Talk:Zen

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

Former good article nomineeZen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

This version[edit]

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

I just laughed and laughed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednblu (talkcontribs) 13 July 2015 (UTC)

History section[edit]

After comparing how much of the material which was in the history section is just the same stuff that is in Chan Buddhism's history section, I decided to make a bold edit and remove most of it while moving over material that was not in Chan Buddhism (see the history of this article for that edit). I then left a much shorter historical overview in its place. Those who want more detail on Chinese Chan's history can still access all of this material in the Chan Buddhism page which is linked on this page as a main article under Chinese Chan. There is no point is replicating the same material in two wikipedia articles. Javierfv1212 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Do the moderators of this page even study zen?[edit]

Some of the issues with the page
  • Zen is not meditation
  • Meditation does not lead to enlightenment
  • Shintanza is not a method of expressing enlightenment
  • Soto is not zen
  • Dogen never got enlightened
  • All books and traditions that sell an idea of a cultivated enlightenment are officially not Zen.
  • Zen was not strongly influenced by taoism or neo-daoist thought
  • Zen is not a form of mahayana-buddhism either
  • Zen does not mean dhyana. Dhyana actually opposes the zen teachings.
  • "and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others." This is just not true, zen is selfish. Some people just leave and live ordinary lives.
  • Zen is not aphopathic
  • Stilling and quieting the mind is "quietism and false zen"
  • McRae: "...the practical explanation of “maintaining the One without wavering” is that one is simply to contemplate every aspect of one’s mental and physical existence, focusing on each individual component with unswerving attention until one realizes its essential emptiness or non-substantiality." This is contradictory to what zen masters teach.
  • "In Hongzhi's practice of "nondual objectless meditation" the mediator strives to be aware of the totality of phenomena instead of focusing on a single object, without any interference, conceptualizing, grasping, goal seeking, or subject-object duality." This is a contradictory piece of text. The meditation offered is still one belonging to duality.
  • Dahui never taught to meditate on koans, just inquiry/study.
  • It's a shame Dahui gets a mention, but he doesn't get listened to. "Dahui was a vigorous critic of what he called the "heretical Chan of silent illumination" from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahui_Zonggao
  • Chanting(meditation) is not a part of Zen
  • This is all what chan is: "Chán points directly to the human mind, to enable people to see their true nature and become buddhas."
  • These parts are incorrect too: "Since Zen is a form of Mahayana Buddhism, it is grounded on the schema of the bodhisattva path, which is based on the practice of the "transcendent virtues" or "perfections" as well as the taking of the bodhisattva vows."
"An important element of this practice is the formal and ceremonial taking of refuge in the three jewels, bodhisattva vows and precepts. Various sets of precepts are taken in Zen including the five precepts, "ten essential precepts", and the sixteen bodhisattva precepts.This is commonly done in an initiation ritual, which is also undertaken by lay followers and marks a layperson as a formal Buddhist."
"The Chinese Buddhist practice of fasting (zhai), especially during the uposatha days (Ch. zhairi, "days of fasting") can also be an element of Chan training"
"Certain arts such as painting, calligraphy, poetry, gardening, flower arrangement, tea ceremony and others have also been used as part of zen training and practice."

I stopped reading here, as there is quite a lot of information. I'm sure there's more wrong on this page though. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the people moderating the page have not actually studied the topics they have been posting in, which I think should be the first and foremost requirement for adding information to a wiki page. So I hope that not only the misinformation gets corrected, but that the people currently moderating this page get relieved from their position as well.


Sources

Platform Sutra - Huineng

Sun Faced Buddha - Mazu

Gateless Gate - Wumen

Book of Serenity - Wansong

Blue Cliff Records - Yuanwu

Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching - Dahui

Master Yunmen, From the Record of the Chan Teacher "Gate of the Clouds"

The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi - Burton Watson

The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield

The Recorded Saying of Zen Master Joshu - James Green

Radical Zen, The Sayings of Joshu - Yoel Hoffmann

Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary

Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt

Zen and Zen Classics vol. 1-5 - R.H. Blyth

Pruning the Bodhi tree - Jamie Hubbard

Some Zen Masters; Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:DD49:1E8D:F75E:668C (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous user from IP...668C. I moved your comment to the bottom of the page. This article doesn't have 'moderators' exactly - it has been written by numerous editors over the years, and is open for anyone to edit. Anyone can change the content, provided they do so in accordance with our relevant policies and guidelines. The problem with your comment above is that you make a load of assertions, and list a load of sources, but you aren't attributing any of your assertions to the particular sources. What would be a lot more helpful would be if you said something like 'Change X to Y, based on this source (including URL if it's an online source, or ISBN and page number if it's a book). Take a look at WP:RS for guidance on what we would consider to be a reliable source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the moderators of this page do study Zen - for over thirty years, more than half of my life. And you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
No, you don't. The fact that you dont even read what Dahui had to say says enough. You study meditation, or silent illumination. Something zen masters continuously reject.
There are moderators though, if I edit some things and someone doesnt agree, they can just revert it without even considering the information. All of my claims can be easily verified by anyone who studies the topic and the provided books are very clear on what is and isn't zen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talkcontribs) 13 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:FORUM and WP:RS. What's your point with the RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You made a contradictory article, there's even a link on the page that disputes your own words. You dont seem like a capable editor for this page to me. As I said, I don't just think the info should be corrected. I think people like you should be barred from making any more edits
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:PERSONALATTACK. If you don't have any constructive contribution to make, just stay away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor has said the following on the dutch zen page (translated, paraphrased): "It doesn't really matter if the texts were historically accurate, they have been inspirational to many"

I would love to make a contribution, but am not going to try and make changes when someone who doesn't even know what the topic is about has the ability to moderate based on his personal opinion.

This information is not an original work and there are at least ten books of verifiable information added alongside it. Calling you seemingly incapable is not an insult at this point as it is much more of an observation. Especially if you consider you can't or won't keep your articles coherent and historically accurate.

Quotes

From the platform sutra:

"The Master said, "I have composed a markless verse for the great assembly. Merely rely on it to cultivate and you will be as if always by my side. If you cut your hair and leave home, but do not cultivate, it will be of no benefit in pursuing the Way. The verse runs: 

The mind made straight, why toil following rules? The practice sure, of what use is Dhyana meditation?" (cut off the rest)

[...]

"The Master instructed the assembly, "Good Knowing Advisors, what is meant by 'sitting in Ch'an?' In this unobstructed and unimpeded Dharma-door, the mind's thoughts do not arise with respect to any good or evil external state. That is what 'sitting' is. To see the unmoving self-nature inwardly is Ch'an."

&

"Hsieh Chien said, “The Virtuous Dhyana Masters at the capital all say that to master the Way one must sit in Dhyana meditation and practice concentration, for without Dhyana concentration, liberation is impossible. I do not know how the Master explains this dharma. The Master said, “The Way is awakened to from the mind. How could it be found in sitting? The Diamond Sutra states that to say that Tathagata either sits or lies down is to walk a deviant path. Why? The clear pure Dhyana of the Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere and is neither produced nor extinguished. The Tathagata’s clear pure ‘sitting’ is the state of all dharmas being empty and still. Ultimately there is no certification; even less is there any ‘sitting.’”

From R.H. Blyths translation of the gateless gate:

Wumen's zen warnings;

3. To unify and pacify the mind is quietism and false Zen

9. Sitting blankly in Zen practice is the condition of a dead man.

10. Making progress is an intellectual illusion. 


From "Sun Face Buddha":

Mazu was practicing samadhi at Chuanfa Monastery in Heng yueh. There he met Nanyu Huairang [an heir of Huineng] who immediately recognized him as a Dharma vessel. Huairang asked him, "Why are you sitting in meditation?"

Mazu replied, "Because I want to become a Buddha." Thereupon Huairang took a brick and started to polish it in front of Mazu].

Mazu asked, "Why are you polishing that brick?"

Huairang said, "Because I want to make a mirror."

Mazu asked, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a brick?"

Huairang siad, "If I cannot make a mirror by polishing a brick, how can you become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?"

Seriously though, you have been studying for 30 years and never came across the six patriarchs of zen, who all deny meditation as a means of enlightenment?(Because this doesn't seem to get mentioned on the wikipedia page) Or did you omit them on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If one wishes to convincingly present oneself as a follower of the Buddhadharma and knowledgeable about the Way, one should be able to demonstrate the practice of Right Speech. It's true that the ancient masters contradicted one another, and at times contradicting themselves. Such things can be discussed without disparaging those who volunteer their time here. Teishin (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Right speech is not taught by zen masters. There's a difference between contradictions and blatantly leaving out the six founders of zen's point of view. Calling someone incapable because he missed basic information is in my view not misplaced. You wouldn't find a flat earther to be capable to run a science forum either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talkcontribs) 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You're the flat earther, I guess? try some solid scholarly literature, in addition to your wild fox slobber. Two suggestions:
  • Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd .ISBN 978-0-520-23798-8
  • Schlütter, Morten (2008), How Zen became Zen. The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-3508-8
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you care to substantiate your claim that Zen masters do not teach the 8-fold path? If you are so comfortable calling out the incapabilities of people, I suggest you investigate your own capabilities with regard to skills and practices for functioning as a Wikipedia editor. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Evidence for claim
Huangbo, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po:
"As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses, how do they differ from wooden dolls?"
"Since you are fundamentally complete you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices."
"If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices, and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge."
& (if the source is considered usable):
"Building on the prevalent Chinese Buddhist conviction that all beings have/are Buddha-nature (fo-xing, 佛性), however, practice was not advocated in Chan as a means to enlightenment, but rather as the meaning of demonstrating it. It is only in denial or ignorance of our own true nature that enlightenment can be regarded as something to seek, a destination at which we might one day arrive.In sharp contrast with more scholastically-inclined schools of Buddhism, Chan did not see dispelling ignorance of our own true nature as something to be accomplished by studying canonical texts and commentaries. On the contrary, in keeping with the Buddha’s claim that the wise “do not hang onto anything, anywhere” and “do not enter into the mud of conceptual thinking” (Sabhiya Sutta, Sutta Nipāta III.6), Chan came to insist that we cannot read or reason our way out of conflict, trouble and suffering. And, in contrast with more ritually-defined schools of Buddhism, Chan also came to deny the merit of seeking help from supramundane sources. Dispelling ignorance of our own Buddha-nature does not involve cultivating or acquiring anything; we need only end the relational paralysis that prevents us from conducting ourselves as enlightening beings. This does not require special conditions or implements. It does not require extensive study or training. It can be accomplished here and now, in the midst of our own day-to-day lives."
Source
 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-chan/
Taken from the introduction
@Joshua; Why dont you read one of the ten books I provided for you? Or engage with any of the provided quotes?
More importantly, why does a zen page, a page that was supposed to be dedicated to zen and it's teachings, omit the founders of said tradition's teachings?
You can throw books at me all you like, but if you can't comprehend the basics of zen and studying, how can I trust your word on these sources?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It may be more productive for you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia first. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whatever Zen is, it is not for Wikipedia editors to opine what it is. Editors are to describe what reliable sources say it is. That's just one of the tasks of editors. Others are to promote a neutral point of view, to treat other editors with respect, and to not use the Talk page as a forum. Whatever great knowledge one might have about a subject is worthless if one is unable to operated productively in the Wikipedia work environment. Teishin (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It is happening though, editors are opining on what it is. You can't say this page is neutral if it keeps out the literal founders of the teachings.
There are ten books of information (so ten reliable sources) that dispute what is being called zen here. How can you claim neutrality when none of these books are considered or mentioned?
"Whatever great knowledge one might have about a subject is worthless if one is unable to operated productively in the Wikipedia work environment."
So, according to you, working productively in the wikipedia work environment is more important than the knowledge offered. How's that free of opining and neutral editing?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a process for achieving NPOV avoiding editorializing. That's how. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
How is omitting official zen teachings or not engaging with claims when they're being addressed being "productive in the wiki work environment"? ::::— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (WP:TALK) 2A02:A210:2901*, talk pages are not ]]WP:FORUM, if you need help editing wikipedia talk pages you may consider to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE and ask the uninvolved expert editors. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Those books are primary sources, (mis)interpreted by the IP. See WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, it does not concern OR. The books in the list are tertiary sources, which should suffice. Without adding my own interpetations the zen masters are clear:
Quotes
The Master said, “The Way is awakened to from the mind. How could it be found in sitting? The Diamond Sutra states that to say that Tathagata either sits or lies down is to walk a deviant path. Why? The clear pure Dhyana of the Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere and is neither produced nor extinguished. The Tathagata’s clear pure ‘sitting’ is the state of all dharmas being empty and still. Ultimately there is no certification; even less is there any ‘sitting.’”
_______
Main article: Shikantaza
(Master) Dahui’s teachings contain relentless attacks on the practice of silent illumination, sitting in meditation in tranquility and quietness. He labeled teachers of this type of meditation practice as "heretical" and complained,
They just sit in a ghostly cave on a dark mountain after their meals. They call this practice "silent illumination", "dying the great death", "the state before the birth of one's parents." They sit there until calluses appear on their bottoms, yet they still do not dare to move." [21]
To his opinion this type of practice leads to drowsiness, blankness and intellectualization and conceptualization of Chan Buddhism rather than enlightenment. He thought that teachers who taught this method of meditation had "never awakened themselves, they don’t believe anyone has awakened."[22] 
_____
From 'Zen Masters' by Dale Wright and Steven Heine;
'It is not sitting, it is practicing uninterruptedly and doubting that brings awakening'
Later in his life when telling of events during this period of study with many teachers he says that he was not as enthusiastic about the practice of sitting meditation as some others. When others wanted to do sitting meditation all night, Dahui wanted to stretch out his legs and sleep. Dahui tells this story about himself to make a positive point: it was not special devotion to sitting meditation that eventually got him to awakening, but never letting his doubt-filled investigation drop. Dahui makes the same point when he says in another sermon, “I studied Chan for seventeen years. In my tea, in my rice, when I was happy, when I was angry, when I was still and quiet, when I was disturbed (luan), I never once let myself be interrupted.”
_____
Dogen's zen is cultural appropriation, not zen.
In Dogen's manual of zen meditation Carl Bielefeld says:


"Dogen explicitly links his zazen with the tradition that every act of the Ch'an masterwhether holding up a finger or beating a studentrepresents the enlightened behavior of a Buddha, free from discrimination and beyond understanding. The irony, of course, is that, while the basic shift from inward quest to outward expression may have remained constant, what was in the classical style intended precisely to celebrate Ch'an's freedom from traditional forms (especially contemplative forms) of Buddhist cultivation has here become frozen in the ritual reappropriation of the tradition of cross-legged sitting. In any case we have here gone well beyond the classical theoretical discourse on Buddha nature and sudden practice to a treatment of meditation that is less concerned with cognitive stales than with religious action, less concerned with the Buddha as symbol of pure consciousness than as example of liberated agent. If the model for Zen practice here is still the enactment of enlightenment, it is no longer simply the psychological accord of the practitioner's consciousness with the eternally enlightened mind; it is now the physical reenactment by the practitioner of the deeds of the historical exemplars of enlightened behavior."
Also Carl Bielefeldt:
"Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana... and that the school has specialised in the practice[of meditation], but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Chan and Zen... to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with [meditation]."
_____
When Master Joshu talks about not setting up likes vs dislikes or not putting up right vs wrong, what does that have to do with meditation, taking/keeping precepts, virtues, paramitas or vows?
_____


McRae: "...the practical explanation of “maintaining the One without wavering” is that one is simply to contemplate every aspect of one’s mental and physical existence, focusing on each individual component with unswerving attention until one realizes its essential emptiness or non-substantiality."
This is wrong and goes against what zen masters teach.
From Seng T'san's Faith in Mind;
Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One. 
______


Foyan, Instant Zen:
When I bring up one thing and another for you as I do, you think I am explaining Zen; but the minute you go into action you make it into worldly convention.
[The last line is worth extra attention, since it basically describes all the things that are wrong with the zen page, like keeping precepts for example]
Only if you keep your attention on it will you be able to make a discovery; but as I see, most of you just remain in eyes and ears, seeing and hearing, sensing and feeling - you've already missed the point. You must find the nondiscriminatory mind without departing from the discriminating mind; find that which has no seeing or hearing without departing from seeing and hearing.
This does not mean that "no seeing" is a matter of sitting on a bench with your eyes closed. You must have nonseeing right in seeing. This is why it is said, "Live in the realm of seeing and hearing, yet unreached by seeing and hearing; live in a land of thought, yet untouched by thought."
_______
"In Hongzhi's practice of "nondual objectless meditation" the mediator strives to be aware of the totality of phenomena instead of focusing on a single object, without any interference, conceptualizing, grasping, goal seeking, or subject-object duality."
[Note how this practice still belongs to the wordly conventions Foyan rejects.]
_______
"An important element of this practice is the formal and ceremonial taking of refuge in the three jewels, bodhisattva vows and precepts. Various sets of precepts are taken in Zen including the five precepts, "ten essential precepts", and the sixteen bodhisattva precepts.This is commonly done in an initiation ritual, which is also undertaken by lay followers and marks a layperson as a formal Buddhist."
One of the six patriarchs, Huineng, got enlightened while hearing a single line from the diamond sutra on the market. He had never taken any vows or precepts, he did not practice meditation either.
When master Xiangyan got enlightened by a pebble hitting bamboo when he was sweeping, what did it have to do with meditation, precepts, vows etc?
______


R.H. Blyth:
"For the practical study of Zen, you must pass the barriers set up by the masters of Zen." In the phrase, "the practical study of Zen", sanszen, the word san is said to have three meanings: 1. to distinguish (truth from error.) 2. to have an audience with a Zen Master. 3. to reach the ground of one's being. There is no explaining, philosophizing, idealizing, eccentricity. The character [zen], used to transliterate[1] Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." p.32, *Zen and Zen Classics, Vol. 4)
So when zen masters talk about Dhyana, they are not referring to meditation.
_______
From Dahui's Shobogenzo:
Linji; Just be able to dissolve past habits according to circumstances, going when you need to go, sitting when you need to sit, without any thought of seeking buddhahood. Why so? An ancient said, ‘If you’re going to act in contrived ways to seek buddhahood, then buddhahood is a major sign of birth and death.’
Touzi; If you question me, I reply accordingly, but I have no mysterious subtleties for you. And I don’t have you dwell figuring. I never speak of transcendence or immanence, or the existence of Buddha, or Dharma, or ordinary or holy. And I don’t maintain sitting to bind you people.
Zhenjing; Buddhism does not go along with human sentiments. Elders everywhere talk big, all saying, ‘I know how to meditate, I know the Way!’ But tell me, do they understand or not? For no reason they sit in pits of crap fooling spirits and ghosts. When people are like this, what crime is there is killing them by the thousands and feeding them to the dogs?
Deshan; If you say you can attain by entering concentration, stilling the spirit, quieting down thoughts, well, some cultists have also managed to get into states of tremendous concentration seeming to last eighty thousand eons, but are they enlightened? Obviously they are mesmerized by false notions.
Xuansha; It cannot be said that you will hit the mark by fasting, discipline, constant sitting without reclining, stopping the mind, meditating on emptiness, freezing the spirit, or entering concentration—what connection is there?
_______


Ch'eng-ku, Teachings of Zen:
"It is essential for yu to cease and desist from your previously held knowledge, opinions, interpretations, and understandings. It is not accomplished by stopping the mind; temporary relinquishment is not the way - it fools you to wasting body and mind, without accomplishing anything at all in the end.
I suggest to you that nothing compares to ceasing and desisting. There is nowhere for you to apply your mind. Just be like an imbecile twenty-four hours a day. You have to be spontaneous and buoyant, your mind like space, yet without any measurement of space."


______
Mazu, Sun Face Buddha:
P.58; (Huijang said to Mazu) "Meditation is neither sitting or lying."
P.60; If you try to sit like buddha you are just killing Buddha.
P.62;Not cultivation and not sitting is the Tathagata's pure meditation.
______


Huangbo, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po:
"As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses, how do they differ from wooden dolls?"
"Since you are fundamentally complete you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices."
"If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices, and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge."
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The second Bielefeldt quote sums it up: Zen rhetorics seems to reject dhyana, yet dhayna is at the heart of Zen. Again, see the two titles mentioned above. Or Faure, The Rhetorics of Immediacy. Your point of view seems to be a faint echo of D.T. Suzuki's presentation of Zen, which focuses on "enlightenment" as an instaneous, all-claryfying event. Present-day scholarship has long rejected this romantic point of view. See also Zen#Middle Chán:

modern scholars have seen much of the literature that presents these "iconoclastic" encounters as being later revisions during the Song era, and instead see the Hongzhou masters as not being very radical, instead promoting pretty conservative ideas, such as keeping precepts, accumulating good karma and practicing meditation

And see Zen#Song Dynasty Chán: Dahui's emphasis on koan-study was also a result of strive for state-support; he introduced a form of practice which was comprehensible for a lay audience, and easy to maintain. Context and background is relevant, when you want to understand those texts; don't take them on face-value. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Dhyana is not at the heart of zen when it is translated as meditation.
Can you support your claims with tertiary sources please? Some quotes would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
See the Zen article. Can you back-up yours? You're quoting primary sources, not tertiary. NB: also have a look at Zen Narratives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is big, please provide the specific quotes.
The only thing I found was McRae criticism, but we can hardly consider him understanding of the way if he teaches things contrary to what zen masters say.
"As tertiary sources, encyclopedias, textbooks, and compendia attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview"
Blue cliff records, book of serenity, gateless gate and dogen's manual of zen meditation should at least qualify. I'll have to check the others, but in the books the zen masters at least refer to eachother('s teaching) too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Middle Chan: Youru Wang, Historical Dictionary of Chan Buddhism, Rowman & Littlefield, 2017, p. 13; McRae, Seeing Through Zen. Dahui: Schluter, title already given above. If your criterium is that scholarship shouldn't be critical, but merely reiterate a naive understanding of primary texts, then we can only consider your point of view as religious fundamentalism. The Blue Cliff record etc. are as primary as can be. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"If your criterium is that scholarship shouldn't be critical, but merely reiterate a naive understanding of primary texts, then we can only consider your point of view as religious fundamentalism."
This can be said for about 80% of the current article.
Examples
Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan
McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist)
Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987
Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995
Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989;
Why is the shobogenzo then used as a source for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
where is it used as a source? Read Zen Narratives, and update your knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In the zen article from wikipedia found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
Under the header "practice" when they talk about Dogen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Copied from the link you provided
Enlightenment as timeless transcendence
The romantic notion of enlightenment as a timeless insight into a transcendental essence has been thoroughly criticized.[23] According to critics it doesn't contribute to a real insight into Buddhism:
...most of them labour under the old cliché that the goal of Buddhist psychological analysis is to reveal the hidden mysteries in the human mind and thereby facilitate the development of a transcendental state of consciousness beyond the reach of linguistic expression.
Zen is not buddhist psychological analysis though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not being used as a primary source. Don't forget that the Lin Ji/Rinzai school is but one school of thought and practice within Zen; to present this as normative is a sectarian point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Tertiary Sources. These are sources that index, abstract, organize, compile, or digest other sources. Some reference materials and textbooks are considered tertiary sources when their chief purpose is to list, summarize or simply repackage ideas or other information"
How are books that are basically a collection of koans not "compiled work"? This counts for Blue cliff records, gateless gate and the book of serenity.
How are these not primary? (This came from the wikipedia page about zen.):
Sōtō Zen Text Project. "Zazengi translation"(links to: https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022108/http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zazengi/zazengi.html) Stanford University.
Sōtō Zen Text Project. "Fukan Zazengi"(Links to:https://web.archive.org/web/20080429201213/http://www.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html). Stanford University.
"Don't forget that the Lin Ji/Rinzai school is but one school of thought and practice within Zen; to present this as normative is a sectarian point of view."
Meditation is now provided as the normative view though, all the while leaving out all the masters rejecting this. The article is sectarian as it is and does not objectively portray the zen tradition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
These are books by Buddhist teachers, not by scholars; they are 'close to the subject'. NB: the quote on Dahui, "Later in his life" ff, is interesting. But see Hakuin Ekaku#Post-satori practice, and Kenshō#Training after kenshō. And regarding normative: what do you think they do in Rinza monasteries? They sit, rigorously. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Then you have some books to remove from the page too. I'm sure it's not just dogen's shobogenzo.
Examples
Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan
McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist)
Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987
Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995
Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989;
Does their sitting make the old masters wrong? Is their view to be omitted simply because "people sit rigorously"?
Are the 6 founders of the tradition just to be discarded and not to be considered while still using the name of said tradition? Because that seems like a dishonest representation of said tradition.
Please do not link, but provide quotes instead.
The pages you link contain misinformation too though. Like: To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are necessary.
Shikantaza is never neccesary, as the above quotes have already addressed.
I'm not to keen on reading articles where you are free to edit and contribute if this is the standard of verifiability you uphold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Goodbye then; I wish you happiness and peace in your own universe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are you taking leave without addressing any of the claims? Seems very dishonest and not at all in the spirit of discussing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks to me like you're making the case for interpreting Zen as a form of philosophical skepticism, which happens to be my interpretation. You've provided support for that interpretation from original sources. You, however, are not a reliable source for that interpretation. Indeed, you haven't even provided us with a name or editor handle to call you. You are just an unsigned IP address at this point. But as editors here we need to use reliable secondary sources for those interpretations. Just because you and I might happened to agree on the opinion that Zen should be interpreted to be a form of philosophical skepticism isn't good enough. If you can find reliable sources -- published scholars or Zen teachers -- who explicate such an interpretation, we'd have something to work with. I haven't happened to stumble upon them, but I haven't searched hard for them. Perhaps you can find them. While you're doing that, it would be also helpful if you'd read up on the Wikipedia editing process. It would also be helpful if you would get in some "practice" editing on some much simpler topics, maybe something like the entries about minor places, or biographies, that you may know a lot about. Starting with a topic so difficult as how to present the various interpretations of Zen philosophy appears to be beyond your present level of editing skills. Teishin (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The books are all by either published scholars or zen masters.
The only case I'm making is that a zen page should include all the zen teachings. Not just the ones supporting meditation and practice.
I don't know about you or others, but I don't find zen to be a difficult topic at all.
Okay, how about the topic of how to edit Wikipedia? And I shall say yet again -- how many times is it now? -- how about starting with the basic idea of creating an account and a username? Teishin (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Some secondary sources

R.H. Blyth: Zen and Zen Classics, Volume 1-5

Pruning The Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard

The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind by D.T. Suzuki.

And (already mentioned earlier above): Dogen's manual of zen meditation by Carl Bielefeldt


Would this suffice as source material?
"Building on the prevalent Chinese Buddhist conviction that all beings have/are Buddha-nature (fo-xing, 佛性), however, practice was not advocated in Chan as a means to enlightenment, but rather as the meaning of demonstrating it. It is only in denial or ignorance of our own true nature that enlightenment can be regarded as something to seek, a destination at which we might one day arrive.
In sharp contrast with more scholastically-inclined schools of Buddhism, Chan did not see dispelling ignorance of our own true nature as something to be accomplished by studying canonical texts and commentaries. On the contrary, in keeping with the Buddha’s claim that the wise “do not hang onto anything, anywhere” and “do not enter into the mud of conceptual thinking” (Sabhiya Sutta, Sutta Nipāta III.6), Chan came to insist that we cannot read or reason our way out of conflict, trouble and suffering. And, in contrast with more ritually-defined schools of Buddhism, Chan also came to deny the merit of seeking help from supramundane sources. Dispelling ignorance of our own Buddha-nature does not involve cultivating or acquiring anything; we need only end the relational paralysis that prevents us from conducting ourselves as enlightening beings. This does not require special conditions or implements. It does not require extensive study or training. It can be accomplished here and now, in the midst of our own day-to-day lives."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-chan/
Taken from the introduction
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Arbitrary header #1[edit]

Adding the following books to the reading list as they all cover zen topics and are not currently included:

Platform Sutra - Huineng

Sun Faced Buddha - Mazu

Gateless Gate - Wumen

Book of Serenity - Wansong

Blue Cliff Records - Yuanwu

Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching - Dahui

Master Yunmen, From the Record of the Chan Teacher "Gate of the Clouds"

The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi - Burton Watson

The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield

The Recorded Saying of Zen Master Joshu - James Green

Radical Zen, The Sayings of Joshu - Yoel Hoffmann

Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary

Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt

Pruning The Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard

___

Providing a list of known zen masters, including: Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike

___

Dividing zen into the classical zen and the modern interpetation of it by use of different headers.

____

Adding conflicting views, for both the modern and classic works, to keep things neutral.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Most of the titles you mention are primary sources, which are better suited at the Wiki-pages of those teachers. NB: most of them also happen to be Rinzai-texts... they all cover zen topics and are not currently included is not a usefull criterium for inclusion; I can name dozens of titles.
  • Most of those teachers are already linked in the article; they also appear in the navbox at the bottom.
  • The article already makes a distinction between various periods in the devlopment of Zen; and it gives a concise ovefview of practice and doctrine, both Rinzai and Soto.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
These are books by masters of said topic though. I don't think they would be misplaced under the "further reading" header.
From the wiki intro:
"Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things.
This part, for example, is not neutral in it's depiction of zen. Rigorous self control and meditation practice were not the (main) focus of all the zen schools.
(Please point out where it is if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any of the critique on silent illumination/meditation included in the rest of the article either)
I don't think it's fair to say that "most" teachers get mentioned already. Out of the 18 mentioned I only found 5 in the navbox.
(Found some more with the search function, but there are still quite some people missing)
2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Internal criticism of types of meditation and of meditation itself would be useful to include. There are plenty of primary sources. It would be good to find a secondary source. Teishin (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)



Would this suffice as source material?
"Building on the prevalent Chinese Buddhist conviction that all beings have/are Buddha-nature (fo-xing, 佛性), however, practice was not advocated in Chan as a means to enlightenment, but rather as the meaning of demonstrating it. It is only in denial or ignorance of our own true nature that enlightenment can be regarded as something to seek, a destination at which we might one day arrive.
In sharp contrast with more scholastically-inclined schools of Buddhism, Chan did not see dispelling ignorance of our own true nature as something to be accomplished by studying canonical texts and commentaries. On the contrary, in keeping with the Buddha’s claim that the wise “do not hang onto anything, anywhere” and “do not enter into the mud of conceptual thinking” (Sabhiya Sutta, Sutta Nipāta III.6), Chan came to insist that we cannot read or reason our way out of conflict, trouble and suffering. And, in contrast with more ritually-defined schools of Buddhism, Chan also came to deny the merit of seeking help from supramundane sources. Dispelling ignorance of our own Buddha-nature does not involve cultivating or acquiring anything; we need only end the relational paralysis that prevents us from conducting ourselves as enlightening beings. This does not require special conditions or implements. It does not require extensive study or training. It can be accomplished here and now, in the midst of our own day-to-day lives."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-chan/
Taken from the introduction
Otherwise, the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source. If that is the case then the following works are secondary sources too:
Sources
The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind - John Blofield - ISBN 978-0-8021-5092-9
Two Zen Classics, The Gateless Gate and The Blue Cliff Records - Katsuki Sekida - ISBN 978-1-59030-282-8
Book of Serenity, One Hundred Zen Dialogues - Thomas Cleary - ISBN 978-1-59030-249-1
The Platform Sutra, The Zen Teaching of Hui-Neng - Red Pine - ISBN 1-59376-177-5
If none of these are usable, then Dogen's manual of Zen Meditation by Carl Bielefeldt (ISBN 0520068351) should suffice.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV. The IP is merely referring to primary sources, mostly from the yulu genre, the 'recorded sayings' of ancient masters, which he seems to interpret in a specfic way. These texts cannot be taken on face-value, as they are doing; they were religious and institutional texts, created (long) after the lifes of their antagonists, and far from 'objective' representations of their lifes or teachings. See, for eaxmple, John McRae, Seeing Through Zen; or Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Poceski:

[p.58:] The structure of the Mazu yulu consists of three distinct parts: a biographical sketch of Mazu’s life, numerous transcripts of his sermons, and thirty-two short dialogues between him and his disciples. [p.59:] The second part of the Mazu yulu consists of transcripts of three of Mazu’s sermons [...] In his sermons Mazu seamlessly weaves in numerous quotations from and allusions to Buddhist scriptures, usually without identifying his sources. Judging from their contents, the sermons’ main function seems to have been to instruct disciples in the teachings of Buddhism and provide them with religious guidance and inspiration. The format of the sermons is traditional, and their contents do not fit the radical image of the Hongzhou school’s leader [p.61:] The picture changes dramatically when we come to the third part of the Mazu yulu, which consists of dialogues between Mazu and his monastic and lay disciples. [p.62:] The contrast between the images of Mazu conveyed by his sermons and dialogues is quite striking. In the sermons he assumes a somewhat traditional role of a teacher of Buddhist doctrine (albeit of the Chan variety). There he comes across as a fairly conventional religious figure, someone who is well versed in canonical texts and traditions and who adopts a time-honored mode of religious instruction. In the dialogues, on the other hand, he seems to be a strikingly unconventional figure and assumes the role of an iconoclastic Chan master who engages in spontaneous and often seemingly eccentric exchanges that subvert the established mores of his time. Under the influence of popular lore about the ancient “Zen masters,” both Zen adherents and scholars have so far chosen to focus on the image of Mazu depicted in the dialogues. They have also tended to gloss over or ignore the discrepancies between the iconoclastic character depicted in the dialogues and the conservative disposition evidenced in the sermons. As a result, the popular image of Mazu conveyed in numerous Zen books is that of an iconoclast, a radical figure who embodies a classical Chan tradition that to a large extent was created by him.

We cannot just simply quote from those primary yulu sources, ignoring other primary sources from the time, or the historical context.
Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ironically, this is an apt description of the Caodong point of view, which has criticised the Linji-school for seeking insight, c.q. "enlightenment." And I'm interested to see where the page mentions Blue Cliff Records to be a secondary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Under "Secondary Sources" at the bottom of the page.
"The respective stances of Rinzai and Soto are mentioned at Zen#Doctrine; highlighting Dahui's critique of silent illumination without provoding context would be WP:UNDUE and violate WP:NPOV."
There can easily be a part added in the intro where it says that Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things.

Just add something along the lines of; "There are however master who reject this point of view" with a see: [Insert article name pr other resource here]
It's not just Dahui who rejects it.
Secondary source that denies the affiliation between zen and meditation
C. Bielefeldt in Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation:
The recurrent "debates" over the interpretation of meditation that mark the history of Ch'an and Zen are justly famous and regularly receive due notice in accounts of the school. Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana, or "meditation," and that the school has specialized in the practice, but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Ch'an and Zen (including Dogen's own), to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with dhyana.
Page 11, ISBN 0520068351
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no such header at this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's in the "bibliography" part.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the Stanford-page does so. Well, here it is a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This description from wikipedia disagrees though.
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
A third perspective on the matter would be appreciated.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding this conversation difficult to follow. One thing that would help greatly is if the user with the unsigned IP address would follow the convention of getting a username and signing their comments with their username. At this point it's not always clear who has said what. Teishin (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition; a book like Heine and Wright, The Koan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism, is a secondary text. To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zen was re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Then the works of the following people should probably be excluded too, as they have very intimate ties with religious institutions, teaching at them, studying at them, and building a reputation as affiliated with the religion. 
Primary Sources
Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan
McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist)
Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987
Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995
Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989;
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You're serious? See WP:TRUTH and WP:CANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Material may be verifiable, but still banned by several other content policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Can those people still be considered neutral if they are that invested?
The Blue Cliff Record is a religious text from within the Zen-tradition;
Cleary's tranlsation of the Blue Cliff Records contain his commentary on each case too, including some references to other work. Doesn't that make it secondary source?
About Primary and Secondary Sources
"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.
According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics:
  • It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
  • It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
  • It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
  • It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.
A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".
[...]
"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
[...]
Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
To give you a comparison: when Dumouelin's A History of Zenwas re-issued, the editors, in their introduction], regarded it as being a primary source, given it's biases, not as a secondary source....
Yet you have no problem using it on the dutch talk page to convey your point of view.
How does that work?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2[edit]

I suggest the conversation would be more productive if we were to examine concrete proposals for changing the existing article rather than dealing with abstract matters regarding sources and personal matters the editors. Teishin (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to make a decent proposition when the editor in question is not clear on what can and can't be used for verifiability.
If I don't source my quotes, I'd just get told it's my personal opinion/interpetation again and that it's not useable.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No single editor controls the content of this page. There are more than two editors participating in this discussion. If you can make a proposal that you think fits Wikipedia's requirements, we can look at that proposal and have a discussion about whether it fits the requirements. If you just have a discussion in the abstract about requirements, nothing in the article will be changed. (Could you please sign up for a username?)Teishin (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll consider it.
There is a lot wrong the article. At the very least all schools should be equally represented.
Meditation should not have the spotlight when it is a minority view of the teachings. (Minority may be discarded if you count all modern works too though.)
I think critiques on both teachings should be added and don't see why primary sources can not be used as a means of clarification like; "Eventhough meditation is wildly popular/widely regarded as the foundation of zen, there are a lot of zen masters who disagree with this point of view" Followed by some citations from Zen Masters.
There is a point of view being sold in the intro which does not comply with zen teachings, namely zen being apophatic. Removing it should be no problem, as the is still a citation needed. So the info is not even verified. I'm talking about this line: The Prajñāpāramitā literature[11] as well as Madhyamakathought have also been influential in the shaping of the apophatic and sometimes iconoclastic nature of Zen rhetoric.[citation needed]
[Just noticed a citation got added. I haven't read the exact quote as to why the author thinks this though, as I don't own the book and couldn't find a pdf, but maybe it has been presented too crudely in the wiki article? I'm saying this because zen masters affirm all sorts of things (about dharma and buddha nature). For example Mazu's famous quote that states that "Mind is Buddha"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems that your interest is in complaining about Wikipedia and its editors and that you are not here to make a positive contribution. If you can't make a concrete proposal about how to improve the article, why should we be having this discussion?Teishin (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Teishin. JimRenge (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The only complaint I had was that the article wasn't neutral enough in my opinion. I don't think it's unfair to say this, considering wikipedia favors neutrality.
I am making concrete proposals. There is just a alot of information to sift through and I'm doing it alone. I'm not sure what more you want from me at this point. Do you want me to write a whole new draft of the article with citations and references here? Because that would seem like a lot of work when there's a chance you won't even take it up.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia can be a lot of work. A concrete proposal would be to write drafts for the parts of the article you feel should be changed. What you've done so far isn't a concrete proposal. And could you please create a Wikipedia editing account for yourself and get yourself a username? Teishin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Then can you please specify what actually counts as a reliable sources like I asked before?
I don't understand how you expected me to write drafts without that information.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES, the friendly expert editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE may be able to answer additional questions. JimRenge (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
There would probably be a lot of (religous) pages missing if you would stick to the rule exactly.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you please do basic tasks expected of new editors, such as creating an account and a username, like you've been requested to before? Teishin (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I told you I would consider it. Having an account is not a requirement to edit on wikipedia.
Please do not remove my comments again.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Your primary interest appears to be to accuse editors here of failings. I've not removed any of your comments, yet you accuse me of doing so. Teishin (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You realize things get logged right?
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/935991345
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Must have happened inadvertantly when I hit "publish changes" twice because the page seemed to be sticking. The page will seem to stick when it has been changed while one was making a comment. Normally talk pages are not flooded like this one is with so many comments made so frequently. Of course, if one is here to complain about the volunteers, this is all good grist for the mill. Teishin (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #3[edit]

Zen is currently being associated with mahayana a lot in the article. However, the rituals, practices, the 8 fold path and the 4 noble truths for example are not accepted by every zen teacher as being neccesary or even useful.
It would be nice if the R.H. Blyth explanation of dhyana gets included under the Dhyana header too
To make things easier you could probably add a "Controversial teachings" or "Critique by zen masters" header for some of the contradictory teachings
It was thoroughly influenced by Mahayana teachings on the bodhisattva path, Chinese Madhyamaka (Sānlùn), Yogacara (Wéishí), Prajñaparamita, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and other Buddha nature texts.
You could change "Buddha Nature Texts" to "Zen Scriptures" and refer to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_scriptures Or refer to it some other appropriate place and add (some of) the "primary texts" there.
I think that if D.T. Suzuki can't be considered a useable source because of his buddhist associations, that the following people should be excluded too:
Extended content
Faure: Kyoto University, 1976-1983, studied Dogen’s Shobogenzo under Yanagida Seizan
McRae: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated and Founded], University of Tokyo, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism), Soka University (Founded by Evangelical Buddhist)
Sharf: Kyoto University, 1985-1987
Schlutter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1993-1995
Welter: Komazawa University [Dogen Affiliated], 1980-1982, 1987-1989;
I'm stopping here for now.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Alan watts is used as a source on the wikipedia page for some reason, so this should be fine too:
Quote with source
Nowhere in their teachings have I been able to find any instruction in or recommendation of the type of zazen which is today the principal occupation of Zen monks.47 On the contrary, the practice is discussed time after time in the apparently negative fashion of the two quotations just cited.
Source: https://books.google.nl/books?id=5NuOYxuDbS0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false>
This however does not get mentioned at all in the article. I still think there was not enough neutrality in writing this article, which is basically the whole issue.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Search for the same quote in The Three Pillars of Zen, and see what Yasutani thinks of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please provide the quote and source it.
On kapleau;
"Kapleau has created his own Zen lineage."[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kapleau
So I'm not sure why his book is used as source material.
Yasutani was a zen priest. Primary sources were not useable according to you.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's your personal interpretation of primary sources that can't be used. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Then these earlier rejected quotes should be fine. You should really be clearer.
Some of the Quotes
Huangbo, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po
"As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses, how do they differ from wooden dolls?"
"Since you are fundamentally complete you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices."
"If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices, and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge."
Zen Master Deshan
If you say you can attain by entering concentration, stilling the spirit, quieting down thoughts, well, some cultists have also managed to get into states of tremendous concentration seeming to last eighty thousand eons, but are they enlightened? Obviously they are mesmerized by false notions.
From Dahui's Shobogenzo
Linji; Just be able to dissolve past habits according to circumstances, going when you need to go, sitting when you need to sit, without any thought of seeking buddhahood. Why so? An ancient said, ‘If you’re going to act in contrived ways to seek buddhahood, then buddhahood is a major sign of birth and death.’
Touzi; If you question me, I reply accordingly, but I have no mysterious subtleties for you. And I don’t have you dwell figuring. I never speak of transcendence or immanence, or the existence of Buddha, or Dharma, or ordinary or holy. And I don’t maintain sitting to bind you people.
Zhenjing; Buddhism does not go along with human sentiments. Elders everywhere talk big, all saying, ‘I know how to meditate, I know the Way!’ But tell me, do they understand or not? For no reason they sit in pits of crap fooling spirits and ghosts. When people are like this, what crime is there is killing
Xuansha; It cannot be said that you will hit the mark by fasting, discipline, constant sitting without reclining, stopping the mind, meditating on emptiness, freezing the spirit, or entering concentration—what connection is there?
Ch'eng-ku, Teachings of Zen:"It is essential for yu to cease and desist from your previously held knowledge, opinions, interpretations, and understandings. It is not accomplished by stopping the mind; temporary relinquishment is not the way - it fools you to wasting body and mind, without accomplishing anything at all in the end.I suggest to you that nothing compares to ceasing and desisting. There is nowhere for you to apply your mind. Just be like an imbecile twenty-four hours a day. You have to be spontaneous and buoyant, your mind like space, yet without any measurement of space."
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


This page seems a lot more inclusive of the different approaches. Ironically, in this article silent illumination is not very well represented. Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism
Does wikipedia ever merge pages? Might get you the good article award.
Also, this piece of information is contradictory:
From the Wiki Article

Under "Middle Chan"

The Middle Chán (c. 750–1000) period runs from the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763) to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (907–960/979). This phase saw the development new schools of Chan. The most important of these schools is the Hongzhou school of Mazu Daoyi (709–788), to which also belong Shitou, Baizhang, and Huangbo. This school is sometimes seen as the archetypal expression of Chán, with its emphasis on the personal expression of insight, and its rejection of positive statements, as well as the importance it placed on spontaneous and unconventional "questions and answers during an encounter" (linji wenda) between master and disciple.[206][207]However, modern scholars have seen much of the literature that presents these "iconoclastic" encounters as being later revisions during the Song era, and instead see the Hongzhou masters as not being very radical, instead promoting pretty conservative ideas, such as keeping precepts, accumulating good karma and practicing meditation.[207] However, the school did produce innovative teachings and perspectives such as Mazu's views that "this mind is Buddha" and that "ordinary mind is the way", which were also critiqued by later figures, such as the influential Guifeng Zongmi (780–841), for failing to differentiate between ignorance and enlightenment.[208]

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

 

2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #4[edit]

Qouting primary sources to support a mistaken pov is still a form of interpretation. Regarding the use of yulu, c.q. "encounter dialogue" as a source for describing Zen-doctrine, see again Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts (emphasis mine):

[p.72:] although it can be substantiated that Mazu’s sermons and his biography were recorded during the mid-Tang period, there is no evidence that any of his encounter dialogues were extant before the mid-tenth century or that any of them had any direct connection with Mazu. This finding about the varied provenance of the constituent parts of Mazu yulu is also applicable to other records of prominent Chan teachers from the middle and late Tang periods. [p.73:] It was only from the middle part of the tenth century onward that stories containing Mazu’s iconoclastic dialogues with his disciples came to shape the (mis)understanding of his religious thought and teaching methods. At present, the situation is further exacerbated by the uncritical acceptance of the somewhat biased interpretation of sectarian Japanese scholarship, not to mention popular vulgarizations of the tradition’s teachings and history [...] it is apparent that encounter dialogue stories should in no way be used as historical sources for the study of the Hongzhou school’s history, teachings, and practices.

Even less WP:OR based on such dialogues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Who has deemed it mistaken? It's still being practiced to this day.
There's more than just Mazu too. Not every quote I shared has been an encounter dialogue.
John Blofeld, Zen teachings of Huang Po Quote
The Doctrine of Zen
Zen is already a familiar doctrine to many Western people, thanks to the comprehensive and illuminating works of Dr. Daisetz Tairo Suzuki, and to books by Western scholars, such as Mr. Christmas Humphreys' delightful Zen Buddhism. At first sight Zen works must seem so paradoxical as to bewilder the reader. On one page we are told that everything is indivisibly one Mind, on another that the moon is very much a moon and a tree indubitably a tree. Yet it is clear that this is not paradox for the sake of entertainment, for there are several million people who regard Zen as the most serious thing in life.
All Buddhists take Gautama Buddha's Enlightenment as their starting point and endeavor to attain to that transcendental knowledge that will bring them face to face with Reality, thereby delivering them from rebirth into the space-time realm forever. Zen followers go further. They are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the Supreme Experience which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the Godhead'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond conceptual thought and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. Furthermore, they insist that the experience is both sudden and complete. While the striving may require years, the reward manifests itself in a flash. But to attain this reward, the practice of virtue and dispassion is insufficient. ;It is necessary to rise above such relative concepts as good and evil, sought and found, Enlightened and unenlightened, and all the rest.
[Page 14]
Huangbo;
As to performing the six paramilas1 and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices. When there is occasion for them, perform them; and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent. If you are not absolutely convinced that the Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices and meitoious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite incompatible with the Way.
[Page 30]
As for those people who seek to grasp it through the application of some particular principle or by creating a special environment, or through some scripture, or doctrine, or age, or time, or name, or word, or through their six senses how do they differ from wooden dolls?
[Page 112]
ISBN: 0-394-17217-5
Also:
McRae
Lineage assertions are as wrong as they are strong.
Statements of lineage identity and “history” were polemical tools of self-assertion, not critical evaluations of chronological fact according to some modern concept of historical accuracy. To the extent that any lineage assertion is significant, it is also a misrepresentation; lineage assertions that can be shown to be historically accurate are also inevitably inconsequential as statements of religious identity.

[...]

Precision implies inaccuracy.
Numbers, dates, and other details lend an air of verisimilitude to a story but the more they accumulate, the more we should recognize them as literary tropes. Especially in Zen studies, greater detail is an artifact of temporal distance, and the vagueness of earlier accounts should be comforting in its integrity. While we should avoid joining a misguided quest for origins, we should also be quick to distinguish between “good data” and ornamental fluff. Even as we ponder the vectors of medieval polemics.
Source: John McRae, Seeing through Zen: Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism, Page 19-20
If we consider these quotes from McRae, there are a lot of things that can be removed from the page.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Header #5, suggestion[edit]

There is currently a practice header. The rejection of practice however does not get mentioned there, so I propose another header beneath the practice one with the title "rejection of practice" or "critique on practice" or something similar.

Draft:

The recurrent "debates" over the intepretation of meditation that mark the history of Ch'an and Zen are justly famous and regularly receive due notice in accounts of the school. Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana, or "meditation," and that the school has specialized in the practice, but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Ch'an and Zen (including Dogen's own), to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with dhyana (meditation).[1] The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." [2]

It is the world of Hakuin Ekaku (1686-1769), who fixed the orthodox Rinzai koan practice and attacked what he called "dead sitting in silent illumination" (koza mokusho) as counter to the Buddhist path and disruptive of social ethics; and it is the world of Mujaku Dochu (1653-1744), who established modern Rinzai scholarship and dismissed Dogen's Zen as "pitiable." This Zen, said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (mojin soku butsu) and ignored the transformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen "never even dreamt" of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma's mission to China, and the message of the Patriarch of karma, or koan Zen, Ta-Hui. [3]

Zen followers are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences inevitably bound up with pain and ignorance, approaching with infinite slowness the Supreme Experience which Christian mystics have described as 'union with the Godhead'. They believe in the possibility of attaining Full Enlightenment both here and now through determined efforts to rise beyond conceptual thought and to grasp that Intuitive Knowledge which is the central fact of Enlightenment. [4]

References

  1. ^ Carl Bielefeld, Dogen's Manual of Zen Mediation, Page 11, ISBN 0520068351
  2. ^ R.H Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics, Vol. 4, page 33, ISBN 459001131X
  3. ^ Carl Bielefeld, Dogen's Manual of Zen Mediation, Page 4, ISBN 0520068351
  4. ^ John Blofeld, Zen Teachings of Huang Po, page 14, ISBN 0-394-17217-5

____

Is this alright?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Incomprehensible, and too close to the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I rather hear it from someone else if you don't mind.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Full of editorializing. First problem is in the scare quotes in the first sentence. Next is "justly famous". Next "due notice." Next "Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips". Teishin (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Isn't it the same when McRae talks about the tang dynasty being a romanticization of zen?
And are the other quotes are fine?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You are not McRae. I just pointed out the first few problems in the first few sentences. The rest of the text is similarly problematic. Teishin (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not Carl Bielefeld either. I'm saying shouldn't his point of view be omitted on basis of the same standards?
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not what editorializing means.Teishin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, english is not my first language. You mean conveying an opinion/point of view by means of specifics edits/references then, like this?:
The term Zen is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of the Middle Chinese word 禪 (Chán), which traces its roots to the Indian practice of dhyāna("meditation").[note 1] Zen emphasizes rigorous self-control, meditation-practice, insight into the nature of things (Ch. jianxing,Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature"), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.[4][5] As such, it de-emphasizes mere knowledge of sutras and doctrine[6][7] and favors direct understanding through spiritual practiceand interaction with an accomplished teacher.[8]
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind if you "rather hear it from someone else." You don't gain WP:CONSENSUS by choosing with which editors you want to discuss your proposals; you discuss them with the editors who respond. See also WP:OWN. So far, you've been extremely rude and offensive; you're not making it better.

  • Your text "The recurrent "debates" [...] with dhyana (meditation)" is a direct copy of Bielefeld; that's a WP:COPYVIO. Bielefeldt next writes that there is a "kind of tension between Zen theory and it's practice." That's the sissue at stake here: Zen theory (an apparent rejection of dhyana) and practice (sustained and rigorous dhyana). Bielefeldt further explains that the scholarly study of Chan meditation practices is complicated by the fact that the Chan-tradition left scarce descriptions of it's practices.
  • The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." What's the relevance of this etymology?
  • Your text "It is the world of [...] is another copyvio. What you conveniently ignored from Bielefeldt is what preceded this quote:

[D.T. Suzuki] is also carrying forward the old world of the eighteenth century and the ideological origins of contemporary Japanese Zen sectarianism.

Apparently, you intended to state that Hakuin and Mujaku Dochu criticised Dogen's style of Zen. Apart from being unable to edit in a coherent way, you're also WP:CHERRYPICKING to state your (mis)understanding of Zen. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free medium to promote your personal worldview.
  • John Blofeld is another direct quote. His introduction to Zen Teachings of Huang Po is not WP:RS; he's an exponent of this outdated, Suzuki-influenced misunderstanding of Zen. It merely serves as another act of WP:CHERRYPICKING.

So, altogether: cherrypicking and WP:QUOTEFARM, taken out of context, to promote your personal understanding of Zen. That's not the way to improve this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added some more info, mentioning Dahui's critique of "silent illumination," and his recommendation of it for monastics:

Yet, while Dahui famously criticised "silent illumination,"[1] he nevertheless "did not completely condemn quite-sitting; in fact, he seems to have recommended it, at least to his monastic disciples."[1]

I've also added some info on "post-satori practice," to make clear that Zen-practice does not end with kensho:

The goal of the practice is often termed kensho (seeing one's true nature), and is to be followed by further practice to attain a natural, effortless, down-to-earth state of being, the "ultimate liberation", "knowing without any kind of defilement".[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Schlütter 2008, p. 116.
  2. ^ Low 2006, p. 37-39.

This should suffice for a concise and neutral presentattion of Dahui's critique, and the role of awakening inactual Zen-practice. The rhetorical side is already being mentioned in the sections on Chan-history and Zen narratives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, at least it's something. Why not use the information from McRae's book this time, though?
Cherry picking?
Quote
After a half-year living in Han’s house (apparently more than a simple letter was required!), Dahui began to act and write more publicly. He began to attack other teachers and teachings he considered to be heretical, especially those who avoided aiming vigorously at a moment of awakening in favor of a more passive approach to meditation. From 1134 on, Dahui began to attack the advocates of “silent illumination,” perhaps because he was in Fujian near the Caodong monk Zhenxie Qingliao (1088–1151), who was then the abbot of a monastery with more than fifteen hundred people in residence.11 Dahui’s targets included members of his own lineage, and his propensity for public criticism of others earned him the nickname of the “one who bawls out Heaven"!
Page 125
Mcrae, John (2003), Seeing through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism. The University Press Group Ltd. ISBN 978-0-520-23798-8
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

To learn what key editing terms such as "editorializing" mean Wikipedia has excellent help pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents . Learning the basics of how to edit Wikipedia before criticizing what other editors have created goes a long way towards helping one make persuasive and valid critiques. Comments such as "rather hear it from someone else" are indeed rude, and such rudeness is indeed a barrier to achieving consensus.Teishin (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Declaring Blofeld's introduction to "Zen Teachings of Huang Po" to be not WP:RS on the grounds that he's an exponent of an "outdated, Suzuki-influenced misunderstanding of Zen" looks to me to be a declaration of editorial bias. We don't get to judge the sources like that. Teishin (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blofeld's publication is from 1958; seriously outdated. His approach of Zen cannot be regarded as a reliable, scholarly approach up-to-date with prsent insights. See Dale S. Wright, Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism. For example p.59: "Blofeld was himself entering as a new combatant in the doctrinal battles that were being staged in his own culture." Regarding Suzuki, scholars like McRae have dismissed him in strong terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's just taking sides in a controversy.Teishin (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a page number on the suzuki claim?
Can't find anything on it in McRae's book
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Start of chapter 4, p.74. Probably also see his introduction to Dumoulin's Historh of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This quote does not seem very concrete tbh
Suzuki Quote
Passages such as these (koans) should be readily identified by most readers as quintessentially Chan- or Zen-like. For decades, we have been offered such stories as the primary means by which Chan is presented. This is especially true in the writings of D.T. Suzuki, whose most cherished methodology seems to have been to describe some aspect of Zen as beyond ordinary explanation, then over a suitably incomprehensible story or two by way of illustration. Obviously, Suzuki’s approach captured the imaginations of generations of readers. However, while this approach substantiated Suzuki’s authority as one with insider access to the profound truths of the tradition, another result was to increase the confusion in readers’ minds. To question such accounts was to admit one did not “get it,” to distance oneself even further from the goal of achieving what Suzuki termed the “Zen enlightenment experience.”
This can be said for about a lot of religious authorities, including dogen for example.
Quote from introduction by mcrae
There was nothing here of the intentionally obfuscatory tone taken in some of D.T. suzuki's (1870-1966) works on zen, fot example, in which the author's goal was as much to mystify as to explain the subject matter.
Source; https://books.google.nl/books?id=9CYeWYtYBS4C&pg=PR5&hl=nl&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
This does not seem very concrete either. Not by McRae, but Suzuki even gets called a genius in the foreword.
Or did you have a different quote in mind?
The character 禪, used to transliterate Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." What's the relevance of this etymology?
Seemed relevant as the part before the quote denies ties between zen and meditation and the quote points out that the word zen does not find it's root in dhyana, or meditation, but in something else.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

John Blofeld may, or may not be regarded as a reliable source; I think it would be better to use a more recent academic source for the history of religious doctrines (see WP:BESTSOURCES). I expect there should be more sources for the message that "Zen followers are not content to pursue Enlightenment through aeons of varied existences ..." (possible enlightenment in this life). Perhaps this can be found in one of the sources used in the Subitism/Zen section. JimRenge (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Might not be recent, but the lankavatara sutra is used as source in multiple articles
It says;
Quote from the Lankavatara Sutra
"They should look within and not be misled by external appearances or fall prey to the doctrines, views, or meditations of shravakas, pratyeka-buddhas, or followers of other paths. They should not delight in idle or frivolous talk, or cling to the views of the Vedas, or become attached to exercising power over others, or indulge in such meditations as the six dhyanas.”
Page 31, Red Pine Translation
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the early days of Wikipedia few editors cared to follow policies and guidelines. This practice has changed drastically. Texts from within a religion or faith system (like sutras, the bible etc) should be accompanied by secondary sources that critically analyze them. JimRenge (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
So sources like Phikip Kapleau, The Soto Zen Buddhist Association; Soto Zen, Sōtō Zen Text Project; Fukan Zazengi and Sheng Yen; Fundamentals of Meditation are misplaced in the article too?
Concerning soto, should it and subsequent supportive studies based on it not be disqualified for it's unreliability too?
Relevant quote
we have a total of four extant meditation texts by Dogen, all of which represent greater or lesser revisions of the Tso-ch'an i. If the argument from content were valid, we should expect all of these texts to be the same. In fact, of course, they are not. This formal weakness, moreover, is only one of the problems with the argument: of greater interest is the fact that it is based on what seems a questionable reading of the "Senjutsu yurai."
page 20
By this traditional account, Dogen's four-year sojourn on the continent was divided into two distinct phases, punctuated by his encounter with Ju-ching. The first phase was spent in the concerted quest for a true teacher; the second, in enlightened practice under such a teacher. Put in other terms, the first half of his pilgrimage was devoted to training in the k'an-hua Ch'an of the Lin-chi school; the second half, to the Ts'ao-tung practice of just sitting with body and mind sloughed off. Thus, as he studies under, and rejects, a series of teachers of the Ta-hui tradition, Dogen, rather like Sakyamuni before him, masters and transcends the prevalent religion of his contemporaries, until he finally arrives at the ancient wisdom of the Buddhas. Perhaps this is what happened, but the account I have summarized here depends heavily on the hagiographic literature of early Soto. This literature includes considerable material not confirmed by earlier sources and introduces many fanciful elements into its story of Dogen's life. Though modern biographers now reject at least the most obvious of these latter, they have yet to question seriously the basic account of Dogen's itinerary in China.
Page 24-25
From
Carl Bielefeldt, Dogens Manual of Zen Meditation, ISBN 0520068351
Basically everything buddhist can be removed from wikipedia.
Buddhism
For the first five hundred years the Scriptures were orally transmitted. They were written down only at the beginning of the Christian era, because at that time the decline in faith threatened their continued survival in the memories of the monks. Different schools wrote down different things. [...] The years between A.D. 100 and 400 were the golden age of Buddhist literature.”
"Buddhist Scriptures" by Edward Conze (1959)
Source
http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html
Why is Shunryu Suzuki under the header "Further Reading" and used as reference? I don't think anyone who is a(n enlightened) zen teacher or able to accurately percieve truth would make the mistake of giving his sangha over to someone like Richard Baker.
Relevant quote
The only one of the four whose reputation was unblemished, Shunryu Suzuki of the San Francisco Zen Center, gave his sangha over to a man named Richard Baker, who was later embroiled in a sex scandal of his own, resigned from his abbacy, and became the subject of a book with the appropriately suggestive title Shoes Outside the Door.
From: https://newrepublic.com/article/115613/zen-buddhist-sex-controversies-america-excerpt
Does not seem like a very trustworthy source to me.
2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Side note[edit]

Quote

I can only speak for myself, of course, and I want the "outsiders" information too. I've already read plenty of the "insiders" view - no, that's not correct: I know a lot of the Zen insiders view. For me, it helped to read critical academical accounts of the history of Zen. It put "sudden enlightenment" into perspective. It ootk me years to become sure that "enlightenment" is not just a "flash of insight", but rather takes sustained practice to "come to fruition" in real life.

-Joshua Jonathan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enlightenment_in_Buddhism#Tone_of_this_article

Can this person, based on his personal experience, still be considered unbiased enough to stay neutral? Because not everyone draws the same conclusion.
Also a question for Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), would you claim your enlightenment has come to fruition then?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Buswell & Lopez (2014), Slow-motion satori, TriCycle:

Other traditions, such as the central strand of the Korean Zen (Son) school, instead interpret “seeing the nature” to suggest that even after a sudden vision of buddhanature, certain engrained proclivities (vasana) of mind still remain, and can only be removed gradually. The idea here is that just because one knows in a flash of insight that one is a buddha does not mean that one is then fully able to act as a buddha. This process is compared to the maturation of a person: at the moment an infant is born, it may be fully endowed with all the potential abilities of a human being, but it takes many years of growing up before that child learns how to act like an adult. This interpretation is called “sudden awakening [followed by] gradual cultivation” (dunwu jianxiu).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sharf (2014)[edit]

After reading (again) several sources, I have to admit that the observation that classical Chan-texts (seem to) reject Chan-meditation is to the point; yet the conclusion that (the whole) Zen-tradition rejects meditation is incorrect. Those sources, which are up-to-date and well-informed, in contrast to Blofeldt and Watts, explain the logi behind this apparent rejection.

Sharf, Robert (2014), "Mindfullness and Mindlessness in Early Chan" (PDF), Philosophy East & West Volume 64, Number 4 October 2014, explicitly treats this apparent rejection of meditation practices in Chan-texts. As several authors have explained, the early Chan supported the Buddha-nature doctrine, at first equating this with the nature of mind, the recognition of the 'observing mind' as the 'essence' of being. Chan texts 'point' to this essence, avoiding any 'indirect' trajectory: "it" is right there, you just have to recognize it. Nevertheless, it's a pedagogical device, "rhetorical purity"; those classic Chan texts too contain references to meditation. McRae and Sharf both note that this "rhetorical purity" created sustained confusion for the Chan-tradition, which exists up to today: how to express doctrine, when this doctrine seems to reject doctrine?

I have added information to Zen#Observing the mind and Zen#Buddha-nature and subitism to explain the doctrinal background of this apparent rejection of meditation in classical Chan-texts. I hope that this suffices. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

They reject it because it is, just like any other thing, a concept that blocks seeing your true nature. The buddha specifies this in the diamond sutra.
If you had all day to spare, you would meditate too. Doesn't mean it has something to do with your buddha nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Haha! I thought the same; imagine you're a monk, you spend a few hours a day gathering alms, what more can you do when there's nothing to do? Just sit down and be quite. Nevertheless, kenso is the point oc entering the way; after that, one has to 'come back to life'. SeeTa-hui, "Swampland flowers." Or John Daido Loori link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, the clearing away of habit energy. But neither dahui or yangshan has a fixed method for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I was talking about guishan it seems. Quote can be seen here; https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/6i8k9t/enlightenment_cultivation_suddenly_gradual/ (Apologies for the poor sourcing)
Not sure what dahui said himself tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ta-hui tells, as published in Swamp Flowers, about his own awakening, and how his master urged him to leave behind this state of insight and 'come back to life'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, can't say that I've read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:CD0D:4E32:89B4:F9B (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)