Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

[Dainin]

As I have written elsewhere, I have been really into some of the writings of Glenn Wallis. He’s a meditation teacher and professor at the University of Georgia. I’ve really connected with his translation of The Dhammapada and his Basic Teachings of the Buddha. I recently emailed him, and he has been very gracious in his responses. His website features some of his other writings. I particularly recommend his article called Touching the Earth. He told me that he was asked to write it by an editor of one of the Buddhist glossies, but then the editor thought it was too “upsetting” to publish. Anyway, I told him I thought it was great. You can find it on the following page. Just look for the link for the title of the piece:

http://www.glennwallis.com/articles_etc

I asked him a few questions about his orientation in Buddhism, and I thought his responses were compelling. Apparently, he had practiced Soto Zen for a number of years, but now focuses completely on the anapanasati tradition. He wrote,

“I had a thriving Soto ground in Old City Philadelphia until several months ago. (We were an affiliate of Atlanta Soto Zen Center.) I considered it part of my own training as a meditation teacher and practitioner. I had to stop the group, though, because it became impossible for me to (1) reconcile Dogen's teachings with Gotama's, and (2) I found all the Japanese and Zen stuff to be a burden to the kind of stripped-down practice that you mention. … I don't consider myself a Buddhist; I consider myself a student of Siddhattha Gotama. He recommends the practice of anapanasati. I have verified the value of that practice in my own life. So, that is enough for me. Anything else -- being Buddhist, chanting, robes, affiliations, etc., etc. -- is superfluous. I would not say that a meditation community is unnecessary, though. Again, I say this out of experience, not theory.”

I wrote him back asking him why he found it impossible to reconcile Dogen’s teachings and Gotama’s. He has yet to respond, but I am wondering if anyone here has some thoughts on this issue. I am interested because some teachers/writers in the Soto school, particularly Nishijima Roshi, seem to say that Dogen taught exactly what Gotama taught. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Keith

[Jinho]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

Hi,

Thank you for your post. First I would like to comment on the title. Your title suggests an overtly adversarial relationship (with undertones of violence) which I think is an unfortunate orientation. But perhaps you view any difference in philosophy this way. Perhaps, even, you enjoy conflict, who can say? I would have titled this thread "comparison of Gautama and Dogen teachings".

First, the teachings of Gautama - a small note. I believe it is significant that the earliest writings were written 500 years after Gautama died. I therefore posit that we don't actually know what Gautama said. However the Pali Canon remains a useful set of teachings for those who find them so. And that, I believe is all that matters. And by saying "useful" , I do not wish to imply anything demeaning or petty. If the Pali Canon teachings are of minor or major help to any person in their understanding, then this is all that matters. I believe that it is a fallacy to say "this must be "valid" because this particular person said it is". And that the position of "validity based on source" is in itself based on a perjorative which is extrinsic to the actual words.

Can someone provide a definition of anapanasati? I read the "core instructions" in the reference in Wikipedia, however this may not be the best general description. But, based on the 16 meditation practices listed as comprising the meditation process of anapanasati, frankly shikantaza is far more "stripped down". However, a more structured process is often useful for some people. Anapanasati also seems to advocate the rejection of emotion that I have found in other Theravadan writings. But both the anapanasati instructions and shikantaza emphasize awareness during sitting, but the anapanasati instructions seem to emphasize a conscious focusing of one's attention while shikantaza seems to emphasize an undirected awareness in "just sitting".

As for "I had to stop the group, though, because it became impossible for me to (1) reconcile Dogen's teachings with Gotama's, and (2) I found all the Japanese and Zen stuff to be a burden to the kind of stripped-down practice that you mention" I consider it of questionable ethics that he stopped a group (which presumably was of benefit to the people attending, otherwise why would they show up) instead of continuing to be of assistance to these people, or at least found another teacher to take over, if they wanted the services of one. But perhaps the above quoted sentence does not accutaely reflect how things happened. As for chanting, robes, etc. Dogen in various places in the Shobogenzo emphasizes the absolute importance of meditation and even recommends excluding chanting, rituals, intellectual debate, bell-ringing, etc. As described in the Shobogenzo, zen monastic life at the time seems to have included very little, if any, meditation at all.

thank you for your time,

rowan

[Dainin]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

First I would like to comment on the title. Your title suggests an overtly adversarial relationship (with undertones of violence) which I think is an unfortunate orientation. But perhaps you view any difference in philosophy this way. Perhaps, even, you enjoy conflict, who can say? I would have titled this thread "comparison of Gautama and Dogen teachings".

The title was a complete and utter tongue-in-cheek joke, a sort of commentary on a lot of the Buddhist sectiarism out there. As I was thinking of a title, I actually thought of Brad Warner's penchant for monster movies, and I thought the title would be funny. Perhaps I failed to make that clear.

You don't know me from Adam, Rowan, and you are still rather new here at Treeleaf, so let me clarify that I do not "view any difference in philosophy this way." If you were familar with many of my previous posts (which I don't expect you do be), you would see that I am quite the univeralist, moreso than some others here. You write, "Perhaps, even, you enjoy conflict, who can say?" Who can say? I can. In fact, I do not "enjoy" conflict at all. I avoid it as much as possible. However, perhaps, you like sitirring it up where there is none. Who can say? If not, I wonder why you began your reponse in the manner that you did.

Regarding Wallis's reasons for stopping his Soto group, as you say, we don't know the whole story. I know he currently leads another meditation group. Perhaps it's with the same people. Who knows? But, it can also be said that he made the correct decision for stopping the Soto group, if he couldn't continue it in good faith. Perhaps that was the right path for him and that group. But, again, this is all conjecture, and it was not meant to be the focus of this thread.

[chicanobudista]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

The title was a complete and utter tongue-in-cheek joke, a sort of commentary on a lot of the Buddhist sectiarism out there. As I was thinking of a title, I actually thought of Brad Warner's penchant for monster movies, and I thought the title would be funny. Perhaps I failed to make that clear.

FWIW...I got the joke. :mrgreen:

[Jinho]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

First I would like to comment on the title. Your title suggests an overtly adversarial relationship (with undertones of violence) which I think is an unfortunate orientation. But perhaps you view any difference in philosophy this way. Perhaps, even, you enjoy conflict, who can say? I would have titled this thread "comparison of Gautama and Dogen teachings".

The title was a complete and utter tongue-in-cheek joke, a sort of commentary on a lot of the Buddhist sectiarism out there. As I was thinking of a title, I actually thought of Brad Warner's penchant for monster movies, and I thought the title would be funny. Perhaps I failed to make that clear.

You don't know me from Adam, Rowan, and you are still rather new here at Treeleaf, so let me clarify that I do not "view any difference in philosophy this way." If you were familar with many of my previous posts (which I don't expect you do be), you would see that I am quite the univeralist, moreso than some others here. You write, "Perhaps, even, you enjoy conflict, who can say?" Who can say? I can. In fact, I do not "enjoy" conflict at all. I avoid it as much as possible. However, perhaps, you like sitirring it up where there is none. Who can say? If not, I wonder why you began your reponse in the manner that you did.

Regarding Wallis's reasons for stopping his Soto group, as you say, we don't know the whole story. I know he currently leads another meditation group. Perhaps it's with the same people. Who knows? But, it can also be said that he made the correct decision for stopping the Soto group, if he couldn't continue it in good faith. Perhaps that was the right path for him and that group. But, again, this is all conjecture, and it was not meant to be the focus of this thread.

Hi,

I merely wrote what occurred to me and in the order that it occurred to me (the title came first, what can I say)?. I only said "perhaps". I certainly did not nor would not presume to know anything about you. It is regretable if it seemed otherwise. As for Wallis stopping the group, again I can only write based on what was written. And, as it was written, I felt there was an important ethical issue which I wanted to mention.

rowan

[Jundo]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

Hey Guys,

Lets not conflict about not being in conflict! :shock: I liked the title and thought it was very funny. Also, a good question! One of my favorite topics in fact.

I have not yet read more than a few pages of the article you provided, Keith. I will do so in the next day or so. But the subject is so important, that I wanted to jump in with my standard "answer" to such things.

First off, I am now reading and rereading some very good books on the life of the Buddha: In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology from the Pali Cannon by Ven. Bhikku Bodhi, The Life of the Buddha by Ven. Bhikku Nanamoli, and the wonderful What the Buddha Taught by Prof. Walpola Rahula.

In my reading of those and other original writings of the Buddha, it becomes perfectly clear (in my view at least) that what Dogen taught is just what the Buddha taught, which is precisely what we are practicing today.

And also Buddha was Buddha, Dogen was Dogen and Keith is Keith.

"Huh?" you say? Let me explain ...

The Buddha lived 2500 years ago in ancient India, and Dogen about 1300 years after that in medieval Japan. Keith lives in that strange world known as 2008 Miami. Certainly, some changes arose along the way on some superficial matters, and in outer forms. For example, the Chinese made Zen Practice very Chinese, the Japanese very medieval Japanese, and now we are making it very Western.

However, the Heart of the Buddha's teachings ... the Four Noble Truths, Non-Self, Non-Attachment, the Middle Way, etc. etc., here now as much as it was there then.

On the other hand some other stuff is, well, changed. For example, when Buddhism came to China it was heavily influenced by, and pretty much merged with, Taoism (not to mention that it was already "Mahayana Buddhism" by that time, a very different flavor from the original). The result was this little thing we now call "Zen Buddhism". So, congratulations, we are already "Taoists" and not just "Buddhists". When it got to Japan, the Japanese added Japanese culture to it. In the West, we are now making some very good changes (although we have to, of course, try to avoid bad changes). These good changes include equality of the sexes and a greater emphasis on lay practice.

But it is still Buddhism. What Dogen taught was Buddhism. What we do around Treeleaf (I do believe) is as Buddhism as Buddhism can be.

I will even go so far as to say (and this is the kind of statement that has gotten me into all kinds of trouble on E-Sangha and such) that maybe, just maybe, later Buddhism actually made some big and important "improvements" to the Buddha's original formulation with all those additions, and a couple of thousand years of working out the kinks and bugs. It is much like saying that Buddha was Henry Ford, who first thought up the brilliant idea of sticking 4 wheels on an internal combustion engine, but now we can drive a Prius! I even say that maybe, just maybe, the Buddha was not infallible on every darn thing and, while he was 90% right in his proposals, he also had some klunkers and narrow ideas here and there ... like the whole thing about an overly mechanical view of rebirth ...

According to Buddhism if a human does not obtain nirvana or enlightenment, as it is known, the person cannot escape the cycle of death and rebirth and are inevitably be reborn into the 6 possible states beyond this our present life, these being in order from the highest to lowest;

Heaven. In Buddhism there are 37 different levels of heaven where beings experience peace and long lasting happiness without suffering in the heavenly environment.

Human life. In Buddhism we can be reborn into human life over and over, either wealthy or poor, beautiful or not so, and every state between and both as it it is served up to us. Anything can happen, as is found in human life and society all around us as we are familiar with in the day to day human world in is myriad of possibilities. What we get is a result of our Karma of what we have dragged with us from previous existences and how it manifests in our temporary present lives.

Asura. A spiritual state of Demi-Gods but not the happy state experienced by the gods in the heavens above this state. The Demi-Gods are consumed with jealousy, because unlike humans, they can clearly see the superior situation of the gods in the heavens above them. They constantly compete and struggle with the gods due to their dissatisfaction with their desires from the others.

Hungry Ghost. This spiritual realm of those who committed excessive amounts of evil deeds and who are obsessed with finding food and drink which they cannot experience and thus remain unsatisfied and tortured by the experience. They exhaust themselves in the constant fruitless searching.

Animals. This realm is visible to humans and it is where spirits of humans are reborn if they have killed animals or have committed a lot of other evil acts. Animals do not have the freedom that humans would experience due to being a subject constantly hunted by humans, farmed and used in farming, also as beasts for entertainment.

Hell. This realm is not visible to humans. It is a place where beings born there experience a constant state of searing pain and the various types of hell realms reads like a variety of horrific torture chambers. Those with a great deal of negative Karma can remain in such places for eons of time.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/viewdeath.html

Yeah, maybe ... 37 Heavens, huh? Our Zen Practice has tended to turn away from that mechanical view, to a "here and now, let rebirth take care of rebirth, chop wood and fetch water" attitude. In fact, the above has come to take on the meaning of "we are reborn here and now, every moment, and create all the heavens and hells in our lives right in each moment" meaning ...

But I diverge from our subject.

The final fact is that, even if later Buddhism is not an "improvement", it is just its own path. No path is better than others if someone finds their right path, to each his own path. Some folks will benefit from the Zen path, some from Anapanasati or even Anarchy or Ana-Baptism. To each his own, and one size does not fit all. While the Buddha sure didn't teach Ana-Baptism (and probably not Anarchy ... sorry Erik), he sure did preach a lot of different things, expedient means, to different audiences and students with different needs. I am sure that, as an educator Keith, you can relate. If you read the Pali texts, he recommended many different approaches to meditation ... although all came back to his basic philosophy (Four Noble Truths, etc.) that we still faithfully maintain today.

And I have not even mentioned the historical reality that Ros alluded to, namely, that what the Buddha said was an oral tradition for hundreds of years, passed down orally alone, until somebody finally wrote it all down hundreds of years after he was dead ... and then all the Buddhists immediately set to disagreeing about which of them had the "authentic" teachings.

I have not read all of Mr. Wallis paper, but if he writes this, he is full of malarchy (at least for anyone but Mr. Wallis. It may be a true statement for him, in his life. It is not true in my experience):

I had to stop the group, though, because it became impossible for me to (1) reconcile Dogen's teachings with Gotama's, and (2) I found all the Japanese and Zen stuff to be a burden to the kind of stripped-down practice that you mention. … I don't consider myself a Buddhist; I consider myself a student of Siddhattha Gotama. He recommends the practice of anapanasati.

The Buddha recommended "anapanasati" meditation and other practices of meditation. It was by no means the only meditation the Buddha taught. And what he means by all the "Japanese and Zen stuff", well, that is perhaps because Mr. Wallis never learned to see beyond the gift wrapping to the gift inside. One does not need to eat with chopsticks to practice Zen, and one can use a fork Western style (or even your hands). But if you practice eating with fork or chopsticks or hands as if it is the whole universe eating in that moment ... that is Zen. If Mr. Wallis missed that fact, then I hope he finds what he is looking for in the road he has taken.

So, in conclusion ...

Dogen was different from Shakyamuni Buddha, who are both different from Keith.

But when Keith is sitting a moment of Zazen ... perfectly whole, just complete unto itself, without borders and duration, not long or short, nothing to add or take away, containing all moments and no moments in "this one moment" ... then there is not the slightest gap between you and the Buddha.

Gassho, J

[chicanobudista]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

To each his own, and one size does not fit all. While the Buddha sure didn't teach Ana-Baptism (and probably not Anarchy ... sorry Erik),

For those keeping score (and DHS), I am not Anarchist.......not that there is anything wrong with it. :mrgreen:

[Hans]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

Hello Keith!

Great article, thanks for the link.

Gassho,

Hans

[Eika]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

The Buddha recommended "anapanasati" meditation and other practices of meditation. It was by no means the only meditation the Buddha taught.

I agree. Jundo hits on something here I have always had a beef with. There is apparently in the West (maybe it happens in the East too, I don't know) a tendency to try to "universalize" each specific teaching. The Buddha told this one guy this one thing, and this other guy another thing, and 2500 years later folks try to take one of those specific teachings and turn it into a universal teaching for everyone. For me, the wiser course is to read many of the Buddha's teachings and seek to practice the spirit or the common-denominator in those teachings.

If Buddha was just a man (I think he was and according to the sutras he said he was), then his ideas can be honed, shaped, and developed as the times changed and social conventions changed. The core, Buddha-nature, and all that is unchanged (because there is nothing there I suppose) but the surface-level stuff changed to fit the culture. It had to. Without those changes, Buddhism would have died I think. I don't want to drive a Model-T. They were the bomb about 90 years ago, but they are not the most effective way to travel today. I prefer my Honda.

Nice thread, Keith. I got the humor of the "showdown" thing. I often try to include irony in songwriting but have the same issue. Unless I am way over the top, saying something so ridiculous that there's no way it could be serious, then I always have folks who don't know me thinking it is a serious statement. About 10 years ago I wrote a song about 70s porn-star John Holmes. It was meant to be an illustration of how men should be careful what they wish for (free sex, large organs, etc.). Many people, however, thought it was a tribute to him. So instead of hearing a song about a wasted life, they heard a song glorifying the pornstar lifestyle. I finally reached the point that I said "Once I write it and put it out there, I have to let go of people's understanding of it."

Rowan, I can see how you might interpret Keith's humor as anything but. Another example of how pitiful the written word is at conveying what we actually mean.

Later,
Bill

[chicanobudista]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

I wrote him back asking him why he found it impossible to reconcile Dogen’s teachings and Gotama’s. He has yet to respond, but I am wondering if anyone here has some thoughts on this issue. I am interested because some teachers/writers in the Soto school, particularly Nishijima Roshi, seem to say that Dogen taught exactly what Gotama taught. Any thoughts?

So. Keith, what's your take on your own question? :wink: :?:

[Dainin]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

Hi Folks,

Thanks very much for your replies. I'm happy to know that you saw humor/irony in my title. Hans, I'm glad you liked the article. What particularly did you like about it? Bill, you make some excellent points; I'd like to hear that John Holmes song!

Jundo, thank you for the extremely clear reply. I tend to agree. I'd like to know your thoughts on the article when you get a chance to read the whole piece. I'm happy to know that Gotama taught more than one way of meditation. You're right, as an educator, I can certainly relate. It’s called "differentiated instruction." It's a fancy name for saying "teach 'em in the way that they learn." There’s no one way to learn, and no one way to teach. In his book, Compass of Zen, Seung Sahn argues that as his teaching career progressed, the Buddha began teaching one way (Theravada), and then as people began to understand more and more, he eventually ended up teaching Zen. Now, I am not sure if it's as cut and dried, and as linear, as that, but he seems to make a similar point as you. Can you direct me to some of the early writings where Gotama teaches other forms? I've read the Anapanasati Sutta, in addition to Larry Rosenberg's very good book Breath by Breath, and it seems that that way of meditation is pretty detailed, and perhaps unnecessarily complex. As Rowan said, shikantaza seems much more "stripped down."

Erik asked what my take on the whole thing is. Well, as Jundo knows, I tend to get a little too focused on the “trappings” of Zen and Buddhism. I’ve owned (and given away) way too many Buddha statues, books, singing bowls, malas, etc. etc. I now see the futility of this nutty habit. For so long, I was way too focused on playing the part of a Buddhist, sometimes to the detriment of actually practicing. However, while realizing this vicious circle I put myself in is helpful, it doesn’t stop the thoughts from coming. It recently reared its ugly head with all the talk of sewing a new rakusu and going through Jukai again. I was way too excited about getting a new rakusu. I thought how cool it would be to eventually sit with a group and have this cool denim or green rakusu. Everyone would be asking about it, and …. (Well, you get the picture.). I think this is overly romantic, idealistic, and essentially immature way of viewing it.

I feel the Precepts are very important to my practice, but I have decided not to go through Jukai again (I’ve done it twice already – once with Jundo, and once with a Kwan Um group), because I’m too caught up in the superficial, what Uchiyama Roshi called Buddhist “toys.” Anyway, I feel I need to be in a place in my practice where I don’t have too many toys, perhaps one little Buddha statue and a zafu, and that’s it. In addition, I LOVE to read. It’s one of my favorite things to do. I can spend all day in a bookstore, reading and drinking coffee. It’s my repose sometimes. Now, I long to read about Zen and Buddhism, but sometimes I read way too much and get way too caught up in words, words, words. So, it’s important to me to have just a few books that are important for my practice, such as The Dhammapada, a few early suttas, and maybe a good compilation of the “best of” Dogen. Otherwise, like the statues, bells, and rakusus, books become a monkey on my back.

So, to make a very long story short (I know, way too late for that!), I really like Wallis' article because I am attracted to a very stripped down, unpretentious way of practicing that he talks about. I want to sit Zazen everyday, and not worry too much about ritual, bells, whistles, robes, and other external and cultural stuff. Those aspects of the practice may really help others, and that is great. I would never insult or tell anybody they shouldn’t engage in any type of practice, if it assists them to balance and peace. But, I think it’s important to my practice to focus on the essentials – sitting, trying to live according to the Precepts, and gaining some guidance and inspiration from a modicum of reading.

Eric, now that I've written all that, I see that you were asking me about my question about comparing Dogen and Buddha. Oops! ops: Well, while I feel I have a decent understanding of Gotama's "basic teachings", I don't feel I know enough about Dogen's more complex writings (save Fukanzazengi, Bendowa, and Instructions to the Tenzo) to personally make an intelligent comparison. That's really why I asked the question. But I certainly have learned from the responses here.

Soooo sorry that this was soooooo long!

Peace,
Keith

[will]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

deleted by Will

[Dainin]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

When excited, be excited. When obsessive, let the obsessiveness be.

Well, with this logic, it seems I should (a) when excited, be excited; and when obsessive, be obsessive; or (b) when excited, let the excitement be; and when obsessive, let the obsessive be. Why is being excited any better than being obsessive? Why is being obsessive any worse than being excited? Remember the lesson not to pick and choose?

Don''t try to avoid it, don't try anything.

Don't try to avoid what? Actually, trying to avoid something that causes self and others suffering may be the absolute best, most healthful option. If you knew how much money I've spent over the years on Buddhist "stuff", you may have different advice. My wife sure does! In addition, I would say that a child molester should certainly avoid being around children, and a heroine addict should certainly avoid being around that substance. And why should I try nothing? This seems pretty defeatist to me. Seung Sahn consistently taught the "try mind." He said "only try for 1000 years, and then keep trying."

No "one" thing can cause obsessiveness. Rakusus don't cause it. Rupas (Buddha statues) Don't cause it. Bowing doesn't.

I don't believe I said that any of these things "caused" my obsession.

Neither does anything that you can see, touch, taste, smell, hear.

Well, we certainly know from modern psychology that this is completely false. In fact, ANYTHING that we can see, touch, taste, smell, and/or hear can cause obsession, if one possess a certain psychological make up and/or is brought up in certain environments. See the child molester and heroine addict reference above.

In avoiding it, you learn absolutely nothing. Only how to avoid it (but you never really can).

How in the wide world of sports can you say with any certainly at all, what I can and cannot learn from anything that I experience? This seems extremely presumptive and arrogant on your part. As a pedagogue, it has been my experience that we learn something from every single human experience, without exception. Please remember what Sawaki Roshi said, "We cannot even exchange one fart with someone else."

Quoting Keishin:

it's not what you think...

How can Keishin, you, or anyone else say it's not what I think? Again, this seems pretty arrogant and presumptive. It actually may be exactly what I think.

Will, before you or anyone else can attempt to actively "teach" another, it helps to actually try to get to know that person, at least a little, before one attempts to dispense his/her "wisdom." In this way, the "teacher" is better able to tailor the "lesson" to that individual. This also avoids making grand assumptions about another. To rely on hackneyed zennisms may not be the best route for everyone. In fact, it may only put another on guard and fall on deaf ears, regardless of one’s intentions. This is part of my huge beef with Zen and some Zen teachers. One size does not fit all, and fortune-cookie wisdom is not always wise.

Have a good day.

You too.

[Dainin]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

Hi Jundo,

As I got to thinking more about my response to you above, I must take something I said back. My issue is with my statement "I tend to agree." I wrote to Eric saying, "Well, while I feel I have a decent understanding of Gotama's 'basic teachings', I don't feel I know enough about Dogen's more complex writings (save Fukanzazengi, Bendowa, and Instructions to the Tenzo) to personally make an intelligent comparison. That's really why I asked the question. But I certainly have learned from the responses here."

So, upon reflection, I must take back my "I tend to agree." I honestly have no basis to agree or disagree with your saying that Dogen and Gotama taught exactly the same thing. While I still think your response was clear, and I did learn something from it, if I am to take Gotama's teaching seriously, I must have some knowledge/experience in what I am doing/saying. If not, it's all just words and empty concepts. I hope you understand.

In addition, you quoted something that the Buddha supposedly said about heavens and rebirth and whatnot. Let me ask, isn't this kind of the same thing as picking and choosing from the Bible to justify one's preferences? Perhaps, Glenn Wallis is doing the same to justify his take on the Buddha'a teachings. And it seems that other teachers do this with Dogen. They pick and choose partcular quotes to justify their positions. It's done all the time, and sometimes it's harmless. But, some writings like the Bible have been used to justfy both helpful, healthful stuff, as well as evil stuff. I am sure Dogen has some pretty nutty things that he wrote about, no? I read in the Zuimonki where, to justify eating meat when one is sick, he said that there's actually a demon on one's head that is actually eating the meat, so the Precept of not killing is not broken. Hmmmm ... I don't think so. So, my point is that anybody can use any text to justify just about any point of view.

Peace,
Keith

[will]

Re: Showdown: Dogen vs. Gotama

deleted by Will