Somewhere, starring Dorff and Fanning

Recently released movie:

Somewhere

Written and directed by Sophia Coppola.

Starring Elle Fanning and Stephen Dorff.

In 25 words or less: Seeing movies like this makes me wonder if Hollywood is running out of ideas.

I don’t know what Coppola was thinking when she wrote this screenplay. Maybe she was actually trying to say something. If so, I’m afraid it was (to borrow the title of her earlier effort) Lost in Translation.

I just plain didn’t get it. Which made me think: Maybe there was nothing to get. Maybe Coppola was just being very general and didn’t have any thematic point to make. Which is sad, considering the existential crisis Dorff’s character appears to have approached at the end of the movie. He surely could have used some solid advice. I think anybody could have made a better suggestion than, as Coppola did, by saying in effect: “Just get out of your car, leave the key in the ignition, and walk away. Just walk down that endless country road.”

If Coppola thought she was helping this poor soul, she should make a sequel just to make her point clearer. Maybe she could call it Somewhere Else. Or, if she decides instead to go the Sci Fi route, she could call it Somewhen Else. This could pick up where Somewhere left off, only we could be treated to time travel sequences showing how a guy could fix things, “If only I knew then what I know now.”

The opening scene and the end scene in Somewhere both show Dorff alone in his car. In the opening, he’s driving around a circular course (going around in circles…get it?), which Coppola felt obligated to spend a lot of footage on. At the end, he’s driving on the “straight and narrow” country road, far from the polluting influences of the big city.  Sorry, that bit about him deciding to walk the “straight and narrow” was, I’m sure, absolutely unintended. I rather suspect Coppola didn’t know how to end Somewhere, though of course she had to end it (you guessed it) “somewhere” (or more accurately Somehow).

When I saw her dad’s movie, Apocalypse Now, I was thunderstruck on the terrible ending. It seems, at least with this current effort, Sophia suffers from the insufficiency.

Don’t get me wrong. Somewhere had a few delightful moments and the casting was wonderful. Although, I hasten to add here: “I wish critics would stop Fawning-over-Fanning. She showed promise, but her actual performance was competent…and that’s all. And in this day and age, that’s lofty praise indeed.” However, “a few delightful moments” and competent acting does not a movie make.

The key failing, apart from the lame ending, was the sheer airheadedness of the Dorff character. The chemistry between him and Fanning was sweet, but that was all. He seemed like such a shallow, uninteresting human being, I can see why Coppola didn’t know what advice to give him to turn things around. In fact, this might have made a far more interesting movie if his daughter had been able to give him some advice. You know, from the mouth of babes comes wisdom. However, though Fanning was shown as his intelligent 11-year-old daughter, Dorff was so dim, there was nothing she could have possibly said to trigger the light bulb in her old man’s head.

A few closing observations:

That scene where dad makes sure daughter is asleep before answering a knock at his door. Some local prostitute had come by prearrangement so dad could have sex while daughter was asleep in another room. The “lady” even joins them for breakfast, much to daughter’s obvious disapproval. How tacky! And insensitive. And unnecessary: He could have arranged for this encounter at any other time and place. The movie makes clear he has no problem getting laid with a large number of willing ladies.

Maybe one of the saddest aspects of this movie? Elle Fanning would not be able to witness this slog, since it’s rated R.  That is, unless her parents or guardians took her, since she’s not 17 yet. Come on, people: In real life, she’s 12-years-old.

However, maybe there’s a silver lining to this cloud. When Elle is old enough to see this movie on her own, maybe she’ll end up throwing popcorn at the screen and yelling, “This sucks. I could do better.” Frankly (at least as far as the ending is concerned), just about anybody could.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s sad that anybody would actually spend money to see this thing when there are so many really great movies out there.”

The Dalai Lama's affair with monsters

Have you ever seen pictures of the protective deities embraced by Tibetan Buddhists? Some of them look like scary monsters. Pretty scary, indeed. And attempting to visualize these deities is part of the Dalai Lama's practice - part of what every Tibetan Buddhist practices.

Another part is dedication to a guru (teacher). And frankly, I don't get it. The Buddhism I know teaches this:

QUOTE:

Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said:

"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teachings."

[and]

"After my death, the Dharma [Buddhist Law] shall be your teacher. Follow the Dharma and you will be true to me."

[and]

"During the last forty-five years of my life, I have withheld nothing from my teachings. There is no secret teaching, no hidden meaning; everything has been taught openly and clearly." [Sorry, guys, but this means there are no esoteric teachings - Steve.]

:UNQUOTE:  The Teaching of Buddha, copyright 1966 by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai.

But I know why Dalai thinks so

There is a reason for everything. So even though, as one commentator expressed it, the Buddha meant, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law [Dharma]," the worship of protective deities has legitimate roots. For instance, the Buddha's highest teaching, The Lotus Sutra, assures great benefit for those who are "holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds."

But the Buddha encourages us to "hold fast" to a particular Bodhisattva for one very good reason: The purpose is to give (in this example) Perceiver of the World's Sounds a chance to fulfill his vow to protect practitioners of the Way and thereby more quickly attain Buddhahood himself.

In other words, our devotion to a particular bodhisattva is not only meant to help us, but it's meant to help that bodhisattva attain Buddhahood.

There are 52 stages of bodhisattva practice, and those at the very highest stages (such as Perceiver) have god-like supernatural power, which they have sworn to the Buddhas to use in order to protect common, ordinary Buddhists including laymen living and working in society. However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow [I'll explain that a bit later].

Meanwhile, consider what Shakyamuni Buddha has to say about Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds:

QUOTE [quotes from the Buddha in The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation]:

"If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, should enter a great fire, the fire could not burn him. This would come about because of this bodhisattva's authority and supernatural power. If one were washed away by a great flood and called upon his name, one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." [Page 299]

[and]

"If a person who faces imminent threat of attack should call the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, then the swords and staves wielded by his attackers would instantly shatter into so many pieces and he would be delivered." [Page 299]

[and on page 301]

 "Suppose also that there is a person who accepts and upholds the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds and even just once offers him obeisance and alms. The good fortune gained by these two persons would be exactly equal and without difference."

NOTE: That second person the Buddha is referring to is referred to in an immediately preceding passage:

"...suppose there is a person who accepts and upholds the names of as many bodhisattvas as there are sands in sixty-two million Ganges, and ...he offers them alms...What is your opinion? Would this good man or good woman gain many benefits, or would he not?"

:UNQUOTE.

But - and this is a big BUT...

The Buddha encourages us to "hold fast to" and give alms to various Bodhisattvas. For instance, he says on page 323: "And I will employ my transcendental powers to guard and protect those who can accept and uphold the name of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy."

BUT... the Buddha puts things in perspective with this key passage:

QUOTE:

"Even if a person were to fill the whole thousand-million fold world with the seven treasures as an offering to the Buddha and the great bodhisattvas..., the benefits gained by such a person cannot match those gained by accepting and upholding this Lotus Sutra, even just one four-line verse of it! The latter brings the most numerous blessings of all."

:UNQUOTE: [The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation, page 285]

So even though The Lotus Sutra shows us the Buddha praising and encouraging devotion to the great Bodhisattvas, he is very keen to reinforce that it is the Lotus Sutra that is most praiseworthy and beneficial of all.

When vows aren't upheld

I had a particular incident in mind when I had written above: "However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow."

It was over 5 years ago when my local Buddhist congregation learned that a long-time practicing laywoman member had not only been murdered, but her body had been hacked into pieces, placed into garbage bags, and ended up in a dumpster. During the memorial services, I kept waiting for the senior layperson to answer a question surely on the minds of many:

"If practicing SGI Buddhism is supposed to protect you from evil, why didn't it save this poor woman?"

While it's true that various entities have sworn to protect followers of the Way, it's also true that sometimes they f**k up. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are not gods with omnipotent powers to protect; they themselves are limited by and subject to the law of karma - even though the Buddha claimed: "I am free to do what I will with the Law." [Still trying to figure out exactly what that means!]

Too many within the Western traditions think of them (erroneously) as being Christian God-like, though The Lotus Sutra does have this interesting statement from the Buddha:

"I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

This is a bit subtle, but notice that he didn't say, "I am the one who..." For "the one" would describe a Western God. When Buddha says "I am one," in effect he's saying "I am one among many - including you who aspire to become Buddhas (once you reach that point) - who knows all things..."

Concerning this woman's violent death: There are other possibilities. The great Bodhisattvas - protectors of Buddhists worldwide - could have protected her but chose not to or perhaps that she herself had declined their protection! In the world of Buddhism, timing is important. Maybe she had to die when she did so that she could be reborn where - and when - she was most needed. And that wouldn't necessarily be here on planet earth.

As for the violence of her murder: That could well have been an exaggerated compression effect, which would serve to expiate huge chunks of her past negative karma. Wiping the slate clean in one stroke, as it were.

Why the Lotus Sutra?

I am on my 125th oral recitation (which is my daily practice) of the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra. When you consider that its 324-pages comprise a volume one inch thick, that would "translate" to a stack ten feet in height were 100 such volumes to be piled up. Or put another way - 32,400 pages. This is the largest part of my Buddhist practice; the other part being my attempts to share what I've learned along the way.

Each time I read this book, I pick up something I had missed in prior readings. You can easily see why I focus on this particular sutra when you consider:

Key Quotes from The Lotus Sutra

QUOTE [Page 98]:

"Those who have not yet crossed over I will cause to cross over, those not yet freed I will free, those not yet at rest I will put at rest, those not yet in nirvana I will cause to attain nirvana. Of this existence and future existence I understand the true circumstances. I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 164]:

"The sutras I have preached number immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions. Among the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand. Medicine King, this sutra is the storehouse of the secret crux of the Buddhas."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 165]:

"The way of the bodhisattva is the same as this. As long as a person has not yet heard, not yet understood, and not yet been able to practice this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that that person is still far away from anuttara-samyak-sambodhi [the supreme enlightenment of a Buddha]. But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra."

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"That last part is worth repeating: "Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra." And yet, I don't hear the Dalai Lama spending oceans of time praising and teaching the Lotus Sutra. Instead, he speaks of Tibetan autonomy and plays with monsters. For these reasons, I dub him heretic." - Steve.

Was the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

My answer

No, Muhammad was not a pedophile. That's my answer, even though he had married Aisha, one of his 13 wives, when she was six and he was 54. This marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine years old.

Background comment

This comment deals with why I ask this (title) question in the first place: I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali, now an atheist after having been a Muslim in her formative years, brought up the subject in Infidel.

So, being the modern man that I am, I searched the internet. I saw that many who have a problem with Muhammad, because of Aisha, also have problems with Islam in general. I have not encountered any instance of Muslims expressing even mild disapproval of this marriage - then or now.

But I can see why Infidel's author was bothered enough to at least bring up the subject. Though it seems much of Ali's discomfort stems from non-Islamic forces: The clannish patriarchal system of her native Somalia and the pre-Islamic custom of Female Genital Mutilation widely practiced in many African countries. Though Ali is not an Islamic scholar, her voice definitely adds a needed dimension to issues pertinent to (especially) immigrant Muslim communities in the West.

About Muhammad and Aisha and the Dalai Lama

The biggest reason I don't have a problem with Aisha's pre-teen marriage is, Muslims don't seem to have a problem with it. And it is here that I want to tread very carefully: Muslims consider slandering or insulting the Prophet to be a grave offense. However, I am not as concerned with slandering the Prophet as I am about distressing Muslims. These are flesh and blood, real live people to whom the teachings of Muhammad are profound.

Would I slander someone's father? Would I heap scorn on someone's brother or sister? Would I disrespect someone's son or daughter? No, to all of these questions, simply because that "someone" would not tend to be as receptive to anything else I might have to say. It is true that I have disparaged the Pope and the Dalai Lama but they are merely ordinary mortals, not on the same level nor as central to their faith traditions as are, say, Jesus aka “The Word” and Shakyamuni Buddha...or Muhammad.

In the case of Aisha, I can only wrap my mind around her marriage by reason of exceptionalism. That is, if Aisha had been divinely intended for Muhammad, then I will not argue against the will of Allah. But if 40-year-old Joe Shmo down the street wanted to marry his 10-year-old neighbor, I'd have a problem with that.

[Wait...(pause)...maybe not. Maybe Joe Shmo also falls under the rubric of exceptionalism. Everything depends on context – for example, how the 10-year-old girl feels (let’s assume we’re dealing with a female here). And her father. And the community. If Joe Shmo can somehow overcome (shall we say?) “negative feedback,” then perhaps Joe is exceptional. However, (shall we also say?), “The burden of proof is on Joe.”]

In like manner, I've heard criticism of the Dalai Lama for having his kin working in high-level positions in his government. I, speaking as a Buddhist, can only say: "Well, why not? People who were disciples of a great leader in a past life could well be expected to be reincarnated as a relative in this life." [Exceptionalism, once again rears its head.] Not that I'm saying the Dalai Lama is a "great leader," for his message is too narrow and, I think, soon after his passing, he shall be quickly forgotten - both his person and his particular message.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have heard that Ayaan is despised by many in her original homeland, Somalia. And others hold her in low regard for having forsaken Islam, currently embracing atheism instead. However, since Ayaan is only 40-years-old and, as her book Infidel reveals, has always been a seeker, I sense she will abandon atheism. Worse than her embrace of atheism, though, is her embrace of the American Enterprise Institute. But I suppose she had to grab a lifeline when it was thrown to her - when she had to flee for her life from Holland, the job AEI offered here in the States was truly a life saver.

I sense in Ayaan Hirsi Ali an intelligent and independent woman who will sooner than later move away from the AEI. The stench of the company that group provides will prove too overpowering.

I think Ayaan has a lot to offer her fellow Muslims, and they will find a way to process what she'll have to say, after they find a way to forgive/reconcile with her. And she will find a way to promote her message - after she discovers exactly what that message is. Toward that end, I would encourage her to pray or elsewise engage in a spiritual practice.

Muslims in general

Ah, that's a tough one. How can I speak of Muslims in general? The rich Saudi prince doesn't have much in common with the taxi cab driver in Gaza city or the followers of any of the Iranian ayatollahs. Or the rice farmer in Indonesia. In the final analysis, it won't matter how I react to these different Muslims. It will matter far more how they react to each other.

That being said, I find it ironic that Muslims swear a belief in the End of Days (especially, if that Day is to come any time soon), since it will take a long time (centuries?) for them to discover each other. [And I think Allah would be pleased if they did...but, again, that takes time. So how could He destroy the world before giving His flock enough time.] If, however, something which Muslims can call an End of Days occurs (though I as a Buddhist might give it another name, such as the end of a kalpa), I sincerely hope that Day won't occur until Muslims work out their differences and show the rest of us what it means to be an ideal Muslim in this day and age.

[Yes, that's a friendly challenge and an invitation, since I have a lot of faith in you.]

I feel a kinship with Muslims, though I know only a few of them personally. What I've read in books and seen in movies (especially these movies) has influenced me greatly:

Battle of Algiers (1966, directed by Pontecorvo)

Brothers (2004, directed by Bier)

Cache (2005, directed by Haneke)

Days of Glory (2006, directed by Bouchareb)

Iron Island (2006, directed by Rasoulof)

Osama (2003, directed by Barmak) [Nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, by the way.]

Secret of the Grain (2007, directed by Kechiche)

I eagerly await the contributions Muslims have yet to make in answer to:

What is the ideal society? Who should rule? In an Islamic society, what forms could dissent, loyal opposition, and expressions of individuality take? What constitutes good behavior? How will you treat those who have mistreated you [US military should have more than a passing interest in this one]?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

"I couldn't help but notice that the famous narcissist Christopher Hitchens had written the foreword to Infidel. Hitch is well known for having written, God is Not Great. He might want to read Hitchens is Not God by Great. Just saying" - Steve.

I challenge the SGI to a debate

Intro:

The following is a challenge to those who are defenders of one form of Buddhist orthodoxy. However, I think much of what follows would ring true for my brothers and sisters of other faiths as well.

My challenge:

I am willing to debate anyone concerning the validity of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. You know its practitioners as chanters of "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo."

More specifically, I challenge those who are members and leaders of the Soka Gakkai International, up to and including President Daisaku Ikeda. In a larger sense, I represent all laypersons who have dutifully - over a period of many years - sat in congregations listening to sermons, but still have nagging doubts. Or, even better, who have figured out where their own faiths have gone wrong and end up urging reformation of those faiths.

The debate I envision is open to anyone in the SGI who considers himself a defender of the faith. We could debate publicly or privately: Your choice.

Here are some points which could be covered in a debate.

Debating Points

ONE:  Why don't we ever have any "sermons" after Sunday morning chanting sessions at the SGI's Chicago Culture Center? Frankly, the closing comments made when we finish chanting are an embarrassment. The Lotus Sutra encourages us to preach, yet we don't. And, no, it doesn't count as "preaching" when some senior leader reads a line or two of guidance written by some other senior leader, who then encourages us to dress warmly on cold winter days and to always drive safely. Years ago, we used to have an occasional lecture analyzing the writings of Bodhisattva Nichiren, but we don't even have those any more.

TWO:  How many more times are we going to see those terribly boring videos of President Ikeda? How many more times are we going to hear how many honorary degrees he's been awarded? How many famous people he's rubbed elbows with? Give people a reason to be enthusiastic about bringing themselves (and guests) to our Sunday morning gatherings. Give them the benefit of hearing the uncensored wisdom of the "ordinary" members (and not only the leaders) from the stage of the Ikeda Auditorium.

THREE:  We are practicing correctly only if we are persecuted for our beliefs and actions - the writings of Nichiren are very clear on this point. For most of us, the obstacles in our personal lives can't be considered to be forms of persecution. As long as we continue to practice incorrectly and not make waves (no serious efforts to spread the teachings to others), we will continue to be left alone by the powerful forces which would otherwise persecute us. And you must have noticed by now, they are very much so leaving us alone.

FOUR:  Never once, in all of his many writings, did the founder of SGI's Buddhism (Nichiren Daishonin, 1222-1282) ever refer to himself as a Buddha (not even once saying, "I am the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law"). A Buddha always declares his Buddhahood - often and publicly. And he shows proof by demonstrating his supernatural powers. So why does the SGI claim that Nichiren is a Buddha in the absence of any claim or of any proof?

FIVE:  SGI makes a distinction between a True Buddha and a provisional Buddha, claiming Nichiren to be a True Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha to be a provisional Buddha. SGI uses this device in an attempt to belittle the teachings of Shakyamuni and elevate the teachings of their founder Nichiren. However, even Nichiren agrees that Shakyamuni’s teachings in the ultimate Lotus Sutra are second to none. In fact, Nichiren refers to himself as a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. But in this modern day and age, the SGI claims that we are to ignore the Lotus Sutra (claiming it to be irrelevant) and only consider the teachings of Nichiren (and the writings of President Ikeda!).

In this, the SGI is making a profound mistake. Buddhist scriptures can be classified as True or Provisional, but there are not two different kinds of Buddhas (one superior and the other with an expiration date). Since Nichiren did not declare himself to be a Buddha, SGI has no business promoting him and demoting Shakyamuni.

SIX:  In order to elevate the importance of their founder, Nichiren, SGI teaches that the advent of Nichiren was predicted by Shakyamuni himself. For years, I heard this claim at SGI meetings: "The Buddha predicted that another, greater than himself, would be born during the fifth 500-year period after his passing in a country northeast of India." The source of this claim was never cited, but I can tell you one thing: It's not within the text of the Lotus Sutra.

But this claim becomes irrelevant, since it could only be true of Nichiren if he had been born on or after the year 1500 (instead of in 1222). Even SGI President Ikeda has written that Shakyamuni lived "about 2500 years ago." In Nichiren's time, however, it was believed that the Buddha died around 1,000 BCE. If that were true (and it's not), only then could Nichiren have possibly been the predicted one.

SEVEN:  If Nichiren is a Buddha, then why do we call him Nichiren Daishonin? Why don't we call him Nichiren Buddha? I knew a long-time SGI member, born in Chicago, who said, "The word daishonin is Japanese for Buddha." Wrong! Daishonin means "great sage," while butsu means Buddha. When SGI tried (maybe ten years or so ago) to promote the use of commonly understood terms and avoid esoteric Japanese words, I had asked a question which was never answered:

"Since SGI publishes a book entitled The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, why don't they change its title to The Major Writings of the Sun Lotus Buddha? After all, they are the publishers and they claim to desire to use common English words wherever possible."

EIGHT:  Nichiren wrote that chanting the phrase Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo once has the same benefit as reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. If that's true, why does SGI bother to include sutra recitation as part of its daily liturgical recitation? This recitation takes a few minutes but that covers only a few small portions of the Lotus Sutra. Since those few minutes would be better spent chanting more N-M-R-K (each utterance of which is equal in benefit to one recitation of the entire Lotus Sutra), why should a member waste his time by chanting any sections of the Lotus at all?

It takes less than five seconds to chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo once. It takes 13 hours to read the entire Lotus one time aloud. If both actions are equal in benefit, why should anyone do other than chant N-M-R-K?

NINE:  Why did Nichiren state, chanting N-M-R-K once is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once? Shakyamuni Buddha states, in the Lotus Sutra itself, that proper Buddhist practice consists of reading, reciting, and pondering this Lotus Sutra. He didn't say, "Just repeat its title [which is what N-M-R-K is] over and over and consider that to be equal to repeatedly reading the Lotus."

Nichiren made such a statement in order to entice his largely illiterate audience to make an initial connection to Buddhist practice. In 13^th century Japan, Buddhism was regarded by commoners to be a mysterious realm accessible only to intellectuals. Of course Nichiren realized that people who could be lured into practicing at such an elementary level could also be gradually introduced to core concepts alluded to in the chant itself and in the complete Lotus Sutra. However, he had to find some means to initially attract people.

I don't deny that repeatedly chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo opens doors. It does and it has the power to improve lives and bring benefit. Before I started asking hard questions, I chanted many long hours in many different settings. Maybe that's how I got to the point where I could actually ask hard questions. The longest I had chanted (that is, just chanted N-M-R-K) was for 17 hours, with 5 minute breaks every hour on the hour.

But ... it slowly dawned on me that Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo was not a substitute for the Lotus Sutra. In fact, the recitation of the entire Lotus Sutra is what is promoted by the Buddha [read: Shakyamuni] himself.

TEN:  In the SGI, we often refer to ourselves as the Bodhisattvas of the Earth. After reading the Lotus Sutra over 120 times, I can only conclude that we are not the BOTE (although they are present in this day and age, acting invisibly behind-the-scenes). BOTE are disciples of the Buddha going back trillions of years, who vowed to spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra - but there's a problem. There are supposed to be billions of them and they're supposed to be flawless in conduct and godlike in appearance. I don't see them (do you?) and they are certainly not anyone I've ever met in the SGI. Though I've met a lot of wonderful people in that group.

But I know people like to be stroked. Which is why leaders in the SGI tell their members, "You are the BOTE - destined to save the world by propagating True Buddhism." These same leaders, however, don't ever emphasize how flawless these BOTE are. To do so would cause members to say, "Huh? That can't be us." Which is why, I suspect, we are not encouraged to read the Lotus Sutra since doing that would lead members to a different conclusion:

"What we really are, are the Teachers of the Law mentioned in the Lotus, who are flawed human beings with shortcomings." That doesn't sound as grand and glorious as the BOTE - but it happens to be the truth.

ELEVEN:  I don't consider President Ikeda or even Nichiren to be my sensei. To me, sensei is Shakyamuni Buddha who did not die centuries ago in India . The 16^th chapter, which SGI members chant every day, says so [but they don't understand this, because they chant it in Chinese!]:

"In order to save living beings, as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana but in truth I do not pass into extinction. I am always here, preaching the Law. I am always here, but through my transcendental powers I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement do not see me even when close by."

Since Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive and can be sensei to anyone who accepts him in that role, it is a mistake to accept anyone else as sensei.

TWELVE:  Over and over again in the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni urges us to "accept, uphold, read, ponder, and recite this Lotus Sutra." That's correct practice, but SGI doesn't encourage this. SGI urges us to "follow the strategy of the Lotus Sutra," but discourages us from actually reading it. Instead we are urged to recite only brief parts of the sutra in a language we don't even understand. So how could we possibly ponder it?

THIRTEEN:  When I tried to explain (at an SGI discussion meeting) that we are not Buddhas, the leader/moderator said we should pursue that topic another time. I claimed that we are seekers of the Way, on the path to Buddhahood, but that we are not yet Buddha's - we're only working on it. One SGI leader even claimed that Buddhahood is not a destination but a journey. Bullshit. The Buddha speaks of countless individuals, including himself, who attained Enlightenment. That means, they crossed a threshold: After a given point in time, they became Buddhas remaining so forever after; before that, they were not yet Buddhas.

Closing Thoughts

I was banned by my local SGI leader from attending any more meetings at her home, since (she claims) I seek to propagate a new religion entirely different from SGI's brand of Nichiren Buddhism. What I had sought was a debate, but I guess that was too much to ask. Too threatening. Might get too many people questioning certain basic assumptions robotically carried around for decades.

I am not introducing anything new in the area of Buddhist doctrine. I seek to prevent a corruption of the teachings by so-called modernization. Well, no, I take that back. I am introducing a few new elements - but they are only new in the sense of not having been spoken of by others before me. But these are not really new, simply because they are truths open to anyone who reads the common language of the Lotus Sutra. [For instance, one such new element is my claim that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive. But as I said...]

I know there are others like me in the other faith traditions - Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike - who cringe when they feel their teachings are being corrupted by worldly men with agendas of their own. There are Jews who tell their fellow Jews: "What you do is not in my name." There are Catholics who doubt the worldly Pope, certainly not thinking him infallible. There are Christians who loathe egotistical, self-idolizing televangelists. There are Shiites who think the world suffers from too many Ayatollahs [one of them, a billionaire!].

I believe that together - we, the devout laity of the world - must challenge our religious institutions. This challenge will do me good, it will do you good, and it will be good for the overall spiritual welfare of the world's people. Then, of course, world peace cannot be that far behind.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"It has been written that the voice does the Buddha's work. If so, then it is time for the SGI to speak up. Debate me." - Steve.

The Purpose of Life is...

Depends on who you ask...

Christians

If you ask a Christian about the purpose of our lives, he'd say, "To live as sinlessly as possible, to ask for forgiveness when we sin, and to accept the Savior into our lives in order to gain entrance to heaven." Ah, heaven. So that's it, eh? The purpose of our lives is to seek some type of reward which is payable after our lives are over. Our lives are a means to an end, which can only be obtained when we're dead? Are we so desperate to be rid of our aches, pains, and uncertainties (especially our uncertainties) that we build a place in our minds called "heaven" and aim for that?

Is there a downside to Heaven itself, once we make it that far? I don't think the holy rollers have thought this one out very carefully: What would it be like once we're There. For one thing, the structure of our consciousness would have to change. Once we've lived a life based on a 24-hour "day," which is the basis of a 70-year succession of such days, we'd go nuts once we're thrust, with no preparation whatsoever, into an infinite existence where such days are meaningless. I mean, what could occupy our minds - and this I especially ask of those whose minds are forever occupied with petty, trivial things?

After a few millions years of playing harps, singing celestial songs, walking streets of gold, and hanging around with boring, straight-laced goody-goodies, we might long for the stimulation of the Lake of Fire. In short, I think we'd become bored of heaven.

Buddhists

I'm not going to pretend that I know how Buddhists define life's purpose. But...I will tell you what this Buddhist thinks.

In a nutshell, the purpose of our lives is to become fully-enlightened Buddhas, who in turn have a purpose of helping others become fully-enlightened Buddhas. This might sound like nothing more than a glorified pyramid scheme, but maybe that's what reality is. [Note: In a closed system, pyramid schemes can't work; but in an open system...that's another story.]

The critical question becomes: If everybody in the universe becomes a Buddha, would that mean that life would no longer have any purpose?

Exactly, but to understand that calls for a bit of background.

A bit of background

In the earlier teachings of Shakymuni Buddha, it was believed that being reincarnated was a bad thing. The purpose of religious practice was to atone for the sins of past lives, thereby making it unnecessary to be reborn into this physical world of hardship. The Buddha himself didn't have to be reborn, but he chose to out of his great compassion to lead others to Enlightenment. If there were no others to lead (that is, if everyone was already a Buddha), it would not be necessary to be reborn into the physical world.

What other world is there? There was an Enlightened One named Void King Buddha, whose name helps answer that question. The ultimate goal of Buddhist practice is to become Nothing (King of the Void) - or (put another way) to become extinguished. I'll put this in modern terms: "The universe consists mostly of empty space, which even pervades and makes up most physical entities. If one can become nothing and, by virtue of that becoming, become part of the great pervasive universal nothingness, then one can be everywhere at once. Then we would no longer be confined to a mere existence in one physical location, having only one physical body."

Once we become “one with everything,” one particular problem is very neatly solved: The need to find something to do (that is, a need to find a purpose). Individual isolated entities have this need; universal, integrated entities don’t. For after we reach a point where we don’t have to reincarnate, then we don’t worry about what to “do.” Instead, we just are. We are everywhere at once, and totally aware of all possibilities (but without any desire to act any of these out).

Maybe Shakespeare was right when he wrote: “To be or not to be, that is the question.” I would rephrase that: “To be or not to be, that is the goal.”

There is far more of nothingness (void) than of everything else. But here we have to be careful with what we mean by void. I can only hint at that by recalling wise words I'd once heard: "One of the biggest mistakes we make as human beings is to assume that what we mean by ‘mind' is encompassed only within the confines of our crania."

Why we need not worry

We don't have to worry about becoming Buddhas only to find out we don't have anyone left to lead to Enlightenment. All Buddhas have the power to create an infinite number of emanations of themselves, in order to be able to preach salvation (simultaneously) on any of the infinite worlds in the 10 directions. These emanation Buddhas are constantly hard at work throughout the universe, yet they still have so much work of conversion and teaching on their hands. So we don't have to worry about running out of souls to save once we've attained Buddhahood.

The attainment of Buddhahood is both a path and a final destination. And it is the joy of the law which sustains our efforts, and in fact propels them, as we tread this path and finally arrive at our destination.

Though Shakyamuni Buddha has a life span which far exceeds the known age of the universe (so much for the Big Bang theory), he did not tire of his pursuit nor become bored once attaining his goal. It is inherent in the nature of the law of enlightenment that we don't tire, but instead are energized by our practice. That's fortunate, in light of what the Buddha said [page 231, Lotus Sutra, the Burton Watson translation]:

"This life span of countless kalpas I gained as the result of lengthy practice. You who are possessed of wisdom, entertain no doubts on this point! Cast them off, end them forever..."

To me, those are among the strictest words he used in the entire teaching called the Lotus Sutra.  However, he quickly follows with these words of encouragement:

"Though in fact alive, he [the Buddha] gives out word he is dead, yet no one can say he speaks falsely. I am the father of this world, saving those who suffer and are afflicted. Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people, though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction. For if they see me constantly, arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds. Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five desires, and fall into the evil paths of existence.

"Always I am aware of which living beings practice the way, and which do not, and in response to their needs for salvation I preach various doctrines for them. At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"My purpose in life (or one of them) is to create a forum for independents to counterattack the business-as-usual order of things. I can't do this - but we can."

Buddhism: No such thing as a soul?

Does Buddhism deny the existence of the soul?

Oddly enough, in the Lotus Sutra's* translator's introduction, it says [page xi]: "Buddhism vehemently denied that there is any individual soul or personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next - to suppose there is is simply to open the way for further craving - but it did accept the idea of rebirth or transmigration, and taught that the circumstances or realm into which a being is reborn are determined by the good or bad acts done by that being in previous existences."

Many people from a Christian background are uncomfortable with such denials. They feel that they were uniquely created by God, and don't like it when they feel their individuality and uniqueness are called into question.

I can reassure the Wordians (and other Christians) on this point, but first a digression. What is a Wordian? This is simply a word I coined to describe those who think it's blasphemous to refer to Him as "Jesus Christ," preferring instead to call Him "The Word." If His name is "The Word," as it states in the Bible, then those who embrace Him by that name must be Wordians.

Back to that translator's note...I will divide it into three parts with commentary:

"Buddhism vehemently denied that there is any individual soul or personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next..." I don't care what you call it, but it seems obvious to me that something passes from one existence to the next. The best example is the Buddha himself, as well as many of his most advanced disciples who were actually able to remember their past existences.

So why do Buddhists (and presumably the Buddha himself, somewhere in his earlier teachings) deny the existence of a "personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next?" That's answered in the next part of the quote:

" - to suppose there is is simply to open the way for further craving." That's why the Buddha denied the soul. Our "craving" (always grasping for more and more for ourselves) only causes suffering and leads us ever further from the goal of attaining Enlightenment.

Chapter Two of the Lotus Sutra* is entitled Expedient Means. In it, Buddha speaks of intentionally teaching provisional (though errant) doctrines in order to prepare his disciples for higher teachings. He knew how arrogant we are, how much we love ourselves and think not of others, how narcissistic we are. Buddha wanted us to give him (and us!) the benefit of the doubt - that is, to give him an opening to teach us by encouraging us to doubt our own overblown self-images to which we so fiercely cling to the exclusion of all else. By failing to embrace this "all else," we fail to attain Buddhahood.

Reincarnation

And now for the last part of that quote:

"- but it did accept the idea of rebirth or transmigration, and taught that the circumstances or realm into which a being is reborn are determined by the good or bad acts done by that being in previous existences."

To me, this end-piece is part of a classic strategy of denying something (for the sake of argument), then giving a reason why this denial is made for a practical purpose but is false, and then denying the original denial. If Buddhism accepts "the idea of rebirth," then it should be fairly obvious to ask: "Just what exactly is it that's being reborn?"

Sad to say, though, this is not such an obvious question to ask. Over five years ago, I was introduced to a famous Buddhist teacher from Thailand. [No names, please.] I was introduced to him by a friend who was a disciple of this man. I couldn't help but notice how attached this monk was to the concept of teacher, though the Buddha had taught of "wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom."

I was told by my friend that I was fortunate to have a one-on-one with this monk, since that was a rare privilege. And you know what? I did feel fortunate - he was a very likable fellow who radiated genuine compassion, and that moved me tremendously. That's why I was disappointed when he said, "In Buddhism, we don't speak much about reincarnation." That was his response to a question I had asked about an incident in one of the Buddha's prior lifetimes.

It's true that some people obsess about reincarnation, as in "I would really like to remember who I was in a past life and what I did." Maybe he was trying to steer me away from such an obsession. Maybe he was trying to urge me into contemplating the power of now. It seemed to me at the time, though, that he just didn't want to answer my question. Buddhists, too, can be very human that way.

Steven Searle for US President in 202

Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"Now that we've determined there is such a thing as a soul, we can go about the business of enlightening it."

* The Lotus Sutra: All references I've made (above) to The Lotus Sutra are to the Burton Watson translation of this sutra © 1993