Jump to content

Talk:Huineng/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hui Neng

Huineng may be technically correct, but Hui Neng and Hui-Neng are very common even in respected publications. It’s Zen. Let’s not cling to words.

Whatever it should be, let's be consistent in the article. I see "Huineng" and also HuiNeng through the course of the Article. There are also several spellings coexisting for some of the other names. Thanks. Dr. Z 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Poems

The translations are kind of wacky. Does anyone mind if I replace them with the Red Pine translations? Yunfeng (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, Red Pine's are much better. Bertport (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A proper translation is beneficial for song writers to generate music accordingly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.21.119 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Text removed

The statement quoted below is unreferenced, and I cannot find a reference for it. It only appears in the introduction and is not even elaborated in the article proper. I have copied it below:

While these are the legendary accounts handed down by the tradition, it is believed by some[who?] that the actual history of the situation may have been quite different, to the extent that some[who?] believe that the primary work attributed to Huineng, the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (六祖壇經), which ended up becoming one of the most influential texts in the East Asian meditative tradition, has no true association with him.

If someone can find a reference for this, and can write it up properly, the by all means put it back in. --Gak (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Bernard Faure, a leading expert on the history of Zen Buddhism, deconstructed the story of Huineng's authorship as a legend with little or no factual basis. If this is so, the entire article represents a faith perspective rather than a historical one, but an expert on Zen Buddhism would be needed to check this, and if needed fix the contents of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.87.165 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The Huineng of the hagiography is not a historical figure - he was invented by Shen-hui (684-758). You can read as much [[1], in the publisher's summary of Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch'an by John Jorgensen. The article as it stands now presents hagiography as historical fact, which is a problem. Here is the summary of the book, which reflects the contemporary scholarly consensus:

It was through the propaganda of Shen-hui (684-758) that Hui-neng (d. 710) became the also today still towering figure of sixth patriarch of Ch’an/Zen Buddhism, and accepted as the ancestor or founder of all subsequent Ch’an lineages. The first part of the book analyses the creation of the image of Hui-neng and the worship of a lacquered mummy said to be that of Hui-neng. Using the life of Confucius as a template for its structure, Shen-hui invented a hagiography for the then highly obscure Hui-neng. At the same time, Shen-hui forged a lineage of patriarchs of Ch’an back to the Buddha using ideas from Indian Buddhism and Chinese ancestor worship. The second half of the book examines the production of the hagiographies of Hui-neng , how they evolved, and the importance of ideas about authorship and the role of place. It demonstrates the influence of Confucian thought, politics and the periphery in the growth of early Ch’an hagiography and the changing image of Hui-neng.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been a controversy for some time, and this sort of issue is best discussed until contributors come to some agreement, or a solution that is respectful to both sides is taken. Using the Jesus page for a reference might be good in this regard, as the subjects are both a figure who is held in very different regard between religious followers and scholars. A more balanced page might have something like (1) In the Platform Sutra, (2) Role in the Zen school, and (3) Modern scholarship. With subjects like this, some tact is needed to reach a fair outcome that respects traditions while presenting some views of academics as well. By the way, it seems from the quote that the author is implying that Huineng was a real person, but simply that Shenhui inflated his importance. There should also be some care taken with academic sources to qualify them on controversial matters or those which have not been widely accepted. The general trend in scholarship is often to be a bit brash and iconoclastic in order to generate attention within the field.
I was reading part of this book, and the author gives some misinformation that the Shurangama Sutra is a "Chan apocrypha", which is baffling for multiple reasons. He has apparently never read it, because there is no Chan content in it, nor is it anything that would be created by someone from the Chan school, northern or southern. Arguments against the text's authenticity were more or less debunked by Ron Epstein a few decades ago. Tengu800 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Photograph

Who is depicted in this photograph? It is sourced to a Vietnamese wiki page that has been taken down. I doubt this is the actual subject of this article (who was never photographed), although it is an image that crops up on several web sites. Does anybody know the provenance of this image? Perhaps it should be removed and, if a public domain image can be found, replaced with a suitable artistic portrait of the subject. Desertpapa (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the mummy of Huineng [2] Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Huineng. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph CORRECTION

He was not a monk.

He is famous in part for being a LAY teacher/zen master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.197 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

McRae

Where does the quote referred to by footnote #6 (McRae 2003, p. 65-66) come from? It certainly isn't in McRae's text linked to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is; I just checked the source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:31.124.15.14

User:31.124.15.14 is engaging in disruptive pov-pushing and edit-warring, trying to remove the fact that modern scholarship regards Huineng to be a "semi-legendary" figure, repeatedly removing or changing the following:

semi-legendary

Twentieth century scholarship revealed that the story of Huineng's Buddhist career was likely invented by the monk Heze Shenhui, who claimed to be one of Huineng's disciples and was highly critical of Shenxiu's teaching.[1][2][3]

Most modern scholars doubt the historicity of traditional biographies and works written about Huineng.[2][1]


References

  1. ^ a b McRae 2003.
  2. ^ a b Jorgesen 2005.
  3. ^ Schlütter & Teiser 2012.

IP is edit-warring against 6 editors:

  1. [3] 12:32, 28 September 2019
  2. [4] 12:46, 28 September 2019 (4 edits in row)
  3. [5] 13:00, 28 September 2019 (2edits in row)
  4. [6] 13:30, 28 September 2019 (2edits in row)
  5. [7] 01:23, 29 September 2019 (2 edits in row IP 80.2.20.119)
  6. [8] 10:05, 29 September 2019 (3 edits in row, ignoring "in use" template)
  7. [9] 11:44, 29 September 2019 (10 edits in row)
  8. [10] 12:26, 29 September 2019

Numerous warnings have been provided at their talkpage; see User talk:31.124.15.14: Revision history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There are other IPs doing the same. 80.2.21.102 and 80.2.20.119 have also removed content to obscure the scholastic views of Huineng. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've requested page-protection. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Widr configured pending changes settings for Huineng: Persistent disruptive editing [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 18:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC) JimRenge (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-legendary

It is weird why would anyone insist that Huineng is a semi-legendary figure based on some cynical views of some scholars. BTW, Amazon has only ONE review of that book which makes that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralperspectives (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Because the "biographical" story from the Platform Sutra is exactly that: legend. Representing the views of scholars is the basic aim of Wikipedia; it's called WP:RS and WP:NPOV. But we could also follow the sources exactly and write "legendary," if that's what you prefer. Regarding cynical:

Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives. A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in the human species or people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment.

I don't see any ridicule or admonishment with McRae. On the contrary, see "Seeing thriugh Zen," p.xx: "Cold realism eliminates dismissive misinterpretation." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The link to McRae's 'Seeing through Zen' is broken- it was redirecting to the Archive.org version of the Platform Sutra translation. I found the PDF online, but I'm not sure if the site it was hosted on is legitimate or if it is a copyright violation. In the wording in the introduction I can quibble a bit about the characterization of the scholarship- 'reveals' is quite strong for historical text scholarship, unless someone has found a rough draft with an authorship statement. I would change that to 'suggests,' but also add the caveat that essentially no historical information on Huineng can be found outside of the Platform Sutra and hagiographies like the Transmission of the Lamp. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amyxqhuang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Invention

For this comment:

Twentieth century scholarship revealed that the story of Huineng's Buddhist career was likely invented by the monk Heze Shenhui, who claimed to be one of Huineng's disciples and was highly critical of Shenxiu's teaching.

where in the sources can this conclusion be drawn? Can the citations have specific page numbers added? 135.134.188.39 (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Equanimity"

Hi @Foristslow,

While I think equanimity is certainly in keeping with the spirit of Huineng's teachings, it's not a term he actually used. Perhaps some secondary source makes a connection between Huineng's teachings and the earlier Buddhist teaching on upekṣā (equanimity). In that case, you could have something like "according to so-and-so, Huineng's teaching resembles upekṣā" and provide a source. But absent some citation like that, the term seems a little out of place.

Regarding the appropriateness of the word "embrace" which you brought up, it was used by Huineng. See the quote by Huineng which I provided shortly below my use of the term ("the essence of mind is great because it embraces all things, since all things are within our nature").

Also, the scholar Brook Ziporyn uses it, who I cited as a source. Ziporyn says:

"...Huineng suggests that our real self-nature is free of them [attributes]. But our self-nature is free of them not in the sense of excluding them but in the sense of embracing all of them without prejudice, without partiality, without limit: our self-nature is like space, and these attributes of particular things are like the things appearing in space." (Brook Ziporyn, Readings of the Platform Sutra, edited by Morten Schlütter & Stephen F. Teiser, page 166, Columbia University Press, 2012). Likes Thai Food (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You also inserted the word equanimity right into the section corresponding to my Ziporyn citation. This makes it seem like equanimity occurs in the Ziporyn source, where it does not. Likes Thai Food (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou for your reply, remember that the text is a translation to English, The meaning of the character that was used in classical text has many synonyms pointing to it's Intention. Please can you provide me with the original Chinese character that you are using from The Sixth Patriach that has the literal translation of embrace. 🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Foristslow,
Alas, I do not have the Chinese character at hand which has been translated as embrace in the above quotation. But the McRae translation also gives embrace for the same passage: "Good friends, the space of this world embraces within itself the myriad things and [all] the images of form." [McRae, Platform Sutra, page 29] And the term embrace also occurs in secondary sources, so this should be good enough for our encyclopedic standards. At any rate, regarding equanimity, as it turns out, you're in luck. I did a word search of McRae's Platform Sutra and the word equanimity does occur once, under a discussion of the Pure Land being within us. It says: "Compassion is Avalokiteśvara, joy and equanimity are Mahāsthamaprāpta, the ability to purify is Śākyamuni, and universal directness is Amitābha." [McRae, Platform Sutra, page 39] This would seem to be good enough for me. And while this term does not occur anywhere else in the Platform Sutra, I am happy to let this issue go. Likes Thai Food (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Now we need to figure out what to do with the influences and history subsection. Likes Thai Food (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I prefer your original argument, LTF; the Ziporyn-quote is a beautifull quote; another enlightening moment. "Embrace" is of a somewhat different spirit (...) than "equanimity"; embrace implies seeing things completely as they are, while equanimity suggests effort to reach a serene state (without thoughts). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, while equanimity does appear in the Platform Sutra, I suppose there is still the issue of inserting the term into a sentence that corresponds to the Ziporyn citation, in which equanimity does not occur. Likes Thai Food (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have included a reference from the platform sutra from a Venerable that is a translation from the Chinese term, please remember that the native language is polymorphic in nature opposed to english, what sounds good to one may not resound to others because life is very intersectional. Best to describe this with flow and not one form. The conditions for Meditation is forever changing as is nature. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Influences and history subsection under "teachings"

Hi @Foristslow,

I did not delete the paragraph which you have replaced under the subsection now titled Influences and History of the Sudden Enlightenment Doctrine, which occurs under the larger Teachings section. Rather, I moved it down to the Historical Impact section. So, as of this moment, said paragraph actually occurs in both sections. Obviously, it should not be in two sections at once, so we need to decide which section should be its permanent home. I moved it because it is not really about the teaching of sudden enlightenment per se, but rather about the historical background of the Northern/Southern School split and the influence of sudden enlightenment on the later Ch'an tradition. Therefore, I feel its natural home should not be under the Teachings section but in the Historical Impact section. This seems pretty transparent to me. But perhaps you have a different opinion. Likes Thai Food (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Foristslow,
Glad we could resolve the equanimity issue. Did you see this discussion topic which I created? I think it may have slipped through the cracks in the course of the equanimity discussion. Likes Thai Food (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, that section is just about the historical impact of "sudden" doctrine, not about Huineng's own teachings per se. Since there was a duplicate passage in both section, I removed the one under the teachings section Javier F.V. 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I have been absent, agreed also. Did not see that it was duplicated. Have extended the heading to include historical geo-social influence. Foristslow (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huineng/Archive_1&oldid=1237573567"