the dragon as proof that they too could achieve buddhahood at the girl’s enlightenment end of this lifetime and without having to pass through a separate lifetime in a male body.” But, as Dogen, as a monk, might be expected to share the view of his fellow monks that women bear a great burden of sin and require the attainment of a male body to be saved. Yet, while it may be unquestionable that one sentence saying that Dogen’s the teaching that women can attain buddhahood in a body is not the authentic woman’s teaching of the buddha shows that he did not on some level escape the world of the Lotus arguably, the world of Mahayana sutras--, it is not clear from this one Sutra—or, sentence that Dogen shared the view that women bear a great burden of sin. Speculation is endless. Whatever Dogen intended here, if indeed he was the author of the offending line, is at least partially hidden, and certainly not emphasized, here or elsewhere in writings. By contrast, Dogen repeatedly repudiated, in this Dogen’s and other chapters of the his earlier affirmation in the of the Junikanbon, Bendowa possibility of fully awakening while in lay status. He explicitly stated, for example, that the famous Chan Layman Pang of Tang China would have become far more awakened had he become a monk; he limited himself by remaining a layman. The error of remaining in lay life was clearly in his sights in his late essays. But in all of late Dogen’s writings, only these two lines appear that seem to qualify hopes. women’s Meanwhile, in China, using the same language and citing the stories of Moshan Liaoran and the daughter of the Dragon King Sagara in the Chan monks and Lotus Sutra, nuns continued to assert that awakening and buddhahood did not depend on gender one’s or monastic status. Chinese Chan never repudiated the subitist discourse of the irrelevance of maleness and femaleness with respect to awakening or attaining
the dragon girl’s enlightenment as proof that they too could achieve buddhahood at the end of this lifetime and without having to pass through a separate lifetime in a male body.” But, as Dogen, as a monk, might be expected to share the view of his fellow monks that women bear a great burden of sin and require the attainment of a male body to be saved. Yet, while it may be unquestionable that Dogen’s one sentence saying that the teaching that women can attain buddhahood in a woman’s body is not the authentic teaching of the buddha shows that he did not on some level escape the world of the Lotus Sutra—or, arguably, the world of Mahayana sutras--, it is not clear from this one sentence that Dogen shared the view that women bear a great burden of sin. Speculation is endless. Whatever Dogen intended here, if indeed he was the author of the offending line, is at least partially hidden, and certainly not emphasized, here or elsewhere in Dogen’s writings. By contrast, Dogen repeatedly repudiated, in this and other chapters of the Junikanbon, his earlier affirmation in the Bendowa of the possibility of fully awakening while in lay status. He explicitly stated, for example, that the famous Chan Layman Pang of Tang China would have become far more awakened had he become a monk; he limited himself by remaining a layman. The error of remaining in lay life was clearly in his sights in his late essays. But in all of Dogen’s late writings, only these two lines appear that seem to qualify women’s hopes. Meanwhile, in China, using the same language and citing the stories of Moshan Liaoran and the daughter of the Dragon King Sagara in the Lotus Sutra, Chan monks and nuns continued to assert that awakening and buddhahood did not depend on one’s gender or monastic status. Chinese Chan never repudiated the subitist discourse of the irrelevance of maleness and femaleness with respect to awakening or attaining