Recently u/ewk published his new book called "Not Zen: Dogen Buddhism". I decided to give it a brief read to see if it is worth reading extensively. Thankfully ewk shared some of the original sources for his claims, so checking some of them out was the first thing I did. And that's where the problems of his methods began to appear.
The hypothesis that I will try to examine in this post is that, ewk isn't really interested in understanding his sources, but instead he just choose and peak the parts that he likes and which help him support his claims, and completely ignores the rest of them. For that I will present two different cases where the way he uses his sources are, at least, questionable. This cases are:
- John Peacock: "There is no such word as meditation in the lexicon of Buddhism"
- Carl Bielefeldt's book, "Dōgen's manuals of Zen meditation".
Case one: John Peacock: "There is no such word as meditation in the lexicon of Buddhism"
In March 21, 2011, Peacock - a Secular Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar, gave a talk under the title "Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism", along with Stephen Batchelor. One of the problems that Peacock indicated as a reason for the west's misunderstanding of Buddhism, is the early translations of Pali and Sanskrit terms, during the 19th century. He gave a short list of problematic translations that includes monks, monasteries, enlightenment and meditation. (For reference reasons I will also say that Peacock criticises the translation of the word dukkha as suffering).
As ewk quotes in page 19 of his book, Peacock said, "There is no such word as meditation in the lexicon of Buddhism". Thankfully, he explained what he meant with the word meditation shortly after: "...taking scripture and contemplating it and using it as something edifying to reflect on". He also explained what the corresponding Pali or Sanskrit term for the word 'meditation' describes: "(Buddhists do not meditate). They cultivate, they grow things ... There is a wonderful set of horticultural metaphors that are used. They are engaged in actually bringing something into being" 1.
Now the question becomes, How do Buddhists 'cultivate or grow things'? The answer can be found in the end of the same talk. After a question from the moderator, Peacock said: "The Buddha is actually saying that it's a strategy [the practice] which the meditation, the mindfulness, is one dimension of it and the ethics is another extremely important dimension. And in fact some early texts will say the meditation is of no use whatsoever if you don't actually look at the ethical basis in what you're doing". Peacock isn't just an academic. He is a mindfulness meditation teacher for over 30 years. Further evidence for Peacock's view of meditation can be found in this video (audio) of him giving a lecture/instructions for mindfulness practice.
So, what did ewk do? Well, he took the part of the talk that he agrees with or that he likes, he processed it in his mind separately from everything else that was told in the original talk, and he presented it as evidence that meditation, of every kind, isn't part of the original Buddhism! I quote ewk from page 19: "Keep in mind that he isn’t talking about Zazen prayer-meditation in particular, but all meditation". A false understanding that was falsely generalised. What Peacock described as not Buddhist is, clearly, a specific way of meditating - "...taking scripture and contemplating it and using it as something edifying to reflect on".
Case two: Carl Bielefeldt's book, Dōgen's manuals of Zen meditation
The reason I chose this case as an example is really simple. In ewk's own words: "I didn't, for example, read all of Bielefeldt's Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation despite the fact that I quote the book over and over and over" (page 8 of his book). Normally I wouldn't care much, whether he read the book or not. But, since he is using it to justify his opinions over and over again, I would expect from him to have a complete understanding of the book!
An interesting mention of Bielefeldt's work in ewk's book can be found in the Appendix with the title "Who Wrote What Dogen Plagiarized?" (page 116). Ewk suggests many times, not just here, that Dogen plagiarised these instructions from someone else. But, if we go just one paragraph before the notes2 ewk quotes, we find this: "Thus to appreciate the historical character as well as the content (both original and borrowed) of the Fukan zazen gi, we need to understand the work that was its model" (page 56)3. I think we can safely say that what Bielfeldt is talking about isn't plagiarism, but inspiration.
It is important here to emphasis that Bielefeldt's work is academic. It is only natural that the language he uses is also academic. So, when you read words like church or cult in his work, you should always have this simple fact in mind, and understand these words the way the writer defines and uses them - not in their everyday meaning.
How many times have we heard (read) ewk saying about "Dogen's church" or "Dogen's cult"? Now, that's my personal opinion but, I never got the impression that he is using these phrases in the academic way Bielefeldt uses them. Ewk understands them and uses them, not as they are originally used by Bielefeldt, but in a way that suits his beliefs and ideas.
Further notes on Bielefeldt:
- http://www.cuke.com/people/bielefeldt.htm
- https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/7q6w8e/dogen_was_one_of_the_most_brilliant_and/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/ak8ud0/finished_dogens_manuals_of_zen_meditation_by_carl/
Special Case: The studies on meditation
I was tempted to make a third case where I would examine a specific study ewk shared, but I figured that my arguments would be too technical, so I decided not to. Instead I will only add some thoughts. The title of ewk's book is "Not Zen: Dogen Buddhism", so I would expect some studies that would tested Dogen's suggested type of meditation - that is shikantaza zazen. Instead, what ewk shared are studies that focus on mindfulness meditation (and yoga). Interestingly, one of the studies clarifies that what does it focused on, is meditation separate from Buddhist teachings and ethics. So, it puts the study even further from shikantaza zazen and Dogen.
Therefore, we have further indications that ewk drives he's efforts in finding evidence that support his beliefs. But what usually happens during a study, is the opposite: Our views and beliefs are shaped by the evidence. Unfortunately, this kind of mindset is common among groups of people with controversial views, like young earth creationists, climate change deniers, anti vaxxers etc.
Anyway, if you managed to read until here, thank you so much for your time, and please be forgiving with my use of English!
Comments:
1 It is interesting that ewk left out of his quoting of Peacock the "There is a wonderful set of horticultural metaphors that are used " part. I don't know why he did that, but I guess it's because it doesn't fit with his narrative.
2 The part of the book that these notes were retrieved from can be found in page 57 of "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation".
3 I suggest reading both page 55 and 56 of the chapter "Ch'ang-lu Tsung-tse and the New Meditation Literature" of Bielefielt's book. It's just two pages and gives you a sense of what Bielefeldt is saying.
Submitted January 31, 2020 at 10:28PM by skeletalyeast https://ift.tt/2UglWuy
No comments:
Post a Comment