Jump to content

Talk:Zen/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Practice comes first

Practice comes first... Just wondering tonight, before I fell asleep: how do you explain/define/coney what Zen is? Obviously, one can tell stories about crazy monks and beating masters; or stories about emptiness and the interconnectedness of ... etc. But basically, it's a matter of "shut up and sit down!" (Brad Warner), or realizing "Hey, this 'works'!" (Tillman Vetter, paraphrased by me). Or the classic "Go wash your bowl." So, basically, no definition, but try it yourself.
So, I've moved the practical aspects upwards. Maybe just one or two quotes to be added at the start, to convey this point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts 15 june 2015

Hi White whirlwind. Regarding this revert, I had three objections; one was mistaken. I'll explain:

  • I don't know if it's necessary to add the Chinese character and pronounciation to the lead; there's also an infobox on this;
  • removal of " as Chán" - it's not obvious for many readers that "Zen" is japanese, while/but originated in China as "Chán";
  • I thought you had removed the link to Japanese Zen, but I had misread your edit. But if there is a link to Japanese Zen, there also should be a link to Chinese Chan.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV, Taoism in the led

To have consistency with section 'Origins and Taoist influences' & The Tao of Zen, Taoism should be added to the led. Zen is a combination of Taoism and Buddhism.

Quote of The Tao of Zen:' Zen Buddhism is in fact almost entirely grounded in Chinese Taoist philosophy, though this fact is well shrouded by the persistence of Mahayana Buddhist institutional trappings.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.62.98 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

IP 120.22.19.209/120.22.62.98 twice changed the lead diff diff, changing
"Zen (Chinese: 禪; pinyin: Chán, Middle Chinese: dʑjen) is a school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed in China during the Tang dynasty as Chán."
into
"Zen (Chinese: 禪; pinyin: Chán, Middle Chinese: dʑjen) is a combination of Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism[note 1] that developed in China during the Tang dynasty as Chán."
The second insertion gave the following edit-summary: "consistency with section 'Origins and Taoist influences' & The Tao of Zen"
This change is WP:UNDUE: it places too much emphasis on Taoism as a defining element of Zen, suggesting it is still an element of Zen. At best the lead could say that Taoism was influential in the development of Zen. Given the scope of the article, and the need to be comprehensive, this is WP:UNDUE info for the lead. The Tao of Zen isn't even being mentioned in the Zen-article, and definitely not enough reason to change the lead in this way. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Joshua appears to WP:OWN the article. He revert my edit twice (here&here) and was the only name before me on the talk page. He started his wikipedia editing from Buddhist article . He is also active on other Buddhist articles. Buddhist propaganda? See WP:NPOV and WP:COI.
Omission of The Tao of Zen in the article and omission of Taoism from the led are WP:UNDUE.120.22.116.46 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:GOODFAITH, and try to find arguments, instead of the above insinuations. By the way, for a nwebie you know a lot of WP guidelines and how to find edit-histories... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Solid augments were already presented in above sections. Only a religious propagandist would refuse to see.120.22.116.46 (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, your latest addition is already better. Despite your agressive tone you seem to be able to learn. I've rephrased it somewhat, though.
Regarding The Tao of Zen, it's not a great source, as far as I remember. there are better sources, which have been used in the "Origins and Taoist influences (c. 200-500)" section. An important point may be that the Two truths doctrine was misinterpreted as an ontological doctrine, instead of an epistemological doctrine. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Ambiguity of Zen vs Zen schools, confusing wording

This article defines the term "Zen" as "a school of Mahayana Buddhism", going as far as to mention the Chinese word 禪, when in fact, this is incorrect; the Zen school itself would be "Zen School" (禪宗) in Chinese, as Zen means Dhyana (禪那 is the chinese transliteration of dhyana and 禪 is an abbreviation). The Chinese page linked to this article rightly confirms this, should anyone doubt it - it links to 禪宗, not 禪.

We also see similarly confusing statements in the article such as "Central to Zen is the practice of dhyana or meditation.".

If we translate this to Chinese/Japanese and back to English, and choose the Japanese pronunciation, we could get: "Central to Zen is the practice of Zen or Zen".

I realize that these terms have their own connotations and history in English, and I'm not suggesting we do anything as dramatic as rename the article (though I think that would be the most appropriate thing to reduce any confusion or ambiguity), but we could at least clean some of these up. I'd rather gauge the feeling of the community before going in and hacking up the article myself. 70.189.73.189 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You are correct and I edited the sentence you quoted. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You're right that "Zen" means "dhyana," yet in the west the term "Zen" refers to "Zen school," and it makes sense to explain that "dhyana" is central to (the) Zen (school). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A potential problem with this approach is that "dhyana", which, as an Indian term, is used mostly in discussing historical Buddhism. It therefore tends to denote "mediation as practiced in the early Indian tradition", which is different from zazen. For example, the Buddhist scholar Paul Griffiths says of "dhyana":
"It refers in its more technical usage to a precise set of altered states of consciousness. Samādhi is practice and dhyāna is the altered state of consciousness. At this point, it must suffice to say that they are enstatic, aimed initially at withdrawing the practitioners senses and thoughts from interaction with the external world, and finally, at bringing all mental activity to a halt."
Your assertion that buddhist zen is different from zen zen is a common misconception IMO. Do you know what the Zen school (and any other Chinese school of buddhism) calls Gotama Buddha's meditation under the tree? Yes, the same word as the zen school, "za zen". Since they explicitly use the same word and concept to link their tradition to the indians', I am not sure that making a distinction between the two is anything but artificial. 70.189.73.189 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Shikantaza, at least, certainly has no such goal of "bringing all mental activity to a halt", nor does Koan introspection, as far as I can tell. It would be more accurate to say "Central to Zen is the practice of zazen". "Mediation" is too vague, and I think "dhyana" is potentially misleading. Zazen is something unto itself, and that's really what we're talking about.
Dogen also specifically rejects "dhyana" as a label for zazen in Fukanzazengi: "The zazen I speak of is not meditation [he uses the character for dhyana here] practice. It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice-realization of totally culminated enlightenment."
I would also add that the "Observing the mind" subsection is a bit misleading as well. Dogen would certainly never describe shikantaza as the observation of anything. It's just sitting, as above. DJLayton4 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That is not what the text says, in my reading. The original is 所謂坐禪非習禪也. This means, "What we refer to as "sitting Zen" (zazen) is not the practice of Zen." 70.189.73.189 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Good points, you're right, I guess (though I'd reverse Griffiths qualificatiobsm but that's my personal opinion). Maybe this addition, from Dhyāna in Buddhism, would be helpfull:
Dhyāna is a central aspect of Buddhist practice in Chan. Nan Huai-Chin:
"Intellectual reasoning is just another spinning of the sixth consciousness, whereas the practice of meditation is the true entry into the Dharma." (Nan, Huai-Chin. To Realize Enlightenment: Practice of the Cultivation Path. 1994. p. 1)
The point is not so much the exact meaning of dhyana/meditation, but the emphasis on practice and insight, in contras to intellectual knowledge and understanding. And of course, dhyana took on various guises in the various Buddhist schools. Though, now that we are reflecting on it: the third and fourth jhana include a clear and vivid consciousness/awareness, not a mere limiting of consciousness by practicing concentration of the mind and withdrawing attention from the senses. Which seems to be close to shikantaza etc. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Shikantaza, as I understand it, does not involve a "clear and vivid consciousness". It involves just sitting. For example, Kosho Uchiyama wrote, "Dôgen Zenji’s practice of shikantaza is exactly what my late teacher Sawaki Kôdô Rôshi called the zazen of just sitting. So for me too, true zazen naturally means shikantaza – just sitting. That is to say that we do not practice zazen to have satori experiences, to solve a lot of koans or receive a transmission certificate. Zazen just means to sit." In Soto Zen, enlightenment and delusion are one, so zazen doesn't require any special experience or state of consciousness. I think contemporary Chinese Chan is very different from Japanese Soto Zen especially in this regard. I also think the word choice is important in this case, and that's what this discussion is about, as I think most can agree that the dhyana school likes dhyana. But while on that topic, Dogen wrote, "Arousing the aspiration for enlightenment depends on sutras and teachers. Practice depends on sutras and teachers. The fruit of enlightenment is one and intimate with sutras and teachers." Yongming Yanshou also argued that intellectual knowledge and understanding were highly important. While several important foundational teachers wrote about how they hated scripture, particularly Linji and his students, there are also several other streams saying that while we don't think about the teaching while we do zazen or focus on book learning exclusively, the teaching is essential to understanding our zazen. We can't ignore the fact that despite what some teachers have loudly proclaimed, the Zen school has produced more literature than any other. While I think it's always fair to say that zazen is emphasized, in many lineages learning/scriptures are not necessarily de-emphasized.DJLayton4 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. NB: Linji's The Record of Linji is full of references to the Buddhist scriptures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So is virtually every (non-sanskrit-in-origin) text in the Zen school's libraries. It is impossible to translate a single Zen school text without having a knowledge of the Buddhist vocabulary (I know from painful first hand experience).
Thank you all for taking in my above suggestions!
With regards to Shikantaza, it literally means "only occupying yourself with sitting". 只管打坐, 只=only, 管=concerning oneself with, 打坐 = sitting 70.189.73.189 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a nice phrase, and sobering. No splendid cosmic insights! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Zen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 08:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on this question regarding the best exposition of the four noble truths, a central teaching in modern Buddhism.

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Zen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 10:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Origins

No, Zen as a separate school did not originate in India, but in China. This edit changed "originating in China" into "originating from India, passed to China"; the next edit then changed it to "originating from India and passed to China." Four years... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that Zen emerged as a distinctive school of Buddhhism in China. However, it doesn't change the fact the roots of Zen (Chan in Chinese) lies within Dhyana traditions of India. Dhyana is a broad aspect that encompasses a vast array of meditative practices including Yoga. In Indian religions/philosophies(Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), the practice of meditation(dhyan) was never considered to be distinct practice for spiritual awakening. However, in China the practice of meditation was set apart from other religious practice such as prayers or reading scriptures. As per Zen traditions, an Indian monk by the name of Bodhidharma traveled from India to China and transmitted many of Indian meditative practice to Chinese monks at Shaolin Monastary. In China, this tradition would further interact with Daoism whose meditative practice as old as ancient India's. From China this tradition got transmitted to Korea and Japan. [1]. I have incorporated your point and I have stated that Zen became "institutionalized" and emerged as separate school of Buddhism in China during Tang dynasty.

References

  1. ^ http://www.zen-buddhism.net/history/history-of-zen.html
--Vamar123 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to explain the history of Zen to me; I know it. Zen, c.q. dhyana, did indeed originate in India; however, the school was not transmitted to China, but developed there. And zen-buddhism.net is a lousy source, when there are so many scholarly sources available. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry I didn't mean to question your knowledge on Zen. Sometimes, I have a habit of putting everything out to make my point. You seem to be well versed in Dharmic religions. I think Zen is unique amongst other Buddhist traditions. When Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana(by extension Tibetan) traditions went outside India, these traditions always had the patronage of Indian masters who would traveled outside to preach their doctrines. However, when Zen tradition was established by Bodhidharma in China, it took a life of its own. Once again I am pretty sure you are aware of all the facts I have stated. I was only making a point. Thank you so much for clarifying facts.--Vamar123 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vamar123: my apologies too; I was responding with anger indeed. There's an interesting article on the origins and development of Chinese Buddhism: Lai, Whalen (1985), "Ma-Tsu Tao-I And The Unfolding Of Southern Zen", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 12 (2/3): 173–192. It shows how the Chinese struggled to get a grip on Buddhism, and mixed Buddhist concepts with their own concepts. Ironically, their idea of Buddha-nature seems to be close to Indian notions of Brahman and non-duality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested move to Zen Buddhism

Can we move this page to Zen Buddhism? Zen Buddhism already redirects here, and I feel that it's a more definitive and less ambiguous title, as Zen could also refer to the meditative state that Zen Buddhism encourages. Also, I think that Zen Buddhism is more commonly referred to as Zen Buddhsim than as Zen. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Zen-practitioners, as far as I can see, hardly refer to it as "Zen Buddhism." And Zen does not refer to the meditative state, but to the practice (dhyana) leading to that state (samadhi?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@Justsitting: you've shortened the lead two times now:

  • diff, edit-summary "clarification," changing

Zen (literally "meditation"; Chinese: 禪; pinyin: Chán; Korean: 선, romanized: Seon) is a school of Mahayana Buddhism that originated in China during the Tang dynasty as Chan Buddhism. It was strongly influenced by Taoism, and developed as a distinct school of Chinese Buddhism. From China, Chan Buddhism spread south to Vietnam, northeast to Korea and east to Japan, where it became known as Seon Buddhism and Japanese Zen, respectively.[1]

References

  1. ^ Harvey 1995, p. 159–169.
into

Zen (literally "meditation"; Chinese: 禪; pinyin: Chán; Korean: 선, romanized: Seon) is a school of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes the pracitce of meditiation.

This clarification omits incorrect information (since the Zen tradition originates in India) Also it shortens the fundamental information so that when people search Zen in google, they learn it literally means meditation, and is the sect of buddhism that emphasizes meditation, which makes clearer for the average person what Zen is.

There are several problems with your edit and explanations:

  • TheWP:LEAD sumarizes the article; you removed part of this summary, and replaced it with a simplistic and inaccurate description of Zen which is not supported by the article. This is not a clarification; it's simply incorrect, and violates WP-guidelines.
  • The practice of dhyana originated in India, but the distinctive Zen (Chan) school originated in China.
  • Dhyana, c.q. meditation, is described in the second paragraph.
  • What Google shows is not a criterium for Wikipedia; we write articles, not snap-shots.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

History section

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?

Extended content
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen/Archive_9&oldid=1256317890"