monolithic vision to the contrasting experience of other Zen/Chan schools.　Only in recent years, with the advent of outstanding, mostly American, scholarship, are we beginning to see our way through the haze.

　　 One of the prime sources of confusion has been the absence of adequate Dharma teaching in the popular literature.　Suzuki’s emphasis and that of recent Rinzai tradition on the ahistorical nature of Zen has led to a situation in Europe where contemporary Zen is sometimes taught as if Zen as Buddhadharma was an irrelevance.　Zen is seen as something basic to all religions, or at least both Buddhism and Christianity.　This has meant that the historical tradition and philosophical underpinning of Sino-Japanese Zen is given little attention, the focus being upon various sorts of practice.　Process and meaning have thus become divorced.　One Christian Zen teacher even seems to pride herself on a lack of understanding of both Buddhist philosophy and Christian theology (MacInnes 1996:95).

　　 This absence of a conceptual basis leads to an unanchored anxiety only too apparent in Towards a European Zen? a report based on a conference in Sweden in 1993 (Karlsson 1994).　With the exception of Ton Lathouwers interesting examination of Zen parallels in Russian literature, most of the other articles are worried examinations of the problems of adapting Japanese Zen ritual, koans and the authority of a Roshi into a Euro frame.　These worries combine with considerable criticism of the social scene in Japanese Zen and doubts about the authenticity of Japanese practice.　This anxiety could be greatly relieved by serious Dharma study and by a concerted examination of the deep contrasts between Christianity and Buddhism, in particular problems around the conception of God.　None of this is being attempted; serious academic work on Buddhist history and culture being left to the Americans.

　　 In fact several of the Zen schools in Europe are currently in

p.560

deep trouble.　Both the school established by Philip Kapleau and the widely influential Association Zen International (AZI) of Taisen Deshimaru are agitated by issues concerning method and teaching and whether the original transmissions to their founders were reliable.　In the case of the Kapleau lineage one key teacher has been dismissed for unethical behavior.　The meditation offered by the AZI has been described by one critic as “loaded with and embedded into a complex ideological and authoritarian system of belief which is insidiously implanted into participants while being labeled as ‘true Dharma’.”　(r. halfmann @ nikocity. de 1999).　Only Thich Nhat Han’s centre in Plum Village (France) where Vietnamese Zen is taught, remains immune from such problems.　Communication between Eastern teachers unfamiliar with the West and Westerners illiterate in Eastern languages and thought is another common problem.　In Britain the Zen situation is more secure; both the Rinzai tradition led by the Austrian nun Myoko-ni (Irmgard Schloegl) and the Soto based tradition of Roshi Jiyu Kennett at Throssel Hole Abbey, being well founded both in practice and teaching, while other new fangled British Buddhisms (The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order and the New Khadampa Tradition) have been subjected to severe criticism in the press in spite of their considerable wealth and popular following.

　　 Never the less there are interesting explorations in some of the new Zen paths.　The FAS society founded some fifty-five years ago in Kyoto by Shin’ichi Hisamatsu is based on the Formless (i.e. the True or Formless self), All humanity, and Supra-history, meaning the creation of new history free from the ignorance of the past.　Hisamatsu wanted to get away from Japanese formalism by an emphasis on all humanity and work in the world.　In FAS there is no Master or any ultimate authority.　Instead of the dokusan interview there is “mutual enquiry.”　Jeff Shore (1993) says “One can encounter a number of outstanding people and continually test and be tested──right now──not just at a special time or place, or

p.561

with a special person.”  Instead of traditional koans, FAS uses one fundamental koan: “Right now whatever I do will not do; what do I do?”

　　The use of this koan is intended to foster a “genuine awakening, rather than the mere insight-experiences which often occur through improper use of the koan.” While the koan certainly expresses the ultimate plight of the self and challenges it to solve the inherent paradox in the very wording, it may also be valuable at the level of everyday puzzlement, in relationships of emotional dependency for example (Crook, in press).　Yet, since there is no acknowledged person available to evaluate responses it is difficult to see how such a formless method can be reliable.　Mistaken acceptance of koan answers are plausibly a commonplace event in the traditional system where a highly reputed teacher is present, how much more so must this be true in this admirably democratic but basically individualistic system.　There is a confusion here between authoritarian rank and rank based on perceived attainment.　When nobody is acknowledged as masterly who can be a judge of insight let alone awakening?