gregkavarnos wrote:So to overcome any misinterpretation of Buddhism as nihilistic (which it is not) she recommends overcompensating towards theism? I fail to see how this will make theistically minded people understand the nature of Buddhism, if anything it will just give them a contorted view of Buddhism. It will make them think they are talking about the same thing when in fact they are not. And anyway, being a Vajrayanaist, fear of religion is right there at the bottom of my list along with fear of furry mammals.
I don't believe she "reccomended overcompensating towards theism" at all.
You may want to re-read that post.
As far as offering a more religious approach goes,
Considering that most Zen in the west, during her time, and to this day, can be of a more secular sort, and indeed, most of the books on Buddhism published by the major publishing houses tend to be of a more philosophical sort, free of any ceremonial, ritual, or religious aspects of Buddhism, it seems fair, and valid, to offer a more religious aspect to Zen, particularly since there was none currently offered to western students.
Both ways are valid, but having only one, is an imbalance.
If I may note, discussing this with you is difficult, as it seems any discussion of religion, or "god" is completely tied in to your mind with "theism".
You can have religion, and discussion of "God" without "theism".
Especially considering I've pointing out that there are alternative ways to use the word "God" that are not necessarily theistic,
Not all use of the word "God" implies theism.
"God"="theism" is not necessarily always true.
Sometimes using the word "God" does not equal "theism"
As I've said in earlier posts, it entirely depends on how you personally define the word "God", and whether you explain that when using the term.
It's not black and white.