From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seeing one's nature?[edit]

This is how it is translated in Jack Maguire's Essential Buddhism. Agree/disagree? 1000Faces, Revision as of 01:05, 19 March 2007

Restoration to previous version[edit]

3/11/08: I have restored this to a previous version of the article. Reasons being, the previous edits removed pertinent information including references and sources without adding any new information to make the removal of such information worth doing. AS an original editor of this article one of the issues that came up was the primary use of Rinzai definitions for the article. It was later edited to add SoTo definitions as well as a broader scope. Then further defined to be less divisive and more informative (thank you ). This seems to be the best all around definition that we can all agree on. It includes all of our definitions from our various traditions. If anyone feels left out, by all means feel free to add. Please post changes though in the discussion page. Adding is preferable to removing. There is much that could be said about this but removing sources is not appreciated. Thanks. -Suchawato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph says Trying to find the "I," the subject, through introspection leads to the realisation that this "I" is completely dependent on the process of perception, the associated thought/feeling complex, and the memories tied to them. Kensho is the direct experiencing of that which is Unborn, Undying, Uncreated, Unchanging; The Eternal Flow/Flux. One knows, with the whole of one's being, that one was not, is not, and forever will not ever be separate from the whole of the Universe.

There's a big enough conceptual gap between those sections to make the latter a non-sequitur. If someone could bridge that gap it would be useful. (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll step up to the challenge. Give me a few hours, I'll provide a new article that is fully referenced with multiple in-line citations. (Mind meal (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC))


The editing by Suchawato Mare at 11 september 2012 is, to my opinion, not an improvement:

  • Parts of the article have been moved to the lead. This makes the lead less clear.
  • the nuance of "translated as enlightenment" is replaced by "enlightenment". This is misleading; "enlightenment" has several meanings, which are being used interchangeably in the west, making it a diffised (and misused) conecpt).
  • "Enlightenment experience" is a modern translation c.q interpretation. It originates with D.T. Suzuki, and has become a main ingredient of a modern discourse on "enlightenment", as described in Traditional Zen Narrative. See Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience" (PDF), NUMEN, vol.42 (1995)  Check date values in: |date= (help). This issue can't be ignored or bypassed.
  • The Victor Hori-quite has been removed. Victor Hori has been a Zen-monk, living in a Rinzai-monastery for years, and he is an outstanding scholar of Zen. The removing of this quote is a removing of nuance.
  • The links to sudden insight and Traditional Zen Narrative have been removed. Sudden insight is a central concept of the tradition, which is deconstructed by recent academic researc, especialli John McRae, but also Bernard Faure. Removing this information changes the article to a classic Zen-story, not a encyclopedy-article.
  • The article had a logical order, which has been removed by this edit by Suchawato Mare: intro, various aspects of kensho, training toward and after kensho. This logical order was replaced by training - one sapect of kensho - training.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoring 2008-info[edit]

In 2008 Suchawato Mare rewrote the article, from [1] to [2], removing a lot of nuanced and detailed info. I've integrated this info into the present version. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited, and reverted, and undid, reversion[edit]

-Suchawato Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the original authors of this article. I have been offline for a few years do to rl issues taking precedence. Watching the changes that have taken place on this article is worrisome.

While some of the changes have indeed added improvements, and increased depth and understanding, a great many have led to a explanation that would be confusing, rather than straightforward to to the average reader and mis-conveys what a kensho actually is.

Some of the sources added as references are three generations out of date. They were made from a scholarly approach to japanese and chinese scriptures, and were largely the earliest translations available to western Zen students. Many were made by people who were not actually Buddhists, and/or people who had not experienced a kensho experience first hand.

A good example of this is referring to the Existance/Time/Flow (as Dogen put it) or the Cosmic Buddha/ Buddha nature as "nothingness" or "emptiness" or "suchness/ "thusness", etc".

As one one western Zen Master jokingly put it "how much muchness is in suchness?"

These were poor translations of Japanese and Chinese words to begin with, and we fortunately now have had three generations of actual western Zen Monks and Lay practitioners who have had the ability to describe Spiritual experiences such as Kensho from first hand experience.

Continuing to use out of date translations and texts and misleading terms used from those early translations simply leads to the misleading and confusing the reader as to what these experiences actually are.

As one Zen Master once said in a critique of some of these terms, the problem with calling it "Emptiness" or "Nothingness" is that they imply nihilism.

It says to the Reader that having a Kensho experience means that one finds that the universe is essentially empty and nothing, and devoid of meaning.

In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. As Zen Master Jiyu Kennet once put it: "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know".

It is for this reason that Modern western Zen Masters have all but dropped the use or referral to these older early western Zen translations and terms. They simply are out of date, and they weren't even accurate at the time they were printed.

I don't have time to upload complete quotes at the moment, but I will here soon, along with references to the effect.

The choice to do a major edit was not made lightly, I'm aware it may offend some people, and am also aware of the hard work many people have put in since my and others original work, however, that notwithstanding, the results since then were an article that was more confusing to the reader, not less.

A kensho, is a rather straight forward experience.

Readers deserve a straightforward and accurate answer as best we are able to deliver as to what one is, and what the term means and stands for, short of the person actually experiencing it for themselves.

The current edit, is not perfect, I'll admit.

It certainly needs more work.

And, at the same time, we would do well to remember all the hard work people have done to translate Buddhist texts and terms into accurate english, and not revert to old, outdated and misleading terminology or be overly scholarly and speaking less from actual experience, and thus misleading the reader.

A kensho is not a theoretical or hypothetical experience, it's one we actually experience as Zen trainees.

While volumes can (and have) been written on the subject of Zen Spiritual experience, it would do well to remember that the purpose of this article is to explain what the term "kensho" means.

Not to get overly cerebral about this.

It's a rather simple and basic concept.

There are two extremes we would go to that would be unhelpful in editing an article.

On one extreme, is the extreme of not enough information, and thus not really saying much to the reader about what something actually is.

The other extreme, is adding too much information, and thereby bogging the reader down in too much information, and thereby the essence of what the subject is is lost in the mud of extra data.

Either extreme is something we wish to avoid.

Like much in Buddhism, a middle path, between the opposites is what we wish to seek here.

Suchawato Mare (talk) Sat, September 15'th, 2012/2555 BE (PST)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 18:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 

Summary of "worries"[edit]

Suchawato Mare, if I understand you well, you've got three problem with my edits:
  • The definition of "kensho" is unclear;
  • Sources are outdated;
  • The article is too scholarly.
Ad1: The article provides a clear, sourced definition, with additional information.
Ad2: Which sources are outdated?
Ad3: I can understand you find the article to scholarly, yet too provide "clear definitions" reliable sources are necessary. Scholars are quote good at this. Personal accounts are considered to be primary sources, and to be avoided were possible.
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand me[edit]

But, As it's getting late, and I've already spent most of the evening replying to your posts and challenges in various places, I'll have to clarify this for you when I have further time.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with edit-summary and explanation[edit]

These are the problems I've got with Suchawato Mare's edit summary and explanation:
  • Edit summary: "Undid, the undo, I'm sorry but we need to keep the definition of this clear. The previous revisions have tended more toward a scholarly approach. There are three generations of Western Zen practitioners who have exp. this and can speak from 1st hand exp."
  • No explanation is provided on what 'a clear definition' is;
  • Scholarly approach: Wikipedia uses secunday and tertiary sources, not personal opinions;
  • "Three generations" etc: Wikipedia uses secunday and tertiary sources, not personal experience. Who are those "three generations", where are the sources?
  • Explanation:
    • None of my points have been answered;
    • No reference whatsoever has been given in the above explanation;
    • "I am one of the original authors of this article" - This is not relevant. Any-one can edit Wikipedia.
    • Emptiness/suchness:
      • What exactly is "confusing"?
      • Which sources are three generations old?
      • Which "Modern western Zen Masters" have "all but dropped the use or referral" to which older "early western Zen translations and terms" according to which source?
    • "be overly scholarly and speaking less from actual experience, and thus misleading the reader" - That's a tough claim! Debunking schlarship, calling critical research "misleading", is rhetorical. Substantiate the claim that scholarship is misleading. Take into account that, for example, Victor Sogen Hori and Stuart Lachs are long-time Zen-practitioners. Take also into account that researchers like John McRae, Bernard Faure and Steven Heine are highly acclaimed scholars.
There is ample opportunity to discuss the contents of this article. It should be obvious that your edits are contested, and need sources and references. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Existance/Time/Flow - Cosmic Buddha/Buddha nature[edit]


You mean this quote? From 1990?

...a blissful realization where a person's inner nature, the originally pure mind, is directly known as an illuminating emptiness, a thusness which is dynamic and immanent in the world.(Harvey 1990)

If I understand you well, this is your problem with the term "emptiness":

"As one Zen Master once said in a critique of some of these terms, the problem with calling it "Emptiness" or "Nothingness" is that they imply nihilism.

It says to the Reader that having a Kensho experience means that one finds that the universe is essentially empty and nothing, and devoid of meaning."

There is a clear link from "emptiness" to sunyata, which explains that "emptiness" is not a mere vacuum. Maybe three generations ago sunyata could be misunderstood as "nihilism", but there is sufficient knowledge available to gain a clear comprehension of the term sunyata. Including the Wikipedia-article. Knowledge provided by scholars, by the way.

And if this quote is problematic, why didn't you remove it?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: above[edit]

Because you don't understand the point of my edits friend.

it's not because there wasn't valid information on the topic, it's because layout design, and reader flow are actually important to reader comprehension of a subject matter.

Very simplistically, there was too much information, in certain areas, when there are entire wikipedia articles on those subjects that can be linked to for further information.

It was becoming a general article about Zen Training, rather than specific to the subject of kensho experience.

Such articles already exist.

Some of the information I removed had no reference to the explanation of kensho experience at all.

Some of it was commentary about others commentary.

Some of it was more about Zen or Buddhist or other spiritual Training in general, and less about kensho itself. And some of it may have been fine in and of itself, but was simply not needed in larger context of the entire article.

I can tell you are a "code" type of person, good at programming probably, or would be if you were so inclined.

But there is actually an aesthetic flow to things (people pay good money to layout and graphic designers, and editors, I would know) when presenting material to allow it to be understood that it an actual science.

It's the hardest thing to explain to some intellectual type people, why more information isn't nessicarily a good thing.

Sometimes it just becomes a distraction to understanding the point.

Even in your responses in this talk page, you think it's all about the individual quote, etc.

It's not.

The point is to explain, as best we can what the term kensho means and the experience it implies.

This isn't theoretical. I've actually had one of these as have many people in Zen.

You were posting citations that made the article redundant, because there are other articles on wikipedia that cover those subjects much better.

An entire article on Rinzai and Soto for instance.

Going to deep into the subject of each's training methods for instance, basically redundantly posts what could already be read on the Rinzai and Soto page in much further detail.

There is no difference between training for kensho and Zen training in general.

If you'd had a kensho yourself, you would have understood this.

And so the article was redundant.

Kensho is not that complicated a topic, in and of itself.

It was being made out to be more complicated than it actually is, and thus giving a false impression of the subject matter.Suchawato Mare (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan Personal attacks are not going to help. Whether or not I "had" kensho is not relevant to the discussion; it's about valid sources, and the removal of them. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Answer from Suchawato Mare It wasn't a personal attack friend. I was pointing out that you don't have the experience to know what you are talking about here friend.

That doesn't mean you arn't qualified to get that experience, you are perfectly capable of having one. It just means that when you are editing an article and don't know what you are talking about, any edits you make are going to be from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about rather than someone who does. It tends to lead the article away from truth rather than a straightforward and clear understanding of the subject matter. "A painting of a rice cake does not satisfy hunger". It doesn't make you a bad person, just inexperienced.Suchawato Mare (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dogen translation[edit]

And is this one of the 'modern translations' you're hinting at?

Unfortunately there have been many muddles, especially in the West, as a result of an indiscriminate proliferation of terms used for the indefinable UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING, without their being directly connected up to what the terms ‘Buddha’, ‘It’ and the others above and throughout this book refer to. Some scholars have been so afraid to try and give any definition whatsoever that the whole fabric of what Buddhism is teaching becomes unravelled. One must understand that one must not be afraid of words and one must not become a slave to them. All of the terms above are used to describe IT and can help us to acquire the kaleidoscopic mind that can allow us to know IT, in every sense of the word ‘know’, at all times, thus, with the above understanding of their meaning, the proliferation of terms for IT in this book is very important. Because of a common misconception of the doctrine of anatta, the doctrine of no permanent, separate self, the doctrines of karmic consequence and that of rebirth often have been muddled badly; however, if it is understood that, at the very deepest level, there is no self that does the deed nor one that feels the fruit because there is no separate self when one is with the UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING, then the muddle is much easier to unravel and we can put rebirth and karmic consequence in their proper perspective.[3]

It's from Jiyu-Kennett's translation of the Denkoroku, published in 1993 and republished in 2001 by the Shastey Abbey, apparently the congregation you belong to. I don't think this can count as a reliable source; it's intention is to teach, not to provide a historical context to these teachings:

  • "This translation was, originally, not meant for anything other than private publication since I felt that non-monastic readers ran the risk of losing the exquisite underlying Truth that runs, like a jade thread through a golden needle, throughout the book".
  • "From the point of view of understanding Buddhism, however, his most important work, by far, is the Denkároku, The Record of the Transmission of the Light".

The phrase "UNBORN, UNDYING, UNCREATED, UNCHANGING" comes from the Sutta Pitaka. It's use is not restricted to Jiyu-Kennett, but it's not a common phrase in Zen.

"Existance/Time/Flow" is Jiyu-Kennett's translation of Dogen's "Uji".[4] The usually translation seems to be "time-being", or "being-time".[5][6]

"Eternal Flow/Flux", which has also been featured before in the article, comes from Greek philosophy, Panta rhei, "everything flows".

Clearly the "new translations" you're hinting at are those by Jiyu-Kennett. Dogen is intensively studied; see alone thezensite, to get an impression, and Heine's books on Dogen. At least four English translations are availabale for the Shōbōgenzō, including Gudo Nishijima's, a Zen-master (a Shike, not an Osho). Another acclaimed translator is Shohaku Okumura, a Japanese Osho teaching in the USA, who studied Zen Buddhism at Komazawa University in Tokyo. If you state that the translations you prefer are the best, and the others are outdated, you've got a very serious task to show that they are better.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Denkoroku:[edit]

Edit added in by Suchawato Mare: Actually, the translation is by Dr. Mark J. Nearman (Rev. Hubert Nearman) who is not only a Dharma Transmitted Zen Master in his own right, but also a distinguished scholar and expert on ancient Chinese and Japanese language and culture, including a background in Noh Drama.

So yes, that is a "new translation".

Or are you going to attempt to call Dr. Nearman's Credentials in to question?

Jiyu-Kennett herself was fluent in reading and writing in Japanese, and was trained in these texts by some of the most respected japanese scholars at the time.

Are you implying her own translations are invalid?

Are you an expert in both ancient and modern Japanese and Chinese languages as well as being an expert in Zen Buddhism to make such an assertion?

Dr. Nearman in particular is uniquely qualified.

If you are asserting thus, you had better provide the credentials to your own qualifications.

Friend your 'primary source' for much of your information about Buddhism seems to be from a website.

Have you actually done any Zen Training?

Have you talked about any of these impressions you have about Zen with an actual Dharma Transmitted Zen Master who is qualified to answer them?

To be a Buddhist one must take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma AND the Sangha.

Someone who does not take refuge in all three is not a Buddhist. Although, to be fair, you have never claimed that you are.

But if you are not a Buddhist, quite frankly you are not qualified to be talking about Buddhist spiritual experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 09:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You are:

  • Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

You cannot complain that I have not responded to you.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan Well, that's good that they both are experts. But it does not change the fact that there is lot of research on Dogen. Taking refuge, or "spiritual experience" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Response#2 by Joshua Jonathan Regarding "disruptive cite-tagging": in my latest version of the article, there are two {{citation needed}}-tags:
You gave this quote on the Talk Page; I've added it to the article, but couldnt't find the source via Google. The only hit it gives, is Wikipedia.
  • "Oh Buddha, going, going, going on beyond and always going on beyond, always Becoming Buddha. Hail! Hail! Hail![citation needed]"
You provided a source for this one; that's good. That's why we use those tags.
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


See also Wikipedia:Consensus

I've restored again the more extensive version of the article. Simply copy-paste an older version of an article, without specifically ansewering the previous stated objections, is not the way to deal with a difference of opinion. To my opinion, the removal of clear, well-sourced info that provides additional insight into the topic, is not the way to edit an article or to provide encyclopedic information. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


I've changed back the lead to the shorter version, for the following reasons:

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Kensho[edit]

I've restored this section, for the following reasons:

  • The emptiness-quote is from Victor Sogen Hori, a long-time Zen-practitioner and an accomplished scholar, who trained for years in a Japanese monastery.
  • The "How do you kensho this?"-quote, aslo from Hori, has been restored. It gives a fine nuance to the meaning of kensho, which is broader and more down-to-earth than "enlightenment".
  • The "blank state of mind"-quote, also from Hori, has been restored, beacuse it makes very clear that insight, not samadhi, is what kensho is about.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudden insight[edit]

I've restored the "Sudden insight-section, for the following reasons:

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


The Denkoroku is a good example of this Traditional Narrative; see also Faure, Bernard (2000), Visions of Power. Imaging Medieval Japanese Buddhism, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press . It can't be taken as an historical account; it's literary fiction. This should be mentioned. We're living in 2012; you can't ignore scholarly developments. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

-Friend, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are asserting that one of the works of one of the greatest and most respected Zen Masters of the Soto School is a work of fiction, and thereby directly implying that Zen Master Keizan is/was a fraud.

This in direct contradiction to his precepts to not defame the three treasures, or to lie.

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, you are not qualified to be working on this article.

You clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Zen, or it's history.

If I may make a suggestion, why don't you simply just call a Zen Center and speak to a Dharma Transmitted Zen teacher of either tradition, and ask them about this subject matter.

Every Dharma Transmitted teacher has to have a kensho as one of the requirements of Transmission.

They can tell you first hand what a kensho is.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan. The "Transmission of the Lamp"-genre is not a neutral, objective genre. Read John McRae's "Seeing through Zen". A "basic understanding of Zen or it's history" involves more than taking Zen Narratives to be the literal truth. Zen has a history, full of appealing narratives. Take a look at thezensite: critiques of zen to get an impression of up-to-date research on Zen and it's history. Regarding the precepts: read David Chapman, How not to argue on Buddhism, and stick to Wikipedia-rules. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Response #2 by Joshua Jonathan: "It is probably safe to say that few if any reputable modern scholars, and probably not many even within the Soto priesthood itself, believe that many of the central events and characters in the Denkoroku are based on historical fact [...] The origins and early developments of Chinese Zen are just now becoming clearer, and the gradually emerging picture is very different from the traditional Zen history found in such works as Keizan's record". Source: Cook, Francis Dojun (vertaler) (2003), The Record of Transmitting the Light. Zen Master Keizan's Denkoroku, Boston: Wisdom Publications  page 15. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Working towards kensho[edit]

I've restored the previous section "Working towards kensho", except for the title and the mu-koan subsection, for the following reasons:

  • "Towards" is more plain language than is "prior"
  • I removed the mu-koan subsection; unclear subsection.
  • Rinzai: the Hori-quote is correct; it gives valuable info about the koan-practice.
  • Soto: this section gives additional info on the emphasi that Soto lays on shikantaza.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional info[edit]

I've added additional information and notes, with sources, including a quote given by Suchawato Mareto at the Talk Page, to clarify several issues in the article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion please[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Consensus

This is the third time that I sum up my problems with the recent edits by Suchawato Mare. No substantial reaction has appeard so far, only further editing toward a traditional Zen narrative by removing well-sourced info. I would appreciate it to see a reaction on my remarks. They're neatly listed, so can be taken up one by one. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Response, Friend, I don't know if you've noticed, but it's been barely a week.

Perhaps it's never occurred to you that other people have lives outside of wikipedia. If you're going to be rude, and demanding toward other people's time, that's hardly working towards "consensus"

I will respond as much as I can when I can, and if I have time.

And Just because I have time to make an edit, doesn't mean I have time to talk with you also.

I'm glad you are fortunate enough to have lots of free time on your hands, but perhaps you can practice compassion and patience for others who are not as free with their time as you are.

And, if you are a Zen Buddhist, I would remind you that refraining from anger, and speaking against others is a precept of ours.

-Suchawato Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not perfect... So the rest of my life will be spend on practice, I'm afraid. Thanks anyway for this wise advice (serious :)). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notification[edit]

A notification has been posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho about the edit-style of Suchawato Mare. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notification[edit]

A notification response has been posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho about the disruptive editing of User Joshua Jonathan. Suchawato Mare

General Response to Joshua Jonathan[edit]

Friend, you're not only being rude, you're being impatient and demanding like a petulant child

No one is required to respond to you in a time frame of your choosing.

Everyone else has every right to make edits that they deem appropriate, and indeed, you seem to be confused as to your complaint.

First you complain that I do not cite sources and references, and then when I do, you seem to say that the sources are invalid, and or irrelevant.

An attempt to complain for instance that a quote by a Dharma Transmitted, Zen Master is not valid on this subject is laughable, and seems of desperation on your part.

You attempt to discredit me, and any source I post, seemingly for no other reason than that I was the user who posted it, Yet you have yet to explain what makes you so neutral.

You clearly are quoting sources of your own preference as well.

Zen Master Jiyu-Kennet wrote more about Kensho than any other Western Zen Master that I know of, and yet you say using her writing as a source are invalid, when the subject matter is regarding kensho?

Saying something is meant to be used as a teaching source and therefor not a good reference? Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that The Ten Oxherding Pictures, and Manual of Zen Buddhism were also intended as teaching sources.

Are you suggesting that only Non-Buddhist writings are valid to discuss Buddhist Experiences? Or, D.T. Suzuki, a Dharma Transmitted Zen Teacher, is ok, but P.T.N.H. Jiyu-Kennett, a Dharma Transmitted Zen Teacher is not? That's laughable.

Or perhaps only websites that you like or books that you prefer are valid sources?

'Consensus' does not mean my edits are subject to your will.

I don't agree with all of your sources either, but I actually left some in. There's nothing in the TOU that says you have to agree with my sources for me to post them.

You have posted so many complaints to me here, it makes it impossible in the time I have to respond to them all.

Perhaps you'd like to summarize your complaints down to just 2-3 to make things easier. -Suchawato MareSuchawato Mare (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan At least we've got some sort of discussion now. I think my main concern is with the mythology surrounding kensho, the idea that kensho is somehow the same as full Buddhahood. I've responded to this above, at "Existance/Time/Flow - Cosmic Buddha/Buddha nature - Quote - Re above"; I'll move the response to here:
Response#2 by Joshua Jonathan You wrote: "There is no difference between training for kensho and Zen training in general. If you'd had a kensho yourself, you would have understood this."
This one is too important to neglect. There is a HUGE difference between "training for kensho" and "Zen training in general". Kensho, insight alone, is not sufficient; there-after follows, at least in Rinzai, "post-satori training", to integrate this insight into daily life, and to remove any "Zen-stink" which may be left. On this both the Rinzai-tradition and the Sanbo Kyodan are very clear. But it's a point which is quite unknown in the west; usually 'initial insight' and Buddhahood are seen as the same, also because the word "enlightenment" is used to translate different Asian words. That's why I put this so outspoken in the article, and why I added sections on pre- and post-satori training. For more information, read:
  • Hakuin, Ekaku (2010), Wild Ivy: The Spiritual Autobiography of Zen Master Hakuin, translated by Norman Waddell, Shambhala Publications  (primary source on Rinzai-tradition)
  • Cleary, Thomas (2010), Translator's introduction. The Undying Lamp of Zen. The Testament of Zen Master Torei, Boston & London: Shambhala  (primary source on Rinzai-tradition)
  • 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  (secundary source on Rinzai-tradition)
  • Hori, Victor Sogen (2005-B), The Steps of Koan Practice. In: John Daido Loori,Thomas Yuho Kirchner (eds), Sitting With Koans: Essential Writings on Zen Koan Introspection, Wisdom Publications  Check date values in: |date= (help) (secondary source on Rinzai-tradition and Sanbo Kyodan)
It's also why Stuart Lachs is important: he makes very clear that insight, and even "dharma transmission", is not a garantuee for "enlightened behaviour". And that's a huge issue at the moment in western Zen; there have been to many scandals involving supposedly "enlightened teachers". For more information and examples, see:
It's exactly these nuances and concerns which have to be discussed before removing them. They are important, and contain very valuable information. That's also why I deem important an exact definition in the lead, the nuances added by the Victor Hori-quotes, the section on sudden insight, and the extended sections on pre- and post-satori training. As for similarities with other traditions: this may to be too much, but is's also a relativisation of the importance of kensho - or the similar emphasis on it in other traditions. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A main influence in this "mythology" has been D.T. Suzuki; see
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Suchawato Mare, "Restored earlier edits pending additional content additions" is not a valid reason for massive deletion of content (see: WP:OWN). Also, someone receiving Dharma transmission means very little to Wikipedia, as encyclopedia sources should present verifiable information. At most, we can say that a religious figure's views are notable, but those views should generally not be presented as the views of Wikipedia, or as NPOV for that matter (see: WP:RS). Tengu800 06:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Response from Suchawato Mare Friend, we are in complete agreement that training must continue after realization, I posted a quote in direct support of that.

However, if you think that meditation and Buddhist training that occurs before kensho and meditation and Buddhist training that occurs after kensho are not the same thing, that is incorrect.

The "training to reach kensho" and the "training after kensho" are the same training. The point is one must continue training. You are arguing semantics when we are in essentially perfect agreement.

If you like, I will be happy to clarify that with further quotes, indeed I will do so, as you are quite right, in that less confusion is preferable to more!

As far as Dharma Transmission is concerned: Dharma Transmission is the only credential that Zen Buddhism essentially has. Although in R.M. Jiyu-Kenett's case she also Received the Zuisse (spell) degree. Which is the equivalent of a Doctors of Divinity in the East. Dharma Transmission is how we tell in Zen whether a person is qualified to teach Zen or not. So yes, it is not only relevant, but nessicary and required. We wouldn't say that a physicist is a physicist, or an engineer an engineer without the nessicary and proper credentials to do so. Same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchawato Mare (talkcontribs) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference in this regard between Soto and Rinzai. Torei, one of Hakuin's main students, definately disagrees with you. And regarding Dharma Transmission, did you read Lachs, Stuart (2006), The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves  yet? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Reaching concensus[edit]

I've asked third opinions from User:SudoGhost, User:Tengu800, User:Keahapana, User:Suddha and User:SusanLesch to give their opinion on my recent edits on kensho, to reach consensu. They are experienced editors with a lot of knowledge on Buddhism. Suchawato Mare has been informed on this. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Having looked at the material which Joshua Jonathan had added - and which was subsequently contested - I must say that I think that Joshua Jonathan's contributions were perfectly acceptable and adequately referenced. I can see no validity to their suppression. I understand, however, Suchawato Mare's feelings in one particular area: it can be frustrating that Wikipedia does not necessarily accept the interpretative teachings of certain Buddhist masters, unless these are supported by secondary literature. Wikipedia's high reliance on 'scholars', almost to the exclusion of other experiential experts (in the field of Buddhism), strikes me as unbalanced. Unfortunately, that is the Wikipedia policy, and we are obliged to follow it. So I have sympathy with both sides in this discussion. On balance, though, I am of the view that Joshua Jonathan's additions certainly should be allowed to stand. All best wishes to everyone. From Suddha (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with including Jiyu-Kennet's quote on further practice; it's a nice quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the views of religious figures can be included in Wikipedia articles, but they definitely should not be presented as the views of Wikipedia. The basic form is, "According to ________, ________." For example, "According to Dudjom Rinpoche from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the robes of fully ordained Mahāsāṃghika monastics were to be sewn out of more than seven sections, but no more than twenty-three sections." This approach is perfectly valid, and I often use this to present the views of Buddhist monks and other practitioners. All notable views can (and should) be presented so the reader has a balanced perspective on the subject. As long as the view is properly framed and ascribed to the author, then there is no problem with this at all. This is not just the case for religious views, but also for academic theories (which can also be biased, controversial, and flat-out wrong). If something is not a verifiable fact, or could be controversial in some way, then it is always the best practice to attribute it to the monk / scholar / author whose view that is in the first place. In other words, Wikipedia itself should endorse neither religious views nor academic theories, but rather present all notable views in their proper context, attributing each as appropriate. Then a multiplicity of views can be presented to the reader without one interfering with the others. Using this method, there is no conflict between the views, and the only matter left is the amount of weight to give to each position, and how to frame each view. Tengu800 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a lot going on so it took me a few days to have the time to read through the article's changes. Looking at this as a general summary of the differences in the two versions, the first thing that strikes me is that Joshua Jonathan's version has a bit too many quotes (at least in my view), and it should probably be put into prose wherever possible (I know that isn't the issue in dispute here, but it was the most prominent thing I saw so I thought I should point it out). That being said, I don't think some sources being "three generations out of date" is a huge issue if that's the only concern with them; encyclopedia topics are not just information as they are presently known, ideas and methods change over time, even if subtly, and if that's the case then the article should reflect this, as opposed to only giving the topic as it currently exists without using older sources that could highlight past usage, even if things were translated oddly, that should be explained (with reliable sources), not "swept under the rug". - SudoGhost 00:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Response from Suchawato Mare The user SudoGhost has helped clarify what I was essentially (albeit poorly) trying to say. That the article was becoming overly "quoted" (for lack of a better word) and was beginning to get to the point where every line in every sentence needed to have a clarification, and be said by somebody else. As though we were cutting lines out of books and magazines and pasting them in to make an "article" without any writer skill at all. Imagine if we did that on an article about 'cars' or some such. While we could paste in every commentary upon commentary about opinions about comments, on the subject of cars, that would not make a better article, or make it more legible and basically explaining to a lay reader what an automobile is, and the relevant history thereof. It is not necessary to quote everyones opinion from car and driver or popular mechanics or every fansite about cars simply to explain clearly what a car is. The same applies here. If a line seems misleading, its easy to work with it a bit to re-word it into something that becomes more clear. It's less necessary to make a cut and paste "sentence" based entirely on or major-ly on quotes. Keep in mind that wikipedia is aimed and meant at a general audience.
Even a car enthusiast or expert wouldn't want to read an article based on or consisting mostly of pasted quotes. That's not really "writing" at that point, it's just cut and pasting.

Not everyone's commentary or opinion is necessary to explain something simply and clearly. Also, the previous reversions that I have made my edits on are based on a version that was built on consensus of myself and other writers. Specifically with regards to trying to find a balance between Soto and Rinzai approaches so that the article would be balanced and not biased in favor of one tradition's methods over another, which again, in actuality, are not necessary to describe as much in order to explain what a kensho is. If you put too many quotes and such in, you risk loosing the "forrest for the trees" and the original point of the article is lost.Suchawato Mare (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Where-after you add another quote to this version of the article... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's an interesting quote. Did you notice that it contradicts Seongcheol#Sudden enlightenment, sudden cultivation, but coincides with the famous Wild fox koan? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the ongoing dispute between Joshua Jonathan and Suchawato Mare, and apologize for responding so slowly. Based upon the diffs and discussion, I agree with Suddha, Tengu800, and SudoGhost. In general, JJ's constructive additions are from reliable sources, while some of SM's deletions verge upon violating basic WP:POLICY. The title and focus of this article is Kenshō – not personal Kenshō experience. To announce that this article should be "specific to the subject of kensho experience" does not justify deletions because "some of the information I removed had no reference to the explanation of kensho experience at all." Nor does it disqualify scholarly publications "by people who were not actually Buddhists, and/or people who had not experienced a kensho experience first hand." This isn't Zenpedia, it's Wikipedia. Being an "original editor" and primary contributor is admirable, but does not grant ownership. WP is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and there is no reason for more-Zen-than-thou snarkiness. SM uses the word "qualified" six times, for instance, "[If you] defame the three treasures [or] lie … you are not qualified to be working on this article"; "But if you are not a Buddhist, quite frankly you are not qualified to be talking about Buddhist spiritual experience." This makes as much sense as decreeing that if one is not Japanese, then one cannot edit Japanese Zen. We probably already have consensus that the present article needs work, and I hope we can be civil and work together on making improvements. Keahapana (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On Consensus[edit]

In an attempt to reach consensus on this article, I have added a new section on Koans! Which seems highly relevant ; ) and enables the merging back in of additional information that previously seemed out of place in other sections. This should help make a fuller article, and allow an additional place to expand when necessary, information pertinent to that section. Enjoy! -Suchawato Mare Suchawato Mare (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So first you remove all of my edits, including the Rinzai and Soto-sections, and then you reinstate them, on a topic that is comprehensively covered in the article on Kōans? Hmmm... Wouldn't you better wait for conclusions on the requested third opinions, before continuing editing? See also WP:BRD And altough Jiyu-Kennett has relevant things to say, be aware of WP:UNDUE. There is a lot of Jiyu-Kennett in the article now. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in. The Koan section provides a home for that information that allows it to be expanded upon. Some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article and was more specific to those individual subtopics that have their own articles. I agree, there's a lot of Jiyu-Kennet in the article now, and would like to see some quotes by other Zen Masters on the subject, particularly Rinzai Master's to help balance that out. I have to work with the sources of which I have available, and she said a great deal on the subject matter. If you know of any Rinzai monks discussing their kensho experiences, particularly in the descriptions of Kensho, section, or training after realization section, etc, that would be very helpful. Jiyu-Kennet was very open about her experiences, which is why it's easy for me to quote her. I'm not aware of many books or articles with Zen Master's discussing their experiences in detail outside of hers. I had a Rinzai friend of mine, who was very hush, hush about the subject, preferring to say more with his eyes, than he did in words. That doesn't make for easy quoting or referencing in an article. It may simply be that many people find it to be a very personal and intimate topic, so prefer not to discuss it and their experiences openly. I don't know. One of my appeals to Jiyu-Kennett is that she was very open and up-front about the topic, preferring to explain things clearly in plain language, rather than mysteriously, and with flowery language which is how the subject matter is often treated in Zen. If you know of a book of a Rinzai Master discussing their personal experience with kensho it would be good to know about. It would certainly be a welcome addition to this article.Suchawato Mare (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The laughing Buddha of Tofokuji p.17, has a description of kensho, but also an explanation why the Japanese are so uptight on telling about it. And "The three pillars of Zen" bt Kapleau, but they had their own agenda on incorporating all those stories.
Anyway, we're talking now. Pfffffff..... That's good. Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Take also a look at [7] at the bottom of the page - as a cautionary not to put to much emphasis on kensho (or satori), since this is the kind of description that makes "enlightenment" into something HUGE - and incrompehensible. By the way, we do not agree yet on "Some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in" and "Some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article". I've got a different opinion on that; I think it should have been stated as "To my opinion, some of the information you included wasn't appropriate to the sections where you had it in" and "To my opinion, some of the other information simply wasn't relevant to the article". So we, you and me, still have to find a new concensus. Nevertheless, I'm glad we seem to be talking now. I get the impression you're a very enthusiastic guy. Would you mind putting a few lines about yourself on your userpage? It gives some sort of a "face", instead of just a nickname. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: "preferring to explain things clearly in plain language" - take a look at the Five Ranks. I make a bet you really won't like it. It's not at all "explaining things clearly in plain language". But it's central to Soto, and Hakuin too recommended it highly. As a matter of fact, it's even the closing part of the Rinzai koan-curriculum. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the wording of that translation is pretty bad. It seems more like a transliteration than an actual translation. one of the problems with translating things is you can translate something literally, but loose the meaning when the translation is of a poem or other artistic expression of the Eternal in another language. Especially things like chinese, where certain characters like "Mu" have been translated as "nothingness or emptiness" but the character itself actually has little flames rising up on it symbolizing a a "flaming up" what is translated in english as "nothingness" meaning can get lost. Turns of phrase are another area where translating something literally is meaningless. If we were to say that someone needs to get off their "high horse", a few hundred years from now, somebody translating that in another language couldn't translate the meaning accurately by translating it literally. The meaning of that phrase would have to be conveyed in a more modern equivalent of the time, while not being an exactly literal translation, it would nevertheless be more accurate as to convey the concept of "arrogance" or "vain haughty pride" etc, etc. that the phrase represents. The translator of the future would have to be both familiar with our culture now a days, as well as the subject that the person was talking about, so as to as accurately represent as close as possible to the original intent of the writing. That's the problem with a lot of scholarly translations, they look at a character, and look at a dictionary, and say "oh that means rice" and so write it down as "rice" on the english version. They don't get that "rice" may have been an implied meaning of the rice of Buddha Nature within a trainee, etc, etc, and end up loosing the original meaning. Then western people read those translations and think all kinds of things, usually that it is very cryptic, or mysterious, etc, when in actuality, the person of the day who said or wrote it, said it in plain language, using terms that whose meaning would have been obvious, to most common people of the day. It's only in the translation, and the passage of time, that it becomes all "encoded" and the job of a good translator is to decode it and then write it down again in the modern equivalent language as best they can without the meaning being lost. A good translator will openly explain why they translated things a certain way, and explain the differences in their translation and why they said it that way if it differs from other's translations. It's one of the ways you can tell they know the material better.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


The section on koans needs sources:

  • "They could be described as a form of "spiritual riddle"" - this is a western notion; see Talk:Kōan#FAQ
  • "Rinzai uses a book of a few hundred traditional kōan stories as training aids" & "In the Rinzai school of Zen, a traditional set of recorded kōan stories are used as training aids" - Rinzai has two traditions regarding the use of koans, using deveral sets of koans, in various order of sequence; see Kōan#Varieties in koan-practice
  • "Whilst Soto emphasizes each trainee's individual, personal "kōan"" - Soto too knows collections of koans. Only two-hunderd years ago was the use of koans abandoned in the Soto-shu. See Kōan#Japanese Soto

Suggested literature:

  • Loori, John Daido. Sitting with Koans: Essential Writings on the Zen Practice of Koan Study. Wisdom Publications, 2005. ISBN 978-0-86171-369-1
  • Steven Heine, and Dale S. Wright, eds. The Kōan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-19-511749-2

The additon of "In the Soto school, the "genjo-kōan", or the "kōan of everyday life" is emphasized" is a worthfull addition - as far as I can judge. Maybe Realizing Genjokoan: The Key to Dogen's Shobogenzo by Shohaku Okumura can provide a reference for this (I only took a brief look at the table of contents). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"They could be described as a form of "spiritual riddle"" - this is a western notion; see Talk:Kōan#FAQ" It's not a western notion, it's just an acceptable way to explain a japanese Buddhist term in brief to a western genearal audience without making a whole 'nother article on them. Koans in the sense Rinzai uses them are technically recorded stories of past Masters and those people's own attempts to solve their own "Genjo-Koan". The same kind of things are present in the Denkoroku. The technique of using these historic stories to give to every trainee, is something Rinzai uses, and was going on a bit in China before Daie Soko popularized it in Japan. They essentially are a "riddle" though they are not. It is the closest western word to what it is, short of calling them a "koan" which is the Japanese word. The concept of a koan does not exist in western english, so if one wishes to sortof "sum up the idea kinda-sortof poorly" then that's one way to go about it. The point of a Koan is not to "solve" them in the sense that a riddle is solved like a logic puzzle, but it's the closest thing we have in english. Keep in mind, the article is aimed at a general audience. I could post a detailed quote or two about koans, but I'm trying to keep the quotes down. Regarding this section, we don't need it to be an extensive explanation of koans. That's not the purpose of the article. The article is about kensho, not about koans, so "good enough" is actually good enough. That's why I put in the link for the main koan article, again, if you expand too much in that area, you basically sidetrack the article and get off topic. We're not discussing the history of koans here. We just need a brief summary.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to lead[edit]

Since the lead had become redundant and difficult to understand, I started a new linguistic section that still needs work. Any improvements would be welcome. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I liked what you were trying to do, and cleaned it up a bit. The idea of a linguistic history section seemed interesting, but it didnn't really add anything other than to convey the concept that "words evolve" etc, which would seem erroneous.
I merged the idea of pronunciation into the opening line. The "meanings" section was repetitive. The definitions listed were basically slightly different wordings on the theme "seeing one's own or true nature". Which was essentially arguing semantics, and become redundant. They were all transliterations of a single Japanese word, and so didn't provide any major departures from one another to warrant the side by side inclusion of "seeing ones own nature" and "seeing into one-self". They are talking about identically the same concept. Since this article is not about a transliteration history of the japanese word into english, but is about the Buddhist term and experience that the term represents, I appreciate the effort, and I think your expanded upon definition of the chinese version was of great value, and essentially summed up what you added. Regarding the idea of a history section, If there was any sortof noteworthy history regarding the transliteration of the japanese word, or some major controversy regarding translations of it, that was any different than what goes on in translating any other word from any other language into english, I would say yeah, go for it, add it in. But as it's just a basic Japanese Buddhist term ported into English, that's been ported straight across as a western Buddhist term for lack of a previously existing equivalent english terminology, an extended section on slightly different ways of describing the Japanese language isn't necessary, and just bogs down the entry section. A simple summary of where the term is derived from suffices. I think your addition expands upon the opening section and makes it now better and clearer than it was. Thank you.Suchawato Mare (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, Suchawato Mare, do you ever wonder what's the opinion of other editors? You think Keahapana's edits don't add anything. I, for one, like them, so I disagree with your alterations of Keahapana's edits, and want them to be restored. I really think you should start to co-operate, instead of reverting and removing anything you don't like. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More quotes[edit]

SudoGhost adviced to trim the quotes; yet there appear only more of them. I've had enough of Suchawato Mare's edits:

  • On-Going Fugen Kensho: more Jiyu-Kenneth [8] WP:UNDUE not representative of Zen as a whole
  • Who is Morgan Zo-Callahan?!?
  • Two times D.T. Suzuzki; Suzuki is not a trustworthy source. See for example Sharf, Robert H. (1995), Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited (PDF) 

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion on third opinions[edit]

I asked four experienced editors for their opinion; three said they agreed with my edits, one adviced to cut down the quotes. One, an expert on Chinese and Japanese, also tries to give a good ethymology-section, which has also been removed by Suchawato Mare. It's clear that he's trying to WP:OWN the page, and does not care about cooperation or feedback. There is still a long list of issues waiting to be answered by him; see Talk:Kenshō#Restoration#2.
I will restore my previous edits, in accord with the agreement of the editors which I asked for their opinion; I will also reduce the amount of quotes, in accord with the feedback of SudoGhost. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoration #3[edit]

  • I have re-inserted the edits of myself and Keahapana, which were previously removed by Suchawata Mare, in accordance with my previously stated objections against these removals, and my conclusion on the requested third opinions;
  • I have trimmed the amount and lenght of quotes, in accordance with the advice of SudoGhost;
  • I have added three descriptions of kensho-"experiences", in accord with Suchawato Mare's request;
  • I have reduced the WP:UNDUE amount of Jiyu-Kenneth related material, in accordance with my previous stated critic;
  • I have removed the unsourced and incorrect "info" on koans, which I've criticised before;
  • I have cleaned up the sources-section;
  • I have Wikified the appendices;
  • I have removed two dead links, and four links all leading to the same page of Shastey Abbey from "External links".

I trust that the reasons for these actions are clear, as they were clearly announced and discussed before, and that any objections against these will be preceded by discussion, as requested several times before. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Insight versus experience[edit]

I've added a section on "Insight versus exeperience", since this topic is covered by several authors, but hardly known by a general audience. It points to a significant reinterpretation of Zen, which started in Japan in the 19th century under the influence of western culture, and has on it's turn shaped the western understanding of Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Spontaneous kensho[edit]

Zen has two disticht terms for "self-awakening". This section is now mixed with "spontaneous" awakening; this could be separated. This ection too points to an important self-understanding of Zen: no awakening outside the tradition - but apparantly this is possible. What then is the role of "the tradition"? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-arranging terminology-section[edit]

I've added a subheader, to separate definitions from other aspects. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Joshua Jonathan for restoring and reorganizing this article. I wonder if it would be better to have the "Meanings of kenshō" section only list reliable "encyclopedia and dictionary definitions" (I'll add Soothill), and to move the "Buddhist scholars" and "Further notions" into a new section. What do you think? Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I put all the definitions and the further notions in one section, instead of your proposal. How about it?
Regarding the "encyclopedia and dictionary definitions": using the best reliable sources is of course the best to do. Reading the definitions takes time and attention, but I like it to get the opportunity to compare. It shows the nuances of translation-interpretation.
A few sources were moved by me to the meanings-section. I'm afraid it would be good to check if the right sources are at the right text. And it would also be good to add citation-marks where necessary.
PS: I take the liberty to convert the <ref> to {{sfn}}. It gives a comprehensive references-section, and is easier when multiple citations from the same source are being used.
Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenshō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)