In a message dated 3/24/97 12:10:56 AM, you wrote:

>Even in Zen there can be heated arguments about dharma transmission, but at
>least there IS the concept of transmission!

Two comments on this matter:

First, I was very interested in this comparison between Dharma transmission
in Zen and the process of becoming a psychoanalyst, since I am both a former
Zen monk of the Soto School as well as a senior candidate at the Southern
California Psychoanalytic Institute...

I think the comparison to a certain extent quite apt, as both  transmissions
go well beyond words and holy writ (The Literature), are direct
experiential/processes which, I think, may involve profound
developmental/characterological alterations in the student, and taking place
in the potential space which is created between teacher(s) and student.

Additionally, coming from a lineage of Zen which has strong roots in both the
Soto and Rinzai schools, I would note the multiplicity of influences and
perspectives involved so intimately in analytic "lineages".

Finally, I would add that not all those who go through formal training in
either discipline receive Dharma transmission; most do not. And, on the other
hand, there is, at least in Zen, a record of Dharma transmission taking place
without the successor having undergone much if any formal training, as in the
case of the Sixth Patriarch of China.

In his case, the senior monks studying with his teacher were so outraged to
hear of his receiving the sanction to teach and practice as a master without
having gone through the training they had, that he had to be smuggled out of
the monastery at night and flee, lest their envious rage endanger his very
life.
Secondly, perhaps here too we can see certain parallels between the worlds.
Although quite a few psychologists, social workers, and marriage and family
counselors are now trained at institutes of the International and American
psychoanalytic associations, (not to mention the research candidates from
such other fields as anthropology, history, philosophy, and literature),
there is still a vestige of proprietary feeling among some that only the
physicians ought to be considered "real" analysts.

And while I strongly believe in the need for tripartite-model analytic
training, I note with some concern the logjam of factionalism which has so
far kept the analytic community from establishing any generally accepted
external credentialing agency.

The real issues, I think, are not about untrained "outsiders" who call
themselves analysts, but about the difficulties that well-qualified
colleagues have in cooperatively working together to set aside their
differences and rivalries in support of our profession.

Thanks for a stimulating comment.

John D. Buksbazen