Talk:Linji Yixuan

Untitled

• busy moving pages right now Hippocrates 14:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should make two pages. When I select rinzai as with soto I expect an article about the sect, not about the person. The other article could be rinzai gigen here's some more info about rinzai: http://www.buddhapia.com/hmu/bcm/2/zen_soto_rinzai.html Hippocrates

Properly speaking, this article should be called Lin-chi or Linji; however, the sect should probably be at a page titled "Rinzai Buddhism" or Rinzai (Sect), to provide the most clarity. The Rinzai page can be a disambiguation page. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Which is more accurate, sect or school? To me, sect carries more negative connotations, so I'm surprised to find that Google favors that usage. Is there enough information available to merit multiple articles? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 11:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that "sect" implies a specific organization, which Rinzai is specifically not -- in Japan it has, I think, about five separate organizations. I do think there is enough information available for two separate pages. Linji is fairly notable by himself and there is plenty of info available on Japanese Rinzai.- Nat Krause 15:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I would take "school" to imply a specific organization and "sect" to denote a religious community defined by specific views and practices...however, I don't think either is inappropriate in identifying a branch of Buddhism. Branch works too, speaking of which. One could make an argument for "style" or "form", but I think these are too unstructured. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got a few things to say about this :) Hippocrates

• see sect: "A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well established religious group."
• When using the word "school" one points at their teaching. There's also a community
• I think it's more beautiful in general to say: Rinzai (School) than Rinzai School
• The article about soto is still called Soto instead of, for example: Soto (Denomination)

I'd like to add some more terminology here. Renzai is the name of a Japanese Buddhist sect/denomination. It is also the name of a monastic lineage. The Chinese name for the lineage is "Linji." The lineage includes great teachers in China, one of whom, Lenji, the lineage is named after.

I say this because Renzai is all of these things.

And definitely, if you do insist that Renzai and Lenji are the same thing, then you should insist that Zen be merged with Cha'an, and soto with its proper Chinese ancestors. And you should also document the other "sudden enlightenment" schools, and make sure there are articles about ancient Chinese schools from the period of the patriarchs forward. Or maybe we should just stick with Renzai. Renzai is a lineage, and you can write it as Lenji, too, if you like to transliterate chinese instead of Japanese.

For one thing, for the record, "Rinzai" (not Renzai) is the name of the Japanese Buddhist denomination, and "Linji" (not Lenji) is the name of both the Chinese lineage and the Chinese teacher. You are perfectly right that "Rinzai" is the Japanese pronunciation of "Linji" the latter and vice versa, so therefore one could definitely say that they are the same thing. I think the more relevant issue, though, is simply that we should have separate articles for separate subjects definitely if but only if we have enough material to make it worthwhile. We shouldn't merge them or separate them just to make a point or follow a pattern. Right now, we have enough material for an article on "Soto", the Japanese sect, and arguably enough for a separate article on "Caodong", the Chinese lineage. We also have enough material for an article on the "Rinzai school", the Japanese denomination, and for a separate article on "Linji", the Chinese person. We do not seem to have much of anything on the Chinese Linji lineage, so we don't have that article -- yet. I would recommend that if you want to write something about that, which would be great, it should begin as a section on the Linji page and then get broken out later once there is enough material. Frankly, the Caodong page is kind of a stretch right now. - Nat Krause 10:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nat. I want to emphasize, however, that Renzai and Soto are also AMERICAN buddhist denominations, FWIW. This morning in San Francisco, CA, USA, I went to San Francisco Zen Center, a Soto Zen temple. I sat facing a wall, unlike when I used to go to a Renzai temple in Seattle. The fact that Soto and Renzai lineage distinctions have made their way into Western Zen Buddhism is important, but it blurs the line between denomination and lineage since only some, but not all, of the Renzai or Soto temples in the west are affiliated with the Soto-shu or Renzai-shu(?) Japanese organizations.

I don't think Renzai in America is a denomination. --Defenestrate 18:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: A disambiguation page for Lenji (person)/Lenji (chinese spelling) & Renzai (Japanese spelling) lineages/Renzai japanese religious organization.

Proposal the second: Information about these things should be consistent with Japanese and Chinese pages of the same titles. Lenji and Renzai should be offered in katakana and traditional Chinese words.

All in favor? --Defenestrate 18:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most widespread Zen sect?

Isn't Soto more widespread than Rinzai? 91.106.167.126 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linji Yixuan. 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/20090508050510/http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T47/1985_001.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T47/1985_001.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: 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) 07:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Quotefarm

@Likes Thai Food: your edits diff removed sourced info, added a large amount of quotes, which is to be avoide dper WP:QUOTEFARM, and you gave your own interpretations of those quotes, which comes close to WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan. I removed the section on the Three Mysterious Gates, as they actually make only a single passing appearance in the Linjilu. Moreover, as Sasaki observes (Record of Linji, page 149), their exact meaning is cryptic and has been interpreted in different ways. The later tradition reads much into these, seeing in them some connection to koans and huatou, which was reflected in the section in question. The issue is, Linji himself did not teach or practice koans or huatou, as these were later developments of the Song dynasty. So, I deleted that section in its entirety as I feel the Three Mysterious Gates are not really representative of Linji's teachings. Compared to the single passing mention of the Three Mysterious Gates in the Linjilu, the themes which I presented are ubiquitous across Linji's sermons. These themes include: non-dependency, solitary brightness, wu-shih (not-a-thing-to-do), etc. Also, could you please let me know specifically where I gave my own interpretations to the quotes I provided. I feel I presented everything pretty transparently, reading Linji on his own terms. Likes Thai Food (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the source for the info provided in the section on the Three Mysterious Gates, and I think Buswell makes it pretty clear that he is not talking about Linji's own teachings on the Three Mysterious Gates, but rather how these are interpreted by the later tradition. He begins his discussion on the subject with, "we may now turn to specific interpretive tools used in the Ch'an school to uphold its sectarian point of view." Moreover, that Buswell's chapter is titled "Chan Hermeneutics: A Korean View" makes it plain that he is not providing Linji's own view. Therefore the section on the Three Mysterious Gates as it currently exists is inappropriate on the Linji Wikipedia page, or at least under a section devoted to Linji's own teachings. Likes Thai Food (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Likes Thai Food here that the three mysterious gates are not really relevant here, and certainly huatou are not relevant and were not taught in the Linjilu. As such, the paragraph that was removed in the teachings section should be moved or removed, since it gives the false impression that Linji taught huatou or that the three gates have some kind of major role in his teaching, which they do not. Sasaki notes (Record of Linji p. 148) that the term 三玄門 (gate of three mysteries) is actually derived from the Daodejing, which mentions 玄門. It was adopted by various Chinese Buddhist teachers to refer to various ideas such as principle, wisdom and function, and did not originate with Linji. As Sasaki says, this is a single cryptic mention in the Linjilu which Linji does not expand on any further. Later traditions commented and drew on this term to explain their own original teachings. Later figures like Chinul connected the teaching with the practice of huatou (Buswell, Numinous Awareness Is Never Dark p. 81), but obviously, Linji did not, since he just mentions 三玄門 and does not expand on it, and he certainly did not teach huatou since this developed in the Song with Dahui and some of his predecessors. As such, this passage does need to be either removed, moved to another page (maybe Linji school) or to be re-edited in such a way that it is clear that this is a later interpretation by later figures. I think the best thing to do is just to both edit it to make it clear it is a later interpretation and development and to move it to the Linji school page under a proper section. Javier F.V. 12:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the QuoteFarm link you provided containing Wikipedia's position on the matter, I understand my edit to have been overladen with quotations. Perhaps I can try to rework some of the quoted material into paraphrased content. Likes Thai Food (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say keep a few of the juicy quotes, like 3-4, but lets try to get the rest of it to be encylopedic style prose. Thanks for your work on this and welcome to Wikipedia. Javier F.V. 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And sounds good. I'll try and rework it. Likes Thai Food (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

True nature, buddha-nature, self-nature

Hi @Foristslow,

I saw your edits, and let me say right away that I don't have a problem with your replacing true nature with buddha-nature/self-nature as these terms are all more or less interchangeable in this context. However, I couldn't help but notice your edit summary, and felt compelled to make a few comments.

You wrote: "reference only talks about Buddha nature and devil nature. The two characters only express self nature." The thing is, none of these three terms (buddha-nature, devil-nature, and self-nature) occur in the section of the Linji lu in question. Moreover, the term "devil-nature" doesn't occur at all in the Linji lu. Buddha-nature occurs twice in the whole text, and only once in the mouth of Linji himself. Self-nature also occurs twice, but both in the negative ("All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature" and "Motion and motionlessness both are without self-nature"). There are references to Buddha and devil (Māra) in the relevant section under discussion, but again not to the terms Buddha-nature or Devil-nature/Māra-nature.

At any rate, while I don't have a problem with your edits themselves (I only question your reasons given); I also feel that "true nature" was just fine as it was, as this has become a fairly common term in Buddhist English, and there is no need to fix things that aren't broken. Likes Thai Food (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi,and hello I am perplexed how you speak with so much ownership of the pages that you edit, when you are only a recent account. That aside for now, the reference that has been supplied does not have that as the translation of what he said. There is a difference within academia between using a term generally when it is correct and putting words to a historical person that they just did not say. Correct Dharma transmission is very important within this subject. Hope this helps Foristslow (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Foristslow,

Yes, you're correct that "true nature" does not occur in the Linji lu. However, this is a rather neutral and uncontroversial term. I don't think it misrepresents Linji in any way to say that his teachings are about our true nature. Incidentally, I don't think it misrepresents Linji to say that his teachings express the Mahāyāna concept of buddha-nature either. Be well. Likes Thai Food (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I have removed self-nature from the article, since Linji only mentions it in the negative (see above quotations). I have left Buddha-nature. Likes Thai Food (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Broughton and Wanatabe (2013) p. 39-40 say "the person who plays with the [unrel] reflected images [i.e., the one who is formless, clear, solitary brightnes]." The further write "a solitary brightness [the original nature/one mind/true mind]." They also write "Mind dharma [true mind/Buddha mind/one mind] is formless," so I presume that "Buddha nature" is also acceptable, but "solitary brightness" and "[true] person" is closer to the source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: keep up the good work; I love these details. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Joshua Jonathan. By the way, the terms "original nature," "one mind," and "true mind", are not Linji's own words. Broughton is inserting those into the main text from the Japanese commentators, as they occur in brackets. So I think we should make those into a note, saying something like: Japanese commentators associate solitary brightness with "original nature," "one mind," and "true mind." Likes Thai Food (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding

not Linji's own words

, I know. No objection to a note. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

{{ref=none}}

@Javierfv1212: somewhere in this series of edits diff you merged the Bibliography and Further reading, but didn't remove the {{ref=none}} tags from those sources, which means they give errors. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes to shock-techniques section

Hi @Joshua Jonathan,

I feel like the recent changes to the Shock-Techniques section were not necessary. Mention of the single bright essence also seems out of place there. I feel like it would probably be better placed in the True Person section.

I suggest restoring the Shock-Techniques section to the way it was before, and adding a brief paragraph on the single bright essence to the True Person section, just after the discussion on the solitary brightness. Maybe something to the effect of: Similarly, Linji describes the mind as formless and "a single bright essence." For Linji, this mind pervades the ten directions, and, being formless, is everywhere emancipated. Likes Thai Food (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree here. Watson doesn't say there that Linji was well-known for his shock-techniques; it's an interpretation of a primary source. The gist of that page is better captured in my phrasing; Linji is not promoting 'shock-techniques' there, but urging students to keep their eye on their natural functioning 'mind'.

Of course he is also 'known' for his 'shock-techniques, but that needs proper sourcing, and contextualization: was he that shocking, or is it an image constructed later, missing the real point of functioning in a natural way? You know, the cliche of 'Zen-masters beat and yell to push their students into awakening'. Maybe that was a good rationalisation for D.T. Suzuki to justify the militaristic regime in Japanese monasteries... Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan

The section header wasn't originally called Shock-Techniques but Iconoclasm, I believe (which I also think was better). The original phrasing was something along the lines of Linji being well-known for his iconoclasm and shocking language. The citation provided, Watson page 26, demonstrates such language, see the paragraph beginning with "The way I see it, we should cut off the heads of the Bliss-body and Transformation-body buddhas." If the issue is simply with saying he is "well known" for this, then we could easily just remove that part from the old phrasing to give us something like "Linji used shocking language to disrupt the tendency of his listeners to grasp at things like buddhas, etc."

As for the single bright essence, while it occurs in the same section of the Linji lu as the cited iconoclastic language, it's on a different page (Watson, page 25). Same with "take a good look at yourselves" (Watson, page 27). I still think we could use the single bright essence, but again I think it better follows the discussion on the solitary brightness in the True Person section. Likes Thai Food (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Digging into the sources now; Watson p.xxiii-xxiv ("The message ... to be found") says the same about what Linji is trying to communicate. P. xxvii explains that beating etc. is experienced immediately, just like the 'true man of no rank' functions naturally. Dumoulin also makes only a few passing remarks about 'shock techniques', explained as a means to dispell doubts; the real point, again, is the 'true (hu)man.

I'll respond to your response later, but you're right that there was more nuance than just "shock-tdchniques." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I also feel we can remove the two "citation neededs" (regarding [1] grasping at buddhas, etc, being a kind of delusion; and [2] the similarity of this to Shenhui's teaching which calls such things "subtle falsity" in relation to lust for wealth and sex, which are "gross falsity"). I think the following from Watson xxi-xxii takes care of both:

"The message of Lin-chi's sermons, reiterated with almost wearisome persistence, is that his followers are allowing all this talk of goals and striving, of buddhas and patriarchs, to cloud their outlook and to block the path of understanding. All such words and concepts are external and extraneous postulations, attachment to which is just as much a delusion and impediment as attachment to any crasser objective, such as sensual gratification or material gain." Likes Thai Food (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we even need citations for these two statements in the first place, to be honest. Neither of them is controversial in any way. The first says it is a pervasive Chan tendency to regard grasping at buddhas, etc, as a kind of delusion. What immediately follows are three examples of this attitude in Chan (from Shenhui, Huangbo, and the Bloodstream Sermon, all with citations). The second "citation needed" is specifically to do with the question of "similarity" between said pervasive attitude and Shenhui's teaching specifically. But to me the similarity between the following two statements is transparent enough such that any reasonable person can see it: (a) Grasping at buddhas, bodhi, nirvana and dharma = delusion, and (b) Activating one's intention to grasp bodhi, nirvana, emptiness, purity, and concentration is subtle falsity (Shenhui's teaching). Likes Thai Food (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is indeed a doublure, but you could also see it as an introductory paragraph. T

Regarding the similarities, to me, they are also clear; nevertheless, that's our conclusion, and that's WP:OR at Wikipedia. I'd suggest to leave it this way, accepting that a source is needed, yet also accepting that the similarity is obvious enough to retain this text. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)