Avatar the Movie, and Dr. Doolittle's Secret Lake

NOTE: I had posted this in January of 2010, but find it still relevant today.

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I saw Avatar last weekend - twice - with mixed emotions. I loved it mostly because of its immense potential as a world-changer...in a very real way. I hope it gets translated into as many languages and seen by as many people as possible. And that these people actually talk to each other, dammit.

Yes, it was awe-inspiring to look at, in both its 3D and regular incarnations. But even more amazing - its minimalist storyline and dialog. Many critics fault what they see as a weak and predictable plot. I see a masterpiece of tight scripting which didn't lapse into wordiness or preaching. And given its 162-minute length, the pacing was perfect.

Was it anti-military and anti-American? I didn't see it as a slam against current US society but as a warning of what we might become. If we keep sliding down that slippery slope, then we will richly deserve such a slamming.

The movie showed a corporation, using mercenaries, engaging in warfare against an alien population after diplomacy (corporate diplomacy, at that) had failed. So that's how things might end up? A corporation gets to decide to open fire on the natives after It diplomatically fails? Of course, that's not how things work now (for the most part), but we might really end up empowering private groups as the equals of national sovereignties. [Think of Blackwater's duly authorized antics in Iraq.]

Was Avatar racist? Some critics had a problem with the mighty White man saving the noble savage. Maybe filmmaker Cameron's sequel(s) could blunt that criticism. However, it makes perfect sense that a renegade outsider was the only one who could have been the pivotal player to foil the ambitions of other outsiders. It didn't matter that this particular outsider happened to be white, only that he happened to represent the dominant power. Of course, our Neo-Con promoters of American world domination would predict that by the year 2154 (Avatar's setting), earth will indeed be dominated by the United States. Which, in turn, will be dominated by corporations with powers abdicated to them.

Cameron wisely refrained from portraying Jake Sully as some kind of being who is light-years advanced compared to any of the Na'vi. Sully was of average intelligence but was willing to work hard at learning. His one moment of genuine inspiration didn't serve to classify him as a genius - only as a man in desperate circumstances who had a flash of inspiration. That moment? When he decided to try riding and bonding with a Toruk. If successful, he would be embraced as a rare and unique leader called Toruk Makto.

It could be said that Jake Sully saved the noble savages. But it could be said with equal force that they saved him. And that they brought him closer to a spirituality he had not found on earth. After all, when things looked darkest, he didn't pray to Jesus or to God. He prayed to a source that had some proven power on this planet, as he witnessed firsthand. Was this particular source superior to God or was it just one of many similar planetary divinities? Maybe humans had abandoned their God, in contrast to the Na'vi who actively interacted with their deity. And maybe that's why earth had become a dying world.

Some brief notes on Avatar

·         The Na'vi seem to be a race of demigods, who are assisted by their environment on a daily basis. Neytiri was able to gracefully descend, breaking her "fall" by an exquisitely timed series of impacts with broad leaves. Perhaps the leaves intelligently met her more than half way, so to speak, giving assists when needed? In contrast to Sully's fall, which was far from smooth. So maybe the leaves, in his case, couldn't as easily "work" with this alien.

·         It's hard to believe $150 million was spent on marketing Avatar, which is 50% more than it costs to make the average Hollywood movie. And making Avatar cost about twice its marketing budget - $300 million.

·         I had no idea that the term unobtainium, the mineral mentioned in the movie, has been around since the 1950s.

·         The actress (Michelle Rodriguez) who portrayed Trudy was hot.

·         It's interesting that the Na'vi were blue-skinned, same as certain deities in the Hindu tradition. Also interesting: An avatar is the incarnation of a Hindu deity.

·         An avatar also means "man of god" - that is, someone who purposely appears among selected populations at key times in history to preach salvation in a way and manner they can readily bear witness to.

·         In spite of the pooh-poohing of certain Christian critics, the movie Avatar does not preach pantheism. [I doubt they even know what that word means.] What the Na'vi call Eywa (the Great Mother) seems to be particular only to Pandora. Eywa is a protective entity that is worshipped (maybe "appreciated" or "loved" are better words) by the Na'vi, but that doesn't make Eywa a goddess. Probably, more than anything else, these critics are offended by the idea of prayers being answered by an entity they don't approve of. In any event, quite wisely I believe, Cameron didn't offer anything approaching a complete theology - only enough to whet our appetites.

·         A special nod to Stephen Lang for his marvelous turn as Colonel Miles Quaritch - outstanding performance. Actually, the entire cast was perfect and - it was a pleasure to see Sigourney Weaver back on the screen.

·         The charge: Cameron is a hypocrite because he was only able to make such a film because of the advantages offered by our glorious empire - great material wealth and lots of guns to keep it that way. My answer: I don't see this situation as hypocritical as much as I see it as ironic, for wasn't it once said that the capitalist will sell his executioner the rope used to hang him? Of course, those same critics don't exactly spend a lot of time duly noting the down side of empire.

·         At one point in the movie (because of something Dr. Grace Augustine said about interconnections between plants), I thought Pandora's flora would be the ones to rise up and engulf the corporation's infantry. Hmm...what a strange term: corporate infantry. I surely hope it never comes to that.

·         Sequel notes: It would be interesting if the Marines who had been wounded and left behind were somehow (at least) bodily converted into Na'vi form. This would be an example of Eywa not "taking sides." Since the dead Marines were now with Eywa, She would learn from them the plight of the dying planet earth which would add further motivation to save the wounded Marines. How these transformed Marines interact with the Na'vi could provide an interesting tension. If Eywa moves with mercy and compassion in favor of the balance of life, how could She ignore the death of earth and its people?

·         Sequel notes: Since the corporation blew it, an official delegation representing earth's governments could be sent to Pandora. Perhaps they might even have genuine negotiation in mind. Since Hometree had been destroyed, perhaps the Na'vi would have no reason to object to a mining operation on that site only. In exchange, though, the Na'vi offer a counterproposal: They will allow this one mining operation in exchange for earth allowing a contingent of Na'vi to go to earth to preach their way - and maybe try to make contact with Gaia, the earthly equivalent of Eywa. Such preaching would make the Na'vi avatars in the Hindu sense of the word.

Dr. Dolittle and the Secret Lake

As much as I loved Avatar and see its value as a world-changer, I felt a twinge of loss. I couldn't help but wonder, "Will Avatar's breakthrough filmmaking technology discourage films of more modest budget and scope? Will people come to read [books, that is] even less than they do now? And is the ancient rite of storytelling around a campfire being rendered totally obsolete before our very eyes?"

Herculean effort and Midas amounts of money brought Avatar into being. But will this new age of storytelling serve only to diminish the imagination?

When my son was six-years-old [25 years ago], he was especially fond of one of his Christmas presents - an elegantly illustrated story about Dr. Dolittle. I think it was one of those Little Golden Books with large type and (maybe) a couple of dozen words per page. After reading this to him many times, I wondered out loud, "Do you suppose there are any more stories about Dr. Dolittle?"

From a local bookstore, I heard about the original series of books written by Hugh Lofting. When I saw a list advertising one such novel over 350 pages in length, I hesitated. Could this possibly be the source of our brief Little Golden Book? However, the title intrigued me - Dr. Dolittle and the Secret Lake - so I special-ordered it from England. When it finally arrived, I noticed that the type was smaller, that several hundred words filled each page, and the illustrations were few and far between and very crude. And what was worse? This Dr. Dolittle was short and dumpy - not at all like the tall and aristocratic looking Rex Harrison featured in the 1967 movie.

So I thought, "Now what? My son is looking at me right now with this book in hand, a book we'd waited weeks for." It would have been tempting to shrug it off by saying, "This is not the same Dr. Dolittle - there's some kind of mistake here." But, happily, I didn't. We made a ritual out of me reading it to him a half-hour before bedtime until we finished the whole thing. And my son was thoroughly enraptured by this very tall tale. And more? I too was smitten.

The Secret Lake, as it turns out, is located in Africa and contains water from the Biblical flood of Noah. As Wikipedia puts it:

"The Doctor then receives an urgent call to rescue what is literally his oldest friend: Mudface the Giant Turtle, who was a passenger on Noah's Ark."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Dolittle_and_the_Secret_Lake

And since Dr. Dolittle can speak to the animals, he ends up writing down the story of that Flood as dictated to him by this turtle still alive after all these centuries. After seeing Avatar, I thought about how Lofting's story of the Secret Lake and the Flood would translate to the silver screen. But I concluded, "Nothing like that could possibly replace the joy we shared during the months it took to read this novel from cover to cover."

Never once were we bored. I ended up buying four more Dolittle novels penned by Lofting, though they weren't nearly as long. They were each as wonderful in their own way. Of course, it helped immensely that I had read to my son every day from the time he was six months old. So he was ready for this.

Note: It takes a lot more effort (a labor of love, actually) to prepare a child for The Secret Lake than it does to prepare for Avatar. But those extra efforts are far likelier to produce heaven on earth.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"Some viewers were actually depressed after watching Avatar - sad that this utopia doesn't really exist. To them I say, Transform yourselves into avatars and dedicate the rest of your lives into making our earth into the paradise you crave" - Steve.

Contact info: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Adventures in Yahoo! Land

Here are some of my recent posts (or attempts to post) on Yahoo! News. These are my responses to certain events over the past few days:

Post # 1:

"...Obama has authorized the use of covert forces in Libya..."

Uh, huh. And if Gadhafi's troops capture any of these guys, just how will Obama react when pictures of their hacked up corpses hit the internet...in living color...or (maybe) in the process of being hacked up? Covert operatives have no rights under the Geneva convention and can't be treated as POWs.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Obama is a fool for having ventured into this."

Post # 2:

Why should Gadhafi quit? He's winning!

If he manages to pull off the upset of the year, we'll have hell to pay for decades (from now on... permanently?) in Africa. That continent might end up coalescing around Gadhafi's leadership if he ends up successfully humiliating the White Man's air power. Remember, it was Gadhafi who tried to bring about meaningful African unity - at least in the eyes of his many Black admirers.

So, what will the EU and the US end up gaining if Gadhafi wins? A whole continent turned against them.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Listen up, Barack Obama - there is no such thing as a little war and I don't care if your advisers told you otherwise."

Post # 3:

Senator Marcus “Rubix” Cubio can’t possibly realize what he’s saying. He says he won’t vote “yes” to raise the debt ceiling unless (first!) we have a “balanced-budget amendment” in place? As in, amendment to the Constitution? [Hey, Marcus, any idea how long it takes to pass an amendment or any of the other items you’ve listed?]

Not to mention: His vote “yes” must be accompanied by a plan for [among other landmark-type legislative proposals] fundamental tax reform. Especially cute: He won’t vote “yes” unless “it is the last [increase in the debt limit] we ever authorize.” How can this Congress pass such a law and make it binding on future Congresses?

Take a look at the photo accompanying this article. I swear, if you put a moron in front of enough microphones, he’ll say any fool thing that comes to mind.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If Cubio wasn’t so stupid, he’d be dangerous. Oh wait a minute, that’s exactly why he’s so dangerous...not to mention, he's got a legion of airhead followers.”

Post # 4 [NOTE: This post was censored by Yahoo!]:

There was a far more effective (and intelligent) way for [Donald] Trump to have gone Birther. He could have refused to weigh in on Obama in particular, while saying, "I think each of the 50 states should enact rules to deny access to the ballot for any presidential candidate who doesn't provide his original, full-form birth certificate in advance of the primary in that state."

He could have gone on to say: "Don't take this as my opinion concerning Obama's birth-right legitimacy. However, in the upcoming 2012 election cycle, even he should be blocked from the ballot for failure to comply with any such (new) more stringent rules. I think it's a travesty to allow anyone access to the ballot who has not complied to the greatest degree possible to dispell any lingering uncertainty as to natural born citizenship."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"But no-o-o...Trump didn't say any of that, so to Trump I will say this: 'You're fired!' [You can't believe how good it felt to type those two words.]

Post # 5:

"Russia criticized the Western intervention that has turned the tide in the conflict, saying it amounted to taking sides in a civil war and breached the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution."

Russia, this time, happens to be right. But surely Russia had to have seen this coming - that is, direct "allied" military support of the rebels. Which is probably why they abstained when the UN rez came to a vote. They didn't want to make it look like they were choosing sides.

They were probably wise to remain neutral, and not (say) encourage the League of Arab States to take a leadership role. The last thing Russia would want (or the West for that matter) is for that League to find its voice and assert leadership. However, not to worry -- as long as a group could even conceive of calling itself the League of ARAB States, all will be well under control. If, though, that name changed to the League of Islamic States, watch out. That could well be a game-changer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Bottom line: No one among the Western powers wants to see the emergence of Islamic unity in the form of a caliphate -- or actually in any form at all."

Post # 6:

"Israel considering annexing West Bank settlements."

Come on, Israel is going to do that regardless of what the Palestinians do. Not unless the US sets up a No Fly Zone to stop them. That's about what it would take to stop this thinly-disguised Zionist land grab. I'm still in favor of voiding US diplomatic recognition of Israel and canceling our $3B annual welfare dole to that (so-called) "ally's" military. By the way, Israel is no ally and has no friend in the entire world other than itself. In moments of candor, the Zionist will agree with that statement - but not in public.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I would dearly love to see the Zionist go back to practicing Judaism - it couldn't hurt."

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s sad that Yahoo! chooses to censor some of my stuff but that’s life.”

Barack Obama: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Introduction

In “honor” of President Obama’s speech before the nation last night, concerning the US-led intervention in Libya:

Sometimes I find it useful to turn back the hands of time. Let’s see what candidate Obama had to say concerning the military aspect of our national character. I posted this on another (now defunct) blog on June 25, 2007 (excerpts follow):

Analysis of Three Quotes

I will quote from Barack Obama's essay in the July/Aug 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. My comments follow each quote:

Quote Number 1:

QUOTE: Summary:  After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.:UNQUOTE.

My Response to Quote Number 1:

Whew! I've got to hand it to Barack or to whomever helped him fine-tune this passage. You will be hard put to find 67 words more skillfully strung together. Well, let's get to work, shall we?

"After Iraq" - What does Barack mean when he says "After Iraq?" I'll tell you what he does not mean: He doesn't mean "after US forces have been completely withdrawn from Iraq." Mark my words, he'll keep us there in at least some residual capacity for decades. What he probably meant was: "After the 2008 election is safely in hand, and I am elected president, and our presence in Iraq has been re-packaged so that it would seem irresponsible [mark this word - Steve] for me as Commander in Chief to withdraw, since doing so would not give us Democrats a chance to fix what Bush so profoundly messed up."

"tempted" - Use of this word is a very nice nod to the GOP base and others who are like-minded. Especially the Religious Right, which responds well to speeches urging us to avoid temptation. Nice shot, Barack!

"turn inward" - He didn't use the word "isolationist" because I'm sure his advisors are getting through to him: "Barack, start using smaller words or you'll sound too elitist." As for his point here: We all know what happens when America neglects the great arena of foreign affairs - threats galore start erupting! [Hoo boy!]

His next sentence is a real gem: "The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew." Get it? He's urging us to "seize the moment," which is a real button-pusher for millions of the insecure who need to be urged to get off their butts and be more aggressive in their personal lives. What they really need to do is get off their butts and vote the Dem/Pubs out of office - vote them all out.

Such panderings are effective when directed toward people who are feeling more and more powerless as each day goes by. As to why they're powerless: That's got a lot more to do with our repressive Dem/Pub agenda than with Al-Qaeda. Also, the urge to "seize" anything (and everything!) warms the hearts of the more militant among us.

[Hey, didn't you know? We're a nation of conquerors, as written in our national anthem: "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: ‘In God is our Trust.'" I guess those last 5 words will justify our wars, so that we may call them "holy."]

Next, Barack wrote: "We must bring the war to a responsible end and then [my emphasis] renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities."

When I read "and then," I wondered, "hmm...why can't we renew our leadership before or as we bring the war to an end? Why must we wait to renew our leadership until after the war is over? Maybe Barack is thinking: ‘It won't be possible to renew our leadership at the same time we're immersed in Iraq. We don't multi-task well, so we'll need a blank slate.'" [Note: Many of the simple among us like thinking we can afford to wait until our various slates are magically wiped clean before we have to begin remedial action.]

Barack's use of the word "responsible" is very telling, and shows he's being true to his roots. Back in the 60's, in the heat of the civil rights struggle, there was a group calling itself the Black Panthers. They had the balls to agitate for changes while taking initiative within their own communities. Some of them wore guns and spoke of protecting the Black Community against racist cops.

Such behavior led die-hard segregationists to ploy: "We'll only deal with responsible blacks, not radicals like the Panthers." Hence the word responsible became very much a button pusher for wannabe Black leaders back then. To ingratiate themselves with the White establishment, they sometimes went overboard to demonstrate how responsible they were: Sometimes to the point of abandoning some of their ideals.

So when Barack says he'll be responsible, ask yourself: How many of his ideals (and yours) will he abandon?

His promise to "renew our leadership - military..." worries me. Since our military is second to none, won't he be satisfied unless we spend 10 times more for "defense" than all other countries in the world combined? 100 times? 1,000 times? When will it end, Barack? When will the euphemism "military leadership" be insufficient to mask our increasing paranoia and start to really mean "military dominance," and then "total military control of the entire planet?"

That sentence ends with a promise to "confront new threats" (don't worry, they're out there all right) and then uses our favorite words: "capitalize" and "opportunities." What Barack isn't saying is, these "new threats" are our "new opportunities." Fancy that!

Barack's last sentence should have been a lead-in to a call for a new style United Nations; a UN which isn't a tool of superpower foreign policy, but a "higher power" to which even the US must bow. Maybe we're too proud to even consider (ever) having to bow to world opinion as expressed in a truly independent world body. [Better watch out for that "pride" stuff.]

Quote Number 2:

QUOTE: We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.:UNQUOTE.

My Response to Quote Number 2:

Instead of saying, we should "rebuild our military," Barack could have said, we should "rebuild our military's morale, especially by taking care not to overuse it to the point of exploiting our troops in the name of ambitious imperialist motives." He could have said that...but he didn't. And he won't. There's no way any prez hopeful would use the word "imperialist" to describe what it is we do in the name of empire (sorry, I meant to say "our vital national interests").

It seems Barack wants to compete with McCain and Clinton by implying that it is our military's equipment, which is in need of rebuilding (remember the brouhaha over lack of personal armor for our soldiers in their humvees?).

Barack's second sentence is just plain silly, since retaining the capacity to neutralize any "conventional threat" isn't even an issue. Is there any candidate who is suggesting we should reduce our conventional threat response capability to the point we couldn't take care of business, should that ever become necessary?

When Barack talks about putting "boots on the ground," I couldn't help thinking: "Yeah, right...this from a guy who never wore a military uniform for a single day!"

Barack's last sentence shows his need to modernize his lingo by saying, "asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns." Maybe he was stuck with a word choice issue and had to choose the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, he didn't want to call it "guerilla warfare," since that might remind voters of the Vietnam War Debacle (we lost that one due to a guerilla war conducted by a determined opponent). On the other hand, I'm sure Obama's advisors were a little uneasy using the word "asymmetrical," since that sounds a bit high falutin. Oh well, choices have to be made.

Quote Number 3:

QUOTE: Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use :UNQUOTE.

My Response to Quote Number 3:

I can only assume that Barack's "strong international coalition" might deem it necessary to bypass the UN. Since Iran and North Korea aren't acting illegally, not even under the terms of the United Nations itself, Barack isn't opposed to using any means or alignment of nations necessary to render Iran and NK into nuclear free zones. [I just wish he'd be honest enough to come right out and say it: "We'll bypass the UN if necessary, to be sure these two countries never acquire nuclear weapons."]

"I will not take the military option off the table," - Barack. Maybe Barack should have assured the world that he would act legally, instead of issuing vague threats. It would have been easy for Barack to say, "I declare the military option is off the table." That might help ratchet down the rhetoric and convince these two countries we're not trying to back them into a corner. And besides, if he ever decided it was starting to become necessary to reinstate the military option, he could do so.

However, for the sake of an electioneering article in Foreign Policy magazine, Barack wants to look tough to the voters here - even if it's at the price of spooking Iran and NK. Way to go, Barack. You the man! Everybody says so, especially the press.

Closing Comments:

When Obamania was sweeping the country (that is, back when everyone was shutting down their critical-thinking capacity), I urged the electorate to read what this “peace” candidate actually put in writing. But they didn’t do that. They just had to have a Black President – though as I’d repeated loudly and frequently: “The blackest things about him are his motives and lack of honesty.” I, for one, was not surprised that Obama upped the ante in Afghanistan, with him calling it a war we could not afford to lose. [Huh? It’s more like a war we can’t afford not to get out of, and the sooner the better.]

Obama is a candidate we can’t afford to re-elect. Do it right this time: Vote for me instead. My only regret from having run in the last election: I simply couldn’t overcome the pro-media bias in favor of the Obama bandwagon. Don’t let the media get in the way of the message this time.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I am the only candidate with a written contract, which will serve quite well to keep us out of unwanted military entanglements” – Steve.

Cohen & Wilber & Shakyamuni Buddha

I would like to share my views concerning two New Age gurus: Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen.

Starting with Ken Wilber:

I've only read one of his books, though I know he's written voluminously on, well, everything (or so it would seem). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a whole shelf at Borders filled with many of the books he's written over 30 years. So I bought a copy of A Theory of Everything and found it to be at least worthy of note. I've also read about him in Andrew Cohen's magazine, What is Enlightenment?

Ken may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but to me he seems primarily an academic, especially considering his love of constructing models. It also didn't take me long to catch on to at least two distinct advantages he enjoys:

ONE:  How much his four quadrants model looks like the Cartesian coordinate system most of us first encountered in high school math class. Make no mistake about Wilber's model, though: It is not that x-y axis system. However, at least subconsciously, he can reach people by utilizing something they're already familiar with. Talk about the power of symbols!

TWO:  Having a great buzz word like "Integral." I'm sure he was well-intentioned when choosing that word, but it's also true that there are a lot of people running around saying "Integral this" and "Integral that" who have only scratched the surface of his massive amount of written material.

None of this is to say that I think Ken Wilber is a bad man. The only danger I can see is that too many people might be tempted to go along with his program without making any real attempt to understand it. Or worse: abandoning any efforts to do their own thinking. Or far worse: Not attempting to seek their own Buddhist practice and, thereby, their own enlightenment.

As I said, I have read only one of Ken Wilber's books. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose a thesis: Ken Wilber's written materials contain very little praise of Shakyamuni Buddha and very little teaching of the Buddha's doctrines. This is just a thesis offered by me, a man who doesn't know one way or the other. However, I invite anyone reading this to direct me to some of Wilber's writings which specifically attempt to analyze Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, especially those most profound teachings which are contained in The Lotus Sutra.

[NOTE:  All references herein to The Lotus Sutra concern the version translated into English by Burton Watson. This version is free and available in its entirety on-line.]

My gut instinct tells me that Wilber has not addressed The Lotus Sutra at all, though what appears on page 200 of the Lotus should have been of special interest to him before he wrote all that stuff:

"Do not try to apprehend phenomena, to understand or to see them" - Shakyamuni Buddha.

It seems to me, Ken Wilber has tried too hard to ignore these words of the Buddha.

Now, on to Andrew Cohen:

From page 75 of issue #33 of What is Enlightenment? magazine:

Andrew Cohen speaking to Ken Wilber:

"I asked him at one point, ‘Rinpoche, what's the difference between someone who is serious about awakening and someone who is not?' And he said, ‘That's easy. The people who are serious are all Mahayana Buddhists, and the people who are not are all Hinayana Buddhists.' And he wasn't kidding. I was backpedaling in my mind, wondering how this extraordinary man could be as enlightened and as fiercely independent as he appeared to be and simultaneously be holding on to such foolish ethnocentric notions."

I thought it was rather odd that Cohen didn't come right out and ask Rinpoche what he meant by this. I mean, he bothered to ask a question but didn't bother with a follow up.

I don't know how Rinpoche might have replied to a Cohen follow up, but this is what I would have said, for I happen to agree with Rinpoche's assessment, but I don’t give a blanket seal-of-approval to all of the Mahayana teachings:

“That’s easy. The people who are serious are those who read, recite, ponder, and share (with others) The Lotus Sutra [claimed by some to be the highest of the Mahayana teachings].”

The Lotus Sutra states several important points, which are unique to that sutra:

[Page 166]

All bodhisattvas who attain the enlightenment of a Buddha in all cases do so through the Lotus Sutra.

[Page 207]:

This Lotus Sutra is the secret storehouse of the Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones. Among the sutras, it holds the highest place.

[Page 274]

To put it briefly, all the doctrines possessed by the Thus Come One, all the freely exercised supernatural powers of the Thus Come One, the storehouse of all the secret essentials of the Thus Come One, all the most profound matters of the Thus Come One - all these are proclaimed, revealed, and clearly expounded in this [Lotus] sutra.

[Page 35]

In the Buddha lands of the ten directions

there is only the Law of the one vehicle,

there are not two, there are not three,

except when the Buddha preaches so as an expedient means,

merely employing provisional names and terms

in order to conduct and guide living beings

and preach to them the Buddha wisdom.

The Buddhas appear in the world

solely for this one reason, which is true;

the other two are not the truth.

Never do they use a lesser vehicle

to save living beings and ferry them across.

[Page 31]

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "The Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and convert the bodhisattvas. All the things they do are at all times done for this one purpose."

[Page 31]

These living beings, by listening to the doctrines of the Buddhas, are all eventually able to attain wisdom embracing all species.

[Page 98]

I [Shakyamuni Buddha] am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way.

[Page 165]

...if they are not willing to see, hear, read, recite, copy, embrace and offer alms to this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that such persons are not yet practicing the bodhisattva way in a fitting manner.

[Page 229]

[Note: Since this next quote tells us that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive and with us to this very day, we don't really have to worry about finding a guru, something which Cohen and others strongly urge of us. With Shakyamuni Buddha with us, who really needs any other teacher?]

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.

[Page 240]

How much more in the case of persons who read, recite and embrace this sutra! Such persons are in effect receiving the Thus Come One on the crown of their heads.

[Page 162]

Medicine King, these persons who read and recite the Lotus Sutra - you should understand that these persons adorn themselves s with the adornments of the Buddha; they are borne upon the shoulders of the thus Come one.

This last quote is one of my inspirations for conducting my Buddhist practice as I do. My practice consists of reading out loud from the English language version of The Lotus Sutra as translated by Burton Watson for one hour per day. I do not meditate. I do not focus on my breath. I make no attempt to enter a trance. And I don't do yoga. I simply read aloud from the Lotus Sutra, try to understand it, and try to encourage others to do the same.

So far, I’ve read the Lotus over 120 times. This would make a stack of books ten feet tall, since each copy of the Lotus is about one inch in thickness. And each time I read it, I manage to pull something new out of it. Go figure.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“When looking for a guru, take that grain of salt, for (as the Buddha taught): What you are seeking is wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom.”

Impeach Obama

I disagree with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who merely says impeaching Obama is something that ought to be looked at. [Huh?] He hastens to add, though, that he himself isn’t going to make a formal motion to impeach. Even though he’s claiming Obama violated the Constitution in the way he inserted US military force into Libya. And this is why Kucinich bills himself (on his own website) as, “America’s Most Courageous Congressman.”

Wow, talk about tooting your own horn. [Frankly, I think Kucinich is a weenie who won’t do squat about this or much else.]

Obama should be impeached for two very good reasons – one explicit, the other a bit esoteric:

Two Reasons to Impeach

ONE: I will quote the pertinent section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, emphasizing one key word:

QUOTE:

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced –

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat…

The President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth –

(A)    the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces…

:UNQUOTE.

Stop the presses…the key word above is necessitating…It wasn’t necessary for the United States to insert itself into the Libyan Civil War. It was far more “necessary” that the League of Arab States act; it was necessary, though less so than for the LAS, for the European Union to act. Since there were others of whom it can be claimed there was a greater “necessity” to act, there’s no way it was “necessary” for the United States to act at all. And if “humanitarian reasons” should ever constitute such a necessity, surely we should have intervened in Rwanda back in the day.

TWO: Now for the more esoteric reason for impeaching Obama: The President ought to be kept to his word. For Obama gave his word, back in 2007, when he said:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

It’s true that his response was to this particular question: “In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?”

I think Obama’s 2007 response should be applied to the Libyan situation. And if so, Obama violated his own word – his own integrity. Perhaps here I am depending on a definition offered by former President Gerald Ford (then a Congressman): “[An impeachable offense means] exactly what the Congress wants it to mean at a certain moment in history.” I wish Congress would decide to make violating a President’s word an impeachable offense. But then Congress would have to live up to that same standard themselves – heaven forbid!

What I would have done…

…if elected President instead of Obama. I would not have intervened in Libya at all, not even in a supporting role. In fact, I wouldn’t have even made any public (or private) statements one way or the other in support of the rebels.

Obama said what he said back in 2007, about “the President does not have power…to unilaterally authorize a military attack…” But that’s where he and I are so very different. Obama spoke in response to question; I put my various positions in the form of a written contract which contained 47 points. If I were to violate any of these 47 campaign promises, I would have forfeited the presidency. In particular, note item #11 in my contract:

QUOTE:

ELEVEN: Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene (including by means of nuclear weapons) on behalf of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of anti-terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

:UNQUOTE.

Judging from this, do you think I would have involved the United States in Libya? Do you think I would have upped the ante in Afghanistan? Had I violated item 11 by doing so, my contract had this to say, as its very first item:

QUOTE:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

:UNQUOTE:

Webb complains and I respond

I posted this recently on Yahoo! as a comment to one of their news articles:

QUOTE:

"We began a military action at the same time that we don't have a clear diplomatic policy…” – Sen. Jim Webb.

Let’s be very clear about this:

As for Senator Webb: As long as the US president is solely in charge of our diplomacy, the only place where we have to have a “clear diplomatic policy” is in Obama’s head. And, according to the rules of the game, Obama doesn’t have to explain squat to anybody – including Senator Webb – and Webb knows this.

We engaged in acts of war against a sovereign nation without provocation, without any threat to the United States, without any threat to any of Libya's neighbors, and without a congressional declaration of war. Not all of our air strikes were to “protect civilians” or to enforce a cease fire, so we didn’t even bother to follow the UN mandate.

And worst? We took it upon ourselves to do what others (notably the Arab League) should have done. As for the League, it’s jolly good to hear the mighty Qutarian Air Force will be joining the fray – this weekend. Where are the Saudis, who have a far greater military?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Obama should be impeached for this.”

:UNQUOTE.

As long as we have Dem/Pub Congressmen (that is, Party Animals instead of independents), we will always be at the mercy of the majority party’s “definition” of an impeachable offense. Senator Webb and the all-so-courageous Kucinich can fuss and fume all they want. It won’t change the bottom line: We’re doomed to go to war whenever the President feels like it.

Selected Yahoo! postings

In closing, I’d like to offer two of my recent postings concerning the Libyan Civil War:

ONE:

“…the mission's goal of protecting civilians from being snared in attacks by Gaddafi's troops. He said it could take days or weeks, but certainly not months, to crush Gaddafi's military."

"to crush Gaddafi's military?" I thought the "mission's goal [is] protecting civilians."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I actually bothered to read the UN resolution (the whole thing) and it doesn't say anything about picking sides in a civil war."

TWO:

“Gadhafi's air force strikes back - hits an air base deep in the heart of France" - now that would be a headline. However, could the French really complain? Especially if there were only minimal civilian casualties. This is war, you know.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"What goes around, comes around....arghhh...INCOMING!!!"


THREE:

[RE: two US pilots whose plane malfunctioned & crashed in Libya]

Good thing those guys didn't fall into Gadhafi's hands. Somehow, I don't think he would have turned out to be a very good host. He would, however, have been a better host than his troops - who would have probably drawn and quartered them on the spot. Then what would you do, President Obama?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I hope our war planners had taken the time to take something like this into consideration."

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Even Obama’s most diehard supporters must be at least uneasy by now…but they surely won’t admit it. And besides, it’s too late now.”