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 Seongcheol, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
The article says, "Seongcheol Seon Master was widely recognized in Korea as having been a living Buddha". I'm not familiar with the criteria for such a title (except that it is occasionally applied to Tibetan tulkus). Can anyone explain?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, Nat Krause. Criteria? I don't know if there's any specific criteria in Korean Buddhism. If there is some kind of international criteria, I know it wasn't applied to him since he was mostly only known in Korea. From my readings, the "living Buddha" was not based on any specific criteria per se, but more on his overall reputation and teachings. Does this answer your question? Let me know if I can elaborate on anything else. :) Wikimelee 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, not fully. What I'm getting at is, in this context, what exactly does the title "living Buddha" mean?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. The Koreans used it to mean someone who had attained full enlightenment. Wikimelee 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case, doesn't this present POV issues? We are essentially saying, "Seongcheol is widely recognised by Koreans as having been a buddha."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is my POV. Many of the sources quoted say the same about how the Koreans in general considered him to be such. This is not my personal opinion. Wikimelee 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me that after Seung Sahn's death, some people (like Boep Jang, administrative director of Chogye Order) referred to him as a living Buddha. One of Seung Sahn's friends, another Korean Zen master, criticized this during one funeral ceremony speech for which he was specially invited by Seung Sahn's students :-)). (This Zen master is known for his harsh speech; I don't remember his name, but the speech is published in Kwan Um School of Zen's Primary Point magazine; I don't have the copy with me).
The point is that referring to someone a living Buddha is done by some people out of respect, and this is in no way official, inside Korea or outside, as far as I could make out. --Knverma 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Knverma, I agree. That Zen Master's name is Songdam, and he's pretty famous in Korea. His speech created quite a stir at the time, especially because he criticized some aspect of Seung Sahn's teaching. One of Seung Sahn's disciples had to be disciplined because he talked back at Songdam. All in all, pretty wild.
Anyway, in terms of this article, I did not intend to imply that his "living Buddha" status was in any way official, but as you said, just a common term applied by many Koreans purely out of respect. Should we change the sentence so that implication gets across more effectively? Or is it fine as it is? Wikimelee 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much opinion on this. One possibility might be to actually name one important person who called him a living Buddha, and the article could say that such and such person referred to him so. But let's see if Nat Krause has further suggestions. --Knverma 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please provide justification for the changes. Personally, I think it's nice, but I'd just like to know what your thoughts were that made you change the wordings. And also, please follow up on the source citing when making modifications to the text, i.e., source number 9 was left out from the references section. Wikimelee 09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)