Talk:Wild fox koan
|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated Start-class)|
Two colours, one game
The Robert Aiken's interpretation in the existing article is like a one sided coin
Saying Dogen was attempting to court the layperson isn't wrong, but it is like saying a coin has one side. Shouldn't an article on Koan not include discussion on it outside of Aiken's sociological/political interpretation? Dogen is quoted as saying:
- Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this. Many of our contemporaries who consider themselves students of Zen deny causation. How do we know? They confuse "not ignoring" with "not falling into." Thus we know they deny cause and effect.
By this Dogen is diving into his earlier position, that there is no cause and effect, to recognize the reality of not-no-cause-and-effect ('deny') and no-cause-and-effect ('affirm'). This is a recognition of what is, attachment to one position or another regarding "one does not fall into cause and effect" by denying or affirming the polar opposite position. The current article only talks about Aiken's thought Dogen wants to win over the laypeople. Not wrong and not complete. --danielkaplan123 10 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkaplan123 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)