![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
Maybe some of this can be used in the article? thanks Peter morrell 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
However, NPOV means we don't cherry pick our sources though. Peter morrell 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
The most sustained and most notorious Zen assault on all forms of authority is found in Lin-Chi, the founder of Rinzai, the most overtly anarchic branch of Zen. For Lin-Chi, “things like the Three Vehicles and the twelve divisions of the scriptural teachings — they’re all so much old toilet paper to wipe away filth. The Buddha is a phantom body, the patriarchs are nothing but old monks. . . If you seek the Buddha, you’ll be seized by the Buddha devil. If you seek the patriarchs, you’ll be fettered by the patriarch devil. As long as you seek something it can only lead to suffering. Better to do nothing.” [ZT 47] [2] See also p.222
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)
Despite its teaching of “no dependence upon words and letters,” Chan did not reject the scriptures of the Buddhist canon, but simply warned of the futility of relying on them for the attainment of emancipating insight. The sacred texts—and much more so the huge exegetical apparatus that had grown up around them in the older scholastic schools—were regarded as no more than signposts pointing the way to liberation. Valuable though they were as guides, they needed to be transcended in order for one to awaken to the true intent of Śākyamuni’s teachings. p.62
I found one (1) reference with Google books for "Zen is not Mahayana". It's from The Tao of Zen by Ray grigg. The full quote reads:
Zen in Japan has been expressed officially in the context of Mahayana Buddhism, although by instinct Zen is not Mahayana, not Buddhist, not anything but itself.
This nonsectarian and nonreligious nature of Zen has been revealed in small glimpses throughout its history. In persistent anecdotes, aphorisms, and stories, Zen has asserted its independence from all categorization and confinement. But few roshis have formalized an even partial separation of Zen from Buddhism. Nōnin and bankei are exceptions (Grigg, p. 145)
"Zen is Mahayana" gives two references, "Zen" "Mahayana" gives ca. 255.000 results... The relation between Zen and taoism is a topic on it's own [3], but it seems to me that the statement "Zen is not Mahayana" is less than a minority view... Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The McCauley-quote appears to be a half sentence. The quote is as follows:
According to McCauley, "the superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines"
The full sentence has quite a different meaning:
The superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines when making use of it is not the best choice and to engage it when it is.
The quote also does not refer to the use of scripture in Zen, but appears in a chapter on the I Ching. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Collins-quote does not refer to Te-shan, but to Zen’s supposed anti-intellectualism in general. The original sentence said "The Zen of figures like Te-shan"; after previous discussion "The Zen of figures like" was changed by me into "for example", making a connection which was not in the source. The quote is as follows:
"was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical".
The full quote gives quite a nuance to this "anti-intellectualism":
In the 800s and 900s, Ch’an monasteries proliferated throughout China. This was the period of the famous masters whose doings were later to provide the study texts for Zen monks in China and Japan: Te-shan (781-867), famous for shocking his pupils into enlightenment by hitting them with his staff; Lin-chi (d.867), known for his sudden shouts; and a host of other witty paradoxers. This full-blown Zen was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical; study of the scriptures was generally abjured, and a fortiori the philosophers; eben the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were regarded as obstacles to immediate enlightenment: “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!”
Nevertheless, one would have to call this an intellectual’s anti-intellectualism, for only on the basis of subtle understandings and the ability to express them delicately and poetically was one honored for this kind of stamping on sacred icons. The creative conflicts which enrgize the intellectual attention space were here transformed into the repartee of words pointing beyond words, of gestures stripped to their capacity for pure contentless communication
Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
One more: Is Zen Buddhism a philosophy? Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Recently I bought a book on Buddhist Hermeneutics: the strategiesd used within the Buddhist tradition to understand and classify it's own textual tradition. In a chapter on Ch'an Hermeneutics, Buswell writes about the way the Hua-yen tradition classified Chán (see p.245), regarding it to be an inferior tradition, and the defenses of Chán-adepts against this classification. He states that the Chán-tradition was critical of the Madhyamaka. Buswell uses the term dharmadhatu to refer to the Chán-insight into reality. It seems to me that this is a 'correct' reference, though I've hardly (or never) read this term before in Zen-literature. It points to more than:
Also, when adding the Avatamsaka-sutra I realized that Zen does point to the totality of being, without reducing it to mere concepts. And the discussions, on several DP's, on Buddha-nature, made me realize that Buddha-nature is more fundamental to Zen than sunyata is. Why this long explanation? Because it's clear (to me) that "the moon" is not univocal describable or definable, just as the Zen-tradition says itself. The more I study this tradition, the more nuances and differences I come across. So I try to reflect those nuances in the Wikipedia-articles. As regards dharmadhatu, I hardly know anything about this term, but it does make sense in the context of Zen. For that reason, I changed then reference to sunyata to a reference to Dharmadhatu. But this is also based on personal understanding, not so much on multi-textual understanding. So, who knows more about this term, it's meaning, and it's use in the Buddhist & Chán-tradition? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
With the danger of being accused of "owning the page", I moved the following section to the Discussion page:
This apprehension of reality beyond signs (such as words) may seem unremarkable or primitive but it is this very connection with reality beyond words that is the desired experience of non-dual meditation that in earlier Buddhism is called ' Jhana' (sometimes referred to as 'absorption' because one has reached a point where one's attention has become completely absorbed in the object of one's awareness). It is 'Non-dual' because in ordinary experience there is an 'I' that is our self which is apprehending a world 'out there', in other words a separation between subject and object. The goal of meditation is to reach a state of awareness where this duality has disappeared.
I did this for several reasons:
See also the section above on "The finger pointing to the moon", which explains my considerations for creating the section in the article on "The finger pointing to the moon". "The moon" deserves careful wording. My apologies if I sound too critical, or too much involved in following this page. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 15:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi 81.106.127.14. Thanks for your response! I'll try to respond to your response point by point, without using to many words (and asking too much attention and time from our fellow Wikipedians).
I failed, again, in 'not using too many words'. Sorry. Looking forward to your response. And by the way, I think we do agree that 'words and marks cannot express Being-there sufficiently' - they are just fingers pointing to the moon. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence from the lead seems problematic to me, for several reasons:
Due to the school's traditional emphasis on the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, and perhaps to a lesser extent being influenced by Taoism (Lai,Year unknown), it has given rise to a number of minimalist and mystical aesthetic practices and philosophical approaches which have marked Zen Buddhism with a rich cultural impact and history throughout East Asia, as well as a sophisticated metaphysical heritage in the modern study of Eastern philosophy.
Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel like a broken record here, but this article seems to talk about "Zen" in terms of Rinzai and not Soto.
1) The opener states "Zen emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment". Dogen wrote in the Fukanzazengi, "Suppose one gains pride of understanding and inflates one's own enlightenment, glimpsing the wisdom that runs through all things, attaining the Way and clarifying the Mind, raising an aspiration to escalade the very sky. One is making the initial, partial excursions about the frontiers but is still somewhat deficient in the vital Way of total emancipation...Have no designs on becoming a Buddha". This seems like a repudiation of "emphasizing enlightenment" by the founder of the largest sect of Zen. However, it is also "emphasized" in the sense that he wrote "To practice the Way singleheartedly is, in itself, enlightenment. There is no gap between practice and enlightenment or zazen and daily life". Nonetheless, virtually ever Soto source I've looked at advocates not "seeking enlightenment" because it is concept and thus a distraction. If the opener is meant in the sense that Zen believes enlightenment is possible (cf. Pure Land or other "degenerate age" schools), this should probably be more explicit. As its currently worded it seems a bit misleading
2) Nōnin technically started the first Zen school in Japan a couple of years before Eisai and many before Dogen, but he is not mentioned at all in "Zen in Japan". Almost all of the students from this school joined the Soto school later on.
3) The section states "Controversially, Keizan is credited as the founder of the Sōtō school." I've never heard this anywhere. All Soto lineages consider him the fourth patriarch and the "second founder" in the sense that he spread the school significantly, but he is never thought of as "the founder"
4) The Sandai sōron, a very significant historical event, is not mentioned in this section.
5) The history section generally discusses Rinzai far more than Soto.
6) The "polarities" section seems very misleading considering the emphasis on non-dualism in Zen. This should go for both schools. While polarities in teaching approaches exist, to say that Zen is "characterized" by polarities strikes me as wrong. I also don't see how Buddha nature and shunyata are polarities, and I don't think they are typically presented this way. The sudden vs. gradual enlightenment stuff probably belongs in the history section and not in the teaching section. It's never taught as a "teaching". It's a historical curiosity. I remember Shohaku Okumura joking that the Tang Chinese were very concerned with sudden vs. gradual stuff, but really it's a meaningless argument because both are simultaneously true. This is definitely the view in the Soto school anyway. At any rate, I'm pretty confident that sudden and gradual are at least not "taught" nowadays in either school and are only discussed in the context of history.
7) In that same vein, I think "Zen teachings" and "Zen practice" should be merged. Zen is characterized by the fact that practice is the ultimate teaching, so why separate them? To a non-Zen person, they are bound to be confused. I've been practicing Soto zen for years and I've never been "taught" any of the stuff in the "teachings" section.
8) The scripture section again emphasizes history to the exclusion of current practice. In the Soto school, virtually all scripture encountered on a regular basis is from Dogen. Sometimes people delve into the old stuff, but very rarely, with the exception of the Heart Sutra, which isn't mentioned! The Heart Sutra, as I understand it, it far more important for Zen than all of the works listed. I've never had a teacher discuss any of the works mentioned. No doubt they form an important philosophical core, but this fact needs to be emphasized. The scripture discussed and read for the purposes of contemporary practice does not include virtually any of these things.
As currently written, this article seems to overemphasize academic views on Zen held by non-practitioners. This is understandable since they write a lot of the books about Zen. However, I think we need to be careful to remember that these are not the people who actually have much of an idea of what goes on now. They are much more concerned with history. I think we need to source more from books written by Zen teachers and less by distant observers. Some of the things I've read in academic accounts of Zen blatantly misunderstand the practices. Obviously this is my own opinion, but if you pair academic views with views of teachers, you can often see this fact. Anyway, that's all for today. This article is progressing nicely, but whenever I read it, it seems pretty foreign to my years of experience, which I don't think should be the case. At present, I would not recommend someone who doesn't know about Zen to this article. DJLayton4 ( talk) 12:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response! I totally accept that I have a very Soto bias. I don't expect to see an article about Zen that reflects only the Soto viewpoint, however, but rather one that just doesn't largely ignore it. I think WP:UNDUE applies. The Soto school is the largest school of Zen in Japan, and arguably in the West, so its practices shouldn't be ignored or diluted. Chan schools are tricky because they aren't practiced much in the West, and knowledge about non-Taiwanese lineages is hard to come by, but of course they should be treated too. At any rate, this article either needs to be general enough to encapsulate all schools, or specific enough so that the individual schools are not conflated. So having like 10 paragraphs on sudden vs. gradual gives undue weight to certain schools, in my opinion. As far as the Soto school is concerned, it IS a historical curiosity, but the way the article is written a reader would assume it's a very important thing to all schools.
I also don't mean to suggest that academic research on Zen isn't important. I absolutely agree that it is. I do think that some academics who are not practitioners tend to get in over their heads a little bit, but that's my opinion. At any rate, my point is that this article reflects much more about academic views than actual practice. This serves to make it both somewhat unaccesible and a weak introduction to Zen. If you go to the article on Methodism or Episcopal Church (United States), they don't give any academic views at all. They are usually too inaccessible to the average reader. Instead, these articles offer an easy to read article that allows the reader to become generally acquainted with the specific branch of Christianity. This article fails to give a reader a good overview of the topic because it's way too specific in some areas while simultaneously being way too incomplete. For example, "scripture" covers historical works ad nauseum while ignoring works that are actually important to the average practitioner, while "teachings" gives in-depth, incomprehensible academic analysis on a couple of select topics while failing to explain generally what Zen teachings are.
Shohaku Okumura's work is almost entirely concerned with Dogen's work, as is the case with most Soto academics, so I think this reinforces the importance of including Dogen more heavily in "Scipture". Your point that he was not widely ready until the 17th century emphasizes that the scripture section is out of touch with the present. I think heavier weight should be give to the scripture that is actually important to Zen practitioners now, not historical works. The article on Christianity, for example, has a scripture section that concentrates on the Bible, and devotes a sentence or two to apocryphal, non-standard texts, and precedent works. It's scripture section is about a quarter of the length of this scripture section as well. Does someone hoping to get an idea about what Zen is care about an in-depth analysis of all the scripture leading up to the establishment of Zen, or are they interested in the current scripture that is important to practice? Maybe both. But as it is, the section basically only covers the latter. I'd suggest starting a separate "Scripture in Zen" article if you want to go into that much detail about Mahayana documents that most Zen teacher's never talk about. At any rate, I think it would be inappropriate to include Okumura's in-depth analysis of Dogen's texts in this article. If he or anyone else can be cited on a general topic in Zen, fine, but plunging into academic depths on a few random topics makes for a poor article. DJLayton4 ( talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The connection between Zen and Taoism is intriguing. Yet, I've serched for literature on this before , and found very little [5] [6]. The connection seems to be more in the eyes of modern interpreters than in historical 'reality' [7]. Does anyone have more info? Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 06:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Part-time unemployed... But I'm considering doing a Ph.D-research, and all this edting is quite helpfull. I'm going to have a look at those links; thanks! Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As it is now, the text suggests that Chán developed out of Taosim and Buddhism, while the sources seem to point out that the influence of Taoism was more like that of competition, the understanding of Buddhism in native terms and terminology, and the borrowing of Taoist terms by Buddhists. What seems closer to the point is that Chán resulted from the sinification of Buddhism, including the influence of Chinese ideas such as "T’i -yung" (Essence and Function) and "Li-shih" (Noumenon and Phenomenon) [11] which are also expressed by Taoism, and first taken over by Hua-yen Buddhism, which the influenced Chán. So it might be a good idea to that this to the text on Taoist influences. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Yet another linkJudging from the reception by the Han of the Hinayana works and from the early commentaries, it appears that Buddhism was being perceived and digested through the medium of religious Daoism (Taoism). Buddha was seen as a foreign immortal who had achieved some form of Daoist nondeath. The Buddhists’ mindfulness of the breath was regarded as an extension of Daoist breathing exercises. [10]
I've added an elaboration on the Taoist influnce. Fuller quotes are included in the copy I put into the Chinese Chán page. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This whole article 'Zen' is becoming a book rather than a concise encyclopaedic entry. I used to be able to refer lay people to this page in Wiki' but frankly now it's becoming a totally academic reference. I feel also some contributors are treating it as their pet rather than an article. Not now something I'd recommend reading, more likely to confuse than inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 ( talk) 15:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response. I'll take your suggestion into consideration. I might suggest to all, that it is of some value to mention that the notions of Sotoshu, Obakushu as distinct from Rinzaishu are Japanese fabrications, today they have become distinct schools but initially they simply represented teaching lineages. Today the situation is different from an admin perspective and some layers of practice have been added of course, but I think it's worth mentioning as it is factual and helps to explain why Rinzai, Soto and Obaku people find their practice so interchangeable. Besides the fact I'm a monk of 25 years, some of that spent in Japanese Sodo, it is researchable out there. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
... men and women [how] to follow the Bodhisattva Path and [...] how they should proceed.
Note: This line is not found in the standard translation of the Diamond Sutra that is used in the Far East ( Kumarajiva's translation). I'm not sure which translation it comes from, or maybe it is from a late Sanskrit edition, but either way, it's doubtful that many Zen adepts of the past ever read this line. It is true, however, that the Diamond Sutra is about the Bodhisattva Path. Tengu800 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TheSpecialUser ( talk · contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm busy with real life, I've been doing reviews which can only be completed at a glance. I'm sorry to say but this article is far away from GA standards. Here are the 3 basic reasons behind it:
Despite of all the hard work, lack of refs will be the main reason for failing this. I believe that work on the article for 1 more month would be fine and this was just a touch too rushed nomination. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed easily. Sorry to say but I've to quickly fail it. Once addressed the issues raised above, anyone can go for another nom. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As the GA reviewer of indicated, this article has a lot of problems.
Joshua Johnathan - You've contributed immensely to the content of this article. However, I must say that I have avoided copyediting the article for fear of your edits undoing any progress I might make, not so much in terms of content, but in terms of layout. Frankly, I think this article is bit of a disaster. By that I mean that the layout is largely at odds with MoS suggestions and GA standards (as the reviewer mentioned - tons of short paragraphs, too many bullet points, and, as I see it, a total lack of an overall narrative). It is also doesn't provide much of a readable introduction into what zen is. I think if I didn't know anything about the subject, I would feel more confused after reading this. The article has also gotten way too long. There's way too much random information at the expense of a comprehensive overview of the subject matter. I think this is most obvious when you look at this article and compare it to an FA on a similar topic. For example, compare with Bahá'í Faith. It's way shorter, has far fewer sections and subsections, and provides a much more concise idea about what Bahá'í is.
So here's my suggestion. I can start copyediting the article, but I'm only interested in doing it if you will let me make pretty major cuts and revisions to the format, including a lot of content removal, especially of unreferenced material. I don't mean to say that I don't want to hear any dissent, but I don't have the time to get into debates over every other sentence in this behemoth of an article. I think a lot of the material can be spun off into other articles. For example, I don't think we need ten paragraphs on the history of zen in each country where it exists- this content can be integrated into Japanese Zen, Chinese Chan, etc., if it isn't already.
I've succesfully gotten articles to pass GA and FA almost entirely on my own, so I feel confident that I can do a good job.
Let me know what you think. DJLayton4 ( talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Shortened section, but maybe too drastically. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Vietnamese Thiền with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The article on Chinese Chán already contains a shortened section on Chinese Chán#Spread of Chán Buddhism in Asia. This could be copied to Zen, replacing the longer sections, and removed from Chinese Chán. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Shortened section. Western lineages are also mentioned in Zen in the United States. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chinese Chán was copied or moved into Doctrinal background of Zen with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Doctrinal background of Zen. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen and Sutras with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Copied to Zen and Sutras. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen organisation and institutions with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Zen organisation and institutions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen Narratives with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Zen Narratives. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no citations available for this:
To point out 'essential Zen-teachings' is almost impossible, given the variety of schools, the extended history of 1500 years, and the emphasis on suchness, reality just-as-it-is, which has to be expressed in daily life, not in words.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}} But common to most schools and teachings is this emphasis on suchness, the Bodhisattva-ideal, and the priority of zazen.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}
Those are my words, so they may as well be deleted. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I eliminated "well-known" from "..the well-known genealogy of the Chán-school.". It's a bit pompous and it's highly unlikely that the genealogy is well-known to a reader of an encyclopedia article on Zen. -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The original version (That is, the last version of 2 february) was much longer, but cut down by me after feedback about the length of the article. But only restoring the "Origins and Taoist influences" and "Legendary or Proto-Chán - Six Patriarchs" subsections brings the history back to a point og more then a year ago, where the legendary is emphasised and the factual discarded. Since the late 1960s, a lot of research on Chán/Zen has been done; especially McRae gives a fine and concise overview on the factual history of Chán. This can't be left out; McRae does not only have very good academic credentials, he's also being picked-up by the contemporary western Zen-scene. The subsections from "Early Chán and Classical Chán - Tang dynasty (618–907)" on give more details on this periodisation, without being too detailed - that is, compared to the huge amount of data available. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The section of Periodisation includes the phrase "producing the literature in which the supposed spontaneity of the celebrated masters was portrayed". Since the basis for the skeptical "supposed" is not supported, perhaps... "producing literature emphasizing the spontaneity of celebrated masters of the previous period". -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
Maybe some of this can be used in the article? thanks Peter morrell 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
However, NPOV means we don't cherry pick our sources though. Peter morrell 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
The most sustained and most notorious Zen assault on all forms of authority is found in Lin-Chi, the founder of Rinzai, the most overtly anarchic branch of Zen. For Lin-Chi, “things like the Three Vehicles and the twelve divisions of the scriptural teachings — they’re all so much old toilet paper to wipe away filth. The Buddha is a phantom body, the patriarchs are nothing but old monks. . . If you seek the Buddha, you’ll be seized by the Buddha devil. If you seek the patriarchs, you’ll be fettered by the patriarch devil. As long as you seek something it can only lead to suffering. Better to do nothing.” [ZT 47] [2] See also p.222
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)
Despite its teaching of “no dependence upon words and letters,” Chan did not reject the scriptures of the Buddhist canon, but simply warned of the futility of relying on them for the attainment of emancipating insight. The sacred texts—and much more so the huge exegetical apparatus that had grown up around them in the older scholastic schools—were regarded as no more than signposts pointing the way to liberation. Valuable though they were as guides, they needed to be transcended in order for one to awaken to the true intent of Śākyamuni’s teachings. p.62
I found one (1) reference with Google books for "Zen is not Mahayana". It's from The Tao of Zen by Ray grigg. The full quote reads:
Zen in Japan has been expressed officially in the context of Mahayana Buddhism, although by instinct Zen is not Mahayana, not Buddhist, not anything but itself.
This nonsectarian and nonreligious nature of Zen has been revealed in small glimpses throughout its history. In persistent anecdotes, aphorisms, and stories, Zen has asserted its independence from all categorization and confinement. But few roshis have formalized an even partial separation of Zen from Buddhism. Nōnin and bankei are exceptions (Grigg, p. 145)
"Zen is Mahayana" gives two references, "Zen" "Mahayana" gives ca. 255.000 results... The relation between Zen and taoism is a topic on it's own [3], but it seems to me that the statement "Zen is not Mahayana" is less than a minority view... Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The McCauley-quote appears to be a half sentence. The quote is as follows:
According to McCauley, "the superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines"
The full sentence has quite a different meaning:
The superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines when making use of it is not the best choice and to engage it when it is.
The quote also does not refer to the use of scripture in Zen, but appears in a chapter on the I Ching. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Collins-quote does not refer to Te-shan, but to Zen’s supposed anti-intellectualism in general. The original sentence said "The Zen of figures like Te-shan"; after previous discussion "The Zen of figures like" was changed by me into "for example", making a connection which was not in the source. The quote is as follows:
"was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical".
The full quote gives quite a nuance to this "anti-intellectualism":
In the 800s and 900s, Ch’an monasteries proliferated throughout China. This was the period of the famous masters whose doings were later to provide the study texts for Zen monks in China and Japan: Te-shan (781-867), famous for shocking his pupils into enlightenment by hitting them with his staff; Lin-chi (d.867), known for his sudden shouts; and a host of other witty paradoxers. This full-blown Zen was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical; study of the scriptures was generally abjured, and a fortiori the philosophers; eben the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were regarded as obstacles to immediate enlightenment: “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!”
Nevertheless, one would have to call this an intellectual’s anti-intellectualism, for only on the basis of subtle understandings and the ability to express them delicately and poetically was one honored for this kind of stamping on sacred icons. The creative conflicts which enrgize the intellectual attention space were here transformed into the repartee of words pointing beyond words, of gestures stripped to their capacity for pure contentless communication
Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
One more: Is Zen Buddhism a philosophy? Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Recently I bought a book on Buddhist Hermeneutics: the strategiesd used within the Buddhist tradition to understand and classify it's own textual tradition. In a chapter on Ch'an Hermeneutics, Buswell writes about the way the Hua-yen tradition classified Chán (see p.245), regarding it to be an inferior tradition, and the defenses of Chán-adepts against this classification. He states that the Chán-tradition was critical of the Madhyamaka. Buswell uses the term dharmadhatu to refer to the Chán-insight into reality. It seems to me that this is a 'correct' reference, though I've hardly (or never) read this term before in Zen-literature. It points to more than:
Also, when adding the Avatamsaka-sutra I realized that Zen does point to the totality of being, without reducing it to mere concepts. And the discussions, on several DP's, on Buddha-nature, made me realize that Buddha-nature is more fundamental to Zen than sunyata is. Why this long explanation? Because it's clear (to me) that "the moon" is not univocal describable or definable, just as the Zen-tradition says itself. The more I study this tradition, the more nuances and differences I come across. So I try to reflect those nuances in the Wikipedia-articles. As regards dharmadhatu, I hardly know anything about this term, but it does make sense in the context of Zen. For that reason, I changed then reference to sunyata to a reference to Dharmadhatu. But this is also based on personal understanding, not so much on multi-textual understanding. So, who knows more about this term, it's meaning, and it's use in the Buddhist & Chán-tradition? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
With the danger of being accused of "owning the page", I moved the following section to the Discussion page:
This apprehension of reality beyond signs (such as words) may seem unremarkable or primitive but it is this very connection with reality beyond words that is the desired experience of non-dual meditation that in earlier Buddhism is called ' Jhana' (sometimes referred to as 'absorption' because one has reached a point where one's attention has become completely absorbed in the object of one's awareness). It is 'Non-dual' because in ordinary experience there is an 'I' that is our self which is apprehending a world 'out there', in other words a separation between subject and object. The goal of meditation is to reach a state of awareness where this duality has disappeared.
I did this for several reasons:
See also the section above on "The finger pointing to the moon", which explains my considerations for creating the section in the article on "The finger pointing to the moon". "The moon" deserves careful wording. My apologies if I sound too critical, or too much involved in following this page. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 15:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi 81.106.127.14. Thanks for your response! I'll try to respond to your response point by point, without using to many words (and asking too much attention and time from our fellow Wikipedians).
I failed, again, in 'not using too many words'. Sorry. Looking forward to your response. And by the way, I think we do agree that 'words and marks cannot express Being-there sufficiently' - they are just fingers pointing to the moon. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence from the lead seems problematic to me, for several reasons:
Due to the school's traditional emphasis on the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, and perhaps to a lesser extent being influenced by Taoism (Lai,Year unknown), it has given rise to a number of minimalist and mystical aesthetic practices and philosophical approaches which have marked Zen Buddhism with a rich cultural impact and history throughout East Asia, as well as a sophisticated metaphysical heritage in the modern study of Eastern philosophy.
Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel like a broken record here, but this article seems to talk about "Zen" in terms of Rinzai and not Soto.
1) The opener states "Zen emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment". Dogen wrote in the Fukanzazengi, "Suppose one gains pride of understanding and inflates one's own enlightenment, glimpsing the wisdom that runs through all things, attaining the Way and clarifying the Mind, raising an aspiration to escalade the very sky. One is making the initial, partial excursions about the frontiers but is still somewhat deficient in the vital Way of total emancipation...Have no designs on becoming a Buddha". This seems like a repudiation of "emphasizing enlightenment" by the founder of the largest sect of Zen. However, it is also "emphasized" in the sense that he wrote "To practice the Way singleheartedly is, in itself, enlightenment. There is no gap between practice and enlightenment or zazen and daily life". Nonetheless, virtually ever Soto source I've looked at advocates not "seeking enlightenment" because it is concept and thus a distraction. If the opener is meant in the sense that Zen believes enlightenment is possible (cf. Pure Land or other "degenerate age" schools), this should probably be more explicit. As its currently worded it seems a bit misleading
2) Nōnin technically started the first Zen school in Japan a couple of years before Eisai and many before Dogen, but he is not mentioned at all in "Zen in Japan". Almost all of the students from this school joined the Soto school later on.
3) The section states "Controversially, Keizan is credited as the founder of the Sōtō school." I've never heard this anywhere. All Soto lineages consider him the fourth patriarch and the "second founder" in the sense that he spread the school significantly, but he is never thought of as "the founder"
4) The Sandai sōron, a very significant historical event, is not mentioned in this section.
5) The history section generally discusses Rinzai far more than Soto.
6) The "polarities" section seems very misleading considering the emphasis on non-dualism in Zen. This should go for both schools. While polarities in teaching approaches exist, to say that Zen is "characterized" by polarities strikes me as wrong. I also don't see how Buddha nature and shunyata are polarities, and I don't think they are typically presented this way. The sudden vs. gradual enlightenment stuff probably belongs in the history section and not in the teaching section. It's never taught as a "teaching". It's a historical curiosity. I remember Shohaku Okumura joking that the Tang Chinese were very concerned with sudden vs. gradual stuff, but really it's a meaningless argument because both are simultaneously true. This is definitely the view in the Soto school anyway. At any rate, I'm pretty confident that sudden and gradual are at least not "taught" nowadays in either school and are only discussed in the context of history.
7) In that same vein, I think "Zen teachings" and "Zen practice" should be merged. Zen is characterized by the fact that practice is the ultimate teaching, so why separate them? To a non-Zen person, they are bound to be confused. I've been practicing Soto zen for years and I've never been "taught" any of the stuff in the "teachings" section.
8) The scripture section again emphasizes history to the exclusion of current practice. In the Soto school, virtually all scripture encountered on a regular basis is from Dogen. Sometimes people delve into the old stuff, but very rarely, with the exception of the Heart Sutra, which isn't mentioned! The Heart Sutra, as I understand it, it far more important for Zen than all of the works listed. I've never had a teacher discuss any of the works mentioned. No doubt they form an important philosophical core, but this fact needs to be emphasized. The scripture discussed and read for the purposes of contemporary practice does not include virtually any of these things.
As currently written, this article seems to overemphasize academic views on Zen held by non-practitioners. This is understandable since they write a lot of the books about Zen. However, I think we need to be careful to remember that these are not the people who actually have much of an idea of what goes on now. They are much more concerned with history. I think we need to source more from books written by Zen teachers and less by distant observers. Some of the things I've read in academic accounts of Zen blatantly misunderstand the practices. Obviously this is my own opinion, but if you pair academic views with views of teachers, you can often see this fact. Anyway, that's all for today. This article is progressing nicely, but whenever I read it, it seems pretty foreign to my years of experience, which I don't think should be the case. At present, I would not recommend someone who doesn't know about Zen to this article. DJLayton4 ( talk) 12:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response! I totally accept that I have a very Soto bias. I don't expect to see an article about Zen that reflects only the Soto viewpoint, however, but rather one that just doesn't largely ignore it. I think WP:UNDUE applies. The Soto school is the largest school of Zen in Japan, and arguably in the West, so its practices shouldn't be ignored or diluted. Chan schools are tricky because they aren't practiced much in the West, and knowledge about non-Taiwanese lineages is hard to come by, but of course they should be treated too. At any rate, this article either needs to be general enough to encapsulate all schools, or specific enough so that the individual schools are not conflated. So having like 10 paragraphs on sudden vs. gradual gives undue weight to certain schools, in my opinion. As far as the Soto school is concerned, it IS a historical curiosity, but the way the article is written a reader would assume it's a very important thing to all schools.
I also don't mean to suggest that academic research on Zen isn't important. I absolutely agree that it is. I do think that some academics who are not practitioners tend to get in over their heads a little bit, but that's my opinion. At any rate, my point is that this article reflects much more about academic views than actual practice. This serves to make it both somewhat unaccesible and a weak introduction to Zen. If you go to the article on Methodism or Episcopal Church (United States), they don't give any academic views at all. They are usually too inaccessible to the average reader. Instead, these articles offer an easy to read article that allows the reader to become generally acquainted with the specific branch of Christianity. This article fails to give a reader a good overview of the topic because it's way too specific in some areas while simultaneously being way too incomplete. For example, "scripture" covers historical works ad nauseum while ignoring works that are actually important to the average practitioner, while "teachings" gives in-depth, incomprehensible academic analysis on a couple of select topics while failing to explain generally what Zen teachings are.
Shohaku Okumura's work is almost entirely concerned with Dogen's work, as is the case with most Soto academics, so I think this reinforces the importance of including Dogen more heavily in "Scipture". Your point that he was not widely ready until the 17th century emphasizes that the scripture section is out of touch with the present. I think heavier weight should be give to the scripture that is actually important to Zen practitioners now, not historical works. The article on Christianity, for example, has a scripture section that concentrates on the Bible, and devotes a sentence or two to apocryphal, non-standard texts, and precedent works. It's scripture section is about a quarter of the length of this scripture section as well. Does someone hoping to get an idea about what Zen is care about an in-depth analysis of all the scripture leading up to the establishment of Zen, or are they interested in the current scripture that is important to practice? Maybe both. But as it is, the section basically only covers the latter. I'd suggest starting a separate "Scripture in Zen" article if you want to go into that much detail about Mahayana documents that most Zen teacher's never talk about. At any rate, I think it would be inappropriate to include Okumura's in-depth analysis of Dogen's texts in this article. If he or anyone else can be cited on a general topic in Zen, fine, but plunging into academic depths on a few random topics makes for a poor article. DJLayton4 ( talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The connection between Zen and Taoism is intriguing. Yet, I've serched for literature on this before , and found very little [5] [6]. The connection seems to be more in the eyes of modern interpreters than in historical 'reality' [7]. Does anyone have more info? Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 06:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Part-time unemployed... But I'm considering doing a Ph.D-research, and all this edting is quite helpfull. I'm going to have a look at those links; thanks! Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As it is now, the text suggests that Chán developed out of Taosim and Buddhism, while the sources seem to point out that the influence of Taoism was more like that of competition, the understanding of Buddhism in native terms and terminology, and the borrowing of Taoist terms by Buddhists. What seems closer to the point is that Chán resulted from the sinification of Buddhism, including the influence of Chinese ideas such as "T’i -yung" (Essence and Function) and "Li-shih" (Noumenon and Phenomenon) [11] which are also expressed by Taoism, and first taken over by Hua-yen Buddhism, which the influenced Chán. So it might be a good idea to that this to the text on Taoist influences. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Yet another linkJudging from the reception by the Han of the Hinayana works and from the early commentaries, it appears that Buddhism was being perceived and digested through the medium of religious Daoism (Taoism). Buddha was seen as a foreign immortal who had achieved some form of Daoist nondeath. The Buddhists’ mindfulness of the breath was regarded as an extension of Daoist breathing exercises. [10]
I've added an elaboration on the Taoist influnce. Fuller quotes are included in the copy I put into the Chinese Chán page. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This whole article 'Zen' is becoming a book rather than a concise encyclopaedic entry. I used to be able to refer lay people to this page in Wiki' but frankly now it's becoming a totally academic reference. I feel also some contributors are treating it as their pet rather than an article. Not now something I'd recommend reading, more likely to confuse than inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 ( talk) 15:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response. I'll take your suggestion into consideration. I might suggest to all, that it is of some value to mention that the notions of Sotoshu, Obakushu as distinct from Rinzaishu are Japanese fabrications, today they have become distinct schools but initially they simply represented teaching lineages. Today the situation is different from an admin perspective and some layers of practice have been added of course, but I think it's worth mentioning as it is factual and helps to explain why Rinzai, Soto and Obaku people find their practice so interchangeable. Besides the fact I'm a monk of 25 years, some of that spent in Japanese Sodo, it is researchable out there. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
... men and women [how] to follow the Bodhisattva Path and [...] how they should proceed.
Note: This line is not found in the standard translation of the Diamond Sutra that is used in the Far East ( Kumarajiva's translation). I'm not sure which translation it comes from, or maybe it is from a late Sanskrit edition, but either way, it's doubtful that many Zen adepts of the past ever read this line. It is true, however, that the Diamond Sutra is about the Bodhisattva Path. Tengu800 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TheSpecialUser ( talk · contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm busy with real life, I've been doing reviews which can only be completed at a glance. I'm sorry to say but this article is far away from GA standards. Here are the 3 basic reasons behind it:
Despite of all the hard work, lack of refs will be the main reason for failing this. I believe that work on the article for 1 more month would be fine and this was just a touch too rushed nomination. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed easily. Sorry to say but I've to quickly fail it. Once addressed the issues raised above, anyone can go for another nom. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As the GA reviewer of indicated, this article has a lot of problems.
Joshua Johnathan - You've contributed immensely to the content of this article. However, I must say that I have avoided copyediting the article for fear of your edits undoing any progress I might make, not so much in terms of content, but in terms of layout. Frankly, I think this article is bit of a disaster. By that I mean that the layout is largely at odds with MoS suggestions and GA standards (as the reviewer mentioned - tons of short paragraphs, too many bullet points, and, as I see it, a total lack of an overall narrative). It is also doesn't provide much of a readable introduction into what zen is. I think if I didn't know anything about the subject, I would feel more confused after reading this. The article has also gotten way too long. There's way too much random information at the expense of a comprehensive overview of the subject matter. I think this is most obvious when you look at this article and compare it to an FA on a similar topic. For example, compare with Bahá'í Faith. It's way shorter, has far fewer sections and subsections, and provides a much more concise idea about what Bahá'í is.
So here's my suggestion. I can start copyediting the article, but I'm only interested in doing it if you will let me make pretty major cuts and revisions to the format, including a lot of content removal, especially of unreferenced material. I don't mean to say that I don't want to hear any dissent, but I don't have the time to get into debates over every other sentence in this behemoth of an article. I think a lot of the material can be spun off into other articles. For example, I don't think we need ten paragraphs on the history of zen in each country where it exists- this content can be integrated into Japanese Zen, Chinese Chan, etc., if it isn't already.
I've succesfully gotten articles to pass GA and FA almost entirely on my own, so I feel confident that I can do a good job.
Let me know what you think. DJLayton4 ( talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Shortened section, but maybe too drastically. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Vietnamese Thiền with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The article on Chinese Chán already contains a shortened section on Chinese Chán#Spread of Chán Buddhism in Asia. This could be copied to Zen, replacing the longer sections, and removed from Chinese Chán. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Shortened section. Western lineages are also mentioned in Zen in the United States. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chinese Chán was copied or moved into Doctrinal background of Zen with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Doctrinal background of Zen. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen and Sutras with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Copied to Zen and Sutras. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen organisation and institutions with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Zen organisation and institutions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Zen was copied or moved into Zen Narratives with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created Zen Narratives. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no citations available for this:
To point out 'essential Zen-teachings' is almost impossible, given the variety of schools, the extended history of 1500 years, and the emphasis on suchness, reality just-as-it-is, which has to be expressed in daily life, not in words.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}} But common to most schools and teachings is this emphasis on suchness, the Bodhisattva-ideal, and the priority of zazen.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}
Those are my words, so they may as well be deleted. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I eliminated "well-known" from "..the well-known genealogy of the Chán-school.". It's a bit pompous and it's highly unlikely that the genealogy is well-known to a reader of an encyclopedia article on Zen. -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The original version (That is, the last version of 2 february) was much longer, but cut down by me after feedback about the length of the article. But only restoring the "Origins and Taoist influences" and "Legendary or Proto-Chán - Six Patriarchs" subsections brings the history back to a point og more then a year ago, where the legendary is emphasised and the factual discarded. Since the late 1960s, a lot of research on Chán/Zen has been done; especially McRae gives a fine and concise overview on the factual history of Chán. This can't be left out; McRae does not only have very good academic credentials, he's also being picked-up by the contemporary western Zen-scene. The subsections from "Early Chán and Classical Chán - Tang dynasty (618–907)" on give more details on this periodisation, without being too detailed - that is, compared to the huge amount of data available. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The section of Periodisation includes the phrase "producing the literature in which the supposed spontaneity of the celebrated masters was portrayed". Since the basis for the skeptical "supposed" is not supported, perhaps... "producing literature emphasizing the spontaneity of celebrated masters of the previous period". -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)