Talk:Zen/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggestions

Extended content

Arbitrary header #1 Adding the following books to the reading list as they all cover zen topics and are not currently included: Platform Sutra - Huineng Sun Faced Buddha - Mazu Gateless Gate - Wumen Book of Serenity - Wansong Blue Cliff Records - Yuanwu Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching - Dahui Master Yunmen, From the Record of the Chan Teacher "Gate of the Clouds" The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi - Burton Watson The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield The Recorded Saying of Zen Master Joshu - James Green Radical Zen, The Sayings of Joshu - Yoel Hoffmann Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt Pruning The Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard ___ Providing a list of known zen masters, including: Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike ___ Dividing zen into the classical zen and the modern interpetation of it by use of different headers. ____ Adding conflicting views, for both the modern and classic works, to keep things neutral. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Most of the titles you mention are primary sources, which are better suited at the Wiki-pages of those teachers. NB: most of them also happen to be Rinzai-texts... they all cover zen topics and are not currently included is not a usefull criterium for inclusion; I can name dozens of titles. Most of those teachers are already linked in the article; they also appear in the navbox at the bottom. The article already makes a distinction between various periods in the devlopment of Zen; and it gives a concise ovefview of practice and doctrine, both Rinzai and Soto. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC) These are books by masters of said topic though. I don't think they would be misplaced under the "further reading" header. From the wiki intro: "Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things. This part, for example, is not neutral in it's depiction of zen. Rigorous self control and meditation practice were not the (main) focus of all the zen schools. (Please point out where it is if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any of the critique on silent illumination/meditation included in the rest of the article either) I don't think it's fair to say that "most" teachers get mentioned already. Out of the 18 mentioned I only found 5 in the navbox. (Found some more with the search function, but there are still quite some people missing) 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Internal criticism of types of meditation and of meditation itself would be useful to include. There are plenty of primary sources. It would be good to find a secondary source. Teishin (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Would this suffice as source material? "Building on the prevalent Chinese Buddhist conviction that all beings have/are Buddha-nature (fo-xing, 佛性), however, practice was not advocated in Chan as a means to enlightenment, but rather as the meaning of demonstrating it. It is only in denial or ignorance of our own true nature that enlightenment can be regarded as something to seek, a destination at which we might one day arrive. In sharp contrast with more scholastically-inclined schools of Buddhism, Chan did not see dispelling ignorance of our own true nature as something to be accomplished by studying canonical texts and commentaries. On the contrary, in keeping with the Buddha’s claim that the wise “do not hang onto anything, anywhere” and “do not enter into the mud of conceptual thinking” (Sabhiya Sutta, Sutta Nipāta III.6), Chan came to insist that we cannot read or reason our way out of conflict, trouble and suffering. And, in contrast with more ritually-defined schools of Buddhism, Chan also came to deny the merit of seeking help from supramundane sources. Dispelling ignorance of our own Buddha-nature does not involve cultivating or acquiring anything; we need only end the relational paralysis that prevents us from conducting ourselves as enlightening beings. This does not require special conditions or implements. It does not require extensive study or training. It can be accomplished here and now, in the midst of our own day-to-day lives." Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-chan/ Taken from the introduction Otherwise, the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source. If that is the case then the following works are secondary sources too: Sources The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield - ISBN 978-0-8021-5092-9 Two Zen Classics, The Gateless Gate and The Blue Cliff Records - Katsuki Sekida - ISBN 978-1-59030-282-8 Book of Serenity, One Hundred Zen Dialogues - Thomas Cleary - ISBN 978-1-59030-249-1 The Platform Sutra, The Zen Teaching of Hui-Neng - Red Pine - ISBN 1-59376-177-5 If none of these are usable, then Dogen's manual of Zen Meditation by Carl Bielefeldt (ISBN 0520068351) should suffice. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC) The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV. The IP is merely referring to primary sources, mostly from the yulu genre, the 'recorded sayings' of ancient masters, which he seems to interpret in a specfic way. These texts cannot be taken on face-value, as they are doing; they were religious and institutional texts, created (long) after the lifes of their antagonists, and far from 'objective' representations of their lifes or teachings. See, for eaxmple, John McRae, Seeing Through Zen; or Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Poceski: [p.58:] The structure of the Mazu yulu consists of three distinct parts: a biographical sketch of Mazu’s life, numerous transcripts of his sermons, and thirty-two short dialogues between him and his disciples. [p.59:] The second part of the Mazu yulu consists of transcripts of three of Mazu’s sermons [...] In his sermons Mazu seamlessly weaves in numerous quotations from and allusions to Buddhist scriptures, usually without identifying his sources. Judging from their contents, the sermons’ main function seems to have been to instruct disciples in the teachings of Buddhism and provide them with religious guidance and inspiration. The format of the sermons is traditional, and their contents do not fit the radical image of the Hongzhou school’s leader [p.61:] The picture changes dramatically when we come to the third part of the Mazu yulu, which consists of dialogues between Mazu and his monastic and lay disciples. [p.62:] The contrast between the images of Mazu conveyed by his sermons and dialogues is quite striking. In the sermons he assumes a somewhat traditional role of a teacher of Buddhist doctrine (albeit of the Chan variety). There he comes across as a fairly conventional religious figure, someone who is well versed in canonical texts and traditions and who adopts a time-honored mode of religious instruction. In the dialogues, on the other hand, he seems to be a strikingly unconventional figure and assumes the role of an iconoclastic Chan master who engages in spontaneous and often seemingly eccentric exchanges that subvert the established mores of his time. Under the influence of popular lore about the ancient “Zen masters,” both Zen adherents and scholars have so far chosen to focus on the image of Mazu depicted in the dialogues. They have also tended to gloss over or ignore the discrepancies between the iconoclastic character depicted in the dialogues and the conservative disposition evidenced in the sermons. As a result, the popular image of Mazu conveyed in numerous Zen books is that of an iconoclast, a radical figure who embodies a classical Chan tradition that to a large extent was created by him. We cannot just simply quote from those primary yulu sources, ignoring other primary sources from the time, or the historical context. Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ironically, this is an apt description of the Caodong point of view, which has criticised the Linji-school for seeking insight, c.q. "enlightenment." And I'm interested to see where the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Under "Secondary Sources" at the bottom of the page. "The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV." There can easily be a part added in the intro where it says that Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things. Just add something along the lines of; "There are however master who reject this point of view" with a see: [Insert article name pr other resource here] It's not just Dahui who rejects it. Secondary source that denies the affiliation between zen and meditation C. Bielefeldt in Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation: The recurrent "debates" over the interpretation of meditation that mark the history of Ch'an and Zen are justly famous and regularly receive due notice in accounts of the school. Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana, or "meditation," and that the school has specialized in the practice, but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Ch'an and Zen (including Dogen's own), to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with dhyana. Page 11, ISBN 0520068351 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC) There is no such header at this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC) It's in the "bibliography" part. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Ah, the Stanford-page does so. Well, here it is a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC) This description from wikipedia disagrees though. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A third perspective on the matter would be appreciated. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC) I'm finding this conversation difficult to follow. One thing that would help greatly is if the user with the unsigned IP address would follow the convention of getting a username and signing their comments with their username. At this point it's not always clear who has said what. Teishin (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC) The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition; a book like Heine and Wright, The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism, is a secondary text. To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zen was re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Then the works of the following people should probably be excluded too, as they have very intimate ties with religious institutions, teaching at them, studying at them, and building a reputation as affiliated with the religion.  Primary Sources Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist) Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987 Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995 Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989; 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC) You're serious? See WP:TRUTH and WP:CANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Material may be verifiable, but still banned by several other content policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Can those people still be considered neutral if they are that invested? The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition; Cleary's tranlsation of the Blue Cliff Records contain his commentary on each case too, including some references to other work. Doesn't that make it secondary source? About Primary and Secondary Sources "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published. According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics: It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary". [...] "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. [...] Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zenwas re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source.... Yet you have no problem using it on the dutch talk page to convey your point of view. How does that work? 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Arbitrary header #2 I suggest the conversation would be more productive if we were to examine concrete proposals for changing the existing article rather than dealing with abstract matters regarding sources and personal matters the editors. Teishin (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC) It's hard to make a decent proposition when the editor in question is not clear on what can and can't be used for verifiability. If I don't source my quotes, I'd just get told it's my personal opinion/interpetation again and that it's not useable. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC) No single editor controls the content of this page. There are more than two editors participating in this discussion. If you can make a proposal that you think fits Wikipedia's requirements, we can look at that proposal and have a discussion about whether it fits the requirements. If you just have a discussion in the abstract about requirements, nothing in the article will be changed. (Could you please sign up for a username?)Teishin (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC) I'll consider it. There is a lot wrong the article. At the very least all schools should be equally represented. Meditation should not have the spotlight when it is a minority view of the teachings. (Minority may be discarded if you count all modern works too though.) I think critiques on both teachings should be added and don't see why primary sources can not be used as a means of clarification like; "Eventhough meditation is wildly popular/widely regarded as the foundation of zen, there are a lot of zen masters who disagree with this point of view" Followed by some citations from Zen Masters. There is a point of view being sold in the intro which does not comply with zen teachings, namely zen being apophatic. Removing it should be no problem, as the is still a citation needed. So the info is not even verified. I'm talking about this line: The Prajñāpāramitā literature[11] as well as Madhyamakathought have also been influential in the shaping of the apophatic and sometimes iconoclastic nature of Zen rhetoric.[citation needed] [Just noticed a citation got added. I haven't read the exact quote as to why the author thinks this though, as I don't own the book and couldn't find a pdf, but maybe it has been presented too crudely in the wiki article? I'm saying this because zen masters affirm all sorts of things (about dharma and buddha nature). For example Mazu's famous quote that states that "Mind is Buddha"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC) It seems that your interest is in complaining about Wikipedia and its editors and that you are not here to make a positive contribution. If you can't make a concrete proposal about how to improve the article, why should we be having this discussion?Teishin (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC) I agree with Teishin. JimRenge (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC) The only complaint I had was that the article wasn't neutral enough in my opinion. I don't think it's unfair to say this, considering wikipedia favors neutrality. I am making concrete proposals. There is just a alot of information to sift through and I'm doing it alone. I'm not sure what more you want from me at this point. Do you want me to write a whole new draft of the article with citations and references here? Because that would seem like a lot of work when there's a chance you won't even take it up. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Editing Wikipedia can be a lot of work. A concrete proposal would be to write drafts for the parts of the article you feel should be changed. What you've done so far isn't a concrete proposal. And could you please create a Wikipedia editing account for yourself and get yourself a username? Teishin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Then can you please specify what actually counts as a reliable sources like I asked before? I don't understand how you expected me to write drafts without that information. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Please see WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES, the friendly expert editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE may be able to answer additional questions. JimRenge (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) There would probably be a lot of (religous) pages missing if you would stick to the rule exactly. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Would you please do basic tasks expected of new editors, such as creating an account and a username, like you've been requested to before? Teishin (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I told you I would consider it. Having an account is not a requirement to edit on wikipedia. Please do not remove my comments again. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Your primary interest appears to be to accuse editors here of failings. I've not removed any of your comments, yet you accuse me of doing so. Teishin (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC) You realize things get logged right? See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/935991345 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Must have happened inadvertantly when I hit "publish changes" twice because the page seemed to be sticking. The page will seem to stick when it has been changed while one was making a comment. Normally talk pages are not flooded like this one is with so many comments made so frequently. Of course, if one is here to complain about the volunteers, this is all good grist for the mill. Teishin (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Arbitrary header #3 Zen is currently being associated with mahayana a lot in the article. However, the rituals, practices, the 8 fold path and the 4 noble truths for example are not accepted by every zen teacher as being neccesary or even useful. It would be nice if the R.H. Blyth explanation of dhyana gets included under the Dhyana header too To make things easier you could probably add a "Controversial teachings" or "Critique by zen masters" header for some of the contradictory teachings It was thoroughly influenced by Mahayana teachings on the bodhisattva path, Chinese Madhyamaka (Sānlùn), Yogacara (Wéishí), Prajñaparamita, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and other Buddha nature texts. You could change "Buddha Nature Texts" to "Zen Scriptures" and refer to this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Zen_scriptures Or refer to it some other appropriate place and add (some of) the "primary texts" there. I think that if D.T. Suzuki can't be considered a useable source because of his buddhist associations, that the following people should be excluded too: Extended content Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist) Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987 Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995 Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989; I'm stopping here for now. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Alan watts is used as a source on the wikipedia page for some reason, so this should be fine too: Quote with source Nowhere in their teachings have I been able to find any instruction in or recommendation of the type of zazen which is today the principal occupation of Zen monks.47 On the contrary, the practice is discussed time after time in the apparently negative fashion of the two quotations just cited. Source: https://books.google.nl/books?id=5NuOYxuDbS0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false> This however does not get mentioned at all in the article. I still think there was not enough neutrality in writing this article, which is basically the whole issue. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Search for the same quote in The Three Pillars of Zen, and see what Yasutani thinks of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Please provide the quote and source it. On kapleau; "Kapleau has created his own Zen lineage."[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kapleau So I'm not sure why his book is used as source material. Yasutani was a zen priest. Primary sources were not useable according to you. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC) It's your personal interpretation of primary sources that can't be used. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Then these earlier rejected quotes should be fine. You should really be clearer. Some of the Quotes Huangbo, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po "As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses, how do they differ from wooden dolls?" "Since you are fundamentally complete you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices." "If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices, and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge." Zen Master Deshan If you say you can attain by entering concentration, stilling the spirit, quieting down thoughts, well, some cultists have also managed to get into states of tremendous concentration seeming to last eighty thousand eons, but are they enlightened? Obviously they are mesmerized by false notions. From Dahui's Shobogenzo Linji; Just be able to dissolve past habits according to circumstances, going when you need to go, sitting when you need to sit, without any thought of seeking buddhahood. Why so? An ancient said, ‘If you’re going to act in contrived ways to seek buddhahood, then buddhahood is a major sign of birth and death.’ Touzi; If you question me, I reply accordingly, but I have no mysterious subtleties for you. And I don’t have you dwell figuring. I never speak of transcendence or immanence, or the existence of Buddha, or Dharma, or ordinary or holy. And I don’t maintain sitting to bind you people. Zhenjing; Buddhism does not go along with human sentiments. Elders everywhere talk big, all saying, ‘I know how to meditate, I know the Way!’ But tell me, do they understand or not? For no reason they sit in pits of crap fooling spirits and ghosts. When people are like this, what crime is there is killing Xuansha; It cannot be said that you will hit the mark by fasting, discipline, constant sitting without reclining, stopping the mind, meditating on emptiness, freezing the spirit, or entering concentration—what connection is there? Ch'eng-ku, Teachings of Zen:"It is essential for yu to cease and desist from your previously held knowledge, opinions, interpretations, and understandings. It is not accomplished by stopping the mind; temporary relinquishment is not the way - it fools you to wasting body and mind, without accomplishing anything at all in the end.I suggest to you that nothing compares to ceasing and desisting. There is nowhere for you to apply your mind. Just be like an imbecile twenty-four hours a day. You have to be spontaneous and buoyant, your mind like space, yet without any measurement of space." 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC) This page seems a lot more inclusive of the different approaches. Ironically, in this article silent illumination is not very well represented. Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism Does wikipedia ever merge pages? Might get you the good article award. Also, this piece of information is contradictory: From the Wiki Article Under "Middle Chan" The Middle Chán (c. 750–1000) period runs from the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763) to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (907–960/979). This phase saw the development new schools of Chan. The most important of these schools is the Hongzhou school of Mazu Daoyi (709–788), to which also belong Shitou, Baizhang, and Huangbo. This school is sometimes seen as the archetypal expression of Chán, with its emphasis on the personal expression of insight, and its rejection of positive statements, as well as the importance it placed on spontaneous and unconventional "questions and answers during an encounter" (linji wenda) between master and disciple.[206][207]However, modern scholars have seen much of the literature that presents these "iconoclastic" encounters as being later revisions during the Song era, and instead see the Hongzhou masters as not being very radical, instead promoting pretty conservative ideas, such as keeping precepts, accumulating good karma and practicing meditation.[207] However, the school did produce innovative teachings and perspectives such as Mazu's views that "this mind is Buddha" and that "ordinary mind is the way", which were also critiqued by later figures, such as the influential Guifeng Zongmi (780–841), for failing to differentiate between ignorance and enlightenment.[208] Source:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Zen   2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Arbitrary header #4 Qouting primary sources to support a mistaken pov is still a form of interpretation. Regarding the use of yulu, c.q. "encounter dialogue" as a source for describing Zen-doctrine, see again Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts (emphasis mine): [p.72:] although it can be substantiated that Mazu’s sermons and his biography were recorded during the mid-Tang period, there is no evidence that any of his encounter dialogues were extant before the mid-tenth century or that any of them had any direct connection with Mazu. This finding about the varied provenance of the constituent parts of Mazu yulu is also applicable to other records of prominent Chan teachers from the middle and late Tang periods. [p.73:] It was only from the middle part of the tenth century onward that stories containing Mazu’s iconoclastic dialogues with his disciples came to shape the (mis)understanding of his religious thought and teaching methods. At present, the situation is further exacerbated by the uncritical acceptance of the somewhat biased interpretation of sectarian Japanese scholarship, not to mention popular vulgarizations of the tradition’s teachings and history [...] it is apparent that encounter dialogue stories should in no way be used as historical sources for the study of the Hongzhou school’s history, teachings, and practices. Even less WP:OR based on such dialogues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Who has deemed it mistaken? It's still being practiced to this day. There's more than just Mazu too. Not every quote I shared has been an encounter dialogue. John Blofeld, Zen teachings of Huang Po Quote The Doctrine of Zen Zen is already a familiar doctrine to many Western people, thanks to the comprehensive and illuminating works of Dr. Daisetz Tairo Suzuki, and to books by Western scholars, such as Mr. Christmas Humphreys' delightful Zen Buddhism. At first sight Zen works must seem so paradoxical as to bewilder the reader. On one page we are told that everything is indivisibly one Mind, on another that the moon is very much a moon and a tree indubitably a tree. Yet it is clear that this is not paradox for the sake of entertainment, for there are several million people who regard Zen as the most serious thing in life. All Buddhists take Gautama Buddha's Enlightenment as their starting point and endeavor to attain to that transcendental knowledge that will bring them face to face with Reality, thereby delivering them from rebirth into the space-time realm forever. Zen followers go further. They are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the Supreme Experience which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the Godhead'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond conceptual thought and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. Furthermore, they insist that the experience is both sudden and complete. While the striving may require years, the reward manifests itself in a flash. But to attain this reward, the practice of virtue and dispassion is insufficient. ;It is necessary to rise above such relative concepts as good and evil, sought and found, Enlightened and unenlightened, and all the rest. [Page 14] Huangbo; As to performing the six paramilas1 and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices. When there is occasion for them, perform them; and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent. If you are not absolutely convinced that the Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices and meitoious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite incompatible with the Way. [Page 30] As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses how do they differ from wooden dolls? [Page 112] ISBN: 0-394-17217-5 Also: McRae Lineage assertions are as wrong as they are strong. Statements of lineage identity and “history” were polemical tools of self-assertion, not critical evaluations of chronological fact according to some modern concept of historical accuracy. To the extent that any lineage assertion is significant, it is also a misrepresentation; lineage assertions that can be shown to be historically accurate are also inevitably inconsequential as statements of religious identity. [...] Precision implies inaccuracy. Numbers, dates, and other details lend an air of verisimilitude to a story but the more they accumulate, the more we should recognize them as literary tropes. Especially in Zen studies, greater detail is an artifact of temporal distance, and the vagueness of earlier accounts should be comforting in its integrity. While we should avoid joining a misguided quest for origins, we should also be quick to distinguish between “good data” and ornamental fluff. Even as we ponder the vectors of medieval polemics. Source: John McRae, Seeing through Zen: Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism, Page 19-20 If we consider these quotes from McRae, there are a lot of things that can be removed from the page. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Header #5, suggestion There is currently a practice header. The rejection of practice however does not get mentioned there, so I propose another header beneath the practice one with the title "rejection of practice" or "critique on practice" or something similar. Draft: The recurrent "debates" over the intepretation of meditation that mark the history of Ch'an and Zen are justly famous and regularly receive due notice in accounts of the school. Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana, or "meditation," and that the school has specialized in the practice, but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Ch'an and Zen (including Dogen's own), to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with dhyana (meditation). The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." It is the world of Hakuin Ekaku (1686-1769), who fixed the orthodox Rinzai koan practice and attacked what he called "dead sitting in silent illumination" (koza mokusho) as counter to the Buddhist path and disruptive of social ethics; and it is the world of Mujaku Dochu (1653-1744), who established modern Rinzai scholarship and dismissed Dogen's Zen as "pitiable." This Zen, said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (mojin soku butsu) and ignored the transformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen "never even dreamt" of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma's mission to China, and the message of the Patriarch of karma, or koan Zen, Ta-Hui. Zen followers are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the Supreme Experience which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the Godhead'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond conceptual thought and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. References ____ Is this alright? 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) No. Incomprehensible, and too close to the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I rather hear it from someone else if you don't mind. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Full of editorializing. First problem is in the scare quotes in the first sentence. Next is "justly famous". Next "due notice." Next "Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips". Teishin (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Isn't it the same when McRae talks about the tang dynasty being a romanticization of zen? And are the other quotes are fine? 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC) You are not McRae. I just pointed out the first few problems in the first few sentences. The rest of the text is similarly problematic. Teishin (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I'm not Carl Bielefeld either. I'm saying shouldn't his point of view be omitted on basis of the same standards? 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC) That's not what editorializing means.Teishin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, english is not my first language. You mean conveying an opinion/point of view by means of specifics edits/references then, like this?: The term Zen is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of the Middle Chinese word 禪 (Chán), which traces its roots to the Indian practice of dhyāna("meditation").[note 1] Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things (Ch. jianxing,Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature"), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.[4][5] As such, it de-emphasizes mere knowledge of sutras and doctrine[6][7] and favors direct understanding through spiritual practiceand interaction with an accomplished teacher.[8] 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Yes, I do mind if you "rather hear it from someone else." You don't gain WP:CONSENSUS by choosing with which editors you want to discuss your proposals; you discuss them with the editors who respond. See also WP:OWN. So far, you've been extremely rude and offensive; you're not making it better. Your text "The recurrent "debates" [...] with dhyana (meditation)" is a direct copy of Bielefeld; that's a WP:COPYVIO. Bielefeldt next writes that there is a "kind of tension between Zen theory and it's practice." That's the sissue at stake here: Zen theory (an apparent rejection of dhyana) and practice (sustained and rigorous dhyana). Bielefeldt further explains that the scholarly study of Chan meditation practices is complicated by the fact that the Chan-tradition left scarce descriptions of it's practices. The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." What's the relevance of this etymology? Your text "It is the world of [...] is another copyvio. What you conveniently ignored from Bielefeldt is what preceded this quote: [D.T. Suzuki] is also carrying forward the old world of the eighteenth century and the ideological origins of contemporary Japanese Zen sectarianism. Apparently, you intended to state that Hakuin and Mujaku Dochu criticised Dogen's style of Zen. Apart from being unable to edit in a coherent way, you're also WP:CHERRYPICKING to state your (mis)understanding of Zen. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free medium to promote your personal worldview. John Blofeld is another direct quote. His introduction to Zen Teachings of Huang Po is not WP:RS; he's an exponent of this outdated, Suzuki-influenced misunderstanding of Zen. It merely serves as another act of WP:CHERRYPICKING. So, altogether: cherrypicking and WP:QUOTEFARM, taken out of context, to promote your personal understanding of Zen. That's not the way to improve this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I've added some more info, mentioning Dahui's critique of "silent illumination," and his recommendation of it for monastics: Yet, while Dahui famously criticised "silent illumination," he nevertheless "did not completely condemn quite-sitting; in fact, he seems to have recommended it, at least to his monastic disciples." I've also added some info on "post-satori practice," to make clear that Zen-practice does not end with kensho: The goal of the practice is often termed kensho (seeing one's true nature), and is to be followed by further practice to attain a natural, effortless, down-to-earth state of being, the "ultimate liberation", "knowing without any kind of defilement". References This should suffice for a concise and neutral presentattion of Dahui's critique, and the role of awakening inactual Zen-practice. The rhetorical side is already being mentioned in the sections on Chan-history and Zen narratives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks, at least it's something. Why not use the information from McRae's book this time, though? Cherry picking? Quote After a half-year living in Han’s house (apparently more than a simple letter was required!), Dahui began to act and write more publicly. He began to attack other teachers and teachings he considered to be heretical, especially those who avoided aiming vigorously at a moment of awakening in favor of a more passive approach to meditation. From 1134 on, Dahui began to attack the advocates of “silent illumination,” perhaps because he was in Fujian near the Caodong monk Zhenxie Qingliao (1088–1151), who was then the abbot of a monastery with more than fifteen hundred people in residence.11 Dahui’s targets included members of his own lineage, and his propensity for public criticism of others earned him the nickname of the “one who bawls out Heaven"! Page 125 Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd. ISBN 978-0-520-23798-8 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC) To learn what key editing terms such as "editorializing" mean Wikipedia has excellent help pages https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Contents . Learning the basics of how to edit Wikipedia before criticizing what other editors have created goes a long way towards helping one make persuasive and valid critiques. Comments such as "rather hear it from someone else" are indeed rude, and such rudeness is indeed a barrier to achieving consensus.Teishin (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Declaring Blofeld's introduction to "Zen Teachings of Huang Po" to be not WP:RS on the grounds that he's an exponent of an "outdated, Suzuki-influenced misunderstanding of Zen" looks to me to be a declaration of editorial bias. We don't get to judge the sources like that. Teishin (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Blofeld's publication is from 1958; seriously outdated. His approach of Zen cannot be regarded as a reliable, scholarly approach up-to-date with prsent insights. See Dale S. Wright, Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism. For example p.59: "Blofeld was himself entering as a new combatant in the doctrinal battles that were being staged in his own culture." Regarding Suzuki, scholars like McRae have dismissed him in strong terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC) That's just taking sides in a controversy.Teishin (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Do you have a page number on the suzuki claim? Can't find anything on it in McRae's book 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Start of chapter 4, p.74. Probably also see his introduction to Dumoulin's Historh of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC) This quote does not seem very concrete tbh Suzuki Quote Passages such as these (koans) should be readily identified by most readers as quintessentially Chan- or Zen-like. For decades, we have been offered such stories as the primary means by which Chan is presented. This is especially true in the writings of D.T. Suzuki, whose most cherished methodology seems to have been to describe some aspect of Zen as beyond ordinary explanation, then over a suitably incomprehensible story or two by way of illustration. Obviously, Suzuki’s approach captured the imaginations of generations of readers. However, while this approach substantiated Suzuki’s authority as one with insider access to the profound truths of the tradition, another result was to increase the confusion in readers’ minds. To question such accounts was to admit one did not “get it,” to distance oneself even further from the goal of achieving what Suzuki termed the “Zen enlightenment experience.” This can be said for about a lot of religious authorities, including dogen for example. Quote from introduction by mcrae There was nothing here of the intentionally obfuscatory tone taken in some of D.T. suzuki's (1870-1966) works on zen, fot example, in which the author's goal was as much to mystify as to explain the subject matter. Source; https://books.google.nl/books?id=9CYeWYtYBS4C&pg=PR5&hl=nl&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false This does not seem very concrete either. Not by McRae, but Suzuki even gets called a genius in the foreword. Or did you have a different quote in mind? The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." What's the relevance of this etymology? Seemed relevant as the part before the quote denies ties between zen and meditation and the quote points out that the word zen does not find it's root in dhyana, or meditation, but in something else. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC) John Blofeld may, or may not be regarded as a reliable source; I think it would be better to use a more recent academic source for the history of religious doctrines (see WP:BESTSOURCES). I expect there should be more sources for the message that "Zen followers are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences ..." (possible enlightenment in this life). Perhaps this can be found in one of the sources used in the Subitism/Zen section. JimRenge (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Might not be recent, but the lankavatara sutra is used as source in multiple articles It says; Quote from the Lankavatara Sutra "They should look within and not be misled by external appearances or fall prey to the doctrines, views, or meditations of shravakas, pratyeka-buddhas, or followers of other paths. They should not delight in idle or frivolous talk, or cling to the views of the Vedas, or become attached to exercising power over others, or indulge in such meditations as the six dhyanas.” Page 31, Red Pine Translation 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC) In the early days of Wikipedia few editors cared to follow policies and guidelines. This practice has changed drastically. Texts from within a religion or faith system (like sutras, the bible etc) should be accompanied by secondary sources that critically analyze them. JimRenge (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC) So sources like Phikip Kapleau, The Soto Zen Buddhist Association; Soto Zen, Sōtō Zen Text Project; Fukan Zazengi and Sheng Yen; Fundamentals of Meditation are misplaced in the article too? Concerning soto, should it and subsequent supportive studies based on it not be disqualified for it's unreliability too? Relevant quote we have a total of four extant meditation texts by Dogen, all of which represent greater or lesser revisions of the Tso-ch'an i. If the argument from content were valid, we should expect all of these texts to be the same. In fact, of course, they are not. This formal weakness, moreover, is only one of the problems with the argument: of greater interest is the fact that it is based on what seems a questionable reading of the "Senjutsu yurai." page 20 By this traditional account, Dogen's four-year sojourn on the continent was divided into two distinct phases, punctuated by his encounter with Ju-ching. The first phase was spent in the concerted quest for a true teacher; the second, in enlightened practice under such a teacher. Put in other terms, the first half of his pilgrimage was devoted to training in the k'an-hua Ch'an of the Lin-chi school; the second half, to the Ts'ao-tung practice of just sitting with body and mind sloughed off. Thus, as he studies under, and rejects, a series of teachers of the Ta-hui tradition, Dogen, rather like Sakyamuni before him, masters and transcends the prevalent religion of his contemporaries, until he finally arrives at the ancient wisdom of the Buddhas. Perhaps this is what happened, but the account I have summarized here depends heavily on the hagiographic literature of early Soto. This literature includes considerable material not confirmed by earlier sources and introduces many fanciful elements into its story of Dogen's life. Though modern biographers now reject at least the most obvious of these latter, they have yet to question seriously the basic account of Dogen's itinerary in China. Page 24-25 From Carl Bielefeldt, Dogens Manual of Zen Meditation, ISBN 0520068351 Basically everything buddhist can be removed from wikipedia. Buddhism For the first five hundred years the Scriptures were orally transmitted. They were written down only at the beginning of the Christian era, because at that time the decline in faith threatened their continued survival in the memories of the monks. Different schools wrote down different things. [...] The years between A.D. 100 and 400 were the golden age of Buddhist literature.” "Buddhist Scriptures" by Edward Conze (1959) Source http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html Why is Shunryu Suzuki under the header "Further Reading" and used as reference? I don't think anyone who is a(n enlightened) zen teacher or able to accurately percieve truth would make the mistake of giving his sangha over to someone like Richard Baker. Relevant quote The only one of the four whose reputation was unblemished, Shunryu Suzuki of the San Francisco Zen Center, gave his sangha over to a man named Richard Baker, who was later embroiled in a sex scandal of his own, resigned from his abbacy, and became the subject of a book with the appropriately suggestive title Shoes Outside the Door. From: https://newrepublic.com/article/115613/zen-buddhist-sex-controversies-america-excerpt Does not seem like a very trustworthy source to me. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Side note Quote I can only speak for myself, of course, and I want the "outsiders" information too. I've already read plenty of the "insiders" view - no, that's not correct: I know a lot of the Zen insiders view. For me, it helped to read critical academical accounts of the history of Zen. It put "sudden enlightenment" into perspective. It ootk me years to become sure that "enlightenment" is not just a "flash of insight", but rather takes sustained practice to "come to fruition" in real life. -Joshua Jonathan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enlightenment_in_Buddhism#Tone_of_this_article Can this person, based on his personal experience, still be considered unbiased enough to stay neutral? Because not everyone draws the same conclusion. Also a question for Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), would you claim your enlightenment has come to fruition then? 2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Buswell & Lopez (2014), Slow-motion satori, TriCycle: Other traditions, such as the central strand of the Korean Zen (Son) school, instead interpret “seeing the nature” to suggest that even after a sudden vision of buddhanature, certain engrained proclivities (vasana) of mind still remain, and can only be removed gradually. The idea here is that just because one knows in a flash of insight that one is a buddha does not mean that one is then fully able to act as a buddha. This process is compared to the maturation of a person: at the moment an infant is born, it may be fully endowed with all the potential abilities of a human being, but it takes many years of growing up before that child learns how to act like an adult. This interpretation is called “sudden awakening [followed by] gradual cultivation” (dunwu jianxiu). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sharf (2014)

After reading (again) several sources, I have to admit that the observation that classical Chan-texts (seem to) reject Chan-meditation is to the point; yet the conclusion that (the whole) Zen-tradition rejects meditation is incorrect. Those sources, which are up-to-date and well-informed, in contrast to Blofeldt and Watts, explain the logi behind this apparent rejection.

Sharf, Robert (2014), "Mindfullness and Mindlessness in Early Chan" (PDF), Philosophy East & West Volume 64, Number 4 October 2014, explicitly treats this apparent rejection of meditation practices in Chan-texts. As several authors have explained, the early Chan supported the Buddha-nature doctrine, at first equating this with the nature of mind, the recognition of the 'observing mind' as the 'essence' of being. Chan texts 'point' to this essence, avoiding any 'indirect' trajectory: "it" is right there, you just have to recognize it. Nevertheless, it's a pedagogical device, "rhetorical purity"; those classic Chan texts too contain references to meditation. McRae and Sharf both note that this "rhetorical purity" created sustained confusion for the Chan-tradition, which exists up to today: how to express doctrine, when this doctrine seems to reject doctrine?

I have added information to Zen#Observing the mind and Zen#Buddha-nature and subitism to explain the doctrinal background of this apparent rejection of meditation in classical Chan-texts. I hope that this suffices. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

They reject it because it is, just like any other thing, a concept that blocks seeing your true nature. The buddha specifies this in the diamond sutra.

If you had all day to spare, you would meditate too. Doesn't mean it has something to do with your buddha nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha! I thought the same; imagine you're a monk, you spend a few hours a day gathering alms, what more can you do when there's nothing to do? Just sit down and be quite. Nevertheless, kenso is the point oc entering the way; after that, one has to 'come back to life'. SeeTa-hui, "Swampland flowers." Or John Daido Loori link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the clearing away of habit energy. But neither dahui or yangshan has a fixed method for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I was talking about guishan it seems. Quote can be seen here; https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/6i8k9t/enlightenment_cultivation_suddenly_gradual/ (Apologies for the poor sourcing)

Not sure what dahui said himself tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ta-hui tells, as published in Swamp Flowers, about his own awakening, and how his master urged him to leave behind this state of insight and 'come back to life'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, can't say that I've read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Pointing-out instructions

@Javierfv1212: would you know of any historical (Indian) precedent for pointing-out instruction and the recognition of the nature of mind? Is anything like that mentioned in the dhyana-sutras, or in the (Sarvastivada) Yochacara-tradition? Any relaton with svabhava? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The precedent for pointing out is the Upanishadic Guru–shishya tradition and can be seen in the earliest Upanishads (ex. Chandogya, Sixth Prapāṭhaka). Regarding "nature of mind", that could refer to different things depending on what tradition you're talking about. If you mean specifically Svasaṃvedana (since you linked it in your post), then the source can be seen in that article. Of course, there are numerous texts which depict a Buddha or bodhisattva teaching about such doctrines and then people who listen having a realization. It's just not called "pointing out instructions", which a specific Tibetan term.

Javierfv1212 15:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Carmen Meinert (2002), Chinese Chan and Tibetan Rdzogs Chen, BRILL, p.297, refers to Daoxin, just like Sharf.
• Caifang Zhu (2005), From Vipassanā In Theravāda to Guan Xin in Chinese Buddhism: A comparative Study of the Meditative Techniques, Contemporary Buddhism Volume 6, 2005 - Issue 1

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Zen in Popular Culture

There is no section about Zen in popular culture. A section is needed for clarity and as a quick reference to the misconceptions arising from superficial and consmetic adoption of zen based practices as an affectation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.11.82 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Count noun

Interesting, but indeed, a mass noun. See also here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This version

-- It could be any version-- is so good!

I just laughed and laughed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednblu (talk • contribs) 13 July 2015 (UTC)

About what? Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Taoist "influence"

There were very large passages in the "origins" sub-section (under History) which seemed to indicate that proto-Chan was directly influenced by Daoism. While Daoism may have influenced (in quite an indirect manner in most cases) much later Chan and Zen ideas, there is no evidence that early or Proto-Chan was directly influenced by it. The influence of Daoism on Chinese Buddhism was quite limited to a few figures involved in the so called "concept matching" translation efforts. None of this impacted Chan much as far as I have read.

Looking at the leading scholarship on the topic of the origin of Chan (McRae's publications and Greene's "Chan before Chan") will lead one to the conclusion that early and proto Chan were strictly Mahayana meditation movements, and Taoism did not play into it. Indeed, all of the citations and content that I have removed from the "origin" section are all speaking about the influence of Daoism on specific figures like Sengzhao or speaking in a very general sense about Daoist influences. Furthermore, a cursory reading of the earliest sources, like Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and the 'Masters of the Lankavatara' literature etc shows that they are just Mahayana works, nothing about the Dao (the character is used, but it means Dharma, not the Daoist Dao, and the context makes this clear), Qi, Pu or other Daoist terms comes up.

Because of this, it would be wrong to have this massive block of text there which I removed that somehow insinuates Chan came from Daoism. Instead, I replaced it with content discussing the earlier dhyana masters and dhyana sutras, which did have an influence on Chan.

I have tracked the passage from Dumoulin which is cited here as evidence, but he doesn't even provide actual proof that early Chan was influenced by Daoism, he just makes a passing comment (in page 168 of his History). To make matters worse, he is citing the Gateless Gate when he makes his comment, a text from the 13th century!!! I looked at the various passages from Dumoulin and honestly he does not provide much solid evidence for thinking that Taoism influenced Chan, its mainly just statements to the fact without citing actual primary sources (when he does cite some, they are from much later as I said above). Either way, I added a short passage indicating that some scholars do think that Chan was influenced by Taoism and citing Dumoulin specifically.

☸Javierfv1212☸ 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Chan is indigenous Chinese Taoism that has been integrated with elements of Mahayana. There are more than enough expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources available which state this for those editors who wish to search for them. Japanese Zen is not Chinese Chan, but it is a simplified version of it. William Harris (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Almost.

Zen and Taoism are friends because the [[DharmaChakra]] understands [[Taoism]]. [[Japanese]] buddhists know because it practices, not just theory.

et al: zen, jhāna, dhyāna.

Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Dhyāna

"The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism." is verifiably false.

From The Letters of Zen Master Dahui Pujue, pages 19 and 20, ISBN 978–0–19–066416–9:

When it is time to deal with things, just deal with them. When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate. At the present time, of the party of perverse teachers, most take “silence-asillumination” stillness-sitting as an ultimate dharma, misleading younger students. I don’t fear making enemies of them. I vigorously scold them in order to repay the kindness of the buddhas, and to rescue beings from the con-men of this end-time of the dharma.

Here are a few brief passages from Dahui texts that explicitly link “engirding mind” and “silence-as-illumination” with excessive sitting:

Preceptor Yantou said: When previously I was on pilgrimage I probed Chan with the honored monks of one or two places. All they did was have students day-and-night “engird mind,” sit until they produced callouses on the rump and until the water in their mouths was drained dry; first they would face Dīpaṃkara Buddha, and, from the black-lacquer darkness in their bellies, they would say: “I keep my Chan sitting safe!”33

The old barbarian Bodhidharma for nine years suffered defeat [i.e., his nine years of sitting facing a wall were a defeat]—what a pity that he was mistaken all that time! The result has been that the followers of “silence-as-illumination” do sitting for years on end.34

They fervently close the eyes and assume the appearance of death. They call it “stillness-sitting,” “mind-contemplation,” and “silenceas-illumination.” In turn they take this perverse view and use it to lead ignorant mediocrities, saying: “If you can attain stillness [in sitting] for one day, that’s one day’s gongfu.”35

There are a lot of texts and quotes that explicitly reject meditation, dhyana and sitting as a means to and end or even as worth anything. While I realize most current traditions mostly don't hold that view, it is what was originally written in the texts (texts of the people who started the tradition of zen) and they made a big deal out of it too. If the quotes above don't satisfy you, I invite you to read the texts yourself, because you clearly haven't. I can also provide more quotes if you are interested, but seeing as there is misinformation on the page, you don't seem to be.

I've read them, and I've also read the scholarly discussion, which you obviously haven't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have and zen masters reject scholars for a reason, which you would know have you read the texts. This discussion is as old as zen itself and you're on the wrong side of it.

I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about. Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, that is, your own personla interpretations of primary texts. The idea that Zen rejects meditation is a well-known fallacy, rejected by scholars. You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice. See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place; Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not religious fundamentalism.

The quote you refer to does not reject meditation, it just warns not to take meditation as an end in itself (p.19):

When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate.

You took the quotes from the introduction; that's what you should be referring to, not those quotes and your own understanding of them. That same introduction also informs us that Dahui did not reject sitting; he did it himself (p.26-27). And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly have no idea what you're saying. Have fun with your "scholars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:244D:6E3B:7AC3:DDDB (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You should try to read a little bit more:

While the attribution of gradualism, attributed by Shenhui to a concurring faction, was a rhetoric device, it led to a conceptual dominance in the Chan-tradition of subitism, in which any charge of gradualism was to be avoided.[133][note 5] This "rhetorical purity" was hard to reconcile conceptually with the actual practice of meditation,[140][133] and left little place in Zen texts for the description of actual meditation practices, apparently rejecting any form of practice.[141][133][132][note 6] Instead, those texts directly pointed to and expressed this awakened nature, giving way to the paradoxically nature of encounter dialogue and koans.[133][132]

Anyway, enjoy your fox-slobber. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubling down on ignorance is not a pretty hill to die on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:C0A3:283A:4B33:78EE (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're just going to stop responding again, as you did on the bodhidharma page, like some butthurt child?

Look I get it, you were interested in zen as a a kid, some dipshit with "master" in his title told you some things he thought were true and you couldn't resist. I mean, it gave you a good feeling, so how can it be wrong, right? And if more than a single person is saying it and even people who are deemed intelligent scholars join that side, how can it be wrong? But your ignorance is evident in the fact that you can't reconcile gradualism vs subitism and quote a scholar who's just as uninformed as you are. You haven't been practicing anything these past 30 years but excessive arrogance and putting your heels in the sand, strengthening your inbility to face yourself and robbing yourself of the ability to admit your mistakes.

You're obviously way out of your depth here. Your claim of zen practice not only falls short in what I mentioned above, but can be clearly seen on your personal page too, where you have a bunch of quotes hanging around that get thouroughly rejected in the zen canon. You also have a line saying: "Yet, Zen, Dzogchen and Shentong also point to groundless awareness, in which this amazing reality appears" which sounds to me like you have experienced it for yourself, or you wouldn't make such a bold claim... (unless you're just parroting after what other people are saying? (It's not really a question...)) or have you been going on blind faith for the last 30 years without having any progress or movement at all? In which case the question is, why even try to talk about what zen is and is not?

It seems that what you were accusing me of, me trying to pass of my own view as zen, is exactly is what you yourself are doing here. You are forfeiting half the canon just so you can use the other half of it and reinforce the views you hold that make you feel better and allow you to be an arrogant prick who can smack people over the head with books he doesn't understand. Classic case of religious fanaticism.

To prove further how out of depth you are: "earlier in the conversation you argue You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice."

Just because dahui is the quote, doesn't mean the practice hasn't been thouroughly rejected by the patriarchs who set up the tradition, you should try to read a little bit more. You don't have any argument here and anyone with even a tiny bit of insight would have seen that.

"I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about."

What have you been doing exactly? And if you know what you're talking about, what does the gradual vs suddend debate mean? Does that mean that for the past 30 years you have been gradually moving towards attainment or does the "I know what I'm talking about" mean you suddenly got an insight x years in? It's also not a good argument on the fact that it would count as OR, your personal experiences have nothing to do with the article, that's a huge bias and you shouldn't bring it up in a conversation that's supposed to be objective. You clearly have personal stakes here.

"And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin"

I know of hakuin, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His koan answer book is a joke. Imagine thinking zen is (even remotely related to) memorizing sayings. Clearly he and anyone who advocates for him hasn't actually delved into the zen canon very much.

"See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place;"

Here is another example of you failing to see any nuance in what is being said to you. Foyan was technically a scholar, but if you knew anything about zen, you'd also understand that words get used as expedients and that the meaning is not only dependant on context, but that sometimes you shouldn't take words so literal and understand what was meant with them, rather than taking them at face value. Then again, you haven't actually been practicing zen, so who can blame you. Obviously I'm referring to people here who are pure scholars, who can't assess zen on their own because they are making conceptual structures out of the knowledge of other people. These intellectual interpretations can obviously never scratch the surface of what zen masters were trying to say and you'll get those huge debates from people who aren't able to reconcile gradual and sudden, like your friends above... You can't navigate rushing waters with your eyes closed, and choosing someone like that to be your captain is something only an idiot does.

(Removed a bit because I made a claim of a quote, but I don't think I own the book it was in anymore, so I won't be able to provide the actual line.) (Sorry the stuff below got a bit messy because of all the editing, but it should be clear nontheless... feel free to edit it so that it makes sense if you want, I've already put in way too much effort for such an ungrateful child as yourself.)

Here's another quote though, which basically says the same thing, but doesn't use the word scholar.

"Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours, since it was first transmitted, it has never taught that men should seek for learning or form concepts. 'Studying the Way' is just a figure of speech. It is a method of arousing people's interest in the early stages of their development. In fact, the Way is not something which can be studied. Study leads to the retention of concepts and so the Way is entirely misunderstood. Moreover, the Way is not something specially existing; it is called the Mahayana Mind - Mind which is not to be found inside, outside or in the middle. Truly it is not located anywhere. The first step is to refrain from knowledge-based concepts. This implies that if you were to follow the empirical method to the utmost limit, on reaching that limit you would still be unable to locate Mind. The way is spiritual Truth and was originally without name or title. It was only because people ignorantly sought for it empirically that the Buddhas appeared and taught them to eradicate this method of approach. Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name 'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way is reached and Mind is understood. A sramana [Commonly, the word for 'monk'.] is so called because he has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of attaining the sramana stage is gained by putting an end to all anxiety; it does not come from book-learning."

So, uhh, I think what I said was fine in a way, so I'll put it back...

Scholars is the exact word zen masters used btw... So that's another argument in favor of your ignorance and that you haven't actually read what zen masters were saying. Don't tell someone to read more when you don't even know that. Again, you are way out of your depth here.

You're in luck, I found it in a book online. It's not even an obscure text, comes from the platform sutra, page 367, Chapter VIII. Sudden and Gradual (heh), ISBN 0-88139-316-9

Everyone shut their mouths; no one said a word. Some of them didn’t speak because they knew and some didn’t speak because they did not know. Seeing that no one was going to answer, Shen Hui jumped out from the assembly and said, “I now what it is! It’s the origin of all Buddhas: my Buddha nature!” “In the ranks of the Ch’an School,” said the Master, “you’re nothing but a scholar. You have no genuine understanding.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC Dhyana section

This is not an RfC. OP blocked for abuse of our processes. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Content is not being given it's due weight and I suspect editorial bias, which isn't soothed by the editor's unwillingness to cooperate. Tried DRN but I don't see it going anywhere and would like some neutral input instead of input from people who are invested in the topic in some way. Sorry if I'm doing this too early, but I don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in and don't see DRN or the discussion with joshua jonathan going anywhere atm. Be sure to read everything carefully, it's not an easy topic. I'm 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 in the discussion above, seems like my ip changed today. 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC) I'll put a tldr of the discussion here... This part the issue: Dhyāna See also: Dhyāna in Buddhism The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.[16] because dhyana or meditation, especially sitting, is not a central part of zen buddhism, even the article itself contradicts that it is. Pointing to the nature of the mind According to Charles Luk, in the earliest traditions of Chán, there was no fixed method or formula for teaching meditation, and all instructions were simply heuristic methods, to point to the true nature of the mind, also known as Buddha-nature.[25] According to Luk, this method is referred to as the "Mind Dharma", and exemplified in the story (in the Flower Sermon) of Śākyamuni Buddha holding up a flower silently, and Mahākāśyapa smiling as he understood.[25] A traditional formula of this is, "Chán points directly to the human mind, to enable people to see their true nature and become buddhas."[26] So, seeing as only one side of the discussion is being given due weight there, an alteration does not seem misplaced. Feel free to read the full discussion of course, but it's a bit full of trivial stuff regarding the exact discussion and a bunch of insults from both parties, instigated by a frequent editor who is supposed to set an example, so I thought I'd spare you all that.