I've been reading, inter alia, Barbara's Buddhism blog on About.com. As you can see, I made comments on that post, to the effect of 1) Genjo Marinello's obviously been quite conflicted over this, and 2) there's a whole host of other things that happened here, and some of these are quite important.
Barbara's response to myself is somewhat telling:
First a bit of a qubbile: Genjo Marinello should at least be referenced as at least "Osho," although he has obtained inka.
BTW, I found Genjo Marinello’s dharma talk audio archive — the links work better in iTunes — and listened to the first teisho, on “Neither Mind Nor Buddha.” I thought it was a pretty good teisho on shunyata that also addressed the issue of why teachers screw up. However, what was missing was an admission of the severity of Eido Shimano’s “transgressions,” and there was no acknowledgment of the suffering he caused. I’ve talked to people with first-hand knowledge of the situation who said the young women were genuinely damaged. The sensei made it sound as if Eido Shimano had just stumbled over some quibbling technicality.
Secondly, I mentioned two dharma podcasts from Cho Bo Ji, and to be honest the point of the dharma talk was the subject of the dharma talk, not a place where Cho Bo Ji would explain or ask forgiveness of Eido Shimano's transgressions and ethical lapses.
My point was that this was evidently so present in what Genjo Osho was doing that it evidently crept into his dharma talks!
Then, below an at-least-at-one-time monk Chana writes that a) there are difficulties in American Zen, and b) the Soto sect is in trouble, and c) it has to do with a metastasis of Zen from its original foundations. Chana illustrates an example from Bankei, who (he says) taught that life provided its own koans and that's why Hui Neng could get enlightened in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
Now I'd like to first comment on Chana's comment before I get to Barbara, since my comments on Barbara's comments are corollary to my comments on Chana's comment. Chana is partially correct and partially wrong: the emphasis in American Zen on seated meditation alone, is hardly what the masters taught. That said, I would submit, having read both Bankei and Hakuin that Hakuin wins on points here: Bankei's Zen is a lazy man's Zen compared to Hakuin's Zen which must be pursued. Hui Neng might have been enlightened in the time it takes for lightening to flash, but if his life wasn't primed for it it would never have happened. That is the experience of my life, and so many others. Finally, Hakuin was a very strong emphasizer of making sure this practice, even as koan practice, carries over into every day life, is practiced moment by moment.
Now to Barbara: her reply misses Chana's point entirely. Even Dogen I would submit would emphasize mindfulness in the midst of activity. The stuff on a cushion is only one small part of the whole enchilada.
And that's why there's been ethical lapses in the first place! Duh!