0
0

Critical Buddhism: Did Dogen Reject Zen? (self.zen)

ewk が 投稿

[From an article by Heine.](www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/DogenStudies/Critical_Buddhism_Heine.pdf)

[Critical Buddhism] emphasizes that the 12 fascicle [Dogenbogenzo], which was written toward the end of Dogen's life [he died at 53] and contains mostly practical instructions for monks in training, is the real or authentic text because of its critique of original enlightenment though and consistent focus on karmic causality.

.

ewk bk note txt - Several key points about Buddhism v. Zen have been highlighted by Critical Buddhists. Dogen's later record is a cornerstone of the rejection of Zen by Critical Buddhist, and, along with the Lotus Sutra, is the basis of their perspective, underscoring the following points:

  1. It is by no means clear what Dogen believed or how his religion should treat his various disparate claims.

  2. While Buddhism is defined for some believers by texts that posit an original sin-delusion-ignorance state that must be purified, as Dogen's religion does in some texts, Zen Masters reject that Buddhist tenet altogether.

  3. While a belief in some forms of Buddhism requires faith in karmic causality, Zen Masters reject that belief and that faith.

  4. While Western Buddhism scholars struggling to find an academic identity might be trying to divorce practices and beliefs from any textual basis, as anthropologists might, Eastern scholarship is very much in the religious studies tradition of focusing on what is believed and how beliefs are practiced.

全 43 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]KeyserSozen 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (14子コメント)

No "zen master" quotes, or citations? Just a bunch of opinions of stuff you've read, stuck into list form to make them seem more legitimate?

Zen Masters reject that Buddhist tenement altogether

Zen Masters live in "Buddhist tenements", silly! 😂

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Your editing skills rival that of autocomplete!

You are doing your best to make sure that other people say what they mean, even though you lack the courage to say what you mean yourself.

FTFY.

You'll note that Dogen and Buddhism are relevant in this forum in as much as these are religions that claim to be Zen but are not Zen, and this can be definitively established.

[–]KeyserSozen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Obviously, it's not working, since you still haven't provided any quotes or evidence for your assertions. If you just felt like ranting about your hobbyhorse today, there are other places for that.

[–]ewk[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Can you give an example of something that you think hasn't been established through evidence?

[–]KeyserSozen 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Yeah, check out the numbered list here. There's no evidence cited.

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

If you don't read the article you can't participate in a discussion about the article.

I think I pointed this out to you on each of your previous /r/Zen username accounts.

[–]KeyserSozen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't click on troll links, just as a general policy. Either copy the text here or admit you don't have any evidence.

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You can't define "troll" any more than you can define "Buddhist".

I note that you do want to imitate me though, and would rather do that then study Zen or Buddhism.

Neat.

[–]KeyserSozen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's ok, just use your definition

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Alt_troll can't give coherent argument, links to another troll unable to give coherent argument.

What's wrong? Can't state it in your own words, alt_troll?

[–]TwoPines 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (29子コメント)

Why not quote or cite some Zen teachers, while you are here? ;) "Critical Buddhism" is just your latest form of garbage spam, is it not? You claim, with typical grandiosity:

While a belief in some forms of Buddhism requires faith in karmic causality, Zen Masters reject that belief and that faith.

That is plainly and absolutely wrong. See the Wumenguan, Case Two: Hyakujo's Fox. In his commentary Wumen explicitly warns against denying or rejecting causation (karma). Which is not to say that he affirms or accepts it in a simple minded way, either. So, was Wumen a Zen Master, or not? ;)

Whether you say "yes" or "no" to karma you get your nose cut off. Only "sudden enlightenment" will give you the eyes to see it in its truth. ;)

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (28子コメント)

This is the same dishonest alt_troll stuff that you've been doing on this account all along. To whit:

Critical Buddhists address something which is difficult, even scary, for Western Buddhists to discuss: textual authority.

The recent forum meltdown led by grass_skirt is really just a temper tantrum over the questions raised by Critical Buddhists.

You are mistaken about the Fox Case. It's not an affirmation of causation, which is what Critical Buddhists argue is a non-negotiable article of the Buddhist faith.

Further, the Fox Case is based on the longstanding rejection, by Zen Masters, of the Buddhist principle of causality. It's the affirming of this by the monk that gets him into trouble to begin with.

[–]TwoPines 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Zen unties knots, breaks up obstacles. That's the Great Function. It seems to me, and I humbly apologize if I am wrong, that all you do is tie knots and strew around more obstacles. That's because you haven't seen to the depths, gone all the way through. Is it not? ;)

You mistakenly lecture when you should listen, teach when you should be silent.

Critical Buddhists address something which is difficult, even scary, for Western Buddhists to discuss: textual authority.

Irrelevant. This is a Zen sub, if you hadn't noticed! ;)

You are mistaken about the Fox Case. It's not an affirmation of causation.

I didn't say that it was. I said it isn't a denial or rejection of causation, either. If you're still confused, you will have to see the Mythical Golden Haired Lion! ;)

Further, the Fox Case is based on the longstanding rejection, by Zen Masters, of the Buddhist principle of causality.

Nope. Sorry. Read the text! The fox gets enlightened when the Master tells him an enlightened man "does not ignore causation."

What's more, it all takes place in a mountain monastery founded by Kashyapa Buddha. Sounds like a Buddhist monastery to me! And the question at hand is, "Does an enlightened man fall under the yoke of causation (karma) or not?"

And the old man is reborn as a fox after saying "not." Which is what you say. ;)

Question: Are you ready for your 500 rebirths as a fox?

I've posted up the case here. Take a good look at it, won't you? ;)

[–]ewk[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (25子コメント)

You don't have any arguments or citations to support your religious claims.

Sorry troll. Maybe next time.

[–]TwoPines 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (24子コメント)

You don't have any arguments or citations

But I quoted from and cited the Wumenguan! ;)

Lying deadbeat welchers won't be lucky enough to be reborn as mountain foxes! You'll be more like a soft shell crab. Delicious, steamed with a little garlic butter, a dash of sherry and a touch of saffron!;)

[–]ewk[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (23子コメント)

That is dishonest. Again. Why are you so dishonest?

  1. You claimed that you had evidence to support your belief that the fox monk gives a answer different from what Zen Masters teach.

    • You provided no evidence, you gave no argument.

  2. You claimed that I "tie knots".

    • You provided no evidence, you gave no argument.

  3. You claimed it's "irrelevant" that there are religious people in this forum that provide no evidence and give no argument.

    • You clearly contradicted yourself, and that's the only evidence provided!

You have a history of lying, stalking, and harassment in this forum.

Why not AMA openly and honestly about your beliefs, practices, participation history on reddit, and studies in general?

[–]TwoPines 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Why are you so dishonest?

Why are you still beating your dog? ;)

You claimed that you had evidence to support your belief that the fox monk gives a answer different from what Zen Masters teach.

My evidence is the case itself, including Wumen's commentary. It's not a belief, by the way; it's a fact. Zen doesn't teach denying karma. Wumen says this explicitly, does he not? ;) The old man is reborn as a fox after claiming that a man who is enlightened throws off the yoke of karma. This is his ignorant, unenlightened response, and for it he suffers karmic consequences. He is "suddenly enlightened" for real, and liberated from his karmic burden, only when the Master of the temple says, "The enlightened man does not ignore karma." !! :)

You claimed that I "tie knots".

And strew obstacles.

You claimed it's "irrelevant" that there are religious people in this forum that provide no evidence and give no argument.

I claim this is a Zen forum in particular, not a forum about "Western Buddhists" in general. So your fulminations are irrelevant to what we want to discuss here. :0 Which is the "Sudden Teaching" of Zen.

You have a history of lying, stalking, and harassment in this forum.

You are speaking of yourself again, but with characteristic modesty you attribute your own behavior to others. ;)

[–]ewk[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

No arguments? No citations? No evidence?

Alt_troll harassment fail.

[–]TwoPines 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No arguments? No citations? No evidence?

Once again, I cited Wumen and argued in a straightforward way from his text as my evidence that you are wrong in your assertion about Zen Masters rejecting karma - an assertion for which, by the way,you provided neither argument nor citation nor evidence! ;)

This was my argument:

My evidence [for saying you are wrong] is the case itself, including Wumen's commentary. It's not a belief, by the way; it's a fact. Zen doesn't teach denying karma. Wumen says this explicitly, does he not? ;) The old man is reborn as a fox after claiming that a man who is enlightened throws off the yoke of karma. This is his ignorant, unenlightened response, and for it he suffers karmic consequences. He is "suddenly enlightened" for real, and liberated from his karmic burden, only when the Master of the temple says, "The enlightened man does not ignore karma." !! :)

Show me where I was wrong! ;)

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I've shown you where you were wrong.

I numbered the points.

You were unable to respond coherently.

[–]Linchimodo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

🔔

reply with silence to silence the bell

[–]TwoPines 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To what realm do the ears that hear the sound of the bell belong? ;)

[–]Linchimodo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

🔔

reply with silence to silence the bell

[–]KeyserSozen -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You're cracking. Try taking a break.

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Alt_troll can't respond to number citations deconstructing the dishonesty of another alt_troll... claims numbers are a "sign".

[–]Linchimodo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

🔔

reply with silence to silence the bell

[–]KeyserSozen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Ah, so numbers are citations now!

  1. That's not true
  2. You can't prove it
  3. You're cracking
  4. Read the reddiquette
  5. Eat a peach
  6. How about some lovely coconuts?

Now, can you address all of my number citations, or are you a moral failure?

[–]ewk[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Alt_troll tries to imitate ewk, chokes when it comes to the arguments and citations part.

Awkward.

[–]Linchimodo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

🔔

reply with silence to silence the bell