Talk:Kenshō/Archive 1

Restoration to previous version
3/11/08: I have restored this to a previous version of the article. Reasons being, the previous edits removed pertinent information including references and sources without adding any new information to make the removal of such information worth doing. AS an original editor of this article one of the issues that came up was the primary use of Rinzai definitions for the article. It was later edited to add SoTo definitions as well as a broader scope. Then further defined to be less divisive and more informative (thank you 70.57.58.222 ). This seems to be the best all around definition that we can all agree on. It includes all of our definitions from our various traditions. If anyone feels left out, by all means feel free to add. Please post changes though in the discussion page. Adding is preferable to removing. There is much that could be said about this but removing sources is not appreciated. Thanks. -Suchawato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph says Trying to find the "I," the subject, through introspection leads to the realisation that this "I" is completely dependent on the process of perception, the associated thought/feeling complex, and the memories tied to them. '''Kensho is the direct experiencing of that which is Unborn, Undying, Uncreated, Unchanging; The Eternal Flow/Flux. One knows, with the whole of one's being, that one was not, is not, and forever will not ever be separate from the whole of the Universe.'''

There's a big enough conceptual gap between those sections to make the latter a non-sequitur. If someone could bridge that gap it would be useful. 78.151.155.197 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll step up to the challenge. Give me a few hours, I'll provide a new article that is fully referenced with multiple in-line citations. (Mind meal (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Reverted?
The editing by Suchawato Mare at 11 september 2012 is, to my opinion, not an improvement: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Parts of the article have been moved to the lead. This makes the lead less clear.
 * the nuance of "translated as enlightenment" is replaced by "enlightenment". This is misleading; "enlightenment" has several meanings, which are being used interchangeably in the west, making it a diffised (and misused) conecpt).
 * "Enlightenment experience" is a modern translation c.q interpretation. It originates with D.T. Suzuki, and has become a main ingredient of a modern discourse on "enlightenment", as described in Traditional Zen Narrative. See . This issue can't be ignored or bypassed.
 * The Victor Hori-quite has been removed. Victor Hori has been a Zen-monk, living in a Rinzai-monastery for years, and he is an outstanding scholar of Zen. The removing of this quote is a removing of nuance.
 * The links to sudden insight and Traditional Zen Narrative have been removed. Sudden insight is a central concept of the tradition, which is deconstructed by recent academic researc, especialli John McRae, but also Bernard Faure. Removing this information changes the article to a classic Zen-story, not a encyclopedy-article.
 * The article had a logical order, which has been removed by this edit by Suchawato Mare: intro, various aspects of kensho, training toward and after kensho. This logical order was replaced by training - one sapect of kensho - training.

Restoring 2008-info
In 2008 Suchawato Mare rewrote the article, from to, removing a lot of nuanced and detailed info. I've integrated this info into the present version. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notification
A notification has been posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the edit-style of Suchawato Mare. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited, and reverted, and undid, reversion
-Suchawato Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the original authors of this article. I have been offline for a few years do to rl issues taking precedence. Watching the changes that have taken place on this article is worrisome.

While some of the changes have indeed added improvements, and increased depth and understanding, a great many have led to a explanation that would be confusing, rather than straightforward to to the average reader and mis-conveys what a kensho actually is.

Some of the sources added as references are three generations out of date. They were made from a scholarly approach to japanese and chinese scriptures, and were largely the earliest translations available to western Zen students. Many were made by people who were not actually Buddhists, and/or people who had not experienced a kensho experience first hand.

A good example of this is referring to the Existance/Time/Flow (as Dogen put it) or the Cosmic Buddha/ Buddha nature as "nothingness" or "emptiness" or "suchness/ "thusness", etc".

As one one western Zen Master jokingly put it "how much muchness is in suchness?"

These were poor translations of Japanese and Chinese words to begin with, and we fortunately now have had three generations of actual western Zen Monks and Lay practitioners who have had the ability to describe Spiritual experiences such as Kensho from first hand experience.

Continuing to use out of date translations and texts and misleading terms used from those early translations simply leads to the misleading and confusing the reader as to what these experiences actually are.

As one Zen Master once said in a critique of some of these terms, the problem with calling it "Emptiness" or "Nothingness" is that they imply nihilism.

It says to the Reader that having a Kensho experience means that one finds that the universe is essentially empty and nothing, and devoid of meaning.

In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. As Zen Master Jiyu Kennet once put it: "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know".

It is for this reason that Modern western Zen Masters have all but dropped the use or referral to these older early western Zen translations and terms. They simply are out of date, and they weren't even accurate at the time they were printed.

I don't have time to upload complete quotes at the moment, but I will here soon, along with references to the effect.

The choice to do a major edit was not made lightly, I'm aware it may offend some people, and am also aware of the hard work many people have put in since my and others original work, however, that notwithstanding, the results since then were an article that was more confusing to the reader, not less.

A kensho, is a rather straight forward experience.

Readers deserve a straightforward and accurate answer as best we are able to deliver as to what one is, and what the term means and stands for, short of the person actually experiencing it for themselves.

The current edit, is not perfect, I'll admit.

It certainly needs more work.

And, at the same time, we would do well to remember all the hard work people have done to translate Buddhist texts and terms into accurate english, and not revert to old, outdated and misleading terminology or be overly scholarly and speaking less from actual experience, and thus misleading the reader.

A kensho is not a theoretical or hypothetical experience, it's one we actually experience as Zen trainees.

While volumes can (and have) been written on the subject of Zen Spiritual experience, it would do well to remember that the purpose of this article is to explain what the term "kensho" means.

Not to get overly cerebral about this.

It's a rather simple and basic concept.

There are two extremes we would go to that would be unhelpful in editing an article.

On one extreme, is the extreme of not enough information, and thus not really saying much to the reader about what something actually is.

The other extreme, is adding too much information, and thereby bogging the reader down in too much information, and thereby the essence of what the subject is is lost in the mud of extra data.

Either extreme is something we wish to avoid.

Like much in Buddhism, a middle path, between the opposites is what we wish to seek here.

Suchawato Mare (talk) Sat, September 15'th, 2012/2555 BE (PST)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary of "worries"

 * Suchawato Mare, if I understand you well, you've got three problem with my edits:
 * The definition of "kensho" is unclear;
 * Sources are outdated;
 * The article is too scholarly.


 * Ad1: The article provides a clear, sourced definition, with additional information.
 * Ad2: Which sources are outdated?
 * Ad3: I can understand you find the article to scholarly, yet too provide "clear definitions" reliable sources are necessary. Scholars are quote good at this. Personal accounts are considered to be primary sources, and to be avoided were possible.
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand me
But, As it's getting late, and I've already spent most of the evening replying to your posts and challenges in various places, I'll have to clarify this for you when I have further time.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with edit-summary and explanation

 * These are the problems I've got with Suchawato Mare's edit summary and explanation:
 * Edit summary: "Undid, the undo, I'm sorry but we need to keep the definition of this clear. The previous revisions have tended more toward a scholarly approach. There are three generations of Western Zen practitioners who have exp. this and can speak from 1st hand exp."
 * No explanation is provided on what 'a clear definition' is;
 * Scholarly approach: Wikipedia uses secunday and tertiary sources, not personal opinions;
 * "Three generations" etc: Wikipedia uses secunday and tertiary sources, not personal experience. Who are those "three generations", where are the sources?
 * Explanation:
 * None of my points have been answered;
 * No reference whatsoever has been given in the above explanation;
 * "I am one of the original authors of this article" - This is not relevant. Any-one can edit Wikipedia.
 * Emptiness/suchness:
 * What exactly is "confusing"?
 * Which sources are three generations old?
 * Which "Modern western Zen Masters" have "all but dropped the use or referral" to which older "early western Zen translations and terms" according to which source?
 * "be overly scholarly and speaking less from actual experience, and thus misleading the reader" - That's a tough claim! Debunking schlarship, calling critical research "misleading", is rhetorical. Substantiate the claim that scholarship is misleading. Take into account that, for example, Victor Sogen Hori and Stuart Lachs are long-time Zen-practitioners. Take also into account that researchers like John McRae, Bernard Faure and Steven Heine are highly acclaimed scholars.
 * There is ample opportunity to discuss the contents of this article. It should be obvious that your edits are contested, and need sources and references. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote
You mean this quote? From 1990? "...a blissful realization where a person's inner nature, the originally pure mind, is directly known as an illuminating emptiness, a thusness which is dynamic and immanent in the world.(Harvey 1990)"

If I understand you well, this is your problem with the term "emptiness": ""As one Zen Master once said in a critique of some of these terms, the problem with calling it "Emptiness" or "Nothingness" is that they imply nihilism. It says to the Reader that having a Kensho experience means that one finds that the universe is essentially empty and nothing, and devoid of meaning.""

There is a clear link from "emptiness" to sunyata, which explains that "emptiness" is not a mere vacuum. Maybe three generations ago sunyata could be misunderstood as "nihilism", but there is sufficient knowledge available to gain a clear comprehension of the term sunyata. Including the Wikipedia-article. Knowledge provided by scholars, by the way.

And if this quote is problematic, why didn't you remove it?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: above
Because you don't understand the point of my edits friend.

it's not because there wasn't valid information on the topic, it's because layout design, and reader flow are actually important to reader comprehension of a subject matter.

Very simplistically, there was too much information, in certain areas, when there are entire wikipedia articles on those subjects that can be linked to for further information.

It was becoming a general article about Zen Training, rather than specific to the subject of kensho experience.

Such articles already exist.

Some of the information I removed had no reference to the explanation of kensho experience at all.

Some of it was commentary about others commentary.

Some of it was more about Zen or Buddhist or other spiritual Training in general, and less about kensho itself. And some of it may have been fine in and of itself, but was simply not needed in larger context of the entire article.

I can tell you are a "code" type of person, good at programming probably, or would be if you were so inclined.

But there is actually an aesthetic flow to things (people pay good money to layout and graphic designers, and editors, I would know) when presenting material to allow it to be understood that it an actual science.

It's the hardest thing to explain to some intellectual type people, why more information isn't nessicarily a good thing.

Sometimes it just becomes a distraction to understanding the point.

Even in your responses in this talk page, you think it's all about the individual quote, etc.

It's not.

The point is to explain, as best we can what the term kensho means and the experience it implies.

This isn't theoretical. I've actually had one of these as have many people in Zen.

You were posting citations that made the article redundant, because there are other articles on wikipedia that cover those subjects much better.

An entire article on Rinzai and Soto for instance.

Going to deep into the subject of each's training methods for instance, basically redundantly posts what could already be read on the Rinzai and Soto page in much further detail.

There is no difference between training for kensho and Zen training in general.

If you'd had a kensho yourself, you would have understood this.

And so the article was redundant.

Kensho is not that complicated a topic, in and of itself.

It was being made out to be more complicated than it actually is, and thus giving a false impression of the subject matter.Suchawato Mare (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response by Joshua Jonathan Personal attacks are not going to help. Whether or not I "had" kensho is not relevant to the discussion; it's about valid sources, and the removal of them. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Answer from Suchawato Mare It wasn't a personal attack friend. I was pointing out that you don't have the experience to know what you are talking about here friend.

That doesn't mean you arn't qualified to get that experience, you are perfectly capable of having one. It just means that when you are editing an article and don't know what you are talking about, any edits you make are going to be from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about rather than someone who does. It tends to lead the article away from truth rather than a straightforward and clear understanding of the subject matter. "A painting of a rice cake does not satisfy hunger". It doesn't make you a bad person, just inexperienced.Suchawato Mare (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dogen translation
And is this one of the 'modern translations' you're hinting at? "Unfortunately there have been many muddles, especially in the West, as a result of an indiscriminate proliferation of terms used for the indefinable UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING, without their being directly connected up to what the terms ‘Buddha’, ‘It’ and the others above and throughout this book refer to. Some scholars have been so afraid to try and give any definition whatsoever that the whole fabric of what Buddhism is teaching becomes unravelled. One must understand that one must not be afraid of words and one must not become a slave to them. All of the terms above are used to describe IT and can help us to acquire the kaleidoscopic mind that can allow us to know IT, in every sense of the word ‘know’, at all times, thus, with the above understanding of their meaning, the proliferation of terms for IT in this book is very important. Because of a common misconception of the doctrine of anatta, the doctrine of no permanent, separate self, the doctrines of karmic consequence and that of rebirth often have been muddled badly; however, if it is understood that, at the very deepest level, there is no self that does the deed nor one that feels the fruit because there is no separate self when one is with the UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING, then the muddle is much easier to unravel and we can put rebirth and karmic consequence in their proper perspective."

It's from Jiyu-Kennett's translation of the Denkoroku, published in 1993 and republished in 2001 by the Shastey Abbey, apparently the congregation you belong to. I don't think this can count as a reliable source; it's intention is to teach, not to provide a historical context to these teachings:


 * "This translation was, originally, not meant for anything other than private publication since I felt that non-monastic readers ran the risk of losing the exquisite underlying Truth that runs, like a jade thread through a golden needle, throughout the book".
 * "From the point of view of understanding Buddhism, however, his most important work, by far, is the Denkároku, The Record of the Transmission of the Light".

The phrase "UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING" comes from the Sutta Pitaka. It's use is not restricted to Jiyu-Kennett, but it's not a common phrase in Zen.

"Existance/Time/Flow" is Jiyu-Kennett's translation of Dogen's "Uji". The usually translation seems to be "time-being", or "being-time".

"Eternal Flow/Flux", which has also been featured before in the article, comes from Greek philosophy, Panta rhei, "everything flows".

Clearly the "new translations" you're hinting at are those by Jiyu-Kennett. Dogen is intensively studied; see alone thezensite, to get an impression, and Heine's books on Dogen. At least four English translations are availabale for the Shōbōgenzō, including Gudo Nishijima's, a Zen-master (a Shike, not an Osho). Another acclaimed translator is Shohaku Okumura, a Japanese Osho teaching in the USA, who studied Zen Buddhism at Komazawa University in Tokyo. If you state that the translations you prefer are the best, and the others are outdated, you've got a very serious task to show that they are better.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Denkoroku:
Edit added in by Suchawato Mare: Actually, the translation is by Dr. Mark J. Nearman (Rev. Hubert Nearman) who is not only a Dharma Transmitted Zen Master in his own right, but also a distinguished scholar and expert on ancient Chinese and Japanese language and culture, including a background in Noh Drama.

So yes, that is a "new translation".

Or are you going to attempt to call Dr. Nearman's Credentials in to question?

Jiyu-Kennett herself was fluent in reading and writing in Japanese, and was trained in these texts by some of the most respected japanese scholars at the time.

Are you implying her own translations are invalid?

Are you an expert in both ancient and modern Japanese and Chinese languages as well as being an expert in Zen Buddhism to make such an assertion?

Dr. Nearman in particular is uniquely qualified.

If you are asserting thus, you had better provide the credentials to your own qualifications.

Friend your 'primary source' for much of your information about Buddhism seems to be from a website.

Have you actually done any Zen Training?

Have you talked about any of these impressions you have about Zen with an actual Dharma Transmitted Zen Master who is qualified to answer them?

To be a Buddhist one must take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma AND the Sangha.

Someone who does not take refuge in all three is not a Buddhist. Although, to be fair, you have never claimed that you are.

But if you are not a Buddhist, quite frankly you are not qualified to be talking about Buddhist spiritual experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You are:


 * Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

You cannot complain that I have not responded to you.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response by Joshua Jonathan Well, that's good that they both are experts. But it does not change the fact that there is lot of research on Dogen. Taking refuge, or "spiritual experience" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response#2 by Joshua Jonathan Regarding "disruptive cite-tagging": in my latest version of the article, there are two citation needed-tags:
 * "In kenshō one realizes that there are no inherently existing 'things', that the world we experience is empty of inherent existing "things". But according to Houn Jiyu-Kennett, this not a 'vacuum': "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know."
 * You gave this quote on the Talk Page; I've added it to the article, but couldnt't find the source via Google. The only hit it gives, is Wikipedia.
 * "Oh Buddha, going, going, going on beyond and always going on beyond, always Becoming Buddha. Hail! Hail! Hail!"
 * You provided a source for this one; that's good. That's why we use those tags.
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

General Response to Joshua Jonathan
Friend, you're not only being rude, you're being impatient and demanding like a petulant child

No one is required to respond to you in a time frame of your choosing.

Everyone else has every right to make edits that they deem appropriate, and indeed, you seem to be confused as to your complaint.

First you complain that I do not cite sources and references, and then when I do, you seem to say that the sources are invalid, and or irrelevant.

An attempt to complain for instance that a quote by a Dharma Transmitted, Zen Master is not valid on this subject is laughable, and seems of desperation on your part.

You attempt to discredit me, and any source I post, seemingly for no other reason than that I was the user who posted it, Yet you have yet to explain what makes you so neutral.

You clearly are quoting sources of your own preference as well.

Zen Master Jiyu-Kennet wrote more about Kensho than any other Western Zen Master that I know of, and yet you say using her writing as a source are invalid, when the subject matter is regarding kensho?

Saying something is meant to be used as a teaching source and therefor not a good reference? Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that The Ten Oxherding Pictures, and Manual of Zen Buddhism were also intended as teaching sources.

Are you suggesting that only Non-Buddhist writings are valid to discuss Buddhist Experiences? Or, D.T. Suzuki, a Dharma Transmitted Zen Teacher, is ok, but P.T.N.H. Jiyu-Kennett, a Dharma Transmitted Zen Teacher is not? That's laughable.

Or perhaps only websites that you like or books that you prefer are valid sources?

'Consensus' does not mean my edits are subject to your will.

I don't agree with all of your sources either, but I actually left some in. There's nothing in the TOU that says you have to agree with my sources for me to post them.

You have posted so many complaints to me here, it makes it impossible in the time I have to respond to them all.

Perhaps you'd like to summarize your complaints down to just 2-3 to make things easier. -Suchawato MareSuchawato Mare (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response by Joshua Jonathan At least we've got some sort of discussion now. I think my main concern is with the mythology surrounding kensho, the idea that kensho is somehow the same as full Buddhahood. I've responded to this above, at "Existance/Time/Flow - Cosmic Buddha/Buddha nature - Quote - Re above"; I'll move the response to here:
 * Response#2 by Joshua Jonathan You wrote: "There is no difference between training for kensho and Zen training in general. If you'd had a kensho yourself, you would have understood this."
 * This one is too important to neglect. There is a HUGE difference between "training for kensho" and "Zen training in general". Kensho, insight alone, is not sufficient; there-after follows, at least in Rinzai, "post-satori training", to integrate this insight into daily life, and to remove any "Zen-stink" which may be left. On this both the Rinzai-tradition and the Sanbo Kyodan are very clear. But it's a point which is quite unknown in the west; usually 'initial insight' and Buddhahood are seen as the same, also because the word "enlightenment" is used to translate different Asian words. That's why I put this so outspoken in the article, and why I added sections on pre- and post-satori training. For more information, read:
 * (primary source on Rinzai-tradition)
 * (primary source on Rinzai-tradition)
 * (secundary source on Rinzai-tradition)
 * (secondary source on Rinzai-tradition and Sanbo Kyodan)
 * It's also why Stuart Lachs is important: he makes very clear that insight, and even "dharma transmission", is not a garantuee for "enlightened behaviour". And that's a huge issue at the moment in western Zen; there have been to many scandals involving supposedly "enlightened teachers". For more information and examples, see:
 * It's exactly these nuances and concerns which have to be discussed before removing them. They are important, and contain very valuable information. That's also why I deem important an exact definition in the lead, the nuances added by the Victor Hori-quotes, the section on sudden insight, and the extended sections on pre- and post-satori training. As for similarities with other traditions: this may to be too much, but is's also a relativisation of the importance of kensho - or the similar emphasis on it in other traditions. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A main influence in this "mythology" has been D.T. Suzuki; see
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Suchawato Mare, "Restored earlier edits pending additional content additions" is not a valid reason for massive deletion of content (see: WP:OWN). Also, someone receiving Dharma transmission means very little to Wikipedia, as encyclopedia sources should present verifiable information. At most, we can say that a religious figure's views are notable, but those views should generally not be presented as the views of Wikipedia, or as NPOV for that matter (see: WP:RS). Tengu800 06:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response from Suchawato Mare Friend, we are in complete agreement that training must continue after realization, I posted a quote in direct support of that.

However, if you think that meditation and Buddhist training that occurs before kensho and meditation and Buddhist training that occurs after kensho are not the same thing, that is incorrect.

The "training to reach kensho" and the "training after kensho" are the same training. The point is one must continue training. You are arguing semantics when we are in essentially perfect agreement.

If you like, I will be happy to clarify that with further quotes, indeed I will do so, as you are quite right, in that less confusion is preferable to more!

As far as Dharma Transmission is concerned: Dharma Transmission is the only credential that Zen Buddhism essentially has. Although in R.M. Jiyu-Kenett's case she also Received the Zuisse (spell) degree. Which is the equivalent of a Doctors of Divinity in the East. Dharma Transmission is how we tell in Zen whether a person is qualified to teach Zen or not. So yes, it is not only relevant, but nessicary and required. We wouldn't say that a physicist is a physicist, or an engineer an engineer without the nessicary and proper credentials to do so. Same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference in this regard between Soto and Rinzai. Torei, one of Hakuin's main students, definately disagrees with you. And regarding Dharma Transmission, did you read yet? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On Consensus
In an attempt to reach consensus on this article, I have added a new section on Koans! Which seems highly relevant ; ) and enables the merging back in of additional information that previously seemed out of place in other sections. This should help make a fuller article, and allow an additional place to expand when necessary, information pertinent to that section. Enjoy! -Suchawato Mare Suchawato Mare (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So first you remove all of my edits, including the Rinzai and Soto-sections, and then you reinstate them, on a topic that is comprehensively covered in the article on Kōans? Hmmm... Wouldn't you better wait for conclusions on the requested third opinions, before continuing editing? See also WP:BRD And altough Jiyu-Kennett has relevant things to say, be aware of WP:UNDUE. There is a lot of Jiyu-Kennett in the article now. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in. The Koan section provides a home for that information that allows it to be expanded upon. Some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article and was more specific to those individual subtopics that have their own articles. I agree, there's a lot of Jiyu-Kennet in the article now, and would like to see some quotes by other Zen Masters on the subject, particularly Rinzai Master's to help balance that out. I have to work with the sources of which I have available, and she said a great deal on the subject matter. If you know of any Rinzai monks discussing their kensho experiences, particularly in the descriptions of Kensho, section, or training after realization section, etc, that would be very helpful. Jiyu-Kennet was very open about her experiences, which is why it's easy for me to quote her. I'm not aware of many books or articles with Zen Master's discussing their experiences in detail outside of hers. I had a Rinzai friend of mine, who was very hush, hush about the subject, preferring to say more with his eyes, than he did in words. That doesn't make for easy quoting or referencing in an article. It may simply be that many people find it to be a very personal and intimate topic, so prefer not to discuss it and their experiences openly. I don't know. One of my appeals to Jiyu-Kennett is that she was very open and up-front about the topic, preferring to explain things clearly in plain language, rather than mysteriously, and with flowery language which is how the subject matter is often treated in Zen. If you know of a book of a Rinzai Master discussing their personal experience with kensho it would be good to know about. It would certainly be a welcome addition to this article.Suchawato Mare (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The laughing Buddha of Tofokuji p.17, has a description of kensho, but also an explanation why the Japanese are so uptight on telling about it. And "The three pillars of Zen" bt Kapleau, but they had their own agenda on incorporating all those stories.
 * Anyway, we're talking now. Pfffffff..... That's good. Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take also a look at at the bottom of the page - as a cautionary not to put to much emphasis on kensho (or satori), since this is the kind of description that makes "enlightenment" into something HUGE - and incrompehensible. By the way, we do not agree yet on "Some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in" and "Some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article". I've got a different opinion on that; I think it should have been stated as "To my opinion, some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in" and "To my opinion, some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article". So we, you and me, still have to find a new concensus. Nevertheless, I'm glad we seem to be talking now. I get the impression you're a very enthusiastic guy. Would you mind putting a few lines about yourself on your userpage? It gives some sort of a "face", instead of just a nickname. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: "preferring to explain things clearly in plain language" - take a look at the Five Ranks. I make a bet you really won't like it. It's not at all "explaining things clearly in plain language". But it's central to Soto, and Hakuin too recommended it highly. As a matter of fact, it's even the closing part of the Rinzai koan-curriculum. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording of that translation is pretty bad. It seems more like a transliteration than an actual translation. one of the problems with translating things is you can translate something literally, but loose the meaning when the translation is of a poem or other artistic expression of the Eternal in another language. Especially things like chinese, where certain characters like "Mu" have been translated as "nothingness or emptiness" but the character itself actually has little flames rising up on it symbolizing a a "flaming up" what is translated in english as "nothingness" meaning can get lost. Turns of phrase are another area where translating something literally is meaningless. If we were to say that someone needs to get off their "high horse", a few hundred years from now, somebody translating that in another language couldn't translate the meaning accurately by translating it literally. The meaning of that phrase would have to be conveyed in a more modern equivalent of the time, while not being an exactly literal translation, it would nevertheless be more accurate as to convey the concept of "arrogance" or "vain haughty pride" etc, etc. that the phrase represents. The translator of the future would have to be both familiar with our culture now a days, as well as the subject that the person was talking about, so as to as accurately represent as close as possible to the original intent of the writing. That's the problem with a lot of scholarly translations, they look at a character, and look at a dictionary, and say "oh that means rice" and so write it down as "rice" on the english version. They don't get that "rice" may have been an implied meaning of the rice of Buddha Nature within a trainee, etc, etc, and end up loosing the original meaning. Then western people read those translations and think all kinds of things, usually that it is very cryptic, or mysterious, etc, when in actuality, the person of the day who said or wrote it, said it in plain language, using terms that whose meaning would have been obvious, to most common people of the day. It's only in the translation, and the passage of time, that it becomes all "encoded" and the job of a good translator is to decode it and then write it down again in the modern equivalent language as best they can without the meaning being lost.  A good translator will openly explain why they translated things a certain way, and explain the differences in their translation and why they said it that way if it differs from other's translations. It's one of the ways you can tell they know the material better.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Koan
The section on koans needs sources: Suggested literature: The additon of "In the Soto school, the "genjo-kōan", or the "kōan of everyday life" is emphasized" is a worthfull addition - as far as I can judge. Maybe Realizing Genjokoan: The Key to Dogen's Shobogenzo by Shohaku Okumura can provide a reference for this (I only took a brief look at the table of contents). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "They could be described as a form of "spiritual riddle"" - this is a western notion; see Talk:Kōan
 * "Rinzai uses a book of a few hundred traditional kōan stories as training aids" & "In the Rinzai school of Zen, a traditional set of recorded kōan stories are used as training aids" - Rinzai has two traditions regarding the use of koans, using deveral sets of koans, in various order of sequence; see Kōan
 * "Whilst Soto emphasizes each trainee's individual, personal "kōan"" - Soto too knows collections of koans. Only two-hunderd years ago was the use of koans abandoned in the Soto-shu. See Kōan
 * Loori, John Daido. Sitting with Koans: Essential Writings on the Zen Practice of Koan Study. Wisdom Publications, 2005. ISBN 978-0-86171-369-1
 * Steven Heine, and Dale S. Wright, eds. The Kōan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-19-511749-2


 * "They could be described as a form of "spiritual riddle"" - this is a western notion; see Talk:Kōan" It's not a western notion, it's just an acceptable way to explain a japanese Buddhist term in brief to a western genearal audience without making a whole 'nother article on them. Koans in the sense Rinzai uses them are technically recorded stories of past Masters and those people's own attempts to solve their own "Genjo-Koan". The same kind of things are present in the Denkoroku. The technique of using these historic stories to give to every trainee, is something Rinzai uses, and was going on a bit in China before Daie Soko popularized it in Japan. They essentially are a "riddle" though they are not. It is the closest western word to what it is, short of calling them a "koan" which is the Japanese word. The concept of a koan does not exist in western english, so if one wishes to sortof "sum up the idea kinda-sortof poorly" then that's one way to go about it. The point of a Koan is not to "solve" them in the sense that a riddle is solved like a logic puzzle, but it's the closest thing we have in english. Keep in mind, the article is aimed at a general audience. I could post a detailed quote or two about koans, but I'm trying to keep the quotes down. Regarding this section, we don't need it to be an extensive explanation of koans. That's not the purpose of the article. The article is about kensho, not about koans, so "good enough" is actually good enough. That's why I put in the link for the main koan article, again, if you expand too much in that area, you basically sidetrack the article and get off topic. We're not discussing the history of koans here. We just need a brief summary.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to lead
Since the lead had become redundant and difficult to understand, I started a new linguistic section that still needs work. Any improvements would be welcome. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I liked what you were trying to do, and cleaned it up a bit. The idea of a linguistic history section seemed interesting, but it didnn't really add anything other than to convey the concept that "words evolve" etc, which would seem erroneous.
 * I merged the idea of pronunciation into the opening line. The "meanings" section was repetitive. The definitions listed were basically slightly different wordings on the theme "seeing one's own or true nature". Which was essentially arguing semantics, and become redundant. They were all transliterations of a single Japanese word, and so didn't provide any major departures from one another to warrant the side by side inclusion of "seeing ones own nature" and "seeing into one-self". They are talking about identically the same concept. Since this article is not about a transliteration history of the japanese word into english, but is about the Buddhist term and experience that the term represents, I appreciate the effort, and I think your expanded upon definition of the chinese version was of great value, and essentially summed up what you added. Regarding the idea of a history section, If there was any sortof noteworthy history regarding the transliteration of the japanese word, or some major controversy regarding translations of it, that was any different than what goes on in translating any other word from any other language into english, I would say yeah, go for it, add it in. But as it's just a basic Japanese Buddhist term ported into English, that's been ported straight across as a western Buddhist term for lack of a previously existing equivalent english terminology,  an extended section on slightly different ways of describing the Japanese language isn't necessary, and just bogs down the entry section. A simple summary of where the term is derived from suffices. I think your addition expands upon the opening section and makes it now better and clearer than it was. Thank you.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, Suchawato Mare, do you ever wonder what's the opinion of other editors? You think Keahapana's edits don't add anything. I, for one, like them, so I disagree with your alterations of Keahapana's edits, and want them to be restored. I really think you should start to co-operate, instead of reverting and removing anything you don't like. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More quotes
SudoGhost adviced to trim the quotes; yet there appear only more of them. I've had enough of Suchawato Mare's edits: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On-Going Fugen Kensho: more Jiyu-Kenneth WP:UNDUE not representative of Zen as a whole
 * Who is Morgan Zo-Callahan?!?
 * Two times D.T. Suzuzki; Suzuki is not a trustworthy source. See for example

Conclusion on third opinions
I asked four experienced editors for their opinion; three said they agreed with my edits, one adviced to cut down the quotes. One, an expert on Chinese and Japanese, also tries to give a good ethymology-section, which has also been removed by Suchawato Mare. It's clear that he's trying to WP:OWN the page, and does not care about cooperation or feedback. There is still a long list of issues waiting to be answered by him; see Talk:Kenshō. I will restore my previous edits, in accord with the agreement of the editors which I asked for their opinion; I will also reduce the amount of quotes, in accord with the feedback of SudoGhost. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Reaching concensus
I've asked third opinions from User:SudoGhost, User:Tengu800, User:Keahapana, User:Suddha and User:SusanLesch to give their opinion on my recent edits on kensho, to reach consensu. They are experienced editors with a lot of knowledge on Buddhism. Suchawato Mare has been informed on this. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the material which Joshua Jonathan had added - and which was subsequently contested - I must say that I think that Joshua Jonathan's contributions were perfectly acceptable and adequately referenced. I can see no validity to their suppression. I understand, however, Suchawato Mare's feelings in one particular area: it can be frustrating that Wikipedia does not necessarily accept the interpretative teachings of certain Buddhist masters, unless these are supported by secondary literature. Wikipedia's high reliance on 'scholars', almost to the exclusion of other experiential experts (in the field of Buddhism), strikes me as unbalanced. Unfortunately, that is the Wikipedia policy, and we are obliged to follow it. So I have sympathy with both sides in this discussion. On balance, though, I am of the view that Joshua Jonathan's additions certainly should be allowed to stand. All best wishes to everyone. From Suddha (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with including Jiyu-Kennet's quote on further practice; it's a nice quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the views of religious figures can be included in Wikipedia articles, but they definitely should not be presented as the views of Wikipedia. The basic form is, "According to ________, ________." For example, "According to Dudjom Rinpoche from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the robes of fully ordained Mahāsāṃghika monastics were to be sewn out of more than seven sections, but no more than twenty-three sections." This approach is perfectly valid, and I often use this to present the views of Buddhist monks and other practitioners. All notable views can (and should) be presented so the reader has a balanced perspective on the subject. As long as the view is properly framed and ascribed to the author, then there is no problem with this at all. This is not just the case for religious views, but also for academic theories (which can also be biased, controversial, and flat-out wrong). If something is not a verifiable fact, or could be controversial in some way, then it is always the best practice to attribute it to the monk / scholar / author whose view that is in the first place. In other words, Wikipedia itself should endorse neither religious views nor academic theories, but rather present all notable views in their proper context, attributing each as appropriate. Then a multiplicity of views can be presented to the reader without one interfering with the others. Using this method, there is no conflict between the views, and the only matter left is the amount of weight to give to each position, and how to frame each view. Tengu800 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a lot going on so it took me a few days to have the time to read through the article's changes. Looking at this as a general summary of the differences in the two versions, the first thing that strikes me is that Joshua Jonathan's version has a bit too many quotes (at least in my view), and it should probably be put into prose wherever possible (I know that isn't the issue in dispute here, but it was the most prominent thing I saw so I thought I should point it out). That being said, I don't think some sources being "three generations out of date" is a huge issue if that's the only concern with them; encyclopedia topics are not just information as they are presently known, ideas and methods change over time, even if subtly, and if that's the case then the article should reflect this, as opposed to only giving the topic as it currently exists without using older sources that could highlight past usage, even if things were translated oddly, that should be explained (with reliable sources), not "swept under the rug". - SudoGhost 00:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response from Suchawato Mare The user SudoGhost has helped clarify what I was essentially (albeit poorly) trying to say. That the article was becoming overly "quoted" (for lack of a better word) and was beginning to get to the point where every line in every sentence needed to have a clarification, and be said by somebody else. As though we were cutting lines out of books and magazines and pasting them in to make an "article" without any writer skill at all. Imagine if we did that on an article about 'cars' or some such. While we could paste in every commentary upon commentary about opinions about comments, on the subject of cars, that would not make a better article, or make it more legible and basically explaining to a lay reader what an automobile is, and the relevant history thereof. It is not necessary to quote everyones opinion from car and driver or popular mechanics or every fansite about cars simply to explain clearly what a car is. The same applies here. If a line seems misleading, its easy to work with it a bit to re-word it into something that becomes more clear. It's less necessary to make a cut and paste "sentence" based entirely on or major-ly on quotes. Keep in mind that wikipedia is aimed and meant at a general audience.
 * Even a car enthusiast or expert wouldn't want to read an article based on or consisting mostly of pasted quotes. That's not really "writing" at that point, it's just cut and pasting.

Not everyone's commentary or opinion is necessary to explain something simply and clearly. Also, the previous reversions that I have made my edits on are based on a version that was built on consensus of myself and other writers. Specifically with regards to trying to find a balance between Soto and Rinzai approaches so that the article would be balanced and not biased in favor of one tradition's methods over another, which again, in actuality, are not necessary to describe as much in order to explain what a kensho is. If you put too many quotes and such in, you risk loosing the "forrest for the trees" and the original point of the article is lost.Suchawato Mare (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Where-after you add another quote to this version of the article... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it's an interesting quote. Did you notice that it contradicts Seongcheol, but coincides with the famous Wild fox koan? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the ongoing dispute between Joshua Jonathan and Suchawato Mare, and apologize for responding so slowly. Based upon the diffs and discussion, I agree with Suddha, Tengu800, and SudoGhost. In general, JJ's constructive additions are from reliable sources, while some of SM's deletions verge upon violating basic WP:POLICY. The title and focus of this article is Kenshō – not personal Kenshō experience. To announce that this article should be "specific to the subject of kensho experience" does not justify deletions because "some of the information I removed had no reference to the explanation of kensho experience at all." Nor does it disqualify scholarly publications "by people who were not actually Buddhists, and/or people who had not experienced a kensho experience first hand." This isn't Zenpedia, it's Wikipedia. Being an "original editor" and primary contributor is admirable, but does not grant ownership. WP is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and there is no reason for more-Zen-than-thou snarkiness. SM uses the word "qualified" six times, for instance, "[If you] defame the three treasures [or] lie … you are not qualified to be working on this article"; "But if you are not a Buddhist, quite frankly you are not qualified to be talking about Buddhist spiritual experience." This makes as much sense as decreeing that if one is not Japanese, then one cannot edit Japanese Zen. We probably already have consensus that the present article needs work, and I hope we can be civil and work together on making improvements. Keahapana (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoration#2
See also Consensus

I've restored again the more extensive version of the article. Simply copy-paste an older version of an article, without specifically ansewering the previous stated objections, is not the way to deal with a difference of opinion. To my opinion, the removal of clear, well-sourced info that provides additional insight into the topic, is not the way to edit an article or to provide encyclopedic information. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I've changed back the lead to the shorter version, for the following reasons: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Seeing one's nature" is the lietral translation.
 * The nuance of "translated as enlightenment" was replaced by "enlightenment". This is misleading; "enlightenment" has several meanings, which are being used interchangeably in the west, making it a diffised (and misused) concept).
 * "Kenshō is a term [...] that refers to enlightenment experiences" is not a definition, but a tautology. 'Kensho' is usually translated as 'enlightenment', so if we back-translate the sentence says ""Kenshō is a term [...] that refers to kensho experiences".
 * Filling in the other words which are also usually translated as 'enlightenment', the sentence says "Kenshō is a term [...] that refers to kensho/bodhi/prajna/satori/buddhahood experiences". It's clear that kensho has a specific meaning, and is not an exact synonym tot he other words.
 * The link for enlightenment led to Enlightenment (concept). This has been repaired to Enlightenment in Buddhism.
 * "Enlightenment experience" is a modern translation c.q interpretation. It originates with D.T. Suzuki, and has become a main ingredient of a modern discourse on "enlightenment", as described in Traditional Zen Narrative. See . The same issue is at stake in Neo-Vedanta; see Michael Comans (1993), The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta. In: Philosophy East and West Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 19-38. This issue can't be ignored or bypassed.

Meaning of Kensho
I've restored this section, for the following reasons: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The emptiness-quote is from Victor Sogen Hori, a long-time Zen-practitioner and an accomplished scholar, who trained for years in a Japanese monastery.
 * The "How do you kensho this?"-quote, aslo from Hori, has been restored. It gives a fine nuance to the meaning of kensho, which is broader and more down-to-earth than "enlightenment".
 * The "blank state of mind"-quote, also from Hori, has been restored, beacuse it makes very clear that insight, not samadhi, is what kensho is about.

Sudden insight
I've restored the "Sudden insight-section, for the following reasons: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sudden enlightenment" is a central notion in the history of Zen; see Chán, Chán, and Subitism. See also John Mcrae, Seeing through Zen, Bernard Faure, The rhetorics of immediacy, and Morton schlutter, How Zen ebcame Zen.
 * Zen has got a strong narrative, Zen, which is still influential, yet which is not a historical account, but a fictious account. To understand Zen and it's history, knowledge of this narrative is essentail. This has also been acknowledged by teachers as John Ismael Ford and John Dai Loori.

Denkoroku
The Denkoroku is a good example of this Traditional Narrative; see also. It can't be taken as an historical account; it's literary fiction. This should be mentioned. We're living in 2012; you can't ignore scholarly developments. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

-Friend, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are asserting that one of the works of one of the greatest and most respected Zen Masters of the Soto School is a work of fiction, and thereby directly implying that Zen Master Keizan is/was a fraud.

This in direct contradiction to his precepts to not defame the three treasures, or to lie.

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, you are not qualified to be working on this article.

You clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Zen, or it's history.

If I may make a suggestion, why don't you simply just call a Zen Center and speak to a Dharma Transmitted Zen teacher of either tradition, and ask them about this subject matter.

Every Dharma Transmitted teacher has to have a kensho as one of the requirements of Transmission.

They can tell you first hand what a kensho is.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response by Joshua Jonathan. The "Transmission of the Lamp"-genre is not a neutral, objective genre. Read John McRae's "Seeing through Zen". A "basic understanding of Zen or it's history" involves more than taking Zen Narratives to be the literal truth. Zen has a history, full of appealing narratives. Take a look at thezensite: critiques of zen to get an impression of up-to-date research on Zen and it's history. Regarding the precepts: read David Chapman, How not to argue on Buddhism, and stick to Wikipedia-rules. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response #2 by Joshua Jonathan: "It is probably safe to say that few if any reputable modern scholars, and probably not many even within the Soto priesthood itself, believe that many of the central events and characters in the Denkoroku are based on historical fact [...] The origins and early developments of Chinese Zen are just now becoming clearer, and the gradually emerging picture is very different from the traditional Zen history found in such works as Keizan's record". Source: page 15. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Working towards kensho
I've restored the previous section "Working towards kensho", except for the title and the mu-koan subsection, for the following reasons: Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Towards" is more plain language than is "prior"
 * I removed the mu-koan subsection; unclear subsection.
 * Rinzai: the Hori-quote is correct; it gives valuable info about the koan-practice.
 * Soto: this section gives additional info on the emphasi that Soto lays on shikantaza.

Additional info
I've added additional information and notes, with sources, including a quote given by Suchawato Mareto at the Talk Page, to clarify several issues in the article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion please
See also Consensus

This is the third time that I sum up my problems with the recent edits by Suchawato Mare. No substantial reaction has appeard so far, only further editing toward a traditional Zen narrative by removing well-sourced info. I would appreciate it to see a reaction on my remarks. They're neatly listed, so can be taken up one by one. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Response, Friend, I don't know if you've noticed, but it's been barely a week.

Perhaps it's never occurred to you that other people have lives outside of wikipedia. If you're going to be rude, and demanding toward other people's time, that's hardly working towards "consensus"

I will respond as much as I can when I can, and if I have time.

And Just because I have time to make an edit, doesn't mean I have time to talk with you also.

I'm glad you are fortunate enough to have lots of free time on your hands, but perhaps you can practice compassion and patience for others who are not as free with their time as you are.

And, if you are a Zen Buddhist, I would remind you that refraining from anger, and speaking against others is a precept of ours.

-Suchawato Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm not perfect... So the rest of my life will be spend on practice, I'm afraid. Thanks anyway for this wise advice (serious :)). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoration #3
I trust that the reasons for these actions are clear, as they were clearly announced and discussed before, and that any objections against these will be preceded by discussion, as requested several times before. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-inserted the edits of myself and Keahapana, which were previously removed by Suchawata Mare, in accordance with my previously stated objections against these removals, and my conclusion on the requested third opinions;
 * I have trimmed the amount and lenght of quotes, in accordance with the advice of SudoGhost;
 * I have added three descriptions of kensho-"experiences", in accord with Suchawato Mare's request;
 * I have reduced the WP:UNDUE amount of Jiyu-Kenneth related material, in accordance with my previous stated critic;
 * I have removed the unsourced and incorrect "info" on koans, which I've criticised before;
 * I have cleaned up the sources-section;
 * I have Wikified the appendices;
 * I have removed two dead links, and four links all leading to the same page of Shastey Abbey from "External links".

Insight versus experience
I've added a section on "Insight versus exeperience", since this topic is covered by several authors, but hardly known by a general audience. It points to a significant reinterpretation of Zen, which started in Japan in the 19th century under the influence of western culture, and has on it's turn shaped the western understanding of Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Spontaneous kensho
Zen has two disticht terms for "self-awakening". This section is now mixed with "spontaneous" awakening; this could be separated. This ection too points to an important self-understanding of Zen: no awakening outside the tradition - but apparantly this is possible. What then is the role of "the tradition"? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-arranging terminology-section
I've added a subheader, to separate definitions from other aspects. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Joshua Jonathan for restoring and reorganizing this article. I wonder if it would be better to have the "Meanings of kenshō" section only list reliable "encyclopedia and dictionary definitions" (I'll add Soothill), and to move the "Buddhist scholars" and "Further notions" into a new section. What do you think? Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I put all the definitions and the further notions in one section, instead of your proposal. How about it?
 * Regarding the "encyclopedia and dictionary definitions": using the best reliable sources is of course the best to do. Reading the definitions takes time and attention, but I like it to get the opportunity to compare. It shows the nuances of translation-interpretation.
 * A few sources were moved by me to the meanings-section. I'm afraid it would be good to check if the right sources are at the right text. And it would also be good to add citation-marks where necessary.
 * PS: I take the liberty to convert the to . It gives a comprehensive references-section, and is easier when multiple citations from the same source are being used.
 * Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenshō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701071517/http://kripalu.org/article/313/ to http://www.kripalu.org/article/313/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenshō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628090745/http://www.sanbo-zen.org/kyosho_350_e.pdf to http://www.sanbo-zen.org/kyosho_350_e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111032704/http://www.shastaabbey.org/shobogenzo1.htm to http://www.shastaabbey.org/shobogenzo1.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?q=%E8%A6%8B%E6%80%A7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So many opinions stated as facts
I'd love to see somebody with more time and patience clean this wiki up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmoede (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Restored edits
I restored the edits undone by user Joshua Johnathan. The reason given was: "I doubt it if Kenneth is representative of the whole Soto-tradition, especially give her hallucinations. See also WP:UNDUE. If she recalled past lives, she's a rare specimen. I've never heard, or read, contemporary Buddhists recall past lives..."

This view seems to be suggesting that user Joshua Johnathan believes that experiencing past lives is unlikely, therefor an account of them by a Soto Zen master is invalid. He then states that if true, it would be a rare occurrence. But that's not a valid reason for removing relevant content that adds a reader's understanding of an article. Buddhist master's in any tradition, including Tibetan who experience the deepest and highest states of realization are quite rare. However as far as I can tell, Jiyu-Kennett is the only Zen master who has ever published a book entirely on the subject of kensho. Additionally, her lineage continues, and seems to be thriving with multiple temples and monasteries all over the world, so it would seem strange to leave out such a notable Zen master's contributions to the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There are several problems with your edits:
 * Jiyu-Kennett's "third kensho" seem to have been hallucinations, caused by illness; that's definitely not representative of the Zen-tradition, and WP:UNDUE for this article;
 * "Finally a fourth stage is described as Parinirvana itself, experienced by rare practitioners who achieve Buddhahood upon time of death." - unsourced;
 * "Her description of kensho stages is interesting, in that it closely parallels those of Dzogchen and Theravada stages as well." - unsourced, and "interesting" is a personal opinion;
 * You changed
 * into
 * into


 * This WP:SYNTHESIS of sources, and incorrect; Warner does not speak about a 'great flash of deep understanding', but about sitting as enlightened practice;
 * You changed
 * into
 * into


 * Apart from the punctuation-error, this too seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS, combining Warner's account with Jiyu-Kennett's account;
 * "This Soto view is similar to the Dzogchen teachings of the Four Visions in Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism."- unsourced;
 * "The Japanese term kensho is similar to the Dzogchen teachings of the Four Visions." - unsourced.
 * Altogether, it comes down to giving WP:UNDUE attention to the erratic views of one Zen-teacher who had visions; unacceptable. The proper place for het views is her article, not this overview-article.
 * Regarding your revertions: see WP:BRD. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Joshua Johnathan
 * So looking at your response, you seem to have a clear bias against Kennet. The view that it meets WP:UNDUE is not valid, considering the edits are small, and are but one perspective included in many other perspectives in the article. If edits gave enormous weight to her views I would understand the concern, but considering her account is but one of several Zen master's included in that section, saying "WP:UNDUE" does not seem to be valid.


 * Regarding your [WP:RS]] and WP:PRIMARY concerns, this doesn't seem to be valid, considering that Brad Warner's views are also primary. It's also illogical, considering that nearly all personal accounts of kensho, come from primary sources, for the obvious reason that they are personal accounts.


 * Regarding your synthesis concern, that seems reasonable to fix. Separating them into Warner and Kennett's views respectively.


 * It should be noted though, that you seem to have a clear bias against Kennett as a source, which doesn't seem to be rational. I can find nothing on the internet to corroborate the claim of "hallucinations" that is not a personal opinion. You removed edits on that basis (and then in this talk have said I made personal opinions) and yet a view that a Zen master was hallucinating, is itself, your own personal opinion. Additionally, referring to her as "erratic" is a clear bias. That is not a neutral opinion.


 * Regarding the Paranirvana issue: sure, I'll cite that.


 * Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Batchelor describes it more nicely as "visions"; Terebess is less friendly:
 * James Ishmael Ford, a former student of Jiyu-Kennett, in Zen Master who?, p.143-144:
 * Douglas Osto (2016), Altered States: Buddhism and Psychedelic Spirituality in America, Columbia University Press, p.65:
 * David N. Kay (2007), Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, Routldge, p.155:
 * So, Jiyu-Kennett's views are clearly erretic and not representative of the Soto-tradition; this should be mentioned, if this info is to be included here. Which it is not, being WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS.
 * David N. Kay (2007), Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, Routldge, p.155:
 * So, Jiyu-Kennett's views are clearly erretic and not representative of the Soto-tradition; this should be mentioned, if this info is to be included here. Which it is not, being WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS.
 * So, Jiyu-Kennett's views are clearly erretic and not representative of the Soto-tradition; this should be mentioned, if this info is to be included here. Which it is not, being WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS.
 * So, Jiyu-Kennett's views are clearly erretic and not representative of the Soto-tradition; this should be mentioned, if this info is to be included here. Which it is not, being WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS.


 * Warner bases his statements on Dogen; Jiyu-Kennett bases her statements on her own experience, including her visions. That's quite a difference. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * -So, for starters, you should probably know that the term is “erratic” not erretic. None of those quotes invalidate her view. They simply mean that her views were controversial, which is fine, they do seem to have been controversial. However, saying they are not representative of Soto Zen is not accurate. Dogen and Keizan themselves had many visions and spiritual experiences.


 * Keizan described that in a past life he had been a tree spirit, similar to a gryphon:


 * -Faure, B. (1996). Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 * -Faure, B. (1996). Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


 * Dogen, experienced multiple visions and spiritual experiences. During a ceremony at Eiheiji for example, he had a vision of multiple arhants appear before him, and he wrote about this:


 * -Faure, B. (1996). Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 * -Faure, B. (1996). Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


 * Also, in the Denkoroku it’s recorded, that a dragon and a deva appeared to Dogen:


 * -Keizan., Nearman, H., & Kennett, J. (2001). The Denkōroku, or, The record of the transmission of the light. Mount Shasta, Calif: Shasta Abbey Press.
 * -Keizan., Nearman, H., & Kennett, J. (2001). The Denkōroku, or, The record of the transmission of the light. Mount Shasta, Calif: Shasta Abbey Press.


 * Additionally, the Buddha himself said that past life recall is important. In the Samaññaphala Sutta he said:
 * -Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (1997). Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life. Retrieved from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
 * -Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (1997). Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life. Retrieved from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html


 * Additionally, Kennett’s lineage has continued. Two major monasteries, and dozens of temples and meditation groups practice Soto Zen in her tradition. So regardless of whether other people agree with her views, a large number of Soto Zen practitioners do practice according to those views, and they are very much a part of mainstream Soto Zen. Additionally, it’s my understanding that the copy of that book was given to Sojiji for review, and that the approved of it. So even if some western people disagree with it, there doesn’t seem to be much controversy from the Japanese side, or from a traditional Buddhist perspective. Chan monasteries discuss past lives all the time, you can find such things on the City of 10,000 Buddha’s website.


 * So the only real argument you seem to have, is that “there are people who don’t like her views. and I don't like her views either”. Well that’s fine, but excluding her views on the matter, would be excluding the views of an entire major branch of Soto Zen in the west, with all those temples and congregations. And that does not seem to be “balanced” rather, it demonstrates bias and prejudice towards branches of Soto Zen you don’t like. I mean there are people who don't like Brad Warner's views, that doesn't make his views an invalid Soto perspective. Soto Zen is not some unified monolith. There are differing views within Soto Zen, and it's relevant to include those views within an article that talks about term that Zen uses. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Jiyu-Kennett's views are WP:UNDUE for this page; you can move them to her page, with the additional info on her visions, to provide more context. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * -That is a personal opinion. And has already been addressed.


 * You still haven't adressed the problems with your latest revert: you undid my merger of duplicate info; undid the WP:SYNTHESIS of Warner and Jiyu-Kennett; undid the attribution of their specific views; and re-inserted unsourced info, without the source-tags which I had added. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay so lets work on that. Instead of being hostile, lets work on it together? How would you propose presenting the two views. I merged them because the first two stages of Kensho are fairly well discussed, so it seemed logical that's what Warner was referring to anyway. The problem with Warner's view, is that it said that shikantaza (just sitting, zazen meditation) is a first stage kensho. That's not correct. I'm not sure if someone erroneously quoted that or what, but meditation is the means used to achieve a first stage kensho (although to be fair, they can happen outside of seated meditation, and historically often have), but it's not a kensho itself. In other words, just sitting down and meditating doesn't mean one has had a kensho, though "just sitting" us definitely one of the main Soto means to achieving that. I substituted Kennett's view there, because it provided more clarity. I then left Warner's view on the second one, due to the fact that it accurately described a second stage kensho. Different people have different ways of describing it, but that's the gist of it. I then added Kennett's comments for the third section. I don't believe this is a synthesis, because both Kennett and Warner discuss the first two stages. However I would say that the view on the first stage by Warner is not accurate.


 * Discuss? I need to pick this back up later, it would be nice to have a peaceful discussion, I'm sure it seems we both care a lot about this subject, so perhaps instead of hostility, we can work together? Goodnight for now.Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, better tone. Regarding Warner and Kennett, best is to separate and attribute them, then check Warner, and look for other sources on Soto and kensho. What's really missing now is that present-day Soto in general says to reject the importance of kensho.
 * I really think that one section on Kennett's views is enough; her views are not mainstream, and that should be mentioned too, for neutral point of view. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NB: regarding the Buddha's account of past lifes: that syncope is questionable, and probably a later addition. See Bronkhorst, The two traditions of meditation in ancient India. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate you being less hostile. Regarding the mainstream thing: that's really kind of subjective. There's a lot of things in mainstream Buddhist magazines for instance, that do not include things that would be taught in more private settings, such as with conversations between a master and disciple, or within the confines of a monastery. Soto has it's esoteric side too, and traditionally, detailed conversations about kensho experience are traditionally reserved for one's closest disciples/teacher, etc. They are not usually publicly discussed. For example, the reason we know that Dogen and Keizan had many metaphysical experiences, is because they wrote about them in their own personal diaries and writings. They didn't however discuss them much publicly. The stated reason that Jiyu-Kennett chose to publish hers, was because at the time there was very little information about such experiences available to most people in the Zen world. Nowadays, there are a lot more translations available of exotic texts, but at the time, there really wasn't much available in English. She stated she felt that it was important to publish such things to remove the "mythos" from them, as being these legendary things that no one really experienced. Part of this was due to the fact that some people do experience such things even accidentally, or with only minor training, and so she wanted to dispel the fear that such people might experience, and reassure them that yes, such things do in fact happen. She also was aware that by speaking publicly of such experiences, that it would invite backlash, and she stated her awareness of that in her book. So what seems to be the case, is not so much that her views are not "mainstream" but rather, that the fact the she spoke openly of such experiences, broke a longstanding taboo of something Zen master's were traditionally reticent to do. Whether or not her decision to do so was a good thing or not, is open to interpretation. But there is historic presence of such things within Soto Zen and Zen in general, it's just that kind of content, is not the sort of thing you'd usually see on a Barns and Noble bookstore shelf. A lot of that stuff is pretty esoteric and obscure. For instance, how many people do you know have copies of obscure Princeton University texts on esoteric Soto Zen or other types of Buddhism? I do, but I don't know many mainstream practitioners of Buddhism who do, and you'd certainly not see that kind of content advertised in the kinds of Buddhist magazines you'd get at the natural food store.


 * I agree, with the seperating of content in the other section (the Soto Zen views), I'll work on that tomorrow when I have time. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apologies for my tone. The contextual info you just gave is quite relevant. And no, not many people read those books. Not even Zen-teachers... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag added.
Added a neutrality dispute tag. Several edits seemed to be removed without cause. Please use the talk page to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? See the previous section. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Template:POV:
 * The problem is with your edits: as explained above, Jiyu-Kennett's writings are not "high-quality, reliable secondary sources"; giving undue weight to her experiences is unbalanced. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is with your edits: as explained above, Jiyu-Kennett's writings are not "high-quality, reliable secondary sources"; giving undue weight to her experiences is unbalanced. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to Joshua Johnathan: This is not a valid view. Please see my responses in the previous section.
 * Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag, since your info is included, for the moment. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag and reverted it since you are still removing relevant material for no rational reason. Please do not remove the tag until dispute has been resolved. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've explained my edits, removed unsourced material, and merged duplicate info. You have negated the existence of this duplicate info, negated WP:RS, negated WP:UNDUE, re-inserted unsourced info, restored WP:SYNTHESIS, and removed the source-tags. Note that you can be blocked form editing when you continue your disruptive editing. See WP:DONTGETIT, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and WP:CONSENSUS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove dispute tags until matters are resolved. Simply stating your reasoning does not make that reasoning not in dispute. Others have a right to address your views, and offer different perspectives, and simply removing content because you don't like it is disruptive editing. Additionally, you have made multiple threats to me on my talk page, and have had a clear hostile tone, that is not in accord with wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:BITE and keep discussion of the subject at hand in the talk section above. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny that a newbie knows WP:BITE. You're not new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ?? I'm definitely not new to Google. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I asked for help on the Wikipedia IRC chat. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Request
The article should to be changed to refect the following:

The more recent accounts section should include:

Jiyu-Kennett Roshi, a 20th-century Soto Zen Master who was the first Western female Zen Master, and founded both Shasta and Throssel Hole Abbeys, published a highly detailed personal account of her kensho experiences in her book, How to Grow a Lotus Blossom. In it, she described three different stages of kensho experience, along with a fourth that can occur at the time of death:
 * 1) A first stage, "initial glimpse" kensho, that most Zen practitioners eventually experience, and that are often used as the later basis for qualification for Dharma Transmission
 * 2) A second, ongoing Fugen kensho or, "the little moments that make one dance" experienced by practitioners with a continual, stable practice
 * 3) A third stage kensho, that can involve past life recall, profound spiritual visions, and deep awakening experiences that go beyond what is experienced in the first kensho.

Finally a fourth stage is described as Parinirvana itself, experienced by rare practitioners who achieve Buddhahood upon time of death. ""In the first kenshō the stages flash by so quickly that the whole kenshō is only comprehended as one flash. One goes, as it were, from earth to heaven by rocket, or as a lightning bolt, with no time to take notice of the journey before one has arrived. The third kenshō takes place slowly and deliberately with plenty of time to comprehend each step of the way. For example, in the first kenshō one jumps, of necessity, beyond the opposites and knows for ever afterwards that one has jumped. In the third kenshō the opposites are looked at slowly and dispassionately and then deliberately discarded; the first kenshō is a swift comprehension of grace; the third kenshō starts as a deliberate act of will.""

Her description of kensho stages is interesting, in that it closely parallels those of Dzogchen and Theravada stages as well.

Reasoning: Because Jiyu-Kennett was a highly influential and Zen Master, famous for being the first western woman to become a Zen master, and she also established a two training monasteries, and dozens of temples and meditation groups worldwide which continue to be a sizable portion of the Soto Zen world. She is also the only person to my knowledge who ever published an entire book on the subject of kensho, and had numerous unique experiences on the matter, which are of relevance to this article. Additionally, adding a woman's perspective on kensho, increases the diversity of views, and historically, women's views within Zen have not been as well represented.

'''Additionally, the subsection on Soto Zen views should be updated with this information as well. Reasoning: consistency in the article.'''

Additionally, the section at the end related to similarities to other traditions should be include sections on the four visions under Dzogchen:

The Japanese term kensho is similar to the Dzogchen teachings of the Four Visions.

The four visions (Tib. སྣང་བ་བཞི་, nangwa shyi, Wyl. snang ba bzhi) of tögal are:


 * 1) direct realization of reality itself (Tib. ཆོས་ཉིད་མངོན་སུམ་, chönyi ngön sum; Wyl. chos nyid mngon sum)
 * 2) increasing experience (Tib. ཉམས་གོང་འཕེལ་, nyam gong pel; Wyl. nyams gong ‘phel)
 * 3) awareness reaching full maturity (Tib. རིག་པ་ཚད་ཕེབས་, rigpa tsé pep; Wyl. rig pa tshad phebs)
 * 4) dissolution of experience into the nature of reality (Tib. ཆོས་ཉིད་ཟད་ས་, chönyi zésa, chönyi zépa or chözé lodé; Wyl.chos nyid zad sa)

The Dzogchen-traditions states that the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness, or naturally occurring timeless awareness. This intrinsic awareness has no form of its own, and yet is capable of perceiving, experiencing, reflecting, or expressing all form. It does so without being affected by those forms in any ultimate, permanent way.

The analogy given by Dzogchen masters is that one's nature is like a mirror which reflects with complete openness, but is not affected by the reflections. Rigpa is the knowledge that ensues from recognizing this mirror-like clarity, which cannot be found by searching nor identified. One knows that there is a primordial freedom from grasping his or her mind.

Reasoning The Four Visions are of direct similarity and therefor would be of relevance and interest to readers of the article.

[diff] Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't see anything wrong with the presence of this material in the Soto and Recent Accounts sections as they stand right now, beyond the fact that the material in 'Recent Accounts' is in need of copyediting- there are several repetitions and run on sentences. I don't think the four-stage model needs to be repeated in more than one place. With respect to Dzogchen's Four Visions, I think this can be handled with a link or 'see also' unless there is a source clearly connecting them, otherwise it strays into original research. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and applied some copy-editing to the 'recent accounts' section to make it less like the presentation of an argument and more of a summary. I think that should help address undue weight and NPOV concerns. I do think there is some question as to whether her four-stage model belongs in the Soto section or just in the description of her experience- it's not clear to me that that is a wider view in Soto, but I think if it's attributed to her correctly rather than represented as the general view that's ok- individual teachers are always going to have their own interpretations. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite odd to request the addition of information which is already there... Anyway:
 * Oppose:
 * WP:UNDUE information; erratic pov which is rejected by mainsream Soto, as explained before. At best, it can be added to the article on Jiyu-Kennett, with the appropriate context, that is, the criticism she received;
 * Also undue to add this info two times;
 * The prposed similarities with Dzogchen are unsourced, c.q. WP:OR, for which source-tags had been added, which have been removed by the proposer.
 * NB: a newbie who knows about RfC's is clearly not a newbie. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bitey bitey, fighty fighty. An editor with 20,000 edits just spent over half an hour explaining to Karma how to start an RfC on one of the IRC networks. Get your head out the sand and make your case with actual English instead of using implication heavy wikispeak to shut down debate. (shared IP) 86.186.68.103 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Let them use the normal avenues within Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Response:


 * 1) JJ's view that including such information is WP:UNDUE does not meet the requirements of that, as it does not give unbalanced weight to one person's views. The sections in question include multiple views from different Zen Master's so including one more view does not unbalance the article in any way, and indeed, adds new content, and new perspectives that were previously unincluded which are of relevance to the article and would be of interest to the reader.
 * 2) Editing two different sections is valid, because one section is on "personal accounts" of Zen kensho, the other is on "Soto Zen Views". Editing the latter for consistency with the former is important in having a consistent article (i.e. if one section talks about the views of 3 types of kensho, but the other says only 2, that's inconsistent).
 * 3) I am perfectly willing to update sources.
 * 4) I asked for help on posting this on the Wikipedia IRC channel. A user named Nadelik told me how to post this. And has been helping me.
 * 5) Additionally, user JJ has been quite hostile from the beginning, including posting threats on my talk page that I've repeatedly had to remove, and deleting entire content that I've posted, and threatening me when I brought it back. It's felt like bullying tactics, and doesn't seem to be in line with WP:BITE.I've discussed his concerns, and have been willing to work with him, however he seems to have a specific prejudice against one of the sources that I am posting, despite the fact that that source is quite relevant to the article. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the brief and neutral statement here? This RfC could be considered invalid: it begins with some non-neutral statements, followed by a wall of text, both of which are contrary to WP:RFC. Besides which, it the RfC listing pages. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Twice Jiyu-Kennett, but in two different forms
Following our discussions from yesterday, I have done the following, which reflect KDL's wishes:
 * separated Warner and Kennett again, and attributed both, as they agreed with;
 * merged Jiyu-Kennett's description of the stages again, and placed them under Kenshō. I still think it's undue, but alas, it's there, even twice;
 * copy-edit Jiyu-Kennett's experiences at Kenshō, making clear that het accounts are controversial (as stated by multiple sources); but also provided her rationale for publishing these accounts, as explained by you:
 * I have also added a note on Dogen's experiences. I think this presents a WP:NPOV.
 * I have also added a note on Dogen's experiences. I think this presents a WP:NPOV.

NB: the sentences her description of kensho stages closely parallels those of Dzogchen and Theravada stages and The Japanese term kensho is similar to the Dzogchen teachings of the Four Visions really need sources. I've tagged the sentence again; please don't remove the tag, but provide a source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So the Soto section is fine, I like that. However her personal experiences section is not acceptable. Other people's criticisms of someone's personal experiences are irrelevant, because they are personal experiences. If I tell you I dreamed about a white horse last night, other people's opinion of that are irrelevant. That's what I experienced. Also, the language that you included in there, includes bias terms like "elaborate scheme". Additionally, there's no need to mention controversy twice. Doing so seems to be an attempt to simply discredit her, which cannot be done considering it's a personal experience. Better to simply mention there was controversy and let it stand, without trying to lead the reader to conclusions. Also, if you're going to include controversy mentions, then that needs to be fairly balanced with the fact that it is historically consistent in Soto Zen which it is. I'll go edit it now. I'll add new citations as well in a second edit.Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the criticism is not irrelevant. You present them at a public encyclopedia, not at a personal blog. Jiyu-Kennett interpreted her experiences in a Zen frame of reference, and regarded her experiences as kensho, using the Zen-term kensho in a way which has been criticised by other people within the Zen-tradition. She had a rationale to publish them, as explained in the article; she even expected to be criticised. Other people, operating within this same frame of reference, indeed did criticise her interpretations. So, that's relevant; there's a context which needs to be provided. This article is not about Jiyu-Kennett's personal interpretations, it's about Zen, so other views within this tradition are warranted. WP:NPOV is required, presenting various sides of a topic, not just one side. Besides, the info is sourced by multiple WP:RS, which means it is not-done to remove it without very good reasons. See also WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No where did I say that criticism was not relevant. However criticism in an encyclopedia must be presented in a neutral fashion, simply presenting the information, and not phrasing it in such a way as to lead the reader, or demonstrating bias. Also please remember to watch your tone, there's no reason to be hostile, lets work together on this Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're going off-topic, with the inclusion of so-called "many mystical experiences." You're now including them to make a point about the experiences of Jiyu-Kennett. Besides, faure does not speak about "mystical experiences," but about "visions" (p.92). Regarding Keizan, Richard Bowring, The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600, p.373, calls them "supranormal powers." That's not kensho.
 * The following is discutable, but alas:
 * Yet, this sentence is really problematic:
 * The comment on the Buddha is downright incorrect, and WP:OR; the Buddha did not advise his followers "to direct their efforts to do the same," nor does the Zen-tradition. It's also not in line with mainstream scholarship; see Bronkhorst, as noted before. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment on the Buddha is downright incorrect, and WP:OR; the Buddha did not advise his followers "to direct their efforts to do the same," nor does the Zen-tradition. It's also not in line with mainstream scholarship; see Bronkhorst, as noted before. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment on the Buddha is downright incorrect, and WP:OR; the Buddha did not advise his followers "to direct their efforts to do the same," nor does the Zen-tradition. It's also not in line with mainstream scholarship; see Bronkhorst, as noted before. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are considered part of kensho experience. They are part of the second, ongoing fugen kensho. Later kenshos are different than the first initial one.
 * And yes, the Buddha did say such things. :::::
 * -Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (1997). Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life. Retrieved from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
 * Is it possible that you may know less about later types of kensho's than the initial one? They do not resemble the "quick glimpse" of the first one. They take a different form. And often involve visions and spiritual experiences that are much more mystical and metaphysical. I mean, surely you're not suggesting that it's inappropriate to include content about later type kenshos? Also, Faure does speak about mystical experiences. I own the book. The book has detailed chapters on visions, mystical and magical experiences, magical encounters, encounters with deities and magical beings, etc. Karma Dechen Lhamo (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the sutra-text saying that the Buddha had the same visions as Jiyu-Kennett, do you? You're interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source; that's WP:OR. At best, you can say that the Buddha is said to have recalled past lifes. But that would still be some sort of WP:SYNTHESIS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Jiyu-Kennett, Dogen, and Keizan
This edit provided a long list of references for the sentence "However, her experiences were not without historical precedent in Soto Zen." Yet, Bodiford, Faure and Williams do not mention Juyu-Kennett, let alone link her experiences to Dogen and Keizan; the other sources are inaccessible. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if MacPhillamy (1997) does, but in that case, a quote will have to be provided; the source is not available. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)