This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kennethtennyson (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 23 January 2007 (→mediation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:12, 23 January 2007 by Kennethtennyson (talk | contribs) (→mediation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)mediation
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
 | China B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Japan Unassessed High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Template:FAOL Template:Zen Collaboration Nominee
.svg){kind=small} | Buddhism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 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)
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.
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)
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)
Categories:- Inactive project pages
- 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