cuke.com - Shunryu Suzuki Index - WHAT'S NEW - table of contents
An Analysis and Suggestions of SFZC Handling of Edward Brown case by Charles Kennedy (fom Facebook) From Peter Coyote Jeff Broadbent Danny Parker Phil Benezra (fom Facebook) Lichen Brown post on Facebook with Comments DRC post on Facebook with Comments More Facebook posts and comments may follow but maybe not. There are so many shares of the posts and each share has its string of comments and shares to other pages with comments and shares. I don't even have access to it all and have other things to do and this is a good sample of the enormous response to this situation. - DC An Analysis and Suggestions of SFZC Handling of Edward Brown case by Charles Kennedy
Posted on Facebook in a long string of comments (now linked to above as DRC post) about the situation with the SFZC and Edward Brown.
I'm not downplaying the substantial grief on all sides, as everyone's viewpoint has validity (I don't mean that in a generic way....each side is sincerely aggrieved based on substantive facts). However, this is analogous to a run-of-the-mill hostile work environment complaint. Given SFZC leadership's role in maintaining a platform for speech in front of diverse audiences, it is shockingly clear no planned policy was brought to bear on this incident. I don't even work in human resources and I can identify several important mistakes: - Loss of confidentiality of the complaintant's statement (and other aspects of the process). - Not following up in a timely manner on communications. - Not gathering evidence & not establishing corroboration of the facts. - Issues with Ed's "deportment" in the past are referenced. Is that established in the record? Most reasonable people can and will adapt their behavior to meet a clearly communicated threshold of expectations. Rather than obliquely referencing "past issues with deportment", there should be a *confidential record* of explicit warnings and identified corrective actions. Maybe there is a record? I don't know. - Linking expressions of anger, acrimony & animus by one of the parties with the dismissal decision.
Responding in a professional manner to an actual or perceived hostile work environment is well established policy & procedure.
Easy enough to find faults in leadership. DC asked Charles Kennedy how the term "hostile work environment" applied to this case. He explained The complaint against Ed falls under the rubric of a hostile work environment.... or in this case, a Buddhist Zen practice environment.
Charles Kennedy In a workplace environment, a person attempts to make a joke or communicate something (using this incident as an example....... transvestites peeing on a toilet seat), and a person of transgender orientation (or anyone else) is offended and makes a complaint to workplace management, that can trigger a hostile work environment investigation/resolution (which I don't have any experience in conducting, but it has some standardized protocols). It doesn't matter the intent (I didn't intend to cause offense to transgender people). The perception is what matters (I perceived offense/hostility towards transgender people). It's pretty standard stuff these days if you work for a paycheck.
To top of page From Peter Coyote 10-15-18 Dear Ed, Linda Ruth, Reb, Steve, and Fu,
I’m writing to you because I know you personally and because you
are all signatories or cc’d to a letter addressed to Ed Brown
officially severing Zen Center’s ties with him. I was so
saddened to learn this, because Ed was like all of you, (perhaps
save Fu, who met at ZC around the time I began sitting there) a
senior person at Zen Center when I arrived. I still hold him in
the affection and respect in which I hold you collectively.
I’m writing to you at my own behest. Ed has not asked me to
write on his behalf, but when I heard of his dismissal I called
and request to read the email correspondence between you and
him, and reviewed the tape of the one-day sitting where this
incident occurred.
I have two reasons for writing. One concerns concepts of secular
justice and the second is an institutional concern which
provokes some anxiety I have concerning Zen Center itself.
You may not know, that for all of 2015 and part of 2016 I was
working on a book of Suzuki Roshi’s unpublished dharma talks,
which I ultimately turned over to Mel Weitsman. Though Suzuki
Roshi died before I came to Zen Center, my year of intensive
study, checking my understanding with Lew Richmond and Mel,
nurtured a profound feeling for Suzuki-roshi’s practice and
tenderness. I also sensed his affection for and curiosity about
‘the crazy young Americans’ who arrived to study Zen with him. I know Ed Brown well, and through
conversation with Ed Sattizahn and Ed’s correspondence with you
I can understand the tensions he can generate. (Though, in my
view, they are generally positive). I remember one day vividly,
early in my practice, nearly jumping out of my skin, when Ed
berated someone in morning zazen at unnerving volume. I realize
that he is not always a tidy, housebroken bundle and I also
realize and appreciate that he is an emotional man. That
emotional wisdom may have occasional shadows, but it also
illuminates the world in lightning-like flashes. I say this,
remembering in particular his beautiful comparison of the dented
tea-pots in the Tassajara kitchen with our universally bruised
and wounded, but still functional humanity. I have sometime felt that emotions
at Zen Center tend to be regarded like an unnerving family
secret. It’s been my experience that sometimes simple direct
communication can be hindered by the effort to deny or repress
personal emotion, as if the speaker were being graded for
decorum. I mean this as a description, not a judgment, so I can
understand how Ed’s somewhat boundary-free explosions could be
disconcerting. However, I also know, that according to Okusan,
Ed Brown and David Chadwick (another emotional man) were two of
Suzuki-roshi’s “favorites.” There was an article I read somewhere
in which a senior student was complaining to Suzuki Roshi
about David Chadwick’s lack of discipline in following the
rules. No matter what he said, Suzuki roshi’s response was
something like, “Perhaps he’s following them in his own way,”
and he appeared unconcerned, even though he admitted it would be
“better” to follow the rules. Having said this, I have to
observe that it has been David Chadwick, perhaps more than any
other of Suzuki-roshi’s more disciplined, less troublesome
students, who has insured that the dharma talks and writings of
Suzuki have been uncovered and preserved in good order for
future generations. Zen history and tradition as
I read it, are replete with querulous, eccentric, difficult
people. Dogen’s rants against teachers he considers flawed
illustrate this. If Nanchuan killed a cat in the dharma hall
today, he’d be picketed by PETA and I have to wonder if he would
be defended by Zen Center? Imagine a contemporary Shen-Kuang
standing through a snowy night without sleeping, sitting, or
resting, begging Bodhidharma for the dharma, and then cutting
off his own arm to demonstrate his sincerity. He would be
committed today, or at least tranquilized, and certainly
Bodhidharma was not renowned for his charm. Yet, these very
beings, flaws and all, carried the dharma forward, passed it on
without interruption and delivered it to us luminous and vast.
Is Ed Brown’s ‘behavior’ really a problem of the order that
requires banishment from an institution dedicated to the
transmission of Buddha’s wisdom?
Even though I understand that there have been previous
difficulties between Ed Brown and Zen Center, Ed has certainly
never approached the human geography of sexual predator
and purloiner of a number of Buddhists teachers. If we are
waiting for perfect people to transmit the dharma we will wait
forever. I reviewed the tape of the day in
question and personally, found nothing objectionable in it, but
my opinion is not the point. This young woman was
uncomfortable, I understand, but her discomfort might have
been skillfully utilized as a turning moment, like Byron Katie’s
story about the toilet seat. There are people who are
“uncomfortable” with the schedule at Zen Center, with male
teachers, authority, power, with Japanese cultural
appropriation, but Zen Center’s usual response is to invite them
to immerse themselves more deeply in Buddhist practice and to
relax their personal preferences. I realize that Ed sent the Abbatial
Committee an email where he stated that he did not want to
discuss this matter. I’m convinced he was hot-under-the-collar
and feeling judged and perhaps shamed by being reprimanded. He
is, after all, a transmitted peer and not an employee. My point here is that as a senior,
respected and well-known teacher and author, I would expect that
Ed be offered the minimal courtesies and evidential propriety of
facing his accuser, having the day’s tapes reviewed and speaking
with other participants in the sitting to determine if the
woman’s discomfort was Ed’s fault or a reaction to her own
personal narrative. There is a shadow side to all the
positives of the # MeToo movement, and demands for sensitivity
to victims of abuse and physical violence. The tide has turned
so radically in their favor, that a simple accusation, without
procedure or investigation, can remove a Senator like Al Franken
from office for behavior which was at worst, clumsy and
childish. He was not Harvey Weinstein, and neither is Ed. Making
someone uncomfortable is not a high crime. On the institutional
level, I have a few other concerns. When Ed’s Tassajara Bread
Book first came out, 30 years ago, Baker-roshi insisted that Ed
sign the rights over to Zen Center. I would have to guess that
that book, now renowned and a favorite among many chefs, must
have made a great deal of money in its lifetime and been a
significant source of income for Zen Center. Had Ed been a
donor of equal munificence, in light of a single complaint,
I would anticipate that Zen Center would have made a more
nuanced and thorough examination of the facts than it appears to
have done in this instance. I have difficulty
understanding why Zen Center appears to be so insistent on
parting company with a famous, well-loved Buddhist teacher and
author over the issue of a single participant’s letter
expressing “discomfort.” I fear that a number of people who
know and appreciate Ed’s work will be perplexed by this decision
(as I am) and that not all will rally to Zen Center’s side of
the dispute.
Ed appears to be very hurt, and I doubt that anyone at Zen
Center is feeling unconflicted about your decision. Wouldn’t the
long and intimate friendship between both parties warrant a
cooling off period and then a discussion in the future after
emotions have subsided? A temporary estrangement rather than the
guillotine?
Suzuki roshi taught Zen as he learned it, and we all
began by following his example, setting aside our small-mind
perspectives and simply following Suzuki roshi’s way. However, I
have to think, that since he left Japan, and expressed in
some dharma talks, the feeling that practice there had become
stilted, I’ve always assumed that he was trying to incubate an
American expression of Zen on this continent, not
recreate Japan on foreign soil. I imagine his intention as
being in alignment with this quote from Yamada roshi: “I expect
original words from you. But we have to be careful at this
point. This word must be expressed by a person who comes to the
same mind as Shakyamuni Buddha. …Then the original American way
can be naturally realized.”
Yamada Mumon-Roshi The more closely I read Suzuki-roshi,
the more convinced I am that he was the perfect translator of
Zen for Americans. His softness and tenderness changed people
on first meeting, and yet since in my time at Zen Center I
don’t personally recall many dharma talks or lectures based on
Suzuki roshi’s work. We study Dogen, for instance, but not
Suzuki’s explanation of Dogen. As he appeared to be
seeking a way to foil some of the rigidities of Japanese
practice, we in America appear to be imitating it ever more
closely, and I worry in particular about two Japanese cultural
attributes— Authoritarianism and Hierarchy—a
number of American Zen communities seem to have inhaled along
with traditional Japanese practice and which appear to be the
root of some problems. I worry about this, because these two
practices morph perilously easily with American cultural
preoccupations with Power and Authority. They have caused
institutional stress in other Buddhist centers, yet I never
sensed either stressed in Suzuki-roshi’s writing. The fact that one woman was
uncomfortable and may have misunderstood or misheard Ed, and
yet, without corroboration or investigation, appears to be the
motive for severing ties with him, doesn’t quite meet the smell
test. Could there be an underlying anxiety, a sense that Zen
Center must be “protected” from behavior that anyone
might find disturbing, so that the institution can maintained
blemish free? This feels dangerously close to protecting a brand
rather than insuring that everyone involved is treated with
kindness, compassion, and transparency. A clash like this could be a useful
wake-up call, perhaps an opportunity to review some
institutional judgments, practices, and Zen “habits” that we, as
a community, might now be secure and mature enough to revisit
and determine whether they still serve us.
I thank you all for allowing me to address you and would be
pleased if you find any utility in these thoughts. If you feel
any impulse to reply I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so
much.
Your old dharma-friend,
Peter Coyote Jeff Broadbent I
am heartened that the SFZC leadership expresses willingness to
learn
I
also read Lichen’s letter, which gave specifics comparing what
Ed In
learning to BE, via the Zen way, we need to begin to deal with
From this perspective, if Lichen’s record is accurate, what Ed
said
Jeff Broadbent Professor Department of Sociology 909 Social Science Building University of Minnesota
Phil Benezra (from Facebook) --- Perhaps what is needed is Ed reinstated with a warning label. Something to the effect of: "Ed Brown is a deeply compassionate human being and cherished icon of SFZC. He often teaches in the honored tradition of "crazy wisdom". Anyone who is sensitive to what may be construed as inappropriate comments would do well to attend a retreat with another SFZC teacher. From Danny Parker
Dear Linda Galijan and the Wider Sangha,
Most of you are aware of the
episode in July, which in September resulted in Edward Brown
being barred from teaching at the temples of San Francisco Zen
Center.
As a long-time practitioner and one of the priests Ed ordained,
I have been hesitant to respond to this incident for a long
time. Like many controversies, it has had its own trajectory and
power, inspiring considerable inflammatory language over the
past weeks. Even though carefully watching, I have not wished to
add to the fires.
However, now it is time for me to speak up. It would be hard to
think of composing something more heartfelt than Lichen Brown's
letter or thoughtful than that from Peter Coyote. Yet, this is
my long-considered contribution; my intention here is to be
helpful.
For sure this has been a sad event. However, in some ways it is
unsurprising given the current societal sensitivity to sexual
and gender issues, the foibles of our national leadership and,
recently, even our Supreme Court appointments. Still, we are all
in the world courtesy of our origin as sexual human beings.
Given the ground of that awareness, I hope for compassion and
healing. What to do?
My sense is that, to the extent we take offense, we create more
of it. The entire episode reminds me of Hakuin's accusation of
being the father of a child within the koan "Is that so?”
Even in
studied Zen Buddhist circles, this koan is more than a bit
controversial:
The woman offended at Edward's talk felt affronted and further
marginalized relative to her gender and station. However, that
was certainly not Edward’s intention. It was a misunderstanding.
Of course many others are upset with the events that followed
leading to the censure of Ed Brown. There was damage all along
the way.
I see the ensuing events as not surprising given Ed's sometimes
antagonistic stance toward SFZC.
His communication to Zen Center within the unfolding
event was unfortunate. And yet, for my own part, I remain
devoted and vested in his teachings. Indeed, I've edited a book
of Ed's dharma talks over which I have labored for the last four
years. I believe it to be a unique gift. The
Most Important Point
will be published by Sounds True in 2019.
So, I'm quite biased. We all bring our perspectives and they’re
all, in some fashion, true.
That Ed can be angry and difficult is an established fact. He is
visibly flawed-- just like the rest of us.
Yet, I cannot say much more about this, for I have my own
weaknesses. Even before this event, Ed had anger toward SFZC. I
do not know why—it’s not a new development. Could he work this
out? Could SFZC work out their difficulty with him?
I think good questions and ones worth of exploring.
But I know Ed’s heart. Edward Brown is an exceedingly good and
kind man. And for me he is more: a lovely Zen teacher of what we
embrace as practitioners of the Dharma. After years studying
Edward's teachings, I have gained a deep appreciation for what
he offers. It's quite wonderful and reflects deep insight into
perspectives of our founder, Shunryu Suzuki.
As one of the original living priests emerging from Suzuki
Roshi’s time, Ed has been devoted to his lineage. Since being
ordained in September 1971, Ed has single-mindedly devoted
himself to being a Zen priest and making himself available to
others. He has written popular books on Tassajara cooking (which
have immeasurably helped the organization) and edited a beloved
book of Suzuki’s lectures. He has even appeared in a documentary
on Zen and cooking which remains motivating to aspirants in
Europe. Beyond a dispersed sangha in the United States, Ed often
teaches in Austria and Germany and has considerable respect as a
teacher there. At 73 years of age, Ed has steadfastly devoted
himself to the lineage of Shunryu Suzuki. He has no pension and
Zen practice and extending the teachings is his only form of
avocation. He has never held another occupation.
Although his relationship with SFZC had been fraught with
periodic conflict, it is difficult for me to see what has
happened as appropriate compassion in the Zen Center response.
In any case, I do hope all involved can come to some
understanding or peace with this situation. Zen Center and the
practice itself remains an oasis for many. For Edward, there is
no divorcing the lifelong gifts that have brought him this far.
Still, he would seem to benefit from entering into a more
respectful relationship with the organization. As for SFZC, I
hope the institution can further see into the situation to bring
compassion to the shortcomings of the past response. Could we go
from estrangement on both sides to apologies and a welcome home?
So where does that leave us? I cannot know. We make this
reality together.
Danny Parker |