Talk:Sudden awakening

Origin, musicians, lack of disticntion

Hi, am new. Have tried my current best.

Have added the origin of the term as used in Buddhism - it seems the mathematical/psycological use of subitism is from a very similar time (late 1940's) as the apparent use in Buddhism in French influenced its use in English. Until more precise references are located, in particular whether the translated Mirror of Mind left the term subitism untranslated, it cannot be compared with the known date of coinage of the maths use for more precise disambiguation.

Have removed a passage about musicians and the Latin root 'subite' as that is clearly irrelevant to the derivation, and simply speculative - though it may be relevant to Subitize..

I am unhappy with the lack of distinction in the remaining original passage, between 'gradual practice, sudden enlightenment' (eg. Soto & Chinul Zen) and 'sudden practice, sudden enlightenment' (emphasised by Hui Neng), both of which are compatible with subitism; and gradual enlightenment which is not.

No essential nature (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gregory_Wonderwheel. Good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No essential nature (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I've added references & info, and put the Huineng-quote into context. I've also added appendices. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful

I confess that my enthusiasm for Wikipedia is waning as a result of finding article after article on aspects of Buddhism that seem more like showpieces for the author's (or authors') esoteric wisdom rather than genuine attempts to reach a general public.

What pleasure then to find this article, which lays out the ideas, follows allied threads in a coherent way, and generally presents comprehensible language rather than arcane terms.

My only suggestion would be to wonder whether the impossible is possible: can the two views (sudden/gradual) be reconciled rather than merely left (as I believe here) alongside one another? At present the "sudden" and "gradual" schools seem incompatible. But I have read elsewhere that in practice, there wasn't this separation: that neither "school" believed in an extreme position and held only loosely to both: the "sudden" school admitted that the ground needed to be prepared, and the "gradual" school admitted that there could be a "moment" of enlightenment (** all my wording **).

Of course the author(s) here cannot propose such a course. Let me see if I can find a reference to this effect. --24.244.23.226 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...not yet the reference I was looking for but the presentation here covers related ground. Unfortunately, the author seems to have a particular axe to grind (the authenticity of the Northern School) so it isn't as objective as one might wish.--24.244.23.21 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation! And yes, you've got a point here: in real life the two stand along eacht other, or are actually mixed. "Sudden and gradual" is a wonderfull book on this topic.

Actually, the problem may be at the root of Buddhism, as reflected in the difference between dhyana and insight. See Presectarian Buddhism#Dhyana and insight. According to vetter, the core practice of early Buddhism was dhyana; according to Schmithausen, and others, "liberating insight" was a later addition. See Majjhima Nikaya 36: after parcticing dhyana, the Buddha attains three knowledges, the third one being the four noble truths, which shows the path to liberation. On realising what the path is, he is liberated! That's weird, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Scholars

Scholars all need to be hung out of the window by their toes. Apart from the Chinese political maneuvering, from the point of view of a practitioner, I see nothing substantial here. Dhyana without Prajna is barren. Prajna without Dhyana is feeble. Prajna must be introduced (and developed) while Dhyana must be practiced. The five paths of Prajna (as refered to by Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi) are conceptual, conceptual, non-conceptual, non-conceptual, perfect and are also related to Dhyana ( None of this is anything other than the three higher trainings, and it does not conflict with Zen, Theravada, Dzong Chen, Mahamudra, or any other transmitted tradition. Each path is suitable to those for whom it suits... Sorry, I just had to have a rant. (20040302 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

You're welcome to rant :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)