Talk:Sōtō

Changed the structure
I changed the structure of the article, corrected some false statements and I added some info about the history and texts Hippocrates

The article is a bit strange now - did Dogen found the sect or not..? (the article isn't clear about it) Hippocrates


 * Dogen was the founder of the Japanese branch of the Caodong school, which is called Soto in Japanese. Dongshan Liangjie founded Caodong, which could be referred to as Chinese Soto if one were so inclined.  So it's ambiguous to say "Who founded the Soto sect", because it's unclear whether Soto means just the Japanese branch or the whole thing.  This article as it stands currently seems to be about the Japanese branch specifically and there is a different page for Caodong.  Not sure if they should be merged. - Nat Krause 05:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The current opening, "Soto &#26361; &#27934; &#23447; (Japanese: s&#333;t&#333;-sh&#363;) is one of the famous Japanese Zen sects, founded by Dogen Zenji (1200-1253). It was based upon the Chinese Caodong school, which Dogen brought to Japan," has a slightly problematic implied ontology: If Soto is only based on Caodong, and Dogen brought Caodong to Japan, it is implied that Caodong has an existence of Japan apart from Soto--as though Dogen brought the original sect to Japan and then created his own version of it. There's the further question of whether Soto is a transliteration of Caodong--is it?--in which case I think we should recognize a certain continuity and indicate the original founder. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 19:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's certainly a complicated situation to try and explain. Soto is definitely the same word as Caodong.  I generally agree that it would be more accurate to say that Dogen Caodong to Japan rather to say that he founded Soto.  But, on the other hand, I'm fairly certain that there are major formal differences between the Japanese and Chinese versions (many of which, if I recall correctly, were instituted by Dogen's successors).  Given that Dogen himself was such an intellectual giant, it would seem likely that there are also significant substantive differences. - Nat Krause 11:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I looked it up in a biography. Dogen was born in Japan. He wanted to be a monk and went with his teacher Myozen to China. There he visited several monasteries (rinzai). One of those was the monastery on the mountain T'ien-t'ung, where he met Ju-ching. This master however was a member of Caodong (although this monastery was controlled by Rinzai people). Dogen stayed 2 years with this man. He also got enlightened and received the Caodong transmission from Ju-ching. Then he went back to Japan and founded a monastery (and wrote the Shobogenzo). I, as well as my book, agree with Nat that Dogen did a great part of the job. A lot of new teaching came from him. Also, the records say that Ju-ching was not a great teacher at all. After Dogens death the soto church developed. Hippocrates


 * Dogen (his monastic name) was already a monk in Japan *before* he left for China (he was ordained under Koen, the head of the Tendai school, at Senkobo monastery in approximately 1213ce). He learned Zen at Kennin-ji monastery (which he entered in 1217ce) under Myozen (who was Eisai's successor) who also taught sutras and Tantric rites. The motivation for traversing the China Sea (a rather dangerous trip in those days) was Dogen's disappointment at the condition of Zen practice in Japan, and his desire to go 'back to the source' of Zen (China, particularly in the tradition of the 6th Patriarch) and bring back to Japan an authentic (more pure) practice. Myozen and Dogen set out on this trip to China in 1223ce. For confirmation of this information please see/cite 'Zen Buddhism: A History' by Heinrich Dumoulin (Macmillan, 1990), p.51-53 MatthewStevenCarlos This comment added 20 October 2005


 * Soto is not a "church" in any ordinary usage of the word. Hu
 * Hi Hu! (this must be a cliche :) ) I know, little joke. Is it a sect, a school, a denomination, or maybe a church? (on the other hand, a Dutch book I read did mention soto as a church...) Thanks for reading precisely. Hippocrates
 * Of the choices you offer, "sect" is the one that comes closest. However, I would call it a "following".  One could also call it a "school" for variation, but not at the first reference. "Creed" is another possibility.  The reason it is not a church or congregation or denomination is that there is no worship involved.  Even the words "sect" or "creed" are verging on the idea of a worshipful religion. Other phrases that could be applied to people is "group of adherents" or "followers of soto". -- Hu.
 * I disagree. Denomination comes closer. In fact, I think this is the most precise term for Soto and Rinzai (a denomination is is a large, long-established subgroup within a religion that has been in existence for many years. see: sect or religious denomination). Hippocrates
 * A creed is a statement of belief&#8212;usually religious belief&#8212;or faith, see creed. Well, this is not the correct term for religious groups like soto and rinzai. A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion, see sect. This comes close, yet soto and rinzai are quite large. Also the word sect has a negative connotation. So Soto (denomination) and Rinzai (denomination) would be best. Hippocrates
 * That assumes it is part of a religion, Hippocrates. It is not a religion because it does not worship.  Therefore it is not a denomination. Hu 19:39, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * I think you're using a spuriously precise definition of religion, which is a term with an extremely broad range of reference and an etymologically vague history. The ongoing debates at pages like Talk:Religion and Talk:God bear out the consequences of overly narrow definitions of terms in the religious studies field. Buddhism is generally considered a religion in English-language scholarship and also in English-language commonplace discussion, as well it should be, since it combines (a) a group of tenets and/or basic assumptions, (b) a soteriology, and (c) organizations of authoritative clergy and communities of lay practitioners. Worship is not intrinsic to religion; no one quality or behavior is in all and only religions, but Buddhism in general, including the Zen schools in particular (except possibly in modern philosophical or casual reinterpretations that should be differentiated), exhibits a sufficient number of the qualities which are often present in religions to be called religious. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 20:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Buddhism is a religion. Zen is not.  "Zen Buddhism" probably is a religion.  There are many followers of Soto zen who do not worship and don't see themselves as being part of a religion.  Zen may have historically evolved from a religion, but zen (the philosophy) is not a religion.  It is precisely the distinction with philosophy that is important. Hu 20:46, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, worship is nonessential; so, for the purposes of scholarship, is the position of the followers on this point, quite frankly. Also, it's really not a philosophy, in the modern English sense of the word; it isn't an academic practice, nor does it have the same areas of inquiry as a philosophy. In fact, in the modern English context, philosophy has a non-practical connotation that I think would (or should) be quite anathema to most schools of practical Buddhism. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 18:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Accepting for sake of argument your assertions above, isn't Soto a "Zen Buddhist" group and therefore relgiious? - Nat Krause 03:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We could discuss whether zen is a religion or not. Yet maybe it's more important to take into account what it's generally considered to be. I think Kukkurovaca is right when he says 'Buddhism is generally considered a religion ... '. I guess most people consider Zen to be part of Buddhism. Therefore, a religion. Or at least, a group with religious tendencies. Hippocrates

I am a Soto Zen Buddhist, have been for some time now. It is my religion... most of the people in my temple would answer the question "What is your religion?" with "Soto Zen." We've discussed this in dharma talks and group discussions at length. -Lisa Mann

- Soto is (or was) one of the five sects of Zen-Buddhism not in Japan but in China. Two of the five are Soto and Rinzai. I don't know how to spell other three sects in English: Igyo, Un-mon, and Ho-gen, maybe. In Japan Soto and Rinzai (and Obaku) are the main zen sects, I believe.Miya 04:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One might consider the appropriateness of refering to Soto as a 'style' of Zen, or one of the three major 'Schools' (see the Wikipedia Editing Talk for Zen) of Japanese Zen. It is also accurate to refere to Zen and/or Zen Buddhism as a 'practice' rather than a religion or a philosophy as this is around what Zen (and especially Soto) centers (sitting). This comment added 17 October 2005 by MatthewStevenCarlos

Soteriology
There is no soteriology. To be "saved" is to be saved "from" something or some fate. But since zen rejects dualities, there is nothing to be saved from. There is only acceptance and embrace and unity (all manifestations of the one reality). Hu 20:51, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * Zen rejects dualities, but it is not a religion; is that it? - Nat Krause 03:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Response to Nat Krause: I appreciate the irony of your question. One could say zen rejects dualities so it is both "not" a religion and "is" a religion, but that would either be too cute or a koan, wouldn't it, since we could equally ask "does a dog have Buddha-nature?".  If you prefer to think of it as a religion, go right ahead.  I was just trying to help by trying to make the distinction, but rather than get trapped by it, I'm just going to let you do your thing while I do mine. Hu


 * ^5! - Nat Krause 05:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, unity should also be anathema to all Buddhism, since Buddhism is founded on anatta and consequently a rejection of monistic ideals. Also, the goal of "acceptance and embrace and unity" (which bear no resemblance to the writings of Zen foundational thinkers like Dogen and Linji, who are interested in plurality and incisive, penetrating awareness, however) is obviously a soteriology. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 18:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Response to Kukkurovaca: unity is a concept orthogonal to impermanence (anatta). Of course the universe changes, as does everything in it, but that does not deny its essential unity.  It would seem to me that the quotation from Dogen on the Dogen page, which ends by saying "to remove the barriers between one's self and others", is exactly about embrace and unity, so I don't know what writings you are referring to.  Penetrating awareness is a concept orthogonal to ideas of unity or duality, though of course penetrating awareness is very useful to see the essential unity of all things.  Plurality (the diversity of humans, human experience, and the universe) is wonderful and to be celebrated, but does not deny their essential unity.  That the realization of unity (not attainment or achievement but acceptance of it) may bring some peace does not make the goal a soteriology (a salvation) any more than going to a dentist to get some peace from a toothache is a soteriology.  Buddhists may seek nirvana to escape a wheel of re-incarnation and that concept may appear in Zen Buddhism but not necessarily in the philosophy of zen. Hu


 * On the contrary; Buddhism arose in response to and rejection of a unity-based metaphysical system impermanence is anitya, not anatta (though of course the two are intertwined)...Nagarjuna clearly lays out that things are neither the same nor different, neither at one nor as many; the chain of relation established in pratityasamutpada is not one of unity even though it does make everything inextricable: "Anekartham, ananartham, anucchedam asasvatam; etat tal lokanathananam buddhanam sasanamrtam," Neither (aimed at)one nor many, neither annihilated nor eternal, this is the immortal teaching of the Buddhas, world-lords. Though, of course, Soto is rather far after Nagarjuna. But to remove barriers between one's self and others is not to establish an identity-condition for the whole, and while I can see how some images in Dogen like the "one bright pearl" might incline one to see things as a unity--and for all I know words tranlsatable as "unity" are used, too--I regard this as an unnuanced reading. And when a dentist creates a school which has initiated clergy and lay practitioners and draws on an established salvific tradition, then he, too, is engaged in soteriology. The fact that, at a level of theory, it is possible to argue that nirvana and samsara are one, and that "even the cave of demons on black mountain is the one bright pearl," this does not obviate the soteriological practices that (help) establish the tradition as a religion. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 04:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revision Needed
This article really could use some work. It spends far too much time explaining about funeral rites and not nearly enough covering the founder, Dogen, the history beyond China, and a basic breakdown of beliefs. It's amazing that the main temple or honzan is not even mentioned in the article. I realize Zen is all about not getting hung up on words and all, but really, it doesn't excuse the format of this article. Zen is not my forte, so I won't risk making things worse, but can someone who is familiar with Zen help flesh out other parts of this article.

Advice to people writing this article: don't get hung up on what Zen is or isn't. Just imagine what a good encyclopedia article looks like and go nuts.

Thanks!

Gassho, --Ph0kin (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny how 6 months later I look at this page, and find my own comment there still unanswered. In any case, I made some notable changes this time around.  I removed the second paragraph because it spent too much time explaining how Soto is larger than Pure Land (if someone really wants to put this back in, move it into the 20th century section, not the opening paragraph).  I also moved some pictures around (removed one that wasn't necessary), and tried to make the article more readable.

曹洞宗
Oddly enough it seems I can't add the link to the japanese 曹洞宗 (Soutou lineage) page because it's already in use by en.wiki page "Caodong". Although the link between Soutou-shuu and Caodong makes sense, I think the japanese page should be linked to this one, since Caodong deals with the chinese segment of this lineage which is known mainly in its japanese incarnation. 95.232.229.178 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (The links in question are 曹洞宗, 曹洞宗, and Caodong school). It does seem strange that there is no ja.wikipedia link here. Is there a more fitting Japanese article that should be paired with Caodong? Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not, since the japanese page has a special section about the chinese part of the lineage and they don't need another one. I think only en.wiki (maybe other western wikis too) has a specific page on chinese Caodong - which is perfectly understandable - but as I said, the japanese branch (spelled Sōtō) should be linked here and not with Caodong. Keep up the good work :) 95.232.229.178 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I manually added a link to 曹洞宗. OsFish (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sōtō. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sōtō. 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/20121130105724/http://www.dharmanet.org/listings/centres/listofcentres/Minneapolis%2CMinnesota%2CUSA to http://www.dharmanet.org/listings/centres/listofcentres/Minneapolis,Minnesota,USA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111041312/http://emptynestzendo.org/2010/10/women-ancestors-document-approved/ to http://emptynestzendo.org/2010/10/women-ancestors-document-approved/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623164424/http://hcbss.stanford.edu/research/projects/sztp/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.translation.html to http://hcbss.stanford.edu/research/projects/sztp/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.translation.html
 * Added tag to http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Zen%20Ritual%20Studies%20of%20Zen%20Buddhist%20Theory%20in%20Practice.pdf

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) 12:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Jiyu-Kennett
please read WP:GETTHEPOINT regarding your re-insertion of WP:UNDUE info on Jiyu-Kennett:
 * Rgearding diff:
 * The addition of Jiyu-Kennett to the "Spread in the western world" section is WP:UNDUE, the way she was presented. She may be relevant, but because she founded a monastery; see Why Are Roshi Jiyu Kennett’s Disciples So Reclusive?.
 * Furthermore, comments like
 * are not encyclopedic, but read like the stuff for fan-sites and the like. Which is reflected by the source, a book by Koho Zenji, published by Shasta Abbey. And it also contains a WP:COPYVIOLATION...
 * Regarding diff: shikantaza is a form of zazen, but not all zazen is shikantaza.
 * Regarding diff: shikantaza is a form of zazen, but not all zazen is shikantaza.


 * Regarding diff:
 * You removed "the Sōtō school (曹洞宗)" without any explanation;
 * "Serene Reflection Meditation" is a term which is specific for Shasta Abbey; it's not a generic term for Soto.

Please familiarize yourself with the basics of Wikipedia, before you continue editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

artrocious article
ye last time it took abt 2 months on the talk page and people still didn't respond until i started removing stuff..

"at the time" refers to the fact that the article is trying to equate soto to caodong, directly associate them or call it a continuation, trying to imply that shikantaza was a term also used before the formation of the soto school/before dogen. the line right before it basically says it was the japanese version of chinese caodong but nowhere in caodong do we find the word shikantaza or for ex. the description of meditation provided in the article, which was one of the other complaints.

the article even mentions the soto practices were based on generic buddhist meditations, types that were not only not mentioned, but often rejected when mentioned in the caodong texts.

can you just set it back

it's super annoying if people blindly and without the proper education and information edit pages or revert edits that cleans up the mistakes they should have been cleaning up and watching out for. it's also rude as hell. you could've just opened a talk page yourself and mention the list of issues and i would've explained it to you..

it's weird that i have to explain my edit on a talk page and you just get to do, edit and revert whatever here.. 62.145.195.100 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply here.
 * Wikipedia welcomes improvements to articles, but one of our fundamental guidelines is that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources (see WP:RS). In a specialised article such as this, published academic sources are strongly preferred, particularly when discussing the history of the school. If aspects of the history are disputed (which I know they are) the article should set out and discuss all of the respectable academic positions. Since most of the article is already quite well referenced, your best bet, if you disagree, would be to bring forward your own academic sources that you think would support a re-write. To do that, you would need to identify specific passages (quoting exact page numbers) within your chosen source which could be suitably summarised. It would need to be done line by line, statement by statement, so would take some concentrated work. No matter how knowledgeable an editor may be in a particular field, Wikipedia never accepts personal expertise as a substitute for specific statements that have been published in reliable sources.
 * The text in the lead paragraphs is intended to summarise the main body text, and you'll understand, therefore, that sweeping changes can't be made on the basis of a mere allegation that it is wrong in some way (unless it doesn't accurately reflect what is stated in the article). The main body of the text would need to be amended first. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're making baseless claims here meaning burden of proof is on you.
 * the intro has no reference, the second paragraph has only one ref with page nr and the last has no page number reference.
 * wikipedia also has a thing called its fckng obvious.
 * like paris being the capital of france, not needing reference because it's just that well known and common..
 * meanwhile this intro is sort of the equivalent of saying baguettes and croissant are french so every french person eats croissants and baguettes.
 * and i already pointed out the article isn't just contradictory, it doesn't include the source or any quotes of the source it claims to represent and rather chooses a third party interpretation of said source that completely ignores what the source said. it's a bad source, so don't come claiming things like use wp:rs when you don't yourself or have completely failed to understand what that means.
 * but you're clearly more interested in being a wiki politician..
 * as evidenced by the fact you (and the article) aren't meeting multiple of the standards you set forth here. 62.145.194.133 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * meanwhile this intro is sort of the equivalent of saying baguettes and croissant are french so every french person eats croissants and baguettes.
 * and i already pointed out the article isn't just contradictory, it doesn't include the source or any quotes of the source it claims to represent and rather chooses a third party interpretation of said source that completely ignores what the source said. it's a bad source, so don't come claiming things like use wp:rs when you don't yourself or have completely failed to understand what that means.
 * but you're clearly more interested in being a wiki politician..
 * as evidenced by the fact you (and the article) aren't meeting multiple of the standards you set forth here. 62.145.194.133 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * but you're clearly more interested in being a wiki politician..
 * as evidenced by the fact you (and the article) aren't meeting multiple of the standards you set forth here. 62.145.194.133 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * as evidenced by the fact you (and the article) aren't meeting multiple of the standards you set forth here. 62.145.194.133 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Apart from being utterly rude, your rant is almost incomprehensible. You seem to have a problem with the notion that the Soto-school is the Japanese branch, or continuation, of the Caodong-school. You either show, concretely, which source is misinterpreted in this respect, or give sources which show they are disconnected; otherwise, you just move on (I put if friendly).
 * As for the term shikantaza: it's a Japanese term, why do you expect to find it in Caodong-sources? This article is about Soto, not Caodong. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  09:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * oh look
 * your argument completely uprooted by the wiki page the paragraph links to which says shikantaza is totally the same as caodong, making me wonder if you have any sort of familiarity with the topic or pages you try to argue for
 * "Shikantaza (只管打坐) is Dogen's Japanese translation of the Chinese phrase zhǐguǎn dǎzuò (只管打坐 / 祇管 打坐),[1][web 1] "just sitting."[2][3] The phrase was used by his teacher Rujing, a monk of the Caodong school of Chan Buddhism, to refer to the meditation-practice called "Silent Illumination" (Chinese: 默照禅), or "Serene Reflection," taught by the Caodong master Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157).[2]"
 * again an issue of false equivalence here btw
 * but now that your ignorance has been pointed out you're gonna change this or that article right, because that's how honest and caring you are? 62.145.197.22 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * jesus christ you people are ridiculous. you make complaints and comments but clearly and obviously haven't even read the comments i made, or you're utterly failing in your response, either of which doesn't make you look good in terms of ability to understand something or coherently respond to what was said, bringing into question your ability to edit any of the pages.
 * you say rude but you couldn't even be bothered to understand what i said and responded in ignorance anyway
 * which is ironic if you look at the article which makes the same mistakes
 * you say rant but you respond yourself in anger to an argument you admitted you don't even understand
 * reverting your revert because you don't look capable of making these decisions at all, especially if we're talking about academic sources and the meaning of those.
 * if you're already failing in basic conversation then any academic discussions is obviously a bit beyond you and not something worth attempting here.
 * besides all of this, if you look at the talk page topics, you'll see people have removed and edited parts without the fake standards you set here just to bully someone because you got mad or didn't understand what was going on
 * other wiki pages have been edited in the same manner
 * including some of the shoddy [citation needed]-edits you have made
 * how are you even talking about rude or whatever here?
 * you clearly have some personal issues that stand in the way of having a normal conversation here
 * 62.145.197.22 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * reverting your revert because you don't look capable of making these decisions at all, especially if we're talking about academic sources and the meaning of those.
 * if you're already failing in basic conversation then any academic discussions is obviously a bit beyond you and not something worth attempting here.
 * besides all of this, if you look at the talk page topics, you'll see people have removed and edited parts without the fake standards you set here just to bully someone because you got mad or didn't understand what was going on
 * other wiki pages have been edited in the same manner
 * including some of the shoddy [citation needed]-edits you have made
 * how are you even talking about rude or whatever here?
 * you clearly have some personal issues that stand in the way of having a normal conversation here
 * 62.145.197.22 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * including some of the shoddy [citation needed]-edits you have made
 * how are you even talking about rude or whatever here?
 * you clearly have some personal issues that stand in the way of having a normal conversation here
 * 62.145.197.22 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you clearly have some personal issues that stand in the way of having a normal conversation here
 * 62.145.197.22 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you would like to help improve the article you need to put in more effort than repeatedly stating that Wikipedia has it all wrong. Your approach at the moment is simply disruptive. Please read the disruption warning I have added to your talk page, and do not revert again without obtaining consensus here first.


 * I and others are happy to help improve the article, based on reliable sources. Let's start right here: can you please identify just one sentence in the history section that you consider to be wrong, and post here a short quote, from a reliable printed source, that would allow it to be corrected or improved. It must be specific, not just a general allegation about what you personally know or what you think should be 'obvious'. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * again comment not read and arbitrary standards set by some sockpuppet, standards that aren't just not enforced on this talk page in earlier instances, but standards they aren't even keeping themselves. 62.145.197.22 (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * fine be like that then
 * see if you fare better than the clearys for it
 * 62.145.197.79 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 62.145.197.79 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WL:LEAD leading
shikantaza is not mentioned anywhere in caodong and the wording of the lead makes it seem like false equivalence.

either remove the last part of the first paragraph or rewrite it in a way it doesn't imply an equivalence between soto and chinese caodong, between shikantaza and caodong, because there isn't a single caodong text anywhere talking about shikantaza. 62.145.197.22 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * reverted edit but you didnt explain why your article isn't leading
 * we should also just take your word on everything regardless of what i can read myself, when you can barely even understand when someone makes an argument or what the point of said argument is? let alone the fact that you gladly respond arrogantly anyway calling things a rant or whatever when you already admitted you didnt understand what was said. do you always blindly respond to things with arrogance even if you don't know what the conversation is about? is that being courteous too? especially if you have that same angry attitude reinstating your religious biases in the article you keep reverting without explaining yourself properly anywhere. as if i cant see how angry you are when reverting something.. as if i need to have you make an argument or statement or see your face even to understand how personally invested you are here to the point even the actions you take become an expression of an anger so intense you can basically feel it in the revert. and knowing your background and religious convictions you probably think you're zen for it too..
 * now tell me how that isn't biased behaviour or a biased attitude and why your revert was justified and not just some knee jerk response, being mad over being called out on your religious convictions..
 * tell me how saying caodong is soto (because you are equating them on multiple occasions) ISNT leading or a religious bias, because so far you haven't done or said anything 62.145.196.138 (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * also, your revert was """"justified"""" with "personal opinion" but you still haven't said how the intro ISN'T leading. you haven't made an argument regarding the equation of caodong to soto either, or how me adding nuance to that by saying shikantaza was never mentioned in caodong, not even once in a single text, like this; "UNLIKE caodong soto emphasizes shikantaza" (because how could caodong talk about a more modern invention and even be equated to that invention?) is an opinion rather than a statement of fact **you personally don't like to hear** 62.145.196.138 (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)