The author of that article seems to be misled. There is indeed, Buddhism seems to say, no permanent or fixed soul. That does not imply "eat, drink, and be merry" however, as doing so in that mindset implies one is driven to excesses due to inner suffering and inability to experience the "lightness of being".

A wise person can eat, drink, and be merry but knows how to do so, and does not do it as an escape from a dark and painful experience of the world.

The concept that salvation requires a being to be saved is misguided. My understanding is that the realization of one's own transitoriness is itself salvation and finally allows one to help others alleviate suffering.

Ty 4 the link!

Thanks, David ...

You're right, of course. I do not put these up as a form of advocacy, but as a beginning place for a thought or discussion. Most use of Zen and Buddhism by westerners has some level of socio-cultural distortion ... people can weigh and consider in their own light and awareness.

While I agree with David A, to some extent this all seems to me to be a matter of semantics. I don't believe the Buddha was speaking of salvation of self in transcendence, nor in soul as a separate entity from all soul, so it is hard for me to agree with this blogger's statements - although I'm not so sure that the Zennist's differentiations are really too significant in the long run (except that s/he (in my opinion inappropriately) casts blame on some Buddhists through his/her argument. I very much liked the preceding/following commentary on the exhaustion and collapse created by the contemporary desire machine.