I hope that I may respectfully demur and raise objection to a comment you made elsewhere which not only mischaracterizes modern Soto Zen practice, but the Buddhism of some other western teachers ...
I wonder if it is appropriate for you to comment on these "some Soto Zen folks" and who is "negating large chunks of Buddhist teaching." Would it be acceptable if we might open a discussion of these points here, as there does not seem to be any Soto Zen teacher or the like in the other place to challenge these perspectives? Of course, I do not question, and only honor, the right of anyone to hold such viewpoints or any viewpoint, although I am a little concerned about your comments on Soto practice and who is "negating" Buddhist teaching. I am also concerned that readers might encounter such a viewpoint, see your Buddhist robes, and consider it definitive.FWIW, in my conversations with Chan, Zen, Son, and Thien folks I've discovered no fundamental doctrinal differences...just inheritances of different collections of practice methods (e.g. integration of Pure Land practices in later Chan that didn't make it into Japanese Zen).
The only exceptions to this I might possibly note are among some Western Zen folks who affirm a so-called secular view negating large chunks of Buddhist teaching, and some Soto Zen folks who interpret non-seeking and Dogen's famous "practice = verification" statement to mean that there is no need for awakening, fruition of practice, or realization. But neither of these viewpoints is what I would consider a classic or mainstream Zen one.https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=455549#p455549
Thank you, and I hope that polite discussion of these matters and questions would not overstep.