Talk:Zen/Archive 5

message: look, this is ridiculous. The history section needs work. What we have in the history section is a history presented by one person - note Freedom skies- who only wishes to present one story of the history, the bodhidharma part. This is considered a traditional tale and no historian follows this. Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia. This is similar to someone writing on the Roman Empire, "the history of Rome began with romulus and remus" and then not allowing for all of the work that basically fleshes out this history that is considered by historians not a traditional tale. Freedom skies, no one disputes that Chan buddhism is a form of buddhism from india... most historians state, however, that Chan buddhism is a distinct school of buddhism that developed in China and processed through Chinese philosophical thought. The traditional tale of Bodhidharma is considered tradition and should not be the only thing in the History section.  You need to seriously read up about buddhism before you start pushing your pov's.  ,,  Kennethtennyson 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this, but on the evidence of this debate the previous version should surely be restored. What I see is a rather ugly form of extreme Indocentric nationalism that already has disfigured several articles. Paul B 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the history section needs work

message: I've added a few sentences in the section on history to clarify the history. We can have the traditional stories and then a mention on what most historians view as actual history. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia so hopefully people who use this as a reference won't be talking about the "tale of bodhidharma" as fact.  Althought, Jimbo always gets a few e-mails each year from college/high school students who fail exams due to what they write from reading articles on wikipedia.  I'm hoping this will clear things up. Kennethtennyson 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: addition

message: Yes, you mention DT Suzuki's work.
Taoist foundations?
Hm, someone will continue to attempt to prove that it is then.
Did you tell our readers the extra emphasis DT Suzuki lays on Taoism by placing it as early as page 129 in his book "An introduction to Zen Buddhism", from where you attempt to establish a connection?
I'm sure it must have slipped your mind.
More misinterpretation.
Suzuki has this to say.
I'll write it down for the benefit of our readers then:-
Besides these mythical personages the Zen monastary gives shelter to some other historical charecters deeply connected not only with Zen but with Buddhism as a whole. Bodhidharma as the founder of Zen Buddhism naturally occupies the chief seat of honor beside the Buddha Shakyamuni.
Clarity itself,  without misinterpretation or distortion.
Taoism, for some reason, is yet not a fouding influence.
Yes they are, Huston Smith's one line has been put to very good use by you, by the way. Good luck on finding more such lines. I'm sure you'll use them just as nicely as well.
Oh, about DT Suzuki on Taoist foundations; citations please.
Demonstrably so.
You know my policy on getting more citations, on either request or provocation. I have accumulated a few of them, just to speed things up the next time.
Freedom skies| talk  02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taoist foundations

message: I've requested mediation currently for this article. If you feel that our current statements on this article are incorrect, then please feel free to mediate Freedom skies. In the meantime you have also reverted  edits too. Kennethtennyson 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom skies, you are taking other quotations (from text and also from other users) out of context and misinterpreting them. If you feel that you have a case, agree to mediation or else quit trying to revert. Kennethtennyson 04:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to Freedom Skies, I don't claim specialist knowledge of the history of Zen, but I do have a longstanding interest in comparative religion. I am also perfectly capable of evaluating arguments. What I see is consistent misrepresentation of the facts on your part, inaccurate assertions that clearly mainstream views are "microscopic" and accusations of "lies" with no evidence. You also tend to attribute other editors' views to ethnocentric prejudice (they are pro "Han" in some way), which is revealing about your own assumptions. However, we should go by the consensus of expertise in the area and that consensus is clear. I have the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions with me now. It's not a specialist source on Zen, but it is a "comprehensive and reliable" work (says the Times of London), edited by a team of specialists with John Bowker as overall editor). According to the dictionary the techniques introduced by Bodhidharma "produced Dhyana Buddhism, with dhyana understood in a broad sense: it was this which fused with Taoism to produce the distinctive form of Ch'an." p.155 Paul B 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mediation

message: Oh, about DT Suzuki on Taoist foundations; citations please.JFD 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: you really are quite amazing, freedom skies. as i stated before, if you believe that you have a true case, then please feel free to accept the mediation, which you did not. In this diff, all that you have done is reworded that paragraph . The issue at hand is that the history section at the beginning tells of a traditional tale that is not accepted by various historians as historically accurate or complete. It does not flesh out the nuances as to what people consider to be the origins of zen. Please quit POV pushing.  I am restating my paragraph. If you have issues with it, then please accept mediation for the paragraph. Kennethtennyson 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: accommodation?

message: Hey, I've been requested to assist/oversee the revamping/extension of this article, which I'm only too happy to attempt to do given the limits of time (I've got quite a bit of work going on outside of Wiki-world right now), and resources (I haven't got direct access to my library at the moment), and just plain knowledge I would have to be working under.
That said, here are two things I see (after just a glance at just the beginning of the article) that need to be done.
(1) The intro's got to be beefed up: such a skimpy and general statement serves as no real introduction at all. Admittedly, it's hard to summarize Zen—what it is, what it is taken to be, etc.—but such a thing needs to be attempted (though perhaps that can be done after the article itself is beefed up, and thus with a little broader view/afterthought).
(2) I know it's contentious, but history-wise, Daoism should be mentioned (with the strength of solid references, of course). From what I know of the subject—which I admit is not perfect—virtually every scholar on Zen (not to mention practitioners) admits that Daoism exercised some sort of influence, probably quite large, on the development of Chán in China ... the real issue in that area is not really whether or not Daoism had an influence, but rather what the nature of that influence was—and on that subject, the jury is still out (and, I suspect, always will be, barring another semi-miraculous discovery of early texts à la the Dunhuang manuscripts that might, ahem, enlighten us on the matter).
Anyhow, them's just preliminary thoughts on a couple of things that need to be done, as far as I can tell. I'm sure there's more. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As per request ...  

message: I am uncertain as to whether or not such a section has ever been created before, but I figured that such a wide geographic area of locations for Zen are mentioned, then the Indians must have cottoned on to such a good philosophy...
—MrASingh 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are not many Zen teachers or Zen centers in India for the moment at least, so we can't say that there is a "Zen tradition" in India like it is in Korea or Vietnam. There are probably a few teachers, as there are in many other countries which are not mentioned in this article. --Knverma 09:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen in India

message: I know that a persistent tradition attributes the document to Bodhidharma himself.
Now, the description of Bodhidharma's association with the path of the Mahayana is not a minor point.
The document revers him as a "Dharma Master" and notes his background as the third son of a great king.
Zen itself developed over a period of time. It is but natural that with the development and growth of a philosophy it's founding father's are honored; sometimes as men capable of great miracles.
That may not be hard or contentious at all. I suggest we replace the heading "history" by "History and development in China." The section "Zen in China" can be replaced by "Zen in People's republic of China." "Zen in People's republic of China" should deal with Zen's status under the present regime.
----
The title "patriarch of Zen" and its application to Bodhidharma does not appear until the epitaph for Faru.
Nowhere does the Long Scroll refer to the institution of patriarchal lineage or name Bodhidharma "the first patriarch of Zen".
Therefore, it is incorrect to cite the Long Scroll as the source of Bodhidharma's status as "first patriarch of Zen".
JFD 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JFD

message: Adding it without reference sounds good enough to me. I knew that it was well known but thought I would add references just in case.
---
I will bring additional mentions of Bodhidharma's place of honor in Zen tradition. JFD has expressed hesitation in adding Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki's statements. I will bring other statements and ask for his opinion.
----
I have absolutely no objection to citing DT Suzuki. I have done so myself on plenty of occasions.However, I request that Freedom skies supply quotations and page numbers so that you and I may double check that the sources cited actually support proposed statements.JFD 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bodhidharma's position of honor in the Buddhist tradition

message: I have not yet searched for the population of adherents of Zen. We could fill that in the empty [ ].
Kindly let me know what you think about it.
Freedom skies| talk  19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My proposal for the introduction

message: Incorporates all features.
Freedom skies| talk  23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed version

message: Freedom skies| talk  01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final proposed version of the introduction

message: One thing is that, as JFD notes, the importance of Bodhidharma to Zen should not be overestimated. Yes, of course he is seen as important—being considered the founder of the movement—but he is hardly a be-all and end-all. In this respect, JFD is right in his analogy with Christianity and Islam: Christianity cannot be introduced apart from Jesus Christ, as he is, effectively, the be-all and end-all of that faith; similarly, Islam cannot be introduced apart from Muhammad, who—though certainly not the be-all and end-all, which would be Allah—is considered the final prophet and the (re-)bringer of Allah's true message. On the other hand, Zen can be introduced apart from Bodhidharma insofar as the practice and enlightenment of Bodhidharma are considered fundamentally identical to those of all other Zen practitioners; in other words, Bodhidharma is entirely imitable, whereas Jesus Christ and Muhammad, according to Christians and Muslims respectively, are radically inimitable. This is not to say that he must not be mentioned in the intro; just that it is not necessarily necessary.
Also, I would not necessarily say that "the ineffability of ultimate truth" is the distinguishing characteristic of Zen. If I had to try and pinpoint something that was, I would have to say meditation, specifically zazen, and even more specifically the carrying-over into all aspects of life the "attitude" (for lack of a better word) and "insights" (again, for lack of a better word) got through zazen. Something like that seems, to my admittedly unawakened mind, to be more constitutive of the "distinguishing characteristic" of Zen. The real problem, I think, with proposing "the ineffability of ultimate truth" as Zen's distinguishing characteristic is simply that it weights the intro too much towards the philosophical side of things, whereas Zen—at least, insofar as it is a religion—is a religion geared heavily towards praxis.
Anyhow, them's just too comments I wanted to make for the time being. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one seems more reasonable. Regarding "ineffability of ultimate truth", that is something that Mahayanists also say. All the Mahayana sutras use such phrases, hence Zen is no different in this sense. The difference is more in the style: textual study is given much less importance in Zen, as any person can observe by visiting Zen centers and other Buddhist centers. --Knverma 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I replaced "distinguish" with "emphasize".JFD 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief comments on proposed revisions

message: ----
I agree that authors like DT Suzuki trace it beyond Bodhidharma to the Gathas, the Dharanis and the Sutras and Heinrich Dumoulin notes the roots of Zen in Yoga. I still would ask that the reader should not be deprived of the mention of Bodhidharma from the very tradition that honors him as the first patriarch.  
I have pleaded the case for the first patriarch of Zen in China. It would be of immense help if Saposcat himself crafted an introduction dealing with the outstanding features of Zen, taking into account the Zen tradition and the current discussion. Whether or not he chooses to put Bodhidharma into the introduction is entirely upto him.
----
An introduction to Zen Buddhism by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (page 38) contains elaborate explaination. Should be of some help to all involved.
Freedom skies| talk  18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal to retain Bodhidharma in Zen tradition

message: D.T. Suzuki's Manual of Zen Buddhism is a compilation of Zen texts, lacking commentary by Suzuki about hows and whys of Zen's emergence as a distinct school of Buddhism.JFD 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suzuki

message: Nice work. Really.JFD 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumoulin

message: This argument is almost irrelevent. Someone brought Buddhism to China. No one knows for sure who that someone was. It has been attributed to Bodhidharma, a Brahmin from South India. What is important is that as a legend, or myth, Bodhidharma exists and furthermore, Bodhidharma day (Daruma) is celebrated, in Japan, and in Zen Temples and Monasteries. 
Whether Bodhidharma himself existed or not is no longer important. What is important, is that Bodhidharma (or someone else under the psuedonym) brought a new form of Buddhism to China to counter the extant (existing) form of Buddhism.
Why did he do that? 
What marks Zen apart from other forms of Buddhism?
The Buddhism that existed in China at the time of Bodhidharma had become stale, overdependent and reliant on the Sutras. Buddhism in China had become overly erudite and scholarly.
This was swept away by the fresh vital approach of Bodhidharma (whoever he was).
The famous quatrain:
"A special transmission outside the teachings
Not dependent on the written word
Directy pointing to the human heart
Seeing into its nature and becoming Buddha"
makes this quite clear.
Not dependent on the written word.
That does not mean throw out the written word. No. But not to become overly dependent on it. As with all things in this world of form, words can lead to clarity AND to confusion, for they are part of the duality of nature.
Buddhism in China was getting bogged down with petty squabbles on interpretation and personal views. To sweep this away Bodhidharma brought a form of Buddhism tha swept much of this away. This became known as Zen Buddhism.
To clarify matters, it is important not to have a knee jerk reaction and throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Sutras are important and play a vital role in Zen training. The great Zen Master Hakuin was reading the Lotus Sutra, to clarify a point, when he attained his final, great enlightenment. Read his biography.
But once again it is important to realise that book learning cannot replace Zen training. And so Bodhidharma plays an important part in Zen history. Whether he actually existed or not is no longer important. What is important is that he brought a fresh approach to Buddhism in China and revitalized it. (Much as Master Hakuin did in Japan 1200 years later).
Book learning (reading the sutras) occurs in the head. Zen training occurs in the body. So you can hold all forms of ideas on things and not really get it. 
Throw those ideas away and find out for yourself through direct experience. Those ideas are a barrier. 
This is the message of Bodhidharma. This is the massage of Zen Buddhism.
===This is wrong===
Several references are made to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was not a Buddha. Gautama was a prince and heir to a kingdom. He renounced his inheritence because of the problems he experienced in his life. 
Gautama was the person before the enlightenment. After the enlightenment he became Buddha. But he certainly was not Gautama. He is commonly referred to as Sakyamuni Buddha.
Muni meaning wise one or sage. Sakya was the clan he was born into. So Sakyamuni Buddha is the sage of the Sakya clan.
But he certainly was NOT Gautama. Gautama died when the Buddha attained enlightenment. His old life, along with his old title passed away with the Great Enlightenment.
Please do not refer to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was the person before enlightenment. The Buddha was the being after.
It is important that there is a distinction.
The Buddha himself repremanded the ascetics that referred to him as friend or companion, after his enlightenment. He clarified for them that he was a fully enligthened being, a Buddha, no longer their aspirent. He was now a teacher of Gods and men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.38.142 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anonymous comments

message: Several references are made to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was not a Buddha. Gautama was a prince and heir to a kingdom. He renounced his inheritence because of the problems he experienced in his life. 
Gautama was the person before the enlightenment. After the enlightenment he became Buddha. But he certainly was not Gautama. He is commonly referred to as Sakyamuni Buddha.
Muni meaning wise one or sage. Sakya was the clan he was born into. So Sakyamuni Buddha is the sage of the Sakya clan.
But he certainly was NOT Gautama. Gautama died when the Buddha attained enlightenment. His old life, along with his old title passed away with the Great Enlightenment.
Please do not refer to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was the person before enlightenment. The Buddha was the being after.
It is important that there is a distinction.
The Buddha himself repremanded the ascetics that referred to him as friend or companion, after his enlightenment. He clarified for them that he was a fully enligthened being, a Buddha, no longer their aspirent. He was now a teacher of Gods and men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.38.142 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is wrong

message: The mythology section, if it is to be included, doesn't yet fit into the rest of the article. The mythology section talks of Mahakashyapa, and just after that, the History section talks of Bodhidharma. The reader is left wondering about the connection between the two. --Knverma 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this section is very weak. I believe it was added by user 66.133.219.60 back some time ago. It should be removed for now if no one objects, unless someone can re-write the whole section. ian-Kiu 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted a re-write. As with several other religious articles, I think mythology does have some place. But I am all for distinguising it from historical events, as much as possible through reliable sources. --Knverma 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom Skies, I have several comments on your edits. But first of all, if we cite sources for one point of view, there is no need to delete the citations for the opposing point of view. And there are at least some scholars that dispute whether the flower sermon legend is based on historical events. --Knverma 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology