Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:11, 23 January 2007 editKennethtennyson (talk | contribs)1,225 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:57, 28 July 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,588,643 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: silent illumination, Remove 1 notification 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject China
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|importance=High
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|class=B
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Zen/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=High}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{FAOL|Vietnamese|vi:Thiền tông}}
{{Zen Collaboration Nominee|check-talk-off=yes}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism}}


|action1=GAN
==Archives==
|action1date=00:54, 27 October 2012
]
|action1link=Talk:Zen/GA1
]
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=520022918


|currentstatus=FGAN
==Merge Zen and Chan Buddhism Please==
|topic=Philosophy and religion
Merge Zen and Chan. Have the Chan link lead to the Zen link.
}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-intranetusa
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=top}}

{{WikiProject China|importance=Top}}
==Zen in East Asia==
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=high}}
Zen is basically just the Japanese word for Chan. Zen and Chan Buddhism are the same thing.
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Top}}
Zen Buddhism is Buddhism which combined with Daoism & Confucism, and originates from China.
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=Mid}}
*Added wiki project
{{WikiProject Philosophy|religion=yes|eastern=yes|metaphysics=yes|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
-intranetusa
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=High}}

}}

{{not a forum}}

==Topic: Zen in Japan== == Recent edits ==

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

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

:Yes, it looks like I did that while revising some sections back in May. In any event, it was certainly inadvertent. I probably meant to delete that passage, but ended up removing it from one section to another. I'm going to delete it now.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== the Teacher ==

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

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

== Ugly Tables ==

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

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

== Zen Picture ==

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

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

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

== Common Knowledge (?) ==

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

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

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

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

2. Do Zen practitioners outside of Japan attain realization in greater number than in Japan?
] 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Archery and Zen ==

To:

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

I would like to add:

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

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

] 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Commented bibliography within the article: NPOV? ==

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

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

] 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Sambo Kyodan ==

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

== Scandals ==

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

] 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

== American Zen ==

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

:Thanks. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== Copyedit ==

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

== North Indian Cholas? ==

The article mentions of North Indian Chola dynasty, which i have never heard of. Chola dynasty was based in southern India, though they have invaded northern India, they never established their kingdom there. Will the author check the validity and correct it?
:Well, judging by the article ], they did rule eastern India, e.g. Bengal, which one might consider sort of northern. However, there generally seems to be a lot of sparsely-cited information about Bodhidharma floating around, so I'll take that out. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

== Edit ==

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

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

== Dhyana ==

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

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

== Overall revision ==

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

*I believe that this article should primarily be about the entire Zen school from Bodhidharma to the present. To insist that "Zen" cannot be used to refer to Chinese 禪 is pedantic to the point of being just plain wrong; ''chán'' is the modern Mandarin Chinese word for Zen ... it's certainly not how Huike or Huineng or Yunmen would have said it.
*In theory, we could have a separate article on ], but, for the moment, I think it's fine for this article to serve a dual purpose and cover that topic as well.
*I trimmed the details of Bodhidharma's life a bit, because it was taking up slightly too much relative space in the history section.
*Writing about early Zen history is a thankless task because it is filled with well-known stories which scholars regard as doubtful at best. I have opted to move briskly throught the more central points, and not spend a lot of time on their historical inadequacies. I hope that this won't create too strong impression that of historical adequacy. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*I took this out of the "teachings and practices" section for the moment: "'' The heavy influence of the Lankavatara Sutra, in particular, has led to the formation of the "mind only" concept of Zen, in which ] itself is recognized as the only true ].''" This struck me as doubtful, as I've never heard of a mind only concept of Zen, although this of course reminds one of Indian ] philosophy.
*I took out a short passage about martial arts; the statement that Zen influenced "''most notably ], ] and especially ], sometimes considered the most religious ], in Japan and ] in China''" seems odd. For one thing, "Kung Fu" isn't a particular martial art, it's a blanket term for Chinese arts in general. Plus, I don't know that Zen had any particular impact on judo or aikido. I checked the Misplaced Pages articles on judo and on its creator, which seem fairly complete, and they don't mention Zen at all. As for aikido, unless I'm mistaken, O'Sensei belonged to some particular Shinto group. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
*The article read: "''Because the Zen tradition emphasizes direct communication over scriptural study, the role of the Zen teacher is important but not entirely crucial.''" To say that the teacher is not crucial to zen strikes me as plausible, but distinctly POV and an unnecessarily presumptuous for an encyclopedia article. I replaced it with "the role of the Zen teacher has traditional been central", which I don't mean as a comment on whether or not it's crucial.
*I didn't want to do much with the section on koans because I don't know very much about that. I did rewrite the intro and I took out the sentence, "Through assimilation of a koan it is possible to 'jump-start' an altered mindset that then facilitates enlightenment", because a) it introduces a mixed metaphor when juxtaposed with the previous sentence, and b) it doesn't really add much that isn't said in the preceding text.
*And yet ... I took out this entire paragraph: "''An example of a Zen koan is: "Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?" It is sometimes said that after diligent practice, the practitioner and the koan become one. Though most Zen groups aim for a "sudden" enlightenment, this usually comes only after a great deal of preparation.''" The reader can find lots of interesting examples of koans at the ] article, for one thing. Moreover, this paragraph consisted of three unrelated sentences. The second sentence makes a factual claim that is basically meaningless to those who are outsiders to Zen. The final sentence is internally confused, because "sudden" does not mean "fast", and thus is not in conflict with "a great deal of preparation". - ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*And then, continuing my deletion spree, I took out another paragraph after that, which read, in full:
----
<blockquote>
For examples of 'successful' koan practice resulting in enlightenment experiences, see the anecdotes of Rinzai koan practice recounted in the first book in English to engage Zen as a practice, ''The Three Pillars of Zen'' by ] (ISBN 0385260938). For examples of years of futile and fruitless koan practice, see the book ''AfterZen'' by ] (ISBN 0312272618). The most important book on the subject in English is probably Isshu Miura and Ruth Fuller Sasaki's ''Zen Dust'' (ASIN B0006BNOZG), sadly long out of print. Fortunately the text, while lacking the extensive footnotes, continues to be available as ''The Zen Koan: It's History and Use in Rinzai Zen'' (ISBN 0156999811). Probably the best relatively brief survey of koan study is the to Victor Sogen Hori's ''Zen Sand: The Book of Capping Phrases for Koan Practice'' (ISBN 0824822846) which can be found on the web. Also of importance, although marred by the ideological perspectives of several of its authors, is the anthology edited by Steven Heine and Dale Wright, ''The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism.''</blockquote>
----
:Where to begin? Why the scare quotes around "successful"? Who says Janwillem van de Wetering's experiences were futile and fruitless? He himself? Is he right or wrong about that? My point is, there's no objective way that we as encyclopaedia writers can decide what is successful and what is unsuccessful koan practice, so why should we even get started introducing the reader to examples of each? Now, who says Miura and Sasaki's book is the most important book on the subject in English? Who says it is "sad" that it's out of print (I quite agree, and I suspect few would differ with any enthusiasm, but this is the sort of petty POVry that serves no good purpose in an encyclopaedia)? Who says that Victor Sogen Hori's book's introduction is probably the best of what it is? Who says that Heine and Wright's antology is of importance, and who says it is marred, rather than enhanced, by ideological perspectives? What are the perspectives in question?
:I think that, even if we could get an NPOV'd version of this bibliographical material, it would belong in the ] article rather than this one.
*I then chopped out, "''The answer to a koan is more dependent on "how" it is answered. Or, to put it somewhat differently, the answer is a function not merely of a reply, but of a whole modification of the student's experience; he or she must ''live'' the answer to the koan rather than merely offering a correct statement.''" First, I pointedly scoff at the idea of a sentence which uses "more" with no reference to what thing is more than what other thing. Second, this explanation is fairly redundant with the previous paragraph. I also added the sentence, "Koans do not have 'no answer'" to that paragraph in order to make it flow better&mdash;I sure how that's accurate.
*I modified the sentence: "there are compilations of accepted answers to koans to help understand the paradox, and prepare for the interview" to "there are compilations of accepted answers to koans that serve as references for teachers". I'm not aware of any Zen practice in which the students are ''supposed'' to have access to the "answers" before the interview.
*Lastly, I deracinated and destroyed the paragraph: "''Following the tradition of "living koans," a number of western Zen teachers supplement the traditional koan curriculum using various western sources, such as apparently paradoxical sayings from the ].''" For one thing, what a "tradition of 'living koans'" might be is left unexplained. Moreover, while the factual claim that western Zen teachers are using the Bible in koan practice might be true, I don't know it to be so, and no evidence is given. Once it substantiated, this information, like so much else from this section, should go in the ] article, not this one. And so, in the foregoing, we have seen what happens when I set out to not make major changes ... - ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*I took out some speculative material and the beginning of "Zen and Western culture" about Zen being used as a brand name and such. Really, this section is quite scattershot, and I have tried to do some shifting around and minor additions, but I am not planning on a wholesale rewrite just now.
*I'm not sure about "However, many scholars are quick to criticize book as '],' based on a western perception of Zen, rather than in-depth scholarly study of its origins." I'm sure there are things to criticise about Herrigel's book, but this critique is incoherent, on grounds that the average Zen Buddhist ought to be able to spot: of course a book on Zen is based on somebody's perception of Zen. Scholarly study is a type of perception, so it doesn't make sense to counterpose the two. For the time being, I have curtailed this sentence after "book", leaving it rather terse and vague.
*I chopped this whole paragraph out:
----
<blockquote>
Many youths in the ] and among the ] of the ] and ] misunderstood the goals and methods of Zen. While the scholar ] may have brought attention to concepts basic to the Zen tradition — such as humility, labor, service, prayer, gratitude, and meditation — by contrast the "hip" subculture often focused on states of ] in themselves. Japanese Zen master ] commented: "It may be true that the effect which such scientifically prepared ] as ] produce may have some superficial resemblance to some aspects of Zen experience.... When the effect of the drug is gone, the psychological experience one may have had is also weakened and dispersed, and does not endure as a living fact."</blockquote>
----
I'm really not sure what the subject of this paragraph is. The first sentence gives an opinion about the low understanding of some people in the old days. The second counterposes "concepts" with the "states of consciousness", implying that Zen favours the former, which, if you read it as written, is the opposite of fact. And then we have a quote where a Zen master talks about drugs, a topic which had not been previously introduced.
*I took out the short passage on Fritjof Capra, because it isn't clear to me how relatively significant this is to Zen in the West. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*I took out a short paragraph in "Zen and Western culure" which began, "''Many modern students have made the mistake of thinking that since much of Zen, and particularly koans, sound like nonsense (especially in ] and out of ]), any clever nonsense is also Zen.''" I'm really getting sick of passages in this article which are there to disparage somebody else's understanding of Zen. There's no obvious reason for this to appear in the "Western Zen" section, since there is no evidence given that this misconception is more common in the West than in the East. The comments that follow about misuse of the word koan are a bit unclear and the referent of "neither usage" is ambiguous. I shifted the suggested books to a new "bibliography" section, but I couldn't find anything useful to do with the rest of the text, so it's on the cutting room floor as of right now.
*Speaking of the cutting room floor, I took out the entire "Zen in film" subsection, because I didn't see anything there that seems relevant enough to Zen to mention in an article on that subject. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*I think that most of the material in the "Zen and Buddhism" section duplicates the topic of the "Zen teachings and practice" section. So, I have merged them. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

==Chan==
*I still don't think it's really necessary to introduce the word "Chan" in the intro to this article. The reason that "Chan" appears unexplainedly in the history section is that I started to rewrite that section but didn't finish, so that's my fault. I won't remove it from the intro until I sort out the history section. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::Mentioning '']'' will immediately be recognizable to people familiar with Chán. And vice versa for Zen. I think it's helpful, so what does removing one word really save us? The Chán article introduces Zen in its intro and that doesn't seem surprising or out of place at all. We're sort of teasing with the ''"school in China"'' so if we don't add a single, hyper-linked word for it right there, I think we're ignoring a bit of the value that Misplaced Pages allows. --] 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I think that the relationship between the words Zen and Chan (as well as Sŏn, Thien, etc.) is unavoidably confusing. Are Zen and Chan synonyms or do they have different meanings? They are both written 禪 in their native languages. However, I think the way Misplaced Pages has been using them so far, they are not the same. The ] article is about Chinese Zen, just as the ] article is about Korean Zen, and the ] article is about Vietnamese Zen. Those are subtopics of the overall Zen article. However, because these words could be taken as synonyms, it will naturally be confusing when the reader first encounters the distinction. I prefer not to broach that in the intro, unless it's quite necessary. I don't really think it is quite necessary, because almost any English speaker who understands the word ''chán'' will also know what Zen is (and non-English-speakers will read the Chinese character instead).

:::It's interesting (albeit inconclusive) that ] and ] both interwhiki to the Chinese article ] (''Chanzong''), but the Chinese page links back to ]. The Chinese article's '''See also''' contains a red-link to ] ("Chinese Chan sect") and a blue link to a stubby article on ] ("Japanese Chan sect"). - ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

::::As long as the intro mentions (and I think it should) Zen coming from ''"a distinct School in China"'', why not include and link to its name, ]? Schools have names; this shouldn't cause readers confusion. Or are you suggesting we drop the "school in China" from the intro altogether? That would make for a really minimal intro.
::::All these words and analysis of Zen. Pretty ironic... ;-) --] 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:::::::But, it seems to me that it is confusing to say in the intro: "'''Zen''' began in China; that school is called ]" and then link to the article on Chan. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::::::::It's true that we don't seem to be catching one another's drift quite yet. That's a good thing! It shows that our disagreement isn't personal. I shall attempt to rephrase. Chán is a subset of Zen, and it is also a foreign-language word which means the same thing as Zen. It is the relationship between these two senses of the word that is confusing.
:::::::::I don't think the current wording of the intro is acceptably clear. ''I'm'' not really sure what it means. It says, " emerged as a distinct school in China (as ]) and
spread to ..." What does it mean to say that it emerged as a distinct ''as'' something else? If we are going to keep Chan in the intro, I'm concerned about how we're going to reword it. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm currently studying world religions, and I'd like to point out that the offical textbooks I use all say that Zen and Chan Buddhism are the same exact thing. Zen is merely the Japanese word for Chan.

-intranetusa

::::::::::I disagree with the statement that Chan is the subset of Zen. it is a foreign language but only foreign to japanese, or to some extent western people, but the fact that Zen originates from Chan it is more accurate to say Zen is a subset of Chan and that it further developed to something else distinct. My guess is that the confusion is based on the west being more familiar with the word Zen when this school first became popular outside east asia. it is unlikely the west will adopt the term "Japanese Chan" for some reason, but at the same time able to live with terms like "Chinese Dragon". (see ]) ] 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

::I think one of two things needs to happen. Either the Chan and Zen articles should be merged, or they should be edited to be less redundant, dealing with just China and Japan respectively.] 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, as things stand at present, ] is a subtopic of ], just as ] is a subtopic of ]. That does necessitate a certain degree of redundancy. I agree, though, that ] should therefore focus on Zen in China in the period after it became established in Korea, Vietnam, and Japan.&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 07:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

== Spam ==

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

== Removed paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

== I thought Zen translated as "simple" ==

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

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

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

::EDICT comes up with no ] that have the ] ''zen'' that mean anything like "simple". Perhaps the author was merely being metaphorical? &nbsp;&ndash;] ] 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

== External link ==

''copied from ]''

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

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

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


Sergio Zaccone (Upasaka Tae Bi)

_/|\_

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

And this was the suggestion:

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

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

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

Well, if I take the first point:

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


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

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

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

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

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


Thank you for your time and your answer,

Upasaka Tae Bi <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:The quoted point (links to official site should be added) means this link should be added to ], not ] or ]. The intent sounds more like #3 under '''Links to avoid''', i.e. ''Links that are added to promote a site. See ]''. In my opinion (and I have no more authority than any other editor), this is not an appropriate link for these articles. -- ] <small>(])</small> 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
==inadequacy of the existing introduction==
The introduction to this article is insufficient and misleading. It gives no sense of the Zen school's distinctiveness and what characterises that distinctiveness. All schools of Buddhism worthy of the name emphasise meditation (citta bhavana) so it asserts nothing meaningful or significant to say that Zen Buddhism 'strongly emphasises meditation'. Zen's uniqueness comes rather from its style and method of teaching which originates in the tradition's emphasis on mind-to-mind transmission. As it stands the current introduction seems to shy away from defining Zen in a scholarly and accurate way. ] June 19th 2006

:Please go ahead and revise it.&mdash;]<sup>(])</sup> 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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


Hello everyone. I am new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm still getting used to the codes and what not. Anyway I study Japanese arts and religions, so I know alot about zen. I'm going to try to add to and change the introduction somewhat, and also add a paragraph in the basis of Zen practices about menial tasks. Please feel free to scrap my ideas or reformat them, becuase I might not get the formating right or whatnot. Haha oh well, its worth a try! ] 16:46 November 19 2006

==History of Stone in Zen==
Where does the use of stone as part of zen meditation begin?
i AM CURIOUS,since i am studying an interactive project called, 'Zen in a Stone' and i'm wondering where the historical significance of using a stone came from.
Is it a symbol of some kind? and what does it represent? why is it used? something to do with minerals in the earth? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

I've never heard of stone being used in this way. Do you have a reference explaining what you mean? ] 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:I wonder if this has more to do with ] than with Zen? The only half-relevant reference I could find about an interactive project called "Zen in a Stone" on the web was . --]<sup>(])</sup> 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, not really Zen at all, methinks. ] 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the significance of stone in Zen gardens....
ref.......... http://www.shadesofmaybe.com/grok/2003/05/magical_zen_rock_gardens.php
"Japanese Zen Rock Gardens are fashioned by strategically placing rocks in containers filled with sand traced with waves and lines. These landscapes blend into their natural layout of one's surroundings providing good places for meditation and connecting back to the natural world. The rocks and sand designs display the Zen concepts of balance, simplicity, and harmony in Nature. The rocks symbolize mountains and the Earth; the sand and its patterns represent flowing water."
I'm curious if the people that created 'Zen in a Stone' the design, got their reference all wrong by mentioning the book of changes, which i'm sure is I-Ching - not Zen....
.......hopefully anyone with more experience in Zen or I-Ching can enlighten me if th abstract from the design and it's prototype are right or wrong??.... Ta. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

== Revised introduction by ] ==

Hi Langdell, thanks for your contribution to the Zen article. I've reverted your suggestions, at least for the moment, as I think they are far too fundamental and indeed contentious to be included without a full discussion on this talk page. Perhaps you could post, here, your thoughts as to why you think your wording is an improvement on the existing? My main issue is that you've characterised Zen primarily in terms of ], about which it has little to do. Zen is essentially a ] practice, as the introduction currently says. I don't deny that the term 'zen' has been misappropriated for a variety of peripheral meanings over the years, but that doesn't in my view mean we should competely unbalance the article by relegating its primary (and indeed technically correct meaning) to paragraph two. Look at virtually any serious book or web site on Zen and you'll see what I mean. Also, you've indicated that Zen is short for Zenna. That's been discussed before and has been removed as there appears to be little or no relaible evidence for it. Do you know of any? Regards. --] 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
==A Response to Mr Maggs==
Hello Michael. I am sorry to tell you that you are labouring under various misconceptions about what Buddhism is. I can understand why somebody without any real knowledge of the subject might believe that Zen has little to do with Yoga but if you go and read the words of the Buddha in the original Pali you will find the Teacher talking frequently about Yoga as central to the path of practise. The buddhadharma is frequently characterised throughout the Tibetan buddhist world as guru yoga. The problem is that Westerners have various delusions and misconceptions about what zen is and my introduction is a small attempt to redress this. You are incorrect to assert that the word zen is not shortened from zenna. This is such an elementary truth that i can only recommend you read some literature on the subject before making your pronouncements. With the greatest respect the current introduction demonstrates that its author has no real understanding of what characterises and distinguishes zen buddhism from other schools of Buddhism. The existing introduction could be uncontroversially describing the Theravada school. Though Zen and Theravada have a great deal in common the zen school is unique but the current introduction does not explain why. I can assure you that everything i wrote is factually correct and can be validated by reading any reputable authority on the subject. If there are concerns about the length of the article it may be prudent to have two separate articles, one called 'Zen' and the other called 'Zen Buddhism'. Best wishes. Glenn Langdell. 00:03, 13 August 2006.

:Hello Glenn. I can see you have some rather definite views on this. On the question of 'zen' coming from 'zenna', I asked whether you knew of any reliable evidence, and you've replied that this is "''such an elementary truth that i can only recommend you read some literature''". But Wikipedaia needs solid and reputable sources to be quoted, not simply assertions, however strongly held. You appear to have read widely in this field, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find a reputable published source for this statement, surely? Have a look at ] which explains that Misplaced Pages requires verifiability, not truth. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. On the overall focus of the article, do bear in mind we are writing an English language encyclopedia entry, not a treatese on how the word was originally used in the Pali more than two millennia ago. As I am sure you know well, there has been more than a thousand years of active Zen buddhist tradition in the monasteries of Japan, Vietnam and elsewhere, a tradition which in the mid twentieth century was introduced to the West. My contention is that the focus of the article should reflect that tradition which is by far the best known (if not understood) by the typical reader of this English-language encyclopedia. It goes without saying that we need academic accuracy, but if 99% of readers understand zen to mean zen buddhism, that's what the article should concentrate on. It's not correct from an encyclopedic point of view to start off with what to almost all readers would be an extreme minority viewpoint, whether accurate or not. I think the main article should stay clearly focussed on zen buddhism, but I've no objection if you wanted to do another article on, say "Zen in Yoga". Let's hope we can work constructively in improving this article which, at present, does leave a lot to be desired. Regards--] 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
==sources==
Michael. There are two glaring shortcomings of the present article. Firstly, its authors have failed to convey what it is that characterises Zen Buddhism. It is not as the Introduction suggests 'moment-by-moment awareness and seeing deeply into the nature of things' - this is a practise advocated by all schools of Buddhism. Rather what characterises Zen Buddhism is 'transmission outside the scriptures / not relying on words / pointing directly to mind for the realisation of self-nature' (Bodhidharma). The present article as a whole does not convey that its authors understand this fully. If so why is it not mentioned in the Introduction? Secondly. It is impossible to understand what Zen Buddhism is without understanding what the word Zen means. The word Zen (actually Zenna - look it up in the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) means Dhyana which is of central importance in the teaching of the Buddha and all India's great Yogis - Patanjali, Mahavira, Sankara - the list is rather long. The Buddha calls Dhyana (Zenna) 'the footsteps of the ]' which is to say the path beings must take to realise their buddha-nature. This is not 'an extreme minority viewpoint' this is actually rather basic Buddhist teaching. I don't want to hurt your feelings, Michael, but you really need to do some study before acting as an arbiter of truth on the subject. Zenna ''is'' yoga. The whole Buddhist path is ]. Again this is not some perverse academic viewpoint but you would need to understand what yoga is, what Buddhism is and what Zen is to make sense of all this. If you spend a bit of time studying the subject (the wikipedia articles are sufficiently good) you will come to a better understanding. It is true that etymology is not always necessary but in this case it is helpful for people to understand what the word Zen means. Lastly, the reason I have 'rather definite views' (they are actually uncontroversial) is because there is a great deal of woolly-mindedness in the teaching of Zen Buddhism in the West even though scholars such as D.T. Suzuki made great efforts to clear this confusion up. Lost in the romance of 'the other' Westerners have failed to grasp the actual facts about Zen and what it means. I hope the present article will provide one means for this to be redressed. Best wishes.]Sunday 13th August 2006.

:The last thing I would want to do is to set myself up as any sort of arbiter of truth, on this or indeed any subject. Misplaced Pages relies on ''verifiability'', not truth, and asserts the primacy of published ''sources'' over the views or private knowledge of any one of us, however expert we may be. I'm perfectly happy with the primary characterization of Zen as being a 'transmission outside the scriptures/not relying on words/pointing directly to mind'. That is quoted in numerous works, and it should be an extremely easy matter to cite, should anyone dispute it. I'm much less happy about the '''Zenna ''is'' yoga''' angle, as an introductory statement, firstly because it's not yet been sourced and secondly because that is simply not the direction the subject is approached by any modern Zen Master that I'm aware of, writing in English. That may simply reflect my lack of complete knowledge of their writings, of course, but are you able to point to this primary focus within the works of, for example modern(ish) Masters/scholars such as ], ] or ]? Finally, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and I must confess I'm a little concerned that you're quite quick to belittle a fellow editor; I count at least five derogatory ad hominem statements so far concerning my alleged lack of knowledge. Working together is the key. --] 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Michael. The democratic spirit of Misplaced Pages is very noble and I personally believe ultimately a superior approach than that of a cult of 'experts'. I rejoice in your adherence to the policies of Misplaced Pages with respect to verifiability but your conceit deceives you. Though you disclaim yourself as an arbiter of truth in this subject you then go on to make rather high-handed remarks such as 'I'm perfectly happy with the primary characterisation of Zen as being a 'transmission... etc.' and 'I'm much less happy about the zenna is yoga angle.' Your behaviour is like a person such as myself attempting, for example, to pass judgement on contributions to the Misplaced Pages entry on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is a subject which interests me but about which I have no specialist knowledge. In the present case your statements about Buddhism reveal that you have at best the beginnings of an interest in the buddhadharma but you are ill-informed and your understanding is inchoate and lacking a thorough basis in fundamentals. Therefore you only reveal your foolishness by continuing to make these embarassing remarks that display your amateurish level of comprehension. If you were more sophisticated you would at least consider the possibility that your knowledge in this subject is very basic and that there is a great deal that you do not understand. If you had the strength and courage to admit this you would create the space within yourself to receive the knowledge that your heart yearns for. Your rather fragile ego is standing in the way of your receiving this knowledge. Hence your concern with being 'belittled'. What concerns me most of all is that you are setting yourself up as someone who is qualified to act as editor-in-chief of this article when it is abundantly clear that you are in no position to be doing so. You have not read D.T. Suzuki's corpus of writings as I have or else you would not make such foolish remarks about zen having nothing to do with yoga or there being 'no reliable evidence' for the word zen being derived from zenna. If you can hold your horses, Michael, sit cross-legged on the floor, take some slow deep breaths and say "I trust that in letting-go, the universe will provide me with what I need" then perhaps you may discover the generosity of spirit to consider that just possibly this fellow Langdell (whoever he is) can teach me something. ] 16:21 GMT 14th August 2006

:Dear Glenn. You are writing about me, and not about the article which I hope we both want to make better. When I say "I'm perfectly happy with ..", please take that at simple face value. I offer my opinion in the same way that I might say "I'm perfectly happy having tea for breakfast, even though I might prefer coffee". You don't need to agree, others don't need to agree, but that's just what I, personally, happen to think. The pertinent issue isn't my view as to whether or not X is wrong, but rather that if you assert X you need to supply a valid source to back it up. Perhaps we should bring the conversation to a close, as I don't see we're getting any closer to having a citation we could use for the proposed primary focus on "zenna is yoga". If you haven't already done so, you might like to review ]. All the best --] 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
--------
Right now the sources and the links are thoroughly mixed up.
] 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==Zen history==
we should really focus on Zen history being Japanese Zen as the Chinese originally had it and called their's Chan. It's confusing currently as it is. Also, no historian actually believes in the Bodhdiharma legend. There are too many conflicting stories as to what he did in his life. Hence I added the disclaimers. You can't cherry-pick the version of his lifestory that you want. The very first version of his story actually states taht he is Persian not Indian. ] 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bodhidharma's ethnicity really ought to be addressed in only one article: the "]" article, where it already is. If we get into the differing versions of the Bodhidharma legend in the "Zen" article, then we're going to have to do it for the "Chan" article or any other article that brings up Bodhidharma's biographical details.

:And when I find something new in my reading, I hate with the burning fire of a thousand suns having to enter it in the "Bodhidharma" article, and then the "Zen" article, and then the "Chan" article, and then the "Shaolin" articles, etc, etc, etc. ] 00:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The history section also contains very little as to Japanese Zen history... mainly Chinese Chan history. ] 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Zen in Japan ==

This does not make sense to me (quote from the article page). Look at the last line.

"The Japanese Zen establishment—including the Soto sect, the major branches of Rinzai, and several renowned teachers— has been criticized for its involvement in Japanese militarism and nationalism during World War II and the preceding period. A notable work on this subject was Zen at War (1998) by Brian Victoria, an American-born Soto priest. This openness has allowed non-Buddhists to practice Zen, especially outside of Asia"

"This openness"? Refering to what - Japanese Zen's involement in war?!


== Pardons ==

I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to make this excellent article. It's quite beautiful.<BR>
Perhaps just a few days a year, the page could be left completely blank. Or perhaps a link at the top of the page could point to a blank page called Zen (disambiguation).<BR>
"It takes a long time to understand nothing."
] 08:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

==read the brittanica encyclopedia article in its entirety==
the encyclopedia brittanica article in its entirety states that most stories surrounding bodhdiharma are legend. it further does not even credit bodhidharma with founding zen and states that the formation of zen/chan is due to indiginouse developements within china. quit pushing your pov pro-indian edits freedom skies. not everything came from india.

encyclopedia brittanica
:::"Chinese Ch'an (from Sanskrit dhyana, “meditation”), important school of Buddhism in Japan that claims to transmit the spirit or essence of Buddhism, which consists in experiencing the enlightenment (bodhi) achieved by Gautama the Buddha. The school arose in the 6th century in China as Ch'an, a form of Mahayana Buddhism; though introduced centuries earlier, Zen did not fully develop in Japan until the 12th century. In its secondary developments of mental tranquillity, fearlessness, and spontaneity—all faculties of the enlightened mind—the school of Zen has had lasting influence on the cultural life of Japan.

:::Zen teaches that the Buddha-nature, or potential to achieve enlightenment, is inherent in everyone but lies dormant because of ignorance. It is best awakened not by the study of scriptures, the practice of good deeds, rites and ceremonies, or worship of images but by a sudden breaking through of the boundaries of common, everyday, logical thought. Training in the methods leading to such an enlightenment (Chinese wu; Japanese Satori, q.v.) is best transmitted personally from master to disciple. The methods recommended, however, differ among the various sects of Zen.

:::The Rinzai (Chinese: Lin-chi) sect, introduced to Japan from China by the priest Ensai in 1191, emphasizes sudden shock and meditation on the paradoxical statements called koan. The Soto (Chinese: Ts'ao-tung) sect, transmitted to Japan by Dogen on his return from China in 1227, prefers the method of sitting in meditation (zazen). A third sect, the Obaku (Chinese: Huang-po), was established in 1654 by the Chinese monk Yin-yüan (Japanese: Ingen). It employs the methods of Rinzai and also practices nembutsu, the continual invocation of Amida (the Japanese name for the Buddha Amitabha), with the devotional formula namu Amida Butsu (Japanese: “homage to Amida Buddha”).

:::During the 16th-century period of political unrest, Zen priests not only contributed their talents as diplomats and administrators but also preserved the cultural life; it was under their inspiration that art, literature, the tea cult, and the no theatre, for example, developed and prospered. Neo-Confucianism, which became the guiding principle of the Tokugawa feudal regime (1603–1867), also was originally introduced and propagated by Japanese Zen masters.

:::In modern Japan, Zen sects and subsects claim some 9,600,000 adherents. Considerable interest in various aspects of Zen thought has developed also in Western countries in the latter half of the 20th century, and a number of Zen groups have been formed in North America and Europe."



Bodhidharma article - the other two paragraphs that you can see if you were willing to look-
:::"Considered the 28th Indian patriarch in a direct line from Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma is regarded by the Ch'an as their first patriarch. Because he taught meditation as a return to the Buddha's spiritual precepts, his school was known as the Dhyana (meditation) sect. The word was converted in the Chinese to Ch'an and in the Japanese to Zen.

:::The accounts of his life are largely legendary. According to one such story, he cut off his eyelids in a fit of anger after falling asleep in meditation. On falling to the ground his eyelids grew up as the first tea plant. The legend serves as a traditional basis for the drinking of tea by Zen monks in order to keep awake during meditation."

] 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

----

''the encyclopedia brittanica article in its entirety states that most stories surrounding bodhdiharma are legend.''

Yes Ta Mo has legends surrounding him Kenny. I already know that.

''it further does not even credit bodhidharma with founding zen and states that the formation of zen/chan is due to indiginouse developements within china.''

No original research Kenny. It's against WP guidelines to do so. Do not derive meanings that fit your agenda from a perfectly harmless enclyclopedic article which you have, no doubt, selectively quoted out of context like you attempt to do often.

Clarity itself is:
<blockquote>
Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) sect of Buddhism.

A native of Conjeeveram, near Madras, Bodhidharma in 520 traveled to Kuang (modern Canton), China. He was granted an interview with the Liang emperor Wu-ti, noted for his good works. To the emperor's dismay, he stated that merit applying to salvation could not be accumulated through good deeds. Soon afterward he went to a monastery in Lo-yang, China, where he is said to have spent nine years looking at a cave wall, a legend that some scholars believe refers simply to a lengthy period of deep meditation.

Considered the 28th Indian patriarch in a direct line from Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma is regarded by the Ch'an as their first patriarch. Because he taught meditation as a return to the Buddha's spiritual precepts, his school was known as the Dhyana (meditation) sect. The word was converted in the Chinese to Ch'an and in the Japanese to Zen.
</blockquote>

You'll understand my rejection of your original research and personal opinions and my endorsement of very clear sourced text.

''quit pushing your pov pro-indian edits freedom skies. not everything came from india.''

Who said '''everything''' came from India Kenny?

] 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

----
where in the encyclopedia article on zen or chan does it state that bodhdiharma founded it? In the encyclopedia brittanica article it states that most of the accounts on his life are legend. further, the encyclopedias state that chan was from china. You've got professors from universities like paul pelliot and jag roberts who write whole textbooks for college students to read on the history of china whose lifeworks and reputation is built on accuracy who even state that it was an indiginous development from china and yet you, freedom skies, are willing to discount all of those textbooks as part of a "han chinese cabal". ] 17:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== "Zen is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism" ? ==

I would like to see further information about , by ] which adds to the first sentence that Zen is a form of Buddhism '''practiced in China and Japan''' and '''is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism.'''. Firstly, Zen has long been practised outside those countries, as well as inside; secondly, you would be hard-put to find general support for the 'fusion' claim. Mainstream Zen schools consider themselves firmly within the tradition of Mahayana Buddhism. I don't have copies of the two cited books to hand, and in order that we can come to a consensus as to how best to deal with exactly what they say I'd appreciate it if Freedom Skies could post here a brief extract from each (at least the respective full paragraphs) which supports the changes made in the diff. --] 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:From :
::''The phrase "to attain Tao" was synonymous with enlightenment. The common metaphor was that Buddhism was the father and Taoism the mother of the child Ch'an.''

::''A telling episode in Chinese history occurred in 845 AD when the (Taoist) emperor Wu-tsung proclaimed that all the orthodox Buddhist monasteries should be closed. Curiously he did not consider Ch'an monasteries to be Buddhist and overlooked them. Not only were the Ch'an monasteries spared, the prince Suan-tsung who would be the next emperor went to one of them, Hsien-kuan (Hsiang-yen's) to study. Huang-po came to visit and impishly made a point of doing obeisance to a statue of Buddha right under the Prince's nose. ''
: &mdash; ] ] 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::It's not a fusion of Taoism and Buddhism at all. I did not put that line in but I reverted to it and thought I'd allow it to stay till I could verify it for myself. I'll revert it back as it's unsubstantiated and incorrect. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::OK, many thanks. Apologies for thinking that your revert was actually one of your own edits. --MichaelMaggs 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::you can find the original citations online at google books. This is one of the reasons why most historians believe that Zen existed before the 5-6th century A.D. Not only were there people practicing Zen before this time but Zen/chan is basically considered to Be buddhism processed through Chinese Taoist thought.] 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

----

Welcome Kenny, you seem to follow JFD just about everywhere. The Han cabal is here then?

Zen was practiced before it's transmission into China:-

<blockquote>
"] was the first, leading the line of transmission;
Twenty-eight Fathers followed him in the West;
The Lamp was then brought over the sea to this country;
And ] became the First Father here:
His mantle, as we all know, passed over six Fathers,
And by them many minds came to see the Light."
</blockquote>

] ? The disciple of the ] himself? Yes, He's the Buddhist who presided over the ]. Taoist foundations? Please.

<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==the history section needs work==
look, this is ridiculous. The history section needs work. What we have in the history section is a history presented by one person - note Freedom skies- who only wishes to present one story of the history, the bodhidharma part. This is considered a traditional tale and no historian follows this. Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia. This is similar to someone writing on the Roman Empire, "the history of Rome began with romulus and remus" and then not allowing for all of the work that basically fleshes out this history that is considered by historians not a traditional tale. Freedom skies, no one disputes that Chan buddhism is a form of buddhism from india... most historians state, however, that Chan buddhism is a distinct school of buddhism that developed in China and processed through Chinese philosophical thought. The traditional tale of Bodhidharma is considered tradition and should not be the only thing in the History section. You need to seriously read up about buddhism before you start pushing your pov's. ,, ] 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


{{yo| 62.145.192.97}} your recent edits are not an improvement, on the contrary.
:Agreed.&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* ] summarizes the article; not the case here;
* "Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
* Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
* You cut the sentence
:{{talkquote|The practice of ] or ], especially sitting meditation (坐禪，]: ''zuòchán'', ]: '']'' / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=169}}}}
{{reflist-talk}}
:into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, ''and'' contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.
] - ] 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


:wp lead:
----
:WP:lead
:"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"
:"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
:both of which i accounted for while writing.
:meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation
:bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.
:I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.
:to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.
:Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.
:g meditation is also conteste
:Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.
:Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.
:Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.
:You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.
:Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?
:They should remove you.
:I mean...
:"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"
:Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information
:] (]) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor


::There are a few issues with ]. The first issue is with the sentence {{tq|These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.}} The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of ''The Zen Schools of Japan'' and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the {{tq|Zen emphasizes...}} sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
{{Quotation|What we have in the history section is a history presented by one person - note Freedom skies- who only wishes to present one story of the history, the bodhidharma part.}}
::The sentence after that one is {{tq|There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the ]}} which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't ] and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with {{tq|When we consider...}} also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per ]. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it ]. Per ], please get a ] here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - ] (]) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


:::you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?
You lie again, Kenny.
:::yeah ok, i see
:::not just biased but stupid as hell
:::keep your garbage article
:::i dont have time or patience for this nonsense
:::fucking morons ] (]) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..
:::you decide what that means
:::this place is a joke ] (]) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


::::I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - ] (]) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
What you have in the history section is a mutually agreed paragraph on Bodhidharma.
::::Regarding {{tq|for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims}}, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - ] (]) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


:::::if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.
As for Zen, it has been traced to Mahakashyapa, it was discussed earlier as well.
:::::i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation
:::::you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?
:::::if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.
:::::same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout ] (]) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. ] (]) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


::::::With {{tq|if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias}}, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. {{tq|i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation}} no one's asking for that, but you do need to ] the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per ]: {{tq|All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.}} The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about {{tq|a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out}} I would encourage you to read ] to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - ] (]) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Quotation|Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia.}}


:::::::im familiar with the issues
And the Han cabal is going to do it ? The same cabal which, out of nowhere, gathers up again when Chinese Taoism is objected to by MichaelMaggs and removed by me from the introduction?, and now you pretend to actually have concerns about the article when you yourselves were content by mere mention of Chinese Taoism?
:::::::that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument
:::::::seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things
:::::::i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.
:::::::for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.
:::::::like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.
:::::::like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"
:::::::so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. ] (]) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic}} the wonderful thing about Misplaced Pages is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, ''it doesn't matter''. it doesn't matter what ''I'' know, and it doesn't matter what ''you'' know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be ''shown'' via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of ''The Zen Schools of Japan'' anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - ] (]) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.
:::::::::it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those
:::::::::it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.
:::::::::because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.
:::::::::and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.
:::::::::and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.
:::::::::right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.
:::::::::if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)
:::::::::meaning (a large part of) the article is basically ] at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.
:::::::::same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.
:::::::::if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?
:::::::::I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.
:::::::::also see:
:::::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
:::::::::because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar
:::::::::some (more) issues with article:
:::::::::intro has only one source
:::::::::dhyana in intro only one source
:::::::::dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph
:::::::::that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..
:::::::::you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?
:::::::::small attribute to taoist influence only one source
:::::::::3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too
:::::::::zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.
:::::::::zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.
:::::::::so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article
:::::::::the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view
:::::::::and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit
:::::::::
:::::::::i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.
:::::::::i'm suspectig ]
:::::::::i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.
:::::::::"Misplaced Pages values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."
:::::::::it's like you don't even pretend to care
:::::::::blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw
:::::::::on the contrary
:::::::::and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.
:::::::::] (]) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Misplaced Pages even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. ] (]) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::go back to 4 chan you troll ] (]) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct. ] (]) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that ''dhyana'' ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit , which they think {{tq|better fit academic consesus}}, they changed
{{talkquote|Zen emphasizes rigorous ], ] and the subsequent ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ].{{sfn|Yoshizawa|2009|p=41}}{{sfn|Sekida|1989}}}}
into
{{talkquote|Zen emphasizes rigorous ], ] and the subsequent ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ].{{sfn|Yoshizawa|2009|p=41}}{{sfn|Sekida|1989}} These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.<ref>{{harvp|Dumoulin|Heisig|Knitter|2005|pp=68, 70–73, 167–168}}</ref><ref>Bielefeldt, Carl (1990), "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation". University of California Press, ISBN 0520068351</ref>{{sfn|McRae|1986|p=115-116}} There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the ],{{sfn|Vetter|1988}} which pointed to the practice of '']'',{{sfn|Vetter|1988}}{{sfn|Davidson|2003|p=147}} though what that means continues to be debated academically.}}
{{reflist-talk}}
* It's unclear which views are contested:
:* rigorous ]
:* ]
:* ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism)
:* the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ]
* The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
* Dumoulin does''not'' reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
* Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
* The line {{tq|There are also scholars ... academically}} is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that ''dhyana'' is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is ''exclusive'' to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that {{tq|meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation}} (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan ''dhyana''-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
* The ] summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
* The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also ].
* Regarding {{tq|zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.}} - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.
All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Misplaced Pages. ] is required. ] - ] 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


:kek "abuse"
{{Quotation|This is similar to someone writing on the Roman Empire, "the history of Rome began with romulus and remus" and then not allowing for all of the work that basically fleshes out this history that is considered by historians not a traditional tale.}}
:morons ] (]) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right
::and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues
::whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation
::outdated data
::misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight
::bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips
::articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names
::contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother
::and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.
::so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?
] (]) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


:This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. ] (]) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Fictional tale? Like Laozi crossing over to help Buddha gain enlightenment ? Taking Zen's patriarchs away and handing them over to fictional Taoist foundations?


== Zen ==
In any event, argument ender:- An introduction to Zen Buddhism By ] (page 31). You know my policy on getting more citations, on request or provocation, whichever extended first.


Zen is not chinese.
Oh, and ] has written extensively about Bodhidharma as well. You should try reading it some time. You'll find it in ''non fiction'', by the way.
Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.


Zen, Chan, Jhāna.
<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read?
----
] (]) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
''Oh, and ] has written extensively about Bodhidharma as well.''


09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he has. And Mahakasyapa too.{{Quotation|In those days there must have been some necessity to invent such a legend for the authorization of Zen Buddhism; for as Zen grew in strength the other schools of Buddhism already in existence grew jealous of its popular influence and attacked it as having no authorized records of its direct transmission from the founder of Buddhism, which was claimed by the devotees of Zen. This was the case especially when the latter made so light of the doctrinal teaching discussed in the Sūtras and the Śastras, as they thought that the ultimate authority of Zen issued out of their own direct personal experience. In this latter they were quite insistent; but they were not, nor could they be, so critical and independent as to ignore altogether the authority of historical Buddhism, and they wanted somehow to find the record that the Buddha handed Zen over to Mahākāśyapa and from Mahākāśyapa on to the twenty-eight patriarch, Bodhidharma, who became the first patriarch of Zen in China. A line of twenty-eight Indian patriarchs thus came to be established by Zen historians, while, according to other schools, there were only twenty-three or twenty-four patriarchs after the founder. When the historians had the need for the special transmission of Zen from the Buddha to Mahākāśyapa, they felt it necessary to fill up the gap between the twenty-third or twenty-fourth patriarch and Bodhidharma himself, who according to them was the twenty-eighth.}}] 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


== This should be merged with the other article ==
----


]
{{Quotation|Yes, he has.}}


] (]) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Taoist foundations ?


Zen is the Japanese understanding of ].
<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
----
''....An introduction to Zen Buddhism By ] (page 31).''{{Quotation|Buddhism in its course of development has completed a form which distinguishes itself from its so-called primitive or original type—so greatly, indeed, that we are justified in emphasizing its historical division into two schools, Hinayana and Mahayana, or the Lesser Vehicle and the Greater Vehicle of salvation. As a matter of fact, the Mahayana, with all its varied formulae, is no more than a developed form of Buddhism and traces back its final authority to its Indian founder, the great Buddha Sakyamuni. ''When this form of the Mahayana was introduced into China and then into Japan, it achieved further development in these countries''. This development was no doubt due to the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist leaders, who knew how to apply the principles of their faith to the ever-varying conditions of life and to the religious needs of the people. And this elaboration and adaptation on their part has still further widened the gap that has already been in existence between the Mahayana and its more primitive type. At present the Mahayana form may be said not to display, superficially at least, those features most conspicuously characteristic of original Buddhism.<br>....<br>In India two Mahayana schools are known: the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna and the Vijnaptimatra or Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. ''In China more schools developed'', the Tendai (''t'ien-tai''), the Kegon (''avatamsaka''), the Jodo (''ching-t'u''), ''the Zen (ch'an)'', etc.}}What Suzuki writes above is perfectly consistent with ]'s statement that "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen".<br>And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.<br><br>It certainly looks like ''someone'' was trying to misrepresent Suzuki's views so I've reproduced Suzuki's own words above so that people can make up their own minds.<br><br>] and ], pre-eminent scholars of, respectively, Zen and comparative religion...oh yeah, this view is "microscopic".<br><br>''argument ender''<br>Indeed.<br><br>] 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


:We have an article on "Zen" as an overview article, and use the Japanese term Zen as this is the commonname for Zen as the whole tradition. We also have separate articles on Chinese Chan, Japanese Zen, and Korean Seon. ] - ] 10:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this, but on the evidence of this debate the previous version should surely be restored. What I see is a rather ugly form of extreme Indocentric nationalism that already has disfigured several articles. ] 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:57, 28 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Former good article nomineeZen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAsia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBuddhism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
WikiProject iconJapan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:54, January 4, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconKorea Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Metaphysics / Religion / Eastern High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Metaphysics
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAltered States of Consciousness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Zen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Zen at the Reference desk.

Recent edits

@62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.

  • WP:LEAD summarizes the article; not the case here;
  • "Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
  • Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
  • You cut the sentence

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.

References

  1. Schlütter 2008, p. 169. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSchlütter2008 (help)
into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, and contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

wp lead:
WP:lead
"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
both of which i accounted for while writing.
meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation
bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.
I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.
to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.
Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.
g meditation is also conteste
Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.
Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.
Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.
You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.
Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?
They should remove you.
I mean...
"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"
Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information
95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor
There are a few issues with the content you've added. The first issue is with the sentence These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the Zen emphasizes... sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
The sentence after that one is There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with When we consider... also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?
yeah ok, i see
not just biased but stupid as hell
keep your garbage article
i dont have time or patience for this nonsense
fucking morons 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..
you decide what that means
this place is a joke 62.145.194.183 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.
i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation
you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?
if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.
same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
With if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation no one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V: All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out I would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
im familiar with the issues
that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument
seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things
i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.
for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.
like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.
like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic the wonderful thing about Misplaced Pages is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.
it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those
it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.
because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.
and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.
and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.
right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.
if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)
meaning (a large part of) the article is basically WP:OR at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.
same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.
if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?
I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.
also see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar
some (more) issues with article:
intro has only one source
dhyana in intro only one source
dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph
that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..
you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?
small attribute to taoist influence only one source
3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too
zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.
zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.
so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article
the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view
and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit
i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.
i'm suspectig WP:COI
i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.
"Misplaced Pages values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."
it's like you don't even pretend to care
blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw
on the contrary
and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.
95.96.74.188 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Misplaced Pages even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. 2603:8081:3A00:B881:59EC:40A:5AA5:8168 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
go back to 4 chan you troll 62.145.199.82 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct. Unitarian9999 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit diff, which they think better fit academic consesus, they changed

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.

into

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way, which pointed to the practice of dhyana, though what that means continues to be debated academically.

References

  1. ^ Yoshizawa 2009, p. 41. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYoshizawa2009 (help)
  2. ^ Sekida 1989. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSekida1989 (help)
  3. Dumoulin, Heisig & Knitter (2005), pp. 68, 70–73, 167–168 harvp error: no target: CITEREFDumoulinHeisigKnitter2005 (help)
  4. Bielefeldt, Carl (1990), "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation". University of California Press, ISBN 0520068351
  5. McRae 1986, p. 115-116. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcRae1986 (help)
  6. ^ Vetter 1988. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVetter1988 (help)
  7. Davidson 2003, p. 147. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDavidson2003 (help)
  • It's unclear which views are contested:
  • The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
  • Dumoulin doesnot reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
  • Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
  • The line There are also scholars ... academically is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
  • The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
  • The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  • Regarding zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after. - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.

All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Misplaced Pages. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

kek "abuse"
morons 62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right
and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues
whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation
outdated data
misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight
bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips
articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names
contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother
and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.
so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?

62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Zen

Zen is not chinese. Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.

Zen, Chan, Jhāna. Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read? Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This should be merged with the other article

Japanese Zen

Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Zen is the Japanese understanding of Buddhism. Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We have an article on "Zen" as an overview article, and use the Japanese term Zen as this is the commonname for Zen as the whole tradition. We also have separate articles on Chinese Chan, Japanese Zen, and Korean Seon. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories: