Japan Unassessed

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: 13:10, January 22, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

Template:FAOL

1 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To:

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

I would like to add:

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

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

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Isshoni 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think the current wording of the intro is acceptably clear. I'm not really sure what it means. It says, "[Zen] emerged as a distinct school in China (as Chan) and spread to ..." What does it mean to say that it emerged as a distinct as something else? If we are going to keep Chan in the intro, I'm concerned about how we're going to reword it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

copied from user talk:Rick Block

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

Sergio Zaccone (Upasaka Tae Bi)

_/|\_

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

And this was the suggestion:

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

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

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

Well, if I take the first point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and your answer,

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

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

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

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

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