Talk:Zen/Archive 5

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


 * Agreed.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You lie again, Kenny.

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

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

And the Han cabal is going to do it ? The same cabal which, out of nowhere, gathers up again when Chinese Taoism is objected to by MichaelMaggs and removed by me from the introduction?, and now you pretend to actually have concerns about the article when you yourselves were content by mere mention of Chinese Taoism?

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

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

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

Freedom skies 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, he has. And Mahakasyapa too.JFD 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed

Taoist foundations ?

Freedom skies 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed....An introduction to Zen Buddhism By Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (page 31).What Suzuki writes above is perfectly consistent with Huston Smith's statement that "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen". And in the last sentence Suzuki says outright that Zen developed in China. It certainly looks like someone was trying to misrepresent Suzuki's views so I've reproduced Suzuki's own words above so that people can make up their own minds. D.T. Suzuki and Huston Smith, pre-eminent scholars of, respectively, Zen and comparative religion...oh yeah, this view is "microscopic". argument ender Indeed. JFD 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Taoist foundations
Yes, you mention DT Suzuki's work.

Taoist foundations?

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

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

I'm sure it must have slipped your mind.

More misinterpretation.

Suzuki has this to say.

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

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

Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.

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

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

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

Demonstrably so.

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

Freedom skies 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Freedom skies: More misinterpretation.Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion. JFD 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite,

Here is the repitition of the complete text:-

---

More misinterpretation.

Suzuki has this to say.

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

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

Clarity itself, without misinterpretation or distortion.

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

---

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

Selective representation/misrepresentation on purpose?

Freedom skies 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Was it because he said this:-

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

Would I want any part of this charade?

The reply is an emphatic no.

---

Paul also felt that:-

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

Freedom skies 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Y'know what though, your recent edit is almost acceptable as it comes with an almost sober "whether or not you agree with me on the other edits, you must agree that an outside party has a point." line. I'll not revert for now and will edit in a min to end this effectively. Freedom skies 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom skies 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution
Oh, about DT Suzuki on Taoist foundations; citations please.JFD 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, Alan Watts then? Zen's origins are traced to the old Dharmic religions. His word is that Zen is traced back to Hinduism. Why not mention this as well?

---

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

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

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

It's done.

Freedom skies 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Ah, the repeated mention of that rejected mediation case.

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

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

Why repeat yourself then?

Incorrect again, Kenny.

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

Not at all, Incorrect again Kenny.

The issue at hand dealt with the Taoist foundations.

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

Bodhidharma is already done

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

Accomadation, Kenny.

Mixing problems to cause confusion, Kenny?

Freedom skies

It's done

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

It's done, solved and over with.

Freedom skies 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

We have your interpretation then, Paul.

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

Freedom skies 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Merge Chan, Seon, Thien into Zen
Chan being essentially "Chinese Zen" it makes sense to merge Chan into Zen. -- Knverma 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merge; they are large enough subjects that two seperate articles are warranted. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean "Zen" is just a deformation of the word "Chan" and happenned in Japan? In Korea they call it "Soen". In other countries there seem to be still other names.
 * Currently the Chan page has not much besides has a history section. But the history section of Zen also mostly talks about the Chinese history, so most of the material from the Chan page is already there or should be there on the Zen page. -- Knverma 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the history section of Zen also mostly talks about the Chinese history
 * Well maybe that's wrong. Maybe the history of Zen should concentrate on Japanese history. That might go some ways towards placating our Hindutva friend as well. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * JFD has an interesting point.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What if a merged "Zen" article were separated into something like the following sections: "Early history of Zen," "Zen in Country X," "Zen in Country Y", "Zen in Country Z", etc, etc? JFD 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be fine ... just a slightly different arrangement of the same information. Still, some people will be upset to not have an article titled "Chan" or "Seon" or "Thien".&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already the format box at the top right. Also, we can title the sections something like "Zen in Vietnam (Thien)". Right now it's like having separate articles for "Eggplant" and "Aubergine". JFD 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reflecting this discussion, I have put multiple merge tags. -- Knverma 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the word "Zen" is now becoming quite international, and also in Korea and Vietnam this word seems common. Especially with Korean and Vietnamese teachers teaching in other countries, the word "Zen" is getting more common, see for example Kwan Um School of Zen. -- Knverma 09:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suspect that, for the most part, only Chinese Channists would be likely to be offended.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Interesting comments above. So the articles should merge because "only Chinese Channists would be likely to be offended" by the common usage of the Zen word? Or is it the other way around? I support the merge and I think the Eggplant/Aubergine is a good comparison. 法網-ian 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So from the discussion it seems that the only problem with the merger is that the word "Chan" has some emotional value for Chinese Channists. Not a serious reason against a merger I think. But we all fully appreciate the Chinese contribution to Zen, and we we could try to address their concerns by, for example, having an extensive section on Chinese Chan. So I guess the overall opinion is in favor of a merger? -- Knverma 10:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Perhaps it's now time to proceed with the actual merge. Thien and Seon would be easier to merge, but merging Chan would be trickier. --Knverma 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I created an initial merged article essentially by cutting and pasting. There must be a lot of cleaning up to do. Perhaps the long term editors could help here. --Knverma 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently there is history section, and a Chan section. This should be looked into in more detail, what material should go into which section. One possibility could be to have just one section for both topics. Another possibility is to keep these two sections, the Chan section could talk only about the recent developments, and the rest of the material could be in the history section. Any suggestions? --Knverma 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Also, [http://www.google.co.in/search?q=kennethtennyson&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official a google search on Kenny will reveal volumes about him. Do take a look in his work on the discussion forums.]

Freedom skies 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Misrepresentation, Kenny?

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

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

Arrive at your own conclusions.

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

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

My POV views are emphatically held by lots of very reliable, very mainstream sources, Kenny. Let's hold a challege, I bring citations associating Bodhidharma with Zen and you bring citations which do not associate him with Zen. The one with the exponentially smaller list leaves Wiki forever. Lemme know.
 * Though I practice Zen, I myself am rather unfamiliar with the history. But I don't think there should be any reason for dispute here. If different authoritative sources contradict each other then I think the Wikipedia policy is mention that by citing both kind of sources. --Knverma 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This also reminds me of my observation that most of the religion-related articles on Wikipedia don't pay so much attention to proper sourcing, compared to other articles on Wikipedia. That is almost acceptable, as long as there are no disputes. Otherwise it is best to just cite the different, possibly contradictory sources. As editors, it is not our job to decide who is right or wrong. Does that sound reasonable to all?--Knverma 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means. However, let us make sure that all sources meet the criteria laid out in Reliable sources and that the material of the article accurately represents the sources cited. JFD 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

---

This is despite of the fact that:-


 * Taoism has been mentioned in a formidable manner.
 * Bodhidharma retains his mutually agreed position.
 * The Introduction remains untouched by either Hinduism or Taoism. It just mentions the nature of the faith and not the influences.
 * I have not mentioned Hinduism at all, as the other side may not find it palatable.

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

Freedom skies 09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "if the archealogical survey near Dwarka completes the unearthing of an undersea civilization which might be the oldest in human history, thereby making India the cradle of human civilization." (italics Freedom skies')
 * "The science of medicine originates in Ancient India."00:00, 15 August 2006 Kennethtennyson (need to preface this - no one really knows who he is) 00:31, 15 August 2006 JFD (Bodhidharma's historicity needs to be addressed with more than just a single word. That's why I added the reference to Paul Pelliot.) 20:05, 16 August 2006 Kennethtennyson (most encyclopedia articles preface talking about him by stating that he is legendary or semi-legendary. not enough to assume people will click on your link) Misrepresentation? JFD 10:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
 * Bodhidharma
 * Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection
 * Zen
 * Chan

JFD's contributions and Kenny's contributions match exactly.

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

The discussion forums, for everyone's benefit.

Talk about being on the same page.

---

That is exactly what was done here in the following paragraph:- Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. The accounts differ on the date of his arrival, with the earliest account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

Unfortunately some people vandalized the paragraph agreed upon here.

It's restored now though. Looks good enough to me to leave now that it's done and worry about the merge before someone prompts the involved parties to take the private discussion to their own pages.

Freedom skies 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did.

02:54, 3 December 2006 Bakasuprman (add cat+add ref for kanchi) 03:43, 3 December 2006 JFD ("most accounts" say no such thing) 17:38, 3 December 2006 Bakasuprman (add refs and change cat) 19:08, 3 December 2006 Saposcat (removed one reference that contradicts itself (mentioning two places of origin)) 03:34, 4 December 2006 Bakasuprman (times of india is mainstream, rediff is mainstream, american oriental journal is academic) 11:48, 4 December 2006 Saposcat (let's make it easy and simply remove Kanchipuram ... certainly it's less disputable that way) Thank goodness for vigilant, scrupulous editors. JFD 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did.

Revision as of 22:44, 24 January 2007 by Kennethtennyson. The Diffs

Amen.

Freedom skies 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As per request ...
Hey, I've been requested to assist/oversee the revamping/extension of this article, which I'm only too happy to attempt to do given the limits of time (I've got quite a bit of work going on outside of Wiki-world right now), and resources (I haven't got direct access to my library at the moment), and just plain knowledge I would have to be working under.

That said, here are two things I see (after just a glance at just the beginning of the article) that need to be done.

(1) The intro's got to be beefed up: such a skimpy and general statement serves as no real introduction at all. Admittedly, it's hard to summarize Zen—what it is, what it is taken to be, etc.—but such a thing needs to be attempted (though perhaps that can be done after the article itself is beefed up, and thus with a little broader view/afterthought).

(2) I know it's contentious, but history-wise, Daoism should be mentioned (with the strength of solid references, of course). From what I know of the subject—which I admit is not perfect—virtually every scholar on Zen (not to mention practitioners) admits that Daoism exercised some sort of influence, probably quite large, on the development of Chán in China ... the real issue in that area is not really whether or not Daoism had an influence, but rather what the nature of that influence was—and on that subject, the jury is still out (and, I suspect, always will be, barring another semi-miraculous discovery of early texts à la the Dunhuang manuscripts that might, ahem, enlighten us on the matter).

Anyhow, them's just preliminary thoughts on a couple of things that need to be done, as far as I can tell. I'm sure there's more. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Zen in India
I am uncertain as to whether or not such a section has ever been created before, but I figured that such a wide geographic area of locations for Zen are mentioned, then the Indians must have cottoned on to such a good philosophy... —MrASingh 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there are not many Zen teachers or Zen centers in India for the moment at least, so we can't say that there is a "Zen tradition" in India like it is in Korea or Vietnam. There are probably a few teachers, as there are in many other countries which are not mentioned in this article. --Knverma 09:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential revisions
I will add the early Mahayana Buddhism section that I mentioned in the merge proposal to the article as well.

Kindly watch over both our contributions. My understanding is that the Bodhidharma mention will retain it's status quo and neither I nor JFD (and Kenny) will touch it. I welcome JFD's eagerness for tidying up the Zen article. The article can definitely use tidying up.

Freedom skies 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues that need to be discussed here. They may include:-


 * A better introduction.
 * Taoism had a subsequent influence on this form of Mahayana Buddhism. That influence has been mentioned as found in the works of Duomlin.

However, the most contentious bit in the Zen article is going to be the portrayal of Bodhidharma's role in Zen (right now it's just a copy paste of the original Bodhidharma introduction). Could you edit/expand it unilaterally so that it suits the article? This concerns Bodhidharma and neither I nor JFD (and Kenny) trust each other on his correct portrayal. You helped close the endless Bodhidharma argument and your knowledge on the subject is well respected by all involved, it would be of help to both parties involved if you unilaterally edited the position of Bodhidharma in Zen so that it suits the article.

Our (JFD, Kenny and mine) contribution in this one issue should best be zero. The involved parties can work together on other issues later.

Freedom skies 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since JFD has insisted on editing Zen in Bodhidharma even though initially he only implied cleaning up I'll submit my view of Bodhidharma here as well.

In my opinion, it's about time we let go of the revisions done by Taoists, communists and the like and present Bodhidharma as seen by the Zen community. Historic information regarding Siddhartha Gautama, Mohammad and Jesus is, at times, riddled with inconsistencies as well but they either have a seperate article dealing with them or they simply present mainstream, reliable views.

Kindly let me know what you think of this introduction of Bodhidharma in the Zen article.

I will provide suggestions for early Mahayana section as well.

Freedom skies 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My proposal for Bodhidharma
 * Freedom skies 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said "cleaning up" I meant the removal of duplication and overlap, specifically the duplication between the "History" and "Zen in China (Chan)" sections of the "Zen" article and between the "Zen" and "Bodhidharma" articles.

Bodhidharma's role can be addressed with something likeJFD 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The attribution of Bodhidharma's Dharma teachings and Huike are found in Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices by Talinin. The refernces to the Mahayana path are also found in this document.

I second that the information given on Bodhidharma in the Zen article in it's current form is good enough to be left alone. Does this version depict the place of honor Bodhidharma holds in the Zen tradition accurately?

Freedom skies 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but Tanlin is credited only with the preface to the Long Scroll, not the scroll itself.

And the earliest known document to characterize Bodhidharma as the first patriarch of Zen is still the epitaph for Faru, not the Long Scroll. Bodhidharma's place of honor in the Zen tradition is something that developed over time, specifically the 6th to 10th centuries, and this can be observed by noting the growing importance that contemporary authors accord to Bodhidharma as the centuries pass. There is a reverence for Bodhidharma in the 10th century Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall that is simply not there in Tanlin's preface to the Long Scroll or Daoxuan's Continued Biographies, neither of which honors Bodhidharma as "the first patriarch of Zen". Broughton notes that the entry for Bodhidharma in the mid-7th century Continued Biographies is brief compared to others, nor does it speak of Bodhidharma in the reverential tones that the mid-10th century Anthology does.

Again, what I would like to see is the removal of duplication and overlap between the "History" and "Zen in China (Chan)" sections of the "Zen" article and between the "Zen" and "Bodhidharma" articles. JFD 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma
I think the mention of Bodhidharma should retain the status quo. The information given on Bodhidharma in the Zen article in it's current form is good enough to be left alone.

JFD
I know that a persistent tradition attributes the document to Bodhidharma himself.

Now, the description of Bodhidharma's association with the path of the Mahayana is not a minor point.

The document revers him as a "Dharma Master" and notes his background as the third son of a great king.

Zen itself developed over a period of time. It is but natural that with the development and growth of a philosophy it's founding father's are honored; sometimes as men capable of great miracles.

That may not be hard or contentious at all. I suggest we replace the heading "history" by "History and development in China." The section "Zen in China" can be replaced by "Zen in People's republic of China." "Zen in People's republic of China" should deal with Zen's status under the present regime.

The title "patriarch of Zen" and its application to Bodhidharma does not appear until the epitaph for Faru.

Nowhere does the Long Scroll refer to the institution of patriarchal lineage or name Bodhidharma "the first patriarch of Zen".

Therefore, it is incorrect to cite the Long Scroll as the source of Bodhidharma's status as "first patriarch of Zen".

JFD 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No one stated otherwise, JFD. The whole idea of starting the introduction with the epitaph for Faru when earlier texts existed is being debated here. I guess the mention of Chinese classic texts serves our purpose best since not mentioning the earlier "Long Scroll" text is not fair rationale. Freedom skies 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's position of honor in the Buddhist tradition
Adding it without reference sounds good enough to me. I knew that it was well known but thought I would add references just in case.

---

I will bring additional mentions of Bodhidharma's place of honor in Zen tradition. JFD has expressed hesitation in adding Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki's statements. I will bring other statements and ask for his opinion.

I have absolutely no objection to citing DT Suzuki. I have done so myself on plenty of occasions. However, I request that Freedom skies supply quotations and page numbers so that you and I may double check that the sources cited actually support proposed statements. JFD 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word then, JFD. You'll find the page number supporting the line here. Freedom skies 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal for the introduction
I have not yet searched for the population of adherents of Zen. We could fill that in the empty [ ].

Kindly let me know what you think about it.

Freedom skies 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposed introduction tells the reader even less about Zen doctrine than the introduction in its current state does; it's little more than a truncated hagiography, especially with the language about "centered on the life and teachings of," which is misleading insofar as it implies that Zen practitioners treat Bodhidharma the way that Christians do Jesus or Muslims do Muhammad. JFD 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to This version


 * Zen is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism centered on the life and teachings of Bodhidharma as presented in Chinese classic texts.


 * Zen is an influential school of thought. It is particularly influential in East Asia.

As for describing the nature of Zen, a branch of Mahayana Buddhism would indicate it not recognizing a creator god.

Since you feel that strongly about it, suggesting a second paragraph regarding the nature of Zen should help. I'll rummage through Suzuki and try to come up with something.

An agenda to downplay the stature of Bodhidharma in Zen? Saposcat, a commentary by you is requested.

Freedom skies 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a passage by the Venerable Master Sheng-yen.So how about:Or to use more vernacular construction:Either explains in clear, concise English the distinguishing characteristic of Zen, which is what the introduction is supposed to do.

The defining essence of Zen is not patriarchal lineage, but the ineffability on ultimate truth, and that is what the introduction should be about.

And would Freedom skies drop his innuendo about "Taoists", "communists" and "agendas"? I have been scrupulously sticking to the high road and I don't appreciate that fact that he is not.

JFD 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed version
Incorporates all features.

Freedom skies 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Saposcat remembers this, but he and I discussed the importance of "not getting bogged down in arcana"—or "specialist crap," as he put it—in the introduction to the Bodhidharma article. That's a pretty good rule of thumb for the introduction to the Zen article too. JFD 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Final proposed version of the introduction
Freedom skies 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments on proposed revisions
One thing is that, as JFD notes, the importance of Bodhidharma to Zen should not be overestimated. Yes, of course he is seen as important—being considered the founder of the movement—but he is hardly a be-all and end-all. In this respect, JFD is right in his analogy with Christianity and Islam: Christianity cannot be introduced apart from Jesus Christ, as he is, effectively, the be-all and end-all of that faith; similarly, Islam cannot be introduced apart from Muhammad, who—though certainly not the be-all and end-all, which would be Allah—is considered the final prophet and the (re-)bringer of Allah's true message. On the other hand, Zen can be introduced apart from Bodhidharma insofar as the practice and enlightenment of Bodhidharma are considered fundamentally identical to those of all other Zen practitioners; in other words, Bodhidharma is entirely imitable, whereas Jesus Christ and Muhammad, according to Christians and Muslims respectively, are radically inimitable. This is not to say that he must not be mentioned in the intro; just that it is not necessarily necessary.

Also, I would not necessarily say that "the ineffability of ultimate truth" is the distinguishing characteristic of Zen. If I had to try and pinpoint something that was, I would have to say meditation, specifically zazen, and even more specifically the carrying-over into all aspects of life the "attitude" (for lack of a better word) and "insights" (again, for lack of a better word) got through zazen. Something like that seems, to my admittedly unawakened mind, to be more constitutive of the "distinguishing characteristic" of Zen. The real problem, I think, with proposing "the ineffability of ultimate truth" as Zen's distinguishing characteristic is simply that it weights the intro too much towards the philosophical side of things, whereas Zen—at least, insofar as it is a religion—is a religion geared heavily towards praxis.

Anyhow, them's just too comments I wanted to make for the time being. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw this out there, but how aboutLess concise, but still clear and jargon-free.JFD 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This one seems more reasonable. Regarding "ineffability of ultimate truth", that is something that Mahayanists also say. All the Mahayana sutras use such phrases, hence Zen is no different in this sense. The difference is more in the style: textual study is given much less importance in Zen, as any person can observe by visiting Zen centers and other Buddhist centers. --Knverma 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why I replaced "distinguish" with "emphasize". JFD 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal to retain Bodhidharma in Zen tradition
I agree that authors like DT Suzuki trace it beyond Bodhidharma to the Gathas, the Dharanis and the Sutras and Heinrich Dumoulin notes the roots of Zen in Yoga. I still would ask that the reader should not be deprived of the mention of Bodhidharma from the very tradition that honors him as the first patriarch.

I have pleaded the case for the first patriarch of Zen in China. It would be of immense help if Saposcat himself crafted an introduction dealing with the outstanding features of Zen, taking into account the Zen tradition and the current discussion. Whether or not he chooses to put Bodhidharma into the introduction is entirely upto him.

An introduction to Zen Buddhism by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (page 38) contains elaborate explaination. Should be of some help to all involved.

Freedom skies 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations and page numbers, please. JFD 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

From the Manual of Zen Buddhism by Diesetz Taitaro Suzuki:-


 * Gathas and Prayers (begins page 13)
 * The Dharanis (begins page 21)
 * The Sutras (begins page 26)
 * From the Chinese Zen masters (begins page 73)

Freedom skies 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Suzuki
D.T. Suzuki's Manual of Zen Buddhism is a compilation of Zen texts, lacking commentary by Suzuki about hows and whys of Zen's emergence as a distinct school of Buddhism. JFD 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumoulin
Nice work. Really. JFD 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

anonymous comments
This argument is almost irrelevent. Someone brought Buddhism to China. No one knows for sure who that someone was. It has been attributed to Bodhidharma, a Brahmin from South India. What is important is that as a legend, or myth, Bodhidharma exists and furthermore, Bodhidharma day (Daruma) is celebrated, in Japan, and in Zen Temples and Monasteries.

Whether Bodhidharma himself existed or not is no longer important. What is important, is that Bodhidharma (or someone else under the psuedonym) brought a new form of Buddhism to China to counter the extant (existing) form of Buddhism.

Why did he do that? What marks Zen apart from other forms of Buddhism?

The Buddhism that existed in China at the time of Bodhidharma had become stale, overdependent and reliant on the Sutras. Buddhism in China had become overly erudite and scholarly.

This was swept away by the fresh vital approach of Bodhidharma (whoever he was).

The famous quatrain:

"A special transmission outside the teachings Not dependent on the written word Directy pointing to the human heart Seeing into its nature and becoming Buddha"

makes this quite clear.

Not dependent on the written word.

That does not mean throw out the written word. No. But not to become overly dependent on it. As with all things in this world of form, words can lead to clarity AND to confusion, for they are part of the duality of nature.

Buddhism in China was getting bogged down with petty squabbles on interpretation and personal views. To sweep this away Bodhidharma brought a form of Buddhism tha swept much of this away. This became known as Zen Buddhism.

To clarify matters, it is important not to have a knee jerk reaction and throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Sutras are important and play a vital role in Zen training. The great Zen Master Hakuin was reading the Lotus Sutra, to clarify a point, when he attained his final, great enlightenment. Read his biography.

But once again it is important to realise that book learning cannot replace Zen training. And so Bodhidharma plays an important part in Zen history. Whether he actually existed or not is no longer important. What is important is that he brought a fresh approach to Buddhism in China and revitalized it. (Much as Master Hakuin did in Japan 1200 years later).

Book learning (reading the sutras) occurs in the head. Zen training occurs in the body. So you can hold all forms of ideas on things and not really get it.

Throw those ideas away and find out for yourself through direct experience. Those ideas are a barrier.

This is the message of Bodhidharma. This is the massage of Zen Buddhism.

This is wrong
Several references are made to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was not a Buddha. Gautama was a prince and heir to a kingdom. He renounced his inheritence because of the problems he experienced in his life.

Gautama was the person before the enlightenment. After the enlightenment he became Buddha. But he certainly was not Gautama. He is commonly referred to as Sakyamuni Buddha.

Muni meaning wise one or sage. Sakya was the clan he was born into. So Sakyamuni Buddha is the sage of the Sakya clan.

But he certainly was NOT Gautama. Gautama died when the Buddha attained enlightenment. His old life, along with his old title passed away with the Great Enlightenment.

Please do not refer to Gautama Buddha. This is wrong. Gautama was the person before enlightenment. The Buddha was the being after.

It is important that there is a distinction.

The Buddha himself repremanded the ascetics that referred to him as friend or companion, after his enlightenment. He clarified for them that he was a fully enligthened being, a Buddha, no longer their aspirent. He was now a teacher of Gods and men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.38.142 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Mythology
The mythology section, if it is to be included, doesn't yet fit into the rest of the article. The mythology section talks of Mahakashyapa, and just after that, the History section talks of Bodhidharma. The reader is left wondering about the connection between the two. --Knverma 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this section is very weak. I believe it was added by user 66.133.219.60 back some time ago. It should be removed for now if no one objects, unless someone can re-write the whole section. ian-Kiu 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I attempted a re-write. As with several other religious articles, I think mythology does have some place. But I am all for distinguising it from historical events, as much as possible through reliable sources. --Knverma 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Freedom Skies, I have several comments on your edits. But first of all, if we cite sources for one point of view, there is no need to delete the citations for the opposing point of view. And there are at least some scholars that dispute whether the flower sermon legend is based on historical events. --Knverma 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate history
the history section really has degenerated unfortunately. We're dealing with an encyclopedia here and currently the article states that the foundation of zen is based around this semi-legendary hero figure (bodhidharma) and doesn't seem to address the current thinking in Chan/Zen history as seen by most historians. Now it includes a mythology section to further cloud the history. I'm reinstating my statement on the history of zen as it relates to what most historians believe is true. Please tell me if my citations are false. I've tried to get arbitration for this statement in the past, but one user - ie freedom skies - did not agree to arbitration. Further, i'm looking at the citations for the current mythology section and the citations include wikipedia articles along with random websites. Unless we have a decent citation that supports the paragraph, I vote to remove that section. Kennethtennyson 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The history portion definitely needs lot of improvement. I myself have been planning to remove the duplications as soon as I get some time.
 * Regarding citations for the mythology (I am not strongly for or against its inclusion), what could be stated is that it figures in the well-known kong-an collections, but that it is disputed whether it is based on historical events. I remember reading that in the commentaries in one of these kong-an collections, I will go and check again. --Knverma 08:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am putting whatever I read on this issue in The Gateless Barrier: Zen Commments on the MuMonkan by Zenkei Shibayama.


 * Zen maintains that it directly transmits Shakyamuni Buddha's religious experience itself, and that the life of Zen lies in the fact of this transmission. How then does the Dharma transmission actually take place in Zen? This koan of "Shakyamuni Holds Up a Flower" is a very significant one as it gives us a clear and concrete example of the unique Dharma transmission in Zen. Before giving my teisho on the koan, it may be helpful to give a brief explanation of its background.


 * There are a number of books in China with stories more or less similar to the one in this koan. They all record this account of "Shakyamuni Holds Up a Flower" as if it were a historically traceable event. The source of the incident is Daibontenno Monbutsu Ketsugi-Kyo, and there are no Sanskrit scriptures in India in which it can be found. Morover, it is the general opinion of bibliographers that Daibontenno Monbutsu Ketsugi-Kyo must be a spurious work of a later date in China, and the tale of "Shakyamuni Holds Up a Flower" is criticized as a fabrication without historical basis.


 * True it may be that the story cannot be supported by history, yet this does not mean that the fact of Dharma transmission in Zen from a Master to his disciple is to be denied. It is perfectly natural that someone whose experience was based on such transmission should give a Zen interpretation to the fact of Dharma transmission from a Master to his disciple as we see it here in this koan. The significance of the koan and its historical basis belong to two different orders, and the former will not be affected by the latter.Knverma 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)