So I came across this interesting case that seems to shed some new light on the pristine reputation that we see associated on /r/zen with Zen master Zhaozhou, who alongside Wumen of "The Gateless Gate" fame, seems to enjoy a special status as an indisputable Zen Master.
There was a nun who asked Zen Master Zhaozhou, "What is the practice of a sangha member?"
The master said, "Don't bear any children."
The nun said, "If not for you, there would be no involvements."
The master said, "If I had some involvement with you, what could you do to withstand it?"
Source: The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, translated by James Green
Now while I think Zhaozhou is a great and authoritative figure in Zen, how can this not raise some serious red flags? Here we see Zhaozhou enacting patriarchy. And not the figurative and honorific "Zen patriarch" form of patriarchy, but literal, chauvinistic, man-exploiting-woman patriarchy, in its most mundane and decryable form. It appears to manifest as both self-serving means of control (through the apparent use of the master's seat to tell the nun to not have children, which can be may justifiably be read in context as his children) followed up with a self-assured, maybe even threatening (!) reprisal.
Now, I have no wish to defame, excuse or otherwise moralize upon Zhaozhou's character as a result of learning about this. Truthfully, I don't know enough about him to pass any sort of judgment in any particular direction, and I don't really care to subject historical figures to modern purity tests. I bring this up merely because I am wired to react with suspicion to any sort of depiction of ancient humans as possessing a fundamentally different nature than modern humans.
For example, there is this attitude that the only ancient people could or did understand Zen, that Zen Masters are some bygone breed, that Zen can only be understood in old books that recorded their ingenious sayings and deeds. I find this view to be suspiciously convenient, in so much as it restricts the extent to which one can or should engage or involve oneself with Zen practice.
If one believes that Zen masters only exist in published literature, one no longer has to concern themselves with the prospect of embarking on a difficult, even life-endangering journey like traveling by foot to some far-off land of "barbarians" to validate one's understanding of Zen as authentic and correct (like Dogen, and countless others in fact). One need not put up with the interpersonal awkwardness and disappointments that are sure to arise as a result of establishing the intimate distance needed to properly assess another's understanding.
The process is reduced to mere intellectual or conceptual activity -- staying inside, ordering books off Amazon, reading discussions and participating in debates online. When Zen is engaged with this way, it may as well just be yet another hobby or diversion to pass the time. Another genre of literature you happen to have some familiarity with.
Not that there is anything inherently wrong with simply enjoying Zen as a hobby. But it should be recognized that this form of engagement is not the same activity as that which is depicted in the cases and stories. It's not even an extension or evolution of it. In fact, it is the precise embodiment of the very attitude that is constantly admonished and warned against by every major Zen figure. One cannot justifiably claim to uphold and transmit the Zen lineage if this is the extent of their engagement.
Zen is fundamentally about life or death. Freedom or enslavement. If you do not understand Zen, you are not truly living, you are not truly free. That's the distilled theme of any one who has spoken on the subject with any authority. Note that this doesn't entail any particular disposition or attitude. Zen can be approached with light-heartedness or seriousness, irreverent humor or dignified solemnity. But it's never not important, or able to alter your life radically in a positive or desirable light.
The title of this post is obviously meant to be humorous in tone. But it's intended to highlight something real and important about how black-and-white, fundamentalist thinking actually does manifest on this forum sometimes. For example, every time it is revealed that some modern Zen figure has abused their status or conducted themselves inappropriately, this is immediately used to push the argument that everything in today's day and age is hopelessly corrupt, a shameful devolution from some golden past era in which actual Zen masters lived and breathed and schooled n00bs for breakfast. As a result, any form of engagement with a living Zen tradition is made out to be fair game for dismissal and derision as a foolish and hypocritical enterprise.
If we're going to totally cast aside certain Zen masters like Seung Sahn on the basis of (sexual) misconduct alone, can we at least be consistent with how we apply this standard? Or maybe we can do the more complex and difficult thing of resisting the all-too-human impulse of putting the objects of our admiration and emulation in a place that is conveniently out-of-grasp and impossible to connect with the circumstances and challenges of one's life here and now?
Submitted January 28, 2018 at 03:59AM by nahmsayin http://ift.tt/2DF3epg
No comments:
Post a Comment