Talk:Tendai

1

I deleted the Tendai-Sangha-America Website as the site is dead.

I deleted the link to the Blue Lotus Assembly as per their own website: "Blue Lotus Assembly is a distinctly American order, operating under its own authority, autonomous and self-directing in its organization and charter, but members enjoy a connection to long-established Japanese and Tibetan “esoteric mountain practice” root precedents."

Given that this assembly is a "distinctly American Order" and has no ties to Tendai buddhism other than this connection to long-established Tibetan and Japanese roots I have removed it from the external links leaving only those links to verifiable Tendai priests/websites. Additionally, this site is not listed under Tibetan Buddhism as an external link so I am unsure as to how it is fitting to list it here.

I have added the link to www.buddhadendo.org as it is also a verifiable Tendai Priest/group in California.

I'm adding the link to Blue Lotus Assembly, as Stephen Hayes is a verifiable Tendai Priest, and the Blue Lotus Assembly is teaching authentic Tendai practices. While it might not be affiliated with Hieizan... frankly, neither is Buddhadendo, so I think this is probably okay. Jikaku 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jikaku. You make this claim regarding Stephen Hayes but cite no references for his "verifable" status. Is he registered on Mt. Hiei? Where did he complete priest training? Wikipedia states that claims from the personal websites of individuals can not be used. Please provide "verifiability" for your statements as per Wikipedia:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  Gonshin

When it comes to biographical information regarding a living person, the "must be published somewhere else" doesn't apply - but verifiability can be had in other methods. For example, on the Stephen K. Hayes wiki entry (and in multiple other sources) Tendai Priest Rev. Dr. Clark Jikai Choffey is listed as having ordained him. Rev. Jikai is still alive, and easily contacted for verification. I think that having more links to expressions of Tendai here in North America is important to help give a broad picture of what it is, and what it becomes as it makes the West its home is important. This encyclopedia isn't the place for denominational "squabbles" or attempts to corner the market on "legitimacy." Hayes was ordained as a Tendai priest, trained in the Tendai practices, and is passing on Tendai teachings and practices - which, in my mind, qualifies the Blue Lotus Assembly group as an important source for further reasearch here.

Perhaps the solution here is to find some wording that explains that this Blue Lotus org is founded by a Tendai priest, uses Tendai teachings, passes on the Tendai tokudo ordinations and initiations, but like Tendai-Lotus, and Buddhadendo, is an independent organization (as opposed to a mission-branch of a Temple in Japan, like the New York Betsuin)? Jikaku 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2

The Lotus Sutra is not preached by Vairocana. This is a really basic error that needs correcting. M

I've replaced the Blue Lotus Assembly link. You actually have to *read* the website in order to find the Tendai school references. - Jikaku

I have also deleted the link to the Blue Lotus Assembly. From the information on the website, this schools is not a Tendai school. No where on the site does it mention Tendai.

I have deleted the link to the Tendai Sangha of America because it now only redirects to either the www.tendai-lotus.org site or the Blue Lotus site

3

ennybody wanna add a "Teachings" section to this? Any ignorant attempt by me to distinguish tendai from the other 'leventy-seven sects would no doubt offend someone...  :-)

Well, the teachings of the Tendai sect are essentially identical to those of the Tientai- I'd suggest that the best course of action is to focus efforts on expanding the Tientai article, and use the Tendai article only to illustrate areas where practice and teaching in Japan varied significantly from what was done in China. Unfortunately, I've already reached the end of my half-remembered knowledge from a Chinese Buddhist History class taken three or four years ago. . . --Clay Collier 10:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

also tendai is a Zimbabwean word meaning thank you and also there is a girl named Tendai Lewis very beautiful and educated

Vajrayana

Can someone explain to me why Tendai is listed here as Mahayana instead of Vajrayana? Every exposure to Tendai which I have had speaks of enlightenment in this lifetime as possible. Doesn't this fall under the "Diamond Thunderbolt" ideals, thus making it a Vajrayanic path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.168.218.28 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that idea is not unique to the Vajrayana or Mikkyo at all - it's fairly standard Mahayana doctrine.Jikaku 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Indian context at least, the Mahayana tradition proposes that Buddhahood is a long process taking many kalpas. Furthermore, I've seen Tendai teachers present Tendai explicitly as a Vajrayana path. The use of mantra and mudras would seem to support that assertion. Sylvain1972 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't buy it either. Yes, Tendai does have an esoteric element in there, but if you look at Tendai overall, that esoteric element is subsumed by the Lotus Sutra, which is a Mahayana, not Vajrayana text. In Tendai, the Lotus Sutra is supreme, and all practices are directed toward realization of the Lotus Sutra's truths. Contrast this with Shingon, which is explicitly esoteric, and it's central texts, the Mahavairocana Sutra and Vajrasekhara Sutra, are esoteric-only doctrines. Tendai has esoteric (Mikkyo) elements, but is not a true esoteric school. So, it's Mahayana, not Vajrayana.

Japanese Buddhism does make this confusing because nearly every sect has picked up an esoteric practice or two (just look at Nichiren Gohonzon, or the Jodo Shinshu teaching about Amida-as-Dharmakaya), but they're clearly grounded in Mahayana not Vajrayana teachings. --Ph0kin (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

this page's introduction is subpar

the introduction to this page seems to really miss the whole idea of summarizing the important points on this page type idea. change it?--makeswell 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Annen

Annen was not a successor to Enchin. He never had any real official position in the Tendai sect. He was quite important. His many writings helped broaden the esoteric teachings at Hiezan.

Expanded Section

I think that a section should be added about influential priests that came from Hiezan to influence Japanese Buddhism, such as Nichiren, Shinran, Dogen, and Eisai.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tendai/CommentsTalk:Tendai/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

There have been multiple revisions of edits to the tendai page from a user named "jikaku". Whenever any note or citation is made to the page that challenges specific claims (by individuals who claim to be authorized to teach Tendai buddhism), or even recommend that users perform due diligence in their research, this user deletes the edits. Edits have come from multiple sources and have all been pushed down by this individual. Perhaps, not inconsequentially, the name "jikaku" is the name of a westerner who is the either the owner/webmaster/designer of the previously mentioned websites. While I do not think that wikipedia is a place to air out the dirty laundry of Tendai Buddhism in america, I strongly feel that a "caveat emptor" statement is warranted. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the warning stay in the links section. If that is not possible, then it may be necessary to provide more direct citation which may lead to sanction. 71.255.232.203 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, the reason your edits are reverted by wiki editors (not just me) is because they are unsourced (i.e. there is no citation or reference), and violate wiki's NPOV policy. An encyclopedia is not the place to host your "warning" against some religious group you don't happen to like - make your own website for that. Now, if there's verifiable published material out there that meets wiki standards that you would like to reference and use to include a "controversy" section or something like that, please feel free to add it, or even better, discuss it on the article's talk page with the other editors. Otherwise, people are going to continue to remove your edits, and your actions will likely lead to your IP being banned from editing. --Jikaku (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

AI tag

I have restored the AI tag. If you are going to put a screed like "Removed obviously unjustified AI use accusation. The editor in question is a Mahayana Buddhist with EIGHTEEN YEARS of edit history, whose edits consistently cite real sources and contain no AI signs other than a passionate writing style. Please actually look into suspicious-seeming edits before immediately calling them AI-written" in the edit history, then you should probably "actually look into" it yourself, because if you do, you would have found the editor on record as saying the following: Hi. Yes, I have used LLM AI in some of my recent edits Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, as you linked to my post, you should know that while I did make use of some LLM output in some edits in the past (not anymore, as this is now against the Wikipedia rules) during a time I was experimenting with AI use, I made sure to use these responsibly, as I detail in the post you linked to. I will not reiterate what I said there here. Furthermore, most of this article was written from scratch, only some parts of the History section made use of some LLM output that had been edited and checked. With that being said, I have further reviewed, edited, and changed several passages in this article which include some AI writing I added in the past, adding some further citations to unsourced passages as well. I can confirm that whatever is in this article has all been human checked by me, having gone through multiple rounds of checks and readings by me to avoid any instance of false hallucinated AI content. I will remove the AI tag as of now, as I consider this article to not contain any false content regarding the topic. If anyone has any specific problems with specific sections of the page, please message me here, and I will further research it on a case by case basis, as I would do with any other mistake I would make on another article. Javier F.V. 20:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

..., only some parts of the History section made use of some LLM output ...

..., I have further reviewed, edited, and changed several passages in this article which include some AI writing I added in the past, ...

I can confirm that whatever is in this article has all been human checked by me, having gone through multiple rounds of checks and readings by me to avoid any instance of false hallucinated AI content.

So in other words, there is LLM-generated text in the article. There is no carveout in WP:NOLLM in "human verified" LLM-generated text.

This tag is used in articles that have generated text in them, like this one has been confirmed to have. Please either remove all LLM-generated text or restore the tag. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

>Please either remove all LLM-generated text

There is no way to do that manually. Whatever chunks of LLM generated text that remains in the History section is mixed into the prose written by me. There must be a middle way here. As I said, whatever LLM generated text existed originally was edited, reworded, and folded into human written prose at the very beginning as I wrote the article. The original writing of the article was already a hybrid process from the beginning. But the history section as it stands is a well cited section that provides a good encyclopedic overview of Tendai history. It would be excessive to remove it all just to follow the rule to the letter. Perhaps the user Gnomingstuff has a technical way to resolve the issue? Like maybe he has a tool that can detect specific passages to look at? If he has that, and provides me a list of passages to look at, I can check them more carefully? Javier F.V. 15:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The "middle way" is the tag. It (accurately) tells the reader that there is LLM-generated text in the article. It is an accurate representation of the state of the text in the article. To remove the article, the LLM-generated text needs to be removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What you are asking for is just the page history. You need to go through it, and identify what parts of the text added by the LLM user remain. If you remove it, your edit summaries should link to the exact diffs that added the text. Don't make one big giant cleanup edit. As much as possible, you should link each cleanup diff with the diffs that introduced the problem.

Yes, this is fiddly and time consuming. That's why nobody else has done it yet. Doing AI cleanup is extremely tedious and brain numbing work. That's (one of the reasons) why LLM users are increasingly disliked by the community.

The best solution is always always to just TNT the whole thing and start over. Cleaning up articles that have been infected with LLM-text is really difficult, and almost never worth the effort. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, stop disruptively removing the tag. It's been explained to you, repeatedly, why you should not remove it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Very well I will work to rewrite the entire history section when i am able - from scratch. Javier F.V. 17:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You generated much more than just the 'History' section: Diff/1273385374/1282460592. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)