Question
Relations with the Sotoshu Shumucho.
In an answer to a question about whether his sangha was recognized by the Sotoshu in Japan, Master Kosen Stéphane Thibaut made negative judgments about the attitude of the AZI’s teachers, and mine in particular, based on incorrect information. I therefore request publication of the following clarification, which I will make in the first person, since in this spiritual domain everyone must take responsibility.
I have not betrayed Master Deshimaru’s lineage, which still appears on the ketsumyaku I give at ordinations. I believe more than ever in the universal value of his teaching. In fact, the AZI is preparing a symposium for the fortieth anniversary of his mission in June 2007 at La Gendronnière.
As Sensei Deshimaru wished, we have harmonized with the Sotoshu by attending sesshins that enabled us to be officially recognized as
dendokyoshi: teachers of Soto Zen outside Japan. At no point were we asked to follow “Japanese Zen” or adopt all its rules and rites.
The two Shumucho representatives who have come to Europe since 2002 encouraged us to create our own rules, and that is what we are doing, drawing inspiration from the tradition as Sensei did. As for Kodo Sawaki, he belonged to the Sotoshu and even held teaching positions within that school. He ordained many monks recognized by the Sotoshu.
Master Deshimaru asked the Sotoshu to adapt its rules to account for Western realities, and that is what we are in the process of obtaining. But this requires dialogue, not withdrawing into an attitude of contempt.
Let us point out that the Sotoshu Shumucho is not a state organization established at the end of World War II at the request of the fascist government. It was created around 1870 by the zenjis of Eiheiji and Sojiji to harmonize the two branches of Soto Zen in Japan.
The Sotoshu has neither imposed its rules on us nor appropriated La Gendronnière.
Much more could be said to correct Stéphane’s allegations. But to address his concern about his ordinations, I have never questioned their value or suggested that reordination was necessary. I agreed to reordain a few monks and nuns who wished thereby to confirm that they had become my disciples and be recognized as such by the Sotoshu. This new ordination expresses their faith in the Dharma transmitted in a true master-disciple relationship.
Roland Yuno Rech.
Roland Rech
Answer from Master Kosen
In an answer to a question about whether his sangha was recognized by the Sotoshu in Japan, Master Kosen Stéphane Thibaut made negative judgments about the attitude of the AZI’s teachers, and mine in particular, based on incorrect information. I therefore request publication of the following clarification, which I will make in the first person, since in this spiritual domain everyone must take responsibility.
If I understand correctly, you do not necessarily stand behind the other AZI teachers, just as they do not necessarily stand behind you.
I have not betrayed Master Deshimaru’s lineage, which still appears on the ketsumyaku I give at ordinations.
Well, that’s a relief!!!
I believe more than ever in the universal value of his teaching. In fact, the AZI is preparing a symposium for the fortieth anniversary of his mission in June 2007 at La Gendronnière.
What good news. I assume I will be invited. I have interesting things to say about the universality of his teaching.
As Sensei Deshimaru wished, we have harmonized with the Sotoshu by attending sesshins that enabled us to be officially recognized as dendokyoshi: teachers of Soto Zen outside Japan. At no point were we asked to follow “Japanese Zen” or adopt all its rules and rites.
Excuse me, but I am talking about harmonizing as Deshimaru’s disciples—that is, remaining courteous and respectful, commemorating a little anniversary now and then, but not becoming Sotoshu monks. We have been teaching Zen outside Japan for more than thirty years, at Deshimaru’s own request. I don’t see why he would have wanted us, after all that time, to go begging for permission to do so, and by attending a sesshin with Harada, no less. Everyone knows the primary purpose of these tokubetsu sesshins is to learn Japanese ways in order to teach Sotoshu Zen outside Japan. Besides, when you came back, the first thing you did was change the old rules and ways, including how to chant the Hannya Shingyo, which is now whispered at the Paris dojo instead of sung strongly as Sensei taught us. Sensei never wanted such harmonization. If he had, he would have taught us all this during his lifetime or brought a specialist from Japan to instill it in us. He had fifteen years to do so, and if he did not, it was because he did not consider it important, perhaps even a distraction from the essence of his teaching.
As you say, Deshimaru’s Zen is universal, but in both quality and quantity it is precisely balanced and preserves a simple, direct essence. It is universal, beyond time and space, part of humanity’s heritage, and a lifetime is not enough to explore its scope and profound meaning. That is far more precious than being recognized by the Sotoshu. When you consider that the kaikyosokan—who, for readers’ information, is the Sotoshu’s appointed guarantor for Western Zen—is not even a disciple of Deshimaru, although Deshimaru founded it, it is shameful.
The two Shumucho representatives who have come to Europe since 2002 encouraged us to create our own rules, and that is what we are doing, drawing inspiration from the tradition as Sensei did.
What are these two Shumucho representatives—internal affairs officers? The police of the police? They encourage you to create your own rules based on Sotoshu rules, not Deshimaru’s.
Starting from Deshimaru’s simple forms, a master can obviously add his own touch. I have changed things myself: for example, we do nine prostrations before the morning genmai. It makes us happy and strengthens our faith.
As for Kodo Sawaki, he belonged to the Sotoshu and even held teaching positions within that school. He ordained many monks recognized by the Sotoshu.
We know very well that in Japan there is not one square centimeter of Zen tatami outside the Shumusho’s or Sotoshu’s control. Needless to say, Komazawa University, where Kodo taught young students, and Sojiji temple, where he taught zazen, are no exceptions. But that does not mean we can say he “belonged” to the Sotoshu. Let’s not play with words. Everyone has to pay the parking meter without necessarily feeling obliged to vote for Sarkozy.
I remember that a few years ago Étienne published an interview with Kosho Murakami, who had been Kodo Sawaki’s disciple since 1957, his secretary from 1959, and followed him until his death. I quote some of his words: “When Sawaki got angry, his voice became terrible and made everything around him tremble. […] Today in Japan, no one follows Kodo’s way, his way of life, anymore. […] True monks are rare today. Kodo did not like Eiheiji.”
What do you call “Kodo Sawaki’s style”?
True religion cannot live in temples. Kodo had a hard childhood as an orphan taken in by a gangster relative. That is why he could deeply understand other people’s suffering. […] The true monk is like a tiger in the forest. Those who live in temples do not live like the Buddha. Kodo did not allow his disciples to follow the way of temples.
I received only monk ordination and did not receive shiho from any other master, because I never met another master besides Kodo. I do not belong to the Sotoshu organization; I think independence is best. I am not interested in obtaining diplomas. What matters today is following the Buddha’s spirit. We must be direct disciples of the Buddha, not through formal shiho.
True shiho is accepting the Dharma of a true master.
[…] Kodo Sawaki had many disciples, but only one received the true transmission and continued his style.
Uchiyama Kosho changed his style. Narita Roshi has a large temple; he belongs to the Sotoshu organization and does what he can within that framework: he does zazen with businesspeople.---------------There, I hope that sheds some light for the disciples./
Master Deshimaru asked the Sotoshu to adapt its rules to account for Western realities, and that is what we are in the process of obtaining. But this requires dialogue, not withdrawing into an attitude of contempt.
Once again, I disagree. Sensei never asked the Sotoshu for such things, and for you to be negotiating thirty years later to obtain that kind of permission, when you have already received everything, is ridiculous. I agree that dialogue is needed to create the reality of Zen in the West, but I would first have to be invited to take part. As for negotiating the master’s teaching, that is another matter.
Let us point out that the Sotoshu Shumucho is not a state organization established at the end of World War II at the request of the fascist government. It was created around 1870 by the zenjis of Eiheiji and Sojiji to harmonize the two branches of Soto Zen in Japan.
Whether or not the Sotoshu is an official state organization, whether it was created during the Meiji Restoration that began in 1868, during the dictatorship of the Taisho era that marked the interval between two world wars, during Japanese expansionism that sharply declined from 1942 to 1945, or in the dawning light of Western internationalism at the end of the twentieth century, changes nothing about the fact that, since its creation by Keizan in the fourteenth century, the Sotoshu has constantly revised its view of the Dharma to survive social pressures, first from the shogunate and then the imperial system. A 1995 Sotoshu Shumucho publication, “Sotoshu shusei sogo chosa hokokusho,” recording the statutory changes of that period makes no mention of the reunification objectives Roland presented in his right of reply. In good faith, and given the extensive Japanese literature on the subject, we will give him the benefit of the doubt.
For readers’ information, the revisions introduced at that time concerned, according to Yasuaki Nara’s work, the social status of abbots, specifically their access to marriage and work outside the community. These changes were also adopted to reposition the Sotoshu in relation to human rights and the environment. A doctrinal revision was indeed introduced to limit the troubling discrimination by priests against marginalized village classes.
It has now become clear—as most leaders of Buddhist spirituality acknowledge, if I refer to Roland’s statements or Nichijima’s published online in March 1999, and as the Sotoshu itself confessed in 1992—that this ethic failed to withstand government pressures beginning early in the twentieth century, or even those of the AZI, which, as Roland mentions in his right of reply, succeeded in obtaining Westernizing adaptations of this Japanese Zen struggling to evolve.
We must understand that the Sotoshu’s general objectives have been to institutionalize rules and revise them over time to meet the demands of more influential organizations. In 1999, the new Sotoshu was formed by merging three institutes, in particular to address shortcomings in the conduct of certain ceremonies—for example, its first focus, funeral rituals. Die well, die “Sotoshu,” in short.
The Sotoshu has neither imposed its rules on us nor appropriated La Gendronnière.
If Deshimaru’s spirit were still alive at La Gendronnière, I would not be forbidden from practicing there occasionally with my disciples.
Much more could be said to correct Stéphane’s allegations. But to address his concern about his ordinations, I have never questioned their value or suggested that reordination was necessary.
Yet here is the testimony I received from someone who practices at your Nice dojo:
So, at the Nice dojo, Roland talked a lot about this to his disciples three or four months ago: how important it was to him to be registered as a Zen master with the Sotoshu in Milan, and for his disciples to register as monks or nuns and as his disciples with the Sotoshu too.
He asked—or rather suggested—that everyone think about it, and almost all of them did it.
To me, he said: Do as you like, but if you want to be registered and recognized as a nun in Japan, you will have to be reordained by me, because Stef did not want to register as a master with the Sotoshu, so his disciples are not recognized as monks in Japan.
I answered: “I cannot renounce my ordinations. Stéphane ordained me twice, as a bodhisattva and a nun, and they were true ordinations. Stéphane is truly my master, and I am proud to have been ordained by such a master.”
But there is no problem. Roland told me: “It changes absolutely nothing between us if you are not reordained by me.”
I agreed to reordain a few monks and nuns who wished thereby to confirm that they had become my disciples and be recognized as such by the Sotoshu. This new ordination expresses their faith in the Dharma transmitted in a true master-disciple relationship.
Roland Yuno Rech.
I too do not question the sincerity or right of disciples to follow you fully as their teacher, even if they received ordination from me. But once again, the Sotoshu complicates matters by forcing you to offer a contract with two clauses: ordination in the Dharma and affiliation with Japanese Zen. The fact that these people need additional external certification and are not satisfied with universal certification makes me doubt the depth of this master-disciple relationship and the teaching associated with it.
Shariputra, Mokuren, and Ananda gave ordinations during Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime.
Those people did not subsequently seek reordination, not even from the Buddha himself. They considered themselves monks and nuns in the Dharma. This clearly shows that ordinations are neither personal contracts requiring one to follow a particular person nor clauses registering one with an organization. For this reason, I think the choice you have made harms the ethic our master transmitted to us, which he himself received from Master Kodo Sawaki and which we are responsible for transmitting in turn.
In any case, to conclude, my dear Roland, I am very happy and honored to have had this profound discussion with you and thereby to have expressed our sincere ideas on a subject that seems important to me.
That said, I hope readers will not take this exchange between us as a competition in which one of us is right, because I know very well, deep down, that the work you do is done with the greatest sincerity, and I know very well that Sensei wanted you to occupy this position and accomplish this task.
Even if I express one aspect of Deshimaru and you another, which may seem different or even sometimes antagonistic, people must nevertheless understand our master’s dimension and true universality, and thereby be able to embrace the apparent contradictions.
Kosen