Within recent Japanese Buddhist scholarship there is a debate over the interpretation of Karmic causality evidenced in the 75 and 12 fascicle editions of Dogen's Shobogenzo, one salient example being that found in the daishugyo and shinjin inga fascicles on the fox koan from the mumonkon. At issue is whether a Buddhist of great cultivation transcends karmic causality, with the earlier daishugyo promoting a balanced perspective of both "not falling into" and "not obscuring" causality, while shinjin inga instead strongly favors the latter over the former. Traditionalists interpret the apparent reversal in shinjin inga as an introductory simplification to aid novices, while some Critical Buddhists see Dogen as instead returning to the orthodox truth of universal causality. I argue that Dogen philosophically favored the view found in daishugyo, but moved away from it in his later teachings due to misinterpretations made by both senior and novice monks alike. / Religion