Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Wednesday, July 21st 2010

3:12 PM

A.     KOSHO McCALL, HEAD TEACHER of Austin Zen Center, HARBORS LAWBREAKERS.

 

KOSHO McCALL takes punitive action against Austin Zen Center members based on false and defamatory slanderous statements (which are illegal, though not criminal), and refuses to divulge the source of the misinformation.  McCALL apparently does not believe that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that accused people should be allowed to defend themselves.

 

B.    HOW Austin Zen Center USES SLANDER as a substitute for reasoned discussion.

 

When disagreements arise within a religious institution (such as Austin Zen Center), there are various ways in which they may be resolved. One way is to follow the example of the Zen Center of Los Angeles , namely by working through difficulties, whatever they may be, honoring each other as worthy stewards of the Sangha (i.e., the members, participants, and practitioners at the Center), and taking actions based on deep listening and collective decision making. Another way is to take the approach of the Austin Zen Center, which is for its head teacher, KOSHO McCALL, to make false, defamatory, slanderous statements about one side of the dispute, take punitive action against that party, and then refuse to divulge the original source of the slander so that the victimized party can defend himself. Wide publicity should be given to this misconduct on the part of KOSHO McCALL, and to the fact that he apparently engages in this misconduct with the support of Austin Zen Center’s Board of Directors . The motives for this support are explored below.

 

C.    WHY there is so little that can be done about the situation within Austin Zen Center.

It is unlikely that McCALL’s destructive and malicious slander policy can be overturned within Austin Zen Center. While one can appeal McCALL’s decisions to a Grievance Committee made up of three members of Austin Zen Center’s Board of Directors, that Board consists largely, if not entirely of McCALL’s cronies. Few, if any, of these cronies appear to be committed to the principles that people (for example when they are victims of slander) are innocent until proven guilty, and that the identity of slanderers (who are a serious menace to the Austin Zen Center community as well as the outside community at large) should be revealed to the victims of their slander so that those victims may defend themselves.

 

 

D. HOW it came to be that Austin Zen Center’s Board of Directors share McCALL’s opposition to basic and elementary principles of justice.

 

The deplorable attitudes that prevail at Austin Zen Center (or at least within its leadership) are due in part to (A) the historical evolution of zen in China, Japan, and America, as well as (B) the method the Center uses for selecting Board members. (A) First, historically zen has been a highly authoritarian discipline. The zen master of five centuries ago was the god of his temple, and his word was law. Those masters had a “like it or leave it” policy. If you studied at such a temple you could either like the word of the zen master or leave the temple. This authoritarianism led to the strong support of the Japanese Zen establishment, including many renowned Sōtō and Rinzai zen teachers, for Japanese militarism and nationalism during World War II and the preceding decades. History students are familiar with numerous Japanese atrocities, such as the Rape of Nanking,  during which hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered and 20,000–80,000 women were raped by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army. Had Japan been a democracy instead of an authoritarian, fascist empire, it is unlikely that it would have pursued its murderous ambitions against its neighbors within Asia and against the United States. When zen came to America, it brought its authoritarianism along with it. However, many American zen practitioners came to question this authoritarianism after they discovered that their Japanese zen teachers were guilty of various abuses. To take just one example, the Zen Center of Los Angeles found numerous problems with its founder, zen master Hakuyū Taizan Maezumi (who died in 1995). Beginning in 2000, the Zen Center of Los Angeles started to become less authoritarian. It moved from “a teacher-focused vertical structure to an all-inclusive model that embraces a sangha-oriented horizontal structure.” Austin Zen Center, on the other hand, continues to operate on an authoritarian model. As such, it does not tolerate complaints. Those who complain are slandered and kicked out. Like the Scientology Church, Austin Zen Center intimidates its critics, and those members who disagree with its fundamental policies—e.g., the policy of using male members’ donations to bring female speakers to the Center to give “dharma talks” on political and social issues, and excluding males from those talks because of their gender—learn to keep their mouths shut.  I have met several such members. (B) Austin Zen Center’s method of selecting Board members results in perpetuation of the sick values held by its inner circle. The Board members select their own replacements. They look for people who agree with them, and seek to avoid representation on the Board by members who disagree with the dominant views of current Board members. The Board does not seek Austin Zen Center members’ or participants’ input. It keeps its meetings secret. Board members rarely reply to inquiries from Austin Zen Center members and participants. Such inquiries are generally ignored (although some members will sometimes reply). The Board keeps its work secret because it is not interested in acting on behalf of the membership. For example, it frequently brings a female zen teacher from the Northeast to Austin Zen Center solely because she is the teacher of one of the Board members. The Board is well aware that if it operated openly it might not be able to use Austin Zen Center money any way it likes. The Board members have the attitude, “Let’s milk this Center for all we can get out of it. Let’s keep our operations secret so that no one but ourselves will make any decisions or even make any suggestions. We don’t want anyone else to suggest that perhaps there are zen teachers other than the ones we choose who should be brought to the Austin Zen Center. We won’t let the men in the Center even know what we are doing—we’ll bring women to the Center from thousands of miles away to give talks to women only, and we won’t even tell the men about these talks.” The fact that Austin Zen Center’s Board found men to put on the Board who support these policies reminds me of the (much more extreme) situation that occurred when there were prisoners (called “kapos”) who worked as administrators inside German concentration camps in exchange for receiving more privileges than normal prisoners, towards whom they were often brutal.

E. Why I want to be a member Austin Zen Center.

I don’t think I should have to answer this question. I want to be a member of Austin Zen Center for the same reason all of its other members want to be members: To get the benefits of membership. Several people have asked me why I want to be a member of Austin Zen Center, given the facts I have outlined above. They think that perhaps I should join some other meditation center. I really don’t understand it. They never ask anyone else why they want to be members. I don’t see why I should be picked out to have to give a special reason for being a member. It is something like the following situation: Suppose last Thursday someone burglarized my house. Then on Friday someone broke a window in my house, poured some gasoline through the hole, lit a match and started a fire. On Saturday I call the police to complain of burglary and arson, and the police say, “Why don’t you emigrate to another country? If you’re so unhappy here in the U.S., perhaps you should consider moving to Costa Rica.”


Formal Grievance against Kosho McCall.

Most of the events described occurred in approximately Sept. 2009.

The incident has some background. Last year, I attempted to send a message out on the AZC e-list on the topic of women-only events at AZC. John Grimes, director at the time, moderated that e-list and rejected my letter. I discussed this matter with Charles Ball, president of the board of directors, on the phone, and he explained that in the past, controversial material sent on the e-list had resulted in a number of e-list recipients removing their email addresses from the e-list. I then learned that sometime in the past, there had been a separate e-list for discussion of controversial issues, and that people interested in controversial issues could sign up to be on this separate e-list (which I’ll call a discussion-e-list). This struck me as a good policy, which would have the result that only those who voluntarily chose to receive messages containing discussion of controversial issues would receive those messages. I think it is important that there be an outlet for the expression of various opinions on AZC matters, e.g., the recent great proliferation of women-only events at AZC (which events in most cases seemed to be of interest to men as well, as they involved dharma talks by visiting zen teachers, etc.) For reasons that were never explained to me, AZC decided sometime in the past to discontinue this discussion-e-list, and both Charles Ball and Kosho McCall were opposed to re-starting it. Of course, AZC’s decision to not restart the discussion-e-list is an excellent example of shooting oneself in the foot, because while the discussion-e-list would have kept the discussion within a small group of people, most of whom were directly involved with AZC, the only workable alternative for an AZC member such as myself to express his views was to put a website on the internet, which I have done (see http://yogi9.bravejournal.com/   . This  website has by now probably been read by far more people than would have read the same material on the (now-defunct) discussion-e-list.  

Not being willing to let a unanimous decision on the part of the rector, Head Priest, Head Teacher, and Board President stand in my way, I decided to politely discuss the matter with other members of the board. For the most part, I found that board members weren’t very interested in AZC matters. I attended one board meeting at which only 5 out of 9 members even attended. I got the impression that most, or almost all, of the board members were only on the board because someone had “twisted their arms” to get them to be on the board, and that perhaps they had been selected to be on the board precisely because of their lack of personal initiative, lack of views, and willingness to rubber-stamp whatever Charles Ball and/or Kosho McCall put before them. In any event, I couldn’t find board members who were both willing to discuss the matter of the discussion-e-list with me at all, and also in agreement with my position. I especially found Charles Ball to be unpleasant to deal with, as he said he didn’t have time to discuss the matter. I sent an email to some AZC people complaining about this, as I believe that the president of the board should certainly find time to discuss such matters with members. It was very appropriate for me send this letter.


In all of my discussions, I behaved in a polite and respectful manner. I was therefore quite shocked when Kosho approached me soon after these events and gave me back the money I had donated to AZC about a week before. He said that someone had said I had “bullied” them and that that person was “afraid” of me, and that that was why he was returning my money. He refused to say who that person was. I think it is clear from his action that he meant to imply that I was no longer a member. I deny in the strongest possible terms that I have ever remotely bullied anyone at AZC or done anything to make anyone afraid of me (unless by “afraid” they meant, “I’m afraid that he is right and that I’m wrong and can’t defend my position.”) I strongly resent this false accusation and the fact that Kosho refused to say who made the accusation, refused to hold an informal hearing or meeting to determine the truth of the accusation (as if he never heard of due process), and took action contrary to the AZC by-laws to remove me from membership. Since that time, Trevor and Chris Lance have refused to reply to any emails I have sent them requesting their input on various ideas of mine which concerned AZC practices and policies. Also, Chris said once that he didn’t regard me as a member. I asked Pat Yingst if I could see the AZC bylaws. She said she had no idea where they were and hadn’t seen them in years, but that in any event they couldn’t have any bearing on any of the issues I’d been discussing with her or others, so far as she knew. I asked her again to look for them, but so far as I know, she didn’t do so. She also didn't refer me to anyone who could find these bylaws. She’s one of the two board liason and also co-chair of the Membership Committee. I finally found the bylaws through someone who is not on the board or staff of AZC (in general, those not on the board or staff of AZC have always been far more helpful than those who are on the board or staff). In any event, the AZC bylaws were of course highly relevant to my dispute with Kosho. They state, for instance, that:

"2.19 Membership Criteria. The Board of Directors shall establish criteria for qualification for Members of the Austin Zen Center. The initial criteria shall be as follows: membership shall be open to all persons who commit to a minimum donation to Austin Zen Center in the amount of $5.00 per month ($60.00 per year). There shall be one level of membership with all Members having equal rights to vote on any matter subject to a vote of the membership under these bylaws. The Board of Directors may not establish changes in membership criteria in the three months prior to any Annual Meeting, if such change would affect the voting rights of existing Members. Changes in membership criteria may be established by majority vote of the Board of Directors at any other time. All Members shall be given notice of any change in the membership criteria."

My investigations reveal no changes in the membership criteria (with the possible exception of the amount charged as membership dues). As you can see from a previous email (sent to Hohengarten and Magness), I did join AZC and I received a letter confirming that fact. There is no provision for removing members, so it seems clear by implication that given the membership criteria, a member can only be removed by majority vote of the Board of Directors. At a minimum, one would expect the Board in such a case to give the affected member a written statement of the charges against him and an opportunity to confront his accuser in an informal hearing before the Board. I am quite confident that the only thing that would emerge in such a case before the present board is the fact that I disagree with various board members and staff about a few matters, such as whether women-only events at AZC (apart from purely social events) are justifiable. Kosho's action is a simple case of abuse of authority. I think the primary reason Kosho refused to explain the details of why he refused to consider me an AZC member is that he knew he had no valid reason to not consider me an AZC member. He acted for a variety of reasons, some of which I shall not discuss in the grievance. Among those reasons are (a) his desire to have everything his own way (i.e., his basic interest in being an abbot in the style of a 13th-Century Chinese zen monastic abbot, as opposed to being a mere head teacher in the US in the 21st Century), even when his decisions and orders to members were ludicrous, such as telling me not to contact Board members about important AZC matters, (b) his inability to tolerate disagreement not only between himself and others, but among other members themselves, which is part of the reason he wished his position as head teacher to be a contemplative position, one free from the need to adjudicate disputes, unlike the position it actually is, and (c) his basic position as a mere careerist without any real principles (as he says, “I don’t care who’s right”).

I believe that as Kosho McCall has acted improperly and in a manner that is contrary to the bylaws, the Grievance Committee should advise him to retract his apparent decision to not treat me as a member and should also advise him to retract any statements which he made to Chris, Trevor, and others, telling them that I'm not a member and shouldn't be treated as a member.  I believe the Grievance Committee should also inform the members of the Membership Committee, Chris Lance, Trevor, and others, that I am a member.

The Procedures for filing a formal grievance at AZC (see http://www.austinzencenter.org/aboutazc/ethics.html ) stipulate that the grievance should discuss any efforts made toward reconciliation prior to bringing the formal grievance. In a previous version of this grievance (prior to the June 2, 2010 revised version), which has been distributed to all Board members, as well as in the June 2 version (Part 1),  I discussed these efforts up to the recent Governance Committee meeting that I had with Jack and Nancy (of the Board) and Bill Magness on April 2. In this section of the Grievance, Part 2, I shall primarily discuss events at the April 2 Governance Committee meeting. However, I should first like to address the issue of AZC people making slanderous (false and defamatory oral) statements about other AZC people.

One of AZC’s Ten Essential Precepts (which are a subset of the Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts adopted by AZC--see http://www.austinzencenter.org/aboutazc/ethics.html ), consists of a vow not to slander or allow silence to harm others, with the explanation that “False and malicious statements are an act of alienation from oneself and others. The consequence of slander is pain for others and divisiveness in the community. An effort to understand the roots of the desire to slander is an expression of this precept.” I certainly agree with this Precept, although I don’t go along with AZC’s interpretation of a different Precept, the vow “not to misuse sexuality or manipulate others seductively.” (Prima facie, the precept prohibits coercion in the area of sexuality, which is quite proper. However, the explanation of the Precept--with its remarks concerning student-teacher sexual relationships--according to which “this area is so delicate,” and the “lens of a romantic relationship” with a teacher can seriously undermine and confuse a student’s practice, especially that of a new student, etc., show an obsessive and  irrational fear of sex. There is nothing inherently coercive or abusive about <

9 total marks / leave your mark

Wednesday, July 21st 2010

2:12 PM

The HEAD TEACHER of Austin Zen Center HARBORS LAWBREAKERS

Grievance, continued.

...

about student-teacher sexual relationships. If they start out coercively or become coercive at some point, that would be a misuse of sexuality or a manipulation of others, but there is no reason to think that all student-teacher sexual relationships are coercive.) In regard to slander, it seems to me that the Head Teacher (Kosho) needs to be trained in the proper way to handle defamatory statements made by members or non-member practitioners of AZC concerning other members or non-member practitioners. Rather than taking punitive action against the perpetrators of slander, which would be in accordance with the Precept, Kosho takes punitive action against the victims of slander. Kosho violates the precept against slander by promoting slander. Unfortunately, Kosho promotes, rather than prohibits, Precept violations. We need a Head Teacher who acts in favor of, rather than against, the Precepts. 

 

Kosho fails to investigate defamatory statements, apparently because he believes that discussion of defamatory statements is mere “bickering” and, as he says, “I don’t care who is right.” In taking, without full investigation, false, slanderous statements to be true, Kosho promotes slander. If he wishes to take action against AZC members on the basis of defamatory statements, he should hold a hearing before some committee of the Board for the purpose of determining whether those statements are true.

In a meeting I had with Jack and Nancy (of the Board) and Bill Magness on April 2, Bill (who appeared at the meeting to be acting in the capacity of attorney for Kosho, rather than Governance Committee member) gave as a reason (which he considered valid) for revoking my AZC membership the fact that I had made complaints to the Board (e.g., about the women-only dharma talks). He seems to have thought (quite erroneously) that I joined AZC in order to make complaints. This is odd because you don’t have to be an AZC member to make complaints, and in fact the making of complaints is quite irrelevant to AZC membership. AZC leaders can ignore members’ complaints just as easily as non-members’ complaints. Furthermore, complaints, in general, are beneficial. Nothing can be improved unless problems are first identified through complaints. Complaints should therefore be encouraged, not discouraged, although of course not all complaints are justified or merit policy changes. I find Bill’s perspective quite disturbing. It has something in common with the attitude of fanatical Muslims. Kosho and Bill treat dissent from their views or from AZC policy as apostasy and apparently believe that people who disagree with them should not be allowed to be AZC members. Nothing in AZC’s bylaws supports this view, and there is nothing about AZC membership that would suggest, for example, that adherence to radical feminist separatism is a membership requirement. AZC membership gives you a free class, discounts on programs, free accommodations in the Center during retreats, library privileges, and ability to vote in Board elections and serve on the Board. (Of course, members aren’t entitled to serve on the Board—they must be invited to do so by AZC leaders.) Now I see no reason why one should not be allowed to have the above benefits simply because one does not, for instance, share the concern of Juniper Lauren and Elizabeth Kubala about the “recently increasing ratio of men to women practitioners and men to women in leadership roles at AZC.” In fact, everyone is welcome to practice at AZC, and there’s no reason to think the AZC male-female ratio matters in the slightest. The fact that more men than women happen to want to practice at AZC doesn’t justify AZC in discriminating against men. It doesn’t justify AZC in spending a significant amount of the money donated to AZC by both men and women to bring zen teachers to AZC to give talks that exclude men. (These events are now kept secret from men to prevent them from learning how their money is being misused. By misuse, I mean, for example, the fact that zen teacher Shotai de la Rosa gave a women-only talk at AZC which was reported to me as having been “about matters which women face in society.” (I can’t confirm the report because I wasn’t allowed to attend, due to my gender.) But men may be, and often are, also interested in the role of women in society. There was no reason to exclude them from the talk, and permitting such exclusion was a case of misconduct on the part of AZC leadership. Future such misconduct will be more difficult to detect because of the new secrecy policy. It’s something like embezzlement or fraud—if someone was going to embezzle funds from an organization, he’d certainly want to keep it secret. AZC leadership is probably worried that if some men knew how their donations were being used to pursue anti-male discriminatory policies, they might stop donating. But we really need to ask why issues such as “matters which women face in society” are even being addressed in a zen center. What does it have to do with zen? Does AZC leadership allow just any sort of political group to pervert the purposes of AZC by using AZC funds to promote political causes? If a group of Neo-Nazi AZC members wanted to bring a Neo-Nazi speaker to AZC with AZC money, would Kosho allow it? It appears that he would, as he seems not to have any fixed principles. I discovered this when I found that, for example, one can’t get Kosho to discuss the issue of the justification of the women-only policy, or the case against that policy. He was only willing to talk to me about it to the extent of telling me to keep my mouth shut and not say anything about that policy because otherwise some psychologically crippled AZC radical militant feminist might get upset. He wasn’t willing to have any substantive discussion about the matter. Does Kosho have any reasons for permitting this type of anti-male discrimination? Probably not, but if he does, he’s not telling us.) But the main point is that there is no logical connection between holding particular views about AZC policy (or expressing opposition to AZC’s ridiculous anti-male feminist separatism), and enjoying the benefits of AZC membership.

Bill also stated at the April 2 meeting that he thought I shouldn’t be a member because, according to him, I had said the AZC women-only group was like the Ku Klux Klan. Both groups engage in unjustifiable invidious discrimination, so the groups do have something in common. However, Bill’s remark is a distortion of what I actually said. Koji Rick Dreher wrote online, “The women that i've spoken to have said they they really enjoy and value the [AZC women-only] group.” Then I wrote, in reply, “That's something like Klan members saying, ‘We really enjoy and value not having any blacks or Jews around when we have policy discussions and discussions about the racial situation in the US.’” It is obvious that I am making a point about the reasoning used by Dreher and his friends in the women-only group. I never said the women-only group was a violent hate group, like the Klan. Dreher’s reasoning (“We like it”), if valid, also justifies the exclusion of blacks and Jews by the Klan. It also would justify the Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States between 1876 and 1965. By the reasoning of Dreher and his friends, the political leadership in the South in that period could justify their oppression of blacks simply by saying “We like it this way.”  I didn’t say the AZC women-only group was a violent hate group. What I said is that Dreher and his friends had used poor reasoning to justify the women-only events.

--------------------------------------------

As I was thinking over the procedures that AZC might use in this grievance, it occurred to me that the Committee might take a look at the policy of the Zen Center of Los Angeles.. From their website:

 "Shared Stewardship

"In 2000, Roshi Egyoku Nakao [ZCLA's Head Teacher] led the Sangha in an exploration to reorganize the Center to expand it from a teacher-focused vertical structure to an all-inclusive model that embraces a sangha-oriented horizontal structure. We took a daring leap off the 100-foot pole into an invigorating exploration of what we now call Shared Stewardship.

As it has evolved, Shared Stewardship has several notable characteristics:...

    .....

  • honoring transparency and, at the same time, respecting confidentiality
  • taking actions based on deep listening and collective decision making
  • integrating both vertical and horizontal relationships within ourselves and the community-at-large
  • honoring one another as worthy stewards of the Sangha in whatever way our unique talents and abilities manifest
  • working through our difficulties with one another and the Sangha, whatever they may be

The crux of our understanding is that all life and all activities of our life, without exception, are awakened life. Our actions—how we care for our lives and for each other, how we care for and run the Center—reveal our understanding of the Dharma, not as an abstraction, but as living manifestation of awakening. We do our best!"


...........................................

Notice that they take "actions based on deep listening and collective decision making." That is, they don't exclude people as we do at AZC. At AZC, most governance people will not even talk to you if you have a problem or complaint. They'll treat you in a vicious and nasty manner. You won't even get replies from most board members here at AZC when you write to them. Instead, they'll just ostracize you. At ZCLA, they believe in "honoring transparency." At AZC, they keep everything slightly controversial as secret as possible. Charles Ball didn't even want to allow members to attend discussions by the board concerning the duties of board members, so he moved to kick non-board-members out when they discussed that topic. The board went along with that. (Thus, I didn't get to hear their discussion.) Also, the women's group activities are now secret, and men can't even learn about them. Kosho is terrified about disagreement and was very upset that various issues I had raised resulted in disagreement (as there was a split within the AZC board about some topics that I had raised). That's why Kosho believes in ostracizing and excluding people who disagree with what he wants. The last thing Kosho wants is open discussion and transparency. He works to prevent AZC people from knowing what is going on at AZC. He opposes the "availability of the full information required for collaboration, cooperation, and collective decision making" (from businessdictionary.com). At ZCLA, they believe in "working through our difficulties with one another." At AZC, governance people believe in ostracizing people with whom they have difficulties.

Well, I just wanted to point this out. Disagreement is a fact of life. It is only psychologically inadequate people who can't tolerate disagreement. People like Kosho who can't tolerate disagreement are much too immature to be running a zen center.


3 total marks / leave your mark

Friday, June 25th 2010

1:20 PM

Formal Grievance against Kosho McCall, Head Teacher of Austin Zen Center.

Metta-in-action at AZC.

On May 1, 2010, AZC was fortunate to hear a pleasant talk on metta given by Norman Fischer, founder and spiritual director of the Everyday Zen Foundation. As we learn from the Foundation’s website, “The Everyday Zen Foundation's mission is to share the Zen attitude, spirit, and practice with the world. It is dedicated to listening to the world, to changing it, and being changed by it.” I very much like the idea of sharing the Zen attitude, spirit, and practice with the world. But let’s first get a clearer idea of what that attitude, spirit, and practice consists in. Metta, a Pali word, means loving-kindness, friendliness, benevolence, amity, friendship, good will, kindness, love, sympathy, and active interest in others. Fischer told us that although the Mettā Sutta, a Theravada Buddhist text, isn’t chanted in Japanese Zen, he’d added the chanting of the Mettā Sutta to the chanting routine at San Francisco Zen Center while he was an abbot there, apparently because he wished to encourage the attitude of metta among the zen students. I thought it was a good talk, although I am rather skeptical of talks about love and friendliness in general because I hear so much about it yet see so little of it in action. As I listened to Fischer’s talk, I thought of so-called “Christians” many years ago in Alabama and elsewhere going to church, listening to sermons about love based on Biblical teachings, and then going home, putting on white sheets and riding off in groups to lynch a few African-Americans for kicks. People involved in AZC governance seem a bit like that to me, though I haven’t observed any physical violence there. However, it’s possible that I don’t fully understand how metta is conceived of at AZC. AZC governance people chant the Mettā Sutta, so they must be pro-metta, and must be implementing metta in their own unique manner, according to the interpretation of metta that seems best to them. So to understand how metta is conceived of at AZC, I suggest we look at a few examples of the behavior of AZC governance people. When you were a small child learning new and unfamiliar basic concepts, I’m sure it always helped to see a few examples. Someone could explain what a circle was, but when you actually saw a few circles, you then had a much clearer understanding of the concept of a “circle.” Someone may have explained what a car is, but when a few real cars were pointed out to you, you got a much better idea of “car.” So let’s try this method with metta. Shortly after I first became a member of AZC back in September of 2009, I tried to discuss my objections to women-only AZC events (that were not purely social) in a polite and reasonable manner with several AZC Board members. Head Teacher Kosho McCall didn’t like this, because he felt it would upset some AZC people to discover that there was opposition to these women-only events. However, it’s one of the jobs of the AZC Board members to discuss members’ concerns with members. Such discussion at AZC isn’t limited by the emotional states of psychologically crippled AZC people who cannot tolerate it when others disagree with them. Kosho told me not to send emails to Board members and not to bring up the women-only activities with them. As this was an outrageously unreasonable demand, I disregarded it. Head Teacher Kosho responded by attempting to revoke my membership and refunding the money I had donated to AZC. Of course, he doesn’t have the authority to revoke anyone’s membership. Section 2.19 of the AZC by-laws clearly states that “The Board of Directors shall establish criteria for qualification for Members of the Austin Zen Center,” not Kosho. Those by-laws make membership entirely a matter of payment of money. They don’t allow Kosho to become Center Dictator by telling everyone what to do and then revoking their membership if they don’t do it. But that’s metta, Kosho McCall style. It’s something like President Obama trying to get re-elected by suddenly declaring that Republicans are no longer U.S. citizens and hence can’t vote. There would be no legal basis for that, of course. Kosho also invented a supposed offence that I had committed and told me I was guilty of that offence. I was shocked because his accusation was an outrageous lie. Kosho refused to tell me who had made the accusation. But that’s metta, Kosho McCall style. Kosho appears to take after the current Chinese government, which in 1996 became upset about Falun Gong’s influence on Chinese society. As a result, the government concocted several ridiculous charges against them, such as "disrupting social order," "endangering national security," and "subverting the socialist system." The real reason the Chinese government began persecuting the Falun Gong was simply because the government didn’t want the Chinese people to hear what the Falun Gong practitioners had to say. Kosho is a lot like that. As he has said, he doesn’t care who is right. As far as he’s concerned, everyone must simply do what he says so that there’s no “bickering.” And when he accuses an AZC member of something, he doesn’t care whether the accusation is true. In his mind, he’s the judge, the jury, and the prosecutor all rolled into one. That’s metta, Kosho McCall style. So now I think we have a better understanding of metta, through our examination of metta-in-action at AZC. Or do we? Would it be more correct to say that AZC’s Head Teacher doesn’t practice what he preaches, or what he chants?

 

2 total marks / leave your mark

Monday, April 5th 2010

5:45 PM

Can Austin Zen Center Tolerate Public Discussion of its Policies?



Women-Only Group at Austin Zen Center--Can AZC Tolerate Public Discussion of its Policies?

I have been an active participant in AZC activities for over a year and haven't noticed any situations calling for special treatment for women. I would like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group, as well as Head Teacher Kosho McCall, why a women-only group is needed at AZC.I would also like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group whether they think some AZC practices and traditions, as opposed to others, work well "for women" (as opposed to zen practitioners in general)? If so, which ones are good for women, and which others are not? Why do you feel that female practitioners may need a special kind of "support" beyond that needed by zen practitioners in general? Is there such a thing as "women's practice?" How does it differ from men's practice? Do we really need to polarize the genders at AZC?Why should anyone care what the male-female ratio is for AZC practitioners or leaders so long as everyone is welcome to practice regardless of gender and the best leaders are picked regardless of gender?I don't see why the male-female ratio should be of any interest unless one gender is being discouraged from practicing (which isn't the case) or one gender is being kept out of leadership positions (which also isn't the case).In zen practice, we rise above consciousness of gender, age, career, etc. A group such as the AZC Women-Only group, which discriminates against many Austin zen practitioners on the basis of gender, strikes me as being directly opposed to fundamental principles of zen. March 19 at 1:11pm

By KRD: As a male zen student i have to say that i completely support women's groups and women's events at AZC and beyond. though i'm not one of the organizers who this post is addressed to, i would like to respond to some of these concerns. bear in mind that i've only been practicing for 10 years or so, and my understanding of zen is minimal. i'm a very novice priest."I have been an active participant in AZC activities for over a year and haven't noticed any situations calling for special treatment for women."the term "special treatment" here seems a bit loaded, inaccurate, and perhaps condescending. a group of people with common concerns organizing themselves and meeting isn't a request for "special treatment." perhaps you haven't noticed the need for a women's group because you're not a woman."I would like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group, as well as Head Teacher Kosho McCall, why a women-only group is needed at AZC."kosho isn't active on the facebook page, so if you want to ask him something you'll have to actually ask him in person. why is a women's group needed at AZC? AZC exists within a cultural context and isn't something independent of western culture, world culture, social conditioning and influences. the leadership of the world has been a "men-only group" since the advent of agriculture. we can't wish things equal, some countermeasures must be made. you can cool boiled water by letting it sit, but it's more effective to add cold water."Why do you feel that female practitioners may need a special kind of "support" beyond that needed by zen practitioners in general? Is there such a thing as "women's practice?" How does it differ from men's practice? Do we really need to polarize the genders at AZC?"why is the word support in quotations here? what if it REALLY IS support? perhaps there are ways of understanding and relating to the world that are particular to the female psyche. perhaps when women get together amongst themselves they are able to share things with each other and communicate in a way that they aren't free to do in mixed company. perhaps women feel the solidarity and strength that any group subject to oppression and discrimination feel when they meet together and offer each other support. is there such a thing as women's practice? maybe so. also, i don't consider a group of women meeting together "polarizing" the genders." Why should anyone care what the male-female ratio is for AZC practitioners or leaders so long as everyone is welcome to practice regardless of gender and the best leaders are picked regardless of gender? "there's a group in colombia whose slogan is "without the voice of women, the truth is incomplete." we can't insure that the best leaders are picked regardless of gender. men and women across the country have internalized this cultural understanding of the implications of being male or female. i say again, we are not something outside of our culture's sphere of influence. i agree the no one should become a teacher, an ino, a director, or even a doan without being suited for the job, but the voice and presence of women is crucial for a complete sangha. we can't just wish it equal, we can't wish ourselves unbiased, we need to take countermeasures against the patriarchal culture we are steeped in and the standards we subconsciously abide by."In zen practice, we rise above consciousness of gender, age, career, etc. A group such as the AZC Women-Only group, which discriminates against many Austin zen practitioners on the basis of gender, strikes me as being directly opposed to fundamental principles of zen."i don't see a women's group as discriminating on the basis of gender. i see it as discriminating on the basis of experience. i don't have the experience of being a woman, i haven't lived that, i don't know what it's like. a women's group is no more guilty of gender discrimination than a 10 year class reunion is guilty of age discrimination. it may be true that, in zen, we look past conventional views of gender, age, and social status, but we also look right at it. it is our life situation. we study the absolute as well as the relative, as well as the co-existence of both, and the non-existence of both. absolute reality is a fraction of the picture. a person of the way does not ignore relative circumstances. she engages them with the same careful attention that she engages the absolute. we've inherited a particular world, a particular life situation, and we have to work with it. teachings on non-dualism don't offer us a "get out of the relative world freecard."the women that i've spoken to have said they they really enjoy and value the group. that's all the proof i need. my wish is that men help in any way they can...even if just by getting out of the way if i've misrepresented the women's group in any way, please let me know so that i can correct my understanding.

By SM, the blog editor: More on WOMEN-ONLY EVENTS AT AZC. In order to make this discussion more concrete, let's look at an example. On March 19, 2010 at AZC there was a "Women's Evening with visiting teacher Shotai De La Rosa. Zazen, potluck dinner, dharma talk." Here's a case of a dharma talk for women. Surely some men could have benefited, but they were apparently excluded--I say "apparently" because when a talk is labeled part of a "Women's Evening," then many people, myself included, will assume, with good reason, that men are prohibited from hearing this dharma talk. (If men were not prohibited, then the announcement ought to have said so.) Now even if Shotai De La Rosa gave another talk, for everyone, the fact is that Shotai may have taught some things in the women-only talk that were not repeated in the talk that didn't discriminate against a large number of people on the basis of gender. That's why giving non-discriminatory talks (in addition to separate talks for women who don't want men around) isn't anadequate way of compensating for the discriminatory conduct (by which I of course do not mean conduct on Shotai's part--she of course simply spoke at whatever events she was invited to speak at and, for all I know, may not have even known in advance of the gender discrimination).Koji Rick Dreher makes the very odd remark that my use of the term "special treatment" in reference to events that discriminate on the basis of gender is "loaded, inaccurate, and perhaps condescending." It strikes me as so obvious that when you have a women-only dharma talk you are giving women "special treatment" that I hardly think it's worth wasting any words to defend the use of the term "special treatment." Probably Koji thinks the term is loaded, inaccurate, and condescending simply because he has a special emotional feeling in favor of gender discrimination.Koji thinks that Kosho won't respond to my complaint on Facebook because he isn't active on the Facebook page. I myself think anyone who presides over a group engaging in discrimination ought to respond to public complaints about that discrimination whenever the opportunity presents itself. Of course, no one can force him to respond, just as no one can force the Masons to respond to the many correct and accurate complaints that they discriminate against Jews, Catholics, and Moslems (in violation of their own rules), and no one can force Louis Farrakhan to respond to complaints that he has made antisemitic statements.Koji says the leadership of the world has been a "men-only group." It strikes me that the only correct response to past discrimination is to end discrimination, not to engage in more discrimination. The vast majority of the whites and males who are nowadays routinely vicitimized by illegal employment discrimination and by illegal discrimination in university admissions (to take just two examples out of hundreds) have had absolutely nothing to do with past discrimination against women and non-whites. Koji apparently supports punishing people for offenses they had nothing to do with. I find this position highly immoral.There are a number of other odd remarks in Koji's posting, e.g., "I don't see a women's group as discriminating on the basis of gender." What Koji is saying is that an event that excludes men doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. It looks like Koji just doesn't know what "discriminate" means--he really should just look it up in the dictionary.I'm not opposed to women-only groups that have a legitimate justification. For example, a purely social women-only group (something like a church women's fellowship) would be fine with me, because single-sex socializing can be easily justified. In the same way, as a matter of law, because there is an adequate justification, you're allowed to discriminate against whites in some employment situations. For example, a police department can assign a black policeman to patrol a black inner-city neighborhood full of racial tension. That department doesn't have to toss a coin to choose between a black and a white policeman for that job because it has a valid reason for sending a black officer to that area. But when events at the center of zen training, such as dharma talks, meditation sessions, policy discussions, discussions about zen practice, etc., discriminate against people on the basis of gender, then I think they should not occur at AZC.Koji says, "The women that i've spoken to have said they they really enjoy and value the [women-only] group." That's something like Klan members saying, "We really enjoy and value not having any blacks or Jews around when we have policy discussions and discussions about the racial situation in the US." AZC should not be a group that supports discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or religious background in central, non-social events.

-----------------------------------------------
RA wrote that she thinks I am trying to start a "flame war." I (SM, the blog editor) am not trying to start a "flame war." I'm just expressing my views on a matter of public concern. If every time someone expresses controversial views, he gets attacked for trying to start a war, then before you know it there won't be any free speech left. Robin thinks I should talk to Kosho McCall, AZC's Head Teacher, about this. However, Kosho doesn't like to talk about it. He has difficulty discussing controversial issues. I already tried to talk to him about this--we didn't get very far. His main concern seemed to be that someone might get upset if a discussion on this topic occurred in a public or semi-public manner. His reasoning seemed to be something like this: A person with emotional problems who disagrees with me might become very upset upon hearing of my opposition to women-only events at AZC that are not purely social; therefore, there should not be any discussion on this topic in a public or semi-public manner. I find this reasoning seriously defective. It shows a dismaying contempt for the methods of decision-making that have been found to be so effective in the United States over the last 200 years--free and open public discussion of important, controversial issues. In this country, we generally reject repressive tactics such as stifling the free and public expression of controversial ideas on matters of public importance. I realize that Kosho may be less impressed with American values on free speech than with, say, the values of Japan in the past--say, the autocratic values of Japan in the 1930's. Zen centers in the lineage of Suzuki Roshi, chiefly San Francisco Zen Center, have dealt with autocratic leadership in the past, especially in the case of Richard Baker Roshi, and I am surprised to see that autocratic leadership is still alive and well in centers in the lineage of Suzuki Roshi. It seems that certain lessons from the Baker experience haven't been fully learned.This raises a question about "dharma transmission," which is a status that has been granted to Kosho. Some people think that when a teacher has "dharma transmission," that means he's enlightened, and that what he says is infallable, or necessarily superior to what anyone else says who hasn't been granted the privileges that accompany "dharma transmission." I tried to discuss this with Reb Anderson of San Francisco Zen Center, but he wasn't interested. He said he didn't know anything about dharma transmission (even though he'd just given a public talk on that topic a few weeks earlier). In any event, as those with experience in zen can easily see, dharma transmission has a tendency to result in autocratic leadership and the suppression of free speech.As Flint Sparks and Peg Syverson point out in RESPONDING TO JOKO [BECK]'S REQUEST: OPENING THE CONVERSATION (unpublished), “Practice has no hierarchy….It’s not as if a person ‘has’…transmission that is portable as an object; it maintains its aliveness by its attention and through connection. It’s not something a person can get and have….There is no privilege. The tricky assumption is that transmission is ‘privilege.’ This is the way it has been conventionally viewed.” Indeed, with Kosho McCall, I have noticed a tendency to make decisions not based on reasons, but simply based on authority. Public discussion is the most effective way of counteracting autocratic tendencies. RA also states that I took "cheap shots at someone who took the time to give [me] a thoughtful answer to [my] question." However, she neglected to point out which of my comments were "cheap shots." That's because there aren't any "cheap shots" in any of my comments.
http://yogi8.bravejournal.com/
http://austinzencenter.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


12 total marks / leave your mark