Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:04, 5 February 2007

China B‑class High‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan Unassessed High‑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: 05:18, December 31, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge 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

Template:FAOL Template:Zen Collaboration Nominee

Buddhism Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

List of archived discussions
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive3

the history section needs work

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. ,, Kennethtennyson 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.—Nat Krause 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

You lie again, Kenny.

What you have in the history section is a mutually agreed paragraph on Bodhidharma.

As for Zen, it has been traced to Mahakashyapa, it was discussed earlier as well.

Zen is a very important religion which needs to have an accurate portrayal on wikipedia.

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?

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 Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (page 31). You know my policy on getting more citations, on request or provocation, whichever extended first.

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

_{Freedom skies| talk}  04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki has written extensively about Bodhidharma as well.

Yes, he has. And Mahakasyapa too.

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.

JFD 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has.

Indeed

Taoist foundations ?

_{Freedom skies| talk}  14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed....An introduction to Zen Buddhism By Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (page 31).

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.
....
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 Huston Smith's statement that "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen".
And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.

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.

D.T. Suzuki and Huston Smith, pre-eminent scholars of, respectively, Zen and comparative religion...oh yeah, this view is "microscopic".

argument ender
Indeed.

JFD 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. Paul B 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. Kennethtennyson 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Taoist foundations

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.
....
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?

What Suzuki writes above is perfectly consistent with Huston Smith'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.

And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.

More misinterpretation.

Suzuki has this to say.

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

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.

Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.

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

D.T. Suzuki and Huston Smith, 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.

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.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

JFD: And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.

Freedom skies: More misinterpretation.

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.
JFD 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite,

Here is the repitition of the complete text:-

---

And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China.

More misinterpretation.

Suzuki has this to say.

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

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.

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?

_{Freedom skies| talk}  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 Goethean (talk · contribs) edits too. Kennethtennyson 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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:-

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:-

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.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  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. Kennethtennyson 04:17, 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.

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. _{Freedom skies| talk}  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 John Bowker 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 Paul B 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 Dhyana or Zen. He went on to proclaim that Bodhidharma was a fictional charecter altogather, Paul.

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.

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.

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.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution

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

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

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

Taoism is, then, the original Chinese way of liberation which combined with Indian Mahayana Buddhism to produce Zen

— Alan Watts, The Way of Zen

JFD 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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 Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki himself writing down that Zen, a seperate faith, influenced by the seperate faith of Taoism.

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.

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, Alan Watts then? Zen's origins are traced to the old Dharmic religions. His word is that Zen is traced back to Hinduism. 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.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  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. Kennethtennyson 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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?

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.

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.

Bodhidharma is already done

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.

I am restating my paragraph.

Mixing problems to cause confusion, Kenny?

_{Freedom skies| talk} 

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.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  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:

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.

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

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" ?

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 Mohammed being mentioned in the Koran?

In other words he's a shadowy figure.

We have your interpretation then, Paul.

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

_{Freedom skies| talk}  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. Paul B 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Chan, Seon, Thien into Zen

Chan being essentially "Chinese Zen" it makes sense to merge Chan into Zen. -- Knverma 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merge; they are large enough subjects that two seperate articles are warranted. — goethean ॐ 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 Chan page has not much besides has a history section. But the history section of Zen 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. -- Knverma 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But the history section of Zen 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. — goethean ॐ 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. --法網-ian 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we merge Seon and Thien Buddhism as well? Likewise, do we merge Tendai into Tiantai, etc. etc.?—Nat Krause 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 Chan page talks about Hsu Yun 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. -- Knverma 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.
JFD 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is active Chan in China ... most notably, Sheng-yen 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.—Nat Krause 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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?
JFD 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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".—Nat Krause 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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".
JFD 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting this discussion, I have put multiple merge tags. -- Knverma 15:25, 27 January 2007 (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 Kwan Um School of Zen. -- Knverma 09:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that, for the most part, only Chinese Channists would be likely to be offended.—Nat Krause 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like the two editors accused of comprising the "Han Chinese cabal" support the idea of a merge.
JFD 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I've been away on business so far. merging the articles would be a great idea. Kennethtennyson 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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. 法網-ian 08:02, 29 January 2007 (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? -- Knverma 10:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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. Kennethtennyson 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The history section will need a rework with the mention of early Mahayana Buddhism. I support the merge.

For the benefit of those who just walked in, The Han Chinese cabal is directed to just two editors. This is one of the reasons why Kenny just follows JFD dutifully and reverts to his version. JFD's contributions and Kenny's contributions match exactly.

The members of this group also been known to have exchanged barnstars with each other. Kenny advances a barnstar to JFD on 30 August 2006 and JFD returns the favour by granting his fellow cabal member a barnstar on 1 September 2006.

For detailed chronicles of Kenny visit the Talk:Bodhidharma and Talk:Indian martial arts pages.

Also, a google search on Kenny will reveal volumes about him. Do take a look in his work on the discussion forums.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  15:43, 2 February 2007 (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.Kennethtennyson 06:12, 5 February 2007 (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.

That has already been done. I provided links to the Talk:Bodhidharma and Talk:Indian martial arts pages so everyone can arrive at their own conclusions. I also provided links to Kennethtennyson's chronicles on the discussion forums (first page in the google search), something I strongly urge everyone to see. Not only should his Han Chinese nationalism show through, but his hatred of India will as well, which might explain him vandalizing India related talk pages.

Not suprisingly, many of freedom skies additions to wikipedia show a nationalistic POV

Coming from the Han Chinese cabal that sounds a bit odd. Nationalist POV? Like your repeated attempts to well poison the Zen, Chan, Bodhidharma, Yi Jin Jing articles (to name a few) on Misplaced Pages?

we can start here. with the statement on how india is actually "the cradle of all civilization".

Misrepresentation, Kenny?

The citation reads that "India is one of the cradles of human civilization, Kenny. Why do you misprepresent it to "the cradle of all civilization."

Also, everyone kindly take a look into the Indian nationalism article and judge the standard for yourself then compare it with the Chinese cabal's pruod presentation, "the Yi Jin Jing" article.

Arrive at your own conclusions.

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.

Read above in detail for my not participating in a joke or a charade. I'll help you, Here.

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.

Your version of Bodhidharma reflects your personal opinions, Kenny. The Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with what you write on those discussion forums

My POV views are emphatically held by lots of very reliable, very mainstream sources, Kenny. Let's hold a challege, I bring citations associating Bodhidharma with Zen and you bring citations which do not associate him with Zen. The one with the exponentially smaller list leaves Wiki forever. Lemme know.

The paragraph in question was formed after intervention on talk:Bodhidharma by neutral third parties. The paragraph in it's current state was agreed upon by all included in the discussion (I actually wanted a much more stronger mention of Bodhidharma, but accomadated the cabal) as it encompasses all point of views. That is why I wanted everyone to take a look at the Bodhidharma talk page. The solution was proposed here.

Kenny is trying to change it to a version not supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica,D T Suzuki or the Shaolin temple. He has been well poisoning everything Bodhidharma, something he has tried to do on the discussion forums with little sucsess, now he tries here. This is an act that I will not allow.

---

This is despite of the fact that:-

• 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.
• I have not mentioned Hinduism at all, as the other side may not find it palatable.

Also, the questions of exchanging barnstars, following JFD and reverting to his version, actions on the forums and why do the contribs of JFD and Kenny match exactly have been overlooked by Kenny.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kenny just follows JFD dutifully and reverts to his version.

00:00, 15 August 2006 Kennethtennyson (need to preface this - no one really knows who he is)
00:31, 15 August 2006 JFD (Bodhidharma's historicity needs to be addressed with more than just a single word. That's why I added the reference to Paul Pelliot.)
20:05, 16 August 2006 Kennethtennyson (most encyclopedia articles preface talking about him by stating that he is legendary or semi-legendary. not enough to assume people will click on your link)
Misrepresentation?
JFD 10:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Unassessed Buddhism articles
• Unknown-importance Buddhism articles