Talk:Zen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:12, 5 February 2007 editKennethtennyson (talk \| contribs)1,225 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:57, 28 July 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,465,047 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: silent illumination, Remove 1 notification
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{WikiProject China
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|importance=High
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|class=B
			\|counter = 10
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Zen/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{talkheader\|search=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Japan\|importance=High}}
			{{ArticleHistory
	{{FAOL\|Vietnamese\|vi:Thiền tông}}
	{{Zen Collaboration Nominee\|check-talk-off=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Buddhism}}
	{\| class="infobox" width="270px" align="right"
	\|-
	!align="center"\|]<br/>List of archived discussions
	----
	\|-
	\|align="center"\|]<br>]<br>]
	\|}

			\|action1=GAN
	==the history section needs work==
			\|action1date=00:54, 27 October 2012
	look, this is ridiculous. The history section needs work. What we have in the history section is a history presented by one person - note Freedom skies- who only wishes to present one story of the history, the bodhidharma part. This is considered a traditional tale and no historian follows this. Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia. This is similar to someone writing on the Roman Empire, "the history of Rome began with romulus and remus" and then not allowing for all of the work that basically fleshes out this history that is considered by historians not a traditional tale. Freedom skies, no one disputes that Chan buddhism is a form of buddhism from india... most historians state, however, that Chan buddhism is a distinct school of buddhism that developed in China and processed through Chinese philosophical thought. The traditional tale of Bodhidharma is considered tradition and should not be the only thing in the History section. You need to seriously read up about buddhism before you start pushing your pov's. ,, ] 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action1link=Talk:Zen/GA1
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=520022918

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
	:Agreed.—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|topic=Philosophy and religion

			}}
	----
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=

			{{WikiProject Asia\|importance=high}}
	{{Quotation\|What we have in the history section is a history presented by one person - note Freedom skies- who only wishes to present one story of the history, the bodhidharma part.}}
			{{WikiProject Buddhism\|importance=top}}

			{{WikiProject China\|importance=Top}}
	You lie again, Kenny.
			{{WikiProject East Asia\|importance=high}}

			{{WikiProject Japan\|importance=Top}}
	What you have in the history section is a mutually agreed paragraph on Bodhidharma.
			{{WikiProject Korea\|importance=Mid}}

			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|religion=yes\|eastern=yes\|metaphysics=yes\|importance=high}}
	As for Zen, it has been traced to Mahakashyapa, it was discussed earlier as well.
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top}}

			{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness\|importance=High}}
	{{Quotation\|Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia.}}
			}}

			{{not a forum}}
	And the Han cabal is going to do it ? The same cabal which, out of nowhere, gathers up again when Chinese Taoism is objected to by MichaelMaggs and removed by me from the introduction?, and now you pretend to actually have concerns about the article when you yourselves were content by mere mention of Chinese Taoism?
			== Recent edits ==

	{{Quotation\|This is similar to someone writing on the Roman Empire, "the history of Rome began with romulus and remus" and then not allowing for all of the work that basically fleshes out this history that is considered by historians not a traditional tale.}}

	Fictional tale? Like Laozi crossing over to help Buddha gain enlightenment ? Taking Zen's patriarchs away and handing them over to fictional Taoist foundations?

	In any event, argument ender:- An introduction to Zen Buddhism By ] (page 31). You know my policy on getting more citations, on request or provocation, whichever extended first.

	Oh, and ] has written extensively about Bodhidharma as well. You should try reading it some time. You'll find it in ''non fiction'', by the way.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	----
	''Oh, and ] has written extensively about Bodhidharma as well.''

	Yes, he has. And Mahakasyapa too.{{Quotation\|In those days there must have been some necessity to invent such a legend for the authorization of Zen Buddhism; for as Zen grew in strength the other schools of Buddhism already in existence grew jealous of its popular influence and attacked it as having no authorized records of its direct transmission from the founder of Buddhism, which was claimed by the devotees of Zen. This was the case especially when the latter made so light of the doctrinal teaching discussed in the Sūtras and the Śastras, as they thought that the ultimate authority of Zen issued out of their own direct personal experience. In this latter they were quite insistent; but they were not, nor could they be, so critical and independent as to ignore altogether the authority of historical Buddhism, and they wanted somehow to find the record that the Buddha handed Zen over to Mahākāśyapa and from Mahākāśyapa on to the twenty-eight patriarch, Bodhidharma, who became the first patriarch of Zen in China. A line of twenty-eight Indian patriarchs thus came to be established by Zen historians, while, according to other schools, there were only twenty-three or twenty-four patriarchs after the founder. When the historians had the need for the special transmission of Zen from the Buddha to Mahākāśyapa, they felt it necessary to fill up the gap between the twenty-third or twenty-fourth patriarch and Bodhidharma himself, who according to them was the twenty-eighth.}}] 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	{{Quotation\|Yes, he has.}}



	Taoist foundations ?

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	----
	''....An introduction to Zen Buddhism By ] (page 31).''{{Quotation\|Buddhism in its course of development has completed a form which distinguishes itself from its so-called primitive or original type—so greatly, indeed, that we are justified in emphasizing its historical division into two schools, Hinayana and Mahayana, or the Lesser Vehicle and the Greater Vehicle of salvation. As a matter of fact, the Mahayana, with all its varied formulae, is no more than a developed form of Buddhism and traces back its final authority to its Indian founder, the great Buddha Sakyamuni. ''When this form of the Mahayana was introduced into China and then into Japan, it achieved further development in these countries''. This development was no doubt due to the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist leaders, who knew how to apply the principles of their faith to the ever-varying conditions of life and to the religious needs of the people. And this elaboration and adaptation on their part has still further widened the gap that has already been in existence between the Mahayana and its more primitive type. At present the Mahayana form may be said not to display, superficially at least, those features most conspicuously characteristic of original Buddhism.<br>....<br>In India two Mahayana schools are known: the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna and the Vijnaptimatra or Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. ''In China more schools developed'', the Tendai (''t'ien-tai''), the Kegon (''avatamsaka''), the Jodo (''ching-t'u''), ''the Zen (ch'an)'', etc.}}What Suzuki writes above is perfectly consistent with ]'s statement that "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen".<br>And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.<br><br>It certainly looks like ''someone'' was trying to misrepresent Suzuki's views so I've reproduced Suzuki's own words above so that people can make up their own minds.<br><br>] and ], pre-eminent scholars of, respectively, Zen and comparative religion...oh yeah, this view is "microscopic".<br><br>''argument ender''<br>Indeed.<br><br>] 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this, but on the evidence of this debate the previous version should surely be restored. What I see is a rather ugly form of extreme Indocentric nationalism that already has disfigured several articles. ] 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	==addition==
	I've added a few sentences in the section on history to clarify the history. We can have the traditional stories and then a mention on what most historians view as actual history. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia so hopefully people who use this as a reference won't be talking about the "tale of bodhidharma" as fact. Althought, Jimbo always gets a few e-mails each year from college/high school students who fail exams due to what they write from reading articles on wikipedia. I'm hoping this will clear things up. ] 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Taoist foundations==

	{{Quotation\|Buddhism in its course of development has completed a form which distinguishes itself from its so-called primitive or original type—so greatly, indeed, that we are justified in emphasizing its historical division into two schools, Hinayana and Mahayana, or the Lesser Vehicle and the Greater Vehicle of salvation. As a matter of fact, the Mahayana, with all its varied formulae, is no more than a developed form of Buddhism and traces back its final authority to its Indian founder, the great Buddha Sakyamuni. ''When this form of the Mahayana was introduced into China and then into Japan, it achieved further development in these countries''. This development was no doubt due to the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist leaders, who knew how to apply the principles of their faith to the ever-varying conditions of life and to the religious needs of the people. And this elaboration and adaptation on their part has still further widened the gap that has already been in existence between the Mahayana and its more primitive type. At present the Mahayana form may be said not to display, superficially at least, those features most conspicuously characteristic of original Buddhism.<br>....<br>In India two Mahayana schools are known: the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna and the Vijnaptimatra or Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. ''In China more schools developed'', the Tendai (''t'ien-tai''), the Kegon (''avatamsaka''), the Jodo (''ching-t'u''), ''the Zen (ch'an)'', etc.}}

	Yes, you mention DT Suzuki's work.

	Taoist foundations?

	{{Quotation\|What Suzuki writes above is perfectly consistent with ]'s statement that "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen"}}

	Hm, someone will continue to attempt to prove that it is then.

	Did you tell our readers the extra emphasis DT Suzuki lays on Taoism by placing it as early as page 129 in his book "An introduction to Zen Buddhism", from where you attempt to establish a connection?

	I'm sure it must have slipped your mind.

	{{Quotation\|And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.}}

	More misinterpretation.

	Suzuki has to say.

	I'll write it down for the benefit of our readers then:-

	<blockquote>
	Besides these mythical personages the Zen monastary gives shelter to some other '''historical charecters''' deeply connected not only with Zen but with Buddhism as a whole. '''Bodhidharma as the founder of Zen Buddhism''' naturally occupies the chief seat of honor beside the Buddha Shakyamuni.
	</blockquote>

	Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.

	Taoism, for some reason, is yet not a fouding influence.

	{{Quotation\|] and ], pre-eminent scholars of, respectively, Zen and comparative religion}}

	Yes they are, Huston Smith's one line has been put to very good use by you, by the way. Good luck on finding more such lines. I'm sure you'll use them just as nicely as well.

	Oh, about DT Suzuki on Taoist foundations; citations please.

	{{Quotation\|oh yeah, this view is "microscopic"}}

	Demonstrably so.

	You know my policy on getting more citations, on either request or provocation. I have accumulated a few of them, just to speed things up the next time.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	----
	'''JFD''': And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.

	'''Freedom skies''': More misinterpretation.{{Quotation\|In India two Mahayana schools are known: the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna and the Vijnaptimatra or Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. In China more schools developed, the Tendai (''t'ien-tai''), the Kegon (''avatamsaka''), the Jodo (''ching-t'u''), ''the Zen (ch'an)'', etc.}}Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.<br>] 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	----
	Not quite,

	Here is the repitition of the complete text:-

	---

	{{Quotation\|And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.}}

	More misinterpretation.

	Suzuki has to say.

	I'll write it down for the benefit of our readers then:-

	<blockquote>
	Besides these mythical personages the Zen monastary gives shelter to some other '''historical charecters''' deeply connected not only with Zen but with Buddhism as a whole. '''Bodhidharma as the founder of Zen Buddhism''' naturally occupies the chief seat of honor beside the Buddha Shakyamuni.
	</blockquote>

	Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.

	Taoism, for some reason, is yet not a fouding influence.

	---

	Somehow the later portion was forgotten by the user in question.

	Selective representation/misrepresentation on purpose?

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	==mediation==
	I've requested mediation currently for this article. If you feel that our current statements on this article are incorrect, then please feel free to mediate Freedom skies. In the meantime you have also reverted {{user\|Goethean}} edits too. ] 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	{{Quotation\|I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this}}

	Our friend Paul expresses himself so honestly; yet he finds his way into involved parties on topics which he admittedly is not versed in.

	Was it because he said this:-

	{{Quotation\|What I see is a rather ugly form of extreme Indocentric nationalism that already has disfigured several articles.}}

	Our friend again expressing himself all too overtly for which he is placed in the involved users list in a topic he is admittedly not versed in.

	Would I want any part of this charade?

	The reply is an emphatic '''no.'''

	---

	Paul also felt that:-

	{{Quotation\|but on the evidence of this debate the previous version should surely be restored.}}

	I accomadated our friend by restoring it to the pre-Taoist versions though.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Freedom skies, you are taking other quotations (from text and also from other users) out of context and misinterpreting them. If you feel that you have a case, agree to mediation or else quit trying to revert. ] 04:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	{{Quotation\|Freedom skies, you are taking other quotations (from text and also from other users) out of context and misinterpreting them. If you feel that you have a case, agree to mediation or else quit trying to revert.}}

	Did you read my earlier reply? You should remember a thing or two about a charade and an emphatic '''no''' then.

	Y'know what though, your recent edit is almost acceptable as it comes with an almost sober "whether or not you agree with me on the other edits, you must agree that an outside party has a point." line. I'll not revert for now and will edit in a min to end this effectively.
	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::In reply to Freedom Skies, I don't claim specialist knowledge of the history of Zen, but I do have a longstanding interest in comparative religion. I am also perfectly capable of evaluating arguments. What I see is consistent misrepresentation of the facts on your part, inaccurate assertions that clearly mainstream views are "microscopic" and accusations of "lies" with no evidence. You also tend to attribute other editors' views to ethnocentric prejudice (they are pro "Han" in some way), which is revealing about your own assumptions. However, we should go by the consensus of expertise in the area and that consensus is clear. I have the ''Oxford Dictionary of World Religions'' with me now. It's not a specialist source on Zen, but it is a "comprehensive and reliable" work (says the Times of London), edited by a team of specialists with ] as overall editor). According to the dictionary the techniques introduced by Bodhidharma "produced Dhyana Buddhism, with dhyana understood in a broad sense: it was this which fused with Taoism to produce the distinctive form of Ch'an." p.155 ] 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	{{Quotation\|I am also perfectly capable of evaluating arguments.}}

	Then you'll notice that Kenny would like to have Bodhidharma watered down ASAP. Oh, you did'nt. You mentioned a source ''Oxford Dictionary of World Religions'' which highlights Bodhidharma's influence.

	{{Quotation\|According to the dictionary the techniques introduced by Bodhidharma "produced Dhyana Buddhism, with dhyana understood in a broad sense: it was this which fused with Taoism to produce the distinctive form of Ch'an." p.155 }}

	You mention '''Bodhidharma''', who has been consistently vandalized by Kenny in this article.
	His han Chinese nationalism will not accept Bodhidharma doing anything with ] or ]. He went on to proclaim that Bodhidharma was a fictional charecter altogather, Paul.


	{{Quotation\|What I see is consistent misrepresentation of the facts on your part, inaccurate assertions that clearly mainstream views are "microscopic" and accusations of "lies" with no evidence.}}

	What I see is your source states that "the techniques ''introduced by Bodhidharma'' "produced Dhyana Buddhism, with dhyana understood in a broad sense" and yet Kenny removes Bodhidharma.

	{{Quotation\|You also tend to attribute other editors' views to ethnocentric prejudice (they are pro "Han" in some way), which is revealing about your own assumptions.}}

	Yes it is, when someone removes views agreed to even by your source "Oxford Dictionary of World Religions" then I tend to assume that of him.

	{{Quotation\|However, we should go by the consensus of expertise in the area and that consensus is clear.}}

	Yes the consenseus is clear, Bodhidharma finds a mention even in the "Oxford Dictionary of World Religions" and will stay on in this article whether Kenny likes it or not.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Solution==

	''Oh, about DT Suzuki on Taoist foundations; citations please.''{{Quotation\|Zen united itself to a great extent with Taoist beliefs and practices and with the Confucian teaching of morality\|Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki\|The Awakening of Zen}}{{Quotation\|Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these two religions during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school.\|Heinrich Dumoulin\|Zen Buddhism: A History}}{{Quotation\|Taoism is, then, the original Chinese way of liberation which combined with Indian Mahayana Buddhism to produce Zen\|Alan Watts\|The Way of Zen}}] 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	{{Quotation\|Zen united itself to a great extent with Taoist beliefs and practices and with the Confucian teaching of morality\|Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki\|The Awakening of Zen}}

	Ah, we have ] himself writing down that Zen, a seperate faith, influenced by the seperate faith of Taoism.

	{{Quotation\|Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these '''two religions''' during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school.\|Heinrich Dumoulin\|Zen Buddhism: A History}}

	And the confirmation of the religions being seperate, '''two religions''' and a subsequent Taoist influence.

	{{Quotation\|Taoism is, then, the original Chinese way of liberation which combined with Indian Mahayana Buddhism to produce Zen\|Alan Watts\|The Way of Zen}}

	Ah, ] then? Zen's origins are traced to the old Dharmic religions. . Why not mention this as well?

	---

	Does the given material justify the original ''"Zen is a form of Buddhism practiced in China and Japan and is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism."'' statement in the introduction?

	Does the very formidable one sided mention of Taoism only, in a misleading context, in the introduction suffice when Zen has been influenced by Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism as well? (
	)

	I will accomadate the opposition without any mention of Hinduism though, which I'm sure they'll not find palatable at all. I will incorporate the very well written ''"Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these two religions during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school. - Heinrich Dumoulin (Zen Buddhism: A History)"'' paragraph in the history section of Zen.

	It's done.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	==accommodation?==
	you really are quite amazing, freedom skies. as i stated before, if you believe that you have a true case, then please feel free to accept the mediation, which you did not. In this diff, all that you have done is reworded that paragraph . The issue at hand is that the history section at the beginning tells of a traditional tale that is not accepted by various historians as historically accurate or complete. It does not flesh out the nuances as to what people consider to be the origins of zen. Please quit POV pushing. I am restating my paragraph. If you have issues with it, then please accept mediation for the paragraph. ] 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	----
	{{Quotation\|as i stated before, if you believe that you have a true case, then please feel free to accept the mediation, which you did not.}}

	Ah, the repeated mention of that rejected mediation case.

	Does my memory serve me correctly or did it involve editors who "did not claim any specialist knowledge on Zen" ?

	Did you not read a thing or two about me not wanting to be a part of a charade?

	Why repeat yourself then?

	{{Quotation\|In this diff, all that you have done is reworded that paragraph }}

	Incorrect again, Kenny.

	I incorporated the excellently written paragraph by Duomlin, provided by JFD for his case. I also did not mention Hinduism, which was a quotation from one of the authors JFD cited.

	{{Quotation\|The issue at hand is that the history section at the beginning tells of a traditional tale that is not accepted by various historians as historically accurate or complete.}}

	Not at all, Incorrect again Kenny.

	The issue at hand dealt with the Taoist foundations.

	You attempted it to use this ocassion as an excuse for reverting the mutually agreed paragraph on Bodhidharma.



	{{Quotation\|It does not flesh out the nuances as to what people consider to be the origins of zen.}}

	I did not quite get that but you're free to request for additional citations, if you want the material to be put in the article. Which I'm sure you won't no matter how well cited it was.

	Accomadation, Kenny.

	{{quotation\| I am restating my paragraph.}}

	Mixing problems to cause confusion, Kenny?


	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub>

	==It's done==
	*Taoism has been mentioned in a formidable manner.
	*Bodhidharma retains his mutually agreed position.
	*The Introduction remains untouched by either Hinduism or Taoism. It just mentions the nature of the faith and not the influences.

	It's done, solved and over with.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	::As it happens, the very article from which I quoted is also skeptical about Bodhidharma. The passage I quoted forms part of the article which summaries his life according to "traditional sources". The article goes on to say:

	::<blockquote>The whole tradition about Bodhidharma is extremely uncertain. H Doumoulin (''Zen Buddhism'' i. 89) states that "as far as I know, no Japanese historian has denied the historicity of Bodhidharma"; but that simply emphasises how tenuous are any details about him.</blockquote>

	::In other words he's a shadowy figure. ] 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	----
	{{Quotation\|As it happens, the very article from which I quoted is also skeptical about Bodhidharma.}}

	Was it before or after it said that "the techniques introduced by Bodhidharma produced Dhyana Buddhism, with dhyana understood in a broad sense" ?

	{{Quotation\|The passage I quoted forms part of the article which summaries his life according to "traditional sources".}}

	Traditional sources about a religious figure then? Like ] being mentioned in the ]?

	{{Quotation\|In other words he's a shadowy figure.}}

	We have your interpretation then, Paul.

	Anyways, It's done. Taoism, Ta Mo and the works.

	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


	It was after, but I fail to see the relevance. I have explained the context. Nor do I see much point to your seemingly endless proliferation of commentary on every sentence. It does not produce productive debate. Mohammad is generally deemed to be the ''author'' of the Qur'an. What you mean by being mentioned in it, I don't know, nor is it relevant. ] 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Merge ], ], ] into Zen ==

	Chan being essentially "Chinese Zen" it makes sense to merge ] into ]. -- ] 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I '''oppose''' the merge; they are large enough subjects that two seperate articles are warranted. — ] ] 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I mean "Zen" is just a deformation of the word "Chan" and happenned in Japan? In Korea they call it "Soen". In other countries there seem to be still other names.
	::Currently the ] page has not much besides has a history section. But the history section of ] also mostly talks about the Chinese history, so most of the material from the Chan page is already there or should be there on the Zen page. -- ] 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::''But the history section of ] also mostly talks about the Chinese history''
	:::Well maybe that's wrong. Maybe the history of Zen should concentrate on Japanese history. That might go some ways towards placating our Hindutva friend as well. — ] ] 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	I support a merge. However I feel the current setup does have its advantage, it avoids the naming dispute of Zen/Chan. But the amount of contributions on the Chan article other than its history section makes sense for a merge. --] 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Shall we merge ] and ] as well? Likewise, do we merge ] into ], etc. etc.?—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, I just saw that there are also separate pages for Seon and Thien. It makes some sense to talk about the Zen traditions in different countries where they are popular. In that case, I would suggest a separate Chan page if the tradition is still present in China and there are sufficient number of lineages in China that are noticeable. The ] page talks about ] who worked to revive Chan, and about his two students who seem to have taught in the west. I don't know if there are well known Chan teachers active in China. Otherwise the previous history easily fits into the Zen article. -- ] 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::I like the idea of a merge but, failing that, a separate "Early History of Zen" article would relieve some of the duplication.<br>] 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Yes, there is active Chan in China ... most notably, ] springs to mind. And there has certainly been active Chan in China at some time since it branched off into its Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese forms.

	::::JFD has an interesting point.—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{yo\| 62.145.192.97}} your recent edits are not an improvement, on the contrary.
	:::::What if a merged "Zen" article were separated into something like the following sections: "Early history of Zen," "Zen in ''Country X''," "Zen in ''Country Y''", "Zen in ''Country Z''", etc, etc?<br>] 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
			* ] summarizes the article; not the case here;
			* "Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
			* Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
			* You cut the sentence
			:{{talkquote\|The practice of ] or ], especially sitting meditation (坐禪，]: ''zuòchán'', ]: '']'' / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.{{sfn\|Schlütter\|2008\|p=169}}}}
			{{reflist-talk}}
			:into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, ''and'' contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.
			] - ] 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

			:wp lead:
	::::::Sure, that would be fine ... just a slightly different arrangement of the same information. Still, some people will be upset to not have an article ''titled'' "Chan" or "Seon" or "Thien".—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
			:WP:lead
			:"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"
			:"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
			:both of which i accounted for while writing.
			:meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation
			:bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.
			:I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.
			:to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.
			:Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.
			:g meditation is also conteste
			:Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.
			:Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.
			:Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.
			:You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.
			:Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?
			:They should remove you.
			:I mean...
			:"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"
			:Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information
			:] (]) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor

			::There are a few issues with ]. The first issue is with the sentence {{tq\|These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.}} The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of ''The Zen Schools of Japan'' and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the {{tq\|Zen emphasizes...}} sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
	:::::::There's already the format box at the top right. Also, we can title the sections something like "Zen in Vietnam (''Thien'')". Right now it's like having separate articles for "Eggplant" and "Aubergine".<br>] 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
			::The sentence after that one is {{tq\|There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the ]}} which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't ] and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with {{tq\|When we consider...}} also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per ]. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it ]. Per ], please get a ] here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - ] (]) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Reflecting this discussion, I have put multiple merge tags. -- ] 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

			:::you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?
			:::yeah ok, i see
			:::not just biased but stupid as hell
			:::keep your garbage article
			:::i dont have time or patience for this nonsense
			:::fucking morons ] (]) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..
			:::you decide what that means
			:::this place is a joke ] (]) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

			::::I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - ] (]) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
	On the other hand, the word "Zen" is now becoming quite international, and also in Korea and Vietnam this word seems common. Especially with Korean and Vietnamese teachers teaching in other countries, the word "Zen" is getting more common, see for example ]. -- ] 09:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
			::::Regarding {{tq\|for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims}}, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - ] (]) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

			:::::if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.
	:Yes, I suspect that, for the most part, only Chinese Channists would be likely to be offended.—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
			:::::i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation
			:::::you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?
			:::::if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.
			:::::same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout ] (]) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::::a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. ] (]) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

			::::::With {{tq\|if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias}}, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. {{tq\|i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation}} no one's asking for that, but you do need to ] the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per ]: {{tq\|All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.}} The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about {{tq\|a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out}} I would encourage you to read ] to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - ] (]) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
	::And it looks like the two editors accused of comprising the "Han Chinese cabal" support the idea of a merge.<br>] 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

			:::::::im familiar with the issues
	::::sorry, I've been away on business so far. merging the articles would be a great idea. ] 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument
			:::::::seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things
			:::::::i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.
			:::::::for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.
			:::::::like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.
			:::::::like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"
			:::::::so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. ] (]) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq\|so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic}} the wonderful thing about Misplaced Pages is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, ''it doesn't matter''. it doesn't matter what ''I'' know, and it doesn't matter what ''you'' know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be ''shown'' via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of ''The Zen Schools of Japan'' anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - ] (]) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.
			:::::::::it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those
			:::::::::it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.
			:::::::::because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.
			:::::::::and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.
			:::::::::and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.
			:::::::::right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.
			:::::::::if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)
			:::::::::meaning (a large part of) the article is basically ] at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.
			:::::::::same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.
			:::::::::if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?
			:::::::::I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.
			:::::::::also see:
			:::::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
			:::::::::because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar
			:::::::::some (more) issues with article:
			:::::::::intro has only one source
			:::::::::dhyana in intro only one source
			:::::::::dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph
			:::::::::that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..
			:::::::::you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?
			:::::::::small attribute to taoist influence only one source
			:::::::::3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too
			:::::::::zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.
			:::::::::zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.
			:::::::::so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article
			:::::::::the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view
			:::::::::and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit
			:::::::::
			:::::::::i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.
			:::::::::i'm suspectig ]
			:::::::::i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.
			:::::::::"Misplaced Pages values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."
			:::::::::it's like you don't even pretend to care
			:::::::::blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw
			:::::::::on the contrary
			:::::::::and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.
			:::::::::] (]) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Misplaced Pages even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. ] (]) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::go back to 4 chan you troll ] (]) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct. ] (]) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that ''dhyana'' ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit , which they think {{tq\|better fit academic consesus}}, they changed
			{{talkquote\|Zen emphasizes rigorous ], ] and the subsequent ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ].{{sfn\|Yoshizawa\|2009\|p=41}}{{sfn\|Sekida\|1989}}}}
			into
			{{talkquote\|Zen emphasizes rigorous ], ] and the subsequent ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ].{{sfn\|Yoshizawa\|2009\|p=41}}{{sfn\|Sekida\|1989}} These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.<ref>{{harvp\|Dumoulin\|Heisig\|Knitter\|2005\|pp=68, 70–73, 167–168}}</ref><ref>Bielefeldt, Carl (1990), "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation". University of California Press, ISBN 0520068351</ref>{{sfn\|McRae\|1986\|p=115-116}} There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the ],{{sfn\|Vetter\|1988}} which pointed to the practice of '']'',{{sfn\|Vetter\|1988}}{{sfn\|Davidson\|2003\|p=147}} though what that means continues to be debated academically.}}
			{{reflist-talk}}
			* It's unclear which views are contested:
			:* rigorous ]
			:* ]
			:* ] into ] (見性, Ch. ''jiànxìng,'' Jp. ''],'' "perceiving the true nature") and ] (without arrogance or egotism)
			:* the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for ]
			* The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
			* Dumoulin does''not'' reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
			* Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
			* The line {{tq\|There are also scholars ... academically}} is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that ''dhyana'' is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is ''exclusive'' to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that {{tq\|meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation}} (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan ''dhyana''-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
			* The ] summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
			* The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also ].
			* Regarding {{tq\|zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.}} - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.
			All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Misplaced Pages. ] is required. ] - ] 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

			:kek "abuse"
	:::::Interesting comments above. So the articles should merge because "only Chinese Channists would be likely to be offended" by the common usage of the Zen word? Or is it the other way around? I support the merge and I think the Eggplant/Aubergine is a good comparison. ] 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
			:morons ] (]) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
			::you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right
			::and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues
			::whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation
			::outdated data
			::misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight
			::bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips
			::articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names
			::contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother
			::and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.
			::so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?
			] (]) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

			:This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. ] (]) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
	So from the discussion it seems that the only problem with the merger is that the word "Chan" has some emotional value for Chinese Channists. Not a serious reason against a merger I think. But we all fully appreciate the Chinese contribution to Zen, and we we could try to address their concerns by, for example, having an extensive section on Chinese Chan. So I guess the overall opinion is in favor of a merger? -- ] 10:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Zen ==
	::::Ummm.... as far as I can tell, no chan "chinese" channists are opposing the merge.. the opposition is in relation to the "chan" and "zen" being possibly divergent enough to be two separate articles. As for the "Han Chinese cabal" statement (for all of those who just walked into this discussion), JFD is just poking fun at a prior biased and paranoid editor (ie. Freedomskies) who is nationalistic and has been accusing others who do not support his views as belonging to a cabal. But yes, merging it would be a good idea. We can revisit the issue of the currently relatively inaccurate history section in the near future. ] 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

			Zen is not chinese.
	----
			Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.
	The history section will need a rework with the mention of early Mahayana Buddhism. I '''support''' the merge.

			Zen, Chan, Jhāna.
	For the benefit of those who just walked in, ''The Han Chinese cabal'' is directed to just two editors. why Kenny just follows JFD dutifully and reverts to his version. and match exactly.
			Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read?
			] (]) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

			09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	The members of this group also been known to have exchanged barnstars with each other. and .

			== This should be merged with the other article ==
	For detailed chronicles of Kenny visit the ] and ] pages.

			]
	Also,

			] (]) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	<sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

			Zen is the Japanese understanding of ].
	----
			] (]) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

			:We have an article on "Zen" as an overview article, and use the Japanese term Zen as this is the commonname for Zen as the whole tradition. We also have separate articles on Chinese Chan, Japanese Zen, and Korean Seon. ] - ] 10:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	----
	I would invite anyone to take a look at the additions that freedom skies has added to wikipedia and also to the indian martial arts page discussion. Not suprisingly, many of freedom skies additions to wikipedia show a nationalistic POV... we can start here. with the statement on how india is actually "the cradle of all civilization". Regardless, this is not related to our discussion on zen buddhism. As i stated earlier, if you feel that what I am writing is false and what you are stating in regards to the history of zen buddhism is true, then please, please let's undergo official mediation. I requested official mediation and everyone involved in the discussion agreed to it except for you. And yet at the same time, you continue to revert any changes to the history section of Zen which shows the correct history, instead focusing on traditional legendery tales that you feel support your POV views.] 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	----

Latest revision as of 05:57, 28 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Zen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buddhism Top‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Japan Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:57, January 2, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion / Eastern High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Altered States of Consciousness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Zen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Zen at the Reference desk.

Recent edits

@62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.

WP:LEAD summarizes the article; not the case here;
"Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
You cut the sentence

The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.

References

Schlütter 2008, p. 169. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSchlütter2008 (help)

into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, and contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

wp lead:

WP:lead

"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"

both of which i accounted for while writing.

meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation

bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.

I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.

to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.

Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.

g meditation is also conteste

Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.

Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.

Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.

You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.

Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?

They should remove you.

I mean...

"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"

Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information

95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor

There are a few issues with the content you've added. The first issue is with the sentence These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the Zen emphasizes... sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.

The sentence after that one is There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with When we consider... also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?

yeah ok, i see

not just biased but stupid as hell

keep your garbage article

i dont have time or patience for this nonsense

fucking morons 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..

you decide what that means

this place is a joke 62.145.194.183 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.

i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation

you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?

if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.

same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

With if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation no one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V: All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out I would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

im familiar with the issues

that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument

seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things

i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.

for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.

like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.

like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"

so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic the wonderful thing about Misplaced Pages is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.

it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those

it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.

because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.

and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.

and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.

right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.

if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)

meaning (a large part of) the article is basically WP:OR at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.

same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.

if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?

I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.

also see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar

some (more) issues with article:

intro has only one source

dhyana in intro only one source

dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph

that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..

you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?

small attribute to taoist influence only one source

3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too

zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.

zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.

so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article

the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view

and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit

i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.

i'm suspectig WP:COI

i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.

"Misplaced Pages values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."

it's like you don't even pretend to care

blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw

on the contrary

and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.

95.96.74.188 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Misplaced Pages even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. 2603:8081:3A00:B881:59EC:40A:5AA5:8168 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

go back to 4 chan you troll 62.145.199.82 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct. Unitarian9999 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit diff, which they think better fit academic consesus, they changed

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.

into

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way, which pointed to the practice of dhyana, though what that means continues to be debated academically.

References

^ Yoshizawa 2009, p. 41. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYoshizawa2009 (help)
^ Sekida 1989. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSekida1989 (help)
Dumoulin, Heisig & Knitter (2005), pp. 68, 70–73, 167–168 harvp error: no target: CITEREFDumoulinHeisigKnitter2005 (help)
Bielefeldt, Carl (1990), "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation". University of California Press, ISBN 0520068351
McRae 1986, p. 115-116. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcRae1986 (help)
^ Vetter 1988. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVetter1988 (help)
Davidson 2003, p. 147. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDavidson2003 (help)

It's unclear which views are contested:

rigorous self-restraint
meditation-practice
insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism)
the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others

The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
Dumoulin doesnot reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
The line There are also scholars ... academically is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Regarding zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after. - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.

All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Misplaced Pages. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

kek "abuse"

morons 62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right

and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues

whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation

outdated data

misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight

bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips

articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names

contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother

and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.

so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?

62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Zen

Zen is not chinese. Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.

Zen, Chan, Jhāna. Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read? Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This should be merged with the other article

Japanese Zen

Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Zen is the Japanese understanding of Buddhism. Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We have an article on "Zen" as an overview article, and use the Japanese term Zen as this is the commonname for Zen as the whole tradition. We also have separate articles on Chinese Chan, Japanese Zen, and Korean Seon. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: