Talk:Mazu Daoyi

Studied under Huineng?

If Mazu was born 709, and Huineng died in 713, young Mazu must have been a brilliant student... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, touché perhaps. I know I am fallible, but do not try for it.

Mazu Daoyi certainly studied in spirit with Hui-nêng. No doubt. That is in keeping with Zen tradition per the gist of the article, despite subtle refinements that supply greater context. As Chang, in his Original Teachings at 130, puts it: Ma-tsu was the "grandson-in-dharma of Hui-nêng." Too, it's not unusual in Asia to see "young men" three and four years old, coming to and going from Buddhist temples. Yet here, it probably was indeed Huai-jang, not Hui-nêng, who was meant, per Chang, Original Teachings at 131. Huai-jang is also known as Nanyue Huairang, per McRae, Seeing though Zen at 80.

Nonetheless, the dates you use to criticize were actually supplied to you by the offending passage. Regarding these dates, Dumoulin in his History of Zen Buddhism re Ma-tsu and others (at 203,n30 per 97,n30), says, "The dates are in part uncertain." For that matter, even moderns with Buddhist editors error, witness Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics, v.1 at 44: "The Sixth Patriarch Huineng, 637-1713, was a man born enlightened... ".

This mocked sentence may well date back to August 2008, when the article went from 2400 bytes to 23,000. I try to check and re-check; in doing so, I myself correct things I've written, however minor. Here, I would make appropriate changes, per above. So, thank you, nonetheless. Elfelix (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elfelix. My apologies if it sounded too unfriendly. Actually, I found it kind of funny, when I realized what the sentence was saying, and tried to picture it. It looked indeed like an inconsistency resulting from different edits. I didn't check the dates myself, but trusted on the dates supplied. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"This echoes"

so, who concludes "this echoes"? You? That's WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan,

Yeah this was my conclusion. Both Mazu and Shenhui criticize entering into concentration. By "echoes" I didn't mean to claim that Shenhui was a direct influence on Mazu necessarily, although that is certainly possible. Rather, my intention was more to just point out the resonance between their negative attitudes towards concentration. I feel this observation was uncontroversial. But I see you've made it into a note, and this is fine with me. Likes Thai Food (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Identification

Same for "For Mazu, all activities were to be identified with the dharma-nature." That's not exactly what the text is stating there; it's rather a reference to original enlightenment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan,

Mazu said, "all activities are dharma-nature." (See quotation provided in the article beginning with "Since limitless kalpas"). To me, this seems to mean precisely that "For Mazu, all activities were to be identified with the dharma-nature." But maybe you have a different opinion. At any rate, I feel satisfied with the article as it currently stands, so I'm happy to let this go. Be well. Likes Thai Food (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)