Talk:Five Ranks

Couple of suggestion

Do you think it would be ok to get rid of the "influence" section? I don't really think it adds anything and the information is elsewhere in the article. Also, I'm going to go ahead and get rid of the line claiming Shitou Xiqian is the founder of Soto. That's Dongshan, not Shitou; I think it probably happened when things were getting moved around there. Finally, would you mind if I consolidated the References and Sources sections? I think it looks a little cleaner when the page numbers come after the inline citation and when the inline citations take you right to the citation. It would like like this article: Shenhui. Let me know what you think! DJLayton4 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Influence section: sure. Rinzai has also been mentioned in the lead.
• Dumoulin (p.161-166, & p.367 + 370 for genealogical table) and McRae mention Shitou being regarded as the 'patriarchal founder' of Soto. It's clear that Soto started with Dongshan and ... (forgot his name), but Shitou has been regarded by the Soto-school as it's founder, apparently to give Soto more credibility, according to Dumoulin and McRae. It's not really important here, but it's mentioned by various sources. Tried to Google it; here's another quote, referring to "descendants of Shitou" (scroll back one page).
• References & sources: I guess it's a matter of personal preferences. I like the sfn-tag; it gives a nice list of sources at the bottom of the article, instead of sources scattered throughout the article. Also, it's a convenient and fast way to add references, especially when referencing several times to the same source, but to different pages. And, when footnotes are added, it helps to keep footnotes and references separated. But that's my preference, so, I don't know what's better. This is what Help:Footnotes says about it:

The most common use of footnotes in Wikipedia articles is to provide inline citations to reliable sources, although footnotes can also be used for other purposes. The use of tags is not required by any policy or guideline, and other systems of inline citation, including parenthetical referencing, may be used at the editors' discretion. However, tags are by far the most popular system for inline citations.

So, I guess, the answer is: I do mind, but it's not a major issue to me.

Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference thing isn't that important to me either, so I'm happy to leave it as is. I find sfn unaesthetic, but it does have some advantages. As for Shitou, I find that interesting considering that Qingyuan Xingsi was the supposed first student of Huineng through whom Soto/Caodong descended. Shitou was supposedly Qingyuan's student. At any rate, there was no inline citation for it when I took it out, and I figured I had cut and pasted Dongshan and left that there accidentally. Feel free to add it back if you'd like! DJLayton4 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to do to improve the article would be to compare the Five Ranks with the Four stages of enlightenment from Theravada and perhaps other "X number of stages" formulations. I'm not that familiar with these systems, but I seem to recall hearing of a few others. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a cool idea! I like that. But we have to do that carefully, because the danger of OR is close, so we would have to look for reliable sources. I like it, because of the emphasis on "sudden enlightenment" in the Zen-tradition, which is rather ideologically. The Ten Bulls and Hakuin's Four Ways of Knowing show that "sudden" is not the only way, as is also shown by Jinul. "Buswell, Robert E. JR & Gimello, Robert M. (editors)(1994), Paths to Liberation. The Marga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers" might be a starter. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I listed a few of those systems at Enlightenment in Buddhism, also mentioning Lamrim, and have been considering to create a separate page on this topic, but alas, quite a job, and who's going to find such an article anyway whrn reading on Buddhism at Wikipedia?

When comparing the FSE and other systems, it seems to me that the first stage is akin to Kensho. The other stages are harder to compare. Actually, they may differ. FSE emphasizes getting rid of the ten fetters, where Mahayana says that an Arhat may relapse into non-perfection. Maybe the Five Ranks are related to the Bodhisattva-ideal, the path to which is also described by Lamrim.Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that releasing oneself from the 10 fetters is similar to the various stages of insight along the path of the five ranks, but like you mentioned, we would have to find a source making the comparison ourselves before moving ahead with anything. I haven't been able to come up with anything yet, but I haven't been looking that hard! DJLayton4 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Error

The article refers to the two translations and says, "one by Heinrich Dumoulin on the left". That translation on the left is not by Dumoulin. It may have appeared in his 2005 book, but it first appeared in the 1965 book The Zen Koan - Its History and Use in Rinzai Zen by Isshu Miura and Ruth Fuller Sasaki. So the correct attribution for the translation is "Miura and Sasaki" not Dumoulin. I don't want to change it since there may be someone tending this page. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! These are the details I love. I've corrected it; one point left: 1965 or 1966? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five Ranks. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cw.routledge.com/ref/chinesephil/Buddhism.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible NPOV Violation

The section titled Interplay of Absolute and Relative states "When Buddhism was introduced to China, the two truths doctrine was a point of confusion. Chinese thinking took this to refer to two ontological truths: reality exists of two levels, a relative level and an absolute level," citing Mai 2003. This section expresses an overly Madhyamaka-biased view, ignoring the Vijnanavada/Yogacara "Third Turning" entirely, which most definitely posits ontic metaphysical truths and not merely epistemic ones. Yes, Zen hews closely to Nagarjuna, but to suggest that the Chinese misinterpreted Indian (Lankavatara) Buddhism "for a few centuries" is going much too far here--and it's arguably wrong besides. Kosmocentric (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What does this have to do with NPOV? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five Ranks. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120330170439/http://www.kaihan.com/fives.htm to http://www.kaihan.com/fives.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330170439/http://www.kaihan.com/fives.htm to http://www.kaihan.com/fives.htm

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: 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) 09:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)