shel wrote: Because too many abuse the "master" position
Really? How many?
Yes, it happens. I am not sweeping that fact under the rug.
My only argument with you is in pinpointing the cause.
You say it's rooted in the master-pupil relationship itself,
because you suggest that this method is archaic,
the concept of an expert (master) is nonsense,
that there is no such thing as "transmission"
(what that word means is yet to be defined here)
and one is better off with no teacher at all.
Now, you say too many abuse the "master" position.
That's quite an accusation.
So, How many?
So far, you've only brought up Eido Shimano.
Likewise, I provided a link to a statement concerning sexual misconduct in Zen Sanghas
which referred to a case involving Joshu Sasaki:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world ... =all&_r=1&
which is what also inspired the first post in this thread, by Ren Jender.
So far, that makes 2.
Ren Jender also mentions Chogyam Trungpa
So, you can count that as 3 if you want to.
So, How many is too many?
Of course, 1 is 1 too many.
But that doesn't mean the problem is prevalent.
Considering that it makes headlines when it does happen
perhaps it is quite rare.
How many "Zen masters" are there in the world?
How many "master-pupil" or "teacher-student" arrangements are there in the world?
You mentioned Jonestown, but I don't think we can count that in with Buddhism.
And even though you are only familiar with Zen,
if the problem is indeed rooted in the master-pupil relationship, as you assert,
then it really should be commonplace not only in more Zen sanghas,
but in some form or another, any place where a Buddhist teacher has students.
There should be a lot.
You have expressed all sorts of reasons why you think the master-pupil arrangement is bad
but you still haven't made a case for the assertion
that this arrangement itself is the source of the problem of sexual abuse.
If you make statements such as "too many abuse the "master" position"
please back this up with some data.