With specific reference to his article, what criticisms might Robert Sharf have of Angel Kyodo Williams’s book? Be specific.  What is his point about “modern zen”?  

         Being Black : Zen and the Art of Living with Fearlessness and Grace by Angel Kyodo Williams is one of the many books on Zen Buddhism that have been published in recent decades for Western readers. In her case, a distinguishing feature is the fact that Williams is an African American, and although she doesn't direct this work exclusively toward her race, she does see Zen as helpful in “being black”. She observes, “People of color are especially in need of new ways and new answers to the separation and fear we face each day” (Williams 6). It would seem a noble cause- what could be harmful in adapting and expounding Zen to a segment of modern American society and its problems?

             Robert Sharf, in his article Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited, makes it clear that he and other scholars do have some issues with Williams and colleagues that have departed from Buddhist tradition. “The popular 'lay' image of Zen, notably the notion that Zen refers not to a specific school of Buddhism but rather to a mystical or spiritual gnosis that transcends sectarian boundaries, is largely a twentieth-century construct” (Sharf 44). To paraphrase, what most Westerners call “Zen” is quite far removed from the original intentions and structure the founders of the movement established. Even more simply put, self-help is fine- but don't call it “Zen” just because you've borrowed a few ideas from the Buddha. From that stance, Angel Kyodo Williams is definitely among the guilty parties.

            Sharf points out that Zen, contrary to modern thinking, was originally a tradition full of strict codes of conduct and protocols, and that only after manyyears of adhering to these could one be granted the distinction of having any authority or credentials to teach it. In Sharf's opinion, the erosion of these standards are “due in part to the fact that so many of those responsible for popularizing Zen in the twentieth century lacked formal institutional sanction themselves” (43). D.T. Suzuki is called out in particular, for the “egregiously inane manifestation of his nationalist leanings” (47); in other words the stereotype of all things East being enlightened and all things West materialistic. “Once wrenched from its institutional and ethical context, this free floating Zen could be used to lend spiritual legitimacy to a host of contemporary social, philosophical, and political

movements...” (43-4).

            This is where Being Black would enter under the scrutiny of Sharf and like-minded scholars; as an example of “modern zen”, it follows in Suzuki's path and pays little or no heed to the true heritage of the original. Some of Williams' prescriptions for inner peace, such as her list of ways to “explore yourself”, are indeed in major conflict with Buddhist principles. But maybe that doesn't matter in her opinion. Let's imagine how each side of the debate might close their arguments.

            Williams: “My own great discovery about... Zen...is that there really isn't anything very special about it” (8). Sharf: “In conclusion I would remind the reader that this Zen is not Zen at all, at least not the Zen practiced by the 'masters of old' ”(51). Who wins... well, what would Buddha say? Perhaps that it's a moot point. In the non-dualistic realm of Zen, winning and losing are irrelevant.

Works Cited

Sharf, Robert H. Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited. University of Hawaii

            Press, 1995. PDF file.

Williams, Angel K. Being Black: Zen and the Art of Living with Fearlessness and

            Grace. New York: Viking Compass, 2000. Print.