Дзэн в Японии загибается?

Не так важно, какой смысл можно найти в словах. Важно, какой смысл находили и находят конкретные люди, последователи конкретных школ. Для межшкольных споров (а тут именно о них речь шла, крит. буддисты это фактически такая новая школа) важно, как нечто понимается в конкретной школе, а не то, какой смысл можно вообще обнаружить в словах.

Не так важно, какой смысл можно найти в словах. Важно, какой смысл находили и находят конкретные люди, последователи конкретных школ. Для межшкольных споров (а тут именно о них речь шла, крит. буддисты это фактически такая новая школа) важно, как нечто понимается в конкретной школе, а не то, какой смысл можно вообще обнаружить в словах.

КИ затронул всего один аспект авторитарности, а надо обнаружить её целые истоки.
Халтура Exclamation

Еще, как раз тут тема про "загибающийся дзен" в Японии, движение критических буддистов как раз своеобразная реакция на это загибание, и не последняя причина этого социальные проблемы (дискриминация и национализм) японского дзен. Они считают, что главнейшими антибуддийскими тенденциями была идеи хонгаку (изначального просветления) и ва (гармонии).

The importance of the Shõbõgenzõ for Critical Buddhist methodology is
evident from the inception of the movement, which began with a series of
books in 1989 and 1990. These books, in turn, were largely based on
essays delivered and published in the mid-1980s by scholars in the
Buddhist Studies Department of Komazawa University in Tokyo, espe-
cially Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirõ. These scholars were
interested in Dõgen’s view of karma as a key to evaluating the relevance of
Buddhist thought for a variety of social discrimination issues affecting
their own university, its affiliation with the Sõtõ sect, and Japanese society
as a whole. These issues include the granting of Buddhist initiation names
(kaimyõ) to the deceased on the basis of their social rank, a practice that
resulted in the unjust treatment of the outcast burakumin (untouchable)
community and other minority or dispossessed groups. Buddhism in
Japan had evolved over the course of history into religious institutions
primarily concerned with funeral ceremonies. The Sõtõ sect recently
began to realize that it had been performing this social function for the
lower classes in a rather reprehensible fashion. Hakamaya and Matsumoto
are part of a widespread response to a sense of frustration and disappointment
in Buddhism, which appeared to be an anachronistic, authoritarian,
dogmatic, and socially rigid institution instead of a genuinely contemporary,
progressive, and μexible advocate for justice and reform. In their
attempt to find out what had gone wrong with Buddhism and how it
could be corrected, the Critical Buddhists, especially Hakamaya, turned to
Dõgen’s Kamakura-era critique of Sino-Japanese Buddhism for guidance.

Я думал просто это иерглиф- чань. Хотел такой найти.

Это называется извращение Дхармы.

Nowhere do we find the Buddha saying that the teachings of the Vedas are false. He only questioned whether those who revered the Vedas had experienced/seen the reality which they claimed that the Vedas talked about - so he was not disputing the validity of the Vedas per se, but only those who claimed to know the reality that the Vedas talked about.

2. The caste system: it is generally held that the Buddha rejected the caste system in contrast to the other schools, which accepted the varna system. This too is not really true.

Due to the reasons given above we find it hard to accept that the Buddha was against the caste system.

3. Philosophical views: It cannot be said that just because of distinct metaphysical views Buddhism is a distinct religion - for the same can be said about all the schools which constitute "Hinduism" too.

But here it is to be noted that anatta only meant that which is not the Self - the non-self. It doesn't mean "no self". Nowhere do we find the Buddha denying the reality of the Atman. He just maintained silence when questioned about the Atman. ...
Naagaarjuna puts anatta in the right perspective when he questions in his Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa : without the self how can the non-self exist? The Buddha only taught the insubstantiality of the individual self, but not no-substance or no-soul.

Even with regards his teachings there's nothing in what the Buddha taught that cannot be found in texts earlier to Buddhism. The four noble truths are unanimously accepted right across the Indian philosophical spectrum - right from the Upanishads to the darshanas these truths are accepted as fundamental reason for a life of the spirit. The origins of the theories of anatta, kshanikavaada (momentariness), pratitya samutpaada (dependant origination) can all be found in the Upanishads ...

But as noted, we cannot distinguish between Buddhism and "Hinduism" the way the latter can be distinguished from Christianity or Islam.