Дзэн в Японии загибается?

Каких?

И что их не передаёт?

критических буддистов

In the next essay, on “Liberation and Nirvana: Some Non-Buddhist
Ideas,” Matsumoto carries his critique a step further to argue that there is
no greater misunderstanding than to say that the final goal of Buddhism
is “liberation” (gedatsu; vimukti). The reason is that the idea of liberation
(vimukti) is based on the non-Buddhist idea that there is a self
(atmavada) to be liberated, which is an anti-Buddhist idea. Not only liberation,
but nirvana, a concentrated state of mind (jhana, samadhi), and
even “mind” (citta), are all based on the non-Buddhist idea of a self. In
this essay Matsumoto sets aside the ideas of jhana, samadhi, and citta in
order to concentrate on liberation and nirvana. In short, he argues that the
ideas of liberation and nirvana presuppose a “self” to be liberated, and is
thus a dhatu-vada. He argues against the prevalent interpretation of nirvana
as “extinction”—based on the etymology of nir√va, to “blow out”—and
instead argues for the etymology of nir√vr, to “uncover.” A painstaking
textual study in support of his contention concludes with four points:
1. The original meaning of “nirvana” was not “extinction” but “to
uncover.”
2. The basic idea of “nirvana” is “the liberation of the atman from what
is not atman,” and is thus related to the idea of “liberation” as the
goal of Buddhism. Thus both ideas of “nirvana” and “liberation” are
based on the idea of an atman.
3. The atman is often compared to “light” or said to give forth light. If
one uncovers or takes away what is hindering the light, then the light
can shine forth and illuminate the darkness. Thus the “extinction of
light” cannot be the meaning of a liberation or “nirvana” of an atman.
4. “The liberation of the atman from what is not atman” is the liberation
of the “spirit” from the “body.” Thus, complete liberation is possible
only by completely escaping the body, which is why this kind of liberation
constitutes a “philosophy of death.”

Про основание идеи освобождения на вере в атмана полностью согласен. И про то, что атман это свет очень кстати. Про нирвану вот не соглашусь - там нет зависимости от понятия атмана.

Thus to the Pali etymologist the main reference is to the root vr (to cover), and not to va (to blow).

The criticisms of Hakamaya and Matsumoto seem to be aimed at a number
of different targets, often at the same time and not always clearly
defined. In general, the targets touch on three levels: Buddhological, sectarian,
and social criticism.
1. At the Buddhological level Hakamaya and Matsumoto are questioning
the consistency of concepts such as Buddha-nature and hongaku shisõ
with other basic Buddhist concepts such as pratityasamutpada. They
use textual and doctrinal arguments in an attempt to show that
Buddha-nature ideas (dhatu-vada) are incompatible with other, more
basic, Buddhist teachings. Whether or not one agrees with the specifics
of their argument, the time is ripe for a Buddhological, and Buddhist,
reevaluation of the Buddha-nature concept.
2. At a sectarian level they are resisting what they perceive to be an incorrect
understanding of Dõgen’s teachings by their own Sõtõ sect, and
seek to reform the sect by reevaluating Dõgen’s teachings, especially
with regard to the idea of Buddha-nature.
3. At the level of social criticism they intend to show that the acceptance
of the Buddha-nature/hongaku shisõ ethos in Japan has led to objectionable
social structures and attitudes, and that a recognition of the
danger of this ethos is necessary to right this state of affairs. That such
social criticism should arise at this time in Japanese society, and from
within the Buddhist community itself, is a matter of great significance
not only to those interested in Buddhism and its development in East
Asia and its potential meaning for the West, but also to those interested
in the dynamics of religious ideas and their inμuence on society,
both in the past and in the present.

All Indian Buddhist causal theories concern efficient cause. The formal
and teleological causes advanced by orthodox Brahmanic thinkers
were always sharply refuted by the Buddhists. Chinese causal theory had
a markedly different history than did the Indian theories, and this shows
itself most strikingly in the way Chinese Buddhists “interpreted” and
reconstructed causal arguments from the Indian literature. Efficient
causality was transformed into formal causality. [...]

The tension between causal vs. non-causal, or efficient causal vs. formal
causal versions of “Buddhism” is only one place we find this Buddhist
dichotomy. Critical Buddhism is largely a replay of various debates going
back to Indian Buddhist thought, reargued under different venues and
with different vocabularies in China, and then throughout the Buddhist
world. In fact, one finds these debates everywhere in Buddhist history.

The most famous examples are:
1. No-self (anatman) vs. pudgala-vada, and the complications introduced
into the no-self doctrine by the implicit “self” implied by the
jataka stories.57
2. Enlightenment conceived as pure citta (mind) vs. enlightenment as
the dissolution of vijñana (consciousness). Suggestions of both conceptions
can be found in various sections of the Pali texts, and this
debate reached center stage with the emergence of tathagata-garbha
thought. Since many texts and schools considered citta and vijñana to
be synonymous in many contexts, this tension cannot be solved satisfactorily
by the typical East Asian move of treating citta as the metaphysical
ground realized in enlightenment and vijñana as the defiled
consciousness that needs to be overcome.
3. Tathagata-garbha and the atman polemics of such texts as the
Lankavatara Sutra and Mahaparinirvana Sutra vs. the emptiness and
radical paratantra of certain strands of the Prajñaparamita Sutras as
interpreted by Madhyamika and Yogacara. These were played out in
the two versions of trisvabhava (outlined below), one that privileges
parinispanna and the other that privileges paratantra.

Hakamaya declares that genuine Buddhism must
involve critical thinking and causal analysis (in fact, critical thinking about
causal analysis), and Matsumoto further insists that it entail a correct ethical
orientation.

ведь pure и есть dissolution..

Пюре предусматривает субстанцию - ум-картошку.

765. Those who hold the theory of non-ego are injurers of the Buddhist doctrines, they are given up to the dualistic views of being and non-being; they are to be ejected by the convocation of the Bhikshus and are never to be spoken to.
766. The doctrine of an ego-soul shines brilliantly like the rising of the world-end fire, wiping away the faults of the philosophers, burning up the forest of egolessness.