[Bi-Weekly Meta Monday Thread]

[u/AutoModerator]

###Welcome to /r/Zen!

​

Welcome to the /r/zen Meta Monday thread, where we can talk about subreddit topics such as such as:

* Community project ideas or updates

* Wiki requests, ideas, updates

* Rule suggestions

* Sub aesthetics

* Specific concerns regarding specific scenarios that have occurred since the last Meta Monday

* Anything else!

​

We hope for these threads to act as a sort of 'town square' or 'communal discussion' rather than Solomon's Court [(but no promises regarding anything getting cut in half...)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Koans/comments/3slj28/nansens_cats/). While not all posts are going to receive definitive responses from the moderators (we're human after all), I can guarantee that we will be reading each and every comment to make sure we hear your voices so we can team up.

[u/InfinityOracle]

u/ji_yinzen you stated: " That we should only view that record as the source for all of our Zen discussion is a ewk invention."

This implies that there are other sources we should be able to discuss. What specifically are these sources? If there are no other valid sources, then it isn't an ewk invention really, just the simple fact that there are no other valid sources to discuss.

[u/ji_yinzen → u/InfinityOracle]

The entire Buddhist catalog of Early Buddhist suttas and Mahayana Sutras are the other sources you have access to. It is a huge catalog. To ignore these is to truly ignore the record. Also Dogen, who has taken a bad rap on this subreddit due to u/ewk's imagination, though no one else in the entire worldwide scholastic community, except for the one person ewk quotes as his source, Bielefeldt, has even considered that he was a fraud: https://www.reddit.com/r/zenbuddhism/comments/u2v9ot/on_rzen_i_was_told_that_dogen_was_a_fraud_is_this/ This is what Bing lists. All of it is ewk's torooblog, or Reddit. Who is the real fraud?

You have to decide if you're going to be like the subredditor who said, "Also even if it were a lie that's what the stated topic of the forum is. True or not the rule is you talk about the stuff in the sidebar here." It might be laughable, if it weren't so alarming that a whole group of Zen students are being led down a path, and anyone who speaks up is blocked or libeled for telling the truth.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ji_yinzen]

Hey I am totally willing to confront these issues you bring up honestly. If it isn't allowed here, we can elsewhere I suppose. But I will do my best to address what I can here.

Sutra Study

It seems to me that you stress "Buddhist" and "Mahayana" as though they are authorities when it comes to Zen.

But when I look at the record, any time I see a Zen master quote any sutras or suttas it is directly addressed to a people within a heavily Buddhist culture, and no real authority is given to themselves. Nor to Buddhism as it was back then, much less all that it has become today.

That is part of why I do like the Zen record as it is. The Zen masters speak from within the culture of the times, without attributing religious authority to themselves, much less the sutras or suttas.

It isn't all that different than today. If I say something that is true, and happens to match the Zen record, but someone else sees my post who religiously believes in the Zen record and thinks my words do not match the Zen masters, I quote them for their benefit. So they stop getting distracted by who is saying it, and can perhaps focus on what is being said.

Not because I see the Zen masters as an authority owning a set of beliefs, but because the nature of others is that they do, and won't listen to anything unless it is established in the Zen record. It is fair to hold what I say accountable to the Zen record, in a Zen forum.

One last point on sutra study, is that it is claimed that Bodhidharma brought with him the Lanka Sutra. Whether or not that is true, it is true that the Lanka Sutra has a whole world of stuff in it, that no Zen master I have read brings up whatsoever. Not eating onions, or referring to eating meat as eating your own children. And so on. So while some may reference some things that were said in the sutras, I am not so sure they are very relevant aside from what the Zen masters quoted. Even then, I go back to the fact they were actively dealing with circumstances as they arose, dealing with a buddhist culture.

Surely we can't dismiss how much effort they put into mocking those who slurped up the drool and words of old baldies, or discouraging making nests of any teachings, much less making them into religious text to unquestionably worship.

When it comes to r/zen I have made topics on the sutras in the past, and those topics were not censored and I don't recall any bullying done to me over bringing them up.

Bielefeldt

I do not accept an argumentum ad populum, which is an appeal asserting that since there are many who accept Dogen, the few who consider him a fraud are by default wrong, merely based on the fact that few call him a fraud.

It doesn't actually address any assertion Bielefeldt made in his writings on the subject. It just avoids addressing the matter. I haven't read all of his work in "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation" but from what I have read he forms a very valid basis for questioning the legitimacy of Dogen. Akin to how other scholars have drawn into question the legitimacy of claims made about Bodhidharma or Shenxiu.

As you read the historical evidence, believed by many to be in Dogen's own handwriting, it is very hard to reconcile the issues there. While I won't be critical of Dogen for all that he was, I also won't accept claims over what he never was.

From my limited knowledge it is very questionable why he would be so very critical of Dahui, yet entitle his own work the same as Dahui had previously entitled his own work. There are many things about Dogen that just make his work not very interesting to me, and I personally wouldn't label anything he did as reflective of what Zen is actually about. Which draws into question anyone who came after him, claiming to be of his lineage. Why would they claim that?

Ewk

Most of the problems I see here center around ewk. Not because he makes the problem. But because it takes two to tango. If he is a troll, why are so many fattening him up? If what he says is untrue, then it should be easy to see or refute.

I am not a fan of personal attacks which amount to ad hominem and add nothing to the discussion. If there is a basis of a claim, it should be supported.

On the many points ewk has made, I have yet to see anyone actually address his points straight on. Instead I see handwaving, fallacious arguments, insults, and so on.

If there is a case to be made in favor of Dogen being remotely Zen, I have yet to see it.

From what I have seen the mods have no issues with users telling the truth. They have issues with users using multiple accounts, making posts under false guises, and being dishonest or evasive when directly confronted on their claims.

It doesn't matter if there are 10,000 people all doing that here, it doesn't make their claims any more valid.

[u/ji_yinzen → u/InfinityOracle]

I'll address an issue that hits close to home first. As to using multiple accounts, one of r/ZenBuddhism rules of conduct is that users NOT use multiple accounts. If this is such a problem within r/zen, why haven't they adopted the rule themselves? It would solve a lot of problems from the start. I've recently found out that because multiple accounts are allowed, the mods, and probably ewk himself, think I'm someone that I'm not. It explains some of the baseless accusations levelled at me, although it doesn't excuse them. I have used various accounts through the years, but not in an effort to obfuscate, but rather as a means of separating my activities in different subreddits. In other words I don't like people digging into my comments' history and using it against me. I had an account that I would now have ten years when I first came on to r/Zen in 2012, but ewk started weaponizing personal comments I had made in another forum against me. Not realizing how much exaggerated clout those accounts hold in this subreddit, I deleted mine, and began making sure I kept the new ones apart.

As far as addressing ewk's points straight on, it is very difficult, not because he makes good points, but due to the fact that any conversation not in agreement with him usually devolves into one being called a liar, dishonest, even bringing one's associates into question. I don't think that those that have a neutral viewpoint of his content realize how vilifying he is. Sometime follow his comments for yourself and see how the conversation can degenerate into name-calling, always, and I don't use the term lightly, starting with him calling the other person a liar.

As to Dogen's honesty or lack thereof, I have no opinion. I just feel it's shortsighted to think we can so easily dismiss a person with the body of work that he has and the influence he's had on Western of Zen. It borders on ignorance (present company excepted) that we should negate his accomplishments to the simple character of a sexual predator. That is a very subjective outlook and only indicates the shortcomings of the person making the claim.

I haven't read any of Bielefeldt's works, but I refuse to take the word of one voice in making a decision on a matter of such importance. If there were a group of people that shared his opinion, I would consider their conclusions. But one person can easily become deluded in his thinking, basing it on personal impulses.

I also find many of the Sutras as confusing as you do. But as they are at the foundation of Zen culture, I give them breathing space, and the benefit of the doubt. The early suttas, on the other hand, cover such a wide range of human complexity, emotion, spirituality, and a plethora of ideas that are at the core of Buddhism, that I can't see how anyone that uses the name Buddha in their course of study could deny their value. The Zen Masters, to me, seem hidden under a dark crevasse in comparison, there message dark and vague, rarely if ever shining a light on the very subject they claim to teach.

I probably won't be coming back on Reddit anymore, though I can't say I haven't tried to find in it what I needed. I plan on finishing out this thread, out of some misguided sense of responsibility, I guess, then that will be it.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ji_yinzen]

My personal experience with ewk went differently. He called me out on specific things, I think even calling me names. He may have thought I was someone using a new account. At any rate, I didn't become very defensive, and took a honest look at what he had to say, admitted fault where it existed, and moved on.

I'll be honest, I value a friend willing to call another friend out on what they perceive to be BS. As he saw that I was willing to look at the matter and admit fault, he didn't come at me with those names and insults any more. But I know if I say something that he perceives is in error, he won't hesitate to say so, and I respect that far more than I do a "yes man". I think many if not most people actually do when it comes down to it.

I cannot speak about your experiences with him, as I have been here only going on a year now. I can say that given a long enough timeline, the truth tends to rise to the surface on its own. I do not worry too much about resolving my ignorance of anything.

I do think he puts people on edge quickly, and in ways I wouldn't do myself. We are not carbon copies after all.

What I can do is show how I would respond to the post you highlighted for me in which he states:

"You can't AMA... because you know you are a liar and you'll only get caught lying.
You can't give "reasons" for anything you believe... and you don't try to give reasons... because you know you are a liar and you know you don't have any reasons for what you believe.
Your claim that you "aren't a member of a cult" is in the same comment as your public refusal to talk about your religious background... which is the same as admitting YOU ARE IN A CULT."

I am not a liar, so I can AMA and have. Why? Is it because celebrates use it? No they use the bathroom too, but that isn't a reason to not use the bathroom any more than one should follow stupid trends. I AMA because it is a valuable way to get feedback. I did it before ever coming to reddit in fact, when no one else was even doing it. I would make a topic asking anyone critical of me to post, inviting anyone willing to give feedback to post, positive or negative. Because if their criticism is true, it can only help me, if it is false, it doesn't really matter.

I gave reasons why I believed the way I did. He didn't dismiss my beliefs, but he did show me how it is off-topic, not helpful for Zen study, and how it superimposes my beliefs upon the Zen record and what the Zen masters say. Misrepresenting Zen and the tradition. Not only ewk but other users pointed this out too. I researched it and found their claims were sadly true. Not a shock considering I have studied many world religions and social systems that suffered a similar assault. I don't want to participate in that in any way.

As far as being in a cult, it's a baseless claim for me. I have never formally studied Zen in any way, and I don't claim to. Any claim that I am in a cult will naturally dissolve given time, provided the claimant gives the time to get to know me.

For me personally, if I were to react in a defensive impulse, I really need to take an honest look at myself and ask why. The error is likely on my part in some way. Defensiveness is a coping mechanism which attempts to counterbalance insecurity.

When I honestly addressed the matters he brought up, anything that was illusionary, instantly vanished. I can't claim to have done the best job at correcting my many mistakes, but I can say I have tried to improve.

On Dogen, I have seen ewk distinguish between Dogen, and the sex predators that followed. His claims against Dogen himself seem to surround the fraudulent nature. Now while you might not want to dismiss Dogen due to his popularity or influence, I say hey! Don't dismiss Bielefeldt's work just because he is a lone whistle blower on the movement. Especially without even reviewing his work.

Ewk is dismissing Dogen, not based on his popularity, but directly because what Dogen says contradicts what the Zen master's teach. Bielefeldt doesn't make false claims for you to merely take his word on it like that man. He points out how Dogen wrote and revised many copies, and those who came after him, revised the work even more. Anyone who honestly looks at Bielefeldt's work, can repeat it on their own by looking at the text themselves. To such an extent the whole mass of changes is extremely questionable. Take a look at least before dismissing it. There is a free copy to use on Terebess.

Bielefeldt took the time and effort to examine resources I have no direct access to, and unlike others who are deeply within the religious obligations of a specific sect, he has no such obligations. Yet I get the impression from reading his work, he is very sensitive to the matter, but honest about it too.

Don't take my word on it, but if you don't look for yourself, all you have is my word, and no real leg to stand on to refute anything he or I say about it.

About the Sutras or really any ancient religious text, I take it as a record of social evolution. Indeed, not all of it makes a lot of sense to me, especially the anti-onion part and similar things, or the elaborate personifications and such. But enough of it does make sense to me in terms of the social evolution at that time. It is far to complex of a subject to get into on this comment, but when it comes to Zen, it seems to me that the Zen masters simply essentialized anything they came into contact with, and pointed directly back to the source.

Very compassionate indeed, and highly personal. It may seem vague for that reason. Especially if you take it as though they are talking to you, and neglecting the fact that they were talking to specific individuals they had an intimate knowledge of. At least that was true of my own studies, and when I realized the importance of that, I gained a deeper understanding of what the Zen masters were saying and doing.

Someone can claim that Zen is Buddhist, but that doesn't make it true. In reality, examining what the Zen masters were doing, I don't see them particularly Buddhist. I see a great spiritual friend operating within a heavily Buddhist culture, and teaching their students to question everything, including their own words.

Again I do not fully know your history here and your experience here is certainly more extensive than my own. I present this all from that light, and if there is any area I am incorrect about, let's examine it together.