Genpo Roshi's resignation statement:

Owning My Responsibility
A Personal Statement from Genpo Merzel
I have chosen to disrobe as a Buddhist Priest, and will stop giving Buddhist Precepts or Ordinations, but I will continue teaching Big Mind. I will spend the rest of my life truly integrating the Soto Zen Buddhist Ethics into my life and practice so I can once again regain dignity and respect. My actions have caused a tremendous amount of pain, confusion, and controversy for my wife, family, and Sangha, and for this I am truly sorry and greatly regret. My behavior was not in alignment with the Buddhist Precepts. I feel disrobing is just a small part of an appropriate response.

I am also resigning as an elder of the White Plum Asanga. My actions should not be viewed as a reflection on the moral fabric of any of the White Plum members.

As Genpo Merzel, I will continue to bring Big Mind into the world and to train and facilitate people who wish to study with me. I will not give up on, and will still be available for people who wish to continue studying with me as just an ordinary human being who is working on his own shadows and deeply rooted patterns.

With great humility I will continue to work on my own shadows and deeply rooted patterns that have led me to miss the mark of being a moral and ethical person and a decent human being. I appreciate all the love and support as well as the criticism that has been shared with me. Experiencing all the pain and suffering that I have caused has truly touched my heart and been the greatest teacher. It has helped open my eyes and given me greater clarity around my own dishonest, hurtful behavior as well as my sexual misconduct. I recently entered therapy and plan to continue indefinitely with it. I am in deep pain over the suffering I have caused my wife, children, students, successors and Sangha.

With Sadness and Love,
D. Genpo Merzel

This is pretty fascinating. "shadows" and "deeply rooted patterns" and "therapy"

I hate to say this, but perhaps the "Big Mind" process leaves behind a "Big Blind Spot".

Merzel has never really impressed me, anyway. Too heavy on the marketing.

I'm sure to a lot of people/students in the zen community, Genpo was an "enlightened zen master" which meant that he was powerful, special, moral, wise, perfected somehow.

But I think the truth for him and for most people who have "dharma transmission" and possibly a lot of skill, experience, knowledge, insight, etc. is that he could be just horrible in some ways a lot of the time. Why not?

Good points Mike. In many ways the Zen institutional model is to blame ("dharma transmission", "Zen master", etc.). Religion is a powerful thing. We want so badly for the Zen master ideal to be real, because then we could be a Zen master someday! And as Stuart Lachs' insightful papers have pointed out, the Zen master doesn't even need to say that he/she is special; the institution does it for them. Genpo could come out and say, "Look, I'm just a normal guy. A simple Zen priest," and his followers may think, "Wow, such humility! He really is a Zen master!" - all because the tradition sets it up that way. Hmm...

I think it's probably better for Genpo to practice his "Big Mind" stuff outside of the Zen institution. Maybe then he'll be thought of as a human being instead of a "master". He should also probably start going by "Dennis". Just saying.

So, maybe, the basic language about all this will start to change.

People will claim great insights or great enlightenment or be lineage holders in zen, but will also discuss their "shadows" and "deeply rooted patterns?" And those two things will be another level of work yogis are expected to do along with meditation and mindfulness?

Maybe. I'm not sure if that would be good or bad.

Actually, from what I know of the "Integral" movement (a la Ken Wilber), that type of work is already being promoted. "Shadow work" is talked about quite often at the Integral Life website, and is described as being something that conventional meditative technologies can't really touch. Our shadow stuff comes in our interpersonal relationships and in our dreams. I've used a technique called the "3-2-1" as described by the Integral folks, and it was actually kind of insightful...

http://integrallife.com/awaken/shadow/practice-3-2-1-shadow-process

Anyway...

Jackson

P.S. This ties in with the Gestalt therapy information I've been spewing all over this forum. The 3-2-1 process is about re-owning/re-integrating disowned, fragmented aspects of our being to become more "whole". And, Gestalt means "whole".

P.P.S. Another reason why this is important is that we can't really transcend what we have not integrated/owned. If we attempt to transcend something that we've dissociated from, spiritual bypassing occurs as a result. Re-owning the fragments provides the platform that allows for meaningful transcendence to occur; that is, "transcend and include" rather than, "transcend and reject".

I would think that a good practice, zen or otherwise, would include a sort of constant attempt to "transcend and include." Right?

Does the use of the term "shadow" by the Integral people (who I think Dennis is a part of) mean that there is stuff that we can't "transcend and include" because it is hidden somehow?

If by "hidden" you mean "currently outside of conscious awareness", then yes. This kind of thing is often revealed by unusually strong reactions to people or situations, or via "projection." For example, if I'm someone who has disowned anger for whatever reason (perhaps due to seeing how my father's anger badly hurt my mother), I may project my angry feelings on to you. I may say, "Why are you so mad at me!" when you're really not. Really, I'm the one that's angry, but it gets displaced.

To give a personal example, during my high school and early college years I had a big problem with "bros" - jock-type guys who were always trying to get girls into bed. I found this degrading, disgusting, and just plain unacceptable. I vowed to be nothing like them, and their very presence got me all riled up. The truth is, I had a difficult time with my own sexual and romantic desires during that time. Deep down I didn't feel that it was OK to feel that way, and especially not to act on it! It took me a while to realize that in some ways I was angry with them for being comfortable with themselves while I was not. Since working through some of this "shadow" stuff, I don't react in quite the same way to these types of people.

During the time prior to working through it, I thought I was better than these guys for having gone beyond their primative behavior. But really, I had just rejected that part of myself. In order to really grow into a mature transcendence of "bro" behavior, I have to first acknowledge that I have desires just like they do, and that's OK. Than I can choose what to do about it, and learn to express it in ways that are healthier than either rejecting them or selfishly acting them out.

Good example?

To give a personal example, during my high school and early college years I had a big problem with "bros" - jock-type guys who were always trying to get girls into bed. I found this degrading, disgusting, and just plain unacceptable. I vowed to be nothing like them, and their very presence got me all riled up. The truth is, I had a difficult time with my own sexual and romantic desires during that time. Deep down I didn't feel that it was OK to feel that way, and especially not to act on it! It took me a while to realize that in some ways I was angry with them for being comfortable with themselves while I was not. Since working through some of this "shadow" stuff, I don't react in quite the same way to these types of people.

-awouldbehipster

Yes, good example. Sounds like you may have spent part of your childhood hanging out with fundamentalist Christians.

Yes, that was part of it

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/disrobing-genpo--brad-warner/

Brad Warner's take on Dennis.

I think the photo says it all.

You got a Bigga Mind (R) than me, Mike-- I think the absolutely zinger text says it all!

nice article, thanks for linking it Mike!

I really wonder if the entire cultures in yoga, buddhism, etc. in which "teachers" have some sort or any sort of authority in some kind of institution is ever going to be any good.

Maybe there could be people who are "meditation teachers" in much the same way there are guitar or piano teachers. You go to them because they have a skill they can maybe teach you if you are willing to learn and have the right appitude and the two of you work well together. but, with music teachers, there is very seldom I think any kind of authoritative relationship. (how many scandals can you name when a piano teacher had sex with a student?)

I know that for me, while I find the atmosphere and practice forms at American zen centers appealing and nice in a lot of ways, I am freaking horrified at the idea that any of the zen teachers would have a relationship with me in which I was somehow lesser than or less capable of original insights because I didn't have the same stamp of approval from the institution that they had, etc.

I really think that no human, no matter what their skills in practice has any justification for any kind of authority against any other human being, and, I think that any person that an institution defines as "advanced" or "enlightened" is capable of great evil and well as great compassion.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head Mike. If dharma centers were filled with folks who saw things that way and had the guts to be upfront about it, teachers would have no incentive or would not be enabled to be narcissistic douches.

the problem is that, aside from the fact that there are some apparently narcissistic douches teaching (like apparently every teacher Ken Wilber falls in love with; wtf is up with that anyway?) there are bunches and bunches of folks who are happy to see them as omnipotent masterly amazing demigods. Ya know? "Reciprocity". Without that enabling there is simply no way that these scenes can go so bad. And with or without that enabling, even a narcissistic jackass can pass on some skills. So yeah-- maybe the models and rules and roles need a major overhaul.

Anybody here checked out that multi-part BG interview with Hokai Sobel a while back which addressed some aspects of the issue of changing models of dharma transmission? pretty insightful IMO.

"the problem is that, aside from the fact that there are some apparently
narcissistic douches teaching (like apparently every teacher Ken Wilber
falls in love with; wtf is up with that anyway?) there are bunches and
bunches of folks who are happy to see them as omnipotent masterly
amazing demigods"

My guess is that 'If you believe in things you don't understand'-- you have a big chunk of the human race for company in your hankering for magic and mystery. Part of the appeal of those who capitalize on making a big, special, unprecedented DEAL out of their claimed 'enlightenment' [which, under conditions to be discussed later, can be shared with lucky, lucky YOU] is the implication that you can 'get it' from them. I think KW is the special case of hoping to jump in front of the parade; also the special case of not learning one damn thing from his previous egregious errors. Or being able to tell the difference between Kalu Rinpoche and Adi Da.

Having exhausted my little store of cheap shots... I find myself considering the 'co-respondent' in the case: Merzel disrobes, retreats into his BigMind enterprise-- what's next for the erstwhile 'Dharma heir'? Is she busted back to private? Does she repent and attempt to amend? Was she betraying anyone other than the dharma, sangha, and Merzel's family?

I find myself wondering whether the co-respondent was motivated by an unconscious hope that spirituality could be bought in the way that groupies pay for a little of the shine of rock stars. And reflecting, too, on other, subtler versions of the same transaction: the gushing, credulous praise accorded to a teacher's 'wisdom'; an unwillingness in asking-- or being asked-- critical questions; giving shoddy logic a pass. A wise teacher wouldn't fall for this treatment; an adult student wouldn't offer it. But look at the volume of evidence that there's a lot of it going on! It has been suggested that this incident should cause us to reflect on
our own maturity, or lack of it, in relating to teachers; it's a little
ironic that this statement comes from someone who has NOT welcomed
criticism.

Any seduction [between fully-functional adults] has two participants; a relatively small number of these seductions lead to the bedroom; a lot of them just lead to various sorts of 'buyer's remorse'-- at best. Some of them lead to the waste of vast tracts of this precious human lifetime. Chasing a chimera, unwilling to admit being a sucker for clever advertising copy, and one's own unexamined deficiencies that set the trap.

Righteousness and blame are pretty boring; finding out how I work, how others work, what our motivations, beliefs, expectations, blind spots, agreements are-- that's interesting.

Good points Kate!!! Myself I'm enjoying the conversations around this incident precisely because they offer an opportunity to inquire into why this incident is in no way surprising to some folks.

"Righteousness and blame are pretty boring; finding out how I work, how
others work, what our motivations, beliefs, expectations, blind spots,
agreements are-- that's interesting."--Kate

Exactly! But look at the majority of posts on the topic at KFD. It's very difficult for folks to see past the first clause of your statement to the second. Many want to weigh in with a "call" on whether or not Merzel 'should' have disrobed or not, and why, rather than looking at the underlying dynamics that give rise to (and prevent) such scenes in the first place.

Well, I am not surprised by any of if-- I didn't get to be a geezer without seeing a lot of foolishness along the road. What I was pointing at-- to be perfectly blatant-- was that Kenneth seems unaware of what applying the standards of the critique would mean for his OWN 'advertising' and 'dharma.' And how he has reacted when he has been confronted with evidence of autonomous, adult investigation.

-- on second thought, K's sideswipe at Brad Warner-- who has got the situation pretty right, far's I can see-- reflects some dim inkling that there are implications for K's own work. Nothing is so annoying as an unwelcome insight.

Chris - I'm surprised every day at what people do (especially the crap I do).

But I'm not surprised that Genpo no longer a Roshi had sexual relations with various students.

To "teachers" who complain about not being able to make a living, I want to say: "Get a job like the rest of us."

To "teachers" who can't seem to keep their hands off their students, I want to say: "Why don't you go out and meet people or use the internet to find partners like the rest of us?"

I really like Brad Warner but it does annoy me when he complains about being poor all the time as a full time writer/zen priest.

this might be an interesting short story or novel:

A guy like Genpo, who is in his job is treated with lavish deference (has "attendants," is considered somehow special or "enlightened") whose every word carries great weight with all those around him, etc. who decides he really wants to start dating and having sexual relations (either because he is newly single or he wants to cheat) because, after all, he IS human. So the story follows him going out into the bar seen or the internet dating scene trying to find partners in a world of people who, for the most part, don't care about his "Roshi" status and who just see him as a domineering, pushy, know it all middle-aged man.

Or, even, there is huge scandal and he is forced out, and not only does he have to fend for himself in the relationship/sexual world, but he has to get a regular job for maybe the first time in his life and be treated as just another working stiff rather than as a "master."

what would happen? what would that be like?

Ever consider producing reality TV, Mike? I can see it now: Disrobed Priests: the Day After. There could be Catholics, Protestants, Zennists, Hindus... No end of potential material. And maybe some real surprises-- like discovering that the 'real' world has its own charms...

Ever consider producing reality TV, Mike? I can see it now: Disrobed Priests: the Day After. There could be Catholics, Protestants, Zennists, Hindus... No end of potential material. And maybe some real surprises-- like discovering that the 'real' world has its own charms...

-kategowen

I wish I could write the novel.

Right Kate. Now you are touching on an issue that comes out in Genpo's "apology" (look up the etymology and history of that word). Which I think ties in with some of the problems amongst Wilberians. That is: the way in which "owning my shadow" can be a big dodge. This is another area where Ken appropriates something from a source and then it gets all twisted up into his Big System in a way that IMO diffuses most of the power of the original insight, in this case Jung's. Just give Jung a read on the "Shadow', and you'll see how much more nuanced and deep his understanding was. Then look at Wilber's straw man critiques of Jung. It's as if W has to justify taking bits and pieces from others by cutting them down and "preserving their one true insight" in his massive compendium of "Truth". But it simply doesn't hold up when you check the primary sources with an open mind.