Anonymous response to Stuart Lachs' articles (1)

Reading Stuart Lach's articles places me in an unusual position; I feel simultaneously liberated and trapped, enthused and defensive. To some extent I feel delighted to see "Zen cows" sacrificed, whilst also feeling that this man, whom I vaguely consider authoritive, can successfully challenge the buttresses of my identity as a Zen (Chan) priest.

And so, of course, I can only delight in his work and observations!

How uncomfortable he makes me feel, how more inclined he makes me to understand the "Three Refuges". His words are life "writ large", full of highs and lows, opportunites for self-assurance and self-doubt, self examination and examination of "self".

Inasmuch as ego is challenged by his observations, it would certainly be easy to find ways to circumvent Lach's criticisms. Each of us will find our own way to "shoot the messenger" if that is what our entrenched ego demands us to do. For my part, I might find a few obvious responses arising as I encounter discomfiting information. First thing that leaps to mind is to look to find ways to undermine Mr Lachs when his comments prove discomfiting. Sure,he seems obsessed with bringing down Zen luminaries and institutions. I've read his talks and articles and they certainly reitierate common themes. Maybe he is just another Westerner attached to the need to demonstrate his post-modern Western bonafides by bringing down the very concept of heirarchy and authority in a religious tradition. Well done! Shot another fish in the barrel!

Another approach of my ego might be to simply say that this is a "Japanese Zen" problem, and adherents of less authoritive Chan tradition are immune to the issues he raises.

I might even say, as an Australian, that this is all simply the result of "American decadence" and has limited relevance to me. Perhaps it's all one of those "only in America" issues that so often headline our news services "down under". We've never had these problems down here, after all!

Indeed, should I allow it, my ego could probably come up with quite a few more justifications to ignore much of what Mr Lachs has to say if I felt so inclined.

No doubt, Mr Lach's observations are both informative and even entertaining. They provide information and allow us to righteously indulge our voyeuristic tendency to cut down those who claim (spiritual or profane) celebrity. But of course, at the end of the day, where does that leave us? A small niche market of informed and entertained Buddhists. Wonderful. Next?

What do we learn? How does this improve our practice? Sure, our inspiring role models have feet of clay. Yes, our gods are mortal. Indeed, we in our daily lives supporting families and doing our best to maintain fidelity and humility appear to be light years ahead of those we should supposedly learn from.

So what? Next?

We can argue the difference between "amorality" and "immorality". OK, maybe a Zen master who has sex with students under the one set of circumstances (e.g. all parties are single, mature and engaging in a non-exploitative encounter) differs from an adulterous affair, or one with an under-age partner. We might also argue the differences between the cultural norms of Western society as opposed to monastic Asian expectations.

So what? Next?

Stuart Lachs asks if American culture (let us expand this somewhat limited point of reference to all "Western" societies) will allow an unquestioning hagiography to continue in relation to the idea of the Zen master. Of course, it will not. That is the easy part of the question. If our attachment is to bringing down the very concept of religious authority, then it doesn't take any great intellect, or any sincere aspirant, to do so with relative ease.

So what? Next?

Let us understand, there is an essential issue here. As always, despite the dramas and the attempts to either idolise or demonise our "authorities" and "teachers", the basic premises are basic, even aggressively simple. Buddha (in the midst of our sociological meanderings, do we remember him?) gave us a fairly straightforward formula. We all know what it is. Keep to the Precepts. Follow the Eightfold Path. And remember, as he reputedly said upon his death bed, put no "head above your own". If someone wilfully chooses to put their adherence to a guru or a teacher above their own experience, above their own sincere adherence to the Precepts, then so be it. But then, we are no longer discussing the failings of Buddhism or "Zen in America", but simply the ego's tendency to do whatever it wants.

Simplify. Always simplify.

"I take refuge in the Buddha". What does that mean? It means that the Buddha nature is as close as our very selves. Our teachers, our inspirations, our "authorities", are a million light years, light realities away. Our Buddha nature is right here, right now, in every breath, and in every observation we have.

"I take refuge in the dharma". What does that mean? What is the teaching of the Buddha? Is it the teachings of the Precepts, and the Noble Eightfold Path, or is it jettisoning all of that because our teacher says so, or exhibits such a jettisoning in his/her practice?

"I take refuge in the sangha". Well, what refuge can we take in our spiritual community? If our teacher sleeps with our wife (to take an extreme example, thought Stuart Lachs refers to just such a one), how hard is it, really, to come back to basics and realise that our religious community has lost touch with the essence of the dharma?

I delight in Stuart Lachs' criticisms, because it is absurd that such critiques should be required, but nonetheless, they are. I deplore his criticisms, because the last thing we need is to find another excuse to dismiss the dharma simply because it is channelled through flawed media.

But at the end of the day, we can all find value in observations such as Mr Lachs makes. Above all, our practice must be close, it must be intimate to our experience, it must recognise the difference between "authority" and "inspiration". If we need bells and whistles, authority and lineages, then we are not even remotely close to real practice. Let's not "gild the lilly" and pretend otherwise. If our teacher "dupes" us, then we probably benefited from the experience, at least in terms of knowing how far we are from the practice of real Buddhism.

I am a teacher and priest of a western Chan Buddhist order, and I delight in the fact that at my ordination ceremony the title conferred upon me was a humble "kalyanamitra", or, "spiritual friend". Nothing more, nothing less. Should I wish to be anything more, all the more should my rampant ego be apparent to anyone who cared to look. And should anyone else wish me to be anything more, then I would hope the same would be apparent to me.

It's helpful to remember to keep our practice simple and direct: precepts, Eightfold Path, do good, refrain from evil ....