Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
For Zennies: Stuart Lachs and Critical Buddhism
Dakini
Veteran
Stuart Lachs is an author and Zen monk who has spent most of his adult life studying in Zen monasteries in the US and Korea, and a Ch'an monastery in Taiwan. After the outbreak of numerous sex and fiscal scandals in US Zen, he turned his attention to examining the structure of Zen institutions and particularly the tradition of the Zen Master, writing analytical articles on how authority is conveyed in Zen leadership, and how the flaws in the system set the stage for abuses of power. This new field of critical analysis of problems in the human dynamics of Buddhist sanghas is called "Critical Buddhism".
Lachs places the blame for misuse of power largely on the mythology of "the zen master [as] a person whose actions flow solely out of compassion for other sentient beings, possess[ing] a timeless and trans-cultural wisdom, the ability to see the truth behind appearances, and [as being] the last in an unbroken chain of enlightened, unblemished masters reputedly going back 2500 years to the historical Sakyamuni Buddha. ... The Zen master, supposedly, is beyond the understanding of ordinary people because he always acts from the enlightened mind".
Lachs says students are taught to view the master as a "quasi-divine" Buddha-like enlightened being who can do no wrong. "The student who enters the practice having read a myth will expect to find the myth and will think they have found the myth. .. What they really have found, all too often, is another story of ordinary, flawed human behavior." He further explains why students may be blind to the master's flaws. "The Dharma-transmitted Zen master ... monopolizes the means to salvation. So we can understand that there might be multiple motives for 'not seeing' the master as he really is, whether there be an absence of compassion or wisdom or the presence of sexual improprieties or alcoholism. This is what psychiatrists call 'negative hallucination', i.e., keeping unconscious something that we perceive."
Lachs concludes that it's the combination of the authority vested in (flawed) masters along with the idealization of them on the part of the students that creates the conditions for teachers to feel invincible, to become enchanted with power and its perquisites--money, sexual access to students, status, and to abuse their position. He also notes that often advanced students receive "Dharma transmission" and appointment as roshi or master for reasons other than spiritual attainment. Some are chosen because they're good at fund-raising, or at organizing new centers, or simply because they're a young relative of the older master.
Q.: Is it really so simple as a mythological hierarchy and the label of "enlightened master" + a community of expectant students that leads potentially good teachers to go bad? Are students really so easily indoctrinated into the mythology of the enlightened master and lineage as to suspend all critical thinking in the face of blatant and chronic malfeasance?
Lachs seems to view Zen tradition as a machine that shapes the personalities of potential leaders along lines quite contrary to Buddhist values. I'm more inclined to believe that the masters are ordinary people who have gone through a system of education that qualifies them to lead a sangha, and they get appointed for ulterior reasons that have nothing to do with enlightenment. In short, the wrong people are being appointed master, in some instances. What do you think? Are these problems as widespread as Lachs says, affecting "most" Zen centers in the US, sooner or later?
For a short bio and articles: http://lachs.inter-link.com Relevant articles:
"Coming Down From the Zen Clouds", "Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi", "The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey With Bells and Scarves".
Lachs places the blame for misuse of power largely on the mythology of "the zen master [as] a person whose actions flow solely out of compassion for other sentient beings, possess[ing] a timeless and trans-cultural wisdom, the ability to see the truth behind appearances, and [as being] the last in an unbroken chain of enlightened, unblemished masters reputedly going back 2500 years to the historical Sakyamuni Buddha. ... The Zen master, supposedly, is beyond the understanding of ordinary people because he always acts from the enlightened mind".
Lachs says students are taught to view the master as a "quasi-divine" Buddha-like enlightened being who can do no wrong. "The student who enters the practice having read a myth will expect to find the myth and will think they have found the myth. .. What they really have found, all too often, is another story of ordinary, flawed human behavior." He further explains why students may be blind to the master's flaws. "The Dharma-transmitted Zen master ... monopolizes the means to salvation. So we can understand that there might be multiple motives for 'not seeing' the master as he really is, whether there be an absence of compassion or wisdom or the presence of sexual improprieties or alcoholism. This is what psychiatrists call 'negative hallucination', i.e., keeping unconscious something that we perceive."
Lachs concludes that it's the combination of the authority vested in (flawed) masters along with the idealization of them on the part of the students that creates the conditions for teachers to feel invincible, to become enchanted with power and its perquisites--money, sexual access to students, status, and to abuse their position. He also notes that often advanced students receive "Dharma transmission" and appointment as roshi or master for reasons other than spiritual attainment. Some are chosen because they're good at fund-raising, or at organizing new centers, or simply because they're a young relative of the older master.
Q.: Is it really so simple as a mythological hierarchy and the label of "enlightened master" + a community of expectant students that leads potentially good teachers to go bad? Are students really so easily indoctrinated into the mythology of the enlightened master and lineage as to suspend all critical thinking in the face of blatant and chronic malfeasance?
Lachs seems to view Zen tradition as a machine that shapes the personalities of potential leaders along lines quite contrary to Buddhist values. I'm more inclined to believe that the masters are ordinary people who have gone through a system of education that qualifies them to lead a sangha, and they get appointed for ulterior reasons that have nothing to do with enlightenment. In short, the wrong people are being appointed master, in some instances. What do you think? Are these problems as widespread as Lachs says, affecting "most" Zen centers in the US, sooner or later?
For a short bio and articles: http://lachs.inter-link.com Relevant articles:
"Coming Down From the Zen Clouds", "Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi", "The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey With Bells and Scarves".
0
Comments
I have met some teachers that I would say fall into the category of enlightened, they are few and far between though. Someone who isn't at that state and is treated as such may start to believe the hype and believe they can do no wrong even when they do.
In the past where these traditions originated maybe enlightened teachers were more common so the critical investigation of teachers was less emphasized. Simply having a thorough Buddhist education means someone can pass on knowledge to another like any ordinary teacher can but that isn't enough to view them as perfect and incapable of doing harm. So yes, a critical eye toward a teacher is needed but that doesn't mean enlightened teachers don't exist.
The more 'serious' the student, the greater the danger. I think Stuart, whom I count as a friend, though we cross swords from time to time, is performing a very good service to the Zen community: A Zen student who cannot ingest and digest his carefully-crafted and well-researched arguments really needs to reconsider his or her spiritual orientation.
Those in the belief or concept or hope phase of spiritual endeavor are clearly more prone to the unpleasantness that Lachs points out. But which of us has not been a believer, a concept-lover or a hopeful Harry? We may all mouth words like, "Buddhism tells us to think for ourselves" or "Buddhism urges us to find out for ourselves," but the trajectory of our actions too often prove that what we say and what we do are quite different. It is in this arena that some very subtle shysters can build convenient, money-making, self-centered empires.
I like the fact that Stuart has actually practiced. He is not just some beard-stroking logician. For my money, if he raises a little hell -- or even a lot of it -- I will be happy to sit in the peanut gallery and applaud. Stuart is not a feather merchant ... which is more than you can say for some of his poseur targets.
.
@genkaku Do you really think that the Zen lineage formula coupled with the sangha environment creates monsters? In one of his articles, Lachs says that S. Suzuki fed Baker's already existing tendencies toward grandiosity, so he may already have been a bad apple, even as a student. And what about the flip side of this argument: would roshis who are truly humble (if such a thing exists) and observant of the precepts and Buddhist virtue be so easily seduced by having power handed to them on a silver platter and reinforced by adoring students?
Lachs says, "it is not just these seven teachers who exhibit some "bad apple" qualities (Baker, Shimano, etc.). It is the system that makes this kind of behavior virtually inevitable." Really? The system is capable of turning a good apple into a bad one?
Thanks so much for your input. _/\_
As to the earlier assertion you attribute to Lachs -- that the system guarantees corruption -- I think that any good thing can be corrupted by (pardon the Buddhist lingo), the greed and ignorance of which human beings are capable. Pick any organization anywhere -- religious, political, medical, sports, ad infinitum -- and because it is made up of people, it has the potential to be or become corrupt. This should not be a cause for cynicism ... cynicism is a cheap date. The potential for self-serving corruption is matched in every instance by a potential to act honorably and well. Check it out. Look inside. See if this is true or not. I would say it is.
Students of the way or students involved in spiritual endeavor are not required to overlook or hide from or try to camouflage what is patently true. In fact, they are encouraged to investigate it courageously and with patience. Superficially, corruption looks nasty and kindness looks nice and there may be a tendency to think that because we are kind, we can somehow escape corruption. But this is too simplistic. We're all in the soup and the soup is far more interesting than being pure as the driven snow. For my money, students need to acknowledge corruption when and where it occurs, not so much as an exemplar of what 'other people' do, but as an exemplar of what we ourselves can and in some cases do do. As far as I can figure out, there is only one lesson to learn from the mistakes of others: Don't YOU do that. Correct what it is possible to correct, whether within or without, but keep an honest house and ... don't YOU do that.
It's not enough to praise the light or damn the darkness. Such things are possible, but they are largely foolish. There is light, there is darkness ... but who is this? Who is the one who is not limited to light and darkness and yet cannot escape light or darkness? These are serious questions, but they are only as serious as the people who ask them.
Sorry for all the blither.
I still take issue with the fact that "the system" makes immoral behavior "virtually inevitable". That seems like too strong a statement. It make open the door to such behavior, but it's the teacher's choice whether to step through the door or not. I don't believe the system pushes the teacher through the door, as Lachs might have us believe.
Thanks for any and all input, @genkaku. No apology necessary.
I think Ajahn Brahm said “Buddhism is not an organized religion”. And I suppose that’s part of the problem. There’s no authority; no mechanism for putting teachers who get lost, back on track or out of business.
I didn’t know the technical expression “negative hallucination“ but I think I’ve experienced how that works. People literally covered their ears saying things like “When you are going to slander this great teacher, I’m not going to listen to it.” I’ve heard threats: “Saying bad things about a holy person is such bad karma that your head might explode as you are speaking.”
At the same time the adoration of the teacher can be such a sweet intoxication. Isn’t it part of the Zen-experience?
I just wonder. Is this process of idolizing the teacher and getting over it an essential lesson we simply have to learn?
I see it as an important lesson for me personally anyways.
There’s “Dharma-Transmission” but there’s no procedure for reversing it.
Complaints to other, older teachers are quite pointless.
Teachers are really not interested in cleaning up someone else his mess, I suppose.
The internet is important though. New students can Google their teacher and learn about his or her reputation before they get too involved and become “negative hallucinatory”.
Adoring a teacher is like being in love; it’s not being very realistic.
The teacher can't do it for us.
Zen/Chan/Son is a large area of Mahayana Buddhism...and not just a school. Just as within Theravada you can find everything from Ajahn Brahm's way to Burmese vipassana, to Sri Lankan orthodoxy, to keepers of the local Vihara who's folk practice is blessing the laity's new cars.. you can find a wide spectrum of Zen, from strict to lose, broad to narrow... different styles and approaches. In other words.. not a monolith..or subject to simplistic characterization.
But this isn't all Zen, or all Buddhism. Western Zen, when not modeled slavishly on the Japanese system, can be much more egalitarian.
The question is, what can replace it? First, we need to blow up the myth that there is a difference between enlightened and normal compassionate human behavior, or that enlightenment seen as an elevated, perfect mind is anything but our desires getting in the way of seeing with a clear mind. Second, this total authority of the Master to give the seal of approval to the people he likes--the so-called Dharma transmission--should be examined closely. Ideally, in a Buddhist culture, the monk had to travel to several temples and have his understanding confirmed by several Masters. The stories are full of the different Masters disagreeing and the monk having to do more work. Where is that system here?
Linji's ‘If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha; if you meet the patriarchs, kill the patriarchs, " koan speaks directly to this issue. If a student does not understand it, it's the students fault. If a student thinks that all zen teachers are "equally enlightened", I think that is the students fault again. If a teacher power trips on their students, that is the teachers fault. To "blame the system" sounds like a cop-out if you ask me.
Although, I think it is quite natural for new or beginning students to become attached to a teacher. However, a good teacher will try to help the student cut this attachment and help them understand "kill the Buddha".
I generalize all the time. Just saying "Zen".. or " Theravada".. or "Tibetan" ... is kind of absurd... but we have to put handles on things.. if we are going to talk.
In spiritual endeavor, I am a fan of the human heart. Each and every human being has new and improved and utterly personalized ways of suffering or expressing their versions of what is unsatisfactory. And each and every human being has utterly personal ways of trying to mitigate dis-ease. Trying to lay down the law or circumscribe the human heart is like trying to herd cats ... only a fool would do that.
And yet within this world of cats, within the human heart, there is the desire and habit of circumscribing, of finding some path that will unlock the doors and bring peace to a cat-strewn arena. Buddhism is one such corral for the cats ... assuming anyone could catch them all. Buddhism offers a framework of limitation as a means of coming to terms with the limitless. In one sense, Buddhism is a lie, much as any other limiting framework is a lie. There are no limits to the human heart, the human life, but the only way to actualize that limitlessness is through limitation ... finding the truth within the lie.
So Buddhism has rules and regs, much as a lawyer's office is ceiling-high with law books. Buddhism is a pretty serious endeavor, but its seriousness lies in the human heart with all its contradictory, loving, shameful, powerful, weakening, hymn-singing possibilities. No format can herd these cats, and yet we pick a format with which to herd them.
Corruption and mistakes are a part of the tapestry. Ethical guidelines are wonderfully useful and necessary. They dovetail, up to a point, with the human heart, the human life. We herd the cats until, perhaps, there is some actualization of the understanding that herding cats is impossible ... at which point we can return to herding the cats with a lighter step and a clearer and more peaceful mind.
Can anyone sidestep or stop corruption in its tracks? No ... but we can give it a shot and not get too upset when what is impossible turns out to be impossible.
Just noodling.
1. Proper ethical behaviour - a guru should not harm others but try to help
2. Single pointed concentration
3. No self-grasping or egoistic thoughts
4. Having love and compassion as main motivations to teach
5. Realised emptiness, at least have a proper intellectual understanding
6. Perseverance in teaching
7. Wealth of scriptural knowledge
8. More learned and realised than student
9. Skilled speaker
10. Given up disappointment in the performance of the students
If possible, try to find a guru who possesses all these qualities, but at least the first 5. This may be difficult enough...
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A SPIRITUAL DISCIPLE
Just like a teacher requires certain qualifications, so should a proper disciple fulfil some criteria.
A disciple should consider him/herself as a patient, the teacher as a doctor, the Dharma as medicine and should take the medicine by practicing. Like His Holiness the Dalai Lama says: "There is no substitute for hard work"
A proper disciple should avoid the so-called 3 faulty attitudes:
- being like an upside down vessel: refusing to learn and scepticism
- being like a leaking vessel: forgetting everything and showing no interest
- being like a polluted vessel: being very prejudiced and believing to know everything better than the teacher
A proper disciple should fulfil the 3 requisites:
- lack of prejudice, being open-minded
- intelligence and a critical mind: not blindly following orders
- aspiration: wanting to practice and experience results (not just scholarly study)
As Lama Govinda writes in 'A Living Buddhism for the West':
"If a chela (disciple) is accepted by a Guru, he has to approach the teacher with trustful openness and devotion; these are the two basic conditions without which spiritual guidance is impossible. It is just here that many Western chelas make it hard for themselves, because they cannot bring themselves to bow to their teacher, and become upset when their prejudices and opinions are criticised. Even when they profess to love the teacher, they defend their position and defend their standpoint. ... A true guru is not concerned with imposing conformity of thoughts and feelings. He wants to arouse personal recognition and experience in the chela - not to teach him, but inspire him. But he also wants to liberate his chela from the attachments to opinions, prejudices, and dogmas - and this is often a painful process."
But, as Lowenthal and Short comment in 'Opening the Heart of Compassion':
"While respect for and openness to the teacher are important for our growth and freedom, blind devotion fixates us on the person of the teacher. We then become confined by the limitation of the teacher's personality rather than liberated by the teachings."
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A MAHAYANA TEACHER
From: Path to Buddhahood, Teachings on Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Ringu Tulku:
According to a sutra called The Bodhisattva's Levels, Mahayana teachers or spiritual guides should have eight particular qualities:
1. They must first of all follow the precepts and vows of a bodhisattva.
2. They must have studied in depth the teachings of the path of the bodhisattva.
3. Their understanding must be deep and not purely intellectual; they must have truly experienced the teachings.
4. They must feel sincere compassion toward all sentient beings.
5. They must be fearless and show a lot of courage, not only in their own actions but also when they teach others.
6. They must be tolerant and patient with their students and practice.
7. They must be tenacious and not allow themselves to be carried away by discouragement or disappointment.
8. Finally, they must be capable of communicating effectively with students.
WHERE AND WHEN TO FIND A GURU?
This is not easy to answer in general, as every individual is different. However, it is often said that when a disciple is ready, the teacher will appear. If you cannot find a teacher, see if you fulfil the above requirements for a proper disciple, and work to improve your own attitude rather then running around the world to find 'your' guru. Depending on your own karma, you may need to do quite a lot to find the right guru. Self-study and questioning yourself what you really expect from a teacher may help if you are impatient and expect too much overnight.
"When we have prayed and aspired and hungered for the truth for a long time, for many, many lives, and when our karma has become sufficiently purified, a kind of miracle takes place. And this miracle, if we can understand and use it, can lead to the end of ignorance forever: The inner teacher, who has been with us always, manifests in the form of the "outer teacher," whom, almost as if by magic, we actually encounter..."
Sogyal Rinpoche
"If you cannot find a good Master soon, there is no need to fret - just be the best student you can here and now with an open heart to everything."
shian@TheDailyEnlightenment.com
DANGERS OF A GURU-DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP
A word of warning though: unfortunately, there are teachers, traditions and centers which are questionable in the Buddhist world. Please make sure you know what and who you get involved with before you fully commit yourself to someone as your teacher! I have tried to list a few on this Controversy page.
Traditionally in India, a guru and a disciple sometimes took up to 12 years to test each other out if they suited each other. Now this may be very impractical these days; most students would not have a teacher at all, and most teachers would remain without students... Still, we need to be critical and very careful. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama mentioned the potential for abuse from either side 'the shadow-side of the practice of guru devotion'. Especially westerners need to realise this potential problem, as in our culture we have completely lost (or never really developed) this kind of guru-disciple relationships. Simply said, it is very easy to mislead many westrners on the spiritual path, by twisting the meaning of the teachings so that a teacher can take advantage of a student materially or eg. sexually.
From the article 'Spiritual Pathology' I found at Wisdom Books:
"Individually we have personal responsibility for our spiritual distortions and self-deceptions and must at some point address the consequences of our actions. An example of an individual's capacity to turn pathology into a religion was extremely painful for me when I was younger. I was in a relationship with a woman who made friends with a man who was an experienced practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism. He was very charismatic and lived with his wife and two children, having turned his home into a kind of Buddhist centre. He was an enthusiastic follower of the Indian saint Padmasambava, who brought the Dharma to Tibet and who had two consorts one called Mandarava and the other Yeshe Tsogyal. My partner went to study with this man who had offered to be her teacher. She was very attracted to his rather theatrical charisma and gladly took up his offer. She went to stay with him and over a period of time started to learn more of his practice.
It was on her return from one of her visits to him that I learned that part of the nature of her stay with him was that she would also be his lover. He had convinced his wife that this was important because the relationship he had with my girl friend was so special it was a deeply spiritual experience. Although it was painful for his wife, she agreed that part of the time he would sleep with my partner and part with her. When I began to ask my girl friend what was going on she told me that I should accept it as part of her practice in the same way that Padmasambava had two consorts. They both tried to tell me that I could never understand the spiritual heights to which they would go in their sexual relationship and that it was so pure there could not be any fault in it. My problems, they insisted, were because I was so attached and that I should really let her go to this higher love. I was told that she saw him as her guru and as such she must be with him, irrespective of the pain it caused his wife or myself, after all pain comes through attachment.
At some later point the man, who was increasingly presenting himself as a so-called Lama, wearing exotic robes and the regalia of a yogi, came to visit us. I was shocked and hurt one day when he came to me and said that he was going to sleep with my girlfriend and that I should allow it as it was good for my practice of generosity. If I should object it would show that my practice of Bodhicitta, the aspiration to always work for the welfare of others, was hopeless. I was sufficiently young, naive and feeble to take all this seriously and found I had no grounds to question the validity of what he was saying. Whatever pain I was in was entirely because of my attachment. He tried to convince me it was best for my practice and that his love of my partner was so pure and what they were doing was right.
I tell this story because it is typical of the kind of delusion we can conjure around our self-beliefs sufficient to create the conviction that we are entirely right in what we are doing. The grandiosity, for example, of this man made him utterly blind to the delusion he was caught in and the consequence of his actions. I was somewhat intrigued several years later when the same man came to me devastated because the woman had left him for another man. He wanted someone to talk to in his distress, and was surprisingly apologetic for the way he had treated me. I did not find it easy to contain my sense of vindication."
http://viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html
Sorry for the long copy and paste, but it all seems relevant.
Sometimes Buddhist teachers, both Zen masters and Theravadin Ajahns, will give a talk.. and even the most mildly amusing statement they make is met with gales of laughter. The most ordinary insight, like the kind of thing spoken on this forum every day.... is received like an incredible pearl of wisdom. There is a Zen master who I really like, a great guy, (who is also controversial) who has an online Sangha, and every talk he posts, no matter how inane, in followed by post after post of everyone thanking him for dispensing such amazing wisdom... there is something there that IMO should be set straight by a teacher.
On the other hand..
There have been people who genuinely evoke my love and respect.. who chasten me. It is not a hysterical love, but a healthy love of qualities that we know in our gut are virtuous. I think it is important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is important to discern that which is deserving of respect and honor, and respecting and honoring it..without losing our heads. Cynicism is deadly... it really is.
"Oh thank you sir for your great teaching. You are very wise!" LOL
However the company would be blamed for not having procedures preventing one stupid mistake resulting in disaster. The organization should have been designed to handle the situation with some kind of check preventing disaster.
Every organization is designed for imperfect human beings.
So a sangha also needs some checks and balances to cope with teachers who don’t do their job properly. That’s the responsability of the entire sangha imho.
I think the day has come to organize sanghas differently. Rather than top-down power, there should be a measure of bottom-up responsibility. The teacher is there to serve the students. Without the students there would be no sangha and no teacher. The sangha needs to be structured in such a way that students know they have some sort of veto-power, or at least, there should be a complaint process in place with an impartial ombudsman of some sort on the sangha board. @zenff Are you in a sangha now, and if so, how is this issue handled?
@person Thanks for explaining. That's how I read your post the first time. When I came back and re-read it, I understood it differently.
My sangha has such rules but I can't post them right now because their website is down for some reason. I do know that a teacher recently had his inka (dharma transmission) removed because he entered a relationship with a student and did not tell anyone about it. His permission to teach has been revoked and he was basically kicked out of the school. Not everyone lets teachers run wild doing whatever they want.
As I read and reread the entries, searching out misspellings and other glitches, I was struck by how nourishing this little man was. He may have had his blind spots, but he never seemed to fall into the self-aggrandizement/Zen-is-important trap. He seemed always to instruct with the student in mind. His instruction may have seemed weird (as some of his students attest) from time to time, but it was never malicious and was never for his gain or the gain of some imagined Zen establishment. He would instruct his students, but he disliked the stink of Zen ... the books, the sanitized folderol, the solemnities, the posturing.
Although I disliked searching out all the corrections that needed to be made to the book, I enjoyed being reminded not only that I had had some contact with the man, but also that such men and women exist.
Some students don't leave a dysfunctional sangha because they're psychologically needy. They may need to feel part of an in-group, by needy of the teacher's approval and attention, etc. There's a lot of psychology involved in these situations, both individual and group psychology, that I've had to learn about in order to understand how things can get so out-of-kilter.
Before I read the Eido Shimano Papers, I thought: how could anyone get involved with their priest/master? What's so attractive about a bald guy in a red (or black) dress? Then I discovered that many students came from dysfunctional family backgrounds and came to the Dharma for healing, to overcome their suffering. And the teacher took advantage of that, recognizing their weakness. This is predatory behavior.
It's easy for psychologically healthy people to say it's dumb to stick around a bad situation, and talk about common sense. My study of the issues involved has deepened by understanding of and compassion for the more vulnerable individuals in these sanghas.
edit: @genkaku Thanks for some good news.
Or I guess maybe zen is just better than TB?
"...more of a cultural thing than a religious one. Or maybe its the trauma of losing their country..."
I was speaking of the Western Tibetan Buddhist community. The invasion of Tibet does play a role, however, in that any criticism of what Lachs terms "the system" can provoke accusations of pro-PRC sympathies, from Westerners seeking to stifle debate.
I was once bs'ing over lunch with a Japanese Shingon monk. He said that in the culture he grew out of, money and sex were not topics of conversation. Money (power) and sex (woo-hoo) are pretty touchy subjects ... personal, potent and, I sometimes wonder, perhaps too touchy to be worth rocking the spiritual boat with. This is all speculation on my part, but I have been witness to situations in which Zen Buddhists were miles and miles from being willing to confront the issues straightforwardly.
This is all idle chatter. I imagine individuals are different and ethical capacities vary.
After observing discussions on Buddhist forums, I might agree with C_W; Zenforum has been conducting a remarkably frank, compassionate, and civil discussion on one teacher's career-long misconduct (such a euphemism!). This is in sharp contrast to the angry denial, occasional hysteria, and even deleted threads encountered elsewhere when the subject has been "other" Mahayana traditions. In Zen, no one says it's ok for the teacher to use the sangha as his personal sexual playground. To the contrary, heartfelt concern is expressed for victims of errant teachers. In contrast, the teacher's right to sexual access to students, inexplicably, is defended in TB. Compassion is sorely lacking in that arena. But I suppose we digress.
@seeker242 Thanks for sharing the rules of your sangha. Yours seems to be one of the more progressive, or pro-active sanghas. Those in my town aren't even aware of these issues, except for Upaya Zen Center, which is in the process of instituting new rules and procedures. This is changing, as Seeker's rules show. Lachs discusses this (paragraph 3 of OP). But what to do about it? This would also involve addressing the "Two Truths Doctrine" as it applies to the master, no? The Buddha, after all, didn't hold himself above "mundane" morality. Nor did he, according to some scholars, teach that there were two truths, two realities. I wonder what happened to that tradition. It seems like ancient history now. Lachs says that in Japan in certain lineages, it's standard practice to keep the temple in the family. The roshi gives Dharma transmission to his son. Others, like S. Suzuki, give transmission to those most skilled at raising money, or expanding Zen's reach. Maybe part of the problem is that Zen is a fading tradition in Japan, and its future, now, is in the West...?
It doesn't mean there is one set of ethics for "enlightened" people and one for ordinary people.
Andrew Harvey, in his book, "Journey To Ladakh", reported that his interpreter told him that the lama or abbot can kill someone, and it's not the populace's place to question that, because the lama has the perspective of a bodhisattva, something that mere mortals can't comprehend. This isn't a worldview compatible with 21st Century society.
There’s little we can do to influence the way people treat their individual responsibility. There’s something you can do about the organization. You should have a procedure (and I know it’s not the ultimate answer, it could just help).
When a teacher or someone else is not keeping The Statement of Ethics where do you go? It says so in the Grievance Procedure. And as you pointed out it actually works too.
It sounds like your sangha is taking this seriously, and I think that’s great.
@genkaku Is that one, or a precursor to it, on his website? I thought I saw it there. I'll take a read of it.
Not to fight with you but shouldn't you also ask where you get your own interpretation from?