Talk:Zen/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Zen and koans

There's a lot more to koans than "consistently and intentionally inconsistent". Koans definitely don't "assert that there is no doctrine or "teaching" in Zen, either written or spoken." On the contrary, koans are "public cases" based on the teachings and doctrine, meant to illustrate these teachings and doctrines. Again, see for example John Mcrae 2003, and Mary Jacks 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Same reason Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an error. Koans are not "teaching" or "doctrine". What does Nansen cutting the cat in half "mean"? What does it teach? What "doctrine" does it espouse? Should we all start cutting up cats? Zen cannot be taught. This is a central thesis of Zen, both historically and in the writings of Zen Masters in the last 100 years. Religious doctrine is "the teaching" of the religion. Koans don't teach Zen. Blowing out candles, holding up a finger, and asking questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" don't teach Zen. That's nonsense. When Jesus says I GIVE YOU A NEW COMMANDMENT, LOVE THY NEIGHBOR he's espousing doctrine. Doctrine is something that communicates a concrete specific message. Koans don't do this.

For exactly this reason, Zen is not Mahayana. Please review that conversation. Ewkpates (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)ewkpates

I agree with all the points that Ewkpates has made in these recent comments to this talkpage. Zen is not specifically Mahayana, though closely allied to it, it stands outside the scriptural tradition and often scorns it, it uses the term bodhisattva but ambiguously perhaps, it uses some Mahayana scriptures as mentioned above, and it emphasies practice over doctrine. Added to which, it is certainly not a doctrine in its own right but principally a method. Therefore, I believe all these points should somehow be accommodated and to figure in the article. Maybe we can find a way to do this? thanks Peter morrell 07:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these are gross generalizations of "Zen". Actually, plenty of Zen traditions and teachers have strongly emphasized scripture study (e.g. Yongming Yanshou). See The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy. The linji/rinzai school just happened to be the school favored by rich powerful people, and it is well known that rewrote history to their own ends. When you talk about anti-intellectualism, you are talking about the rinzai/linji school, specifically in Japan. Zen in China strongly emphasizes scripture today because of its synthesis with Pure Land and Tiantai, and Soto Zen in Japan strongly emphasizes reading Dogen and some select scriptures. It's important not to confuse Zen with the dominant school of Zen. And of course Koans are basically only used in Rinzai/Linji Zen with a few exceptions. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Koans are a pedagogic devise, meant to aid students in their study of Zen and the Buddhist teachings of which Zen is a part. Again again, read McRae 2003 and Mary Jacks 2007. As are the use of Buddhist scripture (recommended by Hakuin), chanting (recommanded by Keidō Fukushima), and zazen (recommanded by almost any Zen-teacher, and being practiced in almost any Zen temple and monastery). The fact that a popular saying describes Zen as standing outside the textual tradition of Buddhism, does not mean that this is actually the case. "Scorning the scriptural tradition" is part of the Traditional Zen Narrative, which became popular in Song Dynasty China. Yet Zen is notorious for the amount of texts it has produced, and reproduced in (wood)prints. Best example, of course, is the very use of koan-collections. It's a great irony that collections of highly edited texts, reproduced in the thousands in printed editions, are taken as an example of the 'non-reliance' on words. Same for the picture of Zen as "not relying on words" and "scorning texts", which is being spread by printed texts - by words. Compare it to the motto "Sola Scriptura" of the Reformation. Reformed Churches base an important part of their identity on the struggle against Catholicism in 16th and 17th century Europe. Yet, the texts which describe and maintain this identity are not scripture proper, so they stay out of scrutiny when discussing the finesses of the Christian teachings. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I agree with this statement. It's gets at the two truths doctrine. One the one hand, Koans are beyond scripture, but on the other hand, they are really just scripture. All of the commentaries on Koan collections are analogous to commentaries on the bible or koran or whatever. The source of confusion is the fact that Koan is scripture that is supposed to teach you something beyond scripture, but that doesn't mean they're not scripture. Such is the nature of talking about Zen! DJLayton4 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

None of these points made on either side are in the article so there is still some way to go to incorporate all these views. Peter morrell 06:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I realized that the mu-koan is a good example of the role of "doctrine" in Zen. On face-value, different Zen-masters give different, contradicting answers. If those answers are to be taken as literal doctrine, then they don't make sense, since they are completely contradicting each other. But they all point to an underlying issue: what's the essence - of "you", of "reality"? When Buddhism was introduced in China, Chinese culture believed in an underlying essence. Buddhism was taken to state the same, as formulated in the Buddha-nature doctrine. Only after several centuries did it dawn that this is not the case - or, at least, that sunyata refers to a different understanding of "essence". This clash of opposing interpretations can still be found in Zen doctrine. It is marked by a shift from tathagata-garba and Buddha-nature texts (Lankavatara-sutra) to prajnaparamita-sutras (Heart sutra, diamond sutra). It is also what the mu-koan is pointing to: don't take this Buddha-nature teaching (which students first had to know before this koan made any sense!) too literal. Hence the contradicting answers: shaking students out of their literal an acquired way of thinking, let them ponder over it by themselves, and find out what "essence" there is by themself. Whalen Lai gives an insightful overview of the introduction of Buddhism in China, and the changing understanding on Buddha-nature and sunyata Whalen Lai, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. So, indeed: koans are not "doctrine" on themselves, yet they are a means to understanding the teachings which are used to explain the Zen "experience". : Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there real proof that this was what caused the shift from the Lankavatara Sutra to the Diamond Sutra? I've read other explanations for this shift, from Chinese sources. Also, there are statements in Tathagatagarbha sutras that the Tathagatagarbha is the same as Prajnaparamita, etc. Besides, by the accounts of the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves, they were spoken so that "deluded" people would give up their misguided fears of emptiness, and quickly become buddhas. I don't see in any of this how Tathagatagarbha is fundamentally different from Prajnaparamita, or how a Chinese interpretation of Tathagatagarbha could have been fundamentally wrong according to the principles of the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves. Tengu800 13:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might be right about the reasons for this shift. This is what Whalen Lai writes:

Up to that point [Shenhui (670–762)], the school did not call itself Chan (meditation), a rather colorless name. It was in fact still looking for a name, and the custom then was to tie a new teaching to a sutra. Huike used the Srimala sutra, but Daoxin later drew inspiration from the Awakening of Faith. Members of the East Mountain Teaching, realizing that the Awakening of Faith was a sastra, came up with the next best; they conjured up a lineage of Lankavatara sutra masters, this being the sutra that informed the Awakening of Faith. Shenhui then perpetuated the myth that Huineng favored the Diamond Sutra. Actually, none of these labels really indentifies the school’s ideological affiliation, because this tradition apparently never used one sutra to legitimize itself.(p.17-18

Regarding the "fear of emptiness", the same is being stated in the Lankavatara-sutra. It relativizes the 'thing-ness' of the Buddha-nature (which is a point of discussion at the Buddha-nature Talk-page). This is one of the things (...) that Whalen lai writes about it:

China was attracted especially to the doctrine of the universal Buddha-nature, so much so that Xuanzang’s Yogacara school was later called Hinayanist simply for deviating from it. By teaching the Buddha-nature, the Nirvana Sutra seems to reverse the earlier Buddhist teaching of no-self and the initial Mahayana teaching of universal emptiness. Daosheng circumvented the problem, noting succinctly that there was no samsaric self of life and death but there was a nirvanic self, which was the Buddha-nature. Still, it was not always easy to keep the Buddha-self from being confused with the Daoist immortal soul, despite all cautions against this. (p.11)

Kalupahana (A History of Buddhist Philosophy, 1994, Motilall) does see a struggle to give clues to students about ultimate reality, without going back to scripture (e.g. the Lankavatara-sutra). According to him, the use of kung-an's served this role (p.231). The use of the "the Vajracchedika represents an attempt to return to the Buddha's teaching, which were gradually becoming infested with absolute and transcendentalist metapfysics" (p.232). Kalupahana then quotes Hui-neng's verse ("No tree" etc), after which he writes:

[T]his verse represents abandoning the search for a metaphysical entity (that is, one's own nature, identified with an ultimate reality in the highest state of meditation) [...] {T]he statement that "buddha nature is always clean and pure" need not be confused with assertions involving metaphysical concepts about "Buddha nature", which for many thinkers means an eternal reality or entity that is inherent in all human beings [...] It is not without interest that on the day Hui-neng composed his verse, the Fifth Patriarch, Hung-jen, invited him into the hall at midnight and explained to him the Vajracchedika.

Hence my statement on the interpretation of Buddha-nature and the change from Lankavatara to Diamond Sutra. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources concerning Zen and scripture

Here are some quotes which show Zen has an ambiguous relationship with scriptures. I will find and place here more on other themes in due course.

"Beyond all doubt Zen belongs to Mahayanism," (Nukariya, p.41) "Zen regards all sutras as a sort of pictuired food which has no power of appeasing spiritual hunger...yet it makes use of them irrespective of Mahayana or Hinayana." (Nukariya, p.47) "Zen has no business with the dregs and sediments of sages of yore." (Nukariya, p.51)

Zen "dares to be independent of scripture." (Abe & Heine, p.19)

"Zen...knows no boundaries, no scriptures, no specialised technique." (Humphreys, p.141) Rather it relies on "the virility of personal experience, with the authority of scriptures and well-worn phrases...even Buddhism, left behind." (Humphreys, p.184) "it uses but few scriptures." (Humphreys, p.199) "it has no scriptures of its own, and no sermons...it uses many scriptures, in particular the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra." (Humphreys, p.104)

"From the Zen perspective, scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth." (Hisamatsu et al, p.24)

Sources

• Masao Abe & Steven Heine, Zen and Comparative Studies, University of Hawaii Press, 1996
• Shin'ichi Hisamatsu, Gishin Tokiwa & Christopher Ives, Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition: Hisamatsu's Talks on Linji, University of Hawaii Press, 2002
• Christmas Humphreys, Zen Comes West: the Present and Future of Zen Buddhism in Western Society, Routledge, 1995
• Kaiten Nukariya, The Religion of the Samurai and Origin of Man: A Study of Zen Philosophy and Discipline in China and Japan, (1913) Forgotten Books, 2007

Maybe some of this can be used in the article? thanks Peter morrell 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're catching the same point: sutras are an aid to insight, but not the insight itself.

• Nukariya seems problematic to me. See Robert H. Sharf (1993), The Zen of Japanese Nationalism. Nukariya is from 1913, which is not exactly like catching up with recent research on Zen, and had a specific nationalistic agenda.
• I like Masao Abe; as a matter of fact, he gave me one of my favorite Zen-quotes: "The wrestling mind is the true mind" (which, actually, is a quote from Mazu...). Anyway, I Googled the quote. The full quote stresses that Zen refers to "the spiritual source 'prior to' what is expressed in the sutras". With other words, sutras are 'fingers' pointing to insight. How about taking this one as a reference for "Zen teachings point to awakening, the realization of the nature of reality, which is devoid of independently existing "things", yet warns against taking its teachings to be this insight itself"?
• Christmas Humphrey seems to contradict himself: "few scriptures", "many scriptures". And "no sermons": Hisamatsu's Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition? Though, of course, that's a matter of naming. But Humphreys is contradicted by other sources when he says that Zen has no scripture. See for example Dumoulin or Albert Low, or Hakuin who recommands studying the sutras after attaining kensho and having undertaken further practice.
• The Hisamatsu-quote has got a context too: story 75 from Linji's records, where-in Huangbo is reading a sutra, which shocks Linji. Hm, an acknowledged Zen-master reading a sutra? So, Zen-masters do read sutras? That appears to be exactly the problem according to Hisamatsu: Huangbo blames Linji for this remark. Linji leaves, but starts to doubt, and returns. Hisamatsu further explains that one has to reach the point where one is really free, even free from rejecting sutras - as far as I understand Hisamatsu here, though in this case I'm not sure if I understand it. By the way, somehow I remember Suzuki somewhere writing the same. But I think we should be careful about this quote, because it stands in a context that also says that sutras and teachings are not the core Buddhist insight itself.

It seems to me that the basic point is not the rejection of sutras an sich (though some writers seem to state this quite bluntly), but the insight those sutras are refering to, which is the essence that the Zen-tradition wants to transmit.

Looking forward to the other quotes! Keep on going; different opinions help to enlarge understanding Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Joshua, but I don't think rejecting books just because they were written 95 years or so ago is a valid excuse for saying they are no good. I have had no contact with Ewkpates, but I do have some sympathy with the views he has expressed, and for one reason, BECAUSE those things he states are also stated in many books on Zen, and I have tried to show that fact. But if we are going to 'cherry pick' which books are deemed OK and which you don't like, then I'm afraid you are placing your own POV above the collaboration principle on wiki that respects everyone's right to contribute and for NPOV to be established as an overriding principle in an article. The ideas he mentions should go in the article, but obviously we need to then think about wording and balance. That's my ten cents on that one! (o: thanks Peter morrell 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it can be. Wiki-sources are supposed to be reliable and preferably secondary. Zen research has taken a great flight since Yampolski's translation of the platform-sutra. This recent research is gradually reaching a wider audience. Apart from that, if Dumoulin is not being as a secondary source anymore by a reseacher like McRae, how about Nukariya?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

However, NPOV means we don't cherry pick our sources though. Peter morrell 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Deja vu. Peter those quotes largely reflect a rinzai attitude towards scripture. Here's a nice passage that clarifies this a bit from Albert Welter's The Linji lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy (pg. 51 & 125) :

As is well known, one of the hallmarks of Chan is its claim to be "a separate transmission outside the teaching" where "the teaching" refers to the doctrinal teachings and scriptures of traditional Buddhism, and "not dependent on words and letters". In fact, the slogan "a separate transmission outside the teaching" is a late, post-Tang innovation, developed to highlight Chan's independence from Buddhist doctrinal schools and the scriptural tradition they are based on. The earlier slogan, "do not depend on words and letters," developed during the Tang, reflects not a renunciation of the scriptures but a new understanding of them. Instead of written commentaries on the scriptures, Chan proclaimed itself a tradition of oral commentary. The scriptures are not rejected but treated as the Buddha's "record of sayings."In effect, the scriptures of the Buddha became the dialogue records of the Buddha. The Buddha's scriptures became seen in the manner of Chan patriarchs' teachings, as the transcripts of oral instruction ["A separate transmission outside the teaching"] clearly represents a retrospective attribution by Song Linji faction proponents on to their alleged founding patriarch, used as a device to affirm contemporary factional identity.

It was largely the Rinzai/Linji school that deviated from this, while Soto/Caodong largely retained it. We have to be careful when describing "Zen" since it is practiced quite differently by different lineages. Here's another nice big excerpt with a quotation from Yongming Yanshou, an extremely influential Zen monk (pg. 35-36):

A question in the Zongjing lu confronts Yanshou's interpretation of Chan directly:

Question- If you want to clarify the source of truth, you should simply promote the message of the patriarchs. What use is there in combining their teachings with citations from the words and teachings of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, taking these as a guide. That is why members of Chan lineages claim "by availing oneself of the eyes of a snake, one will not distinguish things for oneself. If one only becomes a sage of words and letters, one will not enter the ranks of the patriarchs.

Answer- The above claim is not intended to prohibit reading the scriptures. My worry is that people will not know well the words of the Buddha. People develop understanding through texts. When people forget about the Buddha's message, one safeguards the minds of beginners on the basis of texts. Whoever understands the teaching through the corpus of Buddhist writings will not create a mind and realm of objects in opposition to each other, but will realize the mind of the Buddha directly. What error is there in this?

Yanshou was thoroughly opposed to treating Chan as some independent patriarchal tradition, separate from "the words and teachings of the buddhas and bodhisattvas." According to Yanshou, the Chan tradition transmitted to Mahakasyapa and passed down through the patriarchs in India and China all stems from the words and teachings of the original teacher.

DJLayton4 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You clearly did not read my post very carefully. I used the word ambiguous. I did not say that Zen is not Mahayana or has no scriptures, it was Ewkpates who said that -- see his posts above. BUT he has a point because many books on Zen also say the same thing. Therefore, regardless of what you think, these are perfectly valid points that should be mentioned in the article. That is my sole brief: balance. thankyou Peter morrell 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The ideas Ewkpates mentions are part of a modern romantic image of Zen. The flaws in this image are described by various studies, most notably mcMahan's "The making of Buddhist modernity". Many material can also be found on [1]. This modern image has been mentioned in the article on Zen.

Up till now, I see no justification for Ewkpates views, only falsifications. It's clear that Zen is part of Mahayana, and that sutras and texts are part of Zen. Those sayings have a context, and are used for a specific agenda. Sayings as "Scriptures are nothing but scraps of paper for wiping up filth", given without a proper context and the full quote, are not "prove", but just that: disembedded quotes. In fact, this presents yet another irony: a new dependence on texts, to "prove" that Zen does not use texts. What these quotes point to, is that sutras are "fingers pointing to the moon", not the moon itself. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: "One often reads claims that Zen does not belong to the Mahayana tradition at all (1, 2) and does not use any scriptures of its own (3, 4, 5). Yet, in the literature monks are fequently called bodhisattvas and various Mahayana sutras are recited daily in many Zen monasteries. Therefore, these views are not seriously regarded these days as credible (6) being dismissed by some modern writers (7, 8) as belonging to a romanticised view of Zen that flourished in the West especially during the 1950s and 1960s. (8,9)" Or something along those lines. You would have to insert the refs in the brackets as appropriate. Comments please. thankyou -- now partly revised.

Hm, sounds reasonable. I'd like to give it a try. And I want to find out where the "wiping-paper" quote comes from originally. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha! Linji:

The most sustained and most notorious Zen assault on all forms of authority is found in Lin-Chi, the founder of Rinzai, the most overtly anarchic branch of Zen. For Lin-Chi, “things like the Three Vehicles and the twelve divisions of the scriptural teachings — they’re all so much old toilet paper to wipe away filth. The Buddha is a phantom body, the patriarchs are nothing but old monks. . . If you seek the Buddha, you’ll be seized by the Buddha devil. If you seek the patriarchs, you’ll be fettered by the patriarch devil. As long as you seek something it can only lead to suffering. Better to do nothing.” [ZT 47] [2] See also p.222

But: read the full section from Linji: it's not about sutras, it's about "dependent transformations" - about sunyata (as far as I understand the text).

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at it, but I find it not that easy to fit it in:

• One often reads claims that Zen does not belong to the Mahayana tradition at all (1, 2) - there is still no reference for this statement, but the opposite is already being covered in a reference in the lead;
• and does not use any scriptures of its own (3, 4, 5). - This point is already being mentioned in the article;
• Yet, in the literature monks are fequently called bodhisattvas - The Bodhisattva-ideal is also already being mentioned;
• and various Mahayana sutras are recited daily in many Zen monasteries. - This is also being mentiond in the article;
• Therefore, these views are not seriously regarded these days as credible (6) - see above
• being dismissed by some modern writers (7, 8) as belonging to a romanticised view of Zen that flourished in the West especially during the 1950s and 1960s. (8,9) - this is also already being mentioned in the article.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I think that if Zen is compared to the Tibetan tradition, where much greater emphasis is placed on texts, and the training in texts is just about as important as the training in meditation, then by comparison, Zen does look as if it disregards the study of texts almost completely. Maybe this is one source of the point of view. Peter morrell 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The texts used by Tibetan Buddhism are not really comparable to the texts used by Zen traditions. That is to say, Tibetan Buddhists rarely read sutras, but tend to emphasize tantras, shastras, and commentaries of these two. Thus, they seem more academic because they are relying more on "academic" material and approaching it in a more "academic" way. This stems from the later period of Indian Buddhism, in which scholasticism and philosophy were greatly esteemed (including formal debate), and people turned to esoteric teachings for practice methods. The Buddhist texts as well as the attitudes taken toward them, are totally different between Tibetan Buddhism and East Asian Buddhism. Tengu800 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You sure got a good point there. It seems that all those remarks on "outside the sripture" are not that helpfull to us westerners. Maybe we need the reverse: a basic course on Buddhist texts, along with meditation-classes. Alas, I was surprised to realize the resemblance of "true nature", sunyata, and the emptiness of the five skandhas as mentioned in the diamond sutra and the Tipitaka. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't let you all miss on this one, by Yanagida, a Japanese scholar considered to be something close to a half-god by both McRae and Faure:

Despite its teaching of “no dependence upon words and letters,” Chan did not reject the scriptures of the Buddhist canon, but simply warned of the futility of relying on them for the attainment of emancipating insight. The sacred texts—and much more so the huge exegetical apparatus that had grown up around them in the older scholastic schools—were regarded as no more than signposts pointing the way to liberation. Valuable though they were as guides, they needed to be transcended in order for one to awaken to the true intent of Śākyamuni’s teachings.p.62

It's from an introduction to Ruth Fuyller-Sazaki's translation of the "Record of Linji". Complete text available online. Cool! Only a few texts from Yanagida are translated, as far as I know. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Zen is not Mahayana?

I found one (1) reference with Google books for "Zen is not Mahayana". It's from The Tao of Zen by Ray grigg. The full quote reads:

Zen in Japan has been expressed officially in the context of Mahayana Buddhism, although by instinct Zen is not Mahayana, not Buddhist, not anything but itself.
This nonsectarian and nonreligious nature of Zen has been revealed in small glimpses throughout its history. In persistent anecdotes, aphorisms, and stories, Zen has asserted its independence from all categorization and confinement. But few roshis have formalized an even partial separation of Zen from Buddhism. Nōnin and bankei are exceptions (Grigg, p. 145)

"Zen is Mahayana" gives two references, "Zen" "Mahayana" gives ca. 255.000 results... The relation between Zen and taoism is a topic on it's own [3], but it seems to me that the statement "Zen is not Mahayana" is less than a minority view... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism

The way the following quotes are stringed together is not appropriate. It's ot of context, and suggests a coherence which is not part of the original texts:

In 9th century China, the Zen of figures like Te-shan "was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical,"(Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, Harvard University Press, 2000, p.295) maintaining, for example, that "Zen is not a philosophy. It is beyond words and intellect,"(Masao Abe, William R. LaFleur, Zen and Western Thought, University of Hawaii Press, 1989, p.4) and that "the superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines."(Charles McCauley, Zen and the Art of Wholeness, iUniverse, 2005, p.61)

This way it is being suggested that the Masao Abe & Mccauley-quotes are citations from Te-Shan, which they are not. They should be quoted separate, in the proper context. Also, the complete quote from Masao Abe is:

It is clear that Zen is not a philosophy. It is beyond words and intellect and is not, as in the case of philosophy, a study of the processes governing thought and conduct, nor a theory of principles or laws that regulate people and the universe. For the realisation of Zen, practice is absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, Zen is neither a mere anti-intellectualism nor a cheap intuitism nor is it an encouragement to animal-like spontaneity. Rather, it embraces a profound philosophy. Although intellectual understanding cannot be a substitute for Zen's awakening, practice without a proper and legitimate form of intellectual understanding is often misleading

I think the full quote makes clear that it's meaning is quite different from the suggestion which is given in this link of quotes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I thought you would find fault with it somehow! However, the theme expressed is a valid one. Zen is characterised in MOST books as anti-intellectual even though many qualify that as I have also done in the quotes used as a whole. If you insist on reverting the edit then go ahead seeing as you seem to claim ownership of the article. Of course, you could suggest instead a compromise re-wording of that paragraph which can then be discussed here. Peter morrell 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the rewording, though the best thing would be to give separate attention to this idea of "anti-intellectualism". Actually, this has already been mentioned, in the section on "Zen narratives" in the article on Japanese Zen. Labeling some question, remark or bit of information "anti-intellectualism" can be a way to ward off critical thinking and questioning. And that's a dogmatic way of thinking, to my opinion. Not all books acknowledge this "anti-intellectualism" in an unqualified way. As I've mentioned before, researchers like John Mc Rae, Bernard Faure and Steven Heine do provide the context for this perspective on Zen. For a comprehensive overview, see McMahan's "The making of Buddhist modernity". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to cut up the string of quotes rightaway, and to put in the full quote by Masao Abe. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine, don't worry: a great improvement! thanks Peter morrell 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a fair response. Thank you. Let's keep assuming good faith. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is always a very happy outcome when agreement is reached following some slight difference of views. cheers Peter morrell 07:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Intellect at the side-lines?

The McCauley-quote appears to be a half sentence. The quote is as follows:

According to McCauley, "the superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines"

The full sentence has quite a different meaning:

The superior approach is to relegate the intellect to the side-lines when making use of it is not the best choice and to engage it when it is.

The quote also does not refer to the use of scripture in Zen, but appears in a chapter on the I Ching. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Vehemently anti-intellectual?

The Collins-quote does not refer to Te-shan, but to Zen’s supposed anti-intellectualism in general. The original sentence said "The Zen of figures like Te-shan"; after previous discussion "The Zen of figures like" was changed by me into "for example", making a connection which was not in the source. The quote is as follows:

"was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical".

The full quote gives quite a nuance to this "anti-intellectualism":

In the 800s and 900s, Ch’an monasteries proliferated throughout China. This was the period of the famous masters whose doings were later to provide the study texts for Zen monks in China and Japan: Te-shan (781-867), famous for shocking his pupils into enlightenment by hitting them with his staff; Lin-chi (d.867), known for his sudden shouts; and a host of other witty paradoxers. This full-blown Zen was vehemently anti-intellectual and anti-liturgical; study of the scriptures was generally abjured, and a fortiori the philosophers; eben the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were regarded as obstacles to immediate enlightenment: “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!”
Nevertheless, one would have to call this an intellectual’s anti-intellectualism, for only on the basis of subtle understandings and the ability to express them delicately and poetically was one honored for this kind of stamping on sacred icons. The creative conflicts which enrgize the intellectual attention space were here transformed into the repartee of words pointing beyond words, of gestures stripped to their capacity for pure contentless communication

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Zen is not philosophy?

One more: Is Zen Buddhism a philosophy? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The finger pointing to the moon

Regarding "zen and doctrine" and "Zen and koans", the problem seems to be "the finger pointing to the moon". The Zen-tradition is the finger(s) pointing to the moon; the moon is ... (fill in your favorite Zen-quote). Maybe we can add an intro the teachings-section, which mentions this saying, mentions the diversity of "fingers", gives one or two quotes from the secondary literature that give a description of "the moon" (adding more fingers), and two quotes from the Zen-tradition itself saying what "the moon" is. Regarding the last point, would it be fair to take one Soto-quote, preferably Dogen, and one Rinzai-quote, from either Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin?

This would be my proposal for the body of this text.

Zen-teachings can be likened to "the finger pointing to the moon". It points to the realization of the nature of reality, being devoid of independently existing "things", yet warns against taking it's teachings to be this insight itself:

Wujin Chang, a nun, asked the Sixth Zen patriarch, Hui Neng, for help in understanding the Mahanirvana Sutra. The master answered that he could not read, but if the nun would read it aloud for him, he would do his best to help her. The nun then asked, "If you can't even read the words, how can you understand the truth behind them?"
"Truth and words are unrelated. Truth can be compared to the moon," answered Hui Neng, pointing to the moon with his finger, "And words can be compared to a finger. I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger in order to be able to see the moon."(source?)

The moon is

Quote from secondary literature

As [Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin] states it:

Quote from Mazu (Baso)/Rinzai/Hakuin

Dogen says it in these words:

Quote from Dogen

The finger is the Zen-tradition, which, despite it's warnins against confusing the moon and the finger, has developed a wide range of teachings and texts.

How about this? Let's start searching for nice quotes, acceptable for a diversity of pointing Wikipedians! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Dutch translations of the Teachings of Ma-Tsu (Ssu-chia yu-lu, Ma-tsu. De Gesprekken. Bavo Lievens, 1981) attributes "the finger pointing at the moon" to the Lankavatara Sutra (p.106, note 78), quoting the saying from the Lanka, plus the next line on the workings of the skandhas:

3. As the ignorant grasp the finger-tip and not the moon, (224) so those who cling to the letter, know not my truth.
4. The Citta dances like a dancer; the Manas resembles a jester; the [Mano-] vijnana together with the five [Vijnanas] creates an objective world which is like a stage. (Translation: Lankavatara Sutra, chapter LXXXII, p.192 Suzuki-translation, p.223/224 in brackets)

This note is being given by Lievens to clarify a dialogue of Ma-Tsu (§19, p.105-106):

Master Liang visited Ma-tsu.

Ma-tsu said: I heard that the master is great at explaining the sutras and sastras, is that so?
Liang said: Indeed
Ma-tsu said: With what do you explain?
Liang said: I explain with the mind ["de geest", which is consciousness, mind, vijnana, mana?!?]

Ma-tsu said: The mind is like an artist and consciousness is [like] his helper, how can you explain the teachings with that? (translation into English by Joshua Jonathan)

So, the Zen-tradition uses the Diamond-sutra, which refers back to the skandhas from the oldest teachings. And the Zen-tradition, in the persons of Hui-neng and Ma-tsu, uses sayings from the Lankavatara-sutra, which also refer back to the skandhas. I think that these examples of "intertextuality" make it very clear that the Zen-tradition does use Buddhist texts, and/but that it employs it's own means to awaken the insight that these texts try to transmit. According to Lievens, Zen does not reject texts, but it tries to awaken the traditional Budddhist insight (of emptiness, no-"thing"-ness (my wording, not Lievens')) by unconventional means, to avoid reification and conceptualizing. Which, it seems to me, is a very accurate description of the Zen-tradition ànd the insight it is pointing to. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The moon

It appears to be not that easy, to find a good quote in the secondary literature. Maybe the Diamond Sutra can be useful too:

As the Diamond Sutra states:

[E]very disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak sambhodi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discrad, also, all ideas about such conceptions and al ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions.
While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas (tr. Wai-tao, in Goddard A Buddhist Bible)

Maybe this is already enough, two quotes? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dharmadhatu

Recently I bought a book on Buddhist Hermeneutics: the strategiesd used within the Buddhist tradition to understand and classify it's own textual tradition. In a chapter on Ch'an Hermeneutics, Buswell writes about the way the Hua-yen tradition classified Chán (see p.245), regarding it to be an inferior tradition, and the defenses of Chán-adepts against this classification. He states that the Chán-tradition was critical of the Madhyamaka. Buswell uses the term dharmadhatu to refer to the Chán-insight into reality. It seems to me that this is a 'correct' reference, though I've hardly (or never) read this term before in Zen-literature. It points to more than:

• Just tathagatagarbha, or the potentiality for Buddhahood;
• Buddha-nature, which can be misunderstood as being some essence 'within' a person;
• Definately 'more' than sunyata, whichb indeed is not as often found in Zen-literature as is Buddha-nature.

Also, when adding the Avatamsaka-sutra I realized that Zen does point to the totality of being, without reducing it to mere concepts. And the discussions, on several DP's, on Buddha-nature, made me realize that Buddha-nature is more fundamental to Zen than sunyata is. Why this long explanation? Because it's clear (to me) that "the moon" is not univocal describable or definable, just as the Zen-tradition says itself. The more I study this tradition, the more nuances and differences I come across. So I try to reflect those nuances in the Wikipedia-articles. As regards dharmadhatu, I hardly know anything about this term, but it does make sense in the context of Zen. For that reason, I changed then reference to sunyata to a reference to Dharmadhatu. But this is also based on personal understanding, not so much on multi-textual understanding. So, who knows more about this term, it's meaning, and it's use in the Buddhist & Chán-tradition? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-dual jnana

With the danger of being accused of "owning the page", I moved the following section to the Discussion page:

This apprehension of reality beyond signs (such as words) may seem unremarkable or primitive but it is this very connection with reality beyond words that is the desired experience of non-dual meditation that in earlier Buddhism is called 'Jhana' (sometimes referred to as 'absorption' because one has reached a point where one's attention has become completely absorbed in the object of one's awareness). It is 'Non-dual' because in ordinary experience there is an 'I' that is our self which is apprehending a world 'out there', in other words a separation between subject and object. The goal of meditation is to reach a state of awareness where this duality has disappeared.

I did this for several reasons:

• "may seem unremarkable or primitive": this sounds like a (defense against) a personal point of view;
• "connection with reality beyond words": what is "reality beyond words"? This sounds like a western interpretation, not like a Zen-phrase. To my opinion it does not aid to claryfying the (non-)use of words. Which author states this, in regard to Zen?;
• "the desired experience": is kensho or Buddhahood "an experience"? See Sharf (1993), The Zen of Japanese nationalism;
• "non-dual": Advaita-term, not Zen;
• absorption an sich is not the the goal of Zen-Buddhism, see Anuttara samyak-sambodhi;
• "It is non-dual...has disappeared": this sounds like a personal interpretation. Reference & source would be welcome here. The common explanation in Zen for the workings of the mind is the Yogacara theory of the Eight Consciousnesses, which explains how sensory input and the mind create the world we experience, and obscure the alaya-vijnana, which is equated to the tathagatagarbha. The "I" in this theory is a creation of the 7th consciousness. It is a creation of the mind, not some'thing' apprehending "a world 'out there'".

See also the section above on "The finger pointing to the moon", which explains my considerations for creating the section in the article on "The finger pointing to the moon". "The moon" deserves careful wording. My apologies if I sound too critical, or too much involved in following this page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Zen tradition is distinguished by its emphasis on penetrating or breaking through the web of concepts, the symbolic realm of the mind which separate us from an experience of primordial reality. The annals of Zen record the many and varied circumstances in which the patriarchs, who were in direct communion with this primordial reality, showed pupils who were suitably framed this "reality beyond words". In the definition traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma it is "a special transmission outside the scriptures not founded on words and letters; By pointing directly to mind it allows one to penetrate the nature of things to attain the buddha-nature". This is 'pointing at the moon'. It is not the pointing that is important but 'seeing' the moon. The experience of suddenly 'seeing' the moon is kensho. However, the content of this experience is one of non-duality. Here I refer to the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions where it defines Zen as 'A coalition of related ways for attaining realization, even beyond enlightenment, of the true nature underlying all appearance including one's own—and above all, that there is no duality within appearances but only the one Buddha-nature ' (my emphasis). The duality, of course is within one's own mind. Kensho is the momentary breaking through to the experience of non-duality where one experiences the Buddha-nature directly. The statement "This apprehension of reality may seem unremarkable or primitive but it is this very connection with reality beyond words that is the desired experience" is not a defense against anything but a statement of the spirit of Zen. Zen is anti-intellectual, it is founded in the understanding that many have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism but they lack an understanding of its spirit. To quote from the same source 'The truth to be realized is that there is only the buddha-nature underlying all appearance; when one realizes that this also is what one is, all differentiation ceases and one rests in that nature. To know this intellectually is very different from realizing it as experienced truth' (citations from page 1066 of The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions). So to say that non-duality belongs only to advaita is wrong. When you say absorption (the direct experience of the buddha nature) is not the goal of Zen I am puzzled. Zen means Jhana. Zen is jhana.

Lastly, you are mistaken to say that the senses and the mind obscure the alaya vijnana. The truth is in fact quite the opposite. It is the alaya vijnana that obscures the mind and the senses. The alaya vijnana is the repository for all the volitional formations which constitute the veils between us and reality. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi 81.106.127.14. Thanks for your response! I'll try to respond to your response point by point, without using to many words (and asking too much attention and time from our fellow Wikipedians).

• I think my main point is in your giving yet another set of words to "the moon". It's clear that you're knowledgeable on the subject, yet it's a thin line between writing based on sources, and rephrasing and interpreting sources. To me it seems that that's what you're doing here, though I don't doubt your good intentions and your enthusiasm for the Zen-tradition. Giving sources makes it possible for other readers and editors to see where a contribution comes from, on what it is based. You mentioned the Oxford Dictionary; thanks.
• My other main point is that the section on "Pointing at the moon" was inserted after a discussion on the DP on "anti-intellectualism" and "doctrine in Zen". It was inserted to make clear that the teachings are not "the moon" itself. There-after follows a section on those teachings, describing three sets of polarities which can be discerned in the Zen-tradition, and which make clear that the Zen-tradition itself is not univocal in it's statements on "the moon". An explanation on this "apprehension" in the introduction breaks the build-up of the section.
• Most Buddhist traditions try "to break[ing] through the web of concepts"; it is the Chán-tradition itself which says it's special in this respect. It's part of a self-narrative; see Zen#Zen Narratives.
• "In direct communion with this primordial reality" still suggests a duality between any Zen-practitioner and some primordial reality out there. Which Zen-text (or, to be precise, which translation) uses the term "primordial reality"? (Found one myself Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The definition traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma" is exactly that: an attribution. It's a 12th century text, which can be translated in several ways. I wouldn't take it as the definitive statement on what "Zen" is. It's a point of view from a specific group of Chán-practitioners in a specific period of time.
• "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions" is a source (thanks), yet not the only one, and definately (did I spell this word correct?) not the most authoritative one.
• Does the Chán-tradition state that one experiences the Buddha-nature?
• ""This apprehension of reality may seem unremarkable or primitive but it is this very connection with reality beyond words that is the desired experience" is not a defense against anything but a statement of the spirit of Zen." If this is so, what's the source of this statement? And is this section the best place to fit it in this way? Or are there other places in the article where it fits better?
• "Connection with reality": again, here's a subject, and there's a reality 'to connect with'?
• "Zen is anti-intellectual": this topic has been discussed extensively already; see the topic on the Discussion Page, and the section in the article on Zen#Zen scripture. Popular (western) opinion sees Zen as anti-intellectual and void of doctrine, yet Zen is also build on doctrine, but has distinctive ways of communicating this doctrine.
• The supposed "anti-intellectualism" is part of it's own self-understanding, which is a means for distinguishing itself from other traditions. Even enlightened masters can be so human...
• "It is founded in the understanding that many have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism but they lack an understanding of its spirit": so, who are the true saints that understand the spirit of Zen? Zen is founded in Buddhism, an it's emphasis on the middle way. That middle way is not so hard to understand or exclusive as some might want to make it.
• The use of the doctrine of the Buddha-nature is one way to "point to the moon"; the Zen-tradition has also used other docrines and texts.
• "To know this intellectually is very different from realizing it as experienced truth": this point is also articulated in the article, but there is no reason to make this into some exclusive hallmark for the special ones.
• Your source speaks of "no duality in appearances". "Non-duality" is just a very small rephrasing, yet in rephrasing you do give other and new connotations, and so interpretations.
• The point on absorption is a good one, and puzzling indeed. I've wondered about this often too. See subsection Zen#Diamond Sutra and Chinese Chán#History of Chán. But I dare to be quite sure that the "end-goal" of Zen is not absorption an sich, but the expression of 'prajna & karuna' in daily life.
• Vasubandhu's Triṃśikaikā-kārikā can be interpreted & translated in various ways; I rely on "Kalupahana, David J. (1992), The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, Delhi: ri Satguru Publications" and "Kochumuttom, Thomas A. (1999), A buddhist Doctrine of Experience. A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass". The Yogacara-tradition interpreted Vasubandhu's works as describing eight consciousnesses. Later traditions equated alija-vijnana, tathagatagarbha, etc. Different interpretations and readings are possible.

I failed, again, in 'not using too many words'. Sorry. Looking forward to your response. And by the way, I think we do agree that 'words and marks cannot express Being-there sufficiently' - they are just fingers pointing to the moon. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sunyata, aesthetic practices, and cultural impact

The following sentence from the lead seems problematic to me, for several reasons:

Due to the school's traditional emphasis on the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, and perhaps to a lesser extent being influenced by Taoism (Lai,Year unknown), it has given rise to a number of minimalist and mystical aesthetic practices and philosophical approaches which have marked Zen Buddhism with a rich cultural impact and history throughout East Asia, as well as a sophisticated metaphysical heritage in the modern study of Eastern philosophy.

• The emphasis in Chán/Zen is not on sunyata, but on Yogacara and tathagatagarbha
• The Taoist influence on Chán needs better sources. This is what Whalen Lai writes:

• "Buddhism was being perceived and digested through the medium of religious Daoism (Taoism).(p.8)
• Chinese Buddhism is often said to have reached its apogee in the Tang era. But in one sense, it only shared with Confucianism and Daoism the glory, the power, and the prosperity of the Tang. Confucianism would enjoy a revival, especially in the second half of Tang; religious Taoism had the patronage of the ruling house, which considered itself descended from Laozi. Thus, during the Tang, Buddhism had to contend(emphasis JJ) with serious rivals." (p.13)

• What are the "aesthetic practices", according to which source?
• What are the philosophical approaches", of what, according to which source?
• What's "minimalist" about them, according to which source?
• What's being meant with "mystical", according to which source? "Mystical" is a western and, in modern times, romantic category. See McMahan, Buddhist Modernism, especially the influence of D.T. Suzuki.
• "which have marked Zen Buddhism with a rich cultural impact". The term "marked" seems like a reification. Shouldn't this be something like "Chán and Zen have had a rich cultural impact in East Asia and, in modern times, the western world", or, alternatively, "which have marked East Asian culture"? Otherwise, when being read literally, the sentence somehow says something like "Zen ("it") has marked Zen".
• "a sophisticated metaphysical heritage in the modern study of Eastern philosophy." Does this mean that the Zen-heritage is subject to modern study, or that Zen's metaphysics have influenced the modern study of Eastern philosophy? Concerning the last, according to McRae, the influence of Traditional Zen Narrative on the study of Zen has indeed been metaphysical.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as a nearly meaningless, very poorly worded, over-long sentence. Please revise as you see fit :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Rinzai bias, academic bias, other suggestions

I feel like a broken record here, but this article seems to talk about "Zen" in terms of Rinzai and not Soto.

1) The opener states "Zen emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment". Dogen wrote in the Fukanzazengi, "Suppose one gains pride of understanding and inflates one's own enlightenment, glimpsing the wisdom that runs through all things, attaining the Way and clarifying the Mind, raising an aspiration to escalade the very sky. One is making the initial, partial excursions about the frontiers but is still somewhat deficient in the vital Way of total emancipation...Have no designs on becoming a Buddha". This seems like a repudiation of "emphasizing enlightenment" by the founder of the largest sect of Zen. However, it is also "emphasized" in the sense that he wrote "To practice the Way singleheartedly is, in itself, enlightenment. There is no gap between practice and enlightenment or zazen and daily life". Nonetheless, virtually ever Soto source I've looked at advocates not "seeking enlightenment" because it is concept and thus a distraction. If the opener is meant in the sense that Zen believes enlightenment is possible (cf. Pure Land or other "degenerate age" schools), this should probably be more explicit. As its currently worded it seems a bit misleading

2) Nōnin technically started the first Zen school in Japan a couple of years before Eisai and many before Dogen, but he is not mentioned at all in "Zen in Japan". Almost all of the students from this school joined the Soto school later on.

3) The section states "Controversially, Keizan is credited as the founder of the Sōtō school." I've never heard this anywhere. All Soto lineages consider him the fourth patriarch and the "second founder" in the sense that he spread the school significantly, but he is never thought of as "the founder"

4) The Sandai sōron, a very significant historical event, is not mentioned in this section.

5) The history section generally discusses Rinzai far more than Soto.

6) The "polarities" section seems very misleading considering the emphasis on non-dualism in Zen. This should go for both schools. While polarities in teaching approaches exist, to say that Zen is "characterized" by polarities strikes me as wrong. I also don't see how Buddha nature and shunyata are polarities, and I don't think they are typically presented this way. The sudden vs. gradual enlightenment stuff probably belongs in the history section and not in the teaching section. It's never taught as a "teaching". It's a historical curiosity. I remember Shohaku Okumura joking that the Tang Chinese were very concerned with sudden vs. gradual stuff, but really it's a meaningless argument because both are simultaneously true. This is definitely the view in the Soto school anyway. At any rate, I'm pretty confident that sudden and gradual are at least not "taught" nowadays in either school and are only discussed in the context of history.

7) In that same vein, I think "Zen teachings" and "Zen practice" should be merged. Zen is characterized by the fact that practice is the ultimate teaching, so why separate them? To a non-Zen person, they are bound to be confused. I've been practicing Soto zen for years and I've never been "taught" any of the stuff in the "teachings" section.

8) The scripture section again emphasizes history to the exclusion of current practice. In the Soto school, virtually all scripture encountered on a regular basis is from Dogen. Sometimes people delve into the old stuff, but very rarely, with the exception of the Heart Sutra, which isn't mentioned! The Heart Sutra, as I understand it, it far more important for Zen than all of the works listed. I've never had a teacher discuss any of the works mentioned. No doubt they form an important philosophical core, but this fact needs to be emphasized. The scripture discussed and read for the purposes of contemporary practice does not include virtually any of these things.

As currently written, this article seems to overemphasize academic views on Zen held by non-practitioners. This is understandable since they write a lot of the books about Zen. However, I think we need to be careful to remember that these are not the people who actually have much of an idea of what goes on now. They are much more concerned with history. I think we need to source more from books written by Zen teachers and less by distant observers. Some of the things I've read in academic accounts of Zen blatantly misunderstand the practices. Obviously this is my own opinion, but if you pair academic views with views of teachers, you can often see this fact. Anyway, that's all for today. This article is progressing nicely, but whenever I read it, it seems pretty foreign to my years of experience, which I don't think should be the case. At present, I would not recommend someone who doesn't know about Zen to this article. DJLayton4 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You must be old, that you what a broken record is :)

ad 1: You're right. Part of the sentence 'disappeared' when editing. I put it back, but basically your point still stands.

ad 2: Well, ad Nonin to the Japanese Zen-article.

ad 3: Check Dumoulin & Google Books: you're right. I've changed the sentence.

ad 4: Sandai sōron maybe should be mentioned in the Soto-article. But you might as well add a few lines on this topic to the Zen-article.

ad 5: The article covers mainly the history of the Tang-period, The Caodong came into existence late in the Tang. So I don't know if there is a neglect of Caodong/Soto, of just little coverage of history anyway. But, the main article on Soto might be filled in as well. It's reallu short now, and lacks a lot of info.

ad 6: The "emphasis on non-duality" is itself misleading. There are polarities in zen-teaching.

• The absolute-relative is obvious, I suppose.
• I agree that Buddha-nature - sunyata is not a strict polarity, but the two doctrines are different ways to approach the Buddhist teachings and the insights derived from meditation practice. Both have been used in the history of Zen, but the emphasis seems to be on buddha-nature (and Yogacara), despite the emphasis of Shenhui on the Diamond Sutra. Kasulis relates the two approaches to the split between Northern and Southern Zen, and a difference between the Lankavatara and the Diamond Sutra.
• sudden-gradual is not just a "historical curiosity". Chán-teachers after shenhui have struggled to reconcile the oppostion set up by Shenhui. And sudden-gradual is not restricted to Zen. It's fundamental to the history of Zen, and the understanding of Zen-teachings. See Sudden and Gradual, edited by Peter N. Gregory, a whole volume of essays and articles on this subject. For Rinzai "sudden enlightenment" is still a relevant topic, given the emphasis on kensho in Rinzai. It's also a topic for Sanbo Kyodan-derived lineages. You may have a "Soto-bias" in this regard yourself.

ad 7: merging teachings and practice will give a muddled, very long section. Also, Zen is not only the current teachings practices, but also a history of 1500 years. That you haven't encountered this "stuff" does not necessarily mean that it's not part of the Zen-history. D.T Suzuki didn't write anything about Soto; this does not mean that Soto is not relevant. If you want to share more of the specific contemporary Soto-teachings, the Soto-article would be a good place to do so. As it is now, both contemporary Soto and Rinzai are now being mentioned in just one line. After all, Soto is just one school in one particular country, not the examplification (is that a correct word?) of the whole of Chán/Zen-history.

ad 8:

• sounds like a good idea to add some info on the Heart-sutra. I'll keep it in mind.
• That Soto emphasises the writings of Dogen does not mean that the rest of Zen-history can be disregarded. Up till the seventeenth century Dogen's works were hardly read, let alone commented on. If you think that the history of Zen, and it's textual sources, is not relevant for "contemporary practice", then it's up to you make clear what this "contemporary practice" is, and what "scripture" is relevant to it.

ad "academic views":

• The argument "academic views on Zen held by non-practitioners" is a rhetoric way of discrediting valid research. See "how not to argue about Buddhism. Academic research on Zen has dramatically changed the understanding of Zen and it's history. This research is being done by people who have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Brian Victoria is himself a Zen-priest. Andre van de Braak, a Dutch professor, is a Zen-teacher, who formerly has been a student of Andrew Cohen. If you only read John McRae's "Seeing through Zen", it should be clear how mis-informed the Zen-tradition has been itself on it's own history. And if you read "Zen at war", it should also be clear that Zen too is just a human endeavour, and how important it is to remain critical.
• "Some of the things I've read in academic accounts of Zen blatantly misunderstand the practices" is also rhetorics, discrediting decades of research, without giving examples and sourced arguments. What did you read, what whas 'blatantly misunderstood'? And does this apply for all the academic research? See thezensite for a comprehensive overview of sources and studies by committed researchers. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a study-guide. It can give relevant links, and tips for books, but it is by definition 'distanced'. Any-one interested in Zen can walk into a bookstore, or go to Amazon.com, and buy dozens of books with Zen-teachings, it that's what needed.
• If you want to "source more from books written by Zen teachers", then what exactly would you like to source? And how would you like to source it, without interpreting primary sources?
• Readingthe introduction of Dōgen's Pure Standards for the Zen Community: A Translation of the Eihei Shingi I see a disdain for academic writings when critizising the Soto-tradition, without giving proper examples, references or sources, and a likewise uncritical mentioning of academic research on the historical circumstances of Dogen's teachings when this is supportive for the Soto-tradition. I may only hope that this way of dealing with academic research is not typical for contemporary Soto.
• As for the sutras, see Chapter two of Faces of Compassion by Dan Leighton, who co-authored several books with Shohaku Okumura.

So, that's along response again. Thanks; this is much more fun than just writing without differences in opinion. It presses to reconsider my own opinions, and to source them. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way: nice picture of Shohaku Okumura. Seems like a nice guy (serious, no pun intended). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

PS2: regarding contemporary Zen-practice & 'distant insights of academics': I think it's our challenge to incorporate the disenchantment it offers into our practice, not to see it as antagonistic. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

PS3: I read at [4] that Shohaku Okumura studied at Komazawa University, his teacher Kosho Uchiyama-roshi "received a Master's Degree in Western philosophy from Waseda University", and Uchiyama's teacher Kodo Sawaki-roshi was "professor of Zen literature". So far for the "academic bias". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response! I totally accept that I have a very Soto bias. I don't expect to see an article about Zen that reflects only the Soto viewpoint, however, but rather one that just doesn't largely ignore it. I think WP:UNDUE applies. The Soto school is the largest school of Zen in Japan, and arguably in the West, so its practices shouldn't be ignored or diluted. Chan schools are tricky because they aren't practiced much in the West, and knowledge about non-Taiwanese lineages is hard to come by, but of course they should be treated too. At any rate, this article either needs to be general enough to encapsulate all schools, or specific enough so that the individual schools are not conflated. So having like 10 paragraphs on sudden vs. gradual gives undue weight to certain schools, in my opinion. As far as the Soto school is concerned, it IS a historical curiosity, but the way the article is written a reader would assume it's a very important thing to all schools.

I also don't mean to suggest that academic research on Zen isn't important. I absolutely agree that it is. I do think that some academics who are not practitioners tend to get in over their heads a little bit, but that's my opinion. At any rate, my point is that this article reflects much more about academic views than actual practice. This serves to make it both somewhat unaccesible and a weak introduction to Zen. If you go to the article on Methodism or Episcopal Church (United States), they don't give any academic views at all. They are usually too inaccessible to the average reader. Instead, these articles offer an easy to read article that allows the reader to become generally acquainted with the specific branch of Christianity. This article fails to give a reader a good overview of the topic because it's way too specific in some areas while simultaneously being way too incomplete. For example, "scripture" covers historical works ad nauseum while ignoring works that are actually important to the average practitioner, while "teachings" gives in-depth, incomprehensible academic analysis on a couple of select topics while failing to explain generally what Zen teachings are.

Shohaku Okumura's work is almost entirely concerned with Dogen's work, as is the case with most Soto academics, so I think this reinforces the importance of including Dogen more heavily in "Scipture". Your point that he was not widely ready until the 17th century emphasizes that the scripture section is out of touch with the present. I think heavier weight should be give to the scripture that is actually important to Zen practitioners now, not historical works. The article on Christianity, for example, has a scripture section that concentrates on the Bible, and devotes a sentence or two to apocryphal, non-standard texts, and precedent works. It's scripture section is about a quarter of the length of this scripture section as well. Does someone hoping to get an idea about what Zen is care about an in-depth analysis of all the scripture leading up to the establishment of Zen, or are they interested in the current scripture that is important to practice? Maybe both. But as it is, the section basically only covers the latter. I'd suggest starting a separate "Scripture in Zen" article if you want to go into that much detail about Mahayana documents that most Zen teacher's never talk about. At any rate, I think it would be inappropriate to include Okumura's in-depth analysis of Dogen's texts in this article. If he or anyone else can be cited on a general topic in Zen, fine, but plunging into academic depths on a few random topics makes for a poor article. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point on a 'common introduction'. The Methodist article has a neat side-box, which links to a series of other, specialized articles. Could be nice for Zen, too, to split up the article. The articles on Chinese Chán and Japanese Zen are a start for that, as are the separate articles on Soto and Rinzai.

As it is now, the emphasis on the historical and textual backgrounds, is also a result of the discussions on the supposed "anti-itellectualism" of Zen, which, as far as I can see, is a result of the popular or romantic understanding of Zen. It gives a counter-balance to this romantic view, which is spread in most of the popular books. Most (western) people don't realize how much tradition and background there is in Zen; they see it as a vehicle fit for western individualisation. How many people have an understanding of emptiness, realizing that it means that "I" doesnt exist? So, in that regard, the article does give due attention to several points of view, balancing the popular understanding.

As for Dogen, and the Shobogenzo, the few lines in the article are indeed short. but the same goes for the article on Soto; there's still a lot of information lacking. How about you starting to fill it in further? This would give balance to the eventual Rinzai-bias.

Still, I wonder if it's true that most Zen-teachers don't talk about those "Mahayana documents". What is 'real Zen'? Twentieth-century Zen? The Zen taught to us westerners? The Zen transmitted in traditional monasteries? The Zen of temple-rituals for lay people? There may be a strong western bias at work in our understanding of Zen - I should even say, a mutual bias, since it seems to be the Zen influenced by western culture which has become popular in the west.

Anyway, if we are to follow the example of the Methodist-article, there are still topics that first need te be fleshed out. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Goddard & Taoism

The connection between Zen and Taoism is intriguing. Yet, I've serched for literature on this before , and found very little [5][6]. The connection seems to be more in the eyes of modern interpreters than in historical 'reality' [7]. Does anyone have more info? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Buddhists definetely don't seem to like this connection [8]; however, I've read about it quite a few times already now. You might want to take a look at this list [9]. BTW, you're processing at a very impressive speed :). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Part-time unemployed... But I'm considering doing a Ph.D-research, and all this edting is quite helpfull. I'm going to have a look at those links; thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But, I'm not convinced. Fowler does not write that Chán was influenced by Taoism; he writes that Buddhism was seen as a kind of Taoism, when it was transplanted to China. That's something quite different.
This is what Whalen Lai writes about it:

Judging from the reception by the Han of the Hinayana works and from the early commentaries, it appears that Buddhism was being perceived and digested through the medium of religious Daoism (Taoism). Buddha was seen as a foreign immortal who had achieved some form of Daoist nondeath. The Buddhists’ mindfulness of the breath was regarded as an extension of Daoist breathing exercises.[10]

As it is now, the text suggests that Chán developed out of Taosim and Buddhism, while the sources seem to point out that the influence of Taoism was more like that of competition, the understanding of Buddhism in native terms and terminology, and the borrowing of Taoist terms by Buddhists. What seems closer to the point is that Chán resulted from the sinification of Buddhism, including the influence of Chinese ideas such as "T’i -yung" (Essence and Function) and "Li-shih" (Noumenon and Phenomenon) [11] which are also expressed by Taoism, and first taken over by Hua-yen Buddhism, which the influenced Chán. So it might be a good idea to that this to the text on Taoist influences. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Yet another link

Zen being a "Daoist" variant of Buddhism is something that is occasionally suggested, but rarely with real analysis and sources to back it up. Actually, the origins of Zen often reveal the great extent to which its founders studied the Buddhist sutras and shastras. Many Chan masters pulled out direct quotes from the sutras when conversing with students, but unless modern authors are equally familiar with those texts, the references will not be picked up on. As two examples, the "finger pointing at the moon," and the comparison between the mind and a mirror, both come from traditional Mahayana sutras, and did not originate with the Zen school. Tengu800 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the text I added only talks unspecifically about Taoist "influences". No one disputes that Zen and Daoism are entirely different religious entities, but I think there's no point in denying a Taoist influence. Regarding Fowler, she notes that the first Buddhist recruits in China were Taoists (p. 79), that Buddhism entered China "under the cover of Taoism" (p. 79), especially by using Taoist terminology and blending Taoism "into expression" (p. 87), and she acknowledges the "profusion of Taoist texts that attest to the fusion of Taoist and Buddhist ideas" (p. 87). I'd also like to emphasize that Fowler, Goddard and Suzuki come from a Buddhist point of view. On the Taoist side, the influence of Taoism on the development of Chan is even more readily claimed. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added an elaboration on the Taoist influnce. Fuller quotes are included in the copy I put into the Chinese Chán page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read about this connection as well, mostly in Alan Watts' books and books written from a Daoist perspective. One of the ideas that interested me was that the "influence" may simply involve the effect of translating terms into Chinese, essentially coloring the theories with aspects of traditional Chinese cosmology. Many ideas that are more broadly Chinese are labeled Daoist in retrospect. But since it is conventional to call Yin/Yang, Wuji/Taiji and other concepts "Daoist" there is no harm in recognizing how these ideas filtered the Chinese reception of ideas like the void and karma. Herbxue (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Book

This whole article 'Zen' is becoming a book rather than a concise encyclopaedic entry. I used to be able to refer lay people to this page in Wiki' but frankly now it's becoming a totally academic reference. I feel also some contributors are treating it as their pet rather than an article. Not now something I'd recommend reading, more likely to confuse than inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's still shorter than most books on Zen. But for recommandations, you might suggest lay people only to read the "Teachings" and "Practices" sections. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I'll take your suggestion into consideration. I might suggest to all, that it is of some value to mention that the notions of Sotoshu, Obakushu as distinct from Rinzaishu are Japanese fabrications, today they have become distinct schools but initially they simply represented teaching lineages. Today the situation is different from an admin perspective and some layers of practice have been added of course, but I think it's worth mentioning as it is factual and helps to explain why Rinzai, Soto and Obaku people find their practice so interchangeable. Besides the fact I'm a monk of 25 years, some of that spent in Japanese Sodo, it is researchable out there. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.251.87 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice your response before, sorry. The same is said about the Five Houses of Chan: initially they were just different lineages. And I know that Dogen didn't see his school as distinct Zen-school, but as a Buddhist school, teaching Buddhism. I also know that Japanese Zen did become sectarian under influence of the powers of the state. But to work this out in this, or another, article, would take quite some time and effort... A related topic is the "systematization" of Hakuin's teachings in the 19th century, but there is very little research on that, as far as I know. Anyway, Zen in a nutshell: love thy neighbour :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As if some higher force read this... Some info on Hakuin's influence (p.4). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Sutra quote

... men and women [how] to follow the Bodhisattva Path and [...] how they should proceed.

Note: This line is not found in the standard translation of the Diamond Sutra that is used in the Far East (Kumarajiva's translation). I'm not sure which translation it comes from, or maybe it is from a late Sanskrit edition, but either way, it's doubtful that many Zen adepts of the past ever read this line. It is true, however, that the Diamond Sutra is about the Bodhisattva Path. Tengu800 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked the quote at the link [12]; it's not in that translation... The translation is from "the Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it is unclear what the original text for that one is. The wording is very loose, it differs from the Kumarajiva version, and most of the chapters are missing (at the end it says that it is an abbreviated version). The following two are both from the Kumarajiva version used in East Asian Buddhism, basically the same contents and divisions as used traditionally in the Zen school: [13][14] Tengu800 01:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm busy with real life, I've been doing reviews which can only be completed at a glance. I'm sorry to say but this article is far away from GA standards. Here are the 3 basic reasons behind it:

• Many paragraphs are of one-two lines and few sections need expansion.
• Anything in the lead should be covered later in the article with more details and lead should be summary of the article per WP:LEAD. The article is not at all summarized by the lead.
• Grammar and similar issues seems to be existing and the article is in need of copyediting throughout.
• MoS fixes are needed. Bulleting should be minimized and paragraphs should be larger and not just of 2-3 lines. Too many quotes are used in the article where the text is relatively in less amount
• There is lack of refs. This is the main reason for the failure. The article has so many facts unsourced and thus it is extremely tough to verify the content or to track down any vandalism. We need references to WP:RS in order to verify the content and this article has many of its content as unsourced. To get this up to GA level, each and every fact in the article should have at least one reliable source using well formatted citation.

Despite of all the hard work, lack of refs will be the main reason for failing this. I believe that work on the article for 1 more month would be fine and this was just a touch too rushed nomination. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed easily. Sorry to say but I've to quickly fail it. Once addressed the issues raised above, anyone can go for another nom. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A Suggestion

As the GA reviewer of indicated, this article has a lot of problems.

Joshua Johnathan - You've contributed immensely to the content of this article. However, I must say that I have avoided copyediting the article for fear of your edits undoing any progress I might make, not so much in terms of content, but in terms of layout. Frankly, I think this article is bit of a disaster. By that I mean that the layout is largely at odds with MoS suggestions and GA standards (as the reviewer mentioned - tons of short paragraphs, too many bullet points, and, as I see it, a total lack of an overall narrative). It is also doesn't provide much of a readable introduction into what zen is. I think if I didn't know anything about the subject, I would feel more confused after reading this. The article has also gotten way too long. There's way too much random information at the expense of a comprehensive overview of the subject matter. I think this is most obvious when you look at this article and compare it to an FA on a similar topic. For example, compare with Bahá'í Faith. It's way shorter, has far fewer sections and subsections, and provides a much more concise idea about what Bahá'í is.

So here's my suggestion. I can start copyediting the article, but I'm only interested in doing it if you will let me make pretty major cuts and revisions to the format, including a lot of content removal, especially of unreferenced material. I don't mean to say that I don't want to hear any dissent, but I don't have the time to get into debates over every other sentence in this behemoth of an article. I think a lot of the material can be spun off into other articles. For example, I don't think we need ten paragraphs on the history of zen in each country where it exists- this content can be integrated into Japanese Zen, Chinese Chan, etc., if it isn't already.

I've succesfully gotten articles to pass GA and FA almost entirely on my own, so I feel confident that I can do a good job.

Let me know what you think. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. The article is far too long and if nothing else, the idea of removing the long history passages to their own country articles would help immensely. After the intro, you have to scroll down through half of the article to even get to a section about what Zen teaches. Helpsome (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of info on the history of Zen in various countries, that the article is very long, and could do better on a overall narrative. Some sections have also expanded due to controversies; does that connect to your impression of "random information"?

How about indeed scrolling down the article, but first make short proposals here at the TP before editing? I'll try to keep back my reflexes I'd prefer to preserve most of the info, but not necessarily at this page. For example, "Organisation" could be split off. Same for "Zen Narratives", though I do prefer a short notice on the main page, since it is an important issue (at least, I think so). Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions by JJ:

• Lead: does not reflect the article, but only part of it. Needs to be rwritten, after restyling of the article.
• Chinese Chán - Spread - Western world: could be (extremely) reduced to: "Zen originated as Chan on China. Although the Zen-tradition considers the Song as the Golden age of Chán, it's decisive formational and influential highpoint was during the Tang. From China Chan spread to Korea, Vietnam and Japan. Recently Zen has been popularized in the western world." (At second thought, this might be too short. One of the two periodisations might give valuable info too).
  • "Western Zen lineages" could be removed; it is redundant with Zen in the United States.
• Doctrinal background: separate article?
• Zen and sutras: already separate article. Shorten, with mentioning the main elements?
• Zen literature: separate article?
• Zen teachings: that's an essentail section, isn't it? Maybe some shortening, especially the quotes.
• Zen practice: idem
  • koan practice could be shortened
  • Chanting could also be shortened
• Zen organisation and institutions: separate article?
• Zen narratives: seperate article?

PS: Djlayton4, you've touched the right button in the tone of your comment. Compliments . I know I've got my shortcomings, unfortunately. Intellectual attacks are one of them.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks so much better already! I have a busy schedule this week, but I will take a took through as soon as I can. But honestly, it looks like you've already done a lot of the important formatting in the past few hours; looking good :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Though still a solo-action... So it's time for me now to hold back, isn't it? Thanks for your apprecaition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Chán

Shortened section, but maybe too drastically. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spread of Chán in Asia

The article on Chinese Chán already contains a shortened section on Chinese Chán#Spread of Chán Buddhism in Asia. This could be copied to Zen, replacing the longer sections, and removed from Chinese Chán. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Western Zen

Shortened section. Western lineages are also mentioned in Zen in the United States. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctrinal background

Created Doctrinal background of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed section; placed link "Zen teachings". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Zen literature

Copied to Zen and Sutras. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Zen organisations and institutions

Created Zen organisation and institutions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortened section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Zen Narratives

Created Zen Narratives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed

Sorry, no citations available for this:

To point out 'essential Zen-teachings' is almost impossible, given the variety of schools, the extended history of 1500 years, and the emphasis on suchness, reality just-as-it-is, which has to be expressed in daily life, not in words.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}} But common to most schools and teachings is this emphasis on suchness, the Bodhisattva-ideal, and the priority of zazen.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}

Those are my words, so they may as well be deleted. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit explained

I eliminated "well-known" from "..the well-known genealogy of the Chán-school.". It's a bit pompous and it's highly unlikely that the genealogy is well-known to a reader of an encyclopedia article on Zen. --174.7.56.10 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Compliments for giving an explanation, and compliments for the explanation itself! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of "Chinese Chán"

The original version (That is, the last version of 2 february) was much longer, but cut down by me after feedback about the length of the article. But only restoring the "Origins and Taoist influences" and "Legendary or Proto-Chán - Six Patriarchs" subsections brings the history back to a point og more then a year ago, where the legendary is emphasised and the factual discarded. Since the late 1960s, a lot of research on Chán/Zen has been done; especially McRae gives a fine and concise overview on the factual history of Chán. This can't be left out; McRae does not only have very good academic credentials, he's also being picked-up by the contemporary western Zen-scene. The subsections from "Early Chán and Classical Chán - Tang dynasty (618–907)" on give more details on this periodisation, without being too detailed - that is, compared to the huge amount of data available. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

,Supposed, spontaneity?

The section of Periodisation includes the phrase "producing the literature in which the supposed spontaneity of the celebrated masters was portrayed". Since the basis for the skeptical "supposed" is not supported, perhaps... "producing literature emphasizing the spontaneity of celebrated masters of the previous period". --174.7.56.10 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That did seem needlessly critical so I removed the word "supposed". Helpsome (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)