|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
My Edits, LezJ
Hi, I have put in an important reference and developed the text in the ways suggested by the banners I came across in the text when I first came across Enso in Wikipedia. I am new to all of this and so don't know the codes well and am not sure of the protocals. I have deleted a reference to the philosophical notion of the monad and throught it would be useful to say why here (now that I've discovered this place of discussion): The monad is an ontological idea and has liitle or nothing to do with either ethics are aesthetics. There is no useful way that we can think of the notion as similar to what is said by an enso. An enso is a symbol and not an idea and certainly not directly an ontological category. Redirecting readers to that notion is more likely to re-direct our thoughts away from the Japanese understanding of enso. (In my opinion, if one were to develop connections and similarities to Western philosopy it would be through the Stoics and perhaps Heidegger.) It is important to understand why the enso is such a ubiquitous symbol in Japan and to do that we have to have a glimmer of the aesthetic ideals and their role in Japanese culture. Hence, I have added an 'Also see' section. The link takes you to 'Japanese aesthetics'. That entry was a bit under developed too and so I have expanded it. Enso can symbolize this aesthetic, parts of it, or the Zen philosophies or practices behind it. That is why it is a powerful symbol.
I personally deprecate the inclusion of the commercial uses of the enso but think that what is actually said does not go too far and would be helpful to a reader who came across the word enso because of these commercial uses.
Hope this helps.
I do not understand one edit that was thankfully undone by another editor: it is certainly true that the enso is not a character even if often used by calligraphers. It would be a simple matter for the editor who denies that to refer us to a japaneses character set where the enso is listed. He or she cannot, of course because there is not such character. The enso is a symbol for ... as it says in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LezJ (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Are there any references for this article?
- Yes, we can do that by psychically channeling Mr. Miyagi from the 14th century. Hold on, hold on, here he is-
"Can you hear me Wikipedians? Can you hear me? Yes, it seems I'm getting through *static static* Yes, the Enso is merely the result of me placing my coffee mug on the paper table before I died! Apparently some fool thought that was somehow poignant. Anyways, it's just me trying to tell you all that the Enso is nothing more than a coffee stain! Yes, fear not!"
- Wow, that was incredible. Anyways, I think on that note, we ought to mark this page for deletion.
- I added a tag to identify this article as a Zen-Buddhism-related stub.The7thone1188 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also propose to split this article into a disambiguation page and a stub containing the current information, sans disambig-related data at the top.The7thone1188 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. I also propose that Enso should redirect to ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) 184.108.40.206 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Calligraphy v drawing
The enso is clearly a drawing: But it is the most ubiquitous symbol in calligraphy. This is why the text says that the enso is a symbol and not a character. This give more information that just saying 'Zen drawing' which is not idiomatic English and destroys the connotation of its being 'painted' in the same spirit as calligraphy and by calligraphers. The whole piece is about this spirit.
A youtube video is entitled: Zen Calligraphy 2 The Endless Circle and the Empty Line (ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YbRxNmQk24&feature=related) This isn't uncommon and I don't think we should simply say this master is wrong. It is clear that calligraphers do draw the circle. Hence the text explains it as common even though not a character but a symbol. I will not argue the case more.
I do not understand why one editor merely asserts their authority rather than arguing his or her case. So please other editor argue your case. We are suppose to achieve a good article by a collaborative process and agreement.
http://www.jcollector.com/Japanese-Scroll-Painting-Zen-Enso-Calligraphy-p/jj8my131.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by LezJ (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) LezJ (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The words "broken symmetry" in the article link (redirectfully) to a physics article, "[Spontaneous symmetry breaking]." While this is an interesting association, I wonder if it is what the original editor intended and whether there is a closer idea in Japanese aesthetics. Can anyone provide a bit more color behind that choice? Ezrakilty (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)