[Buddha-l] crazy wisdom

[Franz Metcalf]

John et al.,

Coincidentally, Stuart and I were just discussing the need for a volume 
to do for Zen Center of Los Angeles what _Shoes Outside the Door_ does 
for SFZC. But that's a crude instrument for understanding or assisting 
the development of the dharma in the West. What's needed is volumes 
like your _Finding the Ox_, at least way it sounded from the call for 
papers. How is the first volume coming together?

But, as to your question of possible contributors on specific 
teachers/centers, I once put together a paper session on scandals in 
American Buddhism. Dan Capper presented a paper on Tibetan problems 
(not Trungpa, as I recall), Jason Siff presented on power issues in 
Vipassana meditation centers, and I discussed the two big affairs at 
ZCLA; John Coleman followed with an overview. This was seven or eight 
years ago, but we had good attendance (including the religion writer 
for the LA Times). I think there's an audience for this kind of 
exploration and there are scholars to do it.

And, since I'm writing, let me chime in on the side of reason and agree 
with you that, Foucault be damned, it is not any kind of Western or 
academic hegemony to apply central and canonical Buddhist standards to 
Buddhist behavior. Sure, the forest monks in Thailand (and the "crazy 
wisdom" teachers of Tibet and the Chan/Son/Tien/Zen tradition) are 
"different." Stanley Tambiah wrote convincingly of the *need* for such 
difference in the Thai state and culture. I think we need it here, as 
well. Hey, we don't all just exude charisma; some of us have to buy it. 
But that is no excuse, by Thai tradition, Theravada tradition, 
Abrahamic tradition, scholarly tradition, etc., for anything like what 
some of these teachers do to their smitten students. It's not the 
difference between the charismatic periphery and the hierarchical 
center that makes one or the other less authentic; it's the difference 
between following the path and the vinaya and merely pretending to.

Of course this judgment *does* express hegemony, but it's a Buddhist 
hegemony applied to Buddhist practice, and I hope even Foucault would 
have appreciated the need for that, from time to time.

Peace,

Franz Metcalf