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


As a soka gakkai member, I would say that using "esoteric cosmology" to describe what was taught by Tien Tai is wrong. the concept of three thousand worlds in a single life moment is not an esoteric world that exists somewhere apart from us - it's what could even be called a psychological explanation for states of daily life of a living being. So I think it's inaccurate to describe it in such a short way - it's really easy to misinterpret something like that. Shouldn't there be instead some more in depth writing in this page of some of the other doctrines taught by Tien Tai?

Yes, you are right that it is not technically an "esoteric cosmology" and that such wording is misleading. I have been working on this page to make it more respectable, as Tiantai is a school with great depth and breadth. Still, that is one section from an older version that I left unchanged, as I was not sure how to rephrase it at the time. Tengu800 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral Point of View[edit]

I've added a POV tag to the top of this article. There are a few statements throughout the article that praise Tiantai practices and doctrine. For example: "In China it has been traditionally held that the meditation methods of the Tiantai are the most systematic and comprehensive of all." This seems to reflect only the view of practitioners of Tiantai. Chan or Pure Land buddhists would not hold this so-called traditional view. It's not that the statement can't be included, but it should be qualified as to who said and in what context, and also presented with a contrasting view that I'm sure exists. Furthermore, David Chappell, as a Tiantai oriented Buddhist, is not a very objective source, while Charles Luk is rather outdated, especially considering he was active before the Cultural Revolution in China. Having the whole article more or less based on these two does not provide a neutral view of the subject matter. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using Charles Luk for a source, and he is exactly the sort of source one should use for a traditional Chinese Buddhist perspective. It is arguable whether some more modern Chinese Buddhists would be better suited to speak about traditional Chinese Buddhist views, which are what this quote addresses. Charles Luk himself wrote the quote in the 1960's from Hong Kong (not communist China before the revolution), and since it addresses traditional Chinese Buddhist views, I don't know why there is any opposition to quoting him on the matter. He was certainly not an apologist for the Tiantai school, and instead wrote books mostly following the Chan tradition. Tengu800 00:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that you claim that Chan or Pure Land Buddhists would not hold that view. Charles Luk was a traditional Chan Buddhist, and wrote extensively on the teachings of the Chan school, much more so than any other schools of Chinese Buddhism. Tengu800 00:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, there is indeed nothing wrong with using Charles Luk as a source. I only asked that the statement be qualified, because it seems to me to be one academic's opinion and not a "traditional view" as stated in the opener. Also, Chalres Luk was a student of Hsu Yun, who extensively mixed traditions, Tiantai among them. Just speaking from personal experience, the Hsu Yun lineage's form of practice that I've witnessed is nothing like "normal Zen"; they hardly even sit Zazen, which is supposed to be the fundamental practice of Chan. Anyways, my personal opinion doesn't matter, but I just mean to say that I think this article would be more objective if it didn't have such a subjective statements. I honestly don't even know what "most systematic and comprehensive" is supposed to mean. I guess I should just go look for other academic views... DJLayton4 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Pulling up the David Chappell source, it seems that the bits in the opener were plagiarized word for word and taken out of context. I added quotations and restored the context, which, as it happens, is more balanced anyway. I also started expanding the doctrine section to include the foundations of the school as listed by Chappell. I stopped at the Four Teachings because I was tired, but that and the Mind and Dharma still need explanation. They can be found a few pages in to that Chappell source if anyone else is up for it. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I see no reason why Tendai and Cheontae have separate pages. Similar to what is done with Zen, these schools are all based on Tiantai, and should have one basic page that covers the subject comprehensively, and then also covers developments in other countries (e.g. esotericism in Japan). Most of the material could be kept, and the resulting article would be a more valuable resource than three separate and disjointed ones, when much material is relevant to all schools. Tengu800 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a merger makes good sense so long as the traditions of each country are well defined within. I think there's enough continuity to combine them. Another option would be having briefer subsections on Tendai and Cheontae and linking to the main articles from the Tiantai page.DJLayton4 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Japanese Tendai incorporate Shingon into it? I'd have to research it. But for now, I'd be in favour of keeping the pages seperate. Steve (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The differences of Tien-tai and Tendai are significant, more than is reflected in the Tendai article itself. A split would not reflect the Japanese tradition as was formed during the time of Saicho into medieval Buddhism as developed in Japan. In fact, the amount of missing information in the Tendai article is significant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STLBuddhist (talkcontribs) 02:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Tiantai merger proposal? Without any effort to bring over material from the Tendai or Cheontae articles? The trend continues! STLBuddhist sums up the reason for separate articles well, but improving all three article might be a better starting point than repetitive merge proposals. Prburley (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiantai. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)