Stuart Lachs is THE MAN

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/docs/ENGLISH/pdf/WhenTheSaintsGoMarching.pdf

I read this article just the other day, and I loved it as well. I've gotten to know Stuart fairly well over email communication for the last few years. He is very insightful, down to earth, and simply human.

Here's are some excerpts that really stood out to me...

"In a manner similar to the way photo retouched images of models and celebrities engender insecurities in ordinary people making them feel as if something is wrong with them, or that they are less complete people, often leading them to become neurotic over their looks, so too does the hagiographic image of the perfected and saintly Chan master work on the Chan student and interested religious seeker. Chan hagiographies transfer the written word’s generated saintliness and idealized attainment to the role itself and hence to the living title holder. Students and interested followers then come to see themselves as lesser people than the master, not uncommonly becoming infantilized before the master who is seen as the only real full person. It is perhaps not surprising that most all the pure and immaculate Chan masters we know and look up to are from the distant past and that we know them through the written word, that is, Chan texts, and mostly heavily redacted texts at that."

Along the same vein...

"By omitting even a hint of Walter’s emotional life the article produces a complete discontinuity between Walter, the supposed Zen master, and readers of the magazine, the vast majority of whom are lay people who are emotionally involved with other human beings. It also fails to let students know that their spiritual life and insights are as valuable and authentic as anyone’s, including Zen roshi. It fails to let them know that their doubts about a roshi’s behavior may be legitimate and it fails to warn them to be careful in situations where too much power is attributed to a role. It fails moreover to let roshi know that they are accountable for their behavior or to give them a way to work out their issues without acting them out upon their sanghas." (italics mine)

What Stuart sees happening in Zen is common in many religious settings. First, some ideal is developed, and than it is transferred from the realm of concepts and superimposed on either a figure from history or someone alive today. This not only distorts how one views the Zen master (in this context), but - by association (or in frame of reference) - distorts how one views others who are not Zen masters. An artificial (and purely conceptual) chasm opens up between the exalted and unrealized, non-enlightened human beings.

This isn't the case with every teacher-student relationship in religious communities, but it definitely happens a lot. I appreciate Stuart's abililty to deconstruct the whole charade.

Apparently, Tricycle was not happy with Lach's article. The Editor wrote a blog post stating his disapproval last March...

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/zen-sinners-zen-saints-tricycle-responds

Stuart took the time to write a reply, which is definitely worth reading.

What did you think of that article. Mike? What motivated you to post it here?

-cmarti

Well, I love Mr. Lach's work in general for it's myth/lie busting strength. Then, the fact that he has a new awesome one out is great. And. because he made so many great points about how spiritual/relgious institutions lie about their leaders. He has so many great points just from his own experience. I mean, the lies about Mr. Nowick are just ridiculous. People just want to think that there are these amazing spiritual zen master beings and there just aren't. They don't exist and the sooner we can all see that and deal with that the better and more realistic and intimate all our practices will be.

"hagiographic perpetuation" great name for a rock band

The pastor of the Christain Church that I am a member of but haven't attended for three years, would, I bet, willingly agree that the New Testament is "hagiography."

His is that open and I guess "liberal."

In a general context, a hagiography is any biography or writing about the life of a saint.

Hagiography is an idealized, worshipful writing about a saint's life. It's myth making, or, lying. The story of the Buddha seeing the corpse, the sick person, etc is a good example.

I see this scenario playing out sometimes:

Student looking for teacher: I went to such and such teacher the other day, but geez, he's just some average human being, not perfect and superhuman like I want a teacher to be. Because after all enlightenment gives you superpowers and makes you perfect. Plus he should have that rock star charisma and a big sangha - then I'll know he's the right teacher for me. So I'll keep looking til I find one like that. Ooh, look I found one!

Same student three years later: Okay, even the supposedly perfect teacher shits, fucks and farts like everyone else.

Then:
a) he's still a great teacher despite his normal human foibles, so I'll not be bothered by it -the problem was my bizarre expectations
or
b) lesson learned, not only is this guy actually human, he's also not a very good teacher, time for a new teacher.

I am reading through the Lachs text now. To be honest the issues being described here seem nearly inextricable from the main body of Zen Buddhism. The entire structure, it seems, of the practice is bound up with elements of the cult of personality. The very concept of extra-textual transmission and lineage would seem to demand a powerful emphasis on the saintliness of an individual teacher, and it seems to be that prestige and unseemly veneration are nearly impossible to avoid given the structure of the practice. Certainly, a great many Zen students and practitioners I see seem to be focused on lineage, authenticity, the imprimatur of a certain renowned or charismatic teacher—either positively, as a vehicle of practice, or negatively, as a way of attacking or publicly doubting another teacher—in a way that I couldn't really imagine functioning within the Thai Forest Tradition.I don't mean to insult any Zen practitioner here, but I must express some surprise and doubt at the proportion of chatter I see in Zen circles online, especially the blogs, that concerns itself with comparison and agony over these questions of lineage and prestige. Generally speaking, I am usually relieved to find that those teachers that I most value are often the ones with the least ink spilled over them.

Yes, this problem occurs in various forms across many (if not all) of the world religious traditions. I think it's a wonderful example of how language plays a role in the way human beings respond to their environment. Here's what I mean...

[DISLCAIMER - I've used this kind of reasoning elsewhere in the forum. Read it if you find it interesting.]

Human beings learn language in a bi-directional way. This means that if I tell you "A = B" you will easily infer that "B = A". This is referred to as mutual entailment. The relationship established between these two things/events is one of equivalence.

Now, let's take it a step further. If I say that "A = B" and "B = C", not only will you derive the mutual entailments "B = A" and "C = B", but also the combinatorial entailments "A = C" and C = A". You were never taught the combinatorial entailments, and thus, they were derived.

Why does this matter? Let's put it into context...

Let's say you know a guy named Joe (we'll label Joe "A"). Someone tells you that Joe is a Roshi (we'll label Roshi "B"). There is now a bi-directional equivalence relationship between "A" and "B"; Joe and the word Roshi. Joe is Roshi, and Roshi is Joe.

Now, let's say that you learn from someone that a Roshi is a super saintly individual (we'll label super saintly individual as "C"). What happens now? The combinatorial entailments (through bi-directional equivalence relations) "C = A" (super saintly individual = Joe) and "A = C" (Joe = super saintly individual) are established.

Further, how might you expect someone to act in the presence of a super saintly individual; perhaps with reverence, or maybe with respect? One might even bow at their feet, or do anything they say (in extreme cases). But, now that this characteristic of being super saintly has been established as equivalent through mutual entailment and combinatorial entailment (processes which occur whether you like it or not), then "A" (Joe) and "B" (Roshi) are likely to result in evoking the same response as "C". That is, the function of "C" transfers to "A" and "B". This, of course, is later reinforced through various behaviors (another topic to explore!).

Lucky for everyone, these relational frames can be dismantled through further learning. And I think this is part of why Stuart writes these articles. By adding information that has been left out (e.g. personality characteristics, neurosis, harmful behavior, and exposed untruths), individuals are then able to re-frame what "Joe" and "Roshi" mean, which may or may not undermine their equivelence with "C".

Good times.

That's a mini Functional Contextual analysis of how this stuff happens, and how it can be undone. It's funny to me how a tradition like Zen, which claims to go beyond language (and sometimes does), uses language to maintain such a powerful, and often detrimental, belief structure.

I am reading through the Lachs text now. To be honest the issues being described here seem nearly inextricable from the main body of Zen Buddhism. The entire structure, it seems, of the practice is bound up with elements of the cult of personality. The very concept of extra-textual transmission and lineage would seem to demand a powerful emphasis on the saintliness of an individual teacher, and it seems to be that prestige and unseemly veneration are nearly impossible to avoid given the structure of the practice. Certainly, a great many Zen students and practitioners I see seem to be focused on lineage, authenticity, the imprimatur of a certain renowned or charismatic teacher—either positively, as a vehicle of practice, or negatively, as a way of attacking or publicly doubting another teacher—in a way that I couldn't really imagine functioning within the Thai Forest Tradition.I don't mean to insult any Zen practitioner here, but I must express some surprise and doubt at the proportion of chatter I see in Zen circles online, especially the blogs, that concerns itself with comparison and agony over these questions of lineage and prestige. Generally speaking, I am usually relieved to find that those teachers that I most value are often the ones with the least ink spilled over them.

-cruxdestruct

Yes.

I think there must be some American Zen teachers just going about their business -- and doing good work -- without much fanfare. And, I think, there are more out there abusing their power than we realize. I've been hearing more awful things because of a social link know have to a student of a "transmitted" american zen teacher.

I want to expand on this more later, but I think the entire idea that there is someone who is somehow "special" and above others and deserving of any kind of authority due to what another teacher has said about them or their own claims is faulty and just doesn't work.

On the way home last night I put on a Jack Kornfield podcast. And, man, after this article and all the discussion on hagiography I could really tell one of the reasons why he sort of vaguely irritates me. (I also love him and his work and his teaching, don't get me wrong)

He is hagiographer of the first order. Just listen to him tell stories of all the teachers, and saints, and students, and monks and world leaders he's encoutered in his life. The stories are so romantic and idealized. And, I dare to say, possibly exaggerated -- just a bit?

Yes, Mike. I think Kornfield's repertoire of stories is chock full of romanticized, idealized, and otherwise exagerated versions that are probably only a shadow of their original tales. Teachers like Kornfield seem to use these stories more for their function than their veracity. The implication being, I think, that the qualities the stories evoke are resonant with our true nature, and in that sense they are true.



I don't like that view very much, though; at least not lately.

Thanks.
The problem I have with this approach is that I really believe most of the audience believes the stories are true to life. Could I be wrong about this? He certainly presents them as true, as facts.
This perpetuates a romantic, sentimental view of practice which is counterproductive I think.

Makes one tend to look for such awesome qualities in their own life and actions rather than just look at what they and others are REALLY actually doing. I think the truth is what matters and what leads to awakening and some freedom as well.

In this podcast I listened to yesterday he told the story of a time in Thailand (wonderful, beautiful monk worshiping Thailand) when there was a huge conflect between student protestors and the government/army/police. So, what do you know? A Buddhist teacher and his monks walked many many miles with alms bowls in hand until they were standing between the students and the government forces. And then, the monks just stood there, quietly, for hours. Until, of course, everyone calmed down and saw the error of their ways. And, after that, everything got better across the land. (sorry about the sarcasm, I know I must have some deep resentments about this sort of thing)

edit: I just read Chris' post.

Okay, "myths," actual myths from the distant past that are known to be stories, myths -- are one thing. But, when a contemporary person such as Kornfield tells stories from their own life as it they are true -- that is something else, I think. Though, it is probably how myths start. Someday maybe the Thai story above will be discussed in comp lit classes as an example of a classic myth.

I certainly wouldn't argue that Zen transmission necessarily entails guru attachment, but I do think it shakes out to be more appealing, let's say, on average, than many other Buddhist traditions, to the sort of person who would be inclined to form for themselves a cult of personality. There's many reasons for this—and some of them are simply the culture out of which it emerged, and which it has imported partially wherever it's traveled—but one of them, I think, is its focus on that extra-textual, ineffable true dharma of transmission. I think that creates the possibility that the teachings stop being the vehicle of the dharma, and the teacher becomes the vehicle instead. Of course the direct access to the nature of things that Zen seeks is a terribly compelling concept and I would never claim that it's anything close to wrong view—but I know, for myself, that I would gladly develop undue attachment and veneration for my teacher if I were so encouraged, especially if I came to believe that 'making it' as a Buddhist was not reaching some level of peace and insight for myself, but rather receiving his seal of approval.

Again, I write this not to try to attack the Zen tradition, which I still have great affection for, in my personal experience of it (and indeed, though I'm not a regular practitioner there, the sangha at Fire Lotus Temple here in NYC, and Shugen Sensei, its head, have both demonstrated themselves to be wholly upright and deeply wise bodies), but to try to delineate some of the ways that I think Zen might be characteristically susceptible to hagiography and its concomitant ills.

I think we're underestimating the audience Kornfield commands.
Also, in 2007 there were several instances like what Kornfield apparently describes in Burma, with monks serving as a buffer but also protesting peacefully alongside students and other pro-democracy organizations. I think we should do the right thing here and be aware that Kornfield might be telling the truth:
[url]

-cmarti

Well .... so you think that Kornfield's audience, in general, realizes that he is exagerating and idealizing? I'm not sure, but I guess that is possible.

And, clearly, his stories are idealized, simplified, romantized, sentimentalized versions of real events. I think they all have some basis in reality for sure. And I have no doubt that monks in Burma and Thailand have done wonderful things.

But, if doing the "right thing" is to say that Kornfield is NOT a hagiographer of one degree or another in the stories he tells of his life and things he has observed -- then I'm certainly going to insist on doing the wrong thing. The Thai monk story is just one of many.

Plus, I don't think that the stories somehow in essence reveal our "true natures," but, rather,instead obscure the truth of who we really are.

The whole idea of Zen dharma transmission is rather shaky, IMHO, but I would defer to an experienced Zen practitioner like Gozen before I would declare it null and void. In my own experience there is something detectable in an awakened person, some subtle mark of some sort that is apparent to others. So there is something to the notion that awakening can be validated or verified. It has nothing to do with myths and Zen masters, however, and everything to do with human nature and what occurs to us over years of practice and the changes that practice brings.

-cmarti

I agree with you, Chris, and with Lachs. So-called dharma transmission is not what it's cracked up to be. It's usually something officious and business-like, rather than being the seal of Bodhi that it's supposed to be according to popular conception. On your more important point, Chris, about there being something detectable in an awakened person, I also agree. Someone who is not awakened may get a sense of it. But in the end, it takes one to know one with certainty. That being said, I hasten to add that there are definitely degrees of awakening. And, equally important, awakening is not the be-all, and end-all, to problems and pain, as I used to think when I started on this path so many years ago. Sh*+ still happens! But happenings, events, experiences no longer have the power to threaten anything fundamental in one's nature. THAT is worth the price of admission.

-- Mike "Gozen"