Talk:Zen/Archive 6

Bodhidharma has been mentioned in sources such as the ones mentioned below as the founder of Zen Buddhism. Taoism has found mention in the article; I'll produce the lines which I have put in the article that deal with the Taoist inlfuence.

What is all this material doing here at the bottom of the page? It is signed by Freedomskies, but it does not appear to be part of the talk page discussion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, That was meant as a response to Kennethtennyson's assertion of most historians do not believe in the traditional tale of bodhidharma and Taoism not finding a mention in the article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These citations appear ambiguous at best. Several of them describe Bodhidharma as the founder while also describing him as "legendary", implying that he is not within the province of history. The Dictionary of World Mythology seems to contradict itself: first it says that Bodhidharma (an Indian) founded Zen, but then it says that Zen is a product of the Chiense mind. D. T. Suzuki is not a modern historian. I'm not familiar with Wong Kiew Kit; what are his bona fides?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These citations from various acadmic, mainstream sources describe him as the founder in the same manner that is used while addressing Laozi, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama etc. who have legends surrounding them as well. These figures also are not within the province of history and most of them existed before the era of fully recorded history. Muhammad is an exception but the prophet has legends surrounding him as well.
Wong Kiew Kit is the fourth generation successor from the Shaolin Monastery and a best selling author on Zen and the Shaolin arts. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, the introduction, as it stands now, is frankly pretty piss-poor. How about something along these lines for the all-important opening sentence:

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of an enlightenment experience equivalent to that of the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it deemphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" of each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

Yadda yadda yadda. I doubt there's anything (or certainly not much) in there that needs to be buttressed with footnotes in the manner of that horrid-looking string of footnotes appearing after the first mention of Bodhidharma (which, by the way, really is unnecessary: scholars may differ in their interpretations of that subject, but it is acknowledged that, within Zen, he is universally considered the founder). I grant that it's slightly complex as an opener, but I doubt it's excessively so ... and anyway, Zen's hardly the easiest thing to summarize since sliced bread, is it?

Anyhow, them's 2 more cents for ya. Tell me what you think. —Saposcat 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the given situation everything had to be sourced and the opening was sourced using Brittanica. I'll just go ahead and implement the introduction right away as it's amazingly well written and consice. I'll also remove the quotes. _{Freedom skies| talk}  10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump into implementing my proposal right away; let's see what others have to say about this as an intro first. —Saposcat 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your message came on 10:50 and I had enthusiastically implemented the excellently written intro by then. If other editors feel that the current intro is in need for changes then the final decision will be implemented in any event. I'll let it stay till then. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good opening of the article in terms of content. I can suggest minor rewordings like

"special transmission outside the scriptures" pointing to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature (not that it makes any serious difference in meaning or that Zen practitioners should be bothered about the correct English expression for enlightenment).

in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama (my obsession with minor rewordings may look funny; I am trying here, as Zen teachers often recommend, to avoid setting a certain experience as a goal).

For the rest of the introduction, Wikipedia recommends that we summarize the whole article in a few lines. Controversial or disputed matters are best discussed as late in the article as possible, and certainly not in the introduction, by a short enumeration of all the different points of view. That will certainly be helpful to many readers who may be interested in just some basic information about Zen without bothering about all the technical disputes among the editors. --Knverma 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with the wording changes you propose here: "pointing to" is, of course, consistent with the phraseology typically used in Zen discourse (which could, however, also be a reason to avoid it, though I doubt that would be excessively controversial); "as experienced by" seems fine as well (even though the very word "attainment" hints at "setting a certain experience as a goal", but that's mainly the fault of English—or even of language as a whole).

As for the rest of the introduction, see below for my proposal for a second paragraph that can (hopefully) please everyone. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of disagreement and name-calling and the like going on, for example, here and here. This is unproductive, and—just look at it from outside for a second or two—no real progress seems to be being made there. In people's apparent hankering to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, there are pseudo-falsities being asserted (e.g. the "Song of Enlightenment" is by a Zen master, whether it's an "old Chinese text" or not), and judgment mistakes being made (using entire paragraphs from sources is not generally a copyright violation at all—though it's usually unnecessary).

Let's just try to calm down, agree to disagree on certain issues, and actually work to get the article shaped and improved, shall we? Cheers. —Saposcat 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This account blanked Yoga and distorted citations here, This account distorted The earliest conceptual and practical beginings of Zen lie in India, its formation and evolution as an innovative religious movement lies in China. to The formation and evolution of Zen as an innovative religious movement lies in China. and This account blanked An Shih Kao and a reference tag.

That's just the first few edits. The account has been trolling here for a while and has been engaing in disruptive tag warring and edit warring while not showing any familiarity at all with the subject. The account has yet to show even the faintest of familiarity with Zen or produce a peer reviewed source while I'm losing my eyesight working to procure respectable sources.

The account has also been trying to remove sourced content from peer reviewed journals after himself having said I haven't questioned your sources, I am not questioning your sources. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but maybe think about upekṣā a bit more, and—more importantly in a Wikipedia context—look closely at the nature, content, and edit summaries of those edits and consider that they may well have been done in good faith, as it seems (to me, at least) they were. Cheers. —Saposcat 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give a sort of a heads-up warning to y'all that, along the be bold guidelines, I'm going to restructure the article by moving the entire "Zen teachings and practices" section to just after the "Etymology" section. I see this as being a more appropriate approach (at least for a religion that continues to be practiced) than to highlight the history. Perhaps I'm favoring the emic over the etic in this, as that's where I'm coming from, but if anyone strenuously objects, they can simply revert the restructuring and discuss it further here. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem, and it also helps in moving editorial disputes to later sections, as I wished. --Knverma 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are already aware of this, but just to make sure, "paramita" is probably used by Theravadins to refer to a list of ten perfections, but as used in Mahayana, it normally refers to a different list of six perfections (sometimes complemented by four more). Whether these are equivalent or not is of course further philosophical debate. But these six paramitas are somewhat characteristic of Mahayana and not so commonly talked about in Theravada (though I have less knowledge of the Theravada tradition). --Knverma 21:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know; that's why I phrased it as "emerging from Theravāda Buddhist thought". The six Mahāyāna fellows, which tend to be more important in Zen, are essentially just a trimmed-down (and—as you point out—philosophically perhaps subtly different, but probably not immensely so) version of the Theravāda ones. It is true that the paramitas are generally given more emphasis in Mahāyāna Buddhism, but they did emerge from the original Theravāda teaching. Cheers. —Saposcat 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed (i.e., simply removed) the number "ten" from the text. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This section would do well to be shortened. There are too many minor details. All the debates and details about Zen lineage, teachers, transmission, etc could actually be put in the Dharma transmission article, letting this section be a summary of that article. --Knverma 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And one of the emic perspectives regarding not depending on teachers could also be mentioned, though controversial quotes like "kill Buddha, kill patriarchs" may not be necessary. --Knverma 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most of the (interesting only to specialists) debate about the veracity of Dharma transmission should probably be shunted off to that article, keeping perhaps just one short sentence along the lines of "Many scholars, however, question ..." etc.

There is, though, other stuff concerning teachers' roles and duties that would do well to receive mention: teisho, dokusan, and the like. In any case, I'm planning—whenever I find the time—to continue working systematically through at least the "Zen teachings and practices" section, and possibly the whole article, to try to get it up to snuff. Cheers. —Saposcat 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw there is even an article called Zen teacher. We should figure out how to merge articles and/or redistribute contents. --Knverma 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A added this:

"Zen Buddhism teaches that there is no life after this life and there is no Rebirth.Thus Zen teaches the exactly same thing (annihilation of the mind) with materialism but with different words, as master Fa Jian shakya says, that life is "the only life that we have" thus Zen also doesn't accept the authenticity of Tipitaka or Gautama's words."

But someone keep deleting that reality claiming it is "vandalism".

PLEASE read here:

http://hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/FaJianShakya/reincarnation.html

AND here:

http://hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/reincarnation.html

Please tell me how my sentences are "vandalism"????

thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.41.71 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Please notice carefully, I used the words WP:OR (original research), not vandalism.

Regarding the content, firstly you seem not to be using the words from that article, but have also added some of your own ideas. That is the first concern, besides of course that Fa Jian Shakya himself seems not be a notable authority to quote. If we have to use some text, why not use the words of Bodhidharma or, better, the sixth patriarch? --Knverma 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the word "vandalism" was used by another editor, for your edits on some other article, not for the Zen article. I would suggest, instead of re-adding deleted text, you first discuss it on talk page. Also please take some time to check out Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Knverma 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Like a lot of American Buddhists, I think rebirth is silly tii, but most traditional Buddhists (including most Zen Buddhists) accept rebirth, including the head monk at my local Zendo. No POV-pushing, please. Zenwhat (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not edit any other page so I do not know what the other editor was talking about. Anyway, Zen master Brad Warner also says in his article called "REINCARNATION and ALL THAT"

"And, as usual, Nishijima expressed his opinion that there was no such thing as reincarnation and that the belief in reincarnation is not Buddhism...."

"When we die, we die. We never appear again"

"Forget about reincarnation. Look at your life as it is right now and live it."

Zen/Chan is not Buddhism, that is why They reject rebirth, Pali Canon and the words of Siddharta Gautama. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.105.20 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Odd to hear that "[Zen practitioners] reject rebirth, Pali Canon and the words of Siddharta Gautama", insofar as I am a Zen practitioner who does not reject rebirth, the Pali Canon, or the words of Siddhartha Gautama. Guess I must be some kind of heretic.

Seriously, though, although some of the references you've given do seem to reject the notion of reincarnation (incidentally, even those poor benighted Theravadins generally don't go in for reincarnation, but rather for rebirth, which is a whole different kettle of fish), they're not necessarily roundly rejecting it, but rather—as a phrase like "Forget about reincarnation. Look at your life as it is right now and live it" hints—emphasizing its irrelevance to daily practice ... the same thing Siddhartha Gautama seems to have done on, for example, the subject of God. And apart from that, the sources being referred to represent one point of view, so—even if they were to be included, which I'm not entirely against personally, but not entirely for, either—they need to be stated as such. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The dissociation of Zen from Buddhism and its rejection of rebirth, the Pali Canon and the words of Siddhartha Gautama are not supported by "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" and we must be careful not to given them undue weight. JFD 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above two comments, see also that Buddha taught in the Tipitaka that there is no self. No self also means no birth, no death, hence also no rebirth. Also the Heart Sutra (supposed to be approved by the Buddha, and recited in Zen centers world wide) says that there is no old age and no death. How does this fit into the point of view regarding Zen being materialistic and contrary to Buddha's teachings?

The problem lies in selective quoting of religious texts (which are full of apparent contradictions) and then interpreting them in different ways. --Knverma 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"No self also means no birth, no death, hence also no rebirth."

You knew nothing about Tipitaka, Rebirth is a fundamental teaching of Tipitaka an there are hundreds of passages teaching LITERAL rebirth in it. There is no "self" to transmigrate but there are kammic accumulations.

Here are JUST SOME of the suttas in tipitaka that talks about literal rebirth:

"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html

i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.4 On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

(ii) "But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world."

"on the dissolution of the body,after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

"at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a realm of misery, in an unhappy state, in the nether world, in hell"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

"But since he has abstained from killing living beings here... has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

"someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs "

""What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process (bound up) with affliction,2 he produces a (kammic) verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic) mental process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a world with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts3 touch him. Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

"Also an enemy wishes thus for his enemy: 'Let him on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.040.than.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.106.147.105 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the long list of references. I already know that the Tipitaka also talks about rebirth. That's why I said that religious texts are full of apparent contradictions. Zen masters also talk of rebirth. If you wish, I will search for references and list them here. Are you interested? --Knverma 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the interest of everyone, let me just cite a Zen koan regarding rebirth, karma and speech: the case 2 of Mumonkan. --Knverma 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"That's why I said that religious texts are full of apparent contradictions"

Why should rebirth be a "contradiction" ?!? -- 88.224.107.63

It's not. I just said the texts may appear to be contradictory. Anyway, I guess you now agree that Zen doesn't completely deny rebirth. Regarding "contradictions", here is a quote from the Platform Sutra by the sixth Chinese Zen patriarch:

• Whenever a question is put to you, answer it in the negative if it is an affirmative one; and vice versa. --Knverma 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently unenlightening (if you will excuse the pun). I came here looking for basic information on Zen but have come away confused. Is there any way that a simpler introduction can be created? A sort of...

• Zen is... A
• Zen is... B
• Zen is... C
• Zen Buddists beleive X Y & Z

... and sums up the absolute basics in 2-3 sentances? Currently it (the introduction) reads: Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

I'll highlight the links I had to follow and words I had to look up in order to try to grapple with it's meaning.

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on praxis and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

Would it be possible to have an introduction that a layman could understand? Something like:

Zen is a form of Buddhism notable for its emphasis on putting theoretical knowledge into practice and on wisdom gained through experience, particularly as realized in the form of a type of meditation known as zazen. Zen concentrates on the attainment of total understanding of the nature of existence and the nature of self. As such, it concentrates less on theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts than other branches of Buddism.

Hell, I had to look up Buddha-nature and still came away confused. ASH1977LAW 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We partly discussed this before and the language could be somewhat simplified. "Mahayana" seems a well-known term, and anyway there is a link. "Total understanding of the nature of existence and of the nature of self" is not any more enlightening than the word "enlightenment" itself. Your other suggestions are fine for me, let's see comments from other editors. --Knverma 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, how about some changes like these:

Zen is a form of Mahāyāna Buddhism notable for its emphasis on practice and experiential wisdom, particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen, in the attainment of enlightenment. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of what it terms a "special transmission outside the scriptures" that points to each individual practitioner's inherent Buddha-nature.

The problems I saw with your rewrite of the paragraph (and hence haven't implemented above) are these:

1. "[P]utting theoretical knowledge into practice" is far too roundabout a way of saying "praxis"; since that word is apparently too complex or difficult, let's just put "practice" (it's close enough meaning-wise, even if ever so slightly off).

2. "[W]isdom gained through experience" is again too roundabout and verbose; unlike "praxis", I seriously doubt that "experiential wisdom" is a difficult phrase to understand at all (it's just a clearly adjectival form of "experience" + the noun "wisdom", after all); therefore, I think it can be kept.

3. "[I]n the form of a type of meditation" is unnecessary redundancy; "in the form of meditation" is enough.

4. As Knverma pointed out indirectly, the notion of "enlightenment" can't be summed up handily like that; it's simpler and easier and ultimately more correct to leave it as is.

5. Although you may be baffled by "Buddha-nature" (which is only natural), it is—as you seem to be requesting—one of the "absolute basics" of Zen, and fits into the "Zen Buddhists believe X, Y, and Z" paradigm that you're wanting. However, a few explanatory words on what "Buddha-nature" signifies—quite the task, that—might well be in order.

6. As for the "special transmission" spiel, it's not absolutely essential, but it does give a direct quote that is universally fundamental to the Zen tradition and that—without, I think, being too difficult a phrase to grasp—adds a little something something to the de-emphasis on theories and texts spiel immediately preceding it. Though, again, perhaps the all-important word "transmission" there could use some explanation (another toughie to do succinctly, but possibly not impossible).

Anyhow, there's what I'm thinking. Y'all? Cheers. —Saposcat 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Saposcat's new one. There's minimal jargon and it's clear enough for a layperson to follow and understand. JFD 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize it before, but changing "praxis" to "practice" made a world of difference in how it read. JFD 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I've always been pushing for "praxis", I suppose—it's the right word, I think, being more exact (in my quite possibly flawed interpretation) than mere "practice". I have my doubts, too, that it's an excessively difficult word to comprehend, and even then, a quick look over at the praxis page will clear that up in a few seconds. And then, if the very clear opening phrase "Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted or practiced" is not enough (which it probably should be), then a glance down at the relevant "Spirituality" section and its "Praxis is also key in meditation and spirituality, where emphasis is placed on gaining first-hand experience of concepts and certain areas, such as union with the Divine, which can only be explored through praxis due to the inability of the finite mind (and its tool, language) to comprehend or express the infinite" should probably clarify even more (despite a few phrases in that sentence that don't quite jive with Zen). Cheers. —Saposcat 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you still prefer "praxis" to "practice"? JFD 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would still prefer it because I do feel that it's ever so slightly more accurate (but, as you say, somewhere inside that "ever so slightly" there really is "a world of difference"). I'm not vehemently opposed to "practice" or anything—it is a less specialist word, thus somewhat clearer if also somewhat less exact (as I see things, at least)—but personally I'd still opt for "praxis". Cheers. —Saposcat 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me also point out why I think we can afford to make the other change (i.e., the removal of "as experienced by the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama") my revised intro paragraph above would make. The short of it is that it would create a sort of slight logical disjunction with the mention of "Buddha-nature" that follows. The long of it is that, insofar as a basic and central notion in Zen is the inherent capacity for enlightenment that every individual has (which is more or less what "Buddha-nature" refers to), it is not necessarily "enlightenment as experienced by" the historical Buddha, but rather enlightenment pure and simple, as experienced by any Buddha or semi- or pseudo-Buddha (e.g. just your average Joe) you care to mention. As I've pointed out somewhere else with regards to Bodhidharma's place in Zen in contradistinction to Jesus' in Christianity and Muhammad's in Islam: the founder (Bodhidharma, Buddha, what-have-you) of the religion is entirely imitable, from the standpoint of Zen (as I see it, anyways) ... and so mention of that "as experienced by" bit doesn't necessarily need to go in, and may in fact be more correctly removed. Thoughts on that one, if any? —Saposcat 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is fine. Regarding "praxis" and "practice", I myself didn't know the subtle distinctions in meaning. I somewhat appreciate the concerns of ASH1977LAW, in that this could also be the situation for many other readers. Of course there are wikilinks, but we shouldn't force the readers to click on too many links for the opening sentence. So at the cost of losing some precision, I would still suggest the word "practice". --Knverma 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it back to "practice" because accessibility to laypeople is paramount in an encyclopedia entry. But I'll keep the wikilink to "praxis". JFD 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I had to follow the link to budda nature, then to budda in order to understand that budda nature means 'truly enlightened being'. Would it make it clearer if the 'budda nature' part read instead 'truly enlightened being' with a link to budda nature? Also please bere in mind that I am a bear of very little brain. Zen buddists, or those who at least familiarize themselves with it's teachings naturally will know the meaning of words such as "praxis" and "experiential", "enlightenment" and indeed "special transmission" and will be able to use them in everyday conversation, but these words are tangled puzzles for the layman, and are as specialized and arcane as medical terms or terms used in quantumn physics or higher maths. I've no objection to the use of such words in the article, but the introduction should be like a toe lowered into a bath, not like being plunged into ice water. Perhaps simpler (though slightly wordier) terms could be used in the introduction and these terms could be explained in a 'basic beleifs' section immidiately following the introductory paragraph, expanding upon these points so that a layman is enlightened as to their usage and is able to follow the rest of the article more clearly?ASH1977LAW 09:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we editors are more familiar with the topic, and at some point reviews from others would be useful. I can suggest the following alternatives:

• For enlightenment, we could say "awakening" or "spiritual awakening" or something similar, which are also commonly used terms. We can keep the same wikilink.
• For "special transmission outside scriptures", something like "teaching beyond/outside of words and speech".
• For "Buddha nature", may be "awakened nature", "true nature", "true self" or something similar, keeping the same wikilink.

Comments? --Knverma 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking it point by point:

1. I'm all in favor of "awakening" instead of "enlightenment" (though "spiritual awakening" seems a bit too heavy-handed, and perhaps even somewhat inaccurate in its use of the term "spirit"); "awakening" is, anyhow, a more accurate rendering of the word bodhi, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "light" (I've always thought that was an unfortunate translation, although it's become fairly standard by this time).

2. Rather than trying to rephrase the direct quote "special transmission outside the scriptures", we would probably do better to just say something along the lines of "in favor of a direct experience/perception/etc. of", etc.

3. As for what comes after that "of", we definitely shouldn't use the word "self", as it is categorically denied in every currently extant school of Buddhism (and, thus, is inaccurate). "Awakened nature" is probably the most accurate term—however, using it would lead to the confusing-to-the-layperson problem of "awakening to one's awakened nature", which seems relatively as accurate as words can get from the Zen standpoint, but is probably massively confusing to those not aware of that standpoint. So, I would go for "true nature" (with a link to Buddha-nature) as the best of the bunch overall.

Them's my comments. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just be bold and stick in some o' them changes and see what's what and what's not. Cheers. —Saposcat 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Awakening is no clearer than enlightenment to a poor addlebrained layman like me. Attaining a state characterized by consciousness, as opposed to being asleep? In that case surely an alarm clock serves? Awakening (that is to say a state of enlightenment whereby the individual is XYZ) would be a better wording... I would change this myself but I do not know what XYZ is. ASH1977LAW 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is precisely in coming up with this list of XYZ. The wikilinks, the reference to "true nature", and the fact that we are talking of a branch of Buddhism, would clarify that we are not talking of the alarm-clock awakening. Other than that, coming up with our own words to describe awakening is quite a challenge (especially in a few lines suitable for the intro), and I am not going to try it. --Knverma 11:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually on the fence when it comes to "enlightenment"/"Buddha nature" vs "awakening"/"true nature". "Enlightenment" is a term which even laypeople with only a passing familiarity associate with Buddhism and "true nature" sounds a bit New-Agey. JFD 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that it is not necessary to create a separate section heading. It is not done in the other sections where we talk of disputes among historians. Plus, the title gave the impression that it is some dispute within the Zen tradition (that's what I thought of when I first saw it) while the dispute is among historians. --Knverma 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's broken off into a separate section or not, it desperately needs sources and de-weaseling ("recent opinions," "many important texts," "most scholars," "much of current scholarship").

Whose opinions? Which texts? Which scholars? Whose scholarship?

JFD 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This particular section does seem to be written from a biased perspective, as it is criticizing certain scholars of bias, without providing any justification. If there are serious doubts concerning accuracy and no one is able to find sources then we can be bold in deleting objectionable portions. --Knverma 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current section's wording is messed up. Beyond the mixed metaphor of "Zen in China" the weasel wording is pretty obvious. I've got some of my source books out on loan right now for Chan practise in China, but when I get them back I'll have a go at the section if no-one beats me to it. --Fire Star 火星 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the consistent usage of Zen throughout the article as opposed to using "Chan" for the China section, "Seon" for the Korean section, and "Thien" for the Vietnam section. JFD 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference is based on that Chinese Buddhists (and probably Koreans) would never themselves call their practise zen, so it seems inaccurate. Especially with the lingering anti-Japanese sentiments in those countries. --Fire Star 火星 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Chinese and Korean Buddhists would certainly not call their practise "zen" when speaking in Chinese or Korean. They very likely would when speaking in Japanese. But, what would they call it in English? That's harder to say.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese speakers generally call it "Chan" when speaking in English. Zen is a regional pronunciation, as is Chan, etc. When speaking of the region, it makes sense to use the regional pronunciation. Speaking of "Chinese Zen" seems inelegant at best, inaccurate at worst. It may sound paranoid, but shouldn't we avoid implications that Japanese Zen is the representative branch - more important, more doctrinally pure or otherwise superior, or that Chinese practitioners are supervised by Japanese authority? None of this is explicit, of course, but if there are differences, shouldn't an encyclopaedia report those differences in a way that is sensitive to the differences? Zen and Chan aren't the same; different lineages (after a point many centuries ago), different languages, different locations, different practises. When by virtue of not being paper we don't have to equate them, why should we, even by implication? --Fire Star 火星 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of us editors has a Japanese bias, rather we had to choose one name, and we chose the one which is most commonly used worldwide. The latter may be because Japanese teachers were the first to teach in the west. When Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn started a school in the west he called it a Zen school. Vietnamese Thich Nhat Hanh is also referred to as a Zen monk. Perhaps Chinese practitioners prefer the term "Chan" more. But I saw that students of Hsu Yun have started an organization which they call "The Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun" . All this just tells us we shouldn't be so concerned about differences in terminology. --Knverma 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't see a big problem in using a bit of regional terminology in different sections. It makes clear the historical development in different countries, and I think the readers are smart enough to figure out what's happening. --Knverma 09:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in terms of regional terminology, The Chinese would have their own since it was transmitted from China to other parts of East Asia, however as for Koreans and Japanese they use the same terminology as Japanese has roots in Korean. Most Japanese are descendents of Korean Buddhists who were persecuted on the peninsula as such I highly doubt that Korean and Japanese terminology would differ.142.150.48.131 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a moment I'm going to put the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag on the article. The purpose is not to transwiki the entire article, of course, just the section on Etymology. After the transwiki is done I hope the folks at Wiktionary will integrate the etymology content into their article, and I propose to remove that section from the Wikipedia article. People reading this article do not expect to find information on the name Zen but on the actual religion known as Zen. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that etymology is irrelevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. There are two particular bits of information which strike me as particularly relevant: What 'Zen' refers to (meditation type) and that Zen, Chan, Seon, and Thien are the same thing. These two things combined account for at least half of the etymology section. So there's one other sentence which is maybe not needed for an encyclopedic understanding, but I don't see a particularly strong case to remove it, other than "not strictly needed". Arturus 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the keeping at least part of the section will be better. Besides the above points, the mention of "dhyana" is also connected to the historical origins of Zen, although it is currently not made evident in that section. --Knverma 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to manually import this page to Wiktionary, but a lingering MySQL bug seems have prevented the full history import. In lieu of that, I have imported only the most recent version. I then removed everything except the Etymology section, from wikt:Transwiki:Zen and removed the tag here. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed in September 2006 that Zen Teacher/Zen Master be merged into Zen, but no discussion was made of it. JohnnyMrNinja 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at least until someone comes along who truly has a lot of worth to say about Masters/Teachers. LordAmeth 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it before. But there is also the Dharma transmission article and we discussed earlier about moving some too much detailed material from Zen to that article. It would make sense to merge Zen Teacher/Zen Master with Dharma transmission. I am assuming that Dharma transmission refers only to transmission inside Zen. Of course we already have the Lineage (Buddhism) article for transmission in other traditions. --Knverma 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Zen#Teachers. --Knverma 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, then, there you go. LordAmeth 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the reasons supporting the merge? I don't know much about this topic to stand with anything. (Wikimachine 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

I guess you are referring to my suggestion for merging Zen Teacher/Zen Master with Dharma transmission (I'll put the appropriate merge tags soon). A Zen Master can declare one or more people (usually his/her students) to be Zen Masters. The process is called Dharma transmission and the new Zen Masters are the successors of the older Zen Master. In this way we have lineages of Zen Masters, all of them supposed to be going back to The Buddha. Hence, Zen Masters, transmission, lineages are distinct but closely connected concepts, and it is best to discuss them in one place. --Knverma 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Zen infobox should be in alphabetical order, china first, japan second, etc. The articleLiancourt Rocks was heavily argued by Japanese users over alphabetical order. Why is this article so quiet about it? Let's please be all fair. I am starting to have some suspicion. Amphitere 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but unlike Liancourt Rocks which is a hotly contested topic, Zen is purely innately Japanese. If this were the Ch'an article, I'd put China first, but it's not. Should we put something else ahead of China on the Chinese character article simply because it's alphabetical? I think we try too hard to not step on anyone's toes; rather than creating blanket rules by way of some kind of compromise, why can't we simply suck it up and act like mature adults? It's like political correctness - calling things by some name other than the most accurate/appropriate one just so as to not offend some fragile egos. LordAmeth 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing here is to make things NPOV. Zen is not 100% Japanese, it exists in other countries also. If one thinks that Zen should be considered Japanese, because the majority agrees, that person is wrong, because Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea, and registered as Korea by UN. If this reason is disregarded in the article Liancourt Rocks (and puts Japan before Korea), we should make it fair, and put this article in alphabetical order also. I am sick of JPOV. Extreme ethnocentrism is certainly not welcomed in any wikipedia what so ever. Your incorporation is greatly appreciated. (PS. I want to relax and keep a cool head while working for wikipedia. I am not here to make things KPOV, but to make things NPOV. As you said, "calling things by some name other than the most accurate/appropriate one just so as to not offend some fragile egos. LordAmeth 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)", I strongly agree with you. Why can't the Japanese just leave Liancourt Rocks alone, and keep it as it was a year ago? But since it already happened, we can't do anything about it. But, what we can do is make it fair for other articles too. [If Japan didn't start it in the beginning, I woudln't be caring about this, and nor would there be such a huge argument]). I mean and bring no harm to the English Wikipedia, and its fellow contributors. Amphitere

I didn't bring up the Liancourt Rocks, and I have no interest in arguing about them here. In fact, I have no interest in arguing about it at all. I wish the Japanese and Koreans would both just give up on it and stop arguing over such a tiny spit of land. As for Zen, I maintain that it does not, as you say, exist in other countries also. Ch'an exists in China, Son exists in Korea, and Thien exists in Vietnam, but Zen is a specifically Japanese concept. I really must admit, I wouldn't care about this one bit - the alphabetical ordering of the infobox is such a minor issue - if one were to be asking nicely about it and not making it into a race/nationalism/POV issue. You accuse people of being ethnocentric, of being unfair, and suspicious, and as a result I am not inclined to be friendly towards you or to assume good faith. I understand that Koreans suffer from an inferiority complex and that seeing themselves as the eternal victim is central to their national/racial identity, but I ask you to please rise above that and take things objectively, rather than accusing people of ethnocentrism, bias, etc from the very get-go. And just for the record, I'm not Japanese, so please don't accuse me of ethnocentrism for a race/country to which I don't even belong. Cheers. LordAmeth 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this, but would just like to mention that Chán, Seon and Thien were merged into this article few months back. --Knverma 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese article on Zen starts by saying "Zen is a sect of Buddhism which is claimed to be transmitted from India to China by Bodhidharma", then continues for four lines about its (legendary) history in China, before describing how it came to Japan. The description of its Chinese origins and various Chinese Zen sub-sects are longer than the corresponding Japanese ones. For Zen practitioners in Japan, the Chinese roots and history of their religion are very important. Buddhism cannot become a nationalistically-charged issue for Japanese (the nationalists like Shintoism, not a "foreign" (to them) religion like Zen), so putting the two language versions in normal alphabetical sequence should be fine --Uleglass 25 November 2007.

@LordAmeth "but Zen is a specifically Japanese concept." LordAmeth, Zen is the Japanese pronunciation of a Chinese character. Chan is the Standard Mandarin pronunciation, Seon is the Korean pronunciation of the SAME EXACT CHARACTER. Considering Zen evolved from Mahayana by combining with Daoism in 8th century China, I don't see how Zen is a Japanese concept. "Zen in Japan" is unique since it incorporates various Shinto elements, but Zen as a whole is originally part of "Chinese Buddhism" that dates back to its foundations in Tang China. Intranetusa (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)