Notable quotes:
- "Seems likely"
- "Although I have not found any example"
- "Probably often"
- "It became the orthodox position" (no source)
- "With the dramatic claims to authority that this implied" (no source)
- More date phoniness around Indian lineage and the Flower Sutra sermon, in which Schlutter treats of these creations as "orthodox" without quoting Zen Masters before or after.
-
"The very nature of transmission in the Song Chan school required [the public act of dharma transmissions.] (No source.)
-
"We must imagine that".
-
"Fortunately, Dogen included in his diary a lengthy discussion of... some of [Dogen's] statements seem out of tune with the Chinese evidence".
-
Here's his big piece of evidence, somewhat buried: "As a rule, no Song monastic who did not hold a public abbacy nor any lay disciple of any master is credited with having dharma heirs." The single source he provides on this, related to Dahui, was not written by a Zen Master.
.
So, it what is supposed to be a work of research, we have a tremendous dependence on pure speculation, no Zen Masters as sources, Dogen treated as a source despite an acknowledgement of contrary evidence (not to mention fraud), and best of all, many instances of single sources to "prove" assertions arrived at through speculation.
It's just ridiculous. Schlutter doesn't seem to be studying Zen at all, but the popular monastic culture that developed in China around anything involving Buddha, as if Zen Masters were a work of literary fiction rather than a phenomena he was interested in researching. Coincidentally, that's a position flattering to... yes, Japanese Buddhists.
Submitted August 05, 2016 at 09:51AM by ewk http://ift.tt/2apTE6H
No comments:
Post a Comment