Talk:Zen/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Zen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Untitled
Shouldn't this be located at Zen Buddhism rather than just Zen? Asking because I'm not sure. --LMS
Hmm, apparently the major sects / subdivisions of Christianity each have their own pages. Not sure if there's a convention on this issue.
Yes, this should be located under Zen Buddhism. Zen is one school of Buddhism. Meditation techniques described in the Pali Kanon by the historical Buddha Gautama are essentially still in use in Zen today. --RS
--
Yes, this is Zen Buddhism. There are some errors in text. Dogen was not founder of Soto school, he is the first soto-school ancestor in Japan. Also Rinzai-school was founded by master Rinzai who lived in China. Some generations after Bodhidharma chan divided into 5 major chan shools in China. Only Soto and Rinzai survived into this day.
Zazen is japanese name for sitting meditation (za = to sit). This can include following practises: counting the breath, following breath, koan practize and shikantaza. Shikantaza is this just_sitting practize, pure awareness of this moment.
Added a Recommended Reading note on the bottom. Need the author of that book, since I obviously have forgot. --Sigg3.net
About the renaming of this article. The current title Zen is fine. Why do we need put Buddishm? For user-friendly? -- Taku 14:59 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Bear with me Taku, that's what I'm doing. Dut it's tricky because I don't want to lose the history. Give me a few minutes. (And don't reply here yet, I'm confused enough as it is!)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| This article has good information. However, references are unclear, and the format of the article needs some work (more sectioning). --Danaman5 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)