Buddhism: zen and violence

The discussion in my last post raised some good questions. I don’t suppose I can get into it much now, but along with the comments in the “Free Inquiry” article mentioned in the comments from my last post I thought I’d add this.

Brian Victoria has made quite a name for himself as a gadfly in the Zen world – he was (is?) an ordained Soto priest and has published a powerful critique of Zen (see below):

Book Announcement

Zen at War: Second Edition, by Brian Daizen Victoria
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

_Zen at War_, which has been out of print for nearly two years, has
been republished in an enlarged edition. The distinguishing features of the
second edition are a new preface describing the first edition’s impact in the
West and more particularly in Japan where the Japanese language version
contributed to the Myoshinji branch of the Rinzai Zen sect issuing the first
ever apology in September 2001 for its support of Japanese militarism.

A new epilogue addresses the connection between Japan’s Zen-endorsed “holy war”
(J. seisen) and the broader and ongoing phenomenon of religion-endorsed warfare
in today’s world. More importantly, a new chapter entitled “Was It Buddhism?”
explores the relatively unknown historic connection of Buddhism to warfare,
especially on the part of the Chan/Zen school, and comes to the controversial
conclusion that “. . . Zen’s claim to be an authentic expression of the Buddha
Dharma must remain in doubt.”

Victoria gave a pair of talks at my university three years ago. At the first one several people left mid-way and one young man, anxious to ask a question but skipped over time and again by Dr. Victoria, gave him the finger and left angrily. At the second talk I, along with my companion, decided at the mid-point break that the rest wasn’t worth seeing. Not only is his message quite hard to accept by many, but his delivery was anything but charming (as his last sentence here indicates)…

My interest/question is in how Zen practitioners take his works.