Zen
and Dharma Transmission by Stuart Lachs
NDM:
If someone were to have a satori experience while meditating
or some other way, how would this roshi determine if
this student had really woken up? Would this be through
a series
of tests, or interviews of some kind?
Stuart
Lachs: It seems you are asking if someone thinks they had
a satori experience, how would the Zen master/roshi determine if
this student had really woken up. The
master/roshi would interview the student and prod him/her with
questions to see how they answer. The student’s demeanor when
answering the questions can also be used to gauge the experience. He/she
would also be looking to determine the depth of the experience. Depending
on the tradition, the roshi may use set or given testing
questions that the particular tradition uses. Different traditions maintain
secrecy about what these questions are and what are the standard
replies. I have been told that different traditions may have different
replies as accepted understanding of a given koan. I also think that
even if the roshi had not seen his own nature, he would still
interview the
student with questions.
It
should be understood that judging someone's meditation experience is
not like asking if there was a war between Southern and
Northern states in
the USA in 1865. It is not necessarily a black or white issue. I
think at times
certain masters/roshi pass someone with a "oneness"
experience, which
by my view is not a Chan/Zen experience. A “oneness’
experience is where
a practitioner may feel a oneness of their own body and mind, and/or
as if they are unified with their immediate surroundings or even with
the entire universe. Telling someone they have seen the nature may be
given for other reasons as well. For instance, I have seen a master tell
a disciple he had "seen the nature," that is, had a Chan
experience, when the
master knew he did not. In this case the master told the student
that he had "seen the nature" because the teacher wanted to
give this disciple a "present" and to "encourage
him to continue practicing"
as the student, after many years and much work for
the Center, was
moving away. It struck me as a rather strange "present" and
hardly the only way to encourage some one to continue in their practice. But
that is what I was told by the master when I questioned him
about his public acknowledgement of "seeing the nature" for
this person.
Another reason may be to empower someone for whatever reason,
or because they are making them a leader or a roshi. In a word there
can be a number of motives for "approving" someone's Zen experience;
the same goes for giving Dharma transmission. Perhaps close
to this, but slightly different, is moving the student along going through
the koan course.
NDM:
Now if someone had seen their "Buddha nature" and this person
wished to teach others. What kind of training would this person
undergo and for how long before they could teach? Then
how long before one would be a candidate for becoming a roshi?
Stuart
Lachs: There are no set answers for these two questions.
It
is NOT necessary for someone to have seen their Buddhanature to become
a roshi or to teach. I know all the classical Zen stories lead one
to believe this, but it is simply not true across the Zen board. This
is especially so in Soto Zen at least since the 17th century or so and
probably way earlier, probably always. The Rinzai tradition in
Japan maintains that all their roshi had kensho (seen
their Buddhanature) but I do not think that is a hard and fast rule. I
believe Soen Nakagawa roshi was made a roshi before he had kensho.
Unfortunately I do not have the source for this now. On the other
hand, someone who sees the nature may not become a master/roshi for
any number of reasons.
According
to the recently deceased Taiwanese Chan-master Shifu Sheng
Yen it is not necessary to have "seen the nature" to
become a Dharma
heir, which is to say, a Zen master in his lineage. He had
three pre-requisites
for giving Dharma transmission: first is to have a correct
understanding of Buddha Dharma, second is to have a stable life, to
live a life of purity (this has to do with a stable character and
their emotional
life), and third is to have the vow to deliver and help sentient
beings. There are a number problems with Sheng Yen’s pre-requisites,
not the least being that his disciples lived far away from
him and saw him mostly on retreats so he had little idea about the
purity of their life. What seemed important to him though not
stated, was
that the person, especially so for his foreign heirs, had a group of people
practicing with them.
In
Rinzai Zen, and in the newer Sanbokyodan sect of Zen founded by Yasutani
roshi in the 20th century, which is popular in the West, people
have to go through, that is, complete the koan course of that
particular lineage before receiving Dharma transmission.
Ideally after kensho,
the roshi would watch his disciple and continually be teaching and
watching to see that he/she internalizes and makes alive, that is,
lives whatever experience(s) the disciple had as he/she goes
through the
koan course. In the Rinzai sect in Japan, the teacher would have the
student prepare talks on the koans that he would judge. Part of this would
be so the disciple learns to talk like a Rinzai roshi. But
keep in mind that
is the ideal. Soen Nakagawa roshi seems to have been a counter
example to
the rule. He had not finished the koan course when he was made abbot of
Ryutaku-ji. Soen's Dharma heir Eido Shimano roshi who was
given Dharma
transmission in 1972 has been implicated in scandals from
the 1960's
into the present. Philip Kapleau took the title roshi
himself, only
later admitted that he did not finish Yasutani roshi's koan course, though
he still maintained the self taken title roshi. That was in the Sanbo
Kyodan line started by Yasutani roshi who has a somewhat tarnished
image himself because of his strong militaristic and right
wing thoughts. Kapleau was disowned by his teacher Yasutani, so
in reality he started his own line. This is not to say that Kapleau
was more
or less qualified than others with the title roshi. There are many other
examples like the above.
It
is not uncommon for someone to be given teaching responsibilitieswith
certain limitations before they are made a Zen master/roshi. There
is no set time frame for how long it takes to become a master/roshi. Some
acquire the title quite young, even in their early twenties; some
only get full authorization much later. For example Shaku Soen roshi, the
teacher of the famous D.T. Suzuki received Dharma transmission at
the age of twenty-five.
The
more important question to my mind is what does receiving Dharma
transmission mean? Also, how has it been used historically? These
questions are rarely discussed in any depth around Zen centers;
instead the focus is on who has it and who does not have it. But in
reality most people know they will never get it. Zen
institutions lead you to believe that having Dharma
transmission is a hard line in the sand separating the master/roshi,
whose mind is supposedly unfathomable by regular folk, from the rest
of ordinary humanity. In reality it is mostly shades of
grey, while depending on the variable or quality being measured,
a different hierarchy of people will occur.
NDM:
In the Zen book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Richard Baker, says:
A roshi is a person who has actualized that perfect freedom which is
the potentiality for all human beings. He exists freely in the
fullness of his whole being. The flow of his consciousness is not the
fixed repetitive patterns of our usual self-centered consciousness,
but rather arises spontaneously and naturally from the actual
circumstances of the present. The results of this in terms of the
quality of his life are extraordinary-buoyancy, vigor,
straightforwardness, simplicity, humility, security, joyousness,
uncanny perspicacity and unfathomable compassion. His whole being
testifies to what it means to live in the reality of the present.
Without anything said or done, just the impact of meeting a
personality so developed can be enough to change another's whole way
of life. But in the end it is not the extraordinariness of the
teacher that perplexes, intrigues, and deepens the student, it is the
teacher's utter ordinariness.
Would
being a roshi supposed to mean that one is like the original Buddha?
"Fully enlightened" as they say?
Stuart
Lachs: Good, this question is a good follow-on to the previous one.
Let’s look at this quote a little closer. It was actually written
by Trudy Dixon, though used by Richard Baker in his introduction to
his teacher, Shunryu Suzuki roshi's book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. I
think the book is the biggest selling book about Zen in the
English language; at least it was for some time. It has certainly
sold well over a million copies.
There
is some interesting background to know about this quote. For one,
when Baker used this in his introduction to the book, he already knew
that he was chosen by Suzuki to be his Dharma heir. From that
perspective, he was painting a picture of how he would like to be
viewed by his followers when he took leadership of the San Francisco
Zen Center and would be known as Baker roshi. The quote supposedly
was about Suzuki as the book contains his words and
teachings. But the quote begins, "A roshi is a person..."
implying that all roshi fit this description. In reality this is the
most idealistic description of a roshi in the English language,
perhaps any language. It is also highly questionable if even one
roshi fits this description, not alone the "A roshi is..."
implying all roshi, as Baker inserted it in his
introduction...
But back
to your question about being a roshi; “Would being a roshi
supposed to mean that one is like the original Buddha? "Fully
enlightened" as they say?”
I
guess it depends on who you ask and when. I can imagine that some
people may think this about their master/roshi, though clearly I am
not one of those people. I also think anyone believing this is part
of a small minority of believers. Roshi is a very broad term that
covers an enormous range of cases. I think each case has to be
looked at individually to get any sense of what the title means, but
in virtually no case does it mean "Fully enlightened."
“Roshi” is basically an institutional title for a
role necessary to maintain Zen’s constructed or made-up form
of legitimacy, that is, an unbroken lineage of
supposedly enlightened teachers going back to the
historical Buddha. One could argue that the roshi supposedly has had
the same insight/enlightenment experience as the "original
Buddha" in the sense of having a direct experience of their
true or Buddhanature. Also recall that having an enlightenment
experience is not a criterion for many master/roshi. For
those roshi or other people who have had a Zen experience to say
it is the same as the original Buddha's seems quite speculative to
me. This clearly side steps issues like the depth of the
experience, the integration into one’s life, other qualities/powers
the historical Buddha supposedly had, and so on. Too, what was the
enlightenment experience of the historical Buddha, which was
only put in writing hundreds of years after his death? Basically, we
should be careful about mixing up an institutional role, however it
is defined or talked about, with spiritual attainment, especially
with being "fully enlightened."
NDM:
It seems that some roshis scatter their seeds far and wide, in more
ways than one, while others seem to be more careful with this.
For example Richard Baker has been publicly criticized for his
behavior at San Francisco Zen Center. Former students have said that
he was addicted to power, abusive of his position, extravagant in his
personal spending, and inappropriate in his love life. Another
Zen teacher named Maezumi, after many years spent struggling with his
alcoholism, died in Japan in 1995 following a night of
drinking—drowning in a bath after falling asleep.
In
your article "Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen
Roshi" You wrote "The San Francisco Zen Center
"scandal" was not unique in American Zen history. In fact
there are few major centers not touched by sexual or other scandals,
but the SFZC case suffices for the discussion we will have here".
www.mandala.hr/5/lachs3.html
Beginning
in 1965 and continuing to this day, a series of scandals has erupted
at one Zen center after another revealing that many Zen teachers have
exploited students sexually and financially. This list has included,
at various times, the head teachers at The Zen Studies Society in New
York City, the San Francisco Zen Center, the Zen Center of Los
Angeles, the Cimarron Zen Center in Los Angeles, the now-defunct
Kanzeon Zen center in Bar Harbor, Maine, the Moon Spring
Hermitage in Surry, Maine, the Providence Zen Center and the Toronto
Zen center. These are some of the largest and most influential
centers. In most cases the scandals have persisted continually for
years, or seemed to end only to arise again. At one center, for
example, sex scandals have recurred for approximately forty years
with the same teacher involving many women. These scandals have been
pervasive as well as persistent, affecting almost all major American
Zen Centers. It should be emphasized that the source of the problem
lies not in sexual activity per se, but in the teachers' abuse of
authority and the deceptive (and exploitative) nature of these
affairs. These affairs were carried on in secret and even publicly
denied. The students involved were often lied to by the teachers
about the nature of the liaison. In some cases the teacher claimed
the sexual experience would advance the student' s spiritual
development. One teacher justified his multiple sexual affairs after
their discovery as necessary for strengthening the Zen center.
Presumably, this was because the women involved were running
satellite centers of his and having a secret affair with the "master"
would deepen their understanding and practice.
If
someone supposedly had this so called "Buddha nature", then
why would all these scandals happen? Could there be some kind
of a flaw with this dharma transmission procedure? Is there a flaw
with Buddhism itself?
Stuart
Lachs: Yes, it is true that some Zen masters/roshi "scatter
their seeds far and wide, in more ways than one, while others
seem to be more careful." There is no fixed law or rule on how
many or by what criteria some one gives Dharma transmission. I do not
think whether someone gives few or many or no Dharma
transmissions is a measure of anything but that. Maezumi and Katagiri
each had twelve Dharma heirs, Suzuki had one heir in America, Richard
Baker, and two in Japan, his son Hoitsu who did not study with him
and someone he did not know but transmitted to as a favor to a
friend. Sasaki has no heirs.
I think
it is widely believed that Dharma transmission (D.t.) is given
to people because of some high level of spiritual
insight, attainment and practice. Popular Zen books would
like you to think this about their roshi but THIS IS JUST
NOT TRUE!!! It is really sectarian propaganda. Dharma transmission
(D.t.) is given for many reasons most of which are not related
to any high level attainment or especially deep level of insight. For
instance, Katagiri roshi of the Minneapolis Zen Center gave Dharma
transmission to twelve priests (no lay people) at once shortly
before he died. "He said no one was ready to take over, but
he hoped to avoid his heirs becoming competitive and political, and
maybe in time someone would ripen and would step forward." This
is from The Great Failure by Natalie Goldberg, a well known
author and long time student of Katagiri. The book also
discusses Katagiri's own scandals with female students that only
came to light after he died.
In
your question, above, you mention Richard Baker. No one knows for
sure why Suzuki roshi gave D.t. to only Baker, and not to another
person or other older students in addition to Baker, but
that is what Suzuki roshi did. This presents us with
a quandary. If Suzuki gave D.t. to Baker based on what he
thought was some high level of spiritual attainment, then it
appears that he made a mistake in his assessment of Baker, with
whom he spent over 15 years in close contact. After all, Suzuki
said that Baker's transmission was "real." So we are
left to see that the roshi's supposed deep insight and mind-to-mind
transmission which Zen claims is only understandable by their
roshi and Dharma heirs, is really quite fallible. This calls
into question the validity of the unbroken lineage going back to the
Buddha, the basic supposed unquestioned claim to Zen legitimacy
and authority.
On
the other hand we can say Suzuki gave D.t. to Baker for other reasons
besides spiritual attainment and insight. For instance, he may have
given only Baker D.t. and skipped other older students because
he knew as every one knew that Baker had terrific administrative
ability far above everyone else’s, was an outstanding fund
raiser, was interested in the growth of the S.F. Zen Center as
perhaps was Suzuki and importantly and singularly of all
Suzuki’s students, he had the ability to make this growth happen.
Baker was also a good speaker so could give fine sounding
Zen talks to his followers and to the public. From a certain
perspective all these abilities can be important for a Zen group, but
none of them have anything to do with spiritual attainment. There
could be other reasons that Suzuki picked Baker alone: perhaps a
personal attachment to Baker as if Baker was the kind of son he
wanted but did not have, Baker's ease and ability among important
people and wealthy people, Baker's outgoing public persona, Baker's
ability to generate satellite centers across the country, and so
on. Whatever the reason, if this is the case, D.t. is not based on
spiritual attainment and again Zen's self defined basis for
unquestioned legitimacy and authority is open to question.
Of
course, this is only one example, but with the amount of scandal and
questionable behavior known around Zen, it is hardly the most
questionable or is it isolated. So in either case, there is a problem
with the unquestioned authority for the Chan/Zen master/roshi
and the supposed authority that accompanies Zen sanctioned Dharma
transmission. In point of fact the two cases above and all sorts of
permutations and combinations of these and other reasons are
used as a basis for giving Dharma transmission and
historically, have been used that way.
Zen
is an old and large institution that in the Far East has worked hard
to gain and hold State and elite support that was necessary for its
survival and growth. It is perhaps naive to think that they based
their existence, growth, and continuity solely on individuals with
great spiritual attainment and deep insight into their true
nature.
According
to Zen, every sentient being has "Buddhanature," not just
the Dharma transmitted master or roshi. Some people realize
their "Buddhanature" or see into their "Buddhanature"
and some do not. Realizing one's "Buddhanature" is not
a criterion for becoming a roshi in some sects or lineages of
Chan/Zen. It is not in Soto Zen; by far the largest Zen sect in
Japan, roughly fifteen times larger than the Rinzai sect, and it is
not in Sheng Yen's Taiwanese sect of Chan...
The
big flaw to my mind in the "Dharma transmission procedure"
is not being crystal clear about what it actually means
and afterwards, not being crystal clear that all the
Zen stories and the roshi commenting on the stories
of iconic Zen masters of the past does not mean that the living
roshi is anything like the roshi in the story. In fact, the roshi in
the written text was probably not like the roshi as presented in
the text. Zen "biographical" texts were all highly
edited over long periods of time to match a desired self image and
institutional needs of Zen at the time. These written stories/Zen
texts essentially created perfected Zen masters and were meant
to serve as models of ideal Zen masters and their behavior
and words, probably to be imitated, rather than being biography
in the modern sense of our understanding of describing an actual
life.
NDM:
What is the criteria for a roshi to pass on the dharma transmission
to a student? Is there some kind of a test,
examination they would undergo to root out this ego, lust for
ambition, power, money, sex, fame, position,
authority, narcissism, psychopathology and so
on?
Stuart
Lachs: There is no agreed upon criteria for giving Dharma
transmission. There is no test "to root out " attachments
or strong interests/concerns for ego, lust, money, sex, fame,
... aside from the specific Zen roshi's judgment of his disciple. As
an example, the recently deceased Chan master Sheng Yen
received Dharma transmission from Master Ling Yuan who he had spent
exactly one night with. Sheng Yen has written that he had a Chan
experience at the end of the night, in the morning they parted. Many
years later Sheng Yen visited Ling Yuan and told him that he was
teaching Chan. Ling Yuan then gave him Dharma
transmission. Sheng Yen also received Dharma transmission from
another Master he had spent two years with.
As
we both have noted, there is a problem with Dharma
transmission as so many major Zen Centers have had to deal with
scandals involving sex, power, money,…aside from too much concern
for fame, narcissism, adoration which pass under the scandal bar, and
then there is plain old psychopathology on the part of
master/roshi.
NDM:
Is there a fundamental flaw of some kind with Buddhism itself. Or
have his teachings been misinterpreted, distorted somehow?
Stuart
Lachs: I do not think there is "a fundamental flaw... with
Buddhism" nor do I think the teachings have been
"misinterpreted, distorted somehow." First I
think we should be clear that there are many Buddhisms. Like any
living tradition or religion it must evolve to reflect the concerns,
language, and mentality of place and time as well as the
political situation. Buddhism does not occur in a vacuum; it is
always embedded in a given society and culture at a given time.
Buddhism like any other religion must develop as an institution
if it is to thrive in a given society.
Chan
is a Chinese development that spread to Korea (known as Son
Budd.) and then to Japan, (known as Zen, as we mostly call it
today in the West) that is the form of Buddhism we are discussing
here. Zen chose Dharma transmission, that is, the supposed
mind-to-mind transmission between a master and his heir. The claim is
that Zen holds the heart/mind of Buddhism transmitted silently from
one generation to another in a unilinear (one person per
generation), unbroken chain like manner. Chan mythology has this
chain beginning with the historical Buddha Sakyamuni through
twenty-eight Indian generations to Bodhidharma the First Chan
Patriarch who brought Chan from India to China through
to Huineng, the Sixth Chinese Patriarch after whom it split into
a many branched tree and continues that way to the present.
Zen
claims it has the heart/mind of Buddhism while other sects are
dependent on texts and translations from quite foreign languages
that introduce mistakes and problems.
Because
of this manner of establishing legitimacy and authority, the Chan/Zen
master/roshi is supposedly connected by Dharma transmission, which is
the institutional ritual symbolizing mind-to-mind transmission that
connects each roshi with the historical Buddha. It is common
in Zen books written by a master/roshi to point out their
specific lineage at least for a few generations back and often all
the way back showing their connection to the historical
Buddha.
That
this scheme of legitimation is all pretty much made up is another
issue. That the institution needs to keep sanctifying new roshi in
large numbers presents another problem. That these roshi must also
serve the institutional and as is common of old institutions, their
conservative needs is yet another issue. The problem in the end,
at least as I see it, is that the master/roshi is conceived and
presented as some thing he is not: a highly enlightened/attained
individual beyond the understanding of "ordinary" people.
He is presented this way along with institutional rituals,
the use of liturgical implements as well as a vast array
of texts and parts of the liturgy that in one way or
another repeat this claim. Not surprisingly people who read Zen
literature come to believe it and all too often, the roshi
himself internalizes the role and thinks of himself as such. In a
sense then, the group and its master/roshi act like theater or
play acting, certainly there is a large element of fantasy and
wishful thinking.
This
is not to say that Zen practice is fake or theater or anything
negative, but there are problems. Zen practice, in my opinion is a
wonderful practice. It has made my life richer and more fulfilling
while helping me be in the world and relate to people in what I feel
is a better way, but certainly not without fault and error. I
have been at it since 1967...
NDM:
I would like to address this roshi named Hakuyū Taizan Maezumi. He
ordained sixty-eight priests gave his transmission to a lot of
people, but he was also an alcoholic. Jan Chozen Bays said of
Maezumi's drinking, "We in subtle ways encouraged his
alcoholism. We thought it was enlightened behavior that when he would
drink, elements of Roshi would come out we had never seen before. He
would become piercingly honest. People would deliberately
go—everybody did this—and see what he would say and do when he
was drunk, and how he could skewer you against the wall."
Stuart
Lachs: Yes,
by now it is well known that Maezumi was an alcoholic. He
entered a detox program but while visiting his brother's temple in
Japan, apparently was drinking again and died in a hot tub. I
spoke with a person knowledgeable about alcoholism and he said that
Maezumi probably drowned on his own vomit. The circumstances of
his death were kept secret for some time. I had also heard that his
students not only "in subtle ways encouraged his
alcoholism" but also supplied the alcohol. It should also
be noted that Maezumi had a number of affairs with his students, one
of which was with Jan Chozen Bays.
At
least some of Maezumi's students saw every act he did as teaching.
This is standard Zen rhetoric. Maezumi's students did not make this
up. So what Jan says above, "We thought it was enlightened
behavior ..." is completely, 100% believable. I heard a
story about his "Jisha," his personal assistant. She
supposedly said that when roshi threw up, which of course was
from his heavy drinking, that he did it intentionally so she would
get used to cleaning vomit and not be repelled by it. She saw all
Maezumi's actions and behavior as teaching- that is, roshi,
according to this view, are teaching in every second of their
life. Whether students get it or not is the other part of the Zen
rhetoric. It seems hard to believe, but that is the standard
Zen line and people believed it and lived by it, as these two
stories illustrate.
NDM:
Do you think that since he was an alcoholic, his judgment may have
suffered and his transmissions should be questioned or investigated
or qualified in some way to reflect this?
Stuart
Lachs: Let's go back a step. We can ask what does Maezumi's
Dharma transmission mean if he was an alcoholic? As stated above
he went through detox but as is common with alcoholism, he relapsed,
which caused his death. He also had some secret affairs with
students while being married. He had to drink to become "piercingly
honest." At the least, this is not the picture Zen presents of
a Dharma transmitted roshi.
Some
people will bring up the example of Ikkyu as a hard drinking
carousing priest who liked prostitutes. He entered the
brothel wearing his black robes because he viewed sexual
intercourse as a religious rite. But he did this openly and
lived the life of a vagabond, poet, artist… Late in life he was
made abbot of Daitoku-ji, a major monastery in Japan. He was really
one of a kind. I think it is dangerous to point to Ikkyu as is
commonly done, to justify or excuse questionable behavior of a roshi.
I
ask the readers, “Do you know anyone who is an alcoholic whose
judgment is not impaired?”
Why
would you think someone with the title roshi is any
different? Apparently the Tibetan tradition is quite similar to the
Zen tradition. Remember, the world famous Tibetan teacher Trungpa
drank himself to death. Was his judgment impaired? His number
one dharma heir, Osel Tendzin, a westerner from New Jersey was
made successor and sanctified with the title Vajra Regent by Trungpa,
thought he was special too. Unfortunately he contracted AIDS,
knowingly had unprotected sex with his students, and passed it on to
some of his partners, at least one of who died. He thought the
Dakinis (female embodiment of enlightened energy, sky dancers) were
protecting everyone. Trungpa wrote of Tendzin, “As a student and
child of mine, Ösel Tendzin has developed his natural ability to
respond to the teachings of egolessness.” Interestingly, we see
here that the Tibetan tradition of “enlightened “ masters’ as
does Zen, refer to their students as a “child of mine”. Their
enlightened masters seem as fallible and as affected by alcohol as do
the Zen masters/roshi.
NDM:
Should his judgment in giving Dharma transmission be questioned?
Stuart
Lachs: Well,
more basic, and I keep coming back to this, is, "What
does Dharma transmission really mean?" How has it been used
historically? Look at other people with Dharma transmission; how do
they look when examined closely? Look at the history of Zen in
America and the recurring scandals and the ineffectual response from
the Zen Soto, Rinzai, and Sanbo Kyodan institutions in
Japan and other Zen roshi. Look at the history of
roshi in Japan, look at the history of the Soto and Rinzai sects say
from 1900 through 1945 and beyond to 1995 or so. It is time I think,
to stop fetishizing the titles roshi and Zen master, and look at them
as regular people with an institutionally sanctioned title. Look
at what people do rather than what some old text or a new
text claims “a roshi is.” The old texts are mostly
"prescriptive," that is,telling us how a Zen
master/roshi should act and talk; rarely are they "descriptive",
actually describing a real person's life in the modern sense of the
word. Are roshi really so special? Some may have some
good qualities but it is rare that there are no bad or weak qualities
tagging along. Let us do everyone a favor and keep this on the
human level. We should not steal the roshi's humanity or throw
away our own to satisfy a wish for a perfected person...
NDM:
Do you think this roshi business is this simply to keep this
hierarchical power structure in certain peoples hands? Are we
living in a time that this could even be done away with and to take
this back to basics? How it started off ?
Stuart
Lachs: The Chan
master/roshi system or idea developed in China. Though I am not an
expert on this, I believe it arose because of the social structure in
China which is mostly based on a Confucian hierarchical
model. In some ways, Chan/Zen is the most Confucian of Buddhist
sects in China. Chan based its legitimacy and authority on a
genealogical model (unbroken lineage from the historical Buddha) as
Chinese society was based on the family model, with its great
emphasis on ancestor worship. The Chan master of a student is
viewed as the father, students of the same teacher were viewed as
brothers, the teacher's teacher was your grandfather, there is
great emphasis on lineage and so on. This is still the situation
in Zen circles today...
Quoted
from Nonduality Magazine, Interview with Stuart Lachs, 2010.
http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.2.stuartlachs.interview.htm
