Talk:Zen

This version

-- It could be any version-- is so good!

I just laughed and laughed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednblu (talk • contribs) 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Taoist "influence"

There were very large passages in the "origins" sub-section (under History) which seemed to indicate that proto-Chan was directly influenced by Daoism. While Daoism may have influenced (in quite an indirect manner in most cases) much later Chan and Zen ideas, there is no evidence that early or Proto-Chan was directly influenced by it. The influence of Daoism on Chinese Buddhism was quite limited to a few figures involved in the so called "concept matching" translation efforts. None of this impacted Chan much as far as I have read.

Looking at the leading scholarship on the topic of the origin of Chan (McRae's publications and Greene's "Chan before Chan") will lead one to the conclusion that early and proto Chan were strictly Mahayana meditation movements, and Taoism did not play into it. Indeed, all of the citations and content that I have removed from the "origin" section are all speaking about the influence of Daoism on specific figures like Sengzhao or speaking in a very general sense about Daoist influences. Furthermore, a cursory reading of the earliest sources, like Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and the 'Masters of the Lankavatara' literature etc shows that they are just Mahayana works, nothing about the Dao (the character is used, but it means Dharma, not the Daoist Dao, and the context makes this clear), Qi, Pu or other Daoist terms comes up.

Because of this, it would be wrong to have this massive block of text there which I removed that somehow insinuates Chan came from Daoism. Instead, I replaced it with content discussing the earlier dhyana masters and dhyana sutras, which did have an influence on Chan.

I have tracked the passage from Dumoulin which is cited here as evidence, but he doesn't even provide actual proof that early Chan was influenced by Daoism, he just makes a passing comment (in page 168 of his History). To make matters worse, he is citing the Gateless Gate when he makes his comment, a text from the 13th century!!! I looked at the various passages from Dumoulin and honestly he does not provide much solid evidence for thinking that Taoism influenced Chan, its mainly just statements to the fact without citing actual primary sources (when he does cite some, they are from much later as I said above). Either way, I added a short passage indicating that some scholars do think that Chan was influenced by Taoism and citing Dumoulin specifically.

☸Javierfv1212☸ 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Chan is indigenous Chinese Taoism that has been integrated with elements of Mahayana. There are more than enough expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources available which state this for those editors who wish to search for them. Japanese Zen is not Chinese Chan, but it is a simplified version of it. William Harris (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Dhyāna

"The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism." is verifiably false.

From The Letters of Zen Master Dahui Pujue, pages 19 and 20, ISBN 978–0–19–066416–9:

When it is time to deal with things, just deal with them. When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate. At the present time, of the party of perverse teachers, most take “silence-asillumination” stillness-sitting as an ultimate dharma, misleading younger students. I don’t fear making enemies of them. I vigorously scold them in order to repay the kindness of the buddhas, and to rescue beings from the con-men of this end-time of the dharma.

Here are a few brief passages from Dahui texts that explicitly link “engirding mind” and “silence-as-illumination” with excessive sitting:

Preceptor Yantou said: When previously I was on pilgrimage I probed Chan with the honored monks of one or two places. All they did was have students day-and-night “engird mind,” sit until they produced callouses on the rump and until the water in their mouths was drained dry; first they would face Dīpaṃkara Buddha, and, from the black-lacquer darkness in their bellies, they would say: “I keep my Chan sitting safe!”33

The old barbarian Bodhidharma for nine years suffered defeat [i.e., his nine years of sitting facing a wall were a defeat]—what a pity that he was mistaken all that time! The result has been that the followers of “silence-as-illumination” do sitting for years on end.34

They fervently close the eyes and assume the appearance of death. They call it “stillness-sitting,” “mind-contemplation,” and “silenceas-illumination.” In turn they take this perverse view and use it to lead ignorant mediocrities, saying: “If you can attain stillness [in sitting] for one day, that’s one day’s gongfu.”35

There are a lot of texts and quotes that explicitly reject meditation, dhyana and sitting as a means to and end or even as worth anything. While I realize most current traditions mostly don't hold that view, it is what was originally written in the texts (texts of the people who started the tradition of zen) and they made a big deal out of it too. If the quotes above don't satisfy you, I invite you to read the texts yourself, because you clearly haven't. I can also provide more quotes if you are interested, but seeing as there is misinformation on the page, you don't seem to be.

I've read them, and I've also read the scholarly discussion, which you obviously haven't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have and zen masters reject scholars for a reason, which you would know have you read the texts. This discussion is as old as zen itself and you're on the wrong side of it.

I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about. Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, that is, your own personla interpretations of primary texts. The idea that Zen rejects meditation is a well-known fallacy, rejected by scholars. You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice. See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place; Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not religious fundamentalism.

The quote you refer to does not reject meditation, it just warns not to take meditation as an end in itself (p.19):

When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate.

You took the quotes from the introduction; that's what you should be referring to, not those quotes and your own understanding of them. That same introduction also informs us that Dahui did not reject sitting; he did it himself (p.26-27). And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly have no idea what you're saying. Have fun with your "scholars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:244D:6E3B:7AC3:DDDB (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You should try to read a little bit more:

While the attribution of gradualism, attributed by Shenhui to a concurring faction, was a rhetoric device, it led to a conceptual dominance in the Chan-tradition of subitism, in which any charge of gradualism was to be avoided.[133][note 5] This "rhetorical purity" was hard to reconcile conceptually with the actual practice of meditation,[140][133] and left little place in Zen texts for the description of actual meditation practices, apparently rejecting any form of practice.[141][133][132][note 6] Instead, those texts directly pointed to and expressed this awakened nature, giving way to the paradoxically nature of encounter dialogue and koans.[133][132]

Anyway, enjoy your fox-slobber. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubling down on ignorance is not a pretty hill to die on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:C0A3:283A:4B33:78EE (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're just going to stop responding again, as you did on the bodhidharma page, like some butthurt child?

Look I get it, you were interested in zen as a a kid, some dipshit with "master" in his title told you some things he thought were true and you couldn't resist. I mean, it gave you a good feeling, so how can it be wrong, right? And if more than a single person is saying it and even people who are deemed intelligent scholars join that side, how can it be wrong? But your ignorance is evident in the fact that you can't reconcile gradualism vs subitism and quote a scholar who's just as uninformed as you are. You haven't been practicing anything these past 30 years but excessive arrogance and putting your heels in the sand, strengthening your inbility to face yourself and robbing yourself of the ability to admit your mistakes.

You're obviously way out of your depth here. Your claim of zen practice not only falls short in what I mentioned above, but can be clearly seen on your personal page too, where you have a bunch of quotes hanging around that get thouroughly rejected in the zen canon. You also have a line saying: "Yet, Zen, Dzogchen and Shentong also point to groundless awareness, in which this amazing reality appears" which sounds to me like you have experienced it for yourself, or you wouldn't make such a bold claim... (unless you're just parroting after what other people are saying? (It's not really a question...)) or have you been going on blind faith for the last 30 years without having any progress or movement at all? In which case the question is, why even try to talk about what zen is and is not?

It seems that what you were accusing me of, me trying to pass of my own view as zen, is exactly is what you yourself are doing here. You are forfeiting half the canon just so you can use the other half of it and reinforce the views you hold that make you feel better and allow you to be an arrogant prick who can smack people over the head with books he doesn't understand. Classic case of religious fanaticism.

To prove further how out of depth you are: "earlier in the conversation you argue You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice."

Just because dahui is the quote, doesn't mean the practice hasn't been thouroughly rejected by the patriarchs who set up the tradition, you should try to read a little bit more. You don't have any argument here and anyone with even a tiny bit of insight would have seen that.

"I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about."

What have you been doing exactly? And if you know what you're talking about, what does the gradual vs suddend debate mean? Does that mean that for the past 30 years you have been gradually moving towards attainment or does the "I know what I'm talking about" mean you suddenly got an insight x years in? It's also not a good argument on the fact that it would count as OR, your personal experiences have nothing to do with the article, that's a huge bias and you shouldn't bring it up in a conversation that's supposed to be objective. You clearly have personal stakes here.

"And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin"

I know of hakuin, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His koan answer book is a joke. Imagine thinking zen is (even remotely related to) memorizing sayings. Clearly he and anyone who advocates for him hasn't actually delved into the zen canon very much.

"See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place;"

Here is another example of you failing to see any nuance in what is being said to you. Foyan was technically a scholar, but if you knew anything about zen, you'd also understand that words get used as expedients and that the meaning is not only dependant on context, but that sometimes you shouldn't take words so literal and understand what was meant with them, rather than taking them at face value. Then again, you haven't actually been practicing zen, so who can blame you. Obviously I'm referring to people here who are pure scholars, who can't assess zen on their own because they are making conceptual structures out of the knowledge of other people. These intellectual interpretations can obviously never scratch the surface of what zen masters were trying to say and you'll get those huge debates from people who aren't able to reconcile gradual and sudden, like your friends above... You can't navigate rushing waters with your eyes closed, and choosing someone like that to be your captain is something only an idiot does.

(Removed a bit because I made a claim of a quote, but I don't think I own the book it was in anymore, so I won't be able to provide the actual line.) (Sorry the stuff below got a bit messy because of all the editing, but it should be clear nontheless... feel free to edit it so that it makes sense if you want, I've already put in way too much effort for such an ungrateful child as yourself.)

Here's another quote though, which basically says the same thing, but doesn't use the word scholar.

"Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours, since it was first transmitted, it has never taught that men should seek for learning or form concepts. 'Studying the Way' is just a figure of speech. It is a method of arousing people's interest in the early stages of their development. In fact, the Way is not something which can be studied. Study leads to the retention of concepts and so the Way is entirely misunderstood. Moreover, the Way is not something specially existing; it is called the Mahayana Mind - Mind which is not to be found inside, outside or in the middle. Truly it is not located anywhere. The first step is to refrain from knowledge-based concepts. This implies that if you were to follow the empirical method to the utmost limit, on reaching that limit you would still be unable to locate Mind. The way is spiritual Truth and was originally without name or title. It was only because people ignorantly sought for it empirically that the Buddhas appeared and taught them to eradicate this method of approach. Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name 'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way is reached and Mind is understood. A sramana [Commonly, the word for 'monk'.] is so called because he has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of attaining the sramana stage is gained by putting an end to all anxiety; it does not come from book-learning."

So, uhh, I think what I said was fine in a way, so I'll put it back...

Scholars is the exact word zen masters used btw... So that's another argument in favor of your ignorance and that you haven't actually read what zen masters were saying. Don't tell someone to read more when you don't even know that. Again, you are way out of your depth here.

You're in luck, I found it in a book online. It's not even an obscure text, comes from the platform sutra, page 367, Chapter VIII. Sudden and Gradual (heh), ISBN 0-88139-316-9

Everyone shut their mouths; no one said a word. Some of them didn’t speak because they knew and some didn’t speak because they did not know. Seeing that no one was going to answer, Shen Hui jumped out from the assembly and said, “I now what it is! It’s the origin of all Buddhas: my Buddha nature!” “In the ranks of the Ch’an School,” said the Master, “you’re nothing but a scholar. You have no genuine understanding.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC Dhyana section

This is not an RfC. OP blocked for abuse of our processes. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Content is not being given it's due weight and I suspect editorial bias, which isn't soothed by the editor's unwillingness to cooperate. Tried DRN but I don't see it going anywhere and would like some neutral input instead of input from people who are invested in the topic in some way. Sorry if I'm doing this too early, but I don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in and don't see DRN or the discussion with joshua jonathan going anywhere atm. Be sure to read everything carefully, it's not an easy topic. I'm 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 in the discussion above, seems like my ip changed today. 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC) I'll put a tldr of the discussion here... This part the issue: Dhyāna See also: Dhyāna in Buddhism The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.[16] because dhyana or meditation, especially sitting, is not a central part of zen buddhism, even the article itself contradicts that it is. Pointing to the nature of the mind According to Charles Luk, in the earliest traditions of Chán, there was no fixed method or formula for teaching meditation, and all instructions were simply heuristic methods, to point to the true nature of the mind, also known as Buddha-nature.[25] According to Luk, this method is referred to as the "Mind Dharma", and exemplified in the story (in the Flower Sermon) of Śākyamuni Buddha holding up a flower silently, and Mahākāśyapa smiling as he understood.[25] A traditional formula of this is, "Chán points directly to the human mind, to enable people to see their true nature and become buddhas."[26] So, seeing as only one side of the discussion is being given due weight there, an alteration does not seem misplaced. Feel free to read the full discussion of course, but it's a bit full of trivial stuff regarding the exact discussion and a bunch of insults from both parties, instigated by a frequent editor who is supposed to set an example, so I thought I'd spare you all that.

Recent edits

@62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.

• WP:LEAD summarizes the article; not the case here;
• "Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
• Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
• You cut the sentence

The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.

References

into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, and contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

wp lead:

WP:lead

"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"

both of which i accounted for while writing.

meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation

bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.

I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.

to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.

Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.

g meditation is also conteste

Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.

Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.

Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.

You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.

Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?

They should remove you.

I mean...

"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"

Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information

95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor

There are a few issues with the content you've added. The first issue is with the sentence These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the Zen emphasizes... sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.

The sentence after that one is There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with When we consider... also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?

yeah ok, i see

not just biased but stupid as hell

keep your garbage article

i dont have time or patience for this nonsense

fucking morons 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..

you decide what that means

this place is a joke 62.145.194.183 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.

i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation

you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?

if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.

same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

With if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation no one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out I would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

im familiar with the issues

that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument

seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things

i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.

for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.

like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.

like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"

so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.

it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those

it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.

because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.

and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.

and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.

right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.

if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)

meaning (a large part of) the article is basically WP:OR at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.

same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.

if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?

I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.

also see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar

some (more) issues with article:

intro has only one source

dhyana in intro only one source

dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph

that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..

you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?

small attribute to taoist influence only one source

3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too

zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.

zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.

so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article

the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view

and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit

i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.

i'm suspectig WP:COI

i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.

"Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."

it's like you don't even pretend to care

blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw

on the contrary

and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.

95.96.74.188 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Wikipedia even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Wikipedia is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. 2603:8081:3A00:B881:59EC:40A:5AA5:8168 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

go back to 4 chan you troll 62.145.199.82 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Wikipedia Code of Conduct. Unitarian9999 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit diff, which they think better fit[s] academic consesus, they changed

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.

into

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way, which pointed to the practice of dhyana, though what that means continues to be debated academically.

References

• It's unclear which views are contested:

• rigorous self-restraint
• meditation-practice
• insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism)
• the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others

• The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
• Dumoulin doesnot reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
• Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
• The line There are also scholars ... academically is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
• The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
• The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• Regarding zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after. - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.

All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Wikipedia. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

kek "abuse"

morons 62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right

and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues

whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation

outdated data

misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight

bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips

articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names

contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother

and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.

so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?

62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You can say that again. Unitarian9999 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)