoria: Zen at War, (War and Peace Library), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd edition, (August 2006), ISBN 0742539261(10), ISBN 978-0742539266(13)

It seems that at least some of those are cited in the article somewhere (but not with precise footnotes). Tomorrow, I'm going to read through the entire article, find these sources if they're there, and then cite them. If not, then I'll take a look at the Stanford encyclopedia article and see if I can dig up the others at the local bookstore or library. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished doing all of my clean-up work. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me now that separating the reference notes from the bibiography (or "further reading") would be useful. In other words, the references could be more specific and clear, but the "Further Reading," section (which would only contain some of the better resources) would be easier to use. I'll get working on it... eventually. I'm pretty lazy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight to criticism in "Zen in Japan" sub-section

In the "Zen in Japan" sub-section, about half of the sub-section is about how Japanese Zen is a meaningless and superficial in practice, and that most Japanese Zen monks were nationalistic racists during World War II.

There's no problem with including such information, but that does not appear to be what Japanese Zen is primarily about. In particular, the distinct influence of Shinto on Japanese Zen and the lack of vinaya in Japanese Zen should be noted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ch'an, Seon, etc.

I've been thinking for quite some time that we need to make separate articles for the major "Zen" traditions, as Ch'an deserves much broader coverage on Wikipedia. We could still include the integral Ch'an back story to Zen and other strains, but currently I think Wikipedia is sorely lacking in its coverage of Ch'an. True, Zen is the Japanese derivative of Ch'an—but we each know how unique the manifestation of Zen has been in each country it enters. Whole books and encyclopedias have been written exclusively on each. Would anyone like to collaborate with me? If so, contact me on my talk page. (Mind meal (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

We used to, but there was so much overlap that we decided to merge them all. JFD (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was the discussion on this decision? It would seem more relevant to have Ch'an direct to an article about Ch'an, Seon direct to an article about Seon, et cetera. Not only does it leave for better expansion opportunities, but it is also more encyclopedic. In a very technical sense, the current scheme is not accurate. Scholars recognize each of these as unique strains, and certainly not one big homogeneous unit. Perhaps we could build consensus here to split up the articles, if others think it would be a good idea. Zen is a Japanese tradition, with its own schools. It really isn't accurate to say "it is the same thing as "Ch'an" and "Seon." There is too much history for each to allow for editors to expand meaningfully and keep it all in the confines of one article. It is like saying all schools of Tibetan Buddhism should share just one article, "Tibetan Buddhism." We can do better than this, can't we? (Mind meal (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Mindmeal, Zen, Chan, and Seon are the different pronunciations of the same word written in Chinese script. It's like Spanish "como" and English "eat" - different words in different languages but they both mean "eat."

Zen, Chan, and Seon is the same thing. Zen as a whole is still the Japanese pronunciation of a Chinese character, and Zen originated in the Tang Dynasty from combining Mahayana with Daosim. "Zen being a Japanese tradition" only refers to Japanese Zen, where it probably combined with Shintoism. Zen as a whole is not a Japanese tradition. If you want to distinguish between them, then have separate articles such as Zen in China, Zen in Japan, Zen in Korea, etc. Intranetusa (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"The first thing to note is that 'Zen' is a Japanese word; for the Chinese stage of its evolution, Zen ought more properly be referred to as Ch'an." - Simon P. James

"Zen, Chan, and Seon are the different pronunciations of the same word written in Chinese script."

I never argued otherwise. What is being argued is the fact that outwardly, through their manifestations, they are very different: traditions, rituals, emphasis. Very much so, in fact. On a spiritual level, they are maybe similar. As far as form goes, not very similar. Not very similar at all! And, what we do in this encyclopedia, is deal a lot with form. Looking at the current article, however, one wouldn't necessarily know how unique they are. For instance, in the Korean schools "zazen" is not a very big deal at all. Chanting and prostrations are emphasized much more. It is simpleton to think that this tradition we term Zen, out of convenience, is the same thing in each country. if that is true, why do we have Buddhism in the United States, Buddhism in Europe, Buddhism in Canada, Buddhism in Korea, and on and on and on? Because "Buddhism" isn't a one size fits all word, nor is dhyana; just because all Zen traditions practice dhyana does not make them "the same." I'm not sure you were saying they are the same, but from your words I wasn't sure what to gather. if we had the kinds of articles you propose, which I'm for, Ch'an and Seon should redirect to them. Otherwise, there is Japanese bias at work here. And, if you look at my body of work, I have no problems with Zen. I just want to get it right, for the sake of better articles. (Mind meal (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The existence of articles on "Buddhism in Country X" articles does not of course preclude a Buddhism article. I think that you are correct that this article does not sufficiently clarify the differences in Zen practice in one country and another. However, the value of a central Zen article is that it demonstrates the relationship between Zen, Ch'an, Seon, etc, i.e. that they are more closely related to each other than to say Theravada or Tendai. JFD (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. First the articles Seon in Korea and Ch'an in China should be created before we even fathom what I've proposed. Baby steps, its not like this will get done overnight anyway. Would you agree that, if such articles were to be created, we should refer to them as I have just proposed, i.e. Seon in Korea and Ch'an in China? (Mind meal (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

That's a not half-bad way of addressing what happens when you come up against Zen in Japan and Zen in the West. Here are pre-redirect versions of Ch'an and Seon to see what they looked like. JFD (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those were pretty darn ugly. I think I'll start working on one of the "in country x" articles, sounds "fun." (Mind meal (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The term, "Zen," seems to be used in English to broadly describe all forms of Chan, Seon, Thien, etc.. Any article on Chan would have considerable overlap with Zen and Buddhism in China. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlaps aren't the issue. Accuracy and encyclopedic content is the issue. Zen is often used that way, but only for the sake of convenience. A true scholarly essay will always note the difference or take care to choose the right wording. At the very least it will confess in the opening that it will use the word Zen throughout the work. The words themselves aren't so much the issue here, anyway. As has already been pointed out, they all are translations of dhyana. It is their linguistic connotation, and what they therefore represent, that is at stake. Ch'an was a very Chinese religion, religiously and culturally; in terms of customs and manner of teaching it couldn't have enjoyed a more different history than that which has manifested itself in Japan and Korea. The article Buddhism in China is, pardon me for saying this, quite worthless. Were an article on Ch'an in China to considerably overlap it, I'd be very disappointed—for that would mean the Ch'an article is sorely lacking in content and context. We could even make a Zen disambiguation page, which redirects to Zen in Japan, Seon in Korea, Thien in Vietnam, Ch'an in China, an Historical overview of Zen Buddhism, et cetera. These are just ideas, granted, and I'm not about to force the issue against consensus. I merely think we editors of topics on Zen should take great care to be as accurate as possible. Where else on the web can one find comprehensive articles on these subjects that truly go in depth? They don't exist. Most simply scratch the surface, if that, and the reader leaves only slightly more educated when leaving. But with the power of solid referencing and collaboration, we have the opportunity to make Zen academia reach new heights on the web. We publish an article for Wikipedia and immediately we achieve first page hits on search engines. We can make history here. Solid articles as well referenced as the finest journal. Anyway, enough with my William Wallace speech. (Mind meal (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sect vs School

Shouldn't the 'houses' (and Zen as a whole) be called schools rather than sects? A sect usually denotes a small group that departed from the official doctrine. Zen and its 'houses' are quite strong on their feet and 'officially recognized'. I see the term 'sect' being used in most related articles, also. AKoan (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They could be called schools or sects. I don't think the term "sects," is necessarily denigrating. The term, "school," can be confusing because of how it's used to apply to entire lineages (Soto, Rinzai, etc..), more recent Buddhist establishments (i.e. Obaku), and also occasionally for monasteries (after all, "school" in English is typically a building).

As the section on the five houses mentions (and as I read in the Collected Works of Thomas Cleaty, Vol. 1), the five schools weren't originally sects, just schools. It seemed to be informal frameworks for teaching Zen, created by a handful of teachers. Today, however, they are largely regarded as sects, because they have separate lineages, separate teachings (i.e. koan practice and the keisaku in Rinzai, shikantaza in Soto) and separate monasteries. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, these are exactly the reasons why I think 'school' is better than 'sect', I think 'school' means something more than 'sect', at least thats how I perceive these words. And I don't think sect is necessarily denigrating, either. AKoan (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Pre-sectarian Buddhism wouldn't make much sense if we made this change, though, would it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I said that this thing should be clarified in all related articles. Wee have "Pre-sectarian Buddhism", but also "Early Buddhist schools". Maybe in some cases the term "sect" is ok, but for Zen and the Zen Houses I don't believe so. AKoan (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Zen is somehow less sectarian? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zen is "big" enough not to be considered a sect. AKoan (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bigger than the Christian sect, Catholicism, or the Islamic sect, Sunni Islam? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A good source for you.

I e-mailed a T. Matthew Ciolek, a professor of Asian and Pacific Studies, asking him if I could use this image for this article. He mentioned that the image was on the Zen Buddhism WWW Virtual Library (I got it from somewhere else, but happened to see his name on the image). From his e-mail (tmciolek@coombs.anu.edu.au):

Please feel free to use the image and any data you find on my web site in your forthcoming adenda to the Wikipedia article. However, whatever you do, please provide the standard in such cases attribution.

Please also note that I DO NOT AGREE to any modifications (to the size, format, fonts etc etc) to the original "zenschools.gif" graphics file.
Please use the file as it is.

His website is here. [13] There's a lot of useful information there. Also, it isn't just a personal website of his. Also, even though it's his website, it's not really self-published or original research persay, because a lot of credible people have contributed to it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)