[jdw64]

It's not that I'm saying you're wrong. So I'm not pointing out that the teacher of the author of 'Zen and the Art of Archery' founded a new religious movement and that influenced what the West calls 'Zen,' or that a particular archer's personal beliefs got mixed into what is now presented as Zen.

What I'm actually getting at is OP's Post itself is about the attitude of a researcher, and I think that attitude feels different when viewed by a Westerner versus an East Asian.

So here's the point. In your region, there is a localized culture that comes to mind when you hear the word 'Zen.' It's what people often call a pop culture phenomenon. But I don't live in your region. So when I hear 'Zen,' I have a different cultural association, and I'm simply noting that difference.

The article's topic is really about thinking within a Westernized Zen framework, and what I'm saying is, 'How would it look if we viewed it through an East Asian Zen lens?' I don't think these two are unrelated.

The problem is that from your perspective, my comments may have looked like I was insisting, 'The original is not like that! This is absolutely wrong!' And this part... well, I might have expressed it that way because I'm not fluent in English, but that was never my intention. I was just pointing out that a metaphor for research ethics in a researcher's attitude can look quite different depending on your cultural lens