▸ HEAD-TO-HEAD
DOGEN VS PATANJALI
Dogen
1200–1253
At the edge of what language can hold.
Patanjali
~200 BCE
At the edge of what language can hold.
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which Dogen and Patanjali are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Trust in ReasonΔ 2 / 10Dogen: 4/10Patanjali: 6/10
somewhat (2/10): Patanjali trusts reasoned argument more strongly than Dogen does.
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 2 / 10Dogen: 7/10Patanjali: 5/10
somewhat (2/10): Dogen locates the self in community and relationship; Patanjali starts from the individual.
- Tragic VisionΔ 1 / 10Dogen: 6/10Patanjali: 5/10
somewhat (1/10): Dogen sees tragedy and limit as central; Patanjali doesn't make that the starting point.
▸ WHERE THEY OVERLAPPED
Where the gap is smallest — both with meaningful presence on the dimension (not "neither cared").
- Universalist Impulsegap 0 / 10Dogen: 7/10Patanjali: 7/10
Both lean strongly into universalist impulse.
- Ascetic Tendencygap 0 / 10Dogen: 9/10Patanjali: 9/10
Both lean strongly into ascetic tendency.
- Practical Orientationgap 0 / 10Dogen: 9/10Patanjali: 9/10
Both lean strongly into practical orientation.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 0
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 2
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 1
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 1
- Practical OrientationΔ 0
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 0
- Self as IllusionΔ 1
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 1
- Sovereign SelfΔ 1
- Theoretical DriveΔ 1
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 1
- Trust in ReasonΔ 2
- Tragic VisionΔ 1
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 0
- Vital AffirmationΔ 1
- Will to PowerΔ 1
◀ DOGENPATANJALI ▶
▶ What to do next