1) In his article, Bodiford describes several “practical” benefits of preserving and enhancing the memory of Dōgen for the temple Eiheiji. How do these benefits, as well as the image of Dōgen (re)crafted in the Tokugawa era, counter or oppose images of Dōgen in earlier centuries?
2) Think broadly: What does the utility of a religious image mean for writers and readers in a Zen context? If we are talking about a tradition that claims itself transcendent of “words and letters,” and yet the very life breath of the tradition in the early modern era dependent on the words and letters of hagiographers, what does this mean for the religious image of Zen, if anything? What does it mean for the image of Dōgen, as representative of the “beyond words” paradigm?