mirage wrote:I am not very familiar with situation in Zen, but maybe because it one of the precious few ways to deal with numerous charlatans and crazies who appear out of nowhere proclaiming themselves to be enlightened teachers? Who can judge if a particular person is qualified to teach? His own teacher. How do we know this teacher is qualified himself? Supposedly because it was confirmed by his own teacher, and so on back to Buddha. I find this idea very attractive, even though it might not always work exactly that way in practice. But it is at least some insurance.
Since the lineage of confirming and authorising a teacher is broken, the transmission is given based on several reasons and not always connected to the receiver's inner realisation, and there are several examples of correctly transmitted teachers abusing the naive belief in transmission itself, it does not work as an guarantee for quality. Yes, people want to feel safe, but it's a false belief based on an illusion. On the other hand, if instead of blindly accepting the myth of transmission, they would take the time to actually study and contemplate the teachings and assess a teacher by his knowledge and behaviour, that could be a lot safer. In fact, both knowledge and behaviour are relatively easy to measure. As for those who believe that "enlightenment" is the single qualifying factor, that's a very narrow and simple view, especially when they have no idea what enlightenment is.