9 VOLUME 9 |ISSUE 1 |2018
Sasaki’s own response to concerns presented to him by his
students amounted to him threatening to stop teaching and leave
should he be forced to change his behavior.6 Sasaki clearly viewed
his own position as Zen master as beyond criticism because he
was at the very top of an absolute hierarchy. Besides being an
authorized Rinzai roshi,7 he was the oldest living Zen master
in the world, while his lineage was from the famous Myoshin-ji
monastery, the largest Rinzai lineage in Japan. In the eyes of most
Western Zen students too, this combination of elements made
him an authorized spokesman for the entire Rinzai tradition and
imputed him to be a person of guaranteed belief and trust, an
absolute presence.
In addition, Sasaki’s senior monks and nuns (oshos) and loyalists
left no room to question his behavior. When women complained
to monks or to other students who were older in the practice
and higher in the hierarchy, they rarely met with sympathy. As a
senior student declared, “If you do not like it, leave” (Lesage, 2012).
One woman confronted Sasaki in the 1980s and reports that
she found herself an outcast afterward. She said that afterward
“hardly anyone in the sangha (group of practitioners), whom I
had grown up with for 20 years, would have anything to do with
us” (Oppenheimer &Lovett, 2013, para. 11). Sasaki’s belief in and
practice of an unquestionable hierarchy was absorbed by his older
disciples. The acceptance of Sasaki’s unquestionable authority
and legitimacy by his students was inculcated through a long and
slow process of their own acceptance within the group and their
gaining a place in Sasaki’s hierarchy.
Sasaki’s loyal oshos were a group close to him, more committed
than ordinary lay students. They held positions of importance,
were dressed in robes, and interpreted and explained Sasaki’s
teaching to lay practitioners.8 In the process, they made clear that
if someone had a problem with Sasaki’s behavior, it was a sign of
their own lack of understanding Zen (O’Hearn, 2012). This view
related to the master is common at other Zen centers.9 Sasaki’s
students remained silent to protect their years of practice, along
with their elevated positions in the hierarchy. This attitude is
closely connected to the severity of Sasaki’s retreats and practice
periods, which also functioned as rites of initiation. Everyone
understood that Sasaki could, at his discretion, strip them of their
positions and force them to leave.
The claim that whatever Sasaki (or any other roshi) did was in
fact Zen teaching even amounted to declaring that what for the
women constituted sexual abuse was really a teaching method.
When a young woman who was Sasaki’s assistant (inji) at the time
complained about Sasaki’s constant sexual advances, one monk
replied that “sexualizing a teaching … was very appropriate for
particular women” (Off &Douglas, 2013).10 “The monk’s theory,
widespread in Sasaki’s circle, was that such physicality could check
a woman’s overly strong ego” (Oppenheimer, &Lovett, 2013, para.
15). Sasaki claimed his sexual advances were in fact teaching
nonattachment and emptiness, core Zen values. Sasaki and his
loyalists thus in effect claimed that these acts, which seemed self-
serving and abusive to the unenlightened, were really examples of
Mahāyāna Buddhist upāya—skillful means that teach the Dharma
in a way that the students need, whether or not they recognize
it.11
It is important to realize that the women who remained silent for
such a long time became accomplices in their own abuse. They
had bought into Zen’s ideology of the perfected Zen master.
This outcome is not surprising, because the ideology is repeated
constantly in Zen literature, talks, and rituals, which juxtapose the
enlightened Zen master and the mass of unenlightened ordinary
people. Even when some women left the organization or were
forced by Sasaki loyalists to leave, they were hesitant to speak
out publicly for fear of giving Zen or the master a bad name, or of
exposing how they accepted and submitted to their own abuse.12
This power of Zen ideology embodied by the Zen master is hard to
understand without considering Dharma transmission, the power
of investiture by the Zen institution. All rites of institutions are “acts
of social magic” which legitimate a boundary, while obscuring the
arbitrary nature of this boundary (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 105–126).
Zen Dharma transmission, the basis of the construction of its
lineage, creates this divide between the supposedly beyond-
understanding, enlightened Zen master and everyone else. This
is especially so with Asian teachers. Unfortunately, as the many
scandals in Western Zen have shown, Western teachers have also
learned to mine Zen’s legitimating story.
Consequently, the structures of Zen’s legitimating mythology
become a mechanism that facilitates abuse. It is difficult to point
to a single culprit rather, it is a network of complicity that includes
power, meaning-making, identity, ritual, and the abused people
themselves. n
Notes
[1] The author welcomes comments at slachs@att.net
[2] In Korean Soen means Chan/Zen, sa means teacher, and nim
is an honorific that could mean seniority, wisdom, or beloved.
Essentially then, Soen-sa-nim means honored Soen/Zen master.
When followers of the Kwan Um School of Zen say Soen-sa-nim,
they mean Soen/Zen Master Seung Sahn, the founder of the
school.
[3] Sheng-yen talked consistently about Chan masters in a very
idealized way. The piece quoted here was written in 1984 when
sexual and financial scandals were rocking American Zen.
Richard Baker roshi of the San Francisco Zen Center, Maezumi
roshi of the LA Zen Center, and Eido Shimano roshi of the
Zen Studies Society in NYC, three of the most prominent Zen
centers in the USA, were at the center of the scandals. I believe
Sheng-yen was reacting to these scandals and attempting to
maintain the unquestioned authority of the position of Zen
master/roshi. At the time, I told Sheng-yen these were the
wrong words at the wrong time.
[4] Stated in a public talk given at his Chan Meditation Center.
It was later printed in Sheng-yen’s Center’s newsletter, Ch’an
Newsletter, No. 38, 1984, pp. 1–2 (available online at chancenter.
org/cmc/1984/06/15/selecting-and-studying-under-a-master/).
[5] See “Zuiganji Affair Translations” for further details (available
at https://sites.google.com/site/zuiganjiaffair/home). These
newspaper reports were translated by Jundo Cohen, an
Sasaki’s own response to concerns presented to him by his
students amounted to him threatening to stop teaching and leave
should he be forced to change his behavior.6 Sasaki clearly viewed
his own position as Zen master as beyond criticism because he
was at the very top of an absolute hierarchy. Besides being an
authorized Rinzai roshi,7 he was the oldest living Zen master
in the world, while his lineage was from the famous Myoshin-ji
monastery, the largest Rinzai lineage in Japan. In the eyes of most
Western Zen students too, this combination of elements made
him an authorized spokesman for the entire Rinzai tradition and
imputed him to be a person of guaranteed belief and trust, an
absolute presence.
In addition, Sasaki’s senior monks and nuns (oshos) and loyalists
left no room to question his behavior. When women complained
to monks or to other students who were older in the practice
and higher in the hierarchy, they rarely met with sympathy. As a
senior student declared, “If you do not like it, leave” (Lesage, 2012).
One woman confronted Sasaki in the 1980s and reports that
she found herself an outcast afterward. She said that afterward
“hardly anyone in the sangha (group of practitioners), whom I
had grown up with for 20 years, would have anything to do with
us” (Oppenheimer &Lovett, 2013, para. 11). Sasaki’s belief in and
practice of an unquestionable hierarchy was absorbed by his older
disciples. The acceptance of Sasaki’s unquestionable authority
and legitimacy by his students was inculcated through a long and
slow process of their own acceptance within the group and their
gaining a place in Sasaki’s hierarchy.
Sasaki’s loyal oshos were a group close to him, more committed
than ordinary lay students. They held positions of importance,
were dressed in robes, and interpreted and explained Sasaki’s
teaching to lay practitioners.8 In the process, they made clear that
if someone had a problem with Sasaki’s behavior, it was a sign of
their own lack of understanding Zen (O’Hearn, 2012). This view
related to the master is common at other Zen centers.9 Sasaki’s
students remained silent to protect their years of practice, along
with their elevated positions in the hierarchy. This attitude is
closely connected to the severity of Sasaki’s retreats and practice
periods, which also functioned as rites of initiation. Everyone
understood that Sasaki could, at his discretion, strip them of their
positions and force them to leave.
The claim that whatever Sasaki (or any other roshi) did was in
fact Zen teaching even amounted to declaring that what for the
women constituted sexual abuse was really a teaching method.
When a young woman who was Sasaki’s assistant (inji) at the time
complained about Sasaki’s constant sexual advances, one monk
replied that “sexualizing a teaching … was very appropriate for
particular women” (Off &Douglas, 2013).10 “The monk’s theory,
widespread in Sasaki’s circle, was that such physicality could check
a woman’s overly strong ego” (Oppenheimer, &Lovett, 2013, para.
15). Sasaki claimed his sexual advances were in fact teaching
nonattachment and emptiness, core Zen values. Sasaki and his
loyalists thus in effect claimed that these acts, which seemed self-
serving and abusive to the unenlightened, were really examples of
Mahāyāna Buddhist upāya—skillful means that teach the Dharma
in a way that the students need, whether or not they recognize
it.11
It is important to realize that the women who remained silent for
such a long time became accomplices in their own abuse. They
had bought into Zen’s ideology of the perfected Zen master.
This outcome is not surprising, because the ideology is repeated
constantly in Zen literature, talks, and rituals, which juxtapose the
enlightened Zen master and the mass of unenlightened ordinary
people. Even when some women left the organization or were
forced by Sasaki loyalists to leave, they were hesitant to speak
out publicly for fear of giving Zen or the master a bad name, or of
exposing how they accepted and submitted to their own abuse.12
This power of Zen ideology embodied by the Zen master is hard to
understand without considering Dharma transmission, the power
of investiture by the Zen institution. All rites of institutions are “acts
of social magic” which legitimate a boundary, while obscuring the
arbitrary nature of this boundary (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 105–126).
Zen Dharma transmission, the basis of the construction of its
lineage, creates this divide between the supposedly beyond-
understanding, enlightened Zen master and everyone else. This
is especially so with Asian teachers. Unfortunately, as the many
scandals in Western Zen have shown, Western teachers have also
learned to mine Zen’s legitimating story.
Consequently, the structures of Zen’s legitimating mythology
become a mechanism that facilitates abuse. It is difficult to point
to a single culprit rather, it is a network of complicity that includes
power, meaning-making, identity, ritual, and the abused people
themselves. n
Notes
[1] The author welcomes comments at slachs@att.net
[2] In Korean Soen means Chan/Zen, sa means teacher, and nim
is an honorific that could mean seniority, wisdom, or beloved.
Essentially then, Soen-sa-nim means honored Soen/Zen master.
When followers of the Kwan Um School of Zen say Soen-sa-nim,
they mean Soen/Zen Master Seung Sahn, the founder of the
school.
[3] Sheng-yen talked consistently about Chan masters in a very
idealized way. The piece quoted here was written in 1984 when
sexual and financial scandals were rocking American Zen.
Richard Baker roshi of the San Francisco Zen Center, Maezumi
roshi of the LA Zen Center, and Eido Shimano roshi of the
Zen Studies Society in NYC, three of the most prominent Zen
centers in the USA, were at the center of the scandals. I believe
Sheng-yen was reacting to these scandals and attempting to
maintain the unquestioned authority of the position of Zen
master/roshi. At the time, I told Sheng-yen these were the
wrong words at the wrong time.
[4] Stated in a public talk given at his Chan Meditation Center.
It was later printed in Sheng-yen’s Center’s newsletter, Ch’an
Newsletter, No. 38, 1984, pp. 1–2 (available online at chancenter.
org/cmc/1984/06/15/selecting-and-studying-under-a-master/).
[5] See “Zuiganji Affair Translations” for further details (available
at https://sites.google.com/site/zuiganjiaffair/home). These
newspaper reports were translated by Jundo Cohen, an
