2bit moment's take on wikipedia: "Chan Buddhism" and solving problems that have already been solved

I aim to continue the coverage of Zen in wikipedia with this post.

I think in many companies or corporations it happens that solutions are found in one place that don’t reach another part of the company that is dealing with the exact same problem. Google for example has researchers dealing with coding problems, and sometimes this sort of thing happens. People are trying to solve a problem that has already been solved by someone else.

If you’ll follow the analogy, what I’m saying is that perhaps some of the problems with the aritcle on Zen are relatively well done as far as I know in the article on Chan Buddhism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism One of the greatest accusation as I remember against the Zen article was not quoting Zen Masters, this article seems to cite or cover many Zen Masters and some of their opinions.

I especifically like the following statements from the article because they seem to be scholarly, accuse a lack of scholarship “speculative correlation” is not proper scholarship I’d say:

Theories about the influence of other schools in the evolution of Chan vary widely and are heavily reliant upon speculative correlation rather than on written records or histories. Some scholars have argued that Chan developed from the interaction between Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism,[20][21] while others insist that Chan has roots in yogic practices, specifically kammaṭṭhāna, the consideration of objects, and kasiṇa, total fixation of the mind.[22] A number of other conflicting theories exist.

In a part specifically dealing with lineage it speaks this:

By the late 8th century, under the influence of Huineng's student Shenhui, the traditional list of patriarchs of the Chan lineage had been established:[45]

Bodhidharma (達摩) c. 440 – c. 528

Dazu Huike (慧可) 487–593

Sengcan (僧燦) ?–606

Dayi Daoxin (道信) 580–651

Daman Hongren (弘忍) 601–674

Huineng (惠能) 638–713

In later writings this lineage was extended to include 28 Indian patriarchs. In the Song of Enlightenment (證道歌 Zhèngdào gē) of Yongjia Xuanjue (永嘉玄覺, 665–713), one of the chief disciples of Huìnéng, it is written that Bodhidharma was the 28th patriarch in a line of descent from Mahākāśyapa, a disciple of Śākyamuni Buddha, and the first patriarch of Chan Buddhism.[49]

I was unaware that the Chan lineage was only later appended to the Buddhist lineage. Was it considered a separate tradition for some time then? Non buddhist to the point that Buddha was not recognized as a Zen Master?

I really did not read the entire thing but I enjoyed this passage on the insitutionalization of Chan or Zen into temples or monasteries

It was scholar D.T. Suzuki's contention that a spiritual awakening was always the goal of Chan's training, but that part of what distinguished the tradition as it developed through the centuries in China was a way of life radically different from that of Indian Buddhists. In Indian Buddhism, the tradition of the mendicant prevailed, but Suzuki explained that in China social circumstances led to the development of a temple and training-center system in which the abbot and the monks all performed mundane tasks. These included food gardening or farming, carpentry, architecture, housekeeping, administration (or community direction), and the practice of Traditional Chinese medicine. Consequently, the enlightenment sought in Chan had to stand up well to the demands and potential frustrations of everyday life.

How goes it? What have been your experiences editing wikipedia, if any? What’s going on with wikipedia and Zen recently as far as you know? Y’all alright?
Why then, going back to the original point of this post, Why then are there two versions of the same article? Zen and Chan Buddhism? With I think widely different takes on it, one citing many Zen Masters, the other citing none, just to cite the one difference that seemed most important. Is Wikipedia disorganized? Is it truly a free encyclopedia in the sense of being free from sense or coherence, free from a single coherent authorship, as opposed to being a free one as in one which is open to all?

Submitted May 21, 2020 at 08:14AM by 2bitmoment https://ift.tt/2LJZzYO