Talk:Zen/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why?

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)

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. [1]

There is also a review by David Loy on the Book Zen War Stories , [2].

More reviews can be found on this site [3].

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

Belongs here?

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

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)

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)

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))

This article is ignorantly persuaded towards the Japanese practice of " Zen " Buddhism for the sake of our western conviences. You guys seriously have no idea how insulting your being to an entire culture. Chan Buddhism should be the more widely used term. After all it was brought to other Asian nations through China. I suggest a compromise "Chan/Zen" be more widely implemtented through out the article as well as the Chinese character put in the very begining of the article. Also stating that Zen is more widely used is just pushing aside the large Chinese population ( inside and out side of China ) and Kung Fu practioners outside of China. Which brings me to my next point. Chan Buddhism is also very closley connected with Chinese martial arts. If there is a reference to Yoga there should be a reference to how closely intertwined Chan Buddhism is with the Chinese martial arts. Also the Yoga connection is a very loose one and not realy that obvious. I'm don't think too many Chan Buddhist realy put much of an emphasis on Chakral focus. Either that or it should be removed from the article. There should also be a mention of when Chan Buddhism came to Japan thus making the connection to Zen Buddhsim. As well as pages of either or linking back to the main article. Do you realy think any one practicing Seon Buddhism or Chan Buddhism is going to type Zen Buddhism into the search function? Saying they are the same is as well insulting to all cultures. So in that sence there should be references to the differences of the practice in each culture. This article still needs alot of work!!! -- JCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.81.226 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"You guys seriously have no idea how insulting your being to an entire culture." It certainly isn't intended to be, and I recommend against taking it that way. Our goal is to use the most convenient terminology, evenhandedly, with no intention to insult anyone's culture or to make them feel proud of their culture, either (although we tend to make an exception for persons, tending to refer to Chinese people by their Mandarin names). "Chan Buddhism should be the more widely used term." Perhaps it should be, but it is not. I don't really see why it should be, either; the great Chinese patriarchs of Zen didn't speak Standard Mandarin. "Also stating that Zen is more widely used is just pushing aside the large Chinese population". Our goal is to reflect common English usage, not Chinese or other languages. In Mandarin Chinese, even Japanese Zen is called "chan", and in Japanese, I suppose, all Zen is called "Zen". "Do you realy think any one practicing Seon Buddhism or Chan Buddhism is going to type Zen Buddhism into the search function?" There are plenty of examples of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese-style practitioners who use the term "Zen" in English: there's the Kwan Um School of Zen and the Zen Buddhist Temples (Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom); the Western Chan Fellowship uses both terms on its website; plumvillage.org refers to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, etc.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. [4] 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)

Miscellaneous

which would allow one to argue that there is no "orthodoxy", something that most Asian Zen masters would readily dismiss.

Please clarify. Asian Zen masters would readily dismiss orthodoxy or that there is no orthodoxy? 4.166.0.201 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legendary Origins"?

I haven't edited this article in a while... "Legendary Origins" is blatantly POV. The section is going to be renamed Mythology, as it was previously named. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Girl Zen" product info

I removed the information about the "Girl Zen" clothing company. [5] There are quite a few companies which use this term and it hasn't been established that this specific company is notable.

I suppose we could create a sub-section for, "Usage of the term Zen in marketing," but I don't know if that would really be encyclopedic and the article would be extremely vast and very difficult to find reliable sources for. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


"Seshin customs"

I the section regarding seshin, it say that monks (or laypersons attending the seshin) sleep 7 houers or less. this is a understadement. The daliy schedule of a monk, leaves about 5 houers of sleep, and during seshin they are encuraged (in japan that amounts to being told or ordert) to sleppe less or not at all. Also in some traditions, especial rinzai, monks are not allowed to lay down during sleep, they tie themself to a post or, if more experienced, sleep in meditation possition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.156.26 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hsing Yun

I do not think the external link to "Booklets - Hsing Yün" is adequate for this article on Zen Buddhism (although Hsing Yun is a Linji buddhist). Any comments? Should it be removed? Zen Mind (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation request (from Wikipedia:Translation/Zen)

  • Comment: I also request that the Chinese article 禅宗 be translated, for the same reason.
  • Requested by: ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Interest of the translation: Zen Buddhism is an eastern religion, most predominant in China and Japan, and the Chinese and Japanese perspective is likely to be more clear than the western interpretation, based on western sources. Finding western sources on Zen history is difficult (books can be ordered from Amazon, but libraries and bookstores tend to have very little, mostly modern books on Zen practice rather than trustworthy books on Zen history). A brief look over the Japanese and Chinese articles on Zen, translated by Google, seems to suggest that there is a fair amount of information in both articles which could be added to English Wikipedia's article.

Zen in Japan - amendments?

A) 3rd para: "Although the Japanese had known Zen-like practices for centuries (Taoism and Shinto)". I know something of Shinto and Zen. Taoism may have connections to Zen, but Shinto is nothing like Zen. Except that they are both Japanese, and there's a generic 'Japanese-ness' to them, there are no philosophical or religious similarities. Are there? B) Zen was very closely connected to aristocratic culture in Japan - the Samurai and Daimyo. It a social/historical thing more than a religious factor, but since there are some sociological criticisms of Zen here, could I add something like that? - Kipwatson (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the assertion is dubious. I removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

encoding and decoding

To ENCODE means to convert data into the form ready for processing. To DECODE means to convert data back to the form in which it can be understood. Examples of ENCODING. (1) Bank cheques nowadays contain customer account information in coded form using megnetic ink. (2) Bar codes contain coded information about the product they are printed on. Examples of DECODING. Teachers names are stored on school data file. for this the first two letters of all the names are written. Thus mr zain as ZA, mr fareed as FA and miss nuzhat as NU. the computer have reference file of all these names.to print out all the names the computer will decode all the codes that are the two letters. so the print out will contain full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.107.191 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Japanese zen isn't any different from the other zen buddhism practiced throughout Asia, as for influences from Shinto there are none. Shinto is the result of rename at the beginning of the modern era to include traditional Korean shamanism and to give it the appearance of an authentic Japan only religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.132 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bwahahaha. I take it you haven't visited China or any other Asian countries, then? Zen in China, Korea, and Vietnam are similar. Zen in Japan is a whole different thing. For example, does anyone in Japan read the Shurangama Sutra? Or recite from the Avatamsaka Sutra? Do they practice nianfo and study Yogacara? If not, they are probably very different from the Zen people in China. In China, Zen can be so broad that it might as well be labeled "Mahayana Buddhism". If you want proof of this in English, you can just check out City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, which is the major Chinese source of Zen in the U.S. Do Zen Buddhists in Japan even believe in reincarnation? Do they understand the theory of samadhi and the various Dharma gates to cultivate it? Do they really study the sutras in earnest? I get the feeling sometimes that Zen in Japan is more similar to performance art. Black robes, bamboo hats, blossoming flowers, and unreadable calligraphy. Very different from Zen in other countries. Tengu800 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should focus on the influence of zen on japan(such as tea), who in japan practiced it(samurai), Japanese views on zen I think the WWII stuff would belong in articles relating to WWII or japanese militarism, maybe if zen followers stood out in their political views, then it would be notable here. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Huineng in the Early History section

i just wanted to say, nice page!

i also noticed later on that the early history section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen#Early_history) is ... I was confused the first time I read it because it said that Huineng was the choice of the fifth patriarch, and then later that Shenxiu was the choice of the fifth patriarch, and then i remembered that the fifth patriarch had chosen between the two before the time of his death.... So i thought it might be confusing for an unititiated reader. i found this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng#Becoming_the_Sixth_Patriarch which sounded clear to me like a bell. um... the scholarship notes at the end should, well don't you think it's a bit too much as it [6] is now? i mean the story is hardly told before it is refuted, and further the page is not clear as to what "narrative" is debated by modern scholars, or in what way it is debated. so i think it needs to be changed, and it seems most appropriate that the scholarship part be sent to the page linked before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng#Becoming_the_Sixth_Patriarch and included there. what do you guys think? Makeswell (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic changes to intro

I corrected some grammar in the first paragraph, and made the style more consistent where the equivalent Japanese, Chinese, and Sanskrit words are given. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Chinese character for chan from first paragraph. This is best introduced in the etymology section which is linked. Redid the second paragraph for stylistic reason, removing a repetitive use or the word "meditation."OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edited third paragraph of intro for style. Broke it into two paragraphs, one for the secular/scholarly version of the emergence of Zen, and one for the traditional story of Bodhidarma. Although I am avoiding as much as I can changing content, I removed two things: I removed the word "Pahlavi" to describe where Bodhidarma came from. It was just made the description awkard, and doesn't serve any particular purpose in the introduction. I also removed the mention of shaolin temple, pretty much for the same reason. In any case I hope the intro is clearer and more inving now. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaced "etymology" section with list in intro

I just want to repeat that the changes I am making, if I am doing it right, should not change content or even emphasis, but are meant to repair some structural and stylistic problems. I have removed a section called "etymology" which consisted of a table of the word variations on the "zen" in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese. I replaced it with a list in the introduction giving exactly the same info (including an obvious error in the cantonese translation.) This is in keeping with general practice. Also, "etymology" was a misnomer. It was just a list of translations. I added a paragraph in the introduction to contain the list, although the more proper approach would be to put the list after the first use of the word "Zen". But the list is so extensive it would be ugly and quite intrusive to the flow of the introduction. The list is quite long, probably longer than necessary, but that is the kind of decision I am avoiding. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that section was probably the work of B9 Hummingbird Hovering, who has been recently banned indef blocked for his obscure edits. So no great loss there. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
He must have worked hard on that table, but it just didn't fit or make sense.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of what he did just didn't make sense. Yworo (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-structuring "Mythology" and "History" wholesale

The sections on mythology and history seem not to have been thought out very well in terms of organization. I am making some major changes in the sense of moving stuff around, but again I didn't change content (except in one instance where something is repeated), but I did change some emphasis on some sections by moving them to the history section. Here are the two problems I fixed:

  • The authors(s) had trouble with the fact (or assertion) that there is no verified history before 700, and thus only tradition and legend can be cited. This led them, among other things, to repeat the story of bodhidharma, and to tell the reader several times to be careful to distinguish myth from fact, without giving the reader any help in doing so. Solution: I dealt with this by using the paragraph that describes the lack of historicl sources as the introduction to a section on "Zen origins" which recounts the traditions and legends. I got rid of the second telling of the Bodhidarma story.
  • There seemed to be no section for history after 700, even though that is when historical documentation starts. But in fact that story is told in the sections on the tradition in different countries: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam. Solution: I made these sections part of the history section, changing nothing in them.

That last is the biggest structural change, but if you read the sections on the different countries they are almost entirely history. Including them in the history section also helps equalize the treatment given to the different countries.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Don't beat me up with one of those keisaku sticks.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me... better ordered, better flow. I cleaned up a few minor formatting issues. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sutra / sutrayana?

In the lead: "Zen is a school of sutra(yana) Mahāyāna Buddhism..." What is this term supposed to indicate here? According to the definition given at sutrayana, the fact that Zen is a Mahayana school automatically makes it both part of Sutrayana and not Tantric, so it's redundant to state as much here. I don't know if that's really the intention behind this change, though. It seems to me that sutrayana is a term specific to the Tibetan tradition, so I'm not sure it really belongs here at all, at least not in the lead. Finally, if it is included, I'd like to see some kind of reference associating that particular terminology with Zen. Maybe I'm missing something, though. /ninly(talk) 12:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes something sutric versus tantric is based on which CLASS OF LITERATURE the system is based on. Zen is based solely on the Mahayana sutras is it not? Please read the article I cite at the end. By the way, Zen has a minor tantric element, but this element is found in the Mahayana sutras, therefore it is still sutra Mahayana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_sutrasThigle (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ninly, it's redundant. Only some sects of the Tibetan Vajrayana schools consider Vajrayana part of Mahayana. So the distinction is pretty much purely a Tibetan one, as Ninly states. As such, there is no need for the distinction to be called out in the lead, though I'd not object to the addition of a discussion of this view later in the article. Yworo (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Even the Mahayana wikipedia article before I touched it for the first time yesterday very clearly states that Vajrayana is a part of Mahayana. Scroll down when reading it. How do you explain that? What makes a Mahayana school is that it accepts the Mahayana sutras, specifically bodicitta aspiration. This idea that Vajrayana is not a part of Mahayana is novel to me. Where is this from?Thigle (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Read the Vajrayana article. In any case, you are attempting to apply a Tibetan system of classification to a non-Tibetan form of Buddhism. Should we also apply a Pali system of classification to Vajrayana? Then we'd have to call it non-Buddhist, wouldn't we? See the problem here? Yworo (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. But this logic does not make sense, because Zen acknowledges itself as a sutra system. It has nothing to do with Tibetan buddhism or Vajrayana. You sidestepped my point about the Mahayana article. Sutra developed in tandem with tantra by the way. You are right, I shouldn't have used "sutrayana". By the way, a Theravada monk would not call a Vajrayana practitioner non-buddhist. Thigle (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The Mahayana article does not say what you claim. It says that the later forms of Mahayana were developed within the Vajrayana schools. It does not say that all of Vajrayana is included in Mahayana. See further the section on the three turnings of the wheel of dharma, where Mahayana is the second turning and Vajrayana is the third turning, distinct from the second. Since the matter is not one agreed upon universally within Buddhism, it doesn't belong in the lead sentence here. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you just edited it. Well you have to also edit out this "Major traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism today include Zen (Chán), Pure Land, Tiantai, Nichiren, and Esoteric Buddhism (Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism)." This was there even before I touched it. And there are wikipedia articles all over wikipedia you have to change. Thigle (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. The Esoteric and Tibetan schools include Mahayana teachings. However, they do not consist solely of Mahayana teachings. That's why the distinction of sutrayana and tantrayana was developed. To distinguish the two types of teachings within these traditions. Yworo (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've clarified the Mahayana article with a link to the discussion of the three views of Vajrayana. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You'd be more convincing if you would cite some reliable sources. We don't consider Wikipedia articles to be reliable sources. They are always changing and sometimes they contain errors. Even sourced statements within articles sometimes get changed so as not to represent what the sources say. If the article is not being watched by sufficiently knowledgeable people, these changes can go undetected. I have no doubt that you can find Tibetan or other esoteric Buddhist sources that describe Zen as "sutrayana", but can you find a Zen source that does so? If you can, I'd love to see it. Yworo (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have many sources talking about Zen and Mahayana Sutras. I shouldn't have used "sutrayana." http://www.google.com/search?q=Zen+Mahayana+sutras&btnG=Search&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&sa=2 By the way, there isn't a clear line between sutra and tantra. Even ninth bhumi bodhisattvas need a tantric empowerment to obtain Buddhahood in "sutrayana". Thigle (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Only according to Vajrayana schools. There is no such thing as a tantric empowerment in non-Vajrayana schools. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No this is actually sutra. Ninth stage bodhisattvas need a tantric empowerment to become a buddha. This is orthodox sutra Mahayana. This is common knowledge and it is even in the bhumi article. Thigle (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What about in the lead of the Zen article, something like "follows soley the Mahayana sutras"?Thigle (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not exceptional. Why would it need to be called out? I have no objection to making this more explicit near the beginning of the article, just not in the lead. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the 2nd paragraph of the lead already says "The teachings of Zen include various sources of Mahāyāna thought, including the Prajñāpāramitā literature and the teachings of the Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha schools." I would think this covers at least some of what's being discussed here. And I agree with Yworo that this stuff could be discussed further down in the article, but as currently stated it's confusing and distracting, at least for me. I know what "a school of Mahayana Buddhism" is (and if I didn't, I could look up Mahayana), but "a school of sutra Mahayana Buddhism" throws me off; it's not something I can just look up (the Sutra article doesn't address the distinction being made at all). /ninly(talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Before I changed the intro, the references to the "Prajnaparamita literature" etc. were in the second to last sentence of the intro:
  • "The emergence of Zen as a distinct school of Buddhism was first documented in China in the 7th century AD. The teachings of Zen include various currents in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought, including Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha philosophies, and the Prajñāpāramitā literature. From China, Zen subsequently spread south to Vietnam, and east to Korea and Japan." [end of introduction]
Perhaps the old version makes it sound more like an historical observation than a doctrinal one. It wasn't my intention to emphasize anything by moving it closer to the beginning, and I certainly wasn't trying to open a can of worms. Frankly it boggles the mind to think that the sentence "Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism" is somehow controversial or that it needed to be changed. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This article mentions how ninth stage bodhisattvas receive an tantric empowerment to become Buddhas. This is common knowledge. This is orthodox Mahayana whatever school you are talking about even sutra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumi_(Buddhism)Thigle (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be reading rather creatively: the word tantra doesn't even occur in the article. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you saw the word empowerment though. Empowerments are tantric by definition. Thigle (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no. An empowerment is not "tantric by definition". You are reading between the lines, which is not how we read sources. We call that original research or opinion. Yworo (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking into this further, the uncited passage under the tenth bhumi to which you refer was taken from a Tibetan Vajrayana description. Mahayana descriptions of the same bhumi do not use this terminology. Since, according to tradition, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, it's important to understand from which teaching a description derives. Using a Vajrayana description to try to support a wild idea that tantric empowerment is required in the Mahayana tradition to reach the tenth bhumi is mixing apples and oranges. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting you think the empowerment is a "wild idea", not part of sutra tradition. Have you read any book on "regular" Mahayana that describes the bhumis? Read Encyclopedia of Asian philosophy By Oliver Leaman page 337 or countless others. What is your buddhist background?Thigle (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Empowerment is not necessarily tantric. Please read more closely as that's what I said before. Tantric empowerment is always by a physical guru. The empowerments mentioned in the later Bhumi descriptions are done by "all the Buddhas", etc. The word is being used in a generic, not tantric, sense. Yworo (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. It's quite clear to me that you have exposure to some Tibetan school of Buddhism, but that you aren't all that well-read in the broader tradition. I can see that clearly because I once had the same sort of limited view, from the point of view of a single tradition within Buddhism. I now know that that view was too narrow, and have attempted to broaden it. I still have plenty more to learn, but I can recognize a single-tradition based view when I see one. Please read our neutral point of view policy. We cannot modify articles to prefer one view over another. Yworo (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Lets start all the way back with the Pali canon. Why doesn't wikipedia adequately address the divya cakkhu, a fundamental topic that ties together Buddhist cosmology, karma and rebirth? This is not even Mahayana, we are going back to Theravada. I think I saw one obscure mention of the divya cakkhu somewhere once on wikipedia. Thigle (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have good references that elaborate on this, you are welcome (and encouraged!) to start a Diva cakkhu article, solicit help in its development, and see where it leads. You are also welcome to initiate discussion about improvement of Buddhism-related content on the talk page at WikiProject Buddhism. However, this page is for discussion of specific changes to the article on Zen, and unless someone new has a novel contribution, I don't see this discussion leading anywhere. /ninly(talk) 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thiền in Vietnam Picture

The picture in the "Thiền in Vietnam" section is wrong. It depicts a Cao Dai religious gathering at the Cao Dai main temple. It is not a gathering of Vietnamese Zen/Thiền monks. I suggest replacing the picture.

While Cao Dai is absolutely influenced by Buddhist practices (Thiền, most likely included in that), it also believes in the divinity of Jesus and the sainthood of Victoor Hugo. Beautiful as Cao Dai is, it is not Buddhist per se. It is definitely not Thiền. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.39.148 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will first remove it and then look for a suitable replacement. Tengu800 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for jargon

I noticed that someone tagged this article as containing too much jargon. Perusing the article, I actually do not see that there is so much jargon, and the terms that are used are often either basic or explained in the text. Of course there are many terms in parentheses to indicate original names, etc., but these are not required reading. Really, I always thought that this was kind of a "fluff" article compared to some others on Buddhism, since it has had a tendency to cover Zen as it is popularly known in the West. However, I suppose Zen is a subject that many are familiar with on a superficial level, and the people who are reading this article may not be familiar with basic Buddhism. Anyways, this should be discussed so the page can either be cleaned up, or so the tag can be removed. Tengu800 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kanji

Looks to me like my comment on kanji was lost in the editing of the dhyana page. And this page has since changed.

The side bar has only Hiragana for Japanese (my impression is that use a kanji when referring to Zen, but which one?). It also refers to the Chinese hanzi as "East Asian"; and under "Chinese" has only Romanised transliterations. Can someone with the requisite skills and languages sort this out please? mahaabaala (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Useless cruft

Is it really necessary to have so much language information for one term? For example, the Shanghainese pronunciation? The Nanchang dialect? Seriously? If we were to take a field trip right now to Shanghai, you would see absolutely nothing in Shanghainese, because it isn't a proper written language in China -- just a spoken dialect. Not only that, but if we go to the Chinese "Chan" page here, there is only the Chinese character, and that's it! Right away it goes into the actual content of the article, rather than being cluttered down by box after box after box. The articles for this topic in other languages are similar to this, without clutter, and to-the-point, as this article should be. The main problem with the language box is that someone decided to put every idiosyncratic Chinese spoken dialect alongside major languages like Japanese and Korean, despite the fact that in the PRC, there is only one official written language (simplified Chinese) and one official standard for transliteration (Hanyu Pinyin). At what point is it okay to tear down language information when it becomes excessive and obstructs the content of an article? I know I am not the first one to express my frustrations with this language box. For Chinese at least, the standard necessary parts that cover all the major bases are: (1) traditional Chinese character, (2) simplified Chinese character, (3) Pinyin transliteration. Everything else is superfluous, including Cantonese and any other spoken dialects, which in China, are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River. Tengu800 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, most of it can go. I'm not sure the article needs a broken-out infobox on this at all, but I suppose deciding what to include is the first step. I'd suggest Chinese (traditional, simplified, and pinyin), Japanese (kanji and romaji), Korean, Vietnamese, and Sanskrit. /ninly(talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just floating this; use or trash it as needed.
Zen
JapaneseKanji: 禪
Romaji: Zen
ChineseTraditional: [禪] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language tag: zh-t (help)
Simplified: [禅] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language tag: zh-s (help)
Pinyin: Chán
KoreanHangul: 선
RR: Seon
VietnameseThiền
Sanskritdhyāna
/ninly(talk) 03:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox(es)

I thought having both the Zen and Mahayana infoboxes was cluttered, so boldly took out the more general of the two. I also added a link from the Zen infobox to the Mahayana portal. Not a perfect solution, but I thought it'd spur discussion.

I'm also moving the translations template back up, in the reduced form I pasted above. /ninly(talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the general look of the change, and I don't think it was too bold. Some of these big pages become stagnant after so much time. The Zen Buddhism template is not yet an overgrown box, and the languages box is also pretty lean. It now flows more like it should, getting into the main content of the article without the extra stuff. Since the page further down is a bit sparse, and because there is discussion of Mahayana doctrinal issues, I added the Mahayana template down there. That should be fine, but I would also like to either trim that template down a bit, or find a way to specify that it can be a "compact version", although I have not really looked into how to actually do that with the code. Shouldn't be too hard, but those things take a little time. Tengu800 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Freedom and Liberty Section

This really needs to be cleaned up. Even the most dense concepts can be explained with well-structured sentences and clear word order. If it's really necessary to use terms and phrases that are likely foreign to the average reader, link them to the relevant explanations. I've read the section three times, and I might just now have an inkling what it's trying to say. BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the relationship between this section is, and the main subject. "Freedom" and "liberty" are not usual Buddhist terms and language, nor are they common terms in the Zen school. It is true that Zen teachings feature the subjects of liberation, enlightenment, and nirvana, but this is the same as any school of Buddhism. It also seems to treat Zen as something akin to western philosophy, as an "intellectual tradition", which it is not... Tengu800 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this section grew out of the work User:PPdd has recently been doing on the bad faith article, in which he cites the same reference. Note the short discussion of Zen recently added to that article (see Bad faith#Zen Buddhism). I agree, the section in this article seems out of place and without much direction. /ninly(talk) 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Should that section be there? It seems very out of place, and bad faith and self deception seem overly specific, being a very minor section at the bottom of the source, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (also, the reference does not include a link, just the name of the source, I was able to use my powerful Google-fu to find the source; if this section stays, please feel free to update the source).
I propose that that section be removed, as I don't believe it adds any value to the article. However, I think it only fair to discuss this before I take out an entire section of an article I haven't had any previous interaction with. SudoGhost (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing

History

put the two parst together, with more detailed headings, to make it moere readable at first sight. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Zen in the west

This was a subheader; little editing-mistake? I made it a main-header, to make it clearly a distinct subejct. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

spread of Zen

Als turned into a main-header, to make it clearer. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern scientific studies of Zen

Groundbreaking studies, absolutely must-reads fot any-one seriously interested in Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

TheZenSite: ELNO and LINKFARM?

I put in some links which are not considered WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM. These are all links to www.thezensite.com, a critical website of zen-resources and zen-research. The first two links, John McRae (2005), Introduction to Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China. World Wisdom Books and Victor Sogen Hori (2005), Introduction to Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 2: Japan. World Wisdom Books are the introductions to the reprint of Dumoulin's "A history of Zen". They give a short but thorough introduction to the present state of Zen research. John McRae is one of the best academic researchers in the world on the history of Zen buddhism. The third link, Mary Jaksch (2007), The Road to Nowhere. Koans and the Deconstruction of the Zen Saga, gives a somewhat longer, but very readable introduction to the same material. It's not my intention to promote thezensite; it's just a very good website with a lot of texts on it. Regarding paying attention to this research in this Wikipedia-article, I would like to propose the next text:

Historical research -

For the last few decades the scientific research of Zen and it's history has consiberaly changed the picture of Zen. The "grand saga"[1] of Zen appears not to be an accurate history, but an artfully constructed story, meant to lend autority to the Zen-school[2]. The impact of the consequences of this research is only currently attracting broader attention[3].

  1. ^ Mary Jaksch: The Road to Nowhere. Koans and the Deconstruction of the Zen Saga
  2. ^ Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd . ISBN 9780520237988
  3. ^ Weblog van David Chapman

I hope this is satisfying, regarding the text and the references. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Does TheZenSite contain reliable sources?

It took me a few days to understand what the third problem is that SudoGhost saw with my references (I'm not a native speaker, and new to Wikipedia). According to WP:RS,Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors. This is exactly what TheZenSite offers: articles and essays, mostly by academic authors, mostly published in academic journals.

  1. Take, for example, Robert H. Sharf: Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited. Sharf gives this context of this paper: "The paper entitled “The Zen of Japanese Nationalism,” which I presented to the symposium on which this volume is based, is to appear in Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed., Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). An earlier version appeared in History of Religions 33/1 (1993): 1–43. I offer below some further reμections on the topic, stimulated by the often intense exchanges at the symposium.". Robert Sharf is cited on these pages: D. T. Suzuki, Buddhist modernism, Śubhakarasiṃha, U Nārada, Samurai, Bushido, Buddha-nature, Ryomo Kyokai. Citation of an author on Wikipedia may not be a measure of trustworthyness, but I guess it does give an impression.
  2. Or, for another example: Masao Abe: Zen And Buddhism, about which Masao Abe comments "This is a revised and enlarged version of a paper originally published, with limited circulation, in Japan Studies No. 11 in 1968. The author is grateful to Japan Studies for permission to republish it. He is also thankful for the invaluable suggestions of Dr. Winston Davis in the earlier stages of the manuscript and of Father John Brinkman and Mr. Robert Grous in its final stage.". I suppose Masao Abe may be considered beyond doubt regarding his reliability.
  3. A third example: Steven Heine: A Critical Survey of Works on Zen since Yampolsky, published Philosophy East & West Volume 57, Number 4 October 2007 577–592. Steven Heine is a highly acclaimed scholar of Zen.

So, to my opinion, TheZenSite is a highly recommendable website for trustworthy sources on Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) PS: but SudoGhost was right that I put in to many links. Sorry, I was a little bit in a hurry; my family was waiting (again, actually...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ch'an or Chán

Hi Tengu800. Are you sure, about Chán? It's also what's being typed when you wnat to type Ch'an, but don't push the space-bar after the apostrophe. I don't know anything about Chinese pronounciation, but the Pinyin-article mentions this about the accent:

"The second tone (Rising or High-Rising Tone) is denoted by an acute accent (ˊ): á (ɑ́) é í ó ú ǘ Á É Í Ó Ú Ǘ"

As far as I can hear Ch'an does not contain a rising tone - but I may be entirely wrong on this. But the standard way of writing Ch'an is, as far as I know, Ch'an (or Chan). See, for example, the searchfunction at TheZenSite [7]. Ch'an gives a long list, Chán gives no hit. At the other hand, Wiktionary does say chán... Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic difference here is between Wade-Giles and Pinyin romanization systems. Wade-Giles is an older system that fewer people are using these days, but in this system, the romanization is ch'an. Pinyin is the more standard and accurate system, and in this system, the romanization is chán. Regardless of which system we use, the word is pronounced exactly the same way in Beijing standard dialect. In China, everyone uses Pinyin and never Wade-Giles, and only Pinyin is taught in schools. Historically, Taiwan used Wade-Giles to distinguish itself from China, but has since also moved to Pinyin. Tengu800 00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! But so this means that all those publications, even scientific ones, are 'wrong'? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not really wrong, just behind the times by a few decades. As long as they use Wade-Giles correctly, they are accurate to the Wade-Giles system. It's just that the system itself has been mostly replaced by Pinyin at this point. Tengu800 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Six patriarchs

It makes more sense to threat the first six patriarchs as a whole, given the semi-legendary status they have. By the way, to make the information on Bodhidharma conform to the Bodhidharma-article, some more editing is necessary. But maybe one 'endless editing discussion' is enough for the moment. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Western Zen lineages

There is dicussion an disagreement on the Sanbo Kyodan, but fact is that Yasutani and his lineage are widespread and influential, so they deserve (or have to) it to be named separate from Soto and Rinzai. Soto and Rinzai are the classical Japanese demarcations; it's questionable if this demarcations is so relevant to the west, where it's clear that a few persons have been very influential, especially from the Sanbo Kyodan. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

Of course, almost any title here would be arbitrary. But: Paul Reps' "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" is a classic, giving a neat collection of anecdotes (supporting the romantic view of Zen), koans and the ox-herding pictures. Philip Kapleau's "Three Pillars of Zen" was one of the first books to give a more thorough-going exposition on Zen-training (though also fueling romantic notions of Zen). And for "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" - is there any western Zen-practitioner who did not read this one? I removed Faure; it's a tremendous book, but also heavy academical stuff. Not really suited for someone just interested in practising Zen. But still recommended for those who wish to take a more critical stand. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing information

There are a few sections which I would like to remove. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments here, and some of these are issues I have noticed as well. I think the text attributed to Bodhidharma (that is almost certainly not from him) has basically no value in the article. Even in the history of Zen Buddhism in China, these various texts attributed to him were not widely regarded as being authentic in a historical sense. If any text is to be associated with Bodhidharma, it would just be the Lankavatara Sutra of four fascicles, Gunabhadra's translation from 443 CE. As for the other information, if it is accurate information and sourced, it might be best to just move it to a more relevant page. As always, be bold. Tengu800 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine that you mention "be bold". That was in my mind after I put the McRae-quote about chán not being a separate institution at the beginning of the history-section. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Two sections:

Miscellaneous information

Formerly Bodhidharma was dated ca. 500 CE, but now ca. early 5th century.[11]

Several scholars have suggested that Bodhidharma as a person never actually existed, but was a combination of various historical figures over several centuries.[12]

Bodhidharma is associated with several other names, and is also known by the name Bodhitara. According to tardition he was given the name Bodhidharma by his teacher known variously as Panyatara, Prajnatara, or Prajñādhara.[13]

Bodhidharma arrived in China and visited Canton and Luoyang. In Luoyang, he is reputed to have engaged in nine years of silent meditation, coming to be known as "the wall-gazing Brahman".[13] This epithet is referring to him as an Indian holy man.

This information is also covered (or rejected) in the Bodhidharma-article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved part of this information to the Bodhidharma article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Blood-sermon

Often attributed to Bodhidharma is the Bloodstream Sermon, which was actually composed quite some time after his death: "Buddhas don't save buddhas. If you use your mind to look for a buddha, you won't see the Buddha. As long as you look for a buddha somewhere else, you'll never see that your own mind is the Buddha. Don't use a buddha to worship a buddha. And don't use the mind to invoke a buddha. Buddhas don't recite sutras. Buddhas don't keep precepts. And buddhas don't break precepts. Buddhas don't keep or break anything. Buddhas don't do good or evil. To find a buddha, you have to see your nature."[14]

It's not clear what's the relevance of this sermon. The "Threatise on the two entrances and four practices" would be better suited to quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed the Blood Sermon, and replaced it by the Two entrances and four practices. It's ascribed to T'an-lin, who is also quoted in the Bodhidharma-article, and this treatise was used by Huike and his students, according to MacRae. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sinification

It was scholar D.T. Suzuki's contention that a spiritual awakening was always the goal of Chán's training, but that part of what distinguished the tradition as it developed through the centuries in China was a way of life radically different from that of Indian Buddhists. In Indian Buddhism, the tradition of the mendicant prevailed, but Suzuki explained that in China social circumstances led to the development of a temple and training-center system in which the abbot and the monks all performed mundane tasks. These included food gardening or farming, carpentry, architecture, housekeeping, administration (or community direction), and the practice of Traditional Chinese medicine. Consequently, the enlightenment sought in Chán had to stand up well to the demands and potential frustrations of everyday life.[21][22]

Though this is inetresting, it seems to be out of context here. Maybe it fits better in the article on Chinese Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Already put it under the header of 'Chan monasticism'. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chanting

John Daido Loori justified the use of chanting sutras by referring to Zen master Dōgen.[43] Dōgen is known to have refuted the statement "Painted rice cakes will not satisfy hunger". This statement means that sutras, which are just symbols like painted rice cakes, cannot truly satisfy one's spiritual hunger. Dōgen, however, saw that there is no separation between metaphor and reality. "There is no difference between paintings, rice cakes, or any thing at all".[44] The symbol and the symbolized were inherently the same, and thus only the sutras could truly satisfy one's spiritual needs. To understand this non-dual relationship experientially, one is told to practice liturgy intimately.[45] In distinguishing between ceremony and liturgy, Dōgen states, "In ceremony there are forms and there are sounds, there is understanding and there is believing. In liturgy there is only intimacy." The practitioner is instructed to listen to and speak liturgy not just with one sense, but with one's "whole body-and-mind". By listening with one's entire being, one eliminates the space between the self and the liturgy. Thus, Dōgen's instructions are to "listen with the eye and see with the ear". By focusing all of one's being on one specific practice, duality is transcended. Dōgen says, "Let go of the eye, and the whole body-and-mind are nothing but the eye; let go of the ear, and the whole universe is nothing but the ear." Chanting intimately thus allows one to experience a non-dual reality. The liturgy used is a tool to allow the practitioner to transcend the old conceptions of self and other. In this way, intimate liturgy practice allows one to realize emptiness (sunyata), which is at the heart of Zen Buddhist teachings.

This too is interesting, but it's also rather specialized and detailed. I think it fits better in in the article on Buddhist chant. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Kick-of starter

In the context of the before-mentioned three divisions this quote by McRae makes sense - and it gives something to really think about and read the article with extra attention, instead of just 'consuming information'. But, that's my feeling about this quote. Of course, creating a section something like "Chan identity" or so is also possible. Still, I like it as a 'kick-starter'. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Polarities

This is quite an other introduction to the zen-teachings than the usual ones, which give a unitary definition of Zen ("Zen is..."). But these polarities were, and still are, discerneable in Zen. Although this makes it not easier to understand Zen, it does give a more accurate and, when studying it this way, more comprehensible way to understand Zen. Well, at least it does so to me. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dutch source

I'm sorry for those who can't read Dutch (most of you, I'm afraid). Lathouwers is a Dutch Chán-teacher Website, in English, who emphasizes karuna. The English title would be "More than a man can do". I searched through my library, but couldn't find a source which elaborates on the Bodhisattva-ideal. Lathouwers does, extensively. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions in Wikipedia

I have seen sprinkled throughout Wikipedia that Zen follows Madhyamaka. I believe this is true since famous Zen masters have referenced Madhyamaka. If this is true, how come it is not in the lead? LhunGrub (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The strongest doctrinal affinities between Zen and Indian Buddhism are with Tathagatagarbha doctrine and the teachings of the Prajnaparamita sutras. Historically, Buddhism in East Asia has been more centered around sutras than shastras. Regarding schools in East Asia with the strongest ties to Madhyamaka, I believe these would be the Sanlun school and the Tiantai school. Tengu800 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Landscape poem

It's not clear to me what the relevance is of the following, very specific topic, in the short and introductory section on Japanese Zen:

In the year 1410 a Zen Buddhist monk from Nanzen-ji, a large temple complex in the Japanese capital of Kyoto, wrote out a landscape poem and had a painting done of the scene described by the poem. Then, following the prevailing custom of his day, he gathered responses to the images by asking prominent fellow monks and government officials to inscribe it, thereby creating a shigajiku poem and painting scroll. Such scrolls emerged as a preeminent form of elite Japanese culture in the last two decades of the fourteenth century, a golden age in the phenomenon now known as Japanese Zen culture.[1]

Does anyone mind if I remove it? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out External Links

I've sorted out the external links, added some, and added subheaders to make it more accessible. But, SudoGhost, I remember you disagreed on adding subheaders, didn't you? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: separate pages for Chán and Zen

I'd like to re-open an old discussion: separate pages for Chán and Zen. There is a lot more to say on Japanese Zen then there is now on the page. Here is my proposal. Technically it would mean to move the Chán-information to the Chán-page, removing the specific Zen-information on this page (except for the 'Zen in Japan-section'), and copying my proposal to the Zenpage. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be a general page that covers all traditions, similar to what we have now, and a separate page to cover details and extra information about Japanese Zen Buddhism. Just my two cents. That seems like what you have going so far, and the proposed page looks pretty good. Tengu800 13:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I think the Zen page should be the general page that covers the general topic as a summary regarding the subject, with separate articles (as necessary) devoted to the specifics of Chinese Chán, Japanese Zen, and other relevant additional information (because unless I'm misreading something, the Chinese Chán school would, at least in the English Wikipedia, very likely would be named Zen per WP:COMMONNAME anyways). - SudoGhost 07:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the SPLIT-page! I'll read it, think it over once again, and apply the necessary templates. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Copying Zen to Chán

  1. Copied Draft to Japanese Zen Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. Copied above proposal to Talk:Japanese Zen Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  3. Placed Copie-template on Talk:Chinese Chán Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  4. Removed warning-tag from Chinese Chán Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  5. Put See also-tag on top of the page Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  6. Removed specific Chinese Chán information, which is being covered ont Chinese Chán page Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  7. Removed specific Japanese Zen information from Chinese Chán page; added links to relevant subsections on other pages Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So, I hope I did the splitting-and-copying the right way. No doubt, some mistakes will be found. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Web references & separate notes

As some of you will have noticed, Im changing all the references to harvcolnb, and now just sfn, to present a comprehensive list of sources. On the way, I found out how to group references, and was wondering what it would look like to group the web-references separately. Maybe it's just something esthetically, maybe I am (secretly) a little bit perfectionistic. Anyway, it's just a try-out. Same for separate notes. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Zazen and enlightenment

According to Ewkpates, some Zen-traditions state that meditation is not the way to enlightenment (=kensho?). Actually, to my opinion, what is being stressed in this citattion is that sole reliance on zazen, without an understanding of the aim of it, is useless, a mere following of conventions. Ch'an began as a meditation-school (John McRae 2003, Seeing through Zen); it's name is derived from the Chinese "translation" of dhyana. So the emphasis in Zen is on meditation. Could you give some references of scholarly works which refer to these possible differences, and the background of it? As far as I know, Ma-tsu lived in a period of decline of imperial powers, in a remote region where "urban Ch'an" (McRae 2003) was de-emphazised in favor of a down-to-earth approach which stressed the expression of buddhist insight in daily life (Yampolski, Philip (1999), Ch'an. A Historical Sketch. In: Yoshinori, Takeuchi (editor)(1999), Buddhist Spirituality. Later China, Korea, Japan and the Modern World. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. Pagina 3-23). Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Zen may have become a mediation school, but entire lineages not to mention great masters (Baso, for one) have rejected sitting meditation as a means to enlightenment. It is correct to say "some schools" or "some masters" as long as we say "not all". This is a deeply argued issue (historically) in the Zen community and shouldn't be glossed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewkpates (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

D.T. Suzuki

I'm not a fan of D.T. Suzuki, but he is essential to Zen in the West. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you be persuaded to say why you're not a fan of him? He has been hugely influential and his writings appear to show some genuine insight. He was a much respected figure. over to you, thanks Peter morrell 11:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See D.T. Suzuki; when you look at the history, you can find the parts I've added. Mostly, my objections come to down to the mystifying and uncritical approach that Suzuki took. I've read a little bit of him about twenty years ago, and decided I didn't want to read anymore of him. His writings knock me down, in a negative sense; I find them uninspiring.
Recently I found out it's not just my impression; see for example Sharf: The Zen of Japanese Nationalism.
Nevertheless, Suzuki definately has been very influential, so he has to be mentioned. Also, no especially, when you're not a fan. vive la différence! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember also that "Zen" includes traditions in Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese branches of Buddhism, in which D.T. Suzuki was most likely a marginal figure, if he was known at all. For example, the writings of Charles Luk basically illustrate contemporary traditional views of Chan Buddhism that were more or less unaffected by these various 20th century Zen trends in the West. Tengu800 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As much as D.T. Suzuki is a important figure, his friend R.H. Blyth is just as important. Translations of Zen texts by R.H. Blyth, his scholarship and commentary, are essential to understanding the history of Zen. Blyth's four volumes on Zen are essential reading, not so much of Blyth's own analysis, but for the sheer volume of translated material in chronological order. Ewkpates (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)ewkpates

Zen and doctrine

Zen is definitely Mahayana, and contains a lot of doctrine. This is clear alone yet from the subjects removed by Ewkpates. Where to start referencing? Let's mention just a few:

  • Faure, Bernard (1991), The Rhetoric of Immediacy. A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Universitu Press. ISBN 0-691-02963-6
  • Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd . ISBN 9780520237988
  • Buswell, Robert E. JR & Gimello, Robert M. (editors)(1994), Paths to Liberation. The Marga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
  • Kalupahana, David J. (1992), A history of Buddhist philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Oops! Sorry! Too much taken up by thoughts on which sources to mention here Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Both would seem to be right in different ways. There is no unified system called Zen, it is an amalgam of various ideas and traditions. This is true of any religion you care to choose. There are Catholics who do not accept the authority of the Pope, just as there are Christians who do not believe in a personal God. Likewise, there are in Zen people who do not believe, as Ewkpates says, in demons and spirits. But there are also people who do. It is hard to say exactly why Zen is even classed as part of the Mahayana, perhaps Joshua can give some examples that justify such a classification? It claims to be a tradition based solely on meditation, that vilifies scriptures, other than it's own, and which burns wooden statues of Buddha just to keep warm. This iconoclasm has set it apart from all other forms of Buddhism. Just my ten cents on this. Peter morrell 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Thank you for your reaction and challenge. It's good to be challenged on my statements; it necessitates me to give well-sourced information and quotations, which is also insightfull to myself.
I think you're completely right that Zen too is an almalgam of various ideas and traditions. But that does not mean there is no system, or teaching or doctrines in it.
The claims you mention are exactly that: claims, very appealing stories about what Zen is, according to it's own tradition. This has been described in a very insightfull way by John MacRae in "Seeing through Zen". I can really recommend this book to anyone interested in Zen. Let me give two quotes:

"In the Song dynasty (960-1279), Chinese Chan Buddhism reached something of a climax paradigm. By "climax paradigm", I mean a conceptual configuration by which Chan was described in written texts, practiced by its adherents, and, by extension, understood as a religious entity by the Chinese population as a whole [...] Previous events in Chan were interpreted through the lens of the Song-dynasty configuration, and subsequent developments in China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam were evaluated, even as they occurred, against what was known of the standards established during the Song. Thus the romanticized image of the great Tang-dynasty masters - Mazu and his students, Caoshan, Dongshan, and their students, and of Course Linji - was generated by Song-dynasty authors and functioned within Song-dynasty texts. Similarly, even where subsequent figures throughout East Asia - Hakuin Ekaku (1685-1769), the famous reviver of Japanese Rinzai, is the best example - evoke the examples of Bodhidharma, the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, Mazu, and the others, they do so through the conceptual filter of Song-dynasty Chan" (McRae 2003, p.119-120)

"...one important feature must not be overlooked: Chan was not nearly as separate from these other types of Buddhist activiteis as one might think [...] [T]he monasteries of which Chan monks became abbots were comprehensive institutions, 'public monasteries' that supported various types of Buddhist activities other than Chan-style meditation. The reader should bear this point in mind: In contrast to the independent denominations of Soto and Rinzai that emerged (largely by government fiat) in seventeenth-century Japan, there was never any such thing as an institutionally separate Chan 'school' at any time in Chinese Buddhist history" (emphasis by McRae)(McRae 2003 p.122)

I think that this quote makes clear that Zen created it's own narrative, and is not so distinctive from other brands of buddhism.
Regarding the use of doctrines and teachings, a quote by Hakuin himself:

"After you have reached the nondual realm of equality of reality, it is essential that you clearly understand the awakened ones' profound principle of differentiation. After this you must master the methods for helping sentient beings [...] This is why one must arouse an attitude of deep compassion and commitment to help all sentient beings everywhere. To begin with, you should study day and night the verbal teachings of the Buddha and patriarchs so that you can penetrate the principles of things in tehir infinite variety. Ascertain and analyze, one by one, hte profundities of the five houses and the seven schools of Zen and the wondrous doctrines of the eight teachings given in the five periods of Buddha's teaching career" (Albert Low (2006), Hakuin on Kensho, p.35)

.

Regarding Zen being part of Mahayana-buddhism: yes, Chan is a dstinctly Chinese product (see Whalen Lai, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Nevertheless, it is Mahayana. If only we take the supposed basis of Bodhidharma's teaching, the Lankavatara-sutra. This was an Indian Mahayana-sutra, trying to bring the tathagatagarba-doctrine and the madhyamaka-philosophy in accord with each other.
As last comment: the image of Zen as an a-historical transcendental truth is a modern construction, created especially in Japan as a reaction to western imperialism, and endorsed by western followers. See Robert H. Sharf, Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited and John McRae (2005), Introduction (to the reprint of Dumoulin's Zen Buddhism: A History. India and China as starters. Further publications have already been mentioned before by me.
Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joshua, for such a detailed and interesting reponse. Thinking aloud, my question was mostly rhetorical, but after writing it, and from further reflection, it occurred to me that it MUST be Mahayana because such overtly disrespectful iconoclasm could never be part of the Hinayana tradition, its frequent use of the term Bodhisattva and its scriptures: Lotus Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, etc, are all Mahayana texts. So in summary form these points came to mind as clear and simple ways to substantiate its inclusion as part of the Mahayana tradition. However, as you also say, it has created over many centuries its own narrative and constructed its own cultural image as a distinct religious form. And as you say, it is always instructive to remind ourselves of these easily forgotten points. many thanks Peter morrell 17:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this interesting text, when Googling "Zen is not Mahayana" and, there-after, "Zen is not Buddhism": Paul L. Swanson, Why They Say Zen Is Not Buddhism. Recent Japanese Critiques of Buddha-Nature, with this nice quote from Hakayama:

"I have said that “Zen is not Buddhism” but do not recall ever saying that “Chinese Ch’an is not Buddhism.” This difference may appear minor, but it is an important distinction. The reason is that anything which shows no attempt at “critical philosophy” based on intellect (prajñ„), but is merely an experiential “Zen” (dhy„na, bsam gtan), whether it be in India or Tibet or wherever, cannot be Buddhism.".

It's a really interesting discussion, but way beyond the original statements of Ewkpates. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that Ewkpates seems to have been talking to a mythologised and romanticised version of Zen as popularised both in Japan and in the West, maybe the article should make some mention of this point, don't you think? so as to more clearly differentiate between what we might term the 'orthodox scriptural version of Zen' and this other more popular form that is out there and which clearly comprises a living reality to some. What do you think? thanks Peter morrell 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. But this asks for a careful wording, because of the sensitivities involved in religious issues. Interestingly, Steven Heine has used almost the same wording: Traditional Zen Narrative (TZN) versus Historical and Cultural Criticism (HCC)(Heine (2008), Zen Skin, Zen Marrow, p.6). Actually, it makes three kinds, the western popularized version being the third. McMahan has described this third version in "The making of Buddhist modernity". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, well you have masses of material here to work with, so why not put something together, if you have time, and place a draft version of it here for folks to comment on until we get some consensus about its wording, and then it can go on the article? sounds like a good plan to me, thanks Peter morrell 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. The header is clear: Zen narratives. Does anybody know if it is convenient to create a subpage for this draft? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Zen is NOT Mahayana.

'Where in any Zen Master's writings is there the suggestion of either a belief in Universal freedom from suffering OR a belief in the supernatural?' If there are two basic doctrines of Mahayana, those would be two possibilities, and Zen does not embrace either in the writings of any Zen Master, past or present, that I've found. In order for two religions to be linked they have to espouse the same basic beliefs.

It is not enough to say, "somebody wrote a book that says Zen has doctrine." What is the doctrine of Zen? Belief in what, exactly? God? Reincarnation? Afterlife? Spirits? Good? Evil? And which Zen Masters, which lineages, espouse this belief?

The big problem I have with this page is that the conversation is based on books mostly written 1) recently, 2) by scholars rather than Zen followers and 3) unbalanced by any Zen history or the Zen Masters themselves. The easiest example is to say the Christianity is actual a form of Judaism because Jesus was a Jew. Scholars have argued this. But Jesus himself, and those that followed his traditions, completely reject this lineage. By the same token, if when discussing Zen we should focus on Zen Masters, both contemporary and historically, rather than third hand academic discussions. Oddly enough, Google and a handful of web pages may not be all the resources needed to fully describe the history of Zen.

Note: There are koans that touch on the supernatural (Hyakujo and the fox) but koans are notoriously tricky, often misleading, and in the case of Hyakujo ends in both a paradox and a slap, which detracts from it's seriousness as an endorsement of the supernatural. Ewkpates (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)ewkpates

Hi Ewkpates. Did you bother to read any of the studies I recommanded? I'll try to respond to the points you mention.
  • "Zen is not Mahayana": is this your personal point of view, or a view based on secundary and tertiary sources? Could you provide any source for this point of view? And if zen is not Mahayana, then what is it? Again, read Whalen Lai, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey
  • Regarding the "supernatural": Bernard Faure has done very interesting research on this topic Bernard Faure, The cult of relics and Justin Ritzinger and Marcus Bingenheimer, Whole-body relics in Chinese Buddhism – Previous Research and Historical Overview.
  • Basic doctrines: could you please explain what exactly are the basic doctrines of Zen, according to which secondary and tertiary sources?
  • Zen emphasizes that the 'essence' of yourself, of reality, is not a 'thing'. This seems to be an essentially point in Zen, though not the only one. But that's not unique to zen, despite it's rhetorics. It's thoroughly Buddhist, from the beginnings on. It's also emphasized in the prajnaparamita-sutra's - which are not written by Zen-buddhists, but are still being chanted by Zen-buddhists today, as you probably do know.
  • Wikipedia-articles are, by definition, based on secunday and tertiary sources.
  • Academic research in this field is progressing, and is changing the popular narrative of Zen and it's history.
  • What do you mean by "any Zen history"? Anecdotes? The Traditional Zen Narrative? That is being mentioned, and being put into context. An example of "Zen history" would be Dumoulin's "Zen. A history". McRae has given an introduction to the 2005 reprint of this book, which makes very clear what has been changed regarding the scholarly view on Zen McRae (2005), Introduction by John to the reprint of Dumoulin's "A history of Zen"
  • Regarding Jesus, I can recommand "Rober M. Price (2003), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?". He makes clear that most, if not all of the autobiographic information and sayings attributed to Jesus are based on Old Testament texts, and cannot be reagrded as authentic, to the point that is it's questionable if there ever was a historical Jesus. Apart from that, yes, Early Christianity definately was a form of Judaism. What else? Paul was proud to be a Pharizee.
  • "Third hand academic discussions", "Google and a handful of web pages": that's not exactly a fair representation of the sources being used in the article. Researchers like John McRae, Bernard Faure and Steven Heine are highly regarded scientists, who take great measures to give a balanced view on the history of Zen, based on the study of original texts. That's exactly what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on, not the personal views on primary texts of Wikipedians.
  • Koans and the supernatural: read "Steven Heine (2002), Koans of the Zen Masters" From the preface: "This book is a translation with commentary of sixty koan cases that feature an important supernatural or ritual element [...] In contrast to conventional interpretations that view koans as psychological exercises with a purely iconoclastic intention, the approach here highlights the rich component of mythological and marvelous elements that pervade this genre of literature" (p.xiii).
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Parker, Joseph D. "Zen Buddhist Landscape Arts of Early Muromachi Japan (1336–1573) (1999) pg 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen/Archive_7&oldid=1137343661"