Beyond Sex and Institutions

I have been musing over posts recently by James Ford on his blog Monkey Mind, Zen in the West Sex and Institutions, and Brad Warner’s Hardcore Zen, It’s Not Just About Sex, on the state of the Dharma in the West and felt that this would be an opportune time to expand the discussion just a bit.

Events in my life over the last few decades, along with experiences that many of my Dharma Brothers and Sisters have shared, have motivated me to address the issues of the ultimate power that can be wielded by religious leaders today. This applies to any spiritual path; yet this particular exploration will address modern Zen Organizations in the West. The question of Spiritual Authority is an important aspect of any seeker’s repertoire, and with the failures of many teachers in the twentieth century, this is a valid concern. The short comings of some of the foundation teachers like Kennett Roshi, Baker Roshi, Eido Roshi, Katagiri Roshi, Maezumi Roshi, Trungpa Rinpoche, as well as my grand-teacher Seung Sahn Soensa; students should be wary of their teacher’s behaviors and motivations. It is not my intention to discredit any specific teacher however a few of the students who received teaching authority from some of these foundation teachers have since repeated their own teachers errors, perhaps considering that they have been justified due to their own teacher’s shortcomings.

Some of these pioneer teachers decided that it was within their purview to be able to assign relationships (i.e.: marriages) between students, compel students towards monastic commitments (by abandoning their current relationships) as well as engaging in sexual impropriety with their students which are in violation of their own precepts and positions as Spiritual Teachers. Additionally, some of these teachers granted Dharma Transmission to these students with whom they had intimate sexual affairs.

I am not disparaging the insight of these ‘transmissions’ yet this has proved problematic for some discerning practitioners seeking to enter into a spiritual relationship with a few of these teachers. The spillover of these actions has resulted in numerous failed marriages, failed monastic commitments, and what can be considered the worse case outcome, students mimicking the impropriety of their teachers. Unfortunately, infidelity has become commonplace for some of Dharma Heirs and their students might be cognizant enough to do the appropriate research and to directly address the actions of their potential teachers and ask for an explanation of their errant ways.

It seems that at the forefront, many in the Zen Community are concerned with sexual impropriety, and it is not my intention to downplay its negative impact on Zen in the West. James Ford points out in his article that the San Francisco Zen Center and the Kwan Um School of Zen have officially tried to tackle the sexual impropriety issue. However, there is another problem that is perhaps more wide spread and falls by the wayside in many communities and organizations. This is what happens when well-meaning practitioners are suddenly turned on by their teacher in sudden acts of whimsy or outright aggressiveness. There seems to be outrage by many about the sexual harassment of students, but what happens when students dedicate twenty or thirty years of their lives to a teacher only to be ousted from the group or community they have been practicing in.  The answer is that I know a growing group of individuals who for various reasons are rejected, thrown out and removed from groups that they have served faithfully for many years. Where does this leave them, well frankly nowhere?

The real question in all of this nonsense centers on how vindictive the teacher or group wishes to be with its ex-membership. It also has to do with what control spiritual organizations have over their memberships. In Asia, if a man enters into a Thai Monastery and is ordained with full Bhikṣu status, if that person decides to move to Korea and study Zen they will be allowed to enter into the Korean Monastery with full privileges of a Bhikṣu trained in the Korean lineage. There are at least fifteen hundred years of cultural integration that exists in Asia regarding the subject of Buddhism, Monastics and the societal integration that follows from that. If an individual practices and meets the requirements of any organization, what right does that organization have to attempt to strip that individual of their status without some due process, which is the cornerstone of Western Democracy? This behavior continues today in the West and it is up to our fledgling understanding of the commitments that many people have made in the last one hundred years and try to understand these dynamics within our society.

An organization has every right to disallow an individual’s rights to practice, lead or teach within the confines of that organization; however, they do not have the right to attempt to strip those rights that were earned and issued with full disclosure while a person was an active member of their group. If one is ordained as a Priest or Monk or Nun, then that is what they are whether inside the group or outside and if they choose to continue practicing outside of their groups they have full rights to their investment of time and energy. It is like going to college and getting a degree, let us say in Religious Philosophy, just because you are no longer associated with the College where you received the degree, the degree is still valid.

In a recent interview with Zen Master Barry Magid on the Sweeping Zen Web Site the following statement was quoted regarding some issues regarding two of Joko Beck’s Dharma Heirs. “Question: There is something I'd read about previously and puzzled over, as I've not recalled hearing of any other masters "revoking" Dharma authority from students. The answer is from Barry Magid (who is one of Joko Beck’s Dharma Heirs but not one of the two that Joko Beck tried to rescind her transmission from): I'm no expert on Buddhist canon law, but having sat in on a number of discussions of this issue with members of the American Zen Teachers Association, there seemed to be a consensus among the teachers I've talked to that Dharma authority cannot be revoked.”

What is fair and reasonable in our Western Society, and who has the ultimate rights to control the lives of others? These are important sanctions that need to be examined by the entire spiritual community. Joko Beck left her teacher after his impropriety with a few of his students and yet she felt that she could control some of the teachers that she herself had approved of in public ceremonies. I am not passing judgment here, but what rights do teachers have in the public lives of their students, and where does their involvement enter into the realm of slander and libel?

We are a society founded on Religious Freedom and Tolerance, which also means we have freedom from Religion.  What occurs in the future with the adaptation of many of the forms of Buddhism which have entered into our culture no one knows for sure. The important thing is that we maintain an open and honest approach to our individual directions and find the freedom that Buddha was trying to teach us all. Buddha did not invent Buddhism, his disciples invented it following his death, and it has changed many times over the past two thousand six hundred years. It is important that we all realize when those in power begin to abuse that power with the intention of destroying other people’s lives, and this should not be tolerated just like sexual impropriety should not be tolerated.

I believe that a teacher has every right to his or her opinion; however, in a society based upon due process something must be done to shield out spurious and unfounded claims. So as a cautionary point, be wary of everything and tread lightly when getting involved in a spiritual organization.  If any of the following issues are present in your current organization you might consider finding one that doesn’t suffer from them.

Internal Control:

The amount of internal controls exercised by the spiritual leader over the members; also, a lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members who feel they may have been wronged. The leader maintains absolute control of all policy decisions; in essence the leader becomes the Sole Judge, the Sole Jury and the Sole Executioner. The leader’s decisions are not to be questioned nor are discussions about policy allowed by the members.

External Control:

The amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; furthermore, this is an emphasis on directing the members’ external political and social behavior. The leader additionally discounts outside teachings from piers and claims to have the true teaching from the previous leader by discounting the other piers ability to teach.

Ultimate Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader:

The amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. The leader claims that they are the only disciples of their teacher who was transmitted the complete teachings. The others, even if they are numerous, never attained the true teachings from their teacher.

Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader by members:

The amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader; amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. The leader is completely infallible and any external criticism is credited to jealously of the leaders complete and utter attainment which couldn’t be realized by any other pier or follower of the original leader.

Dogma:

The rigidity of reality concepts taught along with the amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” also a hostility towards relativism and situationalism. There is a lack of willingness to allow members to pursue other approaches to practice. The leader will make statements that any attempt of members to study any other path will cause problems with their practice; therefore, any member who pursues another path should be removed from the group.

Relation Manipulation of members by leader:

The leader tries to control the relationship of members in terms of organizational commitments, behavior, and/or choice of partners; and those relationships have to become secondary to the members commitment to the group.

Censorship:

The leader attempts to control members’ access to outside opinions on the group, its doctrines as well as its leader. Through limiting the current member’s communication with ex-members and previously associated members of the current group a level of control is maintained in this way.

Isolation:

The leader keeps members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers about their commitments and responsibility to the group. In addition, by restricting members the ability to study with other teachers the leader may claim that only confusion will arise from listening to teaching from these sources and that they are inferior to the leader’s teachings.

Ex-Member Control:

The leader makes efforts directed at preventing or the returning of ex-members. All those who leave are labeled as wrong and erroneous; they did not really have any attainment so they are evil and should be avoided.

Aggressiveness:

Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader.

Surrender of Will:

Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader.

Hypocrisy:

Amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader; willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.