Talk:Zen lineage charts

Change to Zen lineage entry

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Change to Zen lineage entry So, I'm not all that familiar wtih the behind the scenes at Wikipedia. How do we avoid going back and forth changing each other's changes? John McRea is wrong when he uses the word "created" except in the very technical sense that the whole Zen lineage did not appear in written form until the Tang. However, the lineage up to Vasubandu did appear in written form in the Sarvastivadin writings way before there was even a transmisison of Buddhism to China. So it is definitely a misrepresentation to say the lineage was "created" in the Tang when the evidence showse there was lineage before the Tang. I am at a disadvantage at Wikipedia because I don't know how these infighting changes are resolved. It looks from above that you are involved in several mediations due to unilateral changes. Can we work this out without having to go to a formal mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Wonderwheel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gregory. I'm surprised that you even mention "formal mediation", or even "mediation". Mediation comes in when discussions get out of hand, and parties don't reach concencus. We're just beginning to discuss, so no need for mediation.

I'll look-up McRae again, to see what exactly he writes. You'll probbably have a source, or sources, for Vasubandhu, don't you? Then it comes down to something like, "In the Zen tradition...they were first written... although the Sarvastivadin tradition ..." You can check out WP:OR, to learn the difference between using various pieces of information, and synthesising new information. And I'll ask Tengu800 to have a look with us; he knows a lot on Buddhism, and takes a very objective stand in discussions. Greteings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation at this time since there has barely been discussion yet...

Claims that Zen was an established tradition in India with a lineage going back to the Buddha himself will have to be substantiated with scholarly references. As far as I know, modern scholarship does not agree that such a continuity existed. In any case, what Sarvastivadin writings are you speaking of? Tengu800 05:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

McRae, Seeing through Zen:

• p.4: "It took several centuries for this entire schema to develop; the earliest building blocks appeared at the very end of the seventh century, and the complete system was published perhaps as early as 801 but certainly by the year 952."
• p.4: "The seven Buddhas of the past are legendary figures [...] part of the cultural repertoire Chan inherited from the larger tradition of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism."
• p.4: "the Chan lineage scheme is a combined product of Indian and Chinese culture."
• p.5: "the origins of this linegae-based transmission scheme are to be found in Indian Buddhism and the fourth- and fifth-century Buddhist meditation tradition of Kashmir. There are a number of parallels between the Chan transmission scheme and Chinese family genealogies of the eight century and later, but we should remember that Indian Buddhists had parents and teachers, family genealogies and initiation lineages, just as the Chinese did. As an amalgation of Indian and Chinese elements, though, the Chinese transmission schema developed within the Chinese Buddhist context and was particularly well adapted to that milieu."

So, according to McRae it seems we're both right. I'll make some adjustments. (Thanks for the reply, Tengu!) Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, to include relevant details as well as the names of the texts from Kashmir would be helpful for the article. Tengu800 06:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zen lineage charts. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150404034522/http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html to http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080408020230/http://www.mkzc.org:80/barthashius.htm to http://www.mkzc.org/barthashius.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304064306/http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/387.pdf to http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/387.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150404034522/http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html to http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)