Talk:Koan

Requested move 9 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Kōan → Koan – WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources as evidenced by majority in the Sources section and presence in English dictionaries: OED, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. Opencooper (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. English language has incorporated numerous words from other languages (Lists of English words by country or language of origin). Since the word "koan" has entered English-language vocabulary and, since English language does not use diacritics (no keyboards with the letter "ō"), the main title header in English Wikipedia should be "Koan", with consensus determining whether it should be italicized [as English Wikipedia's header currently is] or unitalicized [as it appears in English dictionaries]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

absurdity & meaninglessness? Misinterpretation?

In the Doctrinal Background section, Shizuteru Ueda is introduced as allegedly remarking on the "meaninglessness and absurdity of koan language". But from the quoted text that follows, I see no clear evidence of this as a reflection of meaninglessness or absurdity. Rather, it looks as though Ueda is remarking on the uses of Koan language. However, I admit I do not understand the context. The editor who claims this is a remark on absurdity may have read more from the author, Ueda, and found that this was written in the form of irony or cynicism. But it is not clear from the reader's (our) perspective if this is what Ueda intended. More clarity would be appreciated. Cheers 83.249.63.214 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Absurdity & Meaninglessness: misinterpretation?

(reposted under non-anonymity) Shizuteru Ueda is introduced as allegedly remarking on the "meaninglessness and absurdity of koan language". But from the quoted text that follows, I see no clear evidence of this as a reflection of meaninglessness or absurdity. Rather, it looks as though Ueda is remarking on the uses of Koan language. However, I admit I do not understand the context. The editor who claims this is a remark on absurdity may have read more from the author, Ueda, and found that this was written in the form of irony or cynicism. But it is not clear from the reader's (our) perspective if this is what Ueda intended. More clarity would be appreciated. Cheers UnbirthdayBoy (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed the introduction to Shizuteru Ueda's quote. To provide some context, these are the preceding paragraphs by Ueda in his introduction to the Entangling vines collection:

"The reading of any work invariably involves interpretation, and that, in turn, inevitably brings up questions of the depth and horizon of that interpretation. This is particularly true in the case of Zen texts, where the surface meaning of the words does not always directly convey the intention of the author or speaker. The paradoxical result is that readings which are correct from a linguistic point of view can suggest interpretations that are misleading, and vice versa. This is one of the most intriguing aspects of Zen literature.

The question of how to read a text in a philologically sound way does not always correspond to the question of how to read a text in a way that yields the text’s true intention (a way of reading that, in Zen, implies an almost physical process, in which the problem addressed by the text is recognized as one’s own personal problem). Zen has produced many texts, and Zen without texts is not Zen. Yet texts in and of themselves are also not Zen. Zen encompasses texts; that which the texts cannot express is approached through the texts, then experienced beyond the texts. Mere knowledge of the term “original face,” for example, does not mean that one truly knows what the term is pointing to.

The people most familiar with the use of texts in Zen training are the shike, the masters at the Zen training monasteries. During the one-on-one encounters between master and disciple known as sanzen, koans like those in the Kattōshū are given to the monk in the form of questions or problems that the monk must respond to. These questions are presented in the form of language, and the responses, too, are expressed in the form of language..." Bseditor1 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bseditor1 Hi, that's a useful insight. Thanks for sharing. I think it might be appropriate to say that Ueda is remarking on the seeming 'potential' or 'possibility' of meaninglessness, absurdity or 'misinterpretation' in these texts. What do you think? UnbirthdayBoy (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

He does not explicitly state meaninglessness or absurdity but emphasizes practice here and using texts to go beyond texts. I think the new introduction to his quote reflects that. Bseditor1 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Koan-curriculum

For future usage: Bernie Glasman, On Zen Practice: Body, Breath, and Mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Fully half the section is an summary of a rant essay by Mario... who? Does this guy's opinion deserve this much space? Is it all "academic criticism" has to offer? If so, why is it as long as the following subjection, which is less redundant and cites more people?

"However, was it not the case that Chan/Zen was supposed to take us in an entirely different direction, away from the familiar intersections of knowledge and power?" Was it? lol 64.85.227.176 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Mario Poceski. He's a prominent scholar who was also a monk in his earlier years, when he was known as Cheng Chien Bhikshu. So he actually occupies a unique position, having known both insider and outsider perspectives on the subject. At any rate, the Academic Criticism subsection doesn't rely only on Poceski. It also cites Foulk, Cole, and Lachs, as well as Peter Berger. Yes, Poceski does take up the most space, but that's because he offers the most sustained criticism on the matter (as far as I am aware). He makes a lot of different points which are germane, I think. Likes Thai Food (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)