Japanese Soto Zen and its offspring in the U.S. and Europe seems to have no genuine interest for Buddhism outside of Dogen's works. From what I can see, they are not interested in the Pali cannon, the Agamas, and Mahayana works. Nor are they that interested in Zen works outside of Soto.
To be sure, the world of Soto Zen is more interested in unpacking Dogen's unique spin on Buddhism which has to be seen, to a certain extent, through the eyes of Japanese Tendai and its problem for Dogen. After all, Dogen was reared in a Tendai world which believed that all sentient beings are enlightened a priori.
However, understanding that there is a critical difference between Dogen’s Zen and Japanese Tendai helps us to see where Dogen is coming from. Japanese Tendai saw no need for practice since all sentient beings are enlightened a priori. For Dogen, although he understood that all beings have the Buddha-nature or are Buddha, they only became Buddhas by practice, that is, zazen. Thus, did practice and enlightenment become inseparable for Dogen.
To be sure, Tendai monks could almost do anything. They were already Buddhas! But those who professed Dogen’s Zen it wasn’t so easy. They had to do zazen which involved a lot of sitting. By doing zazen, i.e., sitting dhyâna, Dogen’s followers supposedly manifested Buddha’s enlightenment. And unlike other Zen schools where practice is only a means to enlightenment—not its guarantee—for Dogen practice and enlightenment were one and the same.
For any Soto partisan who has bothered to read the Pali canon and Mahayana literature, not to mention, non-Dogen Zen literature, there is a striking difference between Dogen’s spin of what the Buddha taught, and what the Buddha actually taught as revealed by the canon. For one thing, the Buddha’s Zen or dhyâna (in Pali jhâna) isn’t fundamentally connected with sitting (坐), or in Sanskrit, nishad (निषद्) (we find nishad in the word Upanishad ).
One important bit of knowledge we learn about dhyâna/jhâna in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha-Nikaya is the practice of dhyâna is done with mind that is purified of worldly desires (the first dhyâna/jhâna), when finally the mendicant’s body is completely pervaded by pure and lucid spirit (the fourth dhyâna/jhâna); who is even able to produce a will-made-body (manomayam kayam)!
Nothing in Dogen’s zazen comes close to dhyâna is the sense of “being pervaded by pure and lucid spirit.” As far as Soto is concerned zazen is just sitting (shikantaza). It is not surprising that Zen master Hakuin called zazen "dead sitting" (J., shiza) and those who practiced this, heretics. Dogen’s zazen can only be described as an oversimplification of dhyâna.
By his writings The Zennist seems to be a liberal. Quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary a "liberal" is:
"Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions; open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform."
Posted by: kojizen | April 28, 2012 at 07:54 PM
zennist blogger is a socialist, you got THAT much right at least.
Posted by: Java Junkie Junebug Julius | April 28, 2012 at 07:00 PM
"what the Buddha actually taught as revealed by the canon". ?
Revealed? The Pali Canon tells us what the early traditions believed the Buddha said.. That's surely as far as we can go?
That's aside- I am not sure Dogen is such a villain- his work is more syncretic than he is given credit for, and he is familiar with a range of ideas. His followers on the other hand...
Posted by: Dave W | April 28, 2012 at 09:47 AM
I think you watched too many Mexican soap-operas, Solon. You sound very confused.
(Twining mustache) Caramba, que diablos!
Posted by: Solon | April 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Solon: you can see the our ip-addresses? How in Brahmas name could you possible do THAT?! :P
Posted by: PesterAArthur | April 27, 2012 at 04:19 AM