Talk:Dharma transmission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
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 Dharma transmission, 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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.

What about non-Zen traditions?[edit]

Is the term "Dharma transmission" specific to Zen? What about Tibetan Buddhism? --Knverma 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • As far as I know, yes - the term "Dharma Transmission" is unique to Zen. Jikaku (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Inka is not the same as Dharma transmission for most schools outside of the Rinzai. In the Kwan Um School, inka denotes a Ji Do Poep Sa Nim. In Soto Zen, there is the shiho ceremony. For the Sanbo Kyodan and White Plum Asanga—inka is given after transmission has taken place, usually much later. I will work on a solution to this, because as it stands this article can be misleading.(Mind meal (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree with this. Somewhat relatedly, dharma transmission also refers to the legendary transmission among the patriarchs (Bodhidharma, Huike, etc.). Claims this article, "Inka most often denotes the completion of some sort of koan curriculum." This was not the case for more ancient schools of buddhism. I am thinking primarily of the "sudden" school of thought regarding enlightenment that characterized southern Cha'n. As such, it does not seem logical to merge this page with that of Inka. Fred.Pendleton (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Fred and Mind meal - Inka is unique to those schools of zen descended from Lin Chi (Linchi Chan, Imje Son, Rinzai Zen, etc.), whereas "Dharma Transmission" is a broader term covering many more schools of Zen. It would be a mistake to merge the pages. Jikaku (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What about other forms of Zen?[edit]

The article mentions Korean and Japanese Zen - what about Vietnamese and Chinese?

I know Chinese Ch'an/Zen makes use of two types of dharma transmission- institutional (From the abbot of a monastery to the next abbot of the monastery) as well as private (much more like the Japanese method, from a teacher to his or her student(s)). Is anyone willing/able to write this up? I'll have time in a few days I suppose, if no one else steps up.

As far as Vietnamese - I really have no information. --Jikaku (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seung Sahn's In'ga[edit]

A "citation needed" tag has been placed on the claim that the popular Korean Zen teacher Seung Sahn only received Inga and not Transmission, and after a quick review, I -think- it (the claim) may qualify as "original research." Here's what we've got -
1. I've seen SS's actual certificate, and it's clearly an Inga certificate and not a "transmission" certificate.
2. The teacher that he's typically listed as receiving "transmission" from is documented as giving transmission to someone else (ZM Phowa's teacher, I forget his name) - and in Korean Seon, a teacher can only give transmission to a -single- student.
3. I can't find a single published source that puts all this together, and so without that, even though it appears very likely true - I think we're in the area of "original research" which takes it out of wikipedia realm.
4. Finally, since Inga and Transmission are functionally the exact same in terms of recognition and authority (the only difference is that the single student with "transmission" inherits the teachers temple when he dies... othewise they're identical, you can be a "Seon sa/Zen Master" with either, and someone with Inga can still transmit the dharma, giving both Inga -and- transmission to their own students) - I don't see how it actually changes much to remove it.
Any other thoughts on this from other editors? Jikaku (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jikaku. (I've taken the freedom to list your arguments) If the statement is nor properly sourced, than you can remove it, I'd say. But it's interesting that this kind of ambiguity is possible; it fits into a pattern. An dthat does make it interestin gfor Wikipedia: what is the exact meaning of 'dharma transmission'? For that reason, it culd be interesting to maintain the statement. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
JJ - I don't know - does "being interesting" trump "being original research" (if it qualifies)? I won't do anything yet - we can wait for another editor or two to weigh in, and while we're waiting, someone may turn up with a verifiable source. Jikaku (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What sources did you find? Can you give the links?
This source speaks of "dharma transmission" and "mind-to-mind seal of approvement", but both these terms seem to acknowledges degrees of insight, not the transmission of temple-property. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
JJ - No, I didn't say that I found sources - I said "someone may" as in someone else, other than me - turn up with sources. And while I can't read the text from your link - I know the book in its original English, and it's a book of poetry, not a credible academic source for Korean Seon Buddhism - unlike the Buswell reference, currently in use. Jikaku (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, for my point #2 above, it looks like I misremembered. It's not that Kobong gave transmission to another student, it's that Mangong (who's typically listed as giving transmission to Kobong) gave dharma transmission to someone else (Hye-am), and therefore Kobong, Seung Sahn's teacher, never received Dharma Transmission, he only received Inga from Mangong. Of course, as I said originally, this is a minor point, because 1)I've seen SS's inga certificate, and 2) you don't need dharma transmission in Korean Seon in order to *give* dharma transmission... Inga is sufficient. Jikaku (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Go on, just remove the sentence from the article. I think you're right that it is OR. Anyway, I like this discussion-thread; it also shows that dharma-transmission is a multi-facetted issue. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Removed sentence[edit]

I've removed the following sentence from the lead:

The moment of awakening and recognition may involve what in Zen is called 'mind-to-mind transmission' between teacher and pupil. Numerous examples of this phenomenon can be found within the literature of Chán Buddhism including The Transmission of the Lamp (景德傳燈錄) and the Blue Cliff Record (碧巖錄).

"Mind-to-mind transmission" is a specific Zen-term, pointing to a self-narrative of the Zen-tradition. The Zen-literature does not give factual accounts, but polished stories, which serve to underscore this self-narrative. And anyway, dharma transmission is about much more than just simply acknowledging someone's "awakening"; it's also, and even more, about being socialized into the mores and behavioural codes of the Zen-tradition - about learning how to behave as a Zen-master. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


The new changes to the lead still give a Zen-narrative, not a referenced intro to the article. I'd like to propose the following text:

In Zen-Buddhism, 'Dharma transmission is a custom in which a person is established as a "successor in an unbroken lineage of teachers and disciples, a spiritual 'bloodline' (kechimyaku) theoretically traced back to the Buddha himself."[1] The dharma lineage reflects the importance of family-structures in ancient China, and forms a symbolic and ritual recreation of this system for the monastical "family".[2]

In Rinzai-Zen, inka shōmei is ideally "the formal recognition of Zen's deepest realisation"[3], but practically it is being used for the transmission of the "true lineage" of the masters (shike) of the training halls.[4] There are only about fifty[web 1] to a hundred of such inka shōmei-bearers in Japan.[web 1]
In Soto-Zen, dharma transmission (shiho) provides access to only a relatively low grade. It is listed as a requirement for the very lowest ecclesiastical status, that of an instructor third class (santō kyōshi)[5] further training is required to become an oshō.[web 2]

  1. ^ Haskel, 2
  2. ^ Bodiford 2008, p. 264.
  3. ^ Ford 2006, p. 54.
  4. ^ Borup 2008, p. 13.
  5. ^ Bodiford & 2008 276.
  1. ^ a b Muho Noelke, Part 10: What does it take to become a full-fledged Sōtō-shu priest and is it really worth the whole deal?
  2. ^ Muho Noelke, Part 2: Ten points to keep in mind about dharma transmission

This proposal is more faithfull to the article as it is now, and based on referenced info.

By the way, roshi is a honorific title, not a formal tile. No roshis are being installed, only oshos and abbots. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS2: "abiding in the unconditioned" is not the aim of Zen-Buddhism. See Michel Mohr on "Going Beyond: The Significance of "Kojo"" in Mohr, Michel (2000), Emerging from Nonduality. Koan Practice in the Rinzai Tradition since Hakuin. In: steven Heine & Dale S. Wright (eds.)(2000), "The Koan. texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism", Oxford: Oxford University Press  pages 262-266. As faithfull Mahayana-tradition, the emphasis is on the Bodhisattva-ideal. In the words of Torei, one of the two main students of Hakuin:

Please arouse an attitude of intense determination, and take another step forward. The abode of treasure is near; don't linger in the magical castle. (Torei (2010), Translator's introduction. The Undying Lamp of Zen. The Testament of Zen Master Torei, Boston & London: Shambhala  Unknown parameter |translator= ignored (|others= suggested) (help), p.33

cleary explains in note 4:

"The abode of treasure" represents complete enlightenment; "the magical castle" represents peaceful nirvana".

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

removed "Overview"[edit]

Sorry, but this "overview" is Original Research:

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research."

Sources are even lacking here, as before.

To give a few examples:

  • "Dharma transmission forms part of the wider concept of parampara within the Indian religions" - which author states that? The article is mainly about Dharma Transmission In Zen. Zen's dharma transmission originated in China.
  • "dharma (as reality) is something that must be realized, which is to say subjectively experienced within the psyche of an individual" - which author states this,a nd what's the relevance to dharma transmission?
  • "the experience of liberation (nirvana)" - Nirvana is extinction; the link with "experience" is a modern interpretation. See "Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience", NUMEN, vol.42 (1995)  " and "McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195183276 "
  • "the custodians of a living tradition in which knowledge of the correct interpretation and application of the theory has been carefully maintained" - Buddhism has seen many changes over time, and is still changing. Buddhism as we know it in the west is a modern Buddhism, influenced by western thought. See Buddhist modernism and, again, McMahan.
  • "Pativedha may involve the series of insights (called in Pali vipassana; in Japanese kensho) along the path (including the various jhanas) or to the experience of liberation itself, nirvana with final knowledge (Pali: bodhi; Japanese, satori)" - which author states this?
  • "A teacher who has not themselves attained liberation does not possess the means and thus the authority to act as spiritual director to a group of aspirants. Any pretence at doing so leads to a false spiritual tradition lacking authority, validity, authenticity or integrity and becomes an example of 'the blind leading the blind'" - see "Lachs, Stuart (2002), Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi " and "Lachs, Stuart (2006), The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves " for some insights of the actual workings of "authority".
  • "it might be considered that on the occasion of his first sermon (in which he ordained his first disciples) the Buddha established a professional guild in which he was the Master craftsman"- which author states this?
  • "in the same general manner in which all authentic spiritual schools in India have been maintained since pre-historic times the true dhamma-vinaya has here and there been preserved in its authentic form" - which author states this? And what is this "authentic form"?

Apart from that, what's the relevance of this section? A link to Buddhism would suffice.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And please, this time first discuss before editing again. It's up to you to show what your edits are based on. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
PS2: There is a nice Zen-saying, "The Buddha and Bodhidharma are still practicing". It means that "awakening" doesn't change us into perfect beings; it makes us aware of our imperfections, and the need to counterbalance this imperfection. Much of my strong reactions has to do with an aversion against creating nice stories about perfectly enlightened beings. Those stories blind us, instead of helping us to wake up. Of course, I love those stories myself too... and I too find it disappointing that Buddhism too doesn't provide perfection. But at least we can strive to be honest, critical and loving people. So my apologies when I'm too harsh; I'm not perfect either... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Transmission of precepts[edit]

To clarify the dharma transmission is outside of the Vinaya ordination. The use of the term "dharma transmission" is misunderstood in the West. It is important to really understand the ordination of bhikshu and bhikshuni is a transmission of precepts when absolutely done correctly by the ordination masters to be received individually by the ordination candidates is the lineage of Sakyamuni referred to as Gautama Buddha above. The dharma transmission referred to in Chan is specific to a master or dharma teacher that is recognized within the Chan community. This allows one to claim to be dharma heir in that very narrow context. The person usually is well versed in the lineage teachings, and practices of their specific Chan center or temple. The monks and nuns in the Chan tradition uphold Vinaya precepts when they receive them properly. Specifically I refer to the Chinese Buddhist schools. If they abandon the precepts they are no longer monks or nuns in the Vinaya or Chan tradition. --Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 21:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ven Hong Yang. Thanks for your contributions! I've moved them to the Talk Page though, since you didn't give any references, and they read like a personal opinion/experience. But a very worthfull, to be sure! Would you have any sources and references to underscore this information? Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Yes I have references. Didn't they show up? Buddhist Monastic Code I, Buddhist Monastic Code II both of these are by Thannissarro Bhikkhu as I referred too already. Vinaya Precepts are covered in this and even though this is a work by Theravada Buddhism it is exactly the same in Mahayana Buddhism with very minor variations. Taisho Tripitaka has different variations depending on the translator or lineage master

               T22n1028 4 Part Bhikshuni Precepts
               T22n1029 4 Part Bhikshuni Precepts
               T22n1030 4 Part Bhikshuni Precepts
               T22n1031 4 Part Bhikshuni Precepts

Of course there are bhikshu 4 part Precepts, same as the Thanissaro works I just gave you.

Instruction I received from a bhikshu informed me of this difference as I was not aware of it. Ven. Huei Guang from Foguangshan who is a dharma heir and abbot of one of their temples and has the ability to transmit dharma. I was instructed on names and this difference was pointed out by him in the instruction of dharma names during out conversations. There is alot not published on the Chan side of Dharma Transmission in this wiki. i just have only joined wiki. I'm not sure of if it's realistic to continue after seeing that views are lopsided on articles and seem so, that's not a good sign.

Here is another site from very famous Chan monk's teachings Xu Yun. addressing the issue, note the "maintaining lineage". I will provide more sources later when i have more time. but actually I thought wiki edits would be quick and part of my day instead my whole day!VenHongyang (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about something entirely different - at least it's different in non-Chan schools - and that's that what we in the west call "Dharma Transmission" has nothing to do really with the transmission of the precepts at all - rather it's a transmission of teaching authority, independent of one's precept status. Is Vinaya ordination a requirement for teaching authorization in Chinese Chan? If there's a proper reference for that, it would be a good inclusion for that section. Jikaku (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about Chan, Chinese Chan is not the same as in the West, thew West is still developing, the Japanese Zen movement in USA is not the same as the home country of Japan either. There is added material and I will post here later the Chan master's exact instructions for you.VenHongyang (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Ven Huei Guang has the dharma transmission I spoke of explained fully in his facebook posting. Ven Huei Guang Facebook photo album with dharma transmission explaination Here is the English section of that photo post: "In Chinese Buddhist tradition, there are 3 systems of transmission: 1. Tonsure system: a person become tonsured as a novice monastic under the Master's school. He/she is given a Dharma name 法號 at the time of tonsure based on the Master's lineage. This name is also called "the outer name 外號" because it is use by all people to address you. This name is used for life. At the same time, the Master will give the novice sramanera (or sramanerika) ten precepts. 2. Ordination system: a novice will become fully ordained as a Bhikṣu monk/ Bhikṣuni nun with the Triple Platform Ordination (Observing the Śrāmanera, Bhikṣu and Bodhisattva precepts) . This ordination must be presided by 10 monks with at least 10 years of seniority with a pure practice in upholding the monastic precepts. In this ceremony, the 10 Masters represent the Triple Gem accepting the novice into the Sangha. At this time, another Dharma name 法名 is given. This name is also called "precept name 戒名 or inner name 內號" because it is use only by one's Master. This name represents your precept lineage transmission. 3. Dharma transmission system[4] [5] : This system upholds the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye through the generations of transmission. This is the Mind to Mind seal of the Dharma that is beyond the scriptures. At this time, another Dharma name 法名 is given. This is also called "the inner name 內號" and use only by one's Master. This name represents your Dharma lineage transmission. After receiving this name, one will use this name instead of the name received during precept ordination to write one's Dharma name (Inner Name)(Outer Name). For example, my Dharma name is "Chang An Huei Guang 常安慧光", where "Huei Guang" is my name given at tonsure and "Chang An" is given at Dharma transmission.Therefore, these systems of transmission should not be ended.

It is customary to refer to one's own tonsure Master as "Gracious Master", precept Master as "Root Master" and Dharma transmission Master as "Venerable Master." In Chinese Buddhism, these 3 systems are separate and are not performed by the same Masters. Moreover, due to the strong emphasis on the Dharma, when a person receives the Dharma transmission, he/she is recognized as that Ch'an Master's Dharma son/daughter. Of course lay Buddhists may also receive this Dharma transmission, but there are very few incidences. Most of the monk/nun who received the transmission has already been tonsured and ordained by other Masters."

  • Adamek, Wendi L. (2006). The mystique of transmission : on an early Chan history and its contexts. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231136641. 
  • Neelis, Jason (2010). Early Buddhist transmission and trade networks : mobility and exchange within and beyond the northwestern borderlands of South Asia. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004181598. 
  • Tanaka, Kenneth K. (1990). The dawn of Chinese pure land Buddhist doctrine : Ching-ying Hui-yuan's Commentary on the Visualization sutra. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791402975. 
  • Heisig, Henrich Dumoulin ; translated by James W.; Knitter, Paul (2005). Zen Buddhism : a history. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom. ISBN 0941532895. 
  • Chen, edited by Pi-yen (2010). Fan bai = Chinese Buddhist monastic chants. Middleton, Wis.: A-R Editions, Inc. ISBN 0895796724. <
  • Heine, edited by Steven; Wright, Dale S. (2008). Zen ritual : studies of Zen theory in practice. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195304675. 
  • The practice of Chinese Buddhism, 1900-1950. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1967. ISBN 0674697006. 
  • Heirman, edited by Ann; Bumbacher, Stephan Peter (2007). The spread of Buddhism ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004158308. 
  • Wu, Jiang (2008). Enlightenment in dispute : the reinvention of Chan Buddhism in seventeenth-century China. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195333578. 
  • Harvey, Peter (1992). An introduction to Buddhism : teaching, history and practices (Repr. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0521313333. 
  • Baroni, Helen J. (2002). The illustrated encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism (1st ed. ed.). New York: Rosen Pub. Group. ISBN 0823922405. 

VenHongyang (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Family structures[edit]

Regarding the monastic "family" idea. It's true that all forms of Buddhist schools have this. Even the new forms have this family system. It is important to understand this does not mean the biological family is replaced. This family system is one of convenience not one of rigidity. If you have problems with one community you just leave it and find a more harmonious one. Voting with your feet to be exact. This has been done since the beginning when Buddha was teaching. Use your common sense when you visit a community and see if harmony is in place or resignation or stress. The spiritual family idea is ok, but it needs to be understood in context of strangers with different backgrounds and value systems come together for activity and precepts and just that. Personal gains and sharing end at the start and end of activities. There is no code of silence in Buddhism, infact, it's the opposite there is a duty to make issues clear within a communty, a certain amount of responsibility.--Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 21:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ven Hong Yang. same for this text. Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what this has to do with the article, though (Dharma Transmission)? It sounds like it would be more appropriate on the sangha article with regards to Chinese Buddhist vinaya ordination. Jikaku (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Added info[edit]

I've added the info provided by Ven Hongyang. If Wikipedia-rules are strictly applied, her information should be seen as a primary source. But, assuming good faith (which I definately do), and in the absence of contardicting sources, I prefer to have the information included. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian Patriarchs[edit]

Someone please put in the Korean names (in Hangul and Latin if possible) of the Indian Patriarchs.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Great addition already. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Joshua Jonathan, the Korean names are in the Polski Wikipedia! - - but since I don't know how to edit templates, maybe you can do it.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I've put it on my "Job-list". Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"general" gossip and slurs about past misdemeanours[edit]

Please explain yourself: "This is a page about "Dharma Transmission" - not "general" gossip and slurs about past misdemeanours." Especially "gossip" and "slur". Any sources? Please note that you can't simply remove sourced info just because you don't like it. Lachs and Ford are well-acquainted with American Zen, and the topic is a hot issue in American Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Dharma Transmission) The comments that were removed refer to scandals of practitioners and the general institutions of Zen. I do not see what baring this has on "Dharma Transmission". These comments should be on the general Zen page, the SFZC page, or the page of Richard Baker. Manfrog39 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Read the sources. Lachs is available online. Dharma transmission gives charismatic authority, according to Lachs, which makes it easier for such scandals to happen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, it's not just (or only) about Richard Baker. Much more has happened since the 70's. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help feel that this is like saying that the title of Priest in the Catholic Church is an honorary title for paedophiles: there may be many scandals and criminals in the Christian Church but a priest is not a paedophile. This is a page about Dharma Transmission and not scandals. Manfrog39 (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll reread the sources, and try to nuance the sentence. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's important to make a distinction between the institutional roles and responsibilities that Dharma Transmission imparts upon a person, and the personal actions of individuals within those institutions; those scandals have nothing to do with Dharma Transmission, or Zen for that matter. Imagine if a person were to say that religion and God were primarily a way of mystifying and exploiting vulnerable people; it's offensive and unprofessional work. I am not a Buddhist or religious in any way, I just thought that this was outrageous scholarship. Thanks you. Manfrog39 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes much improve the article: it reads as though written in an objective fashion and not as though it were a slur on an initiation rite for a criminal cult. Great. Thank you. This is my first engagement in editing - it wasn't too difficult.Manfrog39 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that "roshi" is synonymous with "scandal"; see Barbara O'Brien. It's a few, out of the hundreds. Bot those few have done a lot of much damage. See Eido Shimano, Genpo Roshi &#2, and Joshu Sasaki. Regarding God and exploitation; that's a well-known point of view. "Religion is the opium of the people", as you know. So no, it's not ourageous scholarship. Stuart lachs is a long-term practioner, who has been coaching Zen-students himself. And James Ford is a acknowledged Zen-teacher, who has received dharma-transmission himself. Brad Warner, to who Genpo links, also received dharma-transmission. There's a lot going on, and it's really painful. But it's better to be open and honest about it, than to justify it and keep silent. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


I have cleaned up a bunch of harvard reference errors. There are several {{sfn}} references that are missing their matching long-form citations. Also, someone with greater knowledge of the subject needs to sort out the Ford references. There are undated {{sfn|Ford}} templates, there are some named <ref name="ford" /> references and there are two different authors called Ford.

I've done what I could, it's up to you now.

Trappist the monk (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)