Talk:Yin Shun

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Untitled

A nice summary of Yinshun's works in Chinese would be great. At present, it looks like he wrote two books and was Ven Zhengyen's Shifu! 90% of the story is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huifeng (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regards his lineage affiliation of "Sanlun" - from "Investigations into Sunyata", he says:

In Modern Discussion on the Madhyamaka (中觀今論), I stated: “Amongst my teachers and friends, I am seen as a scholar of either the Three Treatise (三論sanlun) or the Śūnyatā schools (空宗)”, and although I “certainly do have great affinities with the fundamental and essential doctrines of the śūnyatā school”,2 however, “I do not belong to any particular school of thought within the śūnyatā schools”. The problem is, when I study, I do not seek deep understanding, nor am I a specialist – so I am not the type to promulgate a single school, or glorify any particular school after having profoundly understood it.

Any suggestions for a more appropriate "lineage", how about "Mahayana" or "Humanistic Buddhism"?

--Huifeng (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ven. Huifeng. I put that statement in about the San-Lun school as his lineage, though from what I understand from his writings, he was very much a Mahayana generalist, so you're right in that it's probably not a great fit. On the other hand, I assumed that because his training was originally within that school, he could still be considered part of its lineage. Does "Humanistic Buddhism" have a lineage per se? If so, it certainly seems reasonable to that instead. --Ph0kin (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. Gerald Ford from E-sangha)[reply]

Perhaps someone can also include some different opinions from others who do not agree and have written some critics about the Master's approach. (e.g. http://www.awker.com/hongshi/mag/53/53-7.htm) Kamleong (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]