Talk:Zen/Archive 7

I felt that the Basis subsection started too abruptly ("Zen is not A B C"), so I added one descriptive paragraph at the beginning by translating the Japanese article on Zen. It does not read very well so I hope a native English speaker can clean it up --Uleglass 25 November 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence which begins this section: "Zen asserts, as do other schools in Mahayana Buddhism, that all sentient beings possess a Buddha-nature, or pure immortal part, which lie hidden in the depths of their minds." contains a several misleading ideas from the perspective of Zen Buddhism. In the first sentence "or pure immortal part" is problematic. There is no immortal part of us. One of the first tenants of Buddhism is the impermanence of all things. There is no exception to this from the Buddhist point of view. Many Buddhist assert that the Buddha Dharma itself is only temporary. The sentence implies that there is some part of us which is not Buddha. But again from the Buddhist point of view this is impossible as all things are an insoluble one. It is also slightly misleading to say we "possess" Buddha Nature. It is more accurate to say we "are" Buddha Nature. The seperation between ourselves and our true nature is a dillusion. This is one of the basic concepts of Zen. It is further misleading to say that our true nature is "hidden in the depths of our mind." Once again from the Zen Buddhist perspective true nature is located everywhere at once and nowhere. If one looks for it "hidden in the depths" of one's mind one will not find it.

--Hbwade (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The etymology chart as a part of the main infobox is ugly and seems to violate Wikipedia's manual-of-style. Since it's a somewhat specific issue and there's a section it, I've created a wikitable in the etymology section instead. Zenwhat (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is strangely no information about the main two divisions in Zen:

• The Soto school -- achieving enlightenment from sudden insight
• The Rinzai school -- achieving enlightenment through diligent dharma practice

It's important to note that both schools aren't exclusive -- Soto does not suggest ignoring sudden practice and Rinzai does not deny sudden insight or sudden enlightenment. Both schools just think that overall focusing on one approach over the other is better.

Anyone have a problem with me starting a section on this? Zenwhat (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Looking more closely, I did find some information, but it's strange to see there not be a whole section on it. Zenwhat (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have read, both schools would stress that you ignore the goal of enlightenment itself and simply perform whatever practices they advocate because in doing so you are being most true to yourself. Sitting just to sit, not to get Buddhahood. Rinzai adds koan work to the zazen practice. I advise you to read the section starting on the bottom of page 145 of this book, though the treatment there may be a little dry. Thanks for getting rid of the picture of the Buddha with the broken arms, by the way. Excellent essay too. Mitsube (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition by Heng-Ching Shih

Anything wrong with this link? Why has it been reverted?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.231 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi XLinkBot, I feel this to be a good link, there is plenty of information about women in Buddhism. On the mainpage there is nothing about this subject.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added one of them - Zen at War - to the section References but maybe it better should be mentioned within the text. There has been some profound discussion about it, as you know. Have a look at the review written by David Loy. Loy states in 1997: "Now we need to begin considering the various implications of this complicity. For example: if Buddhist awakening truly overcomes our delusions, why didn't it do a better job of inoculating against ultranationalist propaganda?" this is an important question to be dealt with, at least it should be mentioned here and now, too.

There is also a review by David Loy on the Book Zen War Stories , .

More reviews can be found on this site .

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this essay written by Stuart Lachs belongs to page "Zen Buddhism in the West"?

• Means of Authorization: Establishing Hierarchy in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism in America

Revised Paper from presentation at the 1999 (Boston) Meeting of the American Academy of Religion

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.242 (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some major clean-up. Also added info about the Five Houses. Anyone has any problems, let me know.

Also, the references need to be combined into one section. Currently, they're split into the "Notes" and "References" sections. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up more of the references. Some of them don't seem to be good, but are just links to what appear to be self-published websites. Also, referencing D.T. Suzuki is redundant, so I'm combining the references all right now. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of work, again. It would be redundant to itemize every change I made, so simply look at diffs of the article to see what I did.

There is one thing I will note, though. I merged the notes and references sections (as noted above). In doing so, I removed the following sources, as they were ambiguously cited, not being clear exactly where they were being cited and how:

• Hori, Victor Sogen, Zen Sand
• Nagatomo, Shigenori (2006-06-28), "Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Blackman, Sushila (1997). Graceful Exits: How Great Beings Die: Death Stories of Tibetan, Hindu & Zen Masters. Weatherhill, Inc.: USA, New York, New York. ISBN 0-8348-0391-7
• Brian Daizen Victoria: Zen at War, (War and Peace Library), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd edition, (August 2006), ISBN 0742539261(10), ISBN 978-0742539266(13)

It seems that at least some of those are cited in the article somewhere (but not with precise footnotes). Tomorrow, I'm going to read through the entire article, find these sources if they're there, and then cite them. If not, then I'll take a look at the Stanford encyclopedia article and see if I can dig up the others at the local bookstore or library. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished doing all of my clean-up work. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me now that separating the reference notes from the bibiography (or "further reading") would be useful. In other words, the references could be more specific and clear, but the "Further Reading," section (which would only contain some of the better resources) would be easier to use. I'll get working on it... eventually. I'm pretty lazy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking for quite some time that we need to make separate articles for the major "Zen" traditions, as Ch'an deserves much broader coverage on Wikipedia. We could still include the integral Ch'an back story to Zen and other strains, but currently I think Wikipedia is sorely lacking in its coverage of Ch'an. True, Zen is the Japanese derivative of Ch'an—but we each know how unique the manifestation of Zen has been in each country it enters. Whole books and encyclopedias have been written exclusively on each. Would anyone like to collaborate with me? If so, contact me on my talk page. (Mind meal (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

We used to, but there was so much overlap that we decided to merge them all. JFD (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was the discussion on this decision? It would seem more relevant to have Ch'an direct to an article about Ch'an, Seon direct to an article about Seon, et cetera. Not only does it leave for better expansion opportunities, but it is also more encyclopedic. In a very technical sense, the current scheme is not accurate. Scholars recognize each of these as unique strains, and certainly not one big homogeneous unit. Perhaps we could build consensus here to split up the articles, if others think it would be a good idea. Zen is a Japanese tradition, with its own schools. It really isn't accurate to say "it is the same thing as "Ch'an" and "Seon." There is too much history for each to allow for editors to expand meaningfully and keep it all in the confines of one article. It is like saying all schools of Tibetan Buddhism should share just one article, "Tibetan Buddhism." We can do better than this, can't we? (Mind meal (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Mindmeal, Zen, Chan, and Seon are the different pronunciations of the same word written in Chinese script. It's like Spanish "como" and English "eat" - different words in different languages but they both mean "eat."

Zen, Chan, and Seon is the same thing. Zen as a whole is still the Japanese pronunciation of a Chinese character, and Zen originated in the Tang Dynasty from combining Mahayana with Daosim. "Zen being a Japanese tradition" only refers to Japanese Zen, where it probably combined with Shintoism. Zen as a whole is not a Japanese tradition. If you want to distinguish between them, then have separate articles such as Zen in China, Zen in Japan, Zen in Korea, etc. Intranetusa (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"The first thing to note is that 'Zen' is a Japanese word; for the Chinese stage of its evolution, Zen ought more properly be referred to as Ch'an." - Simon P. James

"Zen, Chan, and Seon are the different pronunciations of the same word written in Chinese script."

I never argued otherwise. What is being argued is the fact that outwardly, through their manifestations, they are very different: traditions, rituals, emphasis. Very much so, in fact. On a spiritual level, they are maybe similar. As far as form goes, not very similar. Not very similar at all! And, what we do in this encyclopedia, is deal a lot with form. Looking at the current article, however, one wouldn't necessarily know how unique they are. For instance, in the Korean schools "zazen" is not a very big deal at all. Chanting and prostrations are emphasized much more. It is simpleton to think that this tradition we term Zen, out of convenience, is the same thing in each country. if that is true, why do we have Buddhism in the United States, Buddhism in Europe, Buddhism in Canada, Buddhism in Korea, and on and on and on? Because "Buddhism" isn't a one size fits all word, nor is dhyana; just because all Zen traditions practice dhyana does not make them "the same." I'm not sure you were saying they are the same, but from your words I wasn't sure what to gather. if we had the kinds of articles you propose, which I'm for, Ch'an and Seon should redirect to them. Otherwise, there is Japanese bias at work here. And, if you look at my body of work, I have no problems with Zen. I just want to get it right, for the sake of better articles. (Mind meal (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The existence of articles on "Buddhism in Country X" articles does not of course preclude a Buddhism article. I think that you are correct that this article does not sufficiently clarify the differences in Zen practice in one country and another. However, the value of a central Zen article is that it demonstrates the relationship between Zen, Ch'an, Seon, etc, i.e. that they are more closely related to each other than to say Theravada or Tendai. JFD (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. First the articles Seon in Korea and Ch'an in China should be created before we even fathom what I've proposed. Baby steps, its not like this will get done overnight anyway. Would you agree that, if such articles were to be created, we should refer to them as I have just proposed, i.e. Seon in Korea and Ch'an in China? (Mind meal (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

That's a not half-bad way of addressing what happens when you come up against Zen in Japan and Zen in the West. Here are pre-redirect versions of Ch'an and Seon to see what they looked like. JFD (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those were pretty darn ugly. I think I'll start working on one of the "in country x" articles, sounds "fun." (Mind meal (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The term, "Zen," seems to be used in English to broadly describe all forms of Chan, Seon, Thien, etc.. Any article on Chan would have considerable overlap with Zen and Buddhism in China. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlaps aren't the issue. Accuracy and encyclopedic content is the issue. Zen is often used that way, but only for the sake of convenience. A true scholarly essay will always note the difference or take care to choose the right wording. At the very least it will confess in the opening that it will use the word Zen throughout the work. The words themselves aren't so much the issue here, anyway. As has already been pointed out, they all are translations of dhyana. It is their linguistic connotation, and what they therefore represent, that is at stake. Ch'an was a very Chinese religion, religiously and culturally; in terms of customs and manner of teaching it couldn't have enjoyed a more different history than that which has manifested itself in Japan and Korea. The article Buddhism in China is, pardon me for saying this, quite worthless. Were an article on Ch'an in China to considerably overlap it, I'd be very disappointed—for that would mean the Ch'an article is sorely lacking in content and context. We could even make a Zen disambiguation page, which redirects to Zen in Japan, Seon in Korea, Thien in Vietnam, Ch'an in China, an Historical overview of Zen Buddhism, et cetera. These are just ideas, granted, and I'm not about to force the issue against consensus. I merely think we editors of topics on Zen should take great care to be as accurate as possible. Where else on the web can one find comprehensive articles on these subjects that truly go in depth? They don't exist. Most simply scratch the surface, if that, and the reader leaves only slightly more educated when leaving. But with the power of solid referencing and collaboration, we have the opportunity to make Zen academia reach new heights on the web. We publish an article for Wikipedia and immediately we achieve first page hits on search engines. We can make history here. Solid articles as well referenced as the finest journal. Anyway, enough with my William Wallace speech. (Mind meal (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

This article is ignorantly persuaded towards the Japanese practice of " Zen " Buddhism for the sake of our western conviences. You guys seriously have no idea how insulting your being to an entire culture. Chan Buddhism should be the more widely used term. After all it was brought to other Asian nations through China. I suggest a compromise "Chan/Zen" be more widely implemtented through out the article as well as the Chinese character put in the very begining of the article. Also stating that Zen is more widely used is just pushing aside the large Chinese population ( inside and out side of China ) and Kung Fu practioners outside of China. Which brings me to my next point. Chan Buddhism is also very closley connected with Chinese martial arts. If there is a reference to Yoga there should be a reference to how closely intertwined Chan Buddhism is with the Chinese martial arts. Also the Yoga connection is a very loose one and not realy that obvious. I'm don't think too many Chan Buddhist realy put much of an emphasis on Chakral focus. Either that or it should be removed from the article. There should also be a mention of when Chan Buddhism came to Japan thus making the connection to Zen Buddhsim. As well as pages of either or linking back to the main article. Do you realy think any one practicing Seon Buddhism or Chan Buddhism is going to type Zen Buddhism into the search function? Saying they are the same is as well insulting to all cultures. So in that sence there should be references to the differences of the practice in each culture. This article still needs alot of work!!! -- JCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.81.226 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"You guys seriously have no idea how insulting your being to an entire culture." It certainly isn't intended to be, and I recommend against taking it that way. Our goal is to use the most convenient terminology, evenhandedly, with no intention to insult anyone's culture or to make them feel proud of their culture, either (although we tend to make an exception for persons, tending to refer to Chinese people by their Mandarin names). "Chan Buddhism should be the more widely used term." Perhaps it should be, but it is not. I don't really see why it should be, either; the great Chinese patriarchs of Zen didn't speak Standard Mandarin. "Also stating that Zen is more widely used is just pushing aside the large Chinese population". Our goal is to reflect common English usage, not Chinese or other languages. In Mandarin Chinese, even Japanese Zen is called "chan", and in Japanese, I suppose, all Zen is called "Zen". "Do you realy think any one practicing Seon Buddhism or Chan Buddhism is going to type Zen Buddhism into the search function?" There are plenty of examples of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese-style practitioners who use the term "Zen" in English: there's the Kwan Um School of Zen and the Zen Buddhist Temples (Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom); the Western Chan Fellowship uses both terms on its website; plumvillage.org refers to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, etc.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 'houses' (and Zen as a whole) be called schools rather than sects? A sect usually denotes a small group that departed from the official doctrine. Zen and its 'houses' are quite strong on their feet and 'officially recognized'. I see the term 'sect' being used in most related articles, also. AKoan (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They could be called schools or sects. I don't think the term "sects," is necessarily denigrating. The term, "school," can be confusing because of how it's used to apply to entire lineages (Soto, Rinzai, etc..), more recent Buddhist establishments (i.e. Obaku), and also occasionally for monasteries (after all, "school" in English is typically a building).

As the section on the five houses mentions (and as I read in the Collected Works of Thomas Cleaty, Vol. 1), the five schools weren't originally sects, just schools. It seemed to be informal frameworks for teaching Zen, created by a handful of teachers. Today, however, they are largely regarded as sects, because they have separate lineages, separate teachings (i.e. koan practice and the keisaku in Rinzai, shikantaza in Soto) and separate monasteries. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, these are exactly the reasons why I think 'school' is better than 'sect', I think 'school' means something more than 'sect', at least thats how I perceive these words. And I don't think sect is necessarily denigrating, either. AKoan (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Pre-sectarian Buddhism wouldn't make much sense if we made this change, though, would it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I said that this thing should be clarified in all related articles. Wee have "Pre-sectarian Buddhism", but also "Early Buddhist schools". Maybe in some cases the term "sect" is ok, but for Zen and the Zen Houses I don't believe so. AKoan (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Zen is somehow less sectarian? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zen is "big" enough not to be considered a sect. AKoan (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bigger than the Christian sect, Catholicism, or the Islamic sect, Sunni Islam? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed a T. Matthew Ciolek, a professor of Asian and Pacific Studies, asking him if I could use this image for this article. He mentioned that the image was on the Zen Buddhism WWW Virtual Library (I got it from somewhere else, but happened to see his name on the image). From his e-mail (tmciolek@coombs.anu.edu.au):

Please feel free to use the image and any data you find on my web site in your forthcoming adenda to the Wikipedia article. However, whatever you do, please provide the standard in such cases attribution.

Please also note that I DO NOT AGREE to any modifications (to the size, format, fonts etc etc) to the original "zenschools.gif" graphics file.
Please use the file as it is.

His website is here. There's a lot of useful information there. Also, it isn't just a personal website of his. Also, even though it's his website, it's not really self-published or original research persay, because a lot of credible people have contributed to it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

which would allow one to argue that there is no "orthodoxy", something that most Asian Zen masters would readily dismiss.

Please clarify. Asian Zen masters would readily dismiss orthodoxy or that there is no orthodoxy? 4.166.0.201 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article in a while... "Legendary Origins" is blatantly POV. The section is going to be renamed Mythology, as it was previously named. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the information about the "Girl Zen" clothing company. There are quite a few companies which use this term and it hasn't been established that this specific company is notable.

I suppose we could create a sub-section for, "Usage of the term Zen in marketing," but I don't know if that would really be encyclopedic and the article would be extremely vast and very difficult to find reliable sources for. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I the section regarding seshin, it say that monks (or laypersons attending the seshin) sleep 7 houers or less. this is a understadement. The daliy schedule of a monk, leaves about 5 houers of sleep, and during seshin they are encuraged (in japan that amounts to being told or ordert) to sleppe less or not at all. Also in some traditions, especial rinzai, monks are not allowed to lay down during sleep, they tie themself to a post or, if more experienced, sleep in meditation possition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.156.26 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the external link to "Booklets - Hsing Yün" is adequate for this article on Zen Buddhism (although Hsing Yun is a Linji buddhist). Any comments? Should it be removed? Zen Mind (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I also request that the Chinese article 禅宗 be translated, for the same reason.
• Requested by: ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interest of the translation: Zen Buddhism is an eastern religion, most predominant in China and Japan, and the Chinese and Japanese perspective is likely to be more clear than the western interpretation, based on western sources. Finding western sources on Zen history is difficult (books can be ordered from Amazon, but libraries and bookstores tend to have very little, mostly modern books on Zen practice rather than trustworthy books on Zen history). A brief look over the Japanese and Chinese articles on Zen, translated by Google, seems to suggest that there is a fair amount of information in both articles which could be added to English Wikipedia's article.

A) 3rd para: "Although the Japanese had known Zen-like practices for centuries (Taoism and Shinto)". I know something of Shinto and Zen. Taoism may have connections to Zen, but Shinto is nothing like Zen. Except that they are both Japanese, and there's a generic 'Japanese-ness' to them, there are no philosophical or religious similarities. Are there? B) Zen was very closely connected to aristocratic culture in Japan - the Samurai and Daimyo. It a social/historical thing more than a religious factor, but since there are some sociological criticisms of Zen here, could I add something like that? - Kipwatson (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the assertion is dubious. I removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To ENCODE means to convert data into the form ready for processing. To DECODE means to convert data back to the form in which it can be understood. Examples of ENCODING. (1) Bank cheques nowadays contain customer account information in coded form using megnetic ink. (2) Bar codes contain coded information about the product they are printed on. Examples of DECODING. Teachers names are stored on school data file. for this the first two letters of all the names are written. Thus mr zain as ZA, mr fareed as FA and miss nuzhat as NU. the computer have reference file of all these names.to print out all the names the computer will decode all the codes that are the two letters. so the print out will contain full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.107.191 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the "Zen in Japan" sub-section, about half of the sub-section is about how Japanese Zen is a meaningless and superficial in practice, and that most Japanese Zen monks were nationalistic racists during World War II.

There's no problem with including such information, but that does not appear to be what Japanese Zen is primarily about. In particular, the distinct influence of Shinto on Japanese Zen and the lack of vinaya in Japanese Zen should be noted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese zen isn't any different from the other zen buddhism practiced throughout Asia, as for influences from Shinto there are none. Shinto is the result of rename at the beginning of the modern era to include traditional Korean shamanism and to give it the appearance of an authentic Japan only religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.132 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bwahahaha. I take it you haven't visited China or any other Asian countries, then? Zen in China, Korea, and Vietnam are similar. Zen in Japan is a whole different thing. For example, does anyone in Japan read the Shurangama Sutra? Or recite from the Avatamsaka Sutra? Do they practice nianfo and study Yogacara? If not, they are probably very different from the Zen people in China. In China, Zen can be so broad that it might as well be labeled "Mahayana Buddhism". If you want proof of this in English, you can just check out City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, which is the major Chinese source of Zen in the U.S. Do Zen Buddhists in Japan even believe in reincarnation? Do they understand the theory of samadhi and the various Dharma gates to cultivate it? Do they really study the sutras in earnest? I get the feeling sometimes that Zen in Japan is more similar to performance art. Black robes, bamboo hats, blossoming flowers, and unreadable calligraphy. Very different from Zen in other countries. Tengu800 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should focus on the influence of zen on japan(such as tea), who in japan practiced it(samurai), Japanese views on zen I think the WWII stuff would belong in articles relating to WWII or japanese militarism, maybe if zen followers stood out in their political views, then it would be notable here. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

i just wanted to say, nice page!

i also noticed later on that the early history section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen#Early_history) is ... I was confused the first time I read it because it said that Huineng was the choice of the fifth patriarch, and then later that Shenxiu was the choice of the fifth patriarch, and then i remembered that the fifth patriarch had chosen between the two before the time of his death.... So i thought it might be confusing for an unititiated reader. i found this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng#Becoming_the_Sixth_Patriarch which sounded clear to me like a bell. um... the scholarship notes at the end should, well don't you think it's a bit too much as it is now? i mean the story is hardly told before it is refuted, and further the page is not clear as to what "narrative" is debated by modern scholars, or in what way it is debated. so i think it needs to be changed, and it seems most appropriate that the scholarship part be sent to the page linked before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng#Becoming_the_Sixth_Patriarch and included there. what do you guys think? Makeswell (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected some grammar in the first paragraph, and made the style more consistent where the equivalent Japanese, Chinese, and Sanskrit words are given. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Chinese character for chan from first paragraph. This is best introduced in the etymology section which is linked. Redid the second paragraph for stylistic reason, removing a repetitive use or the word "meditation."OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edited third paragraph of intro for style. Broke it into two paragraphs, one for the secular/scholarly version of the emergence of Zen, and one for the traditional story of Bodhidarma. Although I am avoiding as much as I can changing content, I removed two things: I removed the word "Pahlavi" to describe where Bodhidarma came from. It was just made the description awkard, and doesn't serve any particular purpose in the introduction. I also removed the mention of shaolin temple, pretty much for the same reason. In any case I hope the intro is clearer and more inving now. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to repeat that the changes I am making, if I am doing it right, should not change content or even emphasis, but are meant to repair some structural and stylistic problems. I have removed a section called "etymology" which consisted of a table of the word variations on the "zen" in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese. I replaced it with a list in the introduction giving exactly the same info (including an obvious error in the cantonese translation.) This is in keeping with general practice. Also, "etymology" was a misnomer. It was just a list of translations. I added a paragraph in the introduction to contain the list, although the more proper approach would be to put the list after the first use of the word "Zen". But the list is so extensive it would be ugly and quite intrusive to the flow of the introduction. The list is quite long, probably longer than necessary, but that is the kind of decision I am avoiding. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that section was probably the work of B9 Hummingbird Hovering, who has been recently banned indef blocked for his obscure edits. So no great loss there. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He must have worked hard on that table, but it just didn't fit or make sense.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of what he did just didn't make sense. Yworo (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The sections on mythology and history seem not to have been thought out very well in terms of organization. I am making some major changes in the sense of moving stuff around, but again I didn't change content (except in one instance where something is repeated), but I did change some emphasis on some sections by moving them to the history section. Here are the two problems I fixed:

• The authors(s) had trouble with the fact (or assertion) that there is no verified history before 700, and thus only tradition and legend can be cited. This led them, among other things, to repeat the story of bodhidharma, and to tell the reader several times to be careful to distinguish myth from fact, without giving the reader any help in doing so. Solution: I dealt with this by using the paragraph that describes the lack of historicl sources as the introduction to a section on "Zen origins" which recounts the traditions and legends. I got rid of the second telling of the Bodhidarma story.
• There seemed to be no section for history after 700, even though that is when historical documentation starts. But in fact that story is told in the sections on the tradition in different countries: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam. Solution: I made these sections part of the history section, changing nothing in them.

That last is the biggest structural change, but if you read the sections on the different countries they are almost entirely history. Including them in the history section also helps equalize the treatment given to the different countries.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Don't beat me up with one of those keisaku sticks.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me... better ordered, better flow. I cleaned up a few minor formatting issues. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the lead: "Zen is a school of sutra(yana) Mahāyāna Buddhism..." What is this term supposed to indicate here? According to the definition given at sutrayana, the fact that Zen is a Mahayana school automatically makes it both part of Sutrayana and not Tantric, so it's redundant to state as much here. I don't know if that's really the intention behind this change, though. It seems to me that sutrayana is a term specific to the Tibetan tradition, so I'm not sure it really belongs here at all, at least not in the lead. Finally, if it is included, I'd like to see some kind of reference associating that particular terminology with Zen. Maybe I'm missing something, though. /ninly_(talk) 12:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes something sutric versus tantric is based on which CLASS OF LITERATURE the system is based on. Zen is based solely on the Mahayana sutras is it not? Please read the article I cite at the end. By the way, Zen has a minor tantric element, but this element is found in the Mahayana sutras, therefore it is still sutra Mahayana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_sutrasThigle (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ninly, it's redundant. Only some sects of the Tibetan Vajrayana schools consider Vajrayana part of Mahayana. So the distinction is pretty much purely a Tibetan one, as Ninly states. As such, there is no need for the distinction to be called out in the lead, though I'd not object to the addition of a discussion of this view later in the article. Yworo (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the Mahayana wikipedia article before I touched it for the first time yesterday very clearly states that Vajrayana is a part of Mahayana. Scroll down when reading it. How do you explain that? What makes a Mahayana school is that it accepts the Mahayana sutras, specifically bodicitta aspiration. This idea that Vajrayana is not a part of Mahayana is novel to me. Where is this from?Thigle (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the Vajrayana article. In any case, you are attempting to apply a Tibetan system of classification to a non-Tibetan form of Buddhism. Should we also apply a Pali system of classification to Vajrayana? Then we'd have to call it non-Buddhist, wouldn't we? See the problem here? Yworo (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But this logic does not make sense, because Zen acknowledges itself as a sutra system. It has nothing to do with Tibetan buddhism or Vajrayana. You sidestepped my point about the Mahayana article. Sutra developed in tandem with tantra by the way. You are right, I shouldn't have used "sutrayana". By the way, a Theravada monk would not call a Vajrayana practitioner non-buddhist. Thigle (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Mahayana article does not say what you claim. It says that the later forms of Mahayana were developed within the Vajrayana schools. It does not say that all of Vajrayana is included in Mahayana. See further the section on the three turnings of the wheel of dharma, where Mahayana is the second turning and Vajrayana is the third turning, distinct from the second. Since the matter is not one agreed upon universally within Buddhism, it doesn't belong in the lead sentence here. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you just edited it. Well you have to also edit out this "Major traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism today include Zen (Chán), Pure Land, Tiantai, Nichiren, and Esoteric Buddhism (Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism)." This was there even before I touched it. And there are wikipedia articles all over wikipedia you have to change. Thigle (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. The Esoteric and Tibetan schools include Mahayana teachings. However, they do not consist solely of Mahayana teachings. That's why the distinction of sutrayana and tantrayana was developed. To distinguish the two types of teachings within these traditions. Yworo (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified the Mahayana article with a link to the discussion of the three views of Vajrayana. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You'd be more convincing if you would cite some reliable sources. We don't consider Wikipedia articles to be reliable sources. They are always changing and sometimes they contain errors. Even sourced statements within articles sometimes get changed so as not to represent what the sources say. If the article is not being watched by sufficiently knowledgeable people, these changes can go undetected. I have no doubt that you can find Tibetan or other esoteric Buddhist sources that describe Zen as "sutrayana", but can you find a Zen source that does so? If you can, I'd love to see it. Yworo (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have many sources talking about Zen and Mahayana Sutras. I shouldn't have used "sutrayana." http://www.google.com/search?q=Zen+Mahayana+sutras&btnG=Search&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&sa=2 By the way, there isn't a clear line between sutra and tantra. Even ninth bhumi bodhisattvas need a tantric empowerment to obtain Buddhahood in "sutrayana". Thigle (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Only according to Vajrayana schools. There is no such thing as a tantric empowerment in non-Vajrayana schools. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No this is actually sutra. Ninth stage bodhisattvas need a tantric empowerment to become a buddha. This is orthodox sutra Mahayana. This is common knowledge and it is even in the bhumi article. Thigle (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What about in the lead of the Zen article, something like "follows soley the Mahayana sutras"?Thigle (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not exceptional. Why would it need to be called out? I have no objection to making this more explicit near the beginning of the article, just not in the lead. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the 2nd paragraph of the lead already says "The teachings of Zen include various sources of Mahāyāna thought, including the Prajñāpāramitā literature and the teachings of the Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha schools." I would think this covers at least some of what's being discussed here. And I agree with Yworo that this stuff could be discussed further down in the article, but as currently stated it's confusing and distracting, at least for me. I know what "a school of Mahayana Buddhism" is (and if I didn't, I could look up Mahayana), but "a school of sutra Mahayana Buddhism" throws me off; it's not something I can just look up (the Sutra article doesn't address the distinction being made at all). /ninly_(talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I changed the intro, the references to the "Prajnaparamita literature" etc. were in the second to last sentence of the intro:

• "The emergence of Zen as a distinct school of Buddhism was first documented in China in the 7th century AD. The teachings of Zen include various currents in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought, including Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha philosophies, and the Prajñāpāramitā literature. From China, Zen subsequently spread south to Vietnam, and east to Korea and Japan." [end of introduction]

Perhaps the old version makes it sound more like an historical observation than a doctrinal one. It wasn't my intention to emphasize anything by moving it closer to the beginning, and I certainly wasn't trying to open a can of worms. Frankly it boggles the mind to think that the sentence "Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism" is somehow controversial or that it needed to be changed. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This article mentions how ninth stage bodhisattvas receive an tantric empowerment to become Buddhas. This is common knowledge. This is orthodox Mahayana whatever school you are talking about even sutra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumi_(Buddhism)Thigle (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be reading rather creatively: the word tantra doesn't even occur in the article. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you saw the word empowerment though. Empowerments are tantric by definition. Thigle (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. An empowerment is not "tantric by definition". You are reading between the lines, which is not how we read sources. We call that original research or opinion. Yworo (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the uncited passage under the tenth bhumi to which you refer was taken from a Tibetan Vajrayana description. Mahayana descriptions of the same bhumi do not use this terminology. Since, according to tradition, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, it's important to understand from which teaching a description derives. Using a Vajrayana description to try to support a wild idea that tantric empowerment is required in the Mahayana tradition to reach the tenth bhumi is mixing apples and oranges. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting you think the empowerment is a "wild idea", not part of sutra tradition. Have you read any book on "regular" Mahayana that describes the bhumis? Read Encyclopedia of Asian philosophy By Oliver Leaman page 337 or countless others. What is your buddhist background?Thigle (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Empowerment is not necessarily tantric. Please read more closely as that's what I said before. Tantric empowerment is always by a physical guru. The empowerments mentioned in the later Bhumi descriptions are done by "all the Buddhas", etc. The word is being used in a generic, not tantric, sense. Yworo (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It's quite clear to me that you have exposure to some Tibetan school of Buddhism, but that you aren't all that well-read in the broader tradition. I can see that clearly because I once had the same sort of limited view, from the point of view of a single tradition within Buddhism. I now know that that view was too narrow, and have attempted to broaden it. I still have plenty more to learn, but I can recognize a single-tradition based view when I see one. Please read our neutral point of view policy. We cannot modify articles to prefer one view over another. Yworo (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets start all the way back with the Pali canon. Why doesn't wikipedia adequately address the divya cakkhu, a fundamental topic that ties together Buddhist cosmology, karma and rebirth? This is not even Mahayana, we are going back to Theravada. I think I saw one obscure mention of the divya cakkhu somewhere once on wikipedia. Thigle (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have good references that elaborate on this, you are welcome (and encouraged!) to start a Diva cakkhu article, solicit help in its development, and see where it leads. You are also welcome to initiate discussion about improvement of Buddhism-related content on the talk page at WikiProject Buddhism. However, this page is for discussion of specific changes to the article on Zen, and unless someone new has a novel contribution, I don't see this discussion leading anywhere. /ninly_(talk) 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the "Thiền in Vietnam" section is wrong. It depicts a Cao Dai religious gathering at the Cao Dai main temple. It is not a gathering of Vietnamese Zen/Thiền monks. I suggest replacing the picture.

While Cao Dai is absolutely influenced by Buddhist practices (Thiền, most likely included in that), it also believes in the divinity of Jesus and the sainthood of Victoor Hugo. Beautiful as Cao Dai is, it is not Buddhist per se. It is definitely not Thiền. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.39.148 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will first remove it and then look for a suitable replacement. Tengu800 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone tagged this article as containing too much jargon. Perusing the article, I actually do not see that there is so much jargon, and the terms that are used are often either basic or explained in the text. Of course there are many terms in parentheses to indicate original names, etc., but these are not required reading. Really, I always thought that this was kind of a "fluff" article compared to some others on Buddhism, since it has had a tendency to cover Zen as it is popularly known in the West. However, I suppose Zen is a subject that many are familiar with on a superficial level, and the people who are reading this article may not be familiar with basic Buddhism. Anyways, this should be discussed so the page can either be cleaned up, or so the tag can be removed. Tengu800 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like my comment on kanji was lost in the editing of the dhyana page. And this page has since changed.

The side bar has only Hiragana for Japanese (my impression is that use a kanji when referring to Zen, but which one?). It also refers to the Chinese hanzi as "East Asian"; and under "Chinese" has only Romanised transliterations. Can someone with the requisite skills and languages sort this out please? mahaabaala (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have so much language information for one term? For example, the Shanghainese pronunciation? The Nanchang dialect? Seriously? If we were to take a field trip right now to Shanghai, you would see absolutely nothing in Shanghainese, because it isn't a proper written language in China -- just a spoken dialect. Not only that, but if we go to the Chinese "Chan" page here, there is only the Chinese character, and that's it! Right away it goes into the actual content of the article, rather than being cluttered down by box after box after box. The articles for this topic in other languages are similar to this, without clutter, and to-the-point, as this article should be. The main problem with the language box is that someone decided to put every idiosyncratic Chinese spoken dialect alongside major languages like Japanese and Korean, despite the fact that in the PRC, there is only one official written language (simplified Chinese) and one official standard for transliteration (Hanyu Pinyin). At what point is it okay to tear down language information when it becomes excessive and obstructs the content of an article? I know I am not the first one to express my frustrations with this language box. For Chinese at least, the standard necessary parts that cover all the major bases are: (1) traditional Chinese character, (2) simplified Chinese character, (3) Pinyin transliteration. Everything else is superfluous, including Cantonese and any other spoken dialects, which in China, are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River. Tengu800 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, most of it can go. I'm not sure the article needs a broken-out infobox on this at all, but I suppose deciding what to include is the first step. I'd suggest Chinese (traditional, simplified, and pinyin), Japanese (kanji and romaji), Korean, Vietnamese, and Sanskrit. /ninly_(talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just floating this; use or trash it as needed.

/ninly_(talk) 03:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought having both the Zen and Mahayana infoboxes was cluttered, so boldly took out the more general of the two. I also added a link from the Zen infobox to the Mahayana portal. Not a perfect solution, but I thought it'd spur discussion.

I'm also moving the translations template back up, in the reduced form I pasted above. /ninly_(talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the general look of the change, and I don't think it was too bold. Some of these big pages become stagnant after so much time. The Zen Buddhism template is not yet an overgrown box, and the languages box is also pretty lean. It now flows more like it should, getting into the main content of the article without the extra stuff. Since the page further down is a bit sparse, and because there is discussion of Mahayana doctrinal issues, I added the Mahayana template down there. That should be fine, but I would also like to either trim that template down a bit, or find a way to specify that it can be a "compact version", although I have not really looked into how to actually do that with the code. Shouldn't be too hard, but those things take a little time. Tengu800 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This really needs to be cleaned up. Even the most dense concepts can be explained with well-structured sentences and clear word order. If it's really necessary to use terms and phrases that are likely foreign to the average reader, link them to the relevant explanations. I've read the section three times, and I might just now have an inkling what it's trying to say. BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the relationship between this section is, and the main subject. "Freedom" and "liberty" are not usual Buddhist terms and language, nor are they common terms in the Zen school. It is true that Zen teachings feature the subjects of liberation, enlightenment, and nirvana, but this is the same as any school of Buddhism. It also seems to treat Zen as something akin to western philosophy, as an "intellectual tradition", which it is not... Tengu800 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this section grew out of the work User:PPdd has recently been doing on the bad faith article, in which he cites the same reference. Note the short discussion of Zen recently added to that article (see Bad faith#Zen Buddhism). I agree, the section in this article seems out of place and without much direction. /ninly_(talk) 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Should that section be there? It seems very out of place, and bad faith and self deception seem overly specific, being a very minor section at the bottom of the source, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (also, the reference does not include a link, just the name of the source, I was able to use my powerful Google-fu to find the source; if this section stays, please feel free to update the source).

I propose that that section be removed, as I don't believe it adds any value to the article. However, I think it only fair to discuss this before I take out an entire section of an article I haven't had any previous interaction with. SudoGhost (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)