Talk:Koan

Requested move 9 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Kōan → Koan – WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources as evidenced by majority in the Sources section and presence in English dictionaries: OED, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. Opencooper (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. English language has incorporated numerous words from other languages (Lists of English words by country or language of origin). Since the word "koan" has entered English-language vocabulary and, since English language does not use diacritics (no keyboards with the letter "ō"), the main title header in English Wikipedia should be "Koan", with consensus determining whether it should be italicized [as English Wikipedia's header currently is] or unitalicized [as it appears in English dictionaries]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

absurdity & meaninglessness? Misinterpretation?

In the Doctrinal Background section, Shizuteru Ueda is introduced as allegedly remarking on the "meaninglessness and absurdity of koan language". But from the quoted text that follows, I see no clear evidence of this as a reflection of meaninglessness or absurdity. Rather, it looks as though Ueda is remarking on the uses of Koan language. However, I admit I do not understand the context. The editor who claims this is a remark on absurdity may have read more from the author, Ueda, and found that this was written in the form of irony or cynicism. But it is not clear from the reader's (our) perspective if this is what Ueda intended. More clarity would be appreciated. Cheers 83.249.63.214 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Absurdity & Meaninglessness: misinterpretation?

(reposted under non-anonymity) Shizuteru Ueda is introduced as allegedly remarking on the "meaninglessness and absurdity of koan language". But from the quoted text that follows, I see no clear evidence of this as a reflection of meaninglessness or absurdity. Rather, it looks as though Ueda is remarking on the uses of Koan language. However, I admit I do not understand the context. The editor who claims this is a remark on absurdity may have read more from the author, Ueda, and found that this was written in the form of irony or cynicism. But it is not clear from the reader's (our) perspective if this is what Ueda intended. More clarity would be appreciated. Cheers UnbirthdayBoy (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed the introduction to Shizuteru Ueda's quote. To provide some context, these are the preceding paragraphs by Ueda in his introduction to the Entangling vines collection:

"The reading of any work invariably involves interpretation, and that, in turn, inevitably brings up questions of the depth and horizon of that interpretation. This is particularly true in the case of Zen texts, where the surface meaning of the words does not always directly convey the intention of the author or speaker. The paradoxical result is that readings which are correct from a linguistic point of view can suggest interpretations that are misleading, and vice versa. This is one of the most intriguing aspects of Zen literature.

The question of how to read a text in a philologically sound way does not always correspond to the question of how to read a text in a way that yields the text’s true intention (a way of reading that, in Zen, implies an almost physical process, in which the problem addressed by the text is recognized as one’s own personal problem). Zen has produced many texts, and Zen without texts is not Zen. Yet texts in and of themselves are also not Zen. Zen encompasses texts; that which the texts cannot express is approached through the texts, then experienced beyond the texts. Mere knowledge of the term “original face,” for example, does not mean that one truly knows what the term is pointing to.

The people most familiar with the use of texts in Zen training are the shike, the masters at the Zen training monasteries. During the one-on-one encounters between master and disciple known as sanzen, koans like those in the Kattōshū are given to the monk in the form of questions or problems that the monk must respond to. These questions are presented in the form of language, and the responses, too, are expressed in the form of language..." Bseditor1 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bseditor1 Hi, that's a useful insight. Thanks for sharing. I think it might be appropriate to say that Ueda is remarking on the seeming 'potential' or 'possibility' of meaninglessness, absurdity or 'misinterpretation' in these texts. What do you think? UnbirthdayBoy (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

He does not explicitly state meaninglessness or absurdity but emphasizes practice here and using texts to go beyond texts. I think the new introduction to his quote reflects that. Bseditor1 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Koan-curriculum

For future usage: Bernie Glasman, On Zen Practice: Body, Breath, and Mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Fully half the section is an summary of a rant essay by Mario... who? Does this guy's opinion deserve this much space? Is it all "academic criticism" has to offer? If so, why is it as long as the following subjection, which is less redundant and cites more people?

"However, was it not the case that Chan/Zen was supposed to take us in an entirely different direction, away from the familiar intersections of knowledge and power?" Was it? lol 64.85.227.176 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Mario Poceski. He's a prominent scholar who was also a monk in his earlier years, when he was known as Cheng Chien Bhikshu. So he actually occupies a unique position, having known both insider and outsider perspectives on the subject. At any rate, the Academic Criticism subsection doesn't rely only on Poceski. It also cites Foulk, Cole, and Lachs, as well as Peter Berger. Yes, Poceski does take up the most space, but that's because he offers the most sustained criticism on the matter (as far as I am aware). He makes a lot of different points which are germane, I think. Likes Thai Food (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming here as an almost totally neutral observer. I read a couple of books of koans in high school, but I'm mostly interested in the Western tradition of puzzles/have no opinion on the appropriate use of them in Buddhism. Regardless of Poceski's unique position, this section feels very clearly unbalanced to a reasonable outsider. It reads like it was written by someone close to him or him. Zusammenbruch (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zusammenbruch,

As the one who added the Poceski material, I can assure you I am neither him nor someone close to him. See the Hongzhou School wiki page for material added by me which is critical of Poceski's position on Ordinary Mind and other aspects of Hongzhou doctrine and praxis. If the section gives more attention to Poceski than other critics, I think this is just because Poceski's criticism of koans is the most scathing and seemingly polemical (by his own admission).

Kind regards, Likes Thai Food (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think since Poceski's critique is particularly polemical, his views deserve to receive a particular focus. I also think there's just more criticism from Poceski than there is from the others (whose work has also been cited). That is, while one can find critical passages in the other sources, Poceski has written an entire paper dedicated specifically to criticizing koans. Likes Thai Food (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The section is fine. "...depictions of the enlightened behavior of perfected beings that point to some rarefied truth, despite there being no compelling empirical evidence for this." - see just Maezumi roshi, and some of his heirs. And: "Poceski points out how gong'an exegesis deploys certain strategies to deflect criticism or challenges to authority which continue all the way to the present.[144] These often involve the charge that critics lack genuine Chan experience and understanding." - a... by Mario... who? Does this guy's opinion deserve this much space? Is it all "academic criticism" has to offer? - nice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The Academic criticism section is well-written, but it's also somewhat repetitive and contains a good deal of redundancy. Roughly 70% of the section consists of minor variations of the same point, namely that the way koans are presented reinforces the purported authority of certain Chan masters.

Regarding the focus on Poceski: "offers the most sustained criticism", "is particularly polemical", "the most scathing and seemingly polemical" – These are completely invalid reasons to focus on Poceski's work. It doesn't matter whether someone's writing is polemical, dry, funny, or whatever. What matters is how widely received the work was. See WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. As far as I can tell, roughly half of the section is based on one paper by Poceski, but according to Google Scholar, that paper was only cited once.

In conclusion: We should reduce the redundancy in the section, and we should reduce the focus on this single Poceski paper. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: There's another kind of redundancy: Each reference to a certain page in Poceski's paper repeats the full title and other data of the paper. All these references should be replaced by one main reference and several short ones. WP:CITESHORT is relevant, but there are different ways to handle this, and I'm not sure which one is best. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing looks like a very good solution for reference redundancy. It should be available on enwiki in a couple of months. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chrisahn, the paper is less than ten years old, and on a very specific subject matter. I am not sure how many critical publications on koans have been produced in recent years, but perhaps this may explain why it has only been cited once. In terms of Poceski's general output, his status as one of the leading figures in contemporary Chan Buddhist studies should be beyond dispute.

Regarding the question of redundancy, which passages specifically do you think should be removed? While a critical discussion of power structures may run throughout (this being what academic criticism is usually critical about), I feel like every citation adds something unique and relevant.

Kind regards, Likes Thai Food (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say specific parts should be removed. I'd say the whole section should be condensed. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do – we don't just copy sources verbatim, we pick the most relevant parts. Here are some quotes (from every other sentence or so) that indicate how the same point is repeated over and over, with rather minor variations: "established parameters of orthodoxy", "conservative tradition", "orthodoxy", "orthodoxy", "reinforced by a cumulative tradition", "institutional structures", "institutional agendas", "nexuses of power", "reinforcing their status and authority", "elites", "establishment", "demonstrating a master's authority", "patriarchs", "authority is demonstrated", "patriarchs", "absolute master of tradition", "hierarchy", "privileged", "position of speaking as a judge", "reinforce hierarchical structures", "authority", "established authority", "normative traditions", "master as gatekeeper", "orthodoxy and authority", "power structures", "perpetuate a religious institution", "status as maintainers of tradition", "institutions", "official positions and authority". Yes, in a way each sentence is unique, but the variations are really quite minor. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Poceski's status (as an established authority, ironically...) is not really the point. The point is that the section gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single paper by a single person. This whole article about a thousand-year old topic has ca. 9,500 words / 60,000 characters. The Academic criticism section has ca. 1,000 words / 7,000 characters, and it's largely based on a single 2017 paper. That's wildly out of proportion. A case of WP:RECENTISM. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why a prevalence of terms to do with authority in itself is out of place in a criticism section. If one wanted to reword these sentences without removing content, they'd still have to do so in a way that addresses the same individual points and nuanced variations of each. These are not irrelevant, i.e. some are focused on the historical literati background and Song establishment, some on modern contexts, some are to do with the role of exegesis in stifling creativity and spontaneity, some are on the mechanics of koan interviews, some are about the interplay of derivative and absolute authority, some on the way in which koans reward conformity to tradition, and so on. As for recentism, I'm not sure that's avoidable in a discussion about academic criticism. I also don't think the subsection is anywhere near large or overladen enough for its size to be of concern. Likes Thai Food (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It also seems the recentism rule is more about reducing the exclusive focus on recent events over history, rather than about excluding recently written papers. Likes Thai Food (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"excluding recently written papers" – I never said we should exclude the paper. The problem is that our article currently gives the paper undue weight. About 10% of the article is about this single paper. People have been talking and writing about koans for over a thousand years. There are thousands of books and other texts about them. If we gave this eight-year-old paper the same coverage as all these other sources, roughly 0,1% to 1% of the article would be about the paper. Instead, it's 10 to 100 times as much. That's clearly undue. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chrisahn,

I am not sure there is a Wikipedia rule that says all sources must get the same coverage. It's also not as though Poceski's voice is drowning out all others across the entire article. Rather, these citations are limited to the academic criticism section. At any rate, I have just gone in and removed some redundant Poceski citations in instances of multiple consecutive appearances of one and the same citation in the same paragraph. So, for example, where a few paragraphs had taken this form: "Sentence 1. [citation x] Sentence 2. [citation x] Sentence 3. [citation x];" they now take this form: "Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3. [citation x]." Also, since August 29, the date of our last communication here, I have added more material from Cole and Foulk, as well as material from Heine, to balance out the section. This should reduce the focus on Poceski.

Kind regards, Likes Thai Food (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, Poceski is by far not the most cited person in the article. As of now, he is cited 16 times in the entire article. For comparison, I count 26 citations for Schlütter and 41 for Hori. After Poceski, it seems the most cited people are Foulk (15 times) and Bodiford (14 times). Likes Thai Food (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)