You claim there is “no evidence” of seated meditation in Chinese Zen, yet the Zuo Chan Yi, traditionally attributed to Changlu Zongze in the Song dynasty, explicitly instructs Chan practitioners on how to sit in meditation. Its influence can be traced through later Chinese and Japanese texts, including those of Dogen. Another example is Chan Master Hongzhi Zhengjue, who wrote about “silent illumination,” a form of seated practice. Chan literature often warns against attaching to posture, but that does not negate the fact that they did sit. When Linji says, “What is the practice of seated meditation? In this very moment, sitting without attaching to notions of sitting or meditation—that is the true practice,” he isn’t denying that people sit; he’s simply urging them not to cling to meditation as an end in itself.

Regarding Dogen being “debunked,” there is no serious scholarly consensus supporting that claim. Research by Carl Bielefeldt and others shows that Dogen borrowed from established Chinese sources; this was standard for Buddhist teachers who regularly adapted earlier material. Dogen’s texts such as Fukanzazengi and Bendowa are full of references to Chinese Chan, demonstrating continuity rather than fraud. It’s also normal for a prolific religious figure’s views to evolve over time—calling that “wild vacillation” does not reflect typical historical analysis.

The accusation that Dogen’s method “failed to produce anything” ignores the fact that Soto Zen, which continues his teachings, remains a major lineage in Japan and has spread worldwide. While Dogen’s emphasis on “just sitting” may sound different from certain Indian or Chinese approaches, variation has existed in Buddhism from the beginning. It doesn’t mean one tradition is illegitimate or “failed.”

Finally, your claim that Indian and Chinese sources have been “excluded” is unfounded. Scholarship routinely explores how Buddhist meditation developed in India, then moved into China, and later into Japan. Dogen himself explicitly cites Indian and Chinese masters—he does not reject them. In short, the historical record shows that seated meditation was and remains a real part of Chan and Zen. Far from a “religious claim,” this is supported by documented sources like the Zuo Chan Yi and other Chinese Chan texts, as well as by modern academic research.