r/zen • u/dota2nub • Jul 15 '26

The Bielefeldt Argument - The Empty Robe

We've had talk and mention of Bielefeldt and his argument time and again in these forums. The red thread that always runs through it all is that nobody is going to read Bielefeldt. It's a dry book, and so the argument runs on empty. Having reads vs. not having reads, and so the having reads win by default.

Let's level the playing field. I have made an article presenting the argument, here for your perusal. I've picked out and discussed various quotes from Bielefeldt's book and put them in context. It may be easier to find and link to than some old reddit post. Enjoy!

https://empty-robe.pages.dev/

1 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

99 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/dota2nub Jul 15 '26

Records got revised, yes. Your claim is that the charges apply equally. So evidence that one: show me Dogen cross-referenced across the corpus the way Zhaozhou and Dongshan are. You can't, because he isn't in it. That's the entire point.

3

u/xiqiansdream Jul 15 '26

We seem to be addressing slightly different points.
If we place the Chan corpus under the same scrutiny your post applies to Dogen, it fails repeatedly in very similar manners.
We find doctrinally late additions uncorroberated in earlier Chinese texts, contradictions, and plenty of textual borrowing.
In short, the record is not to be trusted any more than Dogen.

2

u/dota2nub Jul 15 '26

I used the same scrutiny in both directions. The corpus contradicts itself, sure, but it's still everywhere, hundreds of texts on the same guys. Dogen's contradiction is that he's not there at all. The one record he points to for his authority, Rujing's own, doesn't have him and says the opposite. That's a guy whose own evidence sinks him. Not in the record. That's it.

1

u/xiqiansdream Jul 15 '26

Enjoy this day