Thoughts on Zen Teachers, Communities and Growth

First, I don’t think any one Zen model is going to win the day quite yet, short of the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation bequeathing zendos in all 50 states and appointing the teachers themselves – horror or horrors! 

One of the differences in the development of American Zen is that it has largely been from the ground up – much different than the elite models in Asia.

Second, although I like James’ idea of separating the “organizational” and the “ministerial” functions – communities getting together and contracting with a Zen teacher – there are problems. Where are these groups going to come from? It usually takes some start-up energy to get a group going, and so far, that initial energy has mostly come from teachers (a different kind of elite, I suppose). 

And when a leaderless group invites a teacher in – well, there have been issues with authority from all sides. 

Finally, the separating the spiritual and the worldly can set up a conflict model, for example, when the spiritual and worldly authorities don’t agree they can wind up butting heads and not serving the practice or the organization. Integrating the spiritual and the organizational can be a powerful message. 

So every group has got to find their way in their unique situation, informed by what’s going on in the surroundings.

James also talks about Zen teachers as ministers – given the metaphorical nature of the “home leaving” most of us have undertaken (leaving home in spirit). In my view, “minister” does not fit. As James points out, most American Zen teachers are not trained as ministers (but as zazen practitioners and performers of liturgy and worker bees) but assume the role of minister and then learn on the job. 

Further, the three transmission documents do not sanction us to minister to a congregation but as Zen dharma transmitters. The transmission ceremony is an empowerment to transmit not the recognition of the completion of a ministerial program.

Do we need community to transmit? Well, at least one person would be nice. 

Certainly we cannot train alone but I don’t think we need community in the way that James seems to assert. A few people is enough to do zazen, sesshin, liturgy and study … and the equally vital work of taking the practice into the big whirl can be done with work, family, and other relationships. Come to my school for severely acting out teens if you want to test your practice. These kinds of settings with so-called nonpractitioners are often much more challenging than practicing in the “let’s-all-be-nice” atmosphere of some spiritual communities. And then there’s practicing with one’s kids….

One final point. I recently talked with a teacher who said he tells his community that growth of the community is necessary if they want to grow in their own practice because they need growth to have leadership opportunities. So he invites them to all get on his growth bandwagon – it’ll be good for you, he says. This smells of self-serving nonsense. American cultural “big is better” propaganda with the corollary, “greed is good.”

There are many ways to grow and one important way is to give up any idea of growth or improvement or making things different. Whatever happened to the practice of having few desires?

Now I’ve got to roll up my sleeves and go to work.

Comments welcome.