Mexicali wrote:Zen has many of the same problems that Tibetan Buddhism does, in terms of encouraging unethical behavior and promoting teachings the Buddha specifically spoke against, in the name of an esoteric doctrine.
Zen Buddhism is Buddhism and therefore morality (sila) is essential. It is present in the vows, in the teachings and in the practice. See for example:
Stating from 2008, Chan (Zen) Master Sheng Yen's compassion for humanity was further revealed in "the Six Ethics of the Mind Campaign". They are Workplace Ethics, School Ethics, Family Ethics, Living Ethics, Environmental Ethics and Ethics between Ethnic Groups.
He believed that in today's society, chaos in all its manifestations springs from a lack of ethical and moral standards in interpersonal relationships among all walks of life. Thus, everyone scrambles for their rights while forgetting their obligations and duties. "Ethics" means doing one's duties and observing one's role and "morality" means respecting and caring for each other in interpersonal relationships.
Seung Sahn's "beyond lust" excuse for his behavior sits comfortably with the excuses for keeping sacred concubines in Tibet. Zen's support for Japanese nationalism and warfare finds an analogue in Tibet's support of the landed gentry's right to keep slaves.
Yes, Zen (Seon) teachers are human beings and all that that entails. It is unfortunate but I suspect probably not confined to the Zen tradition. What is not correct is to paint everyone with the same brush. The Buddha's immediate disciples had their failings too.
The 'crazy wisdom' commonly found in both has encouraged a lot of people to reject ubaya in favor of seeking some kind of "higher wisdom".
I have no idea what you are talking about here. This is not my experience of Zen, nor something I found in reading classical Zen stories. No crazy wisdom there. Only compassion coupled with deep insight.
People like Osel Tendzin and Richard Baker aren't representative of some kind of fringe cult, they were very mainstream figures working from very orthodox teachings.
I don't know about Osel, but Baker was expelled by his sangha and more recently said the following (in a 1994 interview with Sugata Schneider):
I don't think that the gossipy or official versions of what happened are right, but I feel definitely that if I were back in the situation again as the person I am now, it wouldn't have happened. Which means it's basically my fault. I had a kind of insecurity and self-importance, which I didn't see for a long time, that was a bad dynamic in the community.
Suzuki Roshi had to choose an heir to continue with the Centre. He chose Baker. And Baker screwed up. Does it follow that there is something inherently wrong with Zen? I don't think so.
You're sanctimonious and passive aggressive. I'm not sure if those are considered "wrong speech" per se, but I find it obnoxious. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're "harming themselves" or that your oh-so-noble words "fell on deaf ears". You want to address what I specifically said, feel free, but get over yourself.
My attitude to posting is not to be rude but try to stay constructive. Your response above was to me addressing Drolma, who was also a witness to other ill-informed Vajrayana bashing posts, which I find very sad. Simply because people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself. You can see or choose not to see. Your business entirely. But sect-bashing and ad hominems are against Terms of Service so please refrain in the future for community's sake. If you need to, you can PM me.
This is not to say that you can't constructively criticise. I responded to your critical comments about Zen, which had some factual support. But when people dismiss entire traditions, it just sounds like extreme hubris and serves no one.