Talk:Zen

@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.^[1]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.

"Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[s] 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.^[1][2]

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.^[1][2] These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.^[3][4][5] There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way,^[6] which pointed to the practice of dhyana,^[6][7] though what that means continues to be debated academically.

• It's unclear which views are contested:

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

• 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 Wikipedia. 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 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)

For English-speaking readers, it would be much easier if the term "Zen" were used throughout the article instead of "Chan" and other terms specific to different countries. Those terms are already stated at the beginning of the article, and there are hyperlinks to articles specific to those countries. So, in this article, those terms could all be referred to as "(hereinafter, "Zen")." It would be much more accessible to readers seeking an overview of the key concepts. 2600:100F:B221:99DD:F3B9:171C:7391:59C2 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

"This radical antinomian view of Zen became more pronounced during a period between the late Tang and the Song Dynasty (960–1297) [...] "rhetorical" Chan which was popular in the Chinese Linji school and emphasized a direct "mind to mind" transmission of the truth from master to disciple" (from the current text of the article)

I was wondering if no sources, scholars cover the criticisms of meditation that can be seen in the subreddit r/zen. For all the misguidedness of some of that folk, including in that misguidedness insults to wikipedia and to people just trying to apply wikipedia policy, they do cite actual translations of primary sources where I believe a similar antinomy exists in relation to meditation. In Instant Zen, a primary source text by Foyan for example.

"Buddhism is an easily understood, energy-saving teaching; people strain themselves. Seeing them helpless, the ancients told people to try meditating quietly for a moment. These are good words, but later people did not understand the meaning of the ancients; they went off and sat like lumps with knitted brows and closed eyes, suppressing body and mind, waiting for enlightenment. How stupid! How foolish!" (Not sure what page Instant Zen, translated by Thomas Cleary)

I made a quick search with "anti-meditation" in scholar.google and it found these two sources:

source 1 "Yet there is another sense in which Zen Buddhism appears to be an "anti-meditation school." For, whatever Zen monks may talk about in private, when they discuss their practice in public, they often seem to go out of their way to distance themselves from the ancient Buddhist exercises of samadhi and to criticize the traditional cultivation of dhyana. The two Japanese Zen churches, Rinzai and Soto, have their own characteristic ways of going about this: the former most often attacks absorption in trance as a mindless quietism—what it sometimes calls the "ghost cave" (kikutsu) of the spirit—and claims to replace it with the more dynamic technique of kanna, or koan study; the latter rejects the utilitarian component of contemplative technique—the striving, as it says, to..." (from the first page preview) Bielefeldt, Carl. "Ch'ang-lu Tsung-tse's Tso-ch'an I and the "Secret" of Zen Meditation". Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986, pp. 129-162. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824842932-006

source 2 "The Northern Song Chan historians compiled their works in a context of evaluating the new Buddhism of the Mazu school of Jiangxi, a Buddhism founded on the teachings of Nazu Daoyi (709-788) that relied on dynamic teaching methods, purported to eschew the traditional reliance on scriptural study emphasized in the urban centers of Buddhism, and which cast aside meditation as a non-essential practice." Pg 6-7 THE LEGEND OF HUIHAI (CHINA, CHAN, BUDDHISM, TANG DYNASTY). Stanford University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  1986 https://www.proquest.com/openview/9dcdcbff922a74027edada09200ab4f5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Are any of these proper sources for covering this ancient era of Zen Masters and their, at times, anti-meditation, anti-dhayana, anti-some kinds of meditation?

I think the latest discussion (in this talk page still) was very concerned with the lede. I think my interest is instead to see this covered in the section #Meditation in Chinese Buddhism. (Although it seems quite disorganized, now that I took a look - japanese masters covered in meditation in chinese chan, chinese masters covered in meditation in japaneze zen Zen's sudden method...) User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 01:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The following two paragraphs from the current article I think are relevant and I think could be better as more strongly worded, maybe also - summary, to the extent that it is also summarizing this part could be ammended to say something like "Meditation is central to zen, except for [...a few texts in which it is criticized]" - not sure if that reads too well, but maybe a first draft suggestion...

However, other Zen sources de-emphasize [ here I could instead of "de emphasize" I would suggest criticize] traditional practices like sitting meditation, and instead focus on effortlessness and on ordinary daily activities. One example of this is found in the Record of Linji which states: "Followers of the Way, as to buddhadharma, no effort is necessary. You have only to be ordinary, with nothing to do—defecating, urinating, wearing clothes, eating food, and lying down when tired."^[1] Similarly, some Zen sources also emphasize non-action or having no concerns (wushi 無事). For example, Chan master Huangbo states that nothing compares with non-seeking, describing the Zen adept as follows: "the person of the Way is the one who has nothing to do [wu-shih], who has no mind at all and no doctrine to preach. Having nothing to do, such a person lives at ease."^[2]

Likewise, John McRae notes that a major development in early Ch'an was the rejection of traditional meditation techniques in favor of a uniquely Zen direct approach.^[3] Early Chan sources like the Bodhidharma Anthology, the Platform Sutra and the works of Shenhui criticize traditional meditation methods of concentration and mindfulness as not necessary and instead promote a more direct and sudden method. For example, the Bodhidharma Anthology states: "The man of sharp abilities hears of the path without producing a covetous mind. He does not even produce right mindfulness and right reflection" and as the iconoclastic Master Yüan states in the same text, "If mind is not produced, what need is there for cross-legged sitting dhyana?"^[4] Similarly, the Platform Sutra criticizes the practice of sitting samādhi: “One is enlightened to the Way through the mind. How could it depend on sitting?", while Shenhui's four pronouncements criticize the "freezing", "stopping", "activating", and "concentrating" of the mind.^[5][6]

User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dwarf Kirlston: I think you slightly misunderstand. What's warned against in those two quotes (apart from boundary creation, to establish the relevance and donation-wothiness of one's own school or monastery) is summarized in this quote you provided: "later people did not understand the meaning of the ancients; they went off and sat like lumps with knitted brows and closed eyes, suppressing body and mind, waiting for enlightenment." Meditation/samadhi is not a trance-state in which thoughts are suppressed; it's an intentional training of awareness in which thoughts (and other sense-impressions) are explicitly noted but not being dwelled upon; when practicing this, one may notice the 'empty field of awareness/Dasein/purusha/Buddha-nature' etc. 'in' which all those sense-impressions, thoughts etc. 'appear'. The two paragraphs you quoted from the Wiki-article look fine to me in this regard. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Maybe another solution would be creating a bigger section for antinomy - Even just the phrase already in the article if it were placed with respect to meditation and the centrality or not of meditation I think would already be a great improvement

"This radical antinomian view of Zen became more pronounced during a period between the late Tang and the Song Dynasty (960–1297) [...] "rhetorical" Chan which was popular in the Chinese Linji school and emphasized a direct "mind to mind" transmission of the truth from master to disciple" (from the current text of the article) <- this sentence.

As the title of this section in the talk page indicates - Antinomy in relation to meditation - I think it is quite clear that the antinomy was extensive and also covered meditation.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the page is in need of any major overhaul or new sections. I think the section on Zen's sudden method already includes a good introduction to the sort of critiques of meditation you're concerned with, @Dwarf Kirlston. But having skimmed over this discussion, I might add a couple of comments. You wrote that meditation is central to Zen except for "a few texts in which it is criticized." I would argue that it's actually more than a few texts which criticize meditation. In fact, I think criticism of sitting is a recurring characteristic of early Chan texts and stands out far more than anything to the contrary. The first meditation manual proper doesn't appear in Chan until the Song dynasty, already quite late. On the other hand, critiques of sitting can be found throughout such important texts as the Long Scroll, verses attributed to Baozhi, Shenhui's sermons, the Platform Sutra, the writings of the Hongzhou School, and the Linji lu. Regarding the intentional and deliberate nature of Zen meditation mentioned by @Joshua Jonathan, I would argue that this is not so straightforward. Although often translated as "no-thought," wunian is perhaps better translated as no-mindfulness. Robert Sharf points out that Oxhead School texts criticize the idea of "mindfulness." The Xin Ming also rejects the Northern School practice of shouxin, or "maintaining mind," as pointed out by Kuno and Sorensen as well. Shenhui and the Platform Sutra too reject the idea of "viewing mind," whether it be the deluded illusory mind or purity itself. Yes, Shenhui talks about thought dissolving into "the light of awareness," however he also says that awareness too disappears along with thought. So, one is not continually maintaining awareness in some deliberate manner (awareness rather arises and ceases together with thought in a natural way). This is also in keeping with Shenhui's emphasis on not intentionalizing. Likes Thai Food (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, as I said, it's not so straightforward, since Shenhui says we must go beyond both intentionalizing and non-intentionalizing.

All the best, Likes Thai Food (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

At any rate, it seems to me that while thought and sense impressions are certainly not blocked or suppressed, one must also go beyond intentionally minding such things as well. Likes Thai Food (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Likes Thai Food: I really appreciate you commenting. I made the edit suggestion "Mediation is central do zen" that we should add "except for a few texts in which it is criticized" as an improvement. It seems in your view that while this improves it, you would argue for even more, that it has even less centrality. So in your opinion the article as it stands, is even more wrong than I was arguing. I really like that you offered some knowledge about how meditation was viewed in Early Chan texts. I think this discussion about specific edits is really important, not getting lost in talk page talk. But I definitely want to say I feel less alone with your input. 🙏🏽 Thanks.

The practice of meditation (Ch: chán, Skt: dhyāna), especially sitting meditation (坐禪, pinyin: zuòchán, Japanese: ざぜん, romanized: zazen) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.[25] is how the introduction to the section on meditation currently reads.

Suggestion 1) Addition of "Although some early chan texts criticize meditation"

Suggestion 2) Addition of "Although antinomy was very present in early texts including regarding meditation"

Suggestion 3) Addition of "This centrality of meditation is not consensual among all texts of the history of zen however, especially during a period of radical antinomialism between the Late Tang and the Song Dynasty (960-1297)."

I appreciate it's a complex topic. 🙏🏽 Big article, lots of details. 🙏🏽 Lots of history. I also felt like commenting that I find it weird that the Japanese name is in Kana instead of in Kanji? Odd. I think I understand that it is the indication of vocalization given twice in japanese. Maybe a detail that is dealt with more generally in the japan wikiproject.

User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 01:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dwarf Kirlston,

I'm not saying I think anything needs to be changed necessarily. It's not wrong per se to mention that meditation is a central part of Zen since, whatever has been the case historically, the fact remains that meditation is important to the tradition as it currently exists. Still, it is interesting how little one finds of actual concrete meditation instructions in the early material. And when meditation is mentioned, it's often being criticized in favor of spontaneity and naturalness. This shows that "the Zen tradition" as it currently exists, with all its formalism and effortful and strenuous practice, has not been a single and continuous historical entity. Likes Thai Food (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the section on Zen's sudden method already devotes two whole paragraphs to the sort of thing you want to highlight. I think this is sufficient for an introduction. And if folks want to explore these ideas further, they can follow the links provided to the pages of Huineng, Shenhui, Master Yüan, etc. These pages discuss the early Chan sudden approach towards practice in greater detail. Likes Thai Food (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the Zen tradition as it currently exists mostly has its origins in the highly institutionalized and state sponsored Chan of the Song dynasty. By the Song, Chan had become a religion about the earlier Tang masters, and had ceased being the religion of them. I think it's correct to say that there have been many different "Zens" throughout history.

All the best, Likes Thai Food (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan,

Regarding the correct title of the text in question, John Jorgensen points out in his thesis, The Earliest Text of Ch'an Buddhism: The Long Scroll, that the original title is unknown (it was rather D.T. Suzuki who gave it a title). Jorgensen writes, "I have titled it the Long Scroll rather than the Erh-ju ssu-hsing lun [Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices] or Ta-mo lun because these latter titles are confusing and ill-defined" (Jorgensen, page 1). With this I am inclined to agree, since the Two Entrances and Four Practices makes up only one part of seven of the entire Long Scroll. So, there is no need for it to be given any special focus in the title. In my opinion, leaving it simply as Long Scroll is a good compromise.

All the best, Likes Thai Food (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Likes Thai Food: let's add a note, to avoid confusion. The Bodhidharma Anthology was unknown to me, so to me it sounded as The Two Entries. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan,

Regarding your edit to the note, it is not said anywhere that I'm aware of that Suzuki gave it its longer title, Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices. Broughton says that it only "came to be called" this (Broughton, page 6). Suzuki did name it, but of this Jorgensen simply says "Long Scroll is a translation of the name Suzuki Daisetsu gave it" (Jorgensen, page 1). So, I think we should go with the note's original wording. Likes Thai Food (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)