Talk:Zen: Difference between revisions
2a02:a210:2901:c300:15c6:16b3:691c:b8e7 (talk) |
2a02:a210:2901:c300:15c6:16b3:691c:b8e7 (talk) |
||
Line 913: | Line 913: | ||
<ref>Carl Bielefeld, ''Dogen's Manual of Zen Mediation'', Page 11, ISBN 0520068351</ref> |
<ref>Carl Bielefeld, ''Dogen's Manual of Zen Mediation'', Page 11, ISBN 0520068351</ref> |
||
Zen followers are not content to pursue [[Satori|Enlightenment]] through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the [[Gnosis|Supreme Experience]] which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the [[Godhead]]'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond [[Conceptual model|conceptual thought]] and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. <ref>John Blofeld, ''Zen |
Zen followers are not content to pursue [[Satori|Enlightenment]] through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the [[Gnosis|Supreme Experience]] which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the [[Godhead]]'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond [[Conceptual model|conceptual thought]] and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. <ref>John Blofeld, ''Zen Teachings of Huang Po'', page 14, ISBN: 0-394-17217-5</ref> |
||
____ |
____ |
Revision as of 12:28, 16 January 2020
Zen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
||||||||||
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 version
-- It could be any version-- is so good!
I just laughed and laughed.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednblu (talk • contribs) 13 July 2015 (UTC)
History section
After comparing how much of the material which was in the history section is just the same stuff that is in Chan Buddhism's history section, I decided to make a bold edit and remove most of it while moving over material that was not in Chan Buddhism (see the history of this article for that edit). I then left a much shorter historical overview in its place. Those who want more detail on Chinese Chan's history can still access all of this material in the Chan Buddhism page which is linked on this page as a main article under Chinese Chan. There is no point is replicating the same material in two wikipedia articles. Javierfv1212 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Do the moderators of this page even study zen?
Some of the issues with the page |
---|
I stopped reading here, as there is quite a lot of information. I'm sure there's more wrong on this page though. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the people moderating the page have not actually studied the topics they have been posting in, which I think should be the first and foremost requirement for adding information to a wiki page. So I hope that not only the misinformation gets corrected, but that the people currently moderating this page get relieved from their position as well. |
Sources |
---|
Platform Sutra - Huineng Sun Faced Buddha - Mazu Gateless Gate - Wumen Book of Serenity - Wansong Blue Cliff Records - Yuanwu Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching - Dahui Master Yunmen, From the Record of the Chan Teacher "Gate of the Clouds" The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi - Burton Watson The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield The Recorded Saying of Zen Master Joshu - James Green Radical Zen, The Sayings of Joshu - Yoel Hoffmann Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt Zen and Zen Classics vol. 1-5 - R.H. Blyth Pruning the Bodhi tree - Jamie Hubbard Some Zen Masters; Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:DD49:1E8D:F75E:668C (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, anonymous user from IP...668C. I moved your comment to the bottom of the page. This article doesn't have 'moderators' exactly - it has been written by numerous editors over the years, and is open for anyone to edit. Anyone can change the content, provided they do so in accordance with our relevant policies and guidelines. The problem with your comment above is that you make a load of assertions, and list a load of sources, but you aren't attributing any of your assertions to the particular sources. What would be a lot more helpful would be if you said something like 'Change X to Y, based on this source (including URL if it's an online source, or ISBN and page number if it's a book). Take a look at WP:RS for guidance on what we would consider to be a reliable source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the moderators of this page do study Zen - for over thirty years, more than half of my life. And you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, you don't. The fact that you dont even read what Dahui had to say says enough. You study meditation, or silent illumination. Something zen masters continuously reject.
- There are moderators though, if I edit some things and someone doesnt agree, they can just revert it without even considering the information. All of my claims can be easily verified by anyone who studies the topic and the provided books are very clear on what is and isn't zen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk • contribs) 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:FORUM and WP:RS. What's your point with the RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- You made a contradictory article, there's even a link on the page that disputes your own words. You dont seem like a capable editor for this page to me. As I said, I don't just think the info should be corrected. I think people like you should be barred from making any more edits
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:PERSONALATTACK. If you don't have any constructive contribution to make, just stay away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This editor has said the following on the dutch zen page (translated, paraphrased): "It doesn't really matter if the texts were historically accurate, they have been inspirational to many"
I would love to make a contribution, but am not going to try and make changes when someone who doesn't even know what the topic is about has the ability to moderate based on his personal opinion.
This information is not an original work and there are at least ten books of verifiable information added alongside it. Calling you seemingly incapable is not an insult at this point as it is much more of an observation. Especially if you consider you can't or won't keep your articles coherent and historically accurate.
Quotes |
---|
From the platform sutra: "The Master said, "I have composed a markless verse for the great assembly. Merely rely on it to cultivate and you will be as if always by my side. If you cut your hair and leave home, but do not cultivate, it will be of no benefit in pursuing the Way. The verse runs: The mind made straight, why toil following rules? The practice sure, of what use is Dhyana meditation?" (cut off the rest) [...] "The Master instructed the assembly, "Good Knowing Advisors, what is meant by 'sitting in Ch'an?' In this unobstructed and unimpeded Dharma-door, the mind's thoughts do not arise with respect to any good or evil external state. That is what 'sitting' is. To see the unmoving self-nature inwardly is Ch'an." & "Hsieh Chien said, “The Virtuous Dhyana Masters at the capital all say that to master the Way one must sit in Dhyana meditation and practice concentration, for without Dhyana concentration, liberation is impossible. I do not know how the Master explains this dharma. The Master said, “The Way is awakened to from the mind. How could it be found in sitting? The Diamond Sutra states that to say that Tathagata either sits or lies down is to walk a deviant path. Why? The clear pure Dhyana of the Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere and is neither produced nor extinguished. The Tathagata’s clear pure ‘sitting’ is the state of all dharmas being empty and still. Ultimately there is no certification; even less is there any ‘sitting.’” From R.H. Blyths translation of the gateless gate: Wumen's zen warnings; 3. To unify and pacify the mind is quietism and false Zen 9. Sitting blankly in Zen practice is the condition of a dead man. 10. Making progress is an intellectual illusion.
Mazu was practicing samadhi at Chuanfa Monastery in Heng yueh. There he met Nanyu Huairang [an heir of Huineng] who immediately recognized him as a Dharma vessel. Huairang asked him, "Why are you sitting in meditation?" Mazu replied, "Because I want to become a Buddha." Thereupon Huairang took a brick and started to polish it in front of Mazu]. Mazu asked, "Why are you polishing that brick?" Huairang said, "Because I want to make a mirror." Mazu asked, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a brick?" Huairang siad, "If I cannot make a mirror by polishing a brick, how can you become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?" |
Seriously though, you have been studying for 30 years and never came across the six patriarchs of zen, who all deny meditation as a means of enlightenment?(Because this doesn't seem to get mentioned on the wikipedia page) Or did you omit them on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- If one wishes to convincingly present oneself as a follower of the Buddhadharma and knowledgeable about the Way, one should be able to demonstrate the practice of Right Speech. It's true that the ancient masters contradicted one another, and at times contradicting themselves. Such things can be discussed without disparaging those who volunteer their time here. Teishin (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right speech is not taught by zen masters. There's a difference between contradictions and blatantly leaving out the six founders of zen's point of view. Calling someone incapable because he missed basic information is in my view not misplaced. You wouldn't find a flat earther to be capable to run a science forum either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're the flat earther, I guess? try some solid scholarly literature, in addition to your wild fox slobber. Two suggestions:
- Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd .ISBN 978-0-520-23798-8
- Schlütter, Morten (2008), How Zen became Zen. The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-3508-8
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're the flat earther, I guess? try some solid scholarly literature, in addition to your wild fox slobber. Two suggestions:
- Would you care to substantiate your claim that Zen masters do not teach the 8-fold path? If you are so comfortable calling out the incapabilities of people, I suggest you investigate your own capabilities with regard to skills and practices for functioning as a Wikipedia editor. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Evidence for claim |
---|
|
- @Joshua; Why dont you read one of the ten books I provided for you? Or engage with any of the provided quotes?
- More importantly, why does a zen page, a page that was supposed to be dedicated to zen and it's teachings, omit the founders of said tradition's teachings?
- You can throw books at me all you like, but if you can't comprehend the basics of zen and studying, how can I trust your word on these sources?
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- It may be more productive for you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia first. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of whatever Zen is, it is not for Wikipedia editors to opine what it is. Editors are to describe what reliable sources say it is. That's just one of the tasks of editors. Others are to promote a neutral point of view, to treat other editors with respect, and to not use the Talk page as a forum. Whatever great knowledge one might have about a subject is worthless if one is unable to operated productively in the Wikipedia work environment. Teishin (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is happening though, editors are opining on what it is. You can't say this page is neutral if it keeps out the literal founders of the teachings.
- There are ten books of information (so ten reliable sources) that dispute what is being called zen here. How can you claim neutrality when none of these books are considered or mentioned?
- "Whatever great knowledge one might have about a subject is worthless if one is unable to operated productively in the Wikipedia work environment."
- So, according to you, working productively in the wikipedia work environment is more important than the knowledge offered. How's that free of opining and neutral editing?
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is a process for achieving NPOV avoiding editorializing. That's how. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- How is omitting official zen teachings or not engaging with claims when they're being addressed being "productive in the wiki work environment"? ::::— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (WP:TALK) 2A02:A210:2901*, talk pages are not ]]WP:FORUM, if you need help editing wikipedia talk pages you may consider to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE and ask the uninvolved expert editors. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Those books are primary sources, (mis)interpreted by the IP. See WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it does not concern OR. The books in the list are tertiary sources, which should suffice. Without adding my own interpetations the zen masters are clear:
Quotes |
---|
|
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- The second Bielefeldt quote sums it up: Zen rhetorics seems to reject dhyana, yet dhayna is at the heart of Zen. Again, see the two titles mentioned above. Or Faure, The Rhetorics of Immediacy. Your point of view seems to be a faint echo of D.T. Suzuki's presentation of Zen, which focuses on "enlightenment" as an instaneous, all-claryfying event. Present-day scholarship has long rejected this romantic point of view. See also Zen#Middle Chán:
modern scholars have seen much of the literature that presents these "iconoclastic" encounters as being later revisions during the Song era, and instead see the Hongzhou masters as not being very radical, instead promoting pretty conservative ideas, such as keeping precepts, accumulating good karma and practicing meditation
- And see Zen#Song Dynasty Chán: Dahui's emphasis on koan-study was also a result of strive for state-support; he introduced a form of practice which was comprehensible for a lay audience, and easy to maintain. Context and background is relevant, when you want to understand those texts; don't take them on face-value. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dhyana is not at the heart of zen when it is translated as meditation.
- Can you support your claims with tertiary sources please? Some quotes would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- See the Zen article. Can you back-up yours? You're quoting primary sources, not tertiary. NB: also have a look at Zen Narratives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article is big, please provide the specific quotes.
- The only thing I found was McRae criticism, but we can hardly consider him understanding of the way if he teaches things contrary to what zen masters say.
- "As tertiary sources, encyclopedias, textbooks, and compendia attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview"
- Blue cliff records, book of serenity, gateless gate and dogen's manual of zen meditation should at least qualify. I'll have to check the others, but in the books the zen masters at least refer to eachother('s teaching) too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Middle Chan: Youru Wang, Historical Dictionary of Chan Buddhism, Rowman & Littlefield, 2017, p. 13; McRae, Seeing Through Zen. Dahui: Schluter, title already given above. If your criterium is that scholarship shouldn't be critical, but merely reiterate a naive understanding of primary texts, then we can only consider your point of view as religious fundamentalism. The Blue Cliff record etc. are as primary as can be. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- "If your criterium is that scholarship shouldn't be critical, but merely reiterate a naive understanding of primary texts, then we can only consider your point of view as religious fundamentalism."
- This can be said for about 80% of the current article.
Examples |
---|
|
- Why is the shobogenzo then used as a source for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- where is it used as a source? Read Zen Narratives, and update your knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the zen article from wikipedia found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
- Under the header "practice" when they talk about Dogen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Copied from the link you provided |
---|
|
- Zen is not buddhist psychological analysis though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is not being used as a primary source. Don't forget that the Lin Ji/Rinzai school is but one school of thought and practice within Zen; to present this as normative is a sectarian point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Tertiary Sources. These are sources that index, abstract, organize, compile, or digest other sources. Some reference materials and textbooks are considered tertiary sources when their chief purpose is to list, summarize or simply repackage ideas or other information"
- How are books that are basically a collection of koans not "compiled work"? This counts for Blue cliff records, gateless gate and the book of serenity.
- How are these not primary? (This came from the wikipedia page about zen.):
- Sōtō Zen Text Project. "Zazengi translation"(links to: https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022108/http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.html) Stanford University.
- Sōtō Zen Text Project. "Fukan Zazengi"(Links to:https://web.archive.org/web/20080429201213/http://www.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html). Stanford University.
- "Don't forget that the Lin Ji/Rinzai school is but one school of thought and practice within Zen; to present this as normative is a sectarian point of view."
- Meditation is now provided as the normative view though, all the while leaving out all the masters rejecting this. The article is sectarian as it is and does not objectively portray the zen tradition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- These are books by Buddhist teachers, not by scholars; they are 'close to the subject'. NB: the quote on Dahui, "Later in his life" ff, is interesting. But see Hakuin Ekaku#Post-satori practice, and Kenshō#Training after kenshō. And regarding normative: what do you think they do in Rinza monasteries? They sit, rigorously. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then you have some books to remove from the page too. I'm sure it's not just dogen's shobogenzo.
Examples |
---|
|
- Does their sitting make the old masters wrong? Is their view to be omitted simply because "people sit rigorously"?
- Are the 6 founders of the tradition just to be discarded and not to be considered while still using the name of said tradition? Because that seems like a dishonest representation of said tradition.
- Please do not link, but provide quotes instead.
- The pages you link contain misinformation too though. Like: To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are necessary.
- Shikantaza is never neccesary, as the above quotes have already addressed.
- I'm not to keen on reading articles where you are free to edit and contribute if this is the standard of verifiability you uphold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Goodbye then; I wish you happiness and peace in your own universe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you taking leave without addressing any of the claims? Seems very dishonest and not at all in the spirit of discussing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you're making the case for interpreting Zen as a form of philosophical skepticism, which happens to be my interpretation. You've provided support for that interpretation from original sources. You, however, are not a reliable source for that interpretation. Indeed, you haven't even provided us with a name or editor handle to call you. You are just an unsigned IP address at this point. But as editors here we need to use reliable secondary sources for those interpretations. Just because you and I might happened to agree on the opinion that Zen should be interpreted to be a form of philosophical skepticism isn't good enough. If you can find reliable sources -- published scholars or Zen teachers -- who explicate such an interpretation, we'd have something to work with. I haven't happened to stumble upon them, but I haven't searched hard for them. Perhaps you can find them. While you're doing that, it would be also helpful if you'd read up on the Wikipedia editing process. It would also be helpful if you would get in some "practice" editing on some much simpler topics, maybe something like the entries about minor places, or biographies, that you may know a lot about. Starting with a topic so difficult as how to present the various interpretations of Zen philosophy appears to be beyond your present level of editing skills. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- The books are all by either published scholars or zen masters.
- The only case I'm making is that a zen page should include all the zen teachings. Not just the ones supporting meditation and practice.
- I don't know about you or others, but I don't find zen to be a difficult topic at all.
- Okay, how about the topic of how to edit Wikipedia? And I shall say yet again -- how many times is it now? -- how about starting with the basic idea of creating an account and a username? Teishin (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Some secondary sources |
---|
R.H. Blyth: Zen and Zen Classics, Volume 1-5 Pruning The Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind by D.T. Suzuki. And (already mentioned earlier above): Dogen's manual of zen meditation by Carl Bielefeldt |
Would this suffice as source material? |
---|
|
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Suggestions
Arbitrary header #1
Adding the following books to the reading list as they all cover zen topics and are not currently included:
Platform Sutra - Huineng
Sun Faced Buddha - Mazu
Gateless Gate - Wumen
Book of Serenity - Wansong
Blue Cliff Records - Yuanwu
Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching - Dahui
Master Yunmen, From the Record of the Chan Teacher "Gate of the Clouds"
The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi - Burton Watson
The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield
The Recorded Saying of Zen Master Joshu - James Green
Radical Zen, The Sayings of Joshu - Yoel Hoffmann
Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary
Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt
Pruning The Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard
___
Providing a list of known zen masters, including: Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike
___
Dividing zen into the classical zen and the modern interpetation of it by use of different headers.
____
Adding conflicting views, for both the modern and classic works, to keep things neutral.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the titles you mention are primary sources, which are better suited at the Wiki-pages of those teachers. NB: most of them also happen to be Rinzai-texts...
they all cover zen topics and are not currently included
is not a usefull criterium for inclusion; I can name dozens of titles. - Most of those teachers are already linked in the article; they also appear in the navbox at the bottom.
- The article already makes a distinction between various periods in the devlopment of Zen; and it gives a concise ovefview of practice and doctrine, both Rinzai and Soto.
- Most of the titles you mention are primary sources, which are better suited at the Wiki-pages of those teachers. NB: most of them also happen to be Rinzai-texts...
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- These are books by masters of said topic though. I don't think they would be misplaced under the "further reading" header.
- From the wiki intro:
- "Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things.
- This part, for example, is not neutral in it's depiction of zen. Rigorous self control and meditation practice were not the (main) focus of all the zen schools.
- (Please point out where it is if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any of the critique on silent illumination/meditation included in the rest of the article either)
- I don't think it's fair to say that "most" teachers get mentioned already. Out of the 18 mentioned I only found 5 in the navbox.
- (Found some more with the search function, but there are still quite some people missing)
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Internal criticism of types of meditation and of meditation itself would be useful to include. There are plenty of primary sources. It would be good to find a secondary source. Teishin (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Would this suffice as source material? |
---|
|
- Otherwise, the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source. If that is the case then the following works are secondary sources too:
Sources |
---|
|
- If none of these are usable, then Dogen's manual of Zen Meditation by Carl Bielefeldt (ISBN 0520068351) should suffice.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV. The IP is merely referring to primary sources, mostly from the yulu genre, the 'recorded sayings' of ancient masters, which he seems to interpret in a specfic way. These texts cannot be taken on face-value, as they are doing; they were religious and institutional texts, created (long) after the lifes of their antagonists, and far from 'objective' representations of their lifes or teachings. See, for eaxmple, John McRae, Seeing Through Zen; or Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Poceski:
[p.58:] The structure of the Mazu yulu consists of three distinct parts: a biographical sketch of Mazu’s life, numerous transcripts of his sermons, and thirty-two short dialogues between him and his disciples. [p.59:] The second part of the Mazu yulu consists of transcripts of three of Mazu’s sermons [...] In his sermons Mazu seamlessly weaves in numerous quotations from and allusions to Buddhist scriptures, usually without identifying his sources. Judging from their contents, the sermons’ main function seems to have been to instruct disciples in the teachings of Buddhism and provide them with religious guidance and inspiration. The format of the sermons is traditional, and their contents do not fit the radical image of the Hongzhou school’s leader [p.61:] The picture changes dramatically when we come to the third part of the Mazu yulu, which consists of dialogues between Mazu and his monastic and lay disciples. [p.62:] The contrast between the images of Mazu conveyed by his sermons and dialogues is quite striking. In the sermons he assumes a somewhat traditional role of a teacher of Buddhist doctrine (albeit of the Chan variety). There he comes across as a fairly conventional religious figure, someone who is well versed in canonical texts and traditions and who adopts a time-honored mode of religious instruction. In the dialogues, on the other hand, he seems to be a strikingly unconventional figure and assumes the role of an iconoclastic Chan master who engages in spontaneous and often seemingly eccentric exchanges that subvert the established mores of his time. Under the influence of popular lore about the ancient “Zen masters,” both Zen adherents and scholars have so far chosen to focus on the image of Mazu depicted in the dialogues. They have also tended to gloss over or ignore the discrepancies between the iconoclastic character depicted in the dialogues and the conservative disposition evidenced in the sermons. As a result, the popular image of Mazu conveyed in numerous Zen books is that of an iconoclast, a radical figure who embodies a classical Chan tradition that to a large extent was created by him.
- We cannot just simply quote from those primary yulu sources, ignoring other primary sources from the time, or the historical context.
- Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ironically, this is an apt description of the Caodong point of view, which has criticised the Linji-school for seeking insight, c.q. "enlightenment." And I'm interested to see where
the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source
. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ironically, this is an apt description of the Caodong point of view, which has criticised the Linji-school for seeking insight, c.q. "enlightenment." And I'm interested to see where
- Under "Secondary Sources" at the bottom of the page.
"The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV."
- There can easily be a part added in the intro where it says that
Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things.
- Just add something along the lines of; "There are however master who reject this point of view" with a see: [Insert article name pr other resource here]
- There can easily be a part added in the intro where it says that
- It's not just Dahui who rejects it.
Secondary source that denies the affiliation between zen and meditation |
---|
|
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no such header at this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's in the "bibliography" part.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the Stanford-page does so. Well, here it is a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- This description from wikipedia disagrees though.
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
- A third perspective on the matter would be appreciated.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm finding this conversation difficult to follow. One thing that would help greatly is if the user with the unsigned IP address would follow the convention of getting a username and signing their comments with their username. At this point it's not always clear who has said what. Teishin (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition; a book like Heine and Wright, The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism, is a secondary text. To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zen was re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then the works of the following people should probably be excluded too, as they have very intimate ties with religious institutions, teaching at them, studying at them, and building a reputation as affiliated with the religion.
Primary Sources |
---|
|
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're serious? See WP:TRUTH and WP:CANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Material may be verifiable, but still banned by several other content policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Can those people still be considered neutral if they are that invested?
The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition;
- Cleary's tranlsation of the Blue Cliff Records contain his commentary on each case too, including some references to other work. Doesn't that make it secondary source?
About Primary and Secondary Sources |
---|
|
To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zenwas re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source....
- Yet you have no problem using it on the dutch talk page to convey your point of view.
- How does that work?
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary header #2
I suggest the conversation would be more productive if we were to examine concrete proposals for changing the existing article rather than dealing with abstract matters regarding sources and personal matters the editors. Teishin (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard to make a decent proposition when the editor in question is not clear on what can and can't be used for verifiability.
- If I don't source my quotes, I'd just get told it's my personal opinion/interpetation again and that it's not useable.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- No single editor controls the content of this page. There are more than two editors participating in this discussion. If you can make a proposal that you think fits Wikipedia's requirements, we can look at that proposal and have a discussion about whether it fits the requirements. If you just have a discussion in the abstract about requirements, nothing in the article will be changed. (Could you please sign up for a username?)Teishin (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'll consider it.
- There is a lot wrong the article. At the very least all schools should be equally represented.
- Meditation should not have the spotlight when it is a minority view of the teachings. (Minority may be discarded if you count all modern works too though.)
- I think critiques on both teachings should be added and don't see why primary sources can not be used as a means of clarification like; "Eventhough meditation is wildly popular/widely regarded as the foundation of zen, there are a lot of zen masters who disagree with this point of view" Followed by some citations from Zen Masters.
- There is a point of view being sold in the intro which does not comply with zen teachings, namely zen being apophatic. Removing it should be no problem, as the is still a citation needed. So the info is not even verified. I'm talking about this line:
The Prajñāpāramitā literature[11] as well as Madhyamakathought have also been influential in the shaping of the apophatic and sometimes iconoclastic nature of Zen rhetoric.[citation needed]
- [Just noticed a citation got added. I haven't read the exact quote as to why the author thinks this though, as I don't own the book and couldn't find a pdf, but maybe it has been presented too crudely in the wiki article? I'm saying this because zen masters affirm all sorts of things (about dharma and buddha nature). For example Mazu's famous quote that states that "Mind is Buddha"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that your interest is in complaining about Wikipedia and its editors and that you are not here to make a positive contribution. If you can't make a concrete proposal about how to improve the article, why should we be having this discussion?Teishin (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Teishin. JimRenge (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that your interest is in complaining about Wikipedia and its editors and that you are not here to make a positive contribution. If you can't make a concrete proposal about how to improve the article, why should we be having this discussion?Teishin (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The only complaint I had was that the article wasn't neutral enough in my opinion. I don't think it's unfair to say this, considering wikipedia favors neutrality.
- I am making concrete proposals. There is just a alot of information to sift through and I'm doing it alone. I'm not sure what more you want from me at this point. Do you want me to write a whole new draft of the article with citations and references here? Because that would seem like a lot of work when there's a chance you won't even take it up.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Editing Wikipedia can be a lot of work. A concrete proposal would be to write drafts for the parts of the article you feel should be changed. What you've done so far isn't a concrete proposal. And could you please create a Wikipedia editing account for yourself and get yourself a username? Teishin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then can you please specify what actually counts as a reliable sources like I asked before?
- I don't understand how you expected me to write drafts without that information.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES, the friendly expert editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE may be able to answer additional questions. JimRenge (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- There would probably be a lot of (religous) pages missing if you would stick to the rule exactly.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would you please do basic tasks expected of new editors, such as creating an account and a username, like you've been requested to before? Teishin (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I told you I would consider it. Having an account is not a requirement to edit on wikipedia.
- Please do not remove my comments again.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your primary interest appears to be to accuse editors here of failings. I've not removed any of your comments, yet you accuse me of doing so. Teishin (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- You realize things get logged right?
- See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/935991345
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your primary interest appears to be to accuse editors here of failings. I've not removed any of your comments, yet you accuse me of doing so. Teishin (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would you please do basic tasks expected of new editors, such as creating an account and a username, like you've been requested to before? Teishin (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES, the friendly expert editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE may be able to answer additional questions. JimRenge (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary header #3
- Zen is currently being associated with mahayana a lot in the article. However, the rituals, practices, the 8 fold path and the 4 noble truths for example are not accepted by every zen teacher as being neccesary or even useful.
- It would be nice if the R.H. Blyth explanation of dhyana gets included under the Dhyana header too
- To make things easier you could probably add a "Controversial teachings" or "Critique by zen masters" header for some of the contradictory teachings
It was thoroughly influenced by Mahayana teachings on the bodhisattva path, Chinese Madhyamaka (Sānlùn), Yogacara (Wéishí), Prajñaparamita, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and other Buddha nature texts.
- You could change "Buddha Nature Texts" to "Zen Scriptures" and refer to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_scriptures Or refer to it some other appropriate place and add (some of) the "primary texts" there.
- I think that if D.T. Suzuki can't be considered a useable source because of his buddhist associations, that the following people should be excluded too:
Extended content |
---|
|
- I'm stopping here for now.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Alan watts is used as a source on the wikipedia page for some reason, so this should be fine too:
Quote with source |
---|
|
- This however does not get mentioned at all in the article. I still think there was not enough neutrality in writing this article, which is basically the whole issue.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Search for the same quote in The Three Pillars of Zen, and see what Yasutani thinks of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please provide the quote and source it.
- On kapleau;
- "Kapleau has created his own Zen lineage."[7]
- So I'm not sure why his book is used as source material.
- Yasutani was a zen priest. Primary sources were not useable according to you.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's your personal interpretation of primary sources that can't be used. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then these earlier rejected quotes should be fine. You should really be clearer.
Some of the Quotes |
---|
|
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- This page seems a lot more inclusive of the different approaches. Ironically, in this article silent illumination is not very well represented. Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism
- Does wikipedia ever merge pages? Might get you the good article award.
- Also, this piece of information is contradictory:
From the Wiki Article |
---|
Under "Middle Chan" The Middle Chán (c. 750–1000) period runs from the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763) to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (907–960/979). This phase saw the development new schools of Chan. The most important of these schools is the Hongzhou school of Mazu Daoyi (709–788), to which also belong Shitou, Baizhang, and Huangbo. This school is sometimes seen as the archetypal expression of Chán, with its emphasis on the personal expression of insight, and its rejection of positive statements, as well as the importance it placed on spontaneous and unconventional "questions and answers during an encounter" (linji wenda) between master and disciple.[206][207]However, modern scholars have seen much of the literature that presents these "iconoclastic" encounters as being later revisions during the Song era, and instead see the Hongzhou masters as not being very radical, instead promoting pretty conservative ideas, such as keeping precepts, accumulating good karma and practicing meditation.[207] However, the school did produce innovative teachings and perspectives such as Mazu's views that "this mind is Buddha" and that "ordinary mind is the way", which were also critiqued by later figures, such as the influential Guifeng Zongmi (780–841), for failing to differentiate between ignorance and enlightenment.[208] |
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary header #4
Qouting primary sources to support a mistaken pov is still a form of interpretation. Regarding the use of yulu, c.q. "encounter dialogue" as a source for describing Zen-doctrine, see again Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts (emphasis mine):
[p.72:] although it can be substantiated that Mazu’s sermons and his biography were recorded during the mid-Tang period, there is no evidence that any of his encounter dialogues were extant before the mid-tenth century or that any of them had any direct connection with Mazu. This finding about the varied provenance of the constituent parts of Mazu yulu is also applicable to other records of prominent Chan teachers from the middle and late Tang periods. [p.73:] It was only from the middle part of the tenth century onward that stories containing Mazu’s iconoclastic dialogues with his disciples came to shape the (mis)understanding of his religious thought and teaching methods. At present, the situation is further exacerbated by the uncritical acceptance of the somewhat biased interpretation of sectarian Japanese scholarship, not to mention popular vulgarizations of the tradition’s teachings and history [...] it is apparent that encounter dialogue stories should in no way be used as historical sources for the study of the Hongzhou school’s history, teachings, and practices.
Even less WP:OR based on such dialogues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Who has deemed it mistaken? It's still being practiced to this day.
- There's more than just Mazu too. Not every quote I shared has been an encounter dialogue.
John Blofeld, Zen teachings of Huang Po Quote |
---|
|
- Also:
McRae |
---|
[...]
|
- If we consider these quotes from McRae, there are a lot of things that can be removed from the page.
- 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Header #5, suggestion
There is currently a practice header. The rejection of practice however does not get mentioned there, so I propose another header beneath the practice one with the title "rejection of practice" or something similar.
Draft:
The recurrent "debates" over the intepretation of meditation that mark the history of Ch'an and Zen are justly famous and regularly receive due notice in accounts of the school. Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana, or "meditation," and that the school has specialized in the practice, but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Ch'an and Zen (including Dogen's own), to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with dhyana (meditation). [1]
Zen followers are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the Supreme Experience which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the Godhead'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond conceptual thought and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. [2]
____
Is this alright?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)