The Aitken-Shimano Letters

Vladimir K. and Stuart Lachs have written a remarkable exposé of allegations of sexual abuse involving a senior Zen monk in America:

www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen...Shimano_Letters.html

The essay is as riveting as it is disturbing, and I encourage anyone who wants to better understand power and politics in Buddhism to read it. This is an especially timely topic, given the recent online availability of Bill Hamilton's book, Saints and Psychopaths.

This kind of thing makes me sad but doesn't surprise me. Thanks for posting the link, Kenneth. I give huge props to Stuart for the work he does. I think it's almost as important to do what Stuart does as it is to teach. Why? Because we're all human beings and it's just obvious that no human being is exempt from human frailties. Look to the Vatican for all the historical evidence you could ever need. Look to any major organized religion. Look to any institution that grants power over other people to a person, or a group of people.

Honestly, this is why things like the Actual Freedom movement scare me, and are just plain wrong. The second you believe you are somehow better, somehow different, than others you have made the first step, a HUGE step, toward forgetting your humanity and treating the rest of us like sheep. A lot of **** has happened to millions of human beings as a result of just that one step. Second, being human beings, some of us will be happy to be treated like sheep. This is a never-ending struggle in politics, government, religion, work, pretty much any endeavor. There are leaders who will be fully aware of problems like this perpetrated by their peers and yet be frozen and seemingly unable (more like unwilling) to do anything about it. I've seen this behavior in the workplace over and over and over again. It's sad, but a fact of human life, that we all need to be vigilant and honest and clear, very, very clear, and willing to act when necessary. All that is needed, a wise person once said, for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

I've been reading Bill Hamilton's book. I grok why he wrote that first section. Buddhists are not exempt. Far from it.

I think these issues are a little complicated.

It's a bit easier to talk about if you imagine that we're talking about physicists or doctors instead of contemplative adepts.

If you imagine an extremely skilled and masterful physicist or doctor, then you know we're talking about someone with some very valuable skills. This person will, in all likelihood, contribute significantly to humankind in some important ways. Maybe by discovering or identifying a previously obscured principle, by helping to invent important technology, or by isolating the cure for some devastating illness.

If someone told me that that person had a problem with, say, alcoholism, I would think, 'Oh, that's a shame. Maybe he or she should consider Alcoholics Anonymous'. But it wouldn't make me think s/he was any less of a physicist or doctor (when she was practicing under optimal conditions, like hands not shaking from Korsakoff's syndrome.). And if I had a particulalry vexing issue with which I needed expert help I might still seek that person out.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to meet him in or near a bar. If I knew he'd been drinking recently, I might want to approach with caution. And I wouldn't ask for that physicist's guidance in helping me to establish healthy behaviors around drinking.

This is a little related to how I'm thinking of Progress of Insight at this time. I find myself thinking of it as a curriculum. A visceral-experiential curriculum, whereby one investigates the 'strata of mind' (that term's straight from Kenneth). I find myself working to get clear on what this curriculum is and is not. What it covers and what it does not. It's sort of a background project for me these days as I study and reflect.

Chances are the roshi would have been womanizing whether he'd ever chosen the path of Zen or not.

Yes, I agree. That's the point, Nigel. This has little or nothing to do with Buddhism or religion EXCEPT that being in high office, being perceived as an authority figure, makes it easier for a person to abuse the power we give to their office, to do far less skillful things with their fellow human beings because those others have placed a certain level of trust in that person, built a view around their office and authority that may or may not actually follow. I've read some of Stuart's other essays and writings and this is the issue I believe he's addressing - the "norms" that we wrap around authority and how that can be taken advantage of... if we allow it.

Yes, I heard Stuart's interview on Buddhist Geeks back when it was first 'broadcast'. His arguments were cogent and accurate. Definitely well-done. It all arose out of the analysis of the unavoidable fetishization of power and authority in social groups. Such roles always come with their own self-obfuscating subtexts. They have to. Otherwise they're not compelling, and then it wouldn't be power. So yes, it's an important point and it's important work to be done.

But with regard to this particular field of endeavor, the progress of insight, I find that I want a satisfying way to think about it. A way that feels accurate.

If we hear of a womanizing Nobel laureate, we think, 'ah well...'. But if we hear of a womanizing religious leader, we think 'how could he!'

Because in particular the fields of religion and contemplative enquiry have an expressly moral component to them. It's almost like moral breaches are to contemplative/religious leaders as malpractice is to physicians, or lying about the data is to the Nobel scientist.

But is this an accurate analogy? What exactly is the progress of insight investigating? I hope I'm not asking this too facilely. It's really something that I'm reflecting on privately.

Part 1
Thanks to Kenneth for posting the link to my joint paper and for cmarti and Nigel for reading and commenting on the paper.

I think there are at least two points to keep in mind when thinking of power and authority
in social groups:
1: people only have the power that others give them '“ it is always a two way dance. It
is also true if you don't give the power '“ you may not be able to stay in the group, but
that is still a choice.
2: institutions or what Nigel called social groups write stories that get called history to
make it seem as natural as an apple falling from a tree that power should be owned
and controlled the way it is with in the group. . As these stories are refined over
many years they are very powerful in getting people to buy into them. These mostly
concocted stories get repeated and refined for hundreds of years or more, but that does
not make them any more accurate. The story may serve a number of purposes, but
definitely one is to maintain the power and authority as it is defined.

I write about Zen because I am familiar with its history and development and have had many years being part of Zen groups and seeing how they operate on the ground as opposed to what their story is '“ the rhetoric so to speak. It is this disparity between the rhetoric of power and authority and what was happening in the groups and the effects of it that drove me to try and figure out what is happening, to talk of this disparity by giving real life examples that are often kept silent, and to give my view and understanding of it.

2
This last paper is the least theoretical or general of my papers. Vladimir and I concentrated on telling the story as we saw it from the 273 pages of letters that were part
of Aitken's fomerly sealed file. I think there is a minimum of comment and pointing out other avenuse to explore. It is interesting in itself why Aitken has finally opened this part of the very large collection of papers that he turned over to the University of Hawaii library. Aitken is quite old, in his 90's I believe. I have some ideas but let us leave this for another time.

The letters do not make Aitken look particularly good nor does it make his teachers Soen Nakagawa roshi and Yasutani roshi look particularly good. Least of all does it make Shimano (Eido roshi) look good They all hid events and lied to people/students over a period of years about what occurred in Hawaii with Shimano and later allegedly in NYC.

The letters also raise a fundamental question about Zen rhetoric. That is, Shimano, known as Eido roshi received his teaching from Yasutani and Soen and received his Dharma transmission from Soen. Yasutani also however, wanted to make him a Dharma heir. Soen and Yasutani were also Aitken's teacher and Aitken received his credentials (Dharma transmission) to teach from Yasutani's Dharma heir, Yamada roshi.

In the letters, Aitken writes that after hearing Shimano talk in 1976 and reading his written talks (later in the 1980's), he thinks Shimano has not penetrated the teaching, that is, should not have received Dharma transmission. But he then goes further, and questions how Soen and Yasutani did not see or understand this. This also raises the question of Aitken's own credentials as he received them from Yasutani's heir. If Yasutani and Soen both were wrong and misunderstood their student Shimano, who else did they misunderstand? How often has this happened in the history of Zen? How many other so called masters made the same mistake?

3
Or more fundamentally, is Dharma transmission really based only on deep penetration of Zen as the rhetoric maintains (though the history doesn't), or are there other factors at play: getting more disciples, spreading one's lineage, one's name, growth for the monastery, keeping a lineage alive, attracting financial and other support, missionary ideas,'¦In the case at hand, I believe that both Soen and Yasutani wanted to spread their word/lineage/teaching/name??? to the west and Shimano was their ticket. In a sense, it was the tail wagging the dog, what ever Zen says about master /disciple relationships. I think it also shows that clerics of all stripes including Zen masters have desires and this has effects as it does with everyone else. In Zen this is a particular problem because the Zen master supposedly has attained a state of 'no- self.'
This opens a big can of worms, as Zen bases its authority on the chain of enlightened masters/roshi who supposedly can recognize another enlightened person and this chain of enlightened master supposedly goes back to the historical Buddha. This privilege so to speak is reserved only for the transmitted Chan/Zen master and it is based on this feature that they demand the authority and respect as if they were Buddhas. Now Aitken is saying he thinks his teachers made a mistake in giving Shimano Dharma transmission.
So either Aitken is mistaken, but then his teacher Yamada was mistaken about him, which means Yasutani was mistaken, or Aitken was correct in his judgment of Shimano but then Soen and Yasutani are mistaken, or they all are mistaken. Whatever, they all can't be correct, which means this supposed judgment of another's depth of penetration is not that easy an affair to judge as is claimed.

4
Sorry to digress like this, but a follower of Shimano wrote to me upset , but some how did not quite get the point that judging the depth of another person's attainment is not always that easy and is certainly not infallible. He seemed to think it was easy for an experienced person (himself), even though it was just shown that two more experienced people (Aitken and Soen) than this person said he respected had disagreed. This person who wrote to me is naturally, a roshi!

Back to the paper, I think an especially interesting aspect is to see how people with hallowed titles acted in real life situations, what they wrote and said privately in the context of a real problem. Not surprisingly, not that different from the itching and scratching of ordinary folk who do not have such hallowed titles and who do not demand special respect and place. I think it is also interesting to see how some one with all the official blessings of the Zen institution can behave so poorly.

Again, sorry for the length of this post, but this material is still very fresh for me.

Thank you, Stuart, for yet another outstanding post. I always find myself riveted by your treatment of power and myth in Zen. I do believe that your patient and careful explanation of this subject is making a difference in the way many of us view these institutions. I, for one, will never again assume that the title "roshi" guarantees the wisdom of the one carrying it. Enlightenment is not passed from one person to the next like a plastic baton. Buyer beware.

Kenneth

Hi Kenneth,

Thank you for your kind words . "Buyer Beware" should be written in neon lights. Titles are institutional positions- plain and simple- that are given for many reasons- they guarantee nothing! It is that way in Zen as well as the Catholic Church and everything in between. Enlightenment is not passed from one person to the next like a plastic baton, institutional roles however, are.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,
I read some of your work on another link recently and found the whole 'useful doctrinal fabrications' fascinating. Now I hope what I'm going to ask isn't off the subject, but I've been wondering recently what exactly is, transmission of mind, if we extract the institutional aspect and the social constructs associated with it? You see I've always wondered how a yogi can say to a student, 'you will attain liberation in the life time,' and another one won't. When Adidam looks into the eyes of a student and the student immediately attains an altered state of consciousness, is this transmission of mind? When Sri Ramana Maharishi used to sit in total silence in meditation it is said this was his most powerful teaching/transmission and more than a few attained liberation in his presence. Is it a real, field phenomenon that transcends space and time or is it simply a mechanical event, that comes about through an altercation in your brain chemistry as you practice? Could I say that I receive transmission because I receive and practice instruction from my teacher but in the end, I'm on my own???
Paul

While in no way can I be considered an authority, I'd like to submit that much of the problem, and indeed a great deal of our reaction to the problem can be attributed to a general misunderstanding of the condition of "Bodhi" or "enlightenment," both on the part of humanity in general and the institutions which foster it. This general glorification and mystification of what in other traditions has been called "The Natural State" is both dangerous and misleading, and the idea that fully realized human beings have somehow transcended either humanity or the moral law is clearly untenable. The fact is, fully realized humans are very human, and capable of moral imperfection.

I would offer that Dharma transmission is an initiation - no more, no less - which is not to trivialize it.

The difficulty with the analogy regarding physicists is that sila (morality) can not be neatly separated from dharma (teaching). Given that, I believe that a Roshi's sexual misconduct or other boundary transgressions is comparable to that of a psychotherapists - both are exploiting a vulnerable population, and are probably damaging the spiritual growth of the aspirants. It is perhaps slightly more reprehensible on the part of a psychotherapist because they receive special training in this, and specific warnings against it. Nevertheless, a full 10% of psychotherapists engage in some sort of sexual misconduct with clients.

Given that, it's pretty unrealistic to think that within a given institution there WILL NOT be any impropriety - with enough time, there will be inevitably. What matters is how the institution deals with ethical violations. With psychotherapists, the consequences are clear - one loses their career. With Zen, and Catholicism, there apparently is no mechanism to deal with the reality of ethical problems.

cmarti,

Thank you for the compliment.

You wrote, " I think it's almost as important to do what Stuart does as it is to teach."

Buddhism in general and Zen in particular underlines "seeing things as they really are." I would argue that the empowering stories and myths of institutions serve many purposes. But one of those purposes is to keep you from seeing what is going on with in the institution. In effect, they serve as blinders. This is hardly "seeing things as they really are." Of course the institution claims this is for a greater good down the line. May be yes and maybe no? A slippery road at the least. Even the Dalai Lama says not to give complete trust away to a teacher until after years of observing. This is just another way of saying- don't throw a way your critical faculties too quickly .

I argue that critical thinking has a place in Buddhism and is, Buddhist practice. There is more to Buddhism than meditating. As we have all seen here, there are many understandings to Buddhism, in effect, many Buddhisms.

Now I also know there is a time and place to let critical thinking and discursive thought go. I earlier have written in this forum about hua-tou practice. That is one place and time where critical discursive thinking must be dropped. I am sure there are many other places.

Stuart

Stuart

part 1
haquan, I agree with much of what you say. I like your terminology: glorification and mystification, The Natural State. However, I think others would argue that a fully realized person though 'human' is not capable of moral imperfection. Historically, it caused a major rift in the T'ien-t'tai sect of Budd. in the 11th century.
T-t was a major sect of Budd. in China at the time. I would hazard a guess that most schools of Mahayana Budd., Zen included do not think this way, that is, , fully realized humans are capable of moral imperfection. 'Fully realized' is the catch, do you mean a Buddha? This is a philosophical question but it is not my cup of tea.

You write, 'Dharma transmission is an initiation - no more, no less - which is not to trivialize it.' I think that is a fine way of looking at it, the only problem is that 'Dharma transmission' is a Zen technical term and they do not mean that by it. It has many meanings from sect to sect and so on, but the general understanding of the term among Zen people is much stronger than that, certainly so in the west today. Zen to a large extent uses biographical type stories, really hagiographic stories that are meant as teaching devises. However, these stories have a sense of real people and eye witness acct. to what has really been edited and rewritten over hundreds of years or may not have happened at all. There is a kind of mirroring or framing that takes place that gets one to equate the living dharma transmitted roshi sitting in front of you and talking with the classical hagiographic figures. Remember, the living Zen master/roshi gets the last word- he judges the case- the behavior- the comments. The living dharma transmitted person gets the last word. He gets to trump even the classical figures of the tradition. So it is not surprising that within Zen, dharma transmission is looked at with a much more powerful meaning.

part 2

I like what you say about Roshi and psycotherapists. Indeed, psychotherapists are trained about boundary transgressions, so should know better than Roshi who are not so trained; a reasonable view. However, we have to look at how Zen masters are understood by their followers or presented in Zen lore. They are presented as masters of life, knowing/living the basic principles of life, living from the place of 'no-self' responding to the world naturally and always correctly because of a lack of self interest and being completely interpenetrated with the world around them. That is why I keep looking at the institutional presentation because it is so powerful in framing what is understood. That is why I think critical thinking is so important in Buddhist practice.

I thought the amount of psychotherapists who engage in some sort of sexual misconduct with clients is higher than 10%. Years ago I heard higher numbers. Progress!

Agreed- there will always be improprieties over time. In American Zen it is all over the place. Agreed, unfortunately Zen and Catholic institutions have no mechanism for dealing with it. Zen in Japan mostly denies or distances itself from problems. Saving face is perhaps the most important element in Japanese society. There is an American Zen Teachers Ass. but they have not dealt with it either. How can they, many of the teachers of the present members would need to be called on the carpet!

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Have you checked out the "Enlightenment as a Social Construct" thread? Seems like something you might be into, and I invoked your interview on Buddhist Geeks there.

The 10% number was for psychiatrists specifically actually, last I checked. It could be higher for others like licensed professional psychotherapists, social workers, etc. <sigh>

I understand that some of the perspectives I offered are meta-perspectives from outside the tradition of Zen - I believe Zen needs to somehow begin to take a meta-perspective on itself, or these problems will continue to fail to be addressed.

It's a very East meets West kind of thing - how do you create positive institutional change within the Zen establishment? I believe people like you, Stuart, are part of the way that happens.

David

Stuart:

i once heard that Tibetans had the highest per capita prevalence of enlightened population. i am not sure of the validity of this. But your well written and thoughtful discussion brings up the following questions i have been pondering:

Using a gold standard for enlightenment (such as Kenneths criteria): what is frequency of enlightenment within and among sects of Zen (Mondo,Open Mind, Soto, Rinzai), Hindu, Tibetan etc. What criteria for enlightenment has the greatest sensitivity and specificity? Do nontrained Tibetans have a higher positive predictive probability of obtaining enlightenment than other populations?

Is there a need for competancy/psychological testing? Internal review? External review? Do we want untrained people of questionable ethics doing gestalt psychotherapy?

Is Western business/profit getting in the way of "The Way"?

Sorry for the flow of ideas...just questions.

tim

Hi Cartago,

You ask many questions but I do not feel I am the one to answer them. Is Adidam
the person who used to be called Bubba Free John?

But you also asked about 'transmission of the mind.' I assume by this you are referring to the phrase 'mind to mind transmission' in the Zen sect. I will answer from that assumption. In the Chan/Zen/Son (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) sect 'mind to mind transmission' is a technical term. Nothing is really transmitted. What is meant is that the teacher recognizes that the student has attained the same mind as his own, which is to say, the enlightened mind. Rhetorically this is supposedly the same as the historical Buddha's mind. That is the rhetoric or the ideal. Zen then claims that there is an unbroken lineage of enlightened people going back to the historical Buddha that is based on this chain of 'mind to mind transmission.'

That is the rhetoric. Historically there was no Indian lineage that Chan claims. The first six patriarchs in China are pretty shadowy figures and the connection between them is thin, especially so between # 2 and 3 and 3 and 4. The Chinese eventually created a Chinese Buddha of sorts, the Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng. There is a Sutra called the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch . Sutra means words of the Buddha. From there the lineage split and became multi branched. With out getting too long winded the surviving lineages are all broken, in Japan the largest sect of Zen, the Soto sect does not base Dharma transmission on m-t-m transmission as the rhetoric says, but is a purely institutional role. The Rinzai sect claims to be different, but if you read the paper of this thread, you will see one example of what goes on. This is hardly unique. In fact dharma transmission is given for many reasons as I mentioned in another post on this thread.

I hope this helps some.

Hi David,

Earlier today I looked at some of the "Enlightenment as a Social Construct" thread. My thoughts are very close to the social construction of reality. I highly recommend the American sociologist Peter Berger's 'The Sacred Canopy' and his 'The Social Construction of Reality.' The first title applies the social construction of reality to religion, while the second title is the more general case. Both are great reads on the topic. I am particularly fond of 'The Sacred Canopy', especially the first 101 pages, which reads in parts like a religious text to me, especially the beginning. I remember the first time reading it and feeling the ground move beneath me. It still happens at times.

I think the number of therapists involved with clients was closer to 20 % from what I remember when you include social workers, MSW therapists, therapy institute types, and so on.

I agree with you 100 % that Zen needs to take a meta- perspective from outside the tradition. That is just what it fights tooth and nail to deny and devalue. I think I am making some small attempt in that direction by bringing Peter Berger and the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in to my earlier papers, though not in the jointly written The Aitken-Shimano Letters paper.

Stuart

"Hi Kenneth,

Thank you for your kind words . "Buyer Beware" should be written in neon lights. Titles are institutional positions- plain and simple- that are given for many reasons- they guarantee nothing! It is that way in Zen as well as the Catholic Church and everything in between. Enlightenment is not passed from one person to the next like a plastic baton, institutional roles however, are.

Stuart"

Hi Stuart,
You have hit the mark here.

Individual teachers can be mistaken in their assessment of the realization of others. Institutions, which are composed of many individuals with even more widely diverse levels of attainment, cannot even do as well as a single good teacher. So institutions merely hand out certificates and collect fees.

No one ever enlightened anyone else. Energies can be transmitted. Experiences can be induced. And meaningless pieces of paper filled with beautiful script can be handed out. But enlightenment can only be realized by the individual.

Gozen

In the small central california town in which I live there (I just read this again and now that I think about it 250,000 people isn't actually small) has been a San Francisco Zen Center priest conducting a once a week sitting group for more than five years. She takes on students, has retreats, etc.
A couple of years ago she got dharma transmission and got to wear the brown robe.
Okay I like this person (have no real sense of her actual enlightenment), so this isn't a slam at all.
But, it was very clear that after she got the transmission that she expected to be treated quite a bit differently and appeared to get a little annoyed at first when it didn't seem to be happening well enough or fast enough.

Hi All,

Basically, Zen transmission is seeing one's nature. Since the teacher's Buddha-nature is identical to the student's Buddha-nature, there can be an instant silent recognition of the each other's state, like two mirrors facing each other. That's basically mind-to-mind transmission. We should also recall that, for centuries, Zen was not a school as such but only a special teaching method that did not rely on written teachings, but on direct pointing to the nature of the mind. In a way, this is similar to Dzochen and Mahamudra with their pointing out instructions.

It seems however that the standards for transmission have been watered down over the centuries. In the Platform Sutra (Ming edition), Huineng is said to have received the robe and bowl of the first patriarch after a great enlightenment in the room of the 5th patriarch followed by a discussion demonstrating his perfect understanding of the Diamond Sutra. In some cases, I agree with David to say that it must have served as a form of initiation validating the initial glimpse of Buddha-nature, in way that would be similar to the direct introduction to Rigpa in the Dzogchen tradition. A good example is contained in an essay by the great Korean master Chinul's translated in the book '˜Tracing back the radiance'.

(cont.)

Nowadays in Japan, Zen priests must have dharma transmission in order to be entitles to take over their father's family temple. The standards are therefore not very high, especially in the Soto school, San Francisco Zen center included. Yesterday, I had a long phone call with a friend and dharma brother who got his Shiho '“the Soto Zen dharma transmission- in Japan 10 years ago. He told me very frankly that he doesn't know what real Zen is all about, giving me all the details as to what is required and how it really works behind the curtain.

The problem is that Zen leadership is based on the idea that a transmitted teacher's understanding is identical with that the Buddha, which is obviously a dangerous myth; in a way as ridiculous as assuming that every Catholic priest is Jesus Christ in person. Nobody takes that in Asia, but in the West, robes and titles still seem to impress a quite a few individuals. Luckily, Stuart and other scholars have done a great job putting things into their proper perspective.

Hi Gozan,

Indeed, teachers can be mistaken in their assesment of others. As in the case at hand- Aitken differed from the views of Soen and Yasutani in his assesment of Shimano. Of course this assumes that Dharma transmission is only about attainment or depth of insight, which I suppose should affect character. But in point of fact, many other issues are involved in D.t.: extending lineage, missionary ideas, raising money, personal fondness, spreading your own name and that of the monastery, not letting your lineage die (Yasutani feared of not finding a dharmna heir) and do on.

Good hearing from you,

Stuart