Talk:Chân Không

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Chan Khong)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Chân Không, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

This is a brand new article, and I welcome ideas for improvement, links, resources, etc. Thanks! Nightngle 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Interviews[edit]

Who has deleted this interview? http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/clubs/buddhism/dailylife/khong.html Please tell me why. Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 08:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's to be found following the link Number six. I put it again at link Number seven. I think it to be very important and that's why it should be given a title of its own. Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 08:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for adding this link. I put the link in the "external links" secion because it shouldn't have a heading of it's own. When folks delete things, usually it's because the way it's been added doesn't conform to wiki style guidelines, it's not a commentary on the quality of the information. Please be sure to take some time to read the "help" section on how to make additions. You also might want to consider registering and starting a member name. Often times when you don't log in, your additions may not be taken as seriously. Enjoy, and please continue to make additions to articles, it's the best way to learn! Nightngle 14:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Welcome. Austerlitz 88.72.23.179 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dharma teaching[edit]

Once Sister Chan Khong gave the following dharma teaching:

  • i am blooming as a flower.
  • i am fresh as a dew.
  • i am solid as a mountain.
  • i am firm as the earth.
  • i am free.

I guess I cannot insert it until I have not found some source in the internet or within a book. Right?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.79 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To-do list[edit]

  • The lead of this article needs to be expanded.
  • Upgrade references
  • Expand article with further references about activities during the Vietnam War
  • Does there need to be more about current activities?
  • Request peer review when the above points are completed.

More ideas for improvement? Nightngle 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a film[edit]

Thich Nhat Hanh as well as Sister Chan Khong are part of this film One: The Movie (2005). Plot Summary says: "In a divided post 9-11 world, first-time filmmaker Ward Powers asks life's ultimate questions of world renowned spiritual leaders and ordinary people..." I think it is worth while watching. Can we add it to the mainpage, Nightngle?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.149 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here she is [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.153 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea - we can create a "Media" sub-section to the external links and put it there. Thanks! Nightngle (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome! I put it there. You can refine or expand it of course. Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The fourteen precepts[edit]

which link to chose best for the mainpage of the article?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.188 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordination invalid[edit]

I tried to add some information which was repeatedly deleted. Here is an excerpt from my answer:

"This ordination (of Chan Khong) is invalid due to the Buddhist monastic code (Vinaya) which requires a bhikkhuni (nun) ordination to be done by a bhikkhuni community first if such a community exists; in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition a bhikkhuni community existed in 1988 e.g. in China." The source says what I have stated in the first part of the sentence:

"Together, these two rulings legislate for the two possible situations that could arise for bhikkhus in the matter of bhikkhunī ordination: 1.One possibility covered in the first prescription is that they have to carry out the higher ordination of females on their own, because no bhikkhunī community able to cooperate with them is in existence. 2.The other possibility covered in the second prescription is that they carry out such an ordination in cooperation with an existing bhikkhunī community, who will take care of the task of interrogating the candidate and ordain her first, as a precondition for her subsequent ordination by the bhikkhus."

As no ordination in the bhikkhuni community has been mentioned in Chan Khong's case - also such a community existed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhuni for the countries which have and had bhikkhuni - the only logical result is that here ordination by Thich Nhat Hanh is invalid due to the Vinaya.

But I am willing to rephrase it, as you should be willing to get reliable sources, which autobiographies alone are not, if you are responsible for the rest of the entry. I want to avoid a debate of where a conclusion starts and where not. It should in any case be appropiate to raise doubts in entries that read like marketing tools of religious sects, quoting from their own books almost solely.

This is my rephrased addition:

"However, correct ordination requires a nun to be ordained by a bhikkhuni (nun) community first [5]. These communities have existed for centuries in several Asian countries [6]." (The first reference leading to the same journal, the second to the Wiki-entry on "Bhikkhuni") Otaku00 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason this keeps being removed and you keep being warned about original research is because it is original research. What you link to doesn't mention Chan Khong. You are taking the Buddhist monastic code and extrapolating for yourself that this must mean Chan Khnog doesn't have appropriate lineage. Wikipedia is about what is documented not what editors personally feel. Please stop adding your personal interpretations to articles. Helpsome (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
"You are taking the Buddhist monastic code and extrapolating for yourself that this must mean Chan Khnog doesn't have appropriate lineage."

1) I have rephrased. 2) I was never talking about "lineage" at all. 3) I am not extrapolating "for myself", as I have just given the argument in a peer reviewed journal about correct ordination. 4) In my rephrasing this is given as a contradiction to think about, there is no extrapolation. Users should see the contradiction, as the sources given here are from Chan Khong's books herself. 5) You have used the explanation "unsourced material" lately, although the material I used is sourced.

Therefore, and because you used the word "lineage" (and I didn't), I think we should have others look at it. I asked other editors for the bio section to comment, and requested mediation.Otaku00 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing in what you added which refers to Chan Khong. You are deciding for yourself that based on the monastic code, Khong isn't properly ordained. This is original research. Helpsome (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, you are not really reading what I write. Are you a native speaker of English at all? I have quoted "correct ordination" due to an academic essay. I have not said that Khong is "not properly ordained". I have just quoted what - due to academia - correct ordination means. The conclusion is only yours, do not put it in my words! Maybe you do not like the word "However"? Let's delete it and keep the rest of the statement. Or please present your own version.

If you consider this a personal view, how can the sentence about her ordination not be one? It has been "decided by herself", because the source is a biography from her own community. Thus it lacks a neutral viewpoint.Otaku00 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote was "However, correct ordination requires a nun to be ordained by a bhikkhuni (nun) community first" and then quoted something that never even mentioned Khong. Therefore you are the one interpreting how this would apply to Khong and that is original research. You have not offered a single article which claims that Khong was not correctly ordained, just your own interpretation of ordination rules and how you feel they apply to Khong. WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." and that is exactly what you are doing. Helpsome (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"that serves to reach or imply a conclusion NOT stated by the sources" - the conclusion stated by the source is that bhikkhuni ordination has to be done by a bhikkhuni community first, right? I do not imply anything else. It is only "implication" when you say: Here is Khong's ordination (a), here is s.th. that says how ordination must be done (b), therefore (c) Khong is not ordained. It is only you who comes to that conclusion now, I do not give or imply (c) in my last wording, I just quote (b) because (a) alone violates the neutral point of view due to the source Chan Khong (or her community) herself.

I make another suggestion. How about this choice of words: "According to an essay on ordination in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics (link), bhikkhuni ordination has to be done by an existing bhikkhuni order first." This is just an information for the reader to keep close to a more neutral viewpoint. No conclusion, just the fact how an academic defines ordination. It is a primary source for the given topic (ordination). Okay? Otaku00 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

How about no? This "information" would be added with the sole purpose of indirectly telling the reader that you don't believe her ordination is valid. This is original research. You clearly have an axe to grind here so why don't you just stay away from this article and the Thích Nhất Hạnh since it seems to be too difficult for you to abide by policy. Helpsome (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Staying within your logic, the sentence in the article that Chan Khong was ordained, taken from her own biography written in her own community, is said "with the sole purpose of (in)directly telling the reader" that he should believe her ordination is valid. We will see who is not "abiding by policy" here. --Otaku00 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. You are grasping at straws here. As I said, you clearly have an axe to grind here so why don't you just stay away from this article and the Thích Nhất Hạnh since it seems to be too difficult for you to abide by policy. Helpsome (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

Due to the fact that this article cites almost solely books by Chan Khong herself, I see the requirement of a neutral viewpoint not fulfilled and have therefore flagged it. Otaku00 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

More references have been added. Helpsome (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)