User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2011

October 2011[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Zen. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SudoGhost. I put an explanation on the talk-page. It's not my intention to atract attention from search-engines - I didn't even know thatb this might be possible. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Buddhism Barnstar
		For your much appreciated work in researching and improving Buddhism related articles, your edits are not going unnoticed. :) Sudo Ghost 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidharma protection[edit]

I had Bodhidharma semi-protected. I was pushing for indefinite, but they only did it for 3 months. This will be the third time the page has had to be protected in the last several months. I imagine that they will permit an indefinite if the page gets bad again after this one runs out.

Thank you again for the wonderful work you did on the article. I planned to do the same at some point when I got a break from school, but you did a much better job than what I could have. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Chán[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Chinese Chán, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Zen. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating separate pages on Chinese Chán and Japanese Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your messages. Don't worry about the confusion. I've been confused with other people before. What's really funny is when, on various online forums, I get into an argument with someone with "ghost" in their member name. Of course someone has to bring up the same lame joke about how I'm "going to exorcize another ghost." Anyway, I'm glad that you made Chan a separate page. It's silly to just have one page on Zen when both have separate histories and separate cultural impacts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting your sub-page[edit]

To answer your question "who can do the job of deleting?" - only admins can delete pages, but when you put {{db-self}} (or {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}) at the top of a page, that adds it to the list at CAT:CSD of pages nominated for speedy deletion, and some admin patrolling that list will get to it, usually within an hour or two. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAS-society[edit]

Hi Joshua - It's a fascinating article, and deals with something notoriously difficult to describe. But did you mean to say the FAS Society is 'pan-lineage'? KateWoodhouse (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. That;s a very good question. I guess it should be non-sectarian. I've just changed it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Sorry but I think I may have given you faulty advice. Claret Ash 12:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mahakashyapa[edit]

Hi Joshua, don't you think that the Mahakashyapa story might perhaps have been misinterpreted? The Zen school claim that the secret sign the Buddha imparted to Mahakashyapa was a sign of the value of pure meditation as the direct route to enlightenment. But it could equally be interpreted as a sign that cultivation of special compassion is the true route to enlightenment via the attainment of selflessness. Just an idea, please let me know what you think, thanks Peter morrell 13:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Intriguing thoughts. Kasyappa's smile can also be interpreted as meaning that (the insight into) Buddha-nature/sunyata is exactly about our human habit to use words and concepts. Is there something as mis-interpreatation in this case? The story, and the meaning it has been given in the Zen-tradition, is an interpretation. I don't think there is something like the "right" interpretation in this case; the story is being used to express some specific insight. Actually, that's what we humans do all the time, intrpreting, meaning-making. See also Attribution theory, and "The stories we live by" from Dan P. McAdams.

But it is a nice twist you give (though I do wonder if the flower felt compassion too, when it was plucked...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua, to my mind it was a transmission from Buddha to an audience, but a transmission that only one person picked up and received in its true spirit, seemingly. Question then is: what was the essence of this transmission? and as you say that is wide open to human interpretation. My take on it relies on my own bias that stresses compassion as the lead to selflessness as a 'superior path' IMO rather than a Zen-like path of pure mindfulness and meditative stabilisation leading to wisdom of emptiness. But this equally bares in mind that enlightenment requires BOTH those qualities. I have been thinking for many months now about the ingredients of Buddha's enlightenment experience and what its causes and cofactors were. I provisionally concluded that it is primarily a state of absolute tranquillity and egolessness generating ancillary bliss, joy, wisdom (shunyata) and compassion, which are not causes but effects, or offshoots. But principally it consists of egolessness and profound tranquillity as its causes. Then the question becomes: what paths lead to this fruit of egolessness and tranquillity? I do not believe that he principally attained release by the path of meditation alone, but by the attainment of egolessness combined with the realisation of emptiness. Well, that's my ten cents on this topic FWIW!! many thanks for the discussion. Peter morrell 17:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sutra's the Buddha's enlightenment is not so much an 'all-inclusive transcendence of al suffering', but ascertaining the insight into the cravings that keep us running and the way to containment of the passions. The Buddha as samyaksambuddha is a later development, in which the Buddha became kind of a superhero. But it seems, to me, that 'enlightenment' is not so much about becoming invulnerable, as about realizing your true human nature, which is the same human nature of others: a mortal being, vulnerable, longing for encounter. Being aware of your cravings and vulnerability makes it possible to deal with them - which does not necessarily mean you can uproot them, but at least you can be aware of their influence, and live with them consciousnessly. Maybe perfection is a childish dream. Remember, the night before his crucifixion Christ asked his disciples "Pray with me" - being the Son of God, he was humble enough to ask "Don't let me be alone, but stay with me". Keep wondering. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you say, Joshua, seems to me to be what historians of Buddhism assert rather than the followers of the religion. It could equally be argued that historians are just too detached from their subject to know what really goes on in it. And that would be my own view too. Any revisionist account that dums down Buddha himself into just an 'also ran' makes a mockery of the entire religion. I'm sorry, but I can't buy such a minimalist version and nor I suspect could any people who call themselves Buddhists. Any such disparity between what historians of a religion choose to believe and what its followers believe is a serious issue. thanks Peter morrell 09:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

To add a further point. Which do you prefer, the view of Buddhism by Buddhists or the version of Buddhism as viewed by intellectuals? The problem with the latter is that they formulate their own construction of the religion based mostly on studying the doctrines and the texts rather than the people, the practitioners. The disparity between the two versions can be quite startling. It is rather like Frederic Thrasher's classic study of gangs in Chicago: should we base our view of gangs from the viewpoint of an intellectual outsider looking in from a "safe distance," or from the viewpoint of someone mixing freely and talking with gang members? Which do you think comprises the most balanced, accurate, detailed and useful view? thanks Peter morrell 14:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments, Joshua, have not discouraged you from continuing the many excellent improvements you have made to the Buddhism articles. Just because I believe that Buddhism is better understood from the perspective of its practitioners than from the viewpoint of academics, does not mean there isn't room for both views in these articles. I had assumed that you are a Buddhist but I now somehow doubt this and my previous comments about mahakashyapa were entirely based on the assumption that you would follow my meaning. The pursuit of perfection is by no means regarded in the Buddhist world as "a childish dream." But please just ignore my comments and continue your good work. thanks Peter morrell 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I think that the two are not in such a strong opposition. The "practitioners" offer the inspiration, but the "academics" provide the necessary balance, distinguishing facts from stories. This is definately necessary, given the picture of Zen that is prevalent in the west, but also given the fact that Zen-practitioners have created stories which, for example, have also been used to support war-endeavors. Brian Victoria, who made this very clear in his 'Zen at War', is himself a Zen-priest. Simply condemning this support is to easy; we also have an obligation to undertsand how this could be possible. If 'enlightened Zen-masters' can do this, then what's the nature of enlightenment?

I can also recommend the articles of Stuart Lachs, Zen-practitioner for about 40 years, and very critical. And David Brazier, a psycho-therapist and Buddhist practitioner, gave an alternative interpretation of the Four Noble Truths which gave me a really useful insight to them.

And no, I won't be discouraged to improve articles on Wikipedia. I'm glad it's being appreciated, but it's also a great way to do something useful with everything I've been reading. I hope it's useful for others too - useful on their Buddhist way, or human way.

Oh, and many great teachers were well educated in the Buddhist sutras too. See Dogen and Hakuin, as examples. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice I missed part of what you wrote, about the "mockery" about the Buddha. I guess you wrote two pieces before I noticed, and I just read the second one. But what I wrote is not "just" the historians view; it's a critical reading of the possible translation of various Sanskrit & Pali words, which shows that there are different readings possible, which actually make more sense. I don't think that that's minimalist or mockery; on the contrary, it's taking serious Buddhism and it's history.

And yes, I know at least two Buddhists who also read these critical analyses, who do question the Zen-stories, and who are not satisfied with the standard answers. Please read this one. Please. Do read it. And also this one (the second part is about Ton Lathouwers).

There are more examples: Stephen Batchelor, David Chapman, Brad Warner, Barbara O'Brien.

And to give another example of the usefulness of a scholarly approach: Kochumuttom (A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience) and Kalupahana (The principles of Buddhist Psychology) have both studied the works of Vasubandhu, and given translations of the Trimsatika and Vimsatika, in which they conclude that Vasubandhu was not an idealist, but trying to explain how we/otr minds construct concepts, which we experience to be 'the real world'. This makes a huge difference! It's the difference between believing in a tarnscendent ultimate reality, or realizing that there is no ground to stand - "This very body the Buddha, this very earth the paradise" (Hakuin). And Vasubandhu was a buddhist, wasn't he?

So, still, keep on wondering and pushing - and disagreeing! That's more fruitful than mere agreement, I think. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua. Though I take your point and will check the sources you give, I would also say this exchange illustrates quite clearly why Zen has tried to place itself entirely outside the scholastic tradition in Buddhism and tended to cut itself off completely from intellectuals and theorisers. No wonder they do not even want intellectualism to have any place at the same table as a practical religion that Buddhism is. The very wide gulf in comprehension is glaringly obvious. While I agree that disagreement can be fertile, when there is not even agreement on basic tenets, aims and objectives, then disagreement is more likely to be divisive. Never mind, I will leave it at that. thanks Peter morrell 08:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, "Zen" is a tradition of 1500 years. You can't speak of Zen as a unified body of thought. It's too diverse. It has a rich intellectual and doctrinal tradition. If only you take a look at the story of Hui-neng, it's clear that Zen does not stand outside the Buddhist history and doctrines. Or the use of the Lankavatara-sutra, and the wrestling in Zen with the opposing theories of Buddha-nature and sunyata.

Trying to cut off Zen from "scholastic tradition" seems to me to try to cut it off from critical thinking. And how do you discern what "real Buddhists" practice and teach? By what standards can you judge that? Zen Buddhists themselves don't even agree - see for example the criticism of Rinzai toward Soto, and vice versa. Let alone other branches of Buddhism. Have you got any idea why Tibetan Buddhism did not endorse sudden enlightenment? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]