Emailing this morning with a Zen Buddhist monk friend in Japan, it crossed my mind:
If someone supposed that because the practice of Zen Buddhism (or any other approach for that matter) was unblemished and that therefore the expositors of Zen Buddhism (or any other approach) were likewise, ipso facto, unblemished ... well, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would snicker.
But would the snickering be diminished if the proposition were turned around and someone supposed that because the expositors of Zen Buddhism (or any other) were blemished, then therefore Zen Buddhism itself was blemished?
I guess "blemished" and "unblemished" boil down to a willingness to shoulder personal responsibility and winkle out the truth. Either that, or endure the well-deserved snickers of others.