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 Mazu Daoyi, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
If Mazu was born 709, and Huineng died in 713, young Mazu must have been a brilliant student... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, touché perhaps. I know I am fallible, but do not try for it.
Mazu Daoyi certainly studied in spirit with Hui-nêng. No doubt. That is in keeping with Zen tradition per the gist of the article, despite subtle refinements that supply greater context. As Chang, in his Original Teachings at 130, puts it: Ma-tsu was the "grandson-in-dharma of Hui-nêng." Too, it's not unusual in Asia to see "young men" three and four years old, coming to and going from Buddhist temples. Yet here, it probably was indeed Huai-jang, not Hui-nêng, who was meant, per Chang, Original Teachings at 131. Huai-jang is also known as Nanyue Huairang, per McRae, Seeing though Zen at 80.
Nonetheless, the dates you use to criticize were actually supplied to you by the offending passage. Regarding these dates, Dumoulin in his History of Zen Buddhism re Ma-tsu and others (at 203,n30 per 97,n30), says, "The dates are in part uncertain." For that matter, even moderns with Buddhist editors error, witness Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics, v.1 at 44: "The Sixth Patriarch Huineng, 637-1713, was a man born enlightened... ".
This mocked sentence may well date back to August 2008, when the article went from 2400 bytes to 23,000. I try to check and re-check; in doing so, I myself correct things I've written, however minor. Here, I would make appropriate changes, per above. So, thank you, nonetheless. Elfelix (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elfelix. My apologies if it sounded too unfriendly. Actually, I found it kind of funny, when I realized what the sentence was saying, and tried to picture it. It looked indeed like an inconsistency resulting from different edits. I didn't check the dates myself, but trusted on the dates supplied. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)