During the fourth gathering of the Aum Shinrikyō discussion group the members’ opinions were sought on questions such as the following:
          
What do you see as the most important problem to address in the modern Rinzai-Ōbaku tradition?
     1. Religious education
     2. The lifestyle of the modern Zen temple
     3. Institutional relations (i.e., the relation between honzan [main temple] and matsuji  [subtemple])
How should we relate to ordinary Aum Shinrikyō believers?
     1. As individual Zen monks
     2. As a religious organization
The responses to the questions were divided into two main categories: 1) What steps should we take to help Aum Shinrikyō followers?  2) What should we do for Aum believers, and what can we do for Aum believers?
          A summary of the responses follows.
          
I. What steps should we take to help ordinary Aum Shinrikyō believers?
          Among the followers of Aum Shinrikyō are many who were not involved in criminal or antisocial activities. If any such followers call upon Zen temples seeking help, the priest should in principle accept the follower in accordance with the circumstances and respond as appropriate for a Zen monk.
          This response, although it should of course take into careful consideration the special social and psychological circumstances that an Aum follower is likely to be facing at present, should be essentially the same as that directed toward an ordinary layperson or temple believer. That is, priests should not only avoid any prejudicial views regarding the follower but also maintain their professional perspective as teachers of Zen.
          While maintaining this basic posture, it must be kept in mind that the treatment of individual Aum followers will vary somewhat depending upon the circumstances of that particular follower. Each branch of the Rinzai-Ōbaku school should therefore have in place a system in which temples faced with Aum followers whose needs exceed the capacity of the temple to fulfill can contact an intermediary capable of introducing a temple or institution suitable for that follower. In turn, those temples or institutions capable of providing food, shelter, and other forms of care to Aum followers should be able to rely on the main Rinzai and Ōbaku organization for additional psychological, social, and economic aid should that prove necessary.
          
IIa. As Zen priests, what should we do, what can we do?
          Most temples nowadays continue to rely for support on the danka system, a form of “household Buddhism” based on veneration of the family ancestors. The priests’ religious activities basically consist of performing funerals and memorial services for the danka households. There is much in this “household Buddhism” that is of enduring value in the contemporary world, such as the way in which it furthers the individual’s sense of identity with the family and stabilizes the family unit both historically (through ties with the ancestors) and socially (through ties with relatives), but the question for us here is whether the present system isn’t simply just a complacent continuation of social customs inherited from Japan’s feudal era, with no attempt to fundamentally reassess Zen’s place in the present age. The Jōdō Shin school, for example, has in its educational efforts attempted a shift in focus from “household religion” to “individual faith,” but Zen has yet to make a similar serious attempt to modernize its doctrine and institutional organization.
          Even though Zen identifies its fundamental standpoint as lying in the subjective experience of self-realization (that is, of “directly pointing to the human mind, seeing original nature and realizing buddhahood”), and even though it has maintained its strict approach to training based on the attainment of enlightenment and the education of true Zen masters (ikko hanko), it has failed to translate this experiential foundation into doctrines and teaching methods that address the modern need for an individual-based faith. Its adherence to the structures of “household religion” inherited from the feudal era is merely hastening its demise in this age of globalization and rapid technological development. If the Zen institution is to adapt in a meaningful way to this new sociohistorical environment each and every Zen priest must reassess Zen’s traditional forms and develop a new relationship between danka and temple.
          The present-day reality of the Zen school is that the large majority of Zen priests are married, and that the priest’s wife serves an important role in the danka system that forms the economic foundation of nearly every Japanese temple. Many issues related to this reality remain unresolved, however. Rinzai Zen doctrine, for example, has yet to formally recognize priestly matrimony, so that the de facto acceptance of temple wives is no more than a tacit sanction of the situation as it presently exists. Despite this (or perhaps in part because of it), temples are increasingly regarded by temple wives as ordinary private households, so that even the temple danka hesitate to intrude. This, of course, is inconsistent with the purpose of the temple, which must always be a place open not only to the danka but also to anyone with legitimate business. Reversing this trend will require on the part of both the priests and the wives a renewed sense of dedication to the ideals of temple life. Such a renewal, however, cannot be expected to occur unless the role of the temple wife is recognized and formally clarified by the Rinzai-Ōbaku Zen institutions.
          The everyday life of the Zen priest and the atmosphere of the Zen temple must in themselves comprise living examples of the Zen teachings. In this sense sutra chanting, zazen, and samu (physical labor) are front-line teaching activities, and the refreshing feeling of a cleanly swept temple garden provides a glimpse of the spirit Zen is striving to convey. Just as the ringing of church bells in the morning and evening lends a mood of joyful peace to towns in the West, so, too, the sound of a temple bell and the rhythm of a wooden drum create in the communities of Japan an indescribable atmosphere of calmness and tranquility. We in the Zen school must reaffirm our commitment to an everyday lifestyle that inspires respect for the Buddha Way.
          
IIb. As a Zen institution, what should we do, what can we do?
          Although the official position of the Zen tradition centers on world-renunciation and enlightenment, as an institution with a network of temples and a large body of believers it is firmly rooted in the ordinary, historical world. Throughout its history, however, the tendency among both individual monks and the institution as a whole has been to discount this sociohistorical aspect of its existence, regarding it as merely ancillary to its true identity. Thus we have a situation in which all Zen organizations have detailed statutes for ranking and regulating their clergy and temples, yet lack any standardized guidelines delineating the functions and responsibilities of priests and temples in the community that supports them. Nor have they formulated principles explaining their various roles as religious organizations within society.
          It is owing to the efforts of the founding ancestors that our lineages’ temples came into existence and that we as temple priests have gained our positions, and thus we honor the memory of these ancestors. However, we in the present age seem to have lost sight of the founding ancestors’ true purpose in founding these temples: to bring peace and liberation to the living beings of the everyday world we live in. To follow the founders in this aspiration is the truest way of honoring their memory. We as temple priests must recognize that it is because of our insufficient efforts and understanding that the Rinzai-Ōbaku organizations and temples are regarded as little more than background scenery in modern Japanese society.
          Rinzai-Ōbaku Zen has not sufficiently recognized the fundamental changes in outlook that have accompanied modernization (such as the rise of scientific interpretations of existence, the expansion of affluent lifestyles based on technological advances, the increased social emphasis on educational qualifications, etc.) and thus has failed to develop teaching methods suitable for the times. No research facilities dedicated to these issues have been established, and the precious resources of knowledge and experience possessed by temple priests have not been utilized. The situation has now reached the point where such inaction is no longer an option. Temple priests, facing as they are the present religious crisis on an everyday basis, find their distrust of the head temples (honzan) turning to despair. This trend is seen particularly among the younger more active priests, many of whom have ceased all dependence on the honzan and are forming independent organizations of their own.
          Steps that can be taken by the honzan to help resolve the present crisis include developing new systems to revitalize their organizations, such as structures through which the honzan and ordinary temples can work together to improve methods of teaching Zen. The honzan could also establish research institutes to investigate new approaches to resolving the type of issues mentioned in the paragraph above, and develop systems to insure that the results of the institutes’ research reaches the ordinary temples. Educational materials, such as Japanese and English explanations of zazen, could be published and distributed to ordinary temples and interested laypeople.
          The traditional zazen-centered method of training unsui in designated sōdō (training monasteries) should be maintained, but augmented in several ways to help the Rinzai-Ōbaku organizations in their efforts to revitalize themselves and promote consciousness-raising in temple priests and wives. Such educational initiatives might include:
     1. Establishing programs for producing Zen priests capable of addressing the Zen tradition’s fundamental problems from a global point of view, and for supporting the educators who would be in charge of such systems.
     2. Establishing continuing education programs for temple priests and families.
     3. Reevaluating present approaches to teaching and establishing systems for the education of priests in new teaching methods more appropriate for the times.
     4. Establishing effective mechanisms for evaluating the progress of revitalization programs.
           
III. What type of social initiatives can we take?
          This question is of course inseparably connected with the questions above, and has already been touched upon to some degree. Focusing here on the question of teaching, the following issues need to be addressed as soon as possible.
           As noted above, the fundamental elements of Zen teaching are the everyday life of the Zen priest and the atmosphere of the Zen temple. This is as true now as it ever was, and it will remain true regardless of what advances might occur in the areas of Zen studies and Zen thought. The Zen honzan and the Zen priesthood must work together to strengthen support for these vital aspects of Zen teaching.
          The first step in spreading the teachings is to open the temples to the public. This, however, raises many practical questions involving the role and responsibilities of the priest, the priest’s family, and the danka community directly connected with the temple. Thus the true issue is, what does it mean for a temple to be “open”? There is no single answer to this question. One thing that must be emphasized, though, is that temples must not become the comfortable “castles” of the temple families. This realization on the part of the priest and the family is the point of departure for the bona fide opening of a temple.
          The type of openness that temples should aim for is not, of course, openness as places for holding funerals, but openness as spiritual dōjō. The transformation of temples in this direction will depend in part upon the development of the types of organizational structures mentioned above (establishing educational programs for Zen priests, etc.), but, when all is said and done, will rely primarily on the initiative of the individual priests.
          There are many ordinary laypeople who wish to study Zen and practice zazen, but have no idea where to do so. In order to help remedy this situation, the Rinzai-Ōbaku honzan should cooperate in taking the following measures:
          1) Although all Zen temples should provide instruction in and facilities for meditation, certain lay practicers are likely to seek a deeper level of practice than that which is available at ordinary Zen temples. In such cases the honzan should serve as intermediaries to introduce suitable places of practice. Such places should include formal training monasteries, depending on the person’s degree of commitment.
          2) Since formal training monasteries are primarily intended as places for the formation of ordained Zen monks and nuns, there is a limit to how many lay practicers they can accept. Thus, if there is sufficient demand, the various Rinzai-Ōbaku organizations could cooperate in the establishment of lay-oriented international Zen centers, open to all regardless of nationality. In Japan these could be located in major population centers such as Tokyo and Osaka.