The Formation of Soto Zen Priests in the West, A Dialogue

Hello James,

While I and the other board members don’t want to cause distress over the ango proposal, I hope we can discuss this openly and honestly to gain some clarity about who we are and what we want to be.

I’m curious, James, about how you see your training as a UU minister relative to how you see training at Boundless Way. At BWZ you don’t make a distinction between clergy and lay, so is anything extra required of clergy? How do you expect your ordained to live their lives? Does it look any different from those who are not ordained? How much time did you devote to your training to be a UU minister? Did it take you away from other things? Do you see that training as useful or was it unnecessary?

My questions about this have to do with what we believe we are doing when we ordain someone, and what we expect of them. Our young people are asking for more rigor in their training, and we are responding. Meanwhile, SZBA has no requirements except what their teachers expect. With on-line ordinations already here (sorry Jundo), can on-line classes and virtual practice relationships be far behind? (C)an we as an organization set any standards with regard to this?

We may also be looking at differences with regard to the primary method of practice. Many, like yourself, that use a koan curriculum as the primary method don’t seem to need the long term intimacy of “together practice” that is at the heart of Soto Zen as I understand it. There is something that is important and essentially “Soto” in this practice. I would like to promote and protect that.

I had a side conversation with another person who sees herself as a full time priest while having another career, raising children, etc. That, to me, is the essence of avowed practice within an essentially lay life. The lay teachers here at Dharma Rain do exactly the same thing, and they can have students, and do many of the things the ordained do. Our ordained, however, are expected to live differently, and at a cost to other choices. For many of us, that is important. Total immersion marks a person in a way that is noticeable. I also want to promote and protect that.

I think there is room within the SZBA for different kinds of ordination tracks, but I hope we can avoid the confusion that arises from thinking that because all things are of the same essence, they are automatically equivalent. As with the ethics issue, I think that unless the SZBA can set some real standards, Soto Zen will not be a long lasting and viable tradition on this soil.

Thank you for engaging in this conversation.

In gassho,

Kyogen

Dear Kyogen,

Thank you for your direct questions about my understanding of ordination in Zen. Exploring that might be helpful in our communal exploration of the utility of a two ango or six-month expectation for ordination recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association.

First, I have to assert unequivocally my understanding that the Zen project is about awakening.

And everything that follows is upaya. This includes ordination. I will return to that ordination as upaya in a moment.

But first as to the methodology that leads to my concern that we do not have this requirement for our clergy within the SZBA. Now, I hope I’m not so foolish as to think the ideas that pop into my head are definitive, or even useful. To the purpose of subverting that inclination and a whole host of other foolishnesses, I work collaboratively with other teachers. We meet and talk and fight and care and most of all practice together.

I feel particularly blessed in that community of support and challenge. As you know our Boundless Way network is itself a mongrel. We are attempting to reconcile not only koan practice and shikantaza both as central to our discipline but lineages derived from both Japanese Soto and Korean Chogye via the Kwan Um School. This commitment to each other, to presence and to not walking when it becomes hard has been a powerful if sometimes painful process.

And, I think it is leading us in a direction that authentically supports the project of awakening here in the West.

Out of all this I have reflected in writing at some length on the nature of practice and ordination both monastic and priestly, as well as Dharma transmission within the Zen traditions. http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Dharma_Transmission_Institutions.html

“BoWZ priests have extensive experience in Zen meditation, including numerous retreats, have been trained in Soto Zen ritual, have undergone formal and informal academic preparation, and have undergone the unsui tokudo ordination of Soto Zen. They may also have received the advanced denkai ordination, which authorizes them to give the precepts and to ordain, although not to give Dharma transmission.

  

“BoWZ priests may perform many liturgical functions, which include presiding over Zen ceremonies and sutra services, and conducting life passages such as birth, marriage, and funeral ceremonies.

“BoWZ priests are called to be leaders in the community and to fulfill a pastoral and ministerial role.  They may minister to the emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs of sangha members who have experienced illness, loss, grief, or injury. They may also be engaged in any traditional ministerial role in the larger community.”

We end this by saying “BoWZ priests are usually registered with the Soto Zen Buddhist Association as either associate or full members.” In fact to date all are registered.

Now, you ask specific questions, particularly with reference to my experience preparing to be a Unitarian Universalist minister.

You say “at BoWZ you don’t make a distinction between clergy and lay…” I obviously was not clear. We make no distinction within the practice of awakening between clergy and lay. Rather more strongly, I would say there is no such thing as clerical practice. There is no such thing as lay practice. There is only the practice. And all aspects of practice are open to everyone.

That said there is a place for ordination.

Our history of ordination in Zen was that it was first a monastic vow. Then in Japan something else happened. There are studies of this, and I address that a bit in that chapter from Zen Master Who linked, above. What we are about within the Soto stream that has come West is mostly that something else. This new clerical state, which I see us all sharing has to do with a specific vow of service. I will return to that word service in a moment.

You point out the question has to do with what we are doing, or believe we are doing when we ordain someone.

In the past there have been discussions on this list and that of the American Zen Teachers Association, of the Christian ordination concepts called ontological and functional and how they might help clarify what we do within the Zendharma. The ontological perspective is that the act of ordination is a mark on the soul that changes that ordained person from their prior state to something new. The Catholic and Orthodox view of their priestly ordination is generally ontological. Within the Protestant communities a functional understanding has arisen. One doing ministerial or priestly functions is a priest. And, conversely, one not doing priestly functions is not a minister or a priest.

Not believing in a soul to be marked one way or another, nor what seems to be a magical efficacy within special rituals, I am unequivocally a believer in the functional approach to ordination. I admit to being befuddled by those among our number who think they have received something.

I also believe in “decency and good order.” That is, while there is no special thing conferred with ordination, that act is a sign of many things. These include recognition of preparation and acknowledgment of trust. That it is conferred within a historical context is also important.

I think Zen has been distracted by the liturgical function and particularly the special status of our ordained clerics in relation to Vinaya ordained monastics. The tradition has been that gifts given to monks and nuns generate more merit than gifts given to others. Japanese Bodhisattva ordained have claimed they can generate the same merit as Vinaya monastics. I’m sure they can.

And I don’t think that assertion or the business of creation and transference of merit that has marked most of Japanese ministry is relevant to Zen practice in the West.

Nor, to my mind, is some form of non-celibate monasticism, which is the larger claim contained within this proposed requirement of six-months in residency, the point of ordination. In fact it is my considered opinion that this non-celibate monasticism has caused more harm to Zen practitioners than good. I look at people who committed their lives to this style of practice and who are now aging and with in too many situations inadequate resources to care for themselves or the people who they have married.

Rather, I see the value in ordination to be the vow of service.

And that is what I hope we will hold up, or at the very least allow within this organization.

I think the life of service is an enormously important aspect of our practice. Not everyone’s call, as it were; but an important one, worthy of time and effort, of special training, and setting aside and ordaining to. It is the many hands of Quanyin. It is the great upaya of giving and receiving without attachment.

And from that place I see my experiences in training to be a UU minister possibly helpful. The Western preparation of a seminary experience is a pretty good model. And that’s why I really like the general suggestions for study that have been generated within the SZBA.

But also a caution. While it requires time and effort and considerable cost, the seminary experience also leads, generally, to a job. To require people to go to that time and effort and considerable cost without a job at the end can be irresponsible. This is the problem I see with the six-month requirement. It asks people to set aside other, equally important obligations in a way that for many who would be perfect for the path of service, is simply not possible. And it therefore skews who is going to be in that ordination pool in ways that seem dubious to me.

There is more, but already this note is too long.

So, hoping this will further the conversation,

And with endless bows,

James

Hello James,

Thank you for a thoughtful, if lengthy response to my questions. I have to say I feel a little odd being drawn into your blog space, but I’ll do my best to reply in a thoughtful manner in turn.

First of all, I noticed that in your blog response that “Buddhism” is not mentioned except in the name “Soto Zen Buddhist Association.” “Zen,” however, turns up a lot. I think of myself as a Buddhist priest in the Soto Zen tradition. I remember a conversation we had years ago that focused on Hui Neng and the transmission of the robe and bowl. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I got the impression that that story is key to how you see Zen and to what you see as essential in your work. For me, the transmission is about Buddha’s robe and bowl, and the story of Hui Neng is an intentional aberration of skillful means to make a particular point. It is true that awakening does not depend on ordination, rank, status, race, education, or any distinction of that nature. This is a very precious part of our lineage tradition.

You might remember my point with regard to the story. It was that after Hui Neng left with the robe and bowl he lived with hunters for years, maturing himself in this manner. But he did not teach formally until he was ordained. Perhaps it would be better to say that he did not function as a priest until he was ordained, when he gave his life to the form of a priest, which is what the robe and bowl are about.

That brings me to the ontological versus functional argument concerning the meaning of ordination in your response. I had to scratch my head about that, I confess. To me, that is a western and specifically Christian argument that isn’t all that relevant to Buddhism. I admit that it pops up in Japan over what are essentially political and financial issues, but it’s not at the heart of the Buddhist tradition. Ordination is about form and vow. You take vows to live in a particular way, and so your life takes on a certain form. The robe and bowl are about that; simplicity and alms. Traditionally, monks could take the robe on and off quite a few times. When they wear it and live the life, they are monks. When they take it off and do not live the life, they are not monks. There is a ceremonial way to mark the transition, which has to be witnessed by others, but it’s pretty simple, really. Ontological moments are just not a factor. Perhaps my lineage is more traditional about that than some other Japanese lineages, but I think this view is historically pretty accurate, and it was how I’ve always understood it.

Now I agree with you about the service component in ordination. Actually, I can agree with almost everything you say, which is strange, because somehow we end up in very different places. And that leads to why I asked you about your UU ministerial training. I see many Zen Centers functioning kind of like clubs for enlightenment, or as you say, awakening. Nice esthetics, emphasis on sesshin, and an upper middle class clientele. Not a lot of families or much variety in ages or background. A church congregation, and I assume UU congregations are similar, looks very different. My hope is that Soto Zen can begin to create centers that look more like that, or actually, something between that and a traditional Japanese temple. I think you are aware that we are working to develop that here in Portland.

Right now, on a late Friday morning, there are people outside working on rebuilding our garage/tool room, chanting practice just finished in a room a couple doors down from my office, there is someone working in the main office, a crew is assembling an events mailing downstairs, and another is in the kitchen working on lunch. We have a small crowd at all three meals a day, with10-20 people or more at diner. Some are residents, and some are not. People are drawn to a style of community practice that fosters right speech, caring, and cooperation. This was what Gyokuko and I learned from our collective 17 years of rigorous monastic life. We require our ordained to do ango to be steeped in this “together practice.” We cultivate it here, but the intensity and focus of that style of practice is transforming. Priests, steeped in this, hold that form and make it available for others. For us, the life of service is only partly about awakening in that glorious style of Zen mythology. On a daily basis it is about cultivating this way of living life that is profoundly healing, and is especially missing in this modern world. It is about the Buddhism, not just the Zen. A life of simplicity and alms in service to a community is what priesthood is about. Of course, zazen is prominently on the schedule, and occasionally deep awakening happens too. The work we do in sesshin and sanzen is where the most specifically Zen part of the practice occurs.

It seems to me that the Zen tradition can lose track of the Buddhism, and it can get into trouble when it does. I think this is more prevalent in Japanese Rinzai than in Soto, probably because of the Rinzai focus on koan work, but also because of Dogen’s emphasis on Buddhism and frequent reference to Sutras in his teaching. If I may say so, I think Sanbo Kyodan takes this even further by taking the koan method out of the Rinzai Zen tradition. It seems to me that this can get pretty thin. For me, ordination is essentially a Buddhist one. Although I don’t live like a Thai Bhikkhu, I try to hold a form within the larger community that is essentially a priestly one. That means living in a temple, living by the schedule, and making the space for practice available. While no one can really be “on” 24/7, the temple form basically is. Our ordained students also live in the temple We’re experimenting with having one ordained priest living close by rather than in the temple, but she is on staff here as she were. It is this commitment that makes the place feel open and available for people to come by and join us, and why people want to live here. In my view it is this commitment that is at the heart of ordination, and why ango practice helps develop it.

I understand there are other ways to serve as a priest, and I hope I don’t sound like I think everyone should do it “my way.” But I do think this way of seeing it is pretty basic, yet under developed in American Zen Buddhism. Although this path is not a renunciate one in the classical sense, it requires sacrifice to do this, and does require simplicity compared to the standard American life style. I think that is something people respond to as admirable and worthy of emulation, and some of us are ready to pay the price to live this way. I also think many younger people want to aspire to something, and this is a pretty good thing to aspire to. Traditionally, it has been this kind of commitment that has kept Buddhism alive from generation to generation.

Maybe we don’t want to make six months of ago practice a requirement for full membership. But I’m glad we’re having this conversation because ango is, essentially, a core practice of the tradition. It bothers me that it has been disparaged or dismissed as irrelevant. I’m sure there are other threads in your post to which I could or should respond, but that’s enough for now.

With deep bows of respect,

Kyogen

Dear Kyogen,

Thank you for being willing to have this conversation out in front of “everyone.” I believe we are touching upon issues that concern pretty much all of us devoted to the establishment of Zen Buddhism in the West.

I was a little taken aback when you opened with a push on my understanding of the relationship between Zen and Buddhism. It is true there are Zen practitioners and even a few teachers who are not Buddhist, and some of them I find very interesting. And it is true I speak more commonly of the Zendharma than the Buddhadharma.

And while I am unequivocally a Buddhist, my Buddhism is informed through and through by the Chinese encounter and the rise of the Zen school. As you know there are those, including reputable scholars who questions the “Buddhism” of Zen, particularly with the rise of an explicit understanding of original awakening. At this time in my life I am not sure I would be able to move freely from a Zen perspective to say the Theravada, which in practice often seems to me to be dualistic. There is upaya there, but I feel a limited resonance. Frankly, of the other schools of Buddhism the only one that draws me at all is the Pure Land. (Yes, yes, the dualism thing. I am cautioned by that, and I take comfort in Emerson’s “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”)

We have over the years returned to the foundational myth of our Zen way as expressed in the story of Huineng. The essay I cite earlier, exploring the rise of transmission within the Zen tradition http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Dharma_Transmission_Institutions.html explores this at some greater length. Here I would only reiterate my position that the transmission, while it used as its sign a robe and a bowl, was clearly not about ordination. In fact as we go forward we know that that sign would be a book, usually the Lankavatara Sutra, a self-portrait of the teacher, and increasingly simple certificates, such as in our shared Soto lineage today, the Sanmatsu documents.

Only in Japanese-derived Soto Zen is the matter of transmission and ordination collapsed into a single ceremony.

If we set that part aside, and look solely at the question of ordination, I totally agree, we are speaking of a Buddhist ordination. Our Bodhisattva ordination is, to my mind, the moral equivalent of the Vinaya Bhikku/Bhikkshuni ordination, creating not monks and nuns, but ministers, or in my preferred language priests.

The details of which are explored elsewhere, particularly in Jaffe’s magisterial Neither Monk Nor Layman and in less scholarly terms in my own chapter in Zen Master Who? Reprinted at my blog at http://monkeymindonline.blogspot.com/2009/03/monks-nuns-priests-in-western-zen.html

We are agreed we are talking about ordained, professional leadership, we are agreed there should be commonly accepted expectations to prepare for that leadership, and then ongoing expectations for those who are ordained.

The turning point for us appears to be the degree to which a significant monastic experience is a necessary part of that preparation.

No doubt when the Japanese ordination model emerged it was meant to be fully monastic. And, as we know, for various reasons (again, Jaffe for details) it ceased being so. Today the vast majority of Zen clergy are not monastics in any recognizable sense of that word.

The question here, that I feel you raise, elqoquently, is whether there is a legitimate adaptation of a form of married monasticism.

I have been very critical of married monasticism as opposed to ministers or priests. And with some legitimate reason, I feel. Mostly this turns on my observation that people rarely understand what they’re actually getting into, which for all practical purposes is a life of poverty. May mean nothing when someone is twenty or even thirty. But at sixty it can wear thin. I consider the San Francisco Zen Center one of the great institutions of Zen in the West. And while they are a vibrant organization with many younger participants I am aware of a rather large group of people who have given their lives to that institution with an expectation they will have a roof and a meal for the whole of their lives. And I don’t know if that covenant can be honored.

Okay, that said, I feel a need to dial back my criticism of the married monastic model.

I think it can work. I think what has happened at Dharma Rain has been largely a healthy thing. And, I’m more than passingly impressed with the vital program you and Gyokuko and your collaborators have put together.

Although I wonder if it could not be passed on to a professional priest who would expect a more sustainable support from the community, a low level professional salary, for instance.

The question is what prepares someone best to lead vital Zen sanghas?

I believe we need to have a place for monastic oriented priests as well as more “secular” priests. I think we need to be open to embrace koan curricula training as equal – trying on all sides to avoid judgment of those who follow one way or the other. Something difficult, and a sin against my sisters and brothers I’ve committed with too much regularity.

I am deeply impressed by the SZBA document Guidelines for the Formation of Soto Zen Priests in the West. I think we need to look there for any “expectations.”

I am very much impressed with the suggested outline for “authorized” ango, formal monastic style training programs. I could even see the day, and a not distant day, when we at Boundless Way could host such a thing at our Worcester temple.

But, the turning question, I feel, is can we accept that Soto in the West is going to be a bigger tent than Soto in Japan?

If we can say yes, then I think with some good will, and some hard work, we can achieve that hope…

I know I’ve missed some important points, but again, as so often happens, I’m running long.

Endless bows,

James