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?

The Sanbo Kyodan school originated from the great Harada Roshi and his disciple Yasutani Roshi who created a practice integrating the methods of Soto and Rinzai.　Yasutani has been especially influential in bringing Japanese Zen to the West, in particular as the teacher of Philip Kapleau.　Unfortunately for their reputations in the contemporary West, it has been established that both ardently supported Zen training as an aspect of Japanese militarism, a position seemingly incompatible with the teachings of Buddha.　Although the Sanbo Kyodan is an orthodox tradition it subscribes to the Suzuki fallacy of treating Zen as the ahistorical root of all religion and therefore offering a methodology applicable within basically any belief system.　In Japan this had the consequence that the selfless application of the sword in the decapitation of prisoners could be read as Zen attainment.　That

p.562

such a situation could have arisen certainly merits careful historical and cultural analysis such as Brian Victoria has set in motion (1997).

　　 The Sanbo Kyodan also appears to be the prime vehicle through which Christian practitioners have been taught Zen meditation and granted transmission.　The resulting work of the Benedictine monk Jaerger Willigis, and the Jesuit William Johnston and Fr. Ednomiya-Lassalle is admirable and has introduced many people, Christian and otherwise, to Zen practice but it raises many questions.　Although the mystical experience common to all religions and probably basic to the shamanic origin of all of them, almost certainly has a psychological root which may be considered a fundamental human condition, this does not mean that the Zen cultural tradition and the practice of meditation can be meaningfully split in twain, adopting the latter while ignoring the former.　To simply graft a Zen method of contemplation onto a Christian theological stance looks like thievery.

　　 It is strange that Westerners respond more openly to the Asian model than to the profound practices of the desert fathers in the Neo-dionysian tradition of apophatic theology.　It is stranger still that apologists of Christianity should ignore their own profound methodology to ride the stream of fashion for Oriental mysticism.　Undermined by the rationalism of the European “Enlightenment” and the emergence of scientific humanism it seems Christians need to look outside their own culture for spiritual inspiration.　This has been a success perhaps only because of Suzuki’s insistence on a Zen mysticism independent of history and culture.　We do not deny the transmissions of these fathers in Zen nor their understanding of practice but we do need to understand that their realisation is that of a psychological or attitudinal state and not that of an insight into Buddhadharma.　Needless to say this can cause profound disquiet in those of their disciples with minds alert to meaning as well as process.

p.563

　　 It is likewise strange that basing their approach in the assumed ahistorical, culture free, character of Zen these teachers should still refer to it as a Christian Zen.　If either Christian or Buddhist, Zen cannot be said logically to lack context.　Only a completely independent Zen could be so.　A similar criticism may perhaps be directed at an attempt to describe Zen in terms of agnosticism (Batchelor 1998).