This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:09, January 22, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance 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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! But so this means that all those publications, even scientific ones, are 'wrong'? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

There's a lot more to koans than "consistently and intentionally inconsistent". Koans definitely don't "assert that there is no doctrine or "teaching" in Zen, either written or spoken." On the contrary, koans are "public cases" based on the teachings and doctrine, meant to illustrate these teachings and doctrines. Again, see for example John Mcrae 2003, and Mary Jacks 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Same reason Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an error. Koans are not "teaching" or "doctrine". What does Nansen cutting the cat in half "mean"? What does it teach? What "doctrine" does it espouse? Should we all start cutting up cats? Zen cannot be taught. This is a central thesis of Zen, both historically and in the writings of Zen Masters in the last 100 years. Religious doctrine is "the teaching" of the religion. Koans don't teach Zen. Blowing out candles, holding up a finger, and asking questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" don't teach Zen. That's nonsense. When Jesus says I GIVE YOU A NEW COMMANDMENT, LOVE THY NEIGHBOR he's espousing doctrine. Doctrine is something that communicates a concrete specific message. Koans don't do this.

For exactly this reason, Zen is not Mahayana. Please review that conversation. Ewkpates (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)ewkpates[reply]

I agree with all the points that Ewkpates has made in these recent comments to this talkpage. Zen is not specifically Mahayana, though closely allied to it, it stands outside the scriptural tradition and often scorns it, it uses the term bodhisattva but ambiguously perhaps, it uses some Mahayana scriptures as mentioned above, and it emphasies practice over doctrine. Added to which, it is certainly not a doctrine in its own right but principally a method. Therefore, I believe all these points should somehow be accommodated and to figure in the article. Maybe we can find a way to do this? thanks Peter morrell 07:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are gross generalizations of "Zen". Actually, plenty of Zen traditions and teachers have strongly emphasized scripture study (e.g. Yongming Yanshou). See The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy. The linji/rinzai school just happened to be the school favored by rich powerful people, and it is well known that rewrote history to their own ends. When you talk about anti-intellectualism, you are talking about the rinzai/linji school, specifically in Japan. Zen in China strongly emphasizes scripture today because of its synthesis with Pure Land and Tiantai, and Soto Zen in Japan strongly emphasizes reading Dogen and some select scriptures. It's important not to confuse Zen with the dominant school of Zen. And of course Koans are basically only used in Rinzai/Linji Zen with a few exceptions. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koans are a pedagogic devise, meant to aid students in their study of Zen and the Buddhist teachings of which Zen is a part. Again again, read McRae 2003 and Mary Jacks 2007. As are the use of Buddhist scripture (recommended by Hakuin), chanting (recommanded by Keidō Fukushima), and zazen (recommanded by almost any Zen-teacher, and being practiced in almost any Zen temple and monastery). The fact that a popular saying describes Zen as standing outside the textual tradition of Buddhism, does not mean that this is actually the case. "Scorning the scriptural tradition" is part of the Traditional Zen Narrative, which became popular in Song Dynasty China. Yet Zen is notorious for the amount of texts it has produced, and reproduced in (wood)prints. Best example, of course, is the very use of koan-collections. It's a great irony that collections of highly edited texts, reproduced in the thousands in printed editions, are taken as an example of the 'non-reliance' on words. Same for the picture of Zen as "not relying on words" and "scorning texts", which is being spread by printed texts - by words. Compare it to the motto "Sola Scriptura" of the Reformation. Reformed Churches base an important part of their identity on the struggle against Catholicism in 16th and 17th century Europe. Yet, the texts which describe and maintain this identity are not scripture proper, so they stay out of scrutiny when discussing the finesses of the Christian teachings. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I agree with this statement. It's gets at the two truths doctrine. One the one hand, Koans are beyond scripture, but on the other hand, they are really just scripture. All of the commentaries on Koan collections are analogous to commentaries on the bible or koran or whatever. The source of confusion is the fact that Koan is scripture that is supposed to teach you something beyond scripture, but that doesn't mean they're not scripture. Such is the nature of talking about Zen! DJLayton4 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these points made on either side are in the article so there is still some way to go to incorporate all these views. Peter morrell 06:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the mu-koan is a good example of the role of "doctrine" in Zen. On face-value, different Zen-masters give different, contradicting answers. If those answers are to be taken as literal doctrine, then they don't make sense, since they are completely contradicting each other. But they all point to an underlying issue: what's the essence - of "you", of "reality"? When Buddhism was introduced in China, Chinese culture believed in an underlying essence. Buddhism was taken to state the same, as formulated in the Buddha-nature doctrine. Only after several centuries did it dawn that this is not the case - or, at least, that sunyata refers to a different understanding of "essence". This clash of opposing interpretations can still be found in Zen doctrine. It is marked by a shift from tathagata-garba and Buddha-nature texts (Lankavatara-sutra) to prajnaparamita-sutras (Heart sutra, diamond sutra). It is also what the mu-koan is pointing to: don't take this Buddha-nature teaching (which students first had to know before this koan made any sense!) too literal. Hence the contradicting answers: shaking students out of their literal an acquired way of thinking, let them ponder over it by themselves, and find out what "essence" there is by themself. Whalen Lai gives an insightful overview of the introduction of Buddhism in China, and the changing understanding on Buddha-nature and sunyata Whalen Lai, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. So, indeed: koans are not "doctrine" on themselves, yet they are a means to understanding the teachings which are used to explain the Zen "experience". : Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there real proof that this was what caused the shift from the Lankavatara Sutra to the Diamond Sutra? I've read other explanations for this shift, from Chinese sources. Also, there are statements in Tathagatagarbha sutras that the Tathagatagarbha is the same as Prajnaparamita, etc. Besides, by the accounts of the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves, they were spoken so that "deluded" people would give up their misguided fears of emptiness, and quickly become buddhas. I don't see in any of this how Tathagatagarbha is fundamentally different from Prajnaparamita, or how a Chinese interpretation of Tathagatagarbha could have been fundamentally wrong according to the principles of the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves. Tengu800 13:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you might be right about the reasons for this shift. This is what Whalen Lai writes:

Up to that point [Shenhui (670–762)], the school did not call itself Chan (meditation), a rather colorless name. It was in fact still looking for a name, and the custom then was to tie a new teaching to a sutra. Huike used the Srimala sutra, but Daoxin later drew inspiration from the Awakening of Faith. Members of the East Mountain Teaching, realizing that the Awakening of Faith was a sastra, came up with the next best; they conjured up a lineage of Lankavatara sutra masters, this being the sutra that informed the Awakening of Faith. Shenhui then perpetuated the myth that Huineng favored the Diamond Sutra. Actually, none of these labels really indentifies the school’s ideological affiliation, because this tradition apparently never used one sutra to legitimize itself.(p.17-18

Regarding the "fear of emptiness", the same is being stated in the Lankavatara-sutra. It relativizes the 'thing-ness' of the Buddha-nature (which is a point of discussion at the Buddha-nature Talk-page). This is one of the things (...) that Whalen lai writes about it:

China was attracted especially to the doctrine of the universal Buddha-nature, so much so that Xuanzang’s Yogacara school was later called Hinayanist simply for deviating from it. By teaching the Buddha-nature, the Nirvana Sutra seems to reverse the earlier Buddhist teaching of no-self and the initial Mahayana teaching of universal emptiness. Daosheng circumvented the problem, noting succinctly that there was no samsaric self of life and death but there was a nirvanic self, which was the Buddha-nature. Still, it was not always easy to keep the Buddha-self from being confused with the Daoist immortal soul, despite all cautions against this. (p.11)

Kalupahana (A History of Buddhist Philosophy, 1994, Motilall) does see a struggle to give clues to students about ultimate reality, without going back to scripture (e.g. the Lankavatara-sutra). According to him, the use of kung-an's served this role (p.231). The use of the "the Vajracchedika represents an attempt to return to the Buddha's teaching, which were gradually becoming infested with absolute and transcendentalist metapfysics" (p.232). Kalupahana then quotes Hui-neng's verse ("No tree" etc), after which he writes:

[T]his verse represents abandoning the search for a metaphysical entity (that is, one's own nature, identified with an ultimate reality in the highest state of meditation) [...] {T]he statement that "buddha nature is always clean and pure" need not be confused with assertions involving metaphysical concepts about "Buddha nature", which for many thinkers means an eternal reality or entity that is inherent in all human beings [...] It is not without interest that on the day Hui-neng composed his verse, the Fifth Patriarch, Hung-jen, invited him into the hall at midnight and explained to him the Vajracchedika.

Hence my statement on the interpretation of Buddha-nature and the change from Lankavatara to Diamond Sutra. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two sections:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

The way the following quotes are stringed together is not appropriate. It's ot of context, and suggests a coherence which is not part of the original texts:

In 9th century China, the Zen of figures like Te-shan "was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical,"(Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, Harvard University Press, 2000, p.295) maintaining, for example, that "Zen is not a philosophy. It is beyond words and intellect,"(Masao Abe, William R. LaFleur, Zen and Western Thought, University of Hawaii Press, 1989, p.4) and that "the superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines."(Charles McCauley, Zen and the Art of Wholeness, iUniverse, 2005, p.61)

This way it is being suggested that the Masao Abe & Mccauley-quotes are citations from Te-Shan, which they are not. They should be quoted separate, in the proper context. Also, the complete quote from Masao Abe is:

It is clear that Zen is not a philosophy. It is beyond words and intellect and is not, as in the case of philosophy, a study of the processes governing thought and conduct, nor a theory of principles or laws that regulate people and the universe. For the realisation of Zen, practice is absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, Zen is neither a mere anti-intellectualism nor a cheap intuitism nor is it an encouragement to animal-like spontaneity. Rather, it embraces a profound philosophy. Although intellectual understanding cannot be a substitute for Zen's awakening, practice without a proper and legitimate form of intellectual understanding is often misleading

I think the full quote makes clear that it's meaning is quite different from the suggestion which is given in this link of quotes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought you would find fault with it somehow! However, the theme expressed is a valid one. Zen is characterised in MOST books as anti-intellectual even though many qualify that as I have also done in the quotes used as a whole. If you insist on reverting the edit then go ahead seeing as you seem to claim ownership of the article. Of course, you could suggest instead a compromise re-wording of that paragraph which can then be discussed here. Peter morrell 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the rewording, though the best thing would be to give separate attention to this idea of "anti-intellectualism". Actually, this has already been mentioned, in the section on "Zen narratives" in the article on Japanese Zen. Labeling some question, remark or bit of information "anti-intellectualism" can be a way to ward off critical thinking and questioning. And that's a dogmatic way of thinking, to my opinion. Not all books acknowledge this "anti-intellectualism" in an unqualified way. As I've mentioned before, researchers like John Mc Rae, Bernard Faure and Steven Heine do provide the context for this perspective on Zen. For a comprehensive overview, see McMahan's "The making of Buddhist modernity". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to cut up the string of quotes rightaway, and to put in the full quote by Masao Abe. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine, don't worry: a great improvement! thanks Peter morrell 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fair response. Thank you. Let's keep assuming good faith. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is always a very happy outcome when agreement is reached following some slight difference of views. cheers Peter morrell 07:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "zen and doctrine" and "Zen and koans", the problem seems to be "the finger pointing to the moon". The Zen-tradition is the finger(s) pointing to the moon; the moon is ... (fill in your favorite Zen-quote). Maybe we can add an intro the teachings-section, which mentions this saying, mentions the diversity of "fingers", gives one or two quotes from the secondary literature that give a description of "the moon" (adding more fingers), and two quotes from the Zen-tradition itself saying what "the moon" is. Regarding the last point, would it be fair to take one Soto-quote, preferably Dogen, and one Rinzai-quote, from either Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin?

This would be my proposal for the body of this text.

Zen-teachings can be likened to "the finger pointing to the moon". It points to the realization of the nature of reality, being devoid of independently existing "things", yet warns against taking it's teachings to be this insight itself:

Wujin Chang, a nun, asked the Sixth Zen patriarch, Hui Neng, for help in understanding the Mahanirvana Sutra. The master answered that he could not read, but if the nun would read it aloud for him, he would do his best to help her. The nun then asked, "If you can't even read the words, how can you understand the truth behind them?"
"Truth and words are unrelated. Truth can be compared to the moon," answered Hui Neng, pointing to the moon with his finger, "And words can be compared to a finger. I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger in order to be able to see the moon."(source?)

The moon is

Quote from secondary literature

As [Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin] states it:

Quote from Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin

Dogen says it in these words:

Quote from Dogen

The finger is the Zen-tradition, which, despite it's warnins against confusing the moon and the finger, has developed a wide range of teachings and texts.

How about this? Let's start searching for nice quotes, acceptable for a diversity of pointing Wikipedians! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch translations of the Teachings of Ma-Tsu (Ssu-chia yu-lu, Ma-tsu. De Gesprekken. Bavo Lievens, 1981) attributes "the finger pointing at the moon" to the Lankavatara Sutra (p.106, note 78), quoting the saying from the Lanka, plus the next line on the workings of the skandhas:

3. As the ignorant grasp the finger-tip and not the moon, (224) so those who cling to the letter, know not my truth.
4. The Citta dances like a dancer; the Manas resembles a jester; the [Mano-] vijnana together with the five [Vijnanas] creates an objective world which is like a stage. (Translation: Lankavatara Sutra, chapter LXXXII, p.192 Suzuki-translation, p.223/224 in brackets)

This note is being given by Lievens to clarify a dialogue of Ma-Tsu (§19, p.105-106):

Master Liang visited Ma-tsu.

Ma-tsu said: I heard that the master is great at explaining the sutras and sastras, is that so?
Liang said: Indeed
Ma-tsu said: With what do you explain?
Liang said: I explain with the mind ["de geest", which is consciousness, mind, vijnana, mana?!?]

Ma-tsu said: The mind is like an artist and consciousness is [like] his helper, how can you explain the teachings with that? (translation into English by Joshua Jonathan)

So, the Zen-tradition uses the Diamond-sutra, which refers back to the skandhas from the oldest teachings. And the Zen-tradition, in the persons of Hui-neng and Ma-tsu, uses sayings from the Lankavatara-sutra, which also refer back to the skandhas. I think that these examples of "intertextuality" make it very clear that the Zen-tradition does use Buddhist texts, and/but that it employs it's own means to awaken the insight that these texts try to transmit. According to Lievens, Zen does not reject texts, but it tries to awaken the traditional Budddhist insight (of emptiness, no-"thing"-ness (my wording, not Lievens')) by unconventional means, to avoid reification and conceptualizing. Which, it seems to me, is a very accurate description of the Zen-tradition ànd the insight it is pointing to. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be not that easy, to find a good quote in the secondary literature. Maybe the Diamond Sutra can be useful too:

As the Diamond Sutra states:

[E]very disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak sambhodi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discrad, also, all ideas about such conceptions and al ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions.
While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas (tr. Wai-tao, in Goddard A Buddhist Bible)

Maybe this is already enough, two quotes? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes which show Zen has an ambiguous relationship with scriptures. I will find and place here more on other themes in due course.

"Beyond all doubt Zen belongs to Mahayanism," (Nukariya, p.41) "Zen regards all sutras as a sort of pictuired food which has no power of appeasing spiritual hunger...yet it makes use of them irrespective of Mahayana or Hinayana." (Nukariya, p.47) "Zen has no business with the dregs and sediments of sages of yore." (Nukariya, p.51)

Zen "dares to be independent of scripture." (Abe & Heine, p.19)

"Zen...knows no boundaries, no scriptures, no specialised technique." (Humphreys, p.141) Rather it relies on "the virility of personal experience, with the authority of scriptures and well-worn phrases...even Buddhism, left behind." (Humphreys, p.184) "it uses but few scriptures." (Humphreys, p.199) "it has no scriptures of its own, and no sermons...it uses many scriptures, in particular the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra." (Humphreys, p.104)

"From the Zen perspective, scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth." (Hisamatsu et al, p.24)

Sources

• Masao Abe & Steven Heine, Zen and Comparative Studies, University of Hawaii Press, 1996
• Shin'ichi Hisamatsu, Gishin Tokiwa & Christopher Ives, Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition: Hisamatsu's Talks on Linji, University of Hawaii Press, 2002
• Christmas Humphreys, Zen Comes West: the Present and Future of Zen Buddhism in Western Society, Routledge, 1995
• Kaiten Nukariya, The Religion of the Samurai and Origin of Man: A Study of Zen Philosophy and Discipline in China and Japan, (1913) Forgotten Books, 2007

Maybe some of this can be used in the article? thanks Peter morrell 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're catching the same point: sutras are an aid to insight, but not the insight itself.

• Nukariya seems problematic to me. See Robert H. Sharf (1993), The Zen of Japanese Nationalism. Nukariya is from 1913, which is not exactly like catching up with recent research on Zen, and had a specific nationalistic agenda.
• I like Masao Abe; as a matter of fact, he gave me one of my favorite Zen-quotes: "The wrestling mind is the true mind" (which, actually, is a quote from Mazu...). Anyway, I Googled the quote. The full quote stresses that Zen refers to "the spiritual source 'prior to' what is expressed in the sutras". With other words, sutras are 'fingers' pointing to insight. How about taking this one as a reference for "Zen teachings point to awakening, the realization of the nature of reality, which is devoid of independently existing "things", yet warns against taking its teachings to be this insight itself"?
• Christmas Humphrey seems to contradict himself: "few scriptures", "many scriptures". And "no sermons": Hisamatsu's Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition? Though, of course, that's a matter of naming. But Humphreys is contradicted by other sources when he says that Zen has no scripture. See for example Dumoulin or Albert Low, or Hakuin who recommands studying the sutras after attaining kensho and having undertaken further practice.
• The Hisamatsu-quote has got a context too: story 75 from Linji's records, where-in Huangbo is reading a sutra, which shocks Linji. Hm, an acknowledged Zen-master reading a sutra? So, Zen-masters do read sutras? That appears to be exactly the problem according to Hisamatsu: Huangbo blames Linji for this remark. Linji leaves, but starts to doubt, and returns. Hisamatsu further explains that one has to reach the point where one is really free, even free from rejecting sutras - as far as I understand Hisamatsu here, though in this case I'm not sure if I understand it. By the way, somehow I remember Suzuki somewhere writing the same. But I think we should be careful about this quote, because it stands in a context that also says that sutras and teachings are not the core Buddhist insight itself.

It seems to me that the basic point is not the rejection of sutras an sich (though some writers seem to state this quite bluntly), but the insight those sutras are refering to, which is the essence that the Zen-tradition wants to transmit.

Looking forward to the other quotes! Keep on going; different opinions help to enlarge understanding Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Joshua, but I don't think rejecting books just because they were written 95 years or so ago is a valid excuse for saying they are no good. I have had no contact with Ewkpates, but I do have some sympathy with the views he has expressed, and for one reason, BECAUSE those things he states are also stated in many books on Zen, and I have tried to show that fact. But if we are going to 'cherry pick' which books are deemed OK and which you don't like, then I'm afraid you are placing your own POV above the collaboration principle on wiki that respects everyone's right to contribute and for NPOV to be established as an overriding principle in an article. The ideas he mentions should go in the article, but obviously we need to then think about wording and balance. That's my ten cents on that one! (o: thanks Peter morrell 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it can be. Wiki-sources are supposed to be reliable and preferably secondary. Zen research has taken a great flight since Yampolski's translation of the platform-sutra. This recent research is gradually reaching a wider audience. Apart from that, if Dumoulin is not being as a secondary source anymore by a reseacher like McRae, how about Nukariya?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, NPOV means we don't cherry pick our sources though. Peter morrell 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu. Peter those quotes largely reflect a rinzai attitude towards scripture. Here's a nice passage that clarifies this a bit from Albert Welter's The Linji lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy (pg. 51 & 125) :

As is well known, one of the hallmarks of Chan is its claim to be "a separate transmission outside the teaching" where "the teaching" refers to the doctrinal teachings and scriptures of traditional Buddhism, and "not dependent on words and letters". In fact, the slogan "a separate transmission outside the teaching" is a late, post-Tang innovation, developed to highlight Chan's independence from Buddhist doctrinal schools and the scriptural tradition they are based on. The earlier slogan, "do not depend on words and letters," developed during the Tang, reflects not a renunciation of the scriptures but a new understanding of them. Instead of written commentaries on the scriptures, Chan proclaimed itself a tradition of oral commentary. The scriptures are not rejected but treated as the Buddha's "record of sayings."In effect, the scriptures of the Buddha became the dialogue records of the Buddha. The Buddha's scriptures became seen in the manner of Chan patriarchs' teachings, as the transcripts of oral instruction ["A separate transmission outside the teaching"] clearly represents a retrospective attribution by Song Linji faction proponents on to their alleged founding patriarch, used as a device to affirm contemporary factional identity.

It was largely the Rinzai/Linji school that deviated from this, while Soto/Caodong largely retained it. We have to be careful when describing "Zen" since it is practiced quite differently by different lineages. Here's another nice big excerpt with a quotation from Yongming Yanshou, an extremely influential Zen monk (pg. 35-36):

A question in the Zongjing lu confronts Yanshou's interpretation of Chan directly:

Question- If you want to clarify the source of truth, you should simply promote the message of the patriarchs. What use is there in combining their teachings with citations from the words and teachings of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, taking these as a guide. That is why members of Chan lineages claim "by availing oneself of the eyes of a snake, one will not distinguish things for oneself. If one only becomes a sage of words and letters, one will not enter the ranks of the patriarchs.

Answer- The above claim is not intended to prohibit reading the scriptures. My worry is that people will not know well the words of the Buddha. People develop understanding through texts. When people forget about the Buddha's message, one safeguards the minds of beginners on the basis of texts. Whoever understands the teaching through the corpus of Buddhist writings will not create a mind and realm of objects in opposition to each other, but will realize the mind of the Buddha directly. What error is there in this?

Yanshou was thoroughly opposed to treating Chan as some independent patriarchal tradition, separate from "the words and teachings of the buddhas and bodhisattvas." According to Yanshou, the Chan tradition transmitted to Mahakasyapa and passed down through the patriarchs in India and China all stems from the words and teachings of the original teacher.

DJLayton4 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not read my post very carefully. I used the word ambiguous. I did not say that Zen is not Mahayana or has no scriptures, it was Ewkpates who said that -- see his posts above. BUT he has a point because many books on Zen also say the same thing. Therefore, regardless of what you think, these are perfectly valid points that should be mentioned in the article. That is my sole brief: balance. thankyou Peter morrell 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ideas Ewkpates mentions are part of a modern romantic image of Zen. The flaws in this image are described by various studies, most notably mcMahan's "The making of Buddhist modernity". Many material can also be found on [2]. This modern image has been mentioned in the article on Zen.

Up till now, I see no justification for Ewkpates views, only falsifications. It's clear that Zen is part of Mahayana, and that sutras and texts are part of Zen. Those sayings have a context, and are used for a specific agenda. Sayings as "Scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth", given without a proper context and the full quote, are not "prove", but just that: disembedded quotes. In fact, this presents yet another irony: a new dependence on texts, to "prove" that Zen does not use texts. What these quotes point to, is that sutras are "fingers pointing to the moon", not the moon itself. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: "One often reads claims that Zen does not belong to the Mahayana tradition at all (1, 2) and does not use any scriptures of its own (3, 4, 5). Yet, in the literature monks are fequently called bodhisattvas and various Mahayana sutras are recited daily in many Zen monasteries. Therefore, these views are not seriously regarded these days as credible (6) being dismissed by some modern writers (7, 8) as belonging to a romanticised view of Zen that flourished in the West especially during the 1950s and 1960s. (8,9)" Or something along those lines. You would have to insert the refs in the brackets as appropriate. Comments please. thankyou -- now partly revised.

However, I think that if Zen is compared to the Tibetan tradition, where much greater emphasis is placed on texts, and the training in texts is just about as important as the training in meditation, then by comparison, Zen does look as if it disregards the study of texts almost completely. Maybe this is one source of the point of view. Peter morrell 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]