TO: SGI (Part 8: A few thoughts on Nichiren)

Specific Introduction

Today's post will convey a few of my thoughts on Nichiren. These are meant to stand in stark contrast to the views held by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

General Introduction

Today's post is the eighth installment in my "TO: SGI" series, which is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html

About Nichiren Daishonin

Comparing Two Teachings:

It would be useful to compare the circumstances surrounding the revelations of these two teachers' highest teachings - Nichiren Who-Was-Not-A-Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha. When Shakyamuni revealed the Lotus Sutra, there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance, to say the least. Shakyamuni gave demonstrations of his supernatural powers, which started (as mentioned in the Lotus Sutra itself)* with him emitting "...a ray of light from the tuft of white hair between his eyebrows...lighting up 18,000 worlds in the eastern direction." In addition, the Lotus Sutra mentions a great assembly containing untold trillions of great bodhisattvas who listened to his preaching of the Lotus Sutra. Not to mention, Many Treasures Buddha put in an appearance in order to bear witness to the profundity of the Lotus as preached by Shakyamuni.

In sharp contrast, we have this:

When Nichiren delivered his first sermon in which he advocated his doctrine that Nam Myoho Renge Kyo contains the essence of Buddhism and is in fact its fundamental law, nothing special happened. There wasn't any Great Assembly in attendance, Many Treasures Buddha was absent, and there were no auspicious signs or portents - and certainly no manifestations of any supernatural powers which Nichiren might have possessed. In spite of this, the Soka Gakkai considers the daimoku to be superior to the Lotus Sutra, and Nichiren to be superior to Shakyamuni.

To call the Lotus Sutra "Shakyamuni's Buddhism" (as does the SGI) would be inaccurate, since he did not write this sutra - nobody did.  It ended up in written form and for that reason it might be logical to assume that someone had to have written it. My own view is that it ended up being manifested in written form but is, essentially, the product of the collective enlightened "mind" of the universe itself. The Lotus Sutra itself claims to have been the cause whereby Shakyamuni and all other Buddhas of the universe attained their enlightenments. And it will be the means by which all future buddhas will attain their enlightenments.

Nichiren's unique claim is that the diamoku (the secret and mysterious law of the universe) is hidden within the Lotus Sutra and is to be considered its essence and driving force.

The Supreme Object of Worship:

This whole business of "hidden within the Lotus Sutra" has always bothered me, since I certainly haven't been able to find this "hidden" truth. And I've recited the Lotus Sutra over 150 times over the past seven years. Moreover, Shakyamuni stated that all of his doctrines had been clearly revealed during his lifetime. So I'm forced to conclude that there is no hidden truth. And that applies to something else Nichiren claimed was hidden deep within the Lotus Sutra - the Gohonzon, also known as the supreme object of worship.

Within the pages of The Threefold Lotus Sutra**, the term "supreme object of worship is mentioned exactly once (on page 364):

QUOTE:

These three kinds of the Buddha's bodies are the blessing-field for gods and men, and the supreme object of worship.

:UNQUOTE.

When the Buddha was in the world, he himself was the supreme object of worship. The Lotus speaks of bodhisattvas not taking their eyes off of him for even an instant. But now that the Buddha is no longer in the world, we're supposed to believe that a scroll of paper (the gohonzon) can stand in his place. And we're supposed to direct our practice toward this scroll. But that makes no sense. If we practice as the Lotus Sutra directs us, then our eyes should be on the Lotus Sutra's pages as we recite from the text of those pages. In the Buddha's absence, his highest sutra should be the supreme object of worship.

Bodhisattva Superior Practices (BSP) vs. Bodhisattva Universal Worthy (BUW):

I have read that the Soka Gakkai considers Nichiren to have been a reincarnation of BSP. But I've also heard SGI claim that Nichiren is a Buddha. So which is it - was he a Buddha when he lived in 13th century Japan or was he a Bodhisattva?

If any claims are to be made on behalf of Nichiren's secret identity, it would make more sense to advocate that he was BUW instead of BSP. There is precious little mention in the Lotus Sutra of BSP, but a great deal is said of BUW. The latter has the entire 28th chapter dedicated to him. Not to mention the entire closing sutra, which immediately follows the Lotus's last chapter,The Sutra on how to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.

Chapter 28 includes this statement by BUW:

QUOTE:

"World Honored One...If when the Lotus Sutra is propagated throughout Jambudvipa there are those who accept and uphold it, they should think to themselves: This is all due to the authority and supernatural power of Universal Worthy!"

[and]

"And after the thus come one has entered extinction, I will cause it [the Lotus Sutra] to be widely propagated throughout Jambudvipa and will see that it never comes to an end."

At that time Shakyamuni Buddha spoke these words of praise: "Excellent, excellent, Universal Worthy!"

:UNQUOTE.

Given the prominent role the Lotus Sutra describes for BUW, I'm surprised the Soka Gakkai would advance the idea that BSP would have any even remotely comparable role to play. There is one faint reference in the Lotus Sutra (p. 252) upon which the SGI might base any claim of BSP's importance (note my highlight):

QUOTE:

After I [Shakyamuni Buddha] have entered extinction these people [the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, led by BSP]  will be able to protect, embrace, read, recite, and widely preach this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

Maybe saying they "will be able to" is not the same as saying they "will protect, embrace...this sutra."

In any event, nobody has yet "widely preach[ed] this [Lotus] sutra." Nichiren did not do so, the SGI has not done so, and neither has BUW nor BSP. And the very numerous Bodhisattvas of the Earth have yet to make their presence known. As long as the Soka Gakkai and other pro-Nichiren sects continue to disregard the Lotus Sutra, relegating it to the status of a mere historical curiosity, the world will have to wait for the dawn of the Age of Worldwide Enlightenment.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

NOTES:

(as mentioned in the Lotus Sutra itself)* - Unless I say otherwise, I am referring to Burton Watson's English-language translation of the following source which was copyrighted in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai: The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras.

The Threefold Lotus Sutra** - Published by Kosei Publishing Company, first edition in 1975, 22nd printing in 2005, by a team of translators which didn't include Burton Watson.

Was Nelson Mandela gay?

OK, so I'll just come right out and say it:

A few years ago, a sudden thought popped into my mind:

Nelson Mandela had been secretly videotaped having gay sex while he was in prison during his 30 years of confinement - the purpose being to blackmail him should he ever rise to a position of power. I thought further: The CIA advocated such a strategy to the apartheid government and offered their assistance on the technical end.

Was Nelson Mandela gay? I have no way of knowing, but I do know this: 30 years is a long time to be deprived of sex. And apparently Mandela had an above-normal sex drive.


But why say such a thing?

All I'm saying is, these are thoughts that popped into my head years ago. These were sudden and vivid. But I don't put them on the same level as visions. In fact, some of my predictions posted on this blog, which had felt very much like visions, failed to come to pass.

But such a strategy would have made perfect sense. During much of Nelson Mandela's incarceration, it was by no means certain that apartheid would fall. So it would have been ideal to have an insurance policy in place (via blackmail) in order to control or at least moderate someone who seemed to be destiny's child.

And things turned out rather well for these manipulators - far better than they could have dreamed possible. They ended up with a black president who didn't nationalize major state enterprises, though he had said he would. Mandela had Marxist sympathies that had managed to evaporate when he was president. He didn't become a president for life - which I believe had to be part of the deal. There was much talk about reconciliation among the South African races/constituencies - but no talk of wealth redistribution or even of reparations.

[Side Note: One can insist on reparations to at least some degree while also talking of reconciliation.]

There wasn't even any religious talk coming from Mandela, except in broad and generic terms concerning forgiveness and brotherhood - you know, kind of like what the Dalai Lama might say. That, too, I suspect was part of the deal - "you must remain religiously non-aligned."

As for that nonsense about forgoing nationalization because it would have discouraged foreign investment, it is possible to nationalize while giving shareholders and owners a generous golden parachute. But, no, there wasn't any of that kind of talk going on either.

Mandela got to wear the mantle of Mahatma Gandhi, but didn't have to worry about actually uplifting his people out of poverty. Being a one-term president allowed him the luxury of not having to worry about follow-through on any kind of ambitious social/economic reform programs.

So, why say such a thing? Too often, things are not as they appear on the public stage. So I wanted to offer an alternative narrative. Everybody is saying how much they love Nelson Mandela and what a great man he was. Perhaps all this talk is true. But I'm sure that most of those singing his praises don't really know much about the man. And I hate bandwagons and the promotion of one-dimensional saviours. Any time a movement becomes too dependent upon, or too closely identified with, a particular individual, that individual becomes so great a target for corruption and compromise that he should be highly suspected and subjected to brutal scrutiny. And this should be done without wearing rose-colored glasses.

If the apartheid government had really felt threatened by Mandela, he would have died or been broken in prison. Thirty years would have been more than enough for the authorities to execute either option. He even had the luxury of medical treatment, which (if not provided) could have caused his early demise. Such treatment for (especially) high profile prisoners is routinely denied worldwide and ends up being their de facto cause of death. This lack of punitive action was a great source for my suspicion that Mandela had been compromised. I even doubt that he had suffered that greatly while in lockup, being "comforted" by a regime that found a willing partner in the form of this particular prisoner.


The fact of the matter

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and had been on the U.S. terrorism watch list as recently as 2008. He had Marxist sympathies. And he (as might be expected of an African leader who had to convey at least the appearance of tweaking the Great Powers)"...attacked the US more generally, asserting that it had committed more 'unspeakable atrocities' across the world than any other nation, citing the atomic bombing of Japan..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Continued_activism_and_philanthropy:_1999.E2.80.932004

However, both sides got something out of this "rehabilitation" of Mandela. Mandela realized his dream of black majority rule while his blackmailers got to present to the world (especially Black Africa) how it was possible to become a man of peace even when such a lengthy incarceration could have dictated otherwise.


How much has really changed?

How to measure change? Try this: Imagine me standing in Soweto before a crowd explaining my "vision" of Mandela as a "gay" man who had sold out the revolution. Now imagine this: Me, with a rubber tire holding me firmly as I'm burned alive by that very same crowd. I imagine my dying thought being: "If you can't even imagine alternatives to the official story, you'll always be trapped by your baser emotions."

In order to move beyond the crippling devotion which the many bestow upon the "chosen," we have to abandon the politics of personality. My own suggestion on how to do this is in my essay, "A Zero Party System for US Politics" - linked below:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"When something looks too good to be true, it almost always is" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Iran's nuclear treaty

The media has been flooded recently with news of a deal made by six major powers, including the USA, with Iran concerning its nuclear development program. Missing from all announcements? Why isn't anything being said about the constitutional requirement that this proposed treaty be submitted to the US Senate for ratification?

And that's what this pending agreement would be - a treaty. That is, by common definition, an agreement between/among two or more foreign nations. Foreign nations are involved and there are agreements listed in the text of this (I'll call it by its proper name) treaty, so why isn't there any hue and cry for ratification?

Not only is the media silent, but so is the Tea Party and the GOP. Where's Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham when we need him to stand up to demand that the Senate must vote on this treaty? I refer you to Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution (2nd paragraph):

QUOTE:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

UNQUOTE.

To put a finer point on this quote, I'll rephrase: "He shall NOT have power to make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate and without a ratification by two thirds of the Senators present."

So where's the "advice and consent" and the concurrence of two thirds? Maybe that's it - since it's next to impossible to get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on anything - especially with the unconstitutional filibuster rule* in place. Given this impossibility, it's entirely possible that the powers-that-be decided not to involve the Senate. To pretend, at least in this case, that the Senate should not have any role to play in this treaty. Given the power of Israel's lobby, I can see why a lot of senators wouldn't want to go on record as ratifying such a treaty.

This reminds me of how the Obama administration refused to define the military takeover in Egypt as a coup (or even address that issue) which, by law, would have forced a cancelation of US aid to that country. Our position was, unless Obama defines this as a coup, it's not a coup. But...I doubt the language of the statute itself drew that distinction. And who says, the USA is a country of laws, not men?


The Power of the President vs. "shall"

I'm going to quote part of Article II, Section 3, with my highlights in yellow:

QUOTE:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

:UNQUOTE.

Definition of the word "shall" from thefreedictionary.com: 

"b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison."

I had blogged about the part that reads "he shall receive ambassadors...," to which someone took me to task, claiming: "The word 'shall' means that the President has the option of receiving ambassadors, to which I replied: "Does that mean the Commandment 'Thou Shalt not kill' means we have the option of killing?" I never got an answer to that one, since the word "shall," as highlighted four times above, makes clear that there's no choice here - the President must do these things.

The context of my earlier blog challenged the time-honored claim that only the US President has the power to grant or withdraw diplomatic recognition. My position, then and now, is that diplomatic recognition is a category of treaty and must be ratified by the Senate. Of course, that's not the way scholars have, for centuries, interpreted this power. But scholars can be wrong, you know - very wrong.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party - a virtual party

"All our enemies have to do to undermine us is to point to our own Constitution and show (quite easily) how we're not following our own most primary guiding document" - Steven Searle.

FOOT NOTE:

unconstitutional filibuster rule* in: I direct you to this link, in which I (and only I) am claiming (with arguments provided) that the filibuster is indeed unconstitutional:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html

The Power of the People vs. "Constitutionality"

Today's question:

Do We-the-People have the right to replace the US constitution?

Friends of the Article V Convention:

There is a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention" [FOAVC] which says no! From their website:

QUOTE [from http://www.foavc.org/]:

The mission of Friends of the Article V Convention is ... to help the public understand the difference between an Article V Convention, which FOAVC fully supports, and a "constitutional convention" that would rethink the entirety of our current Constitution, which FOAVC emphatically does not support.

:UNQUOTE.

Article V and the FOAVC

The FOAVC claims that We-the-People have the right to amend our Constitution but not the right to replace it. As I will make clear in a bit, the Constitution itself allows for its own replacement. But the FOAVC chooses to focus, for what I believe are malevolent purposes, only on Article V, which follows:

QUOTE:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments...

:UNQUOTE.

Point/Counterpoint:

These "Points" are from the FOAVC website, from four consecutive sentences. "Counterpoints" are my comments.

Point:

...a "constitutional convention" -- one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution -- is blatantly extra-constitutional.

Counterpoint:

To call something "extra-constitutional" is not the same as calling it "unconstitutional."

Point:

It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law.

Counterpoint:

How strange! Would it matter if it is "sanctioned elsewhere" if the constitution itself doesn’t authorize it? But of course we don't have to concern ourselves with this "elsewhere" authorization. Why? This is where FOAVC is wrong: Our constitution in fact does authorize a full-blown constitutional convention. I cite three sources for my reasoning:

ONE: Our current document replaced the original constitution (known as the Articles of Confederation) by means of a constitutional convention. Under the terms of the AOC, the Articles could not be altered (that is, amended or changed) without the permission of all of the states. However, our current constitution allowed itself to be established if ratified by only 9 out of the 13 states. In other words, our current constitution is, well, unconstitutional.

TWO: I took a careful look at the Preamble of the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles formed the union and We-the-People had the right to "form a more perfect union." So says the Preamble, which is the constitution's very first sentence. So why shouldn't we have the right to form an even more perfect union now - by means of a new constitution?

THREE: We-the-People had (and still have!) the right (as further reinforced by the Tenth Amendment) to make such a fundamental change (here's the Tenth): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people [my emphasis added]." My interpretation: We-the-People have the right to "ordain and establish" since these are powers not delegated to the United States.

The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment couldn't be clearer on this point.

Point:

In short, a "constitutional convention" would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws.

Counterpoint:

Let's start with that first bit of nonsense: "direct assault on our constitutional republic." Such a convention would be an assault on our current constitution but not on the idea that we ought to have a "constitutional republic." [Wasn't our current constitution an "assault" on our first constitution?]

As for any claim that such a Constitutional Convention would "violate numerous federal and state laws," so what? Since the Constitution itself is supposed to be the supreme law of the land (and my point TWO above makes clear that the Constitution gives We-the-People the right to determine our mode of governance), any "federal and state laws" to the contrary would be, well, unconstitutional.

Point:

This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people.

Counterpoint: Scorn of the American people, eh?

"Scorn" indeed! I suggest FOAVC try this out for size:

Suppose three-fourths* of our citizens wrote the following statement on their federal income tax forms:

"I, the undersigned (being one of We-the-People), hereby demand the creation of a constitutional convention to replace the entire U.S. constitution. If three-fourths* of eligible voters approve of any replacement created by that convention, that would be sufficient to replace our current constitution." [I propose three-fourths*, since that's the fraction of state legislatures needed to ratify amendments.]

Guess what! This majority voice won't be heard. This majority voice will be considered a "quasi-rebellious act." FOAVC, among others, will say, "We've got a direct assault on our constitutional republic on our hands."

If anyone "deserves the scorn of the American people," it would be our leaders for turning a deaf ear to demands for change (as, for example, expressed on our tax forms). And maybe another group is even more deserving of scorn (if we accept FOAVC's logic): Our Founding Fathers! They were arrogant enough to write a constitution which can only be amended but never replaced. In other words, they thought they got it right for all time. They (the dead) wish to impose their will on us (the living).

So what's wrong with our constitution?

The biggest thing "wrong" with it is the notion that it can't be replaced. Do we not have a right of self-determination? If our Founding Fathers were so keen on "No taxation without representation," then surely they wouldn't be so keen on asserting the tyranny of their generation over ours. If our current constitution is so great, why not put it to a vote? Why not subject it to good old American competition in the marketplace of ideas?

Here's a short list of my particular complaints:

ONE: The tyranny of the Two Party monopoly system, not even foreseen by our Founding Fathers, needs to be addressed.

TWO: Here I will cite one of FOAVC's core complaints: Even though Article V of our current constitution states that Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of our states request one, Congress refuses to do so. All 50** state legislatures have requested such a convention, yet Congress is silent. It fails to do its constitutional duty to "call a convention." And the Supreme Court does not rally in response to this outrage. I think we need a constitution which is not so easily ignored.

THREE: Concerning how easily our constitution is ignored, I cite the fact that West Virginia and Maine were unconstitutionally admitted to the union. Article IV, Section 3 is clear: “…New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state…” Realpolitik was at work to create WVa and ME, not the Supreme Law of the Land.

FOUR: Article V also says, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." That would seem to imply that we will always have a Senate (and we will always have states!), and that's an amendment-proof fact of life. Why should that be so?

FIVE: The presidency has become entirely too powerful, an issue which in and of itself has to be addressed.

SIX: The Electoral College must go, since that was meant to restrain (that is, “thwart, if necessary”) the will of the people.

SEVEN: An increasingly exclusive legal system in which he who can't afford proper and long-term legal assistance can't have his day in court. [If you can't "pay to play," you lose by default.]

EIGHT:  Since we have a culture in which the unconstitutional Senate filibuster rule thrives, only a new Constitution can help create the new culture where that can’t happen.

Conclusion

There are groups like FOAVC which are trying to pry loose some power for the people. Or at least, they give that appearance.  I really wanted to give the FOAVC the benefit of the doubt. But I have come to the conclusion that they exist to divert energy and effort away from what is really needed: A full-blown Convention to Replace the US Constitution. They use very strong language in opposition to genuine, overall reform, as evidenced not only by their website but also by two emails FOAVC sent to me.

We-the-People have the right to self-governance. More than that – to a self-governance obtained in a manner of our choosing. We don’t have to be told, by men dead for two hundred years, that we can’t replace their Constitution – ever – that we can only amend it. We don’t need the stooges of the FOAVC channeling those dead men.

If you have any doubts about the real intent of the Founding Fathers, just ask yourself one question: Why did they state, in Article V, that Congress “…on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..,” but doesn’t say what could or should happen if Congress doesn’t?

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

“With ‘friends’ like Friends of the Article V Convention, who needs enemies?”

Footnotes:

three-fourths* - I cited "three-fourths" above as a rhetorical device, whereas I personally believe in a much smaller fraction. In the case of the tax forms cited above, 25% would be a fair number to start the ball rolling. As for ratification, 50%+1 of all ballots cast should decide the issue.

 All 50** - The FOAVC makes this claim. However, it should be noted that many of those 50 have rescinded their calls for a convention.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Conversation with "god(?)" - fantasy

Conversation with “god(?)” – a fantasy

It’s sweetly warm and humid on my little mesa in the Grand Canyon. My campfire crackles quietly as little embers fly up to greet the moon, a giant among the trillions of stars in the deep night sky. I am so utterly alone here, thinking how true it must be – that there are parts of the Grand Canyon where no human has ever tread.

This is all part of an inspired deal I had made – to come here alone if I should win the lottery. To say “deal” is misleading since I didn’t make any deal with anybody in particular. Isn’t that supposed to be important? I bought the ticket and said out loud, being sure no one could hear me: “I swear this oath: If I win, I will never claim the prize and will destroy this ticket, never to tell anyone I’d won.”

That was part of the deal; the other part was a whimsical afterthought. Spinning a globe of the earth, I declared: “If I win, I will go to that spot my finger lands on and seek ‘god’ – whatever ‘he’ might be – and try to talk to ‘him.’ Who knows? Maybe ‘he’ll’ talk back.” So I had closed my eyes, jabbed my finger, then looked where I was to go if…big IF.

A few days later, big IF became big THEN: I found out I won – in fact, I was the sole winner of $180 million dollars. Then in the privacy of my room, I burned the ticket completely to ashes, rubbing it to dust with my fingers. I had kept my word, then started packing my bag, not feeling any sense of loss at all but hopeful of a very big gain.

That was three weeks ago and here I sit, my spectacular view in all directions simply amazing. “Well,” I speak up, “time to get started.”

I rise and face the moon, clear my throat and begin:

“I don’t expect to hear any answers, but I will speak my piece anyway. Even if I am to hear an answer, how could I know its source? God/god? Devil/devil? Other/other? I’ve often wondered how Mohammed was so sure he knew the owner of the voice in that cave in which he was first told (threatened?) to ‘Recite!’ This doubt finds wording in many forms – including this: How can one know the will of God?

“I myself am an agnostic. I don’t know if You exist or perhaps once existed and no longer does. I don’t know where everything came from, but I am curious. I’ve always asked a lot of questions and I’ve always loved a good puzzle. So, for the sake of argument, I will address the God of Abraham. Here goes…

“Concerning the punishment of sinners: Why subject them to eternal torment? Why not just dis-create them? You created them, surely You can simply give the word (as it were), then they would be no more. But keeping them in existence just to torture them for all eternity, wouldn’t that make You the greatest terrorist of all time?

“Some say, among the powers of God must be the power to create other Gods? What say You of this? Do You leave it for only Yourself to be Godly? Are You wary of competition; are You uneasy about the universes They might create?

“Many believe You created the Universe and are its master, and that You could just as easily destroy it without a trace. Tell me, could You instead leave the Universe intact and will Yourself out of existence, also without a trace? And even more difficult, once You’d will Yourself out of existence, could You summon Yourself back?

“And most difficult of all? Deciding to shift back and forth from existing to not existing? Multiple times? If so, how many? And what would determine how many and how long you’d stay out of existence each time, leaving the universe Godless?

“Was there only one Creation? Did You suffer even one moment of gnawing doubt before You uttered, ‘Let there be Light?”

I pause, draw a deep breath, and say, “That’s all I have to say.” Time passes, the fire crackles, a soft breeze stirs, coyotes howl in the distance, a single eagle soars overhead, I wait but not for long.

I sigh and kick out the remains of my fire, pick up my bag, and turn to go. From behind me, I hear a voice saying, “Wait.” But I do not wait, I do not turn to see the speaker, for I am no longer curious. I already have the answers I seek.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s okay, it really is, if God speaks and You don’t answer.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I

I call this post, “A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I” – the Buddhist being the wholly Trinity of Me, Myself, and I. “Part I” is merely a label of convenience – meaning that I do not intend to give (here and now) my detailed impressions of the entire Bible. At some future date, I might post a Part 2, 3, 4 etc, but at this point, I only have a yawning enthusiasm to do so.

To be fair, I’ve read precious little of the Bible’s texts. Oh, I’ve tried over the decades to fathom its mysteries but I just couldn’t penetrate the archaic, flowery, and (in my opinion) vague and stilted prose.

However, I feel I’ve been blessed with an open mind (which used to be called liberal, but not in polite society any more). So I want to give you an idea of what goes through my mind as I try to process certain “givens.” Toward that end, I’m going to touch on the Old Testament stories of Job, and of Abraham in the episode commonly called the Binding of Isaac.

QUOTES* followed by COMMENTS

In my usual style, I will QUOTE source material and follow with my COMMENTS. I purposely omit entire sections of narrative on which I don’t intend to comment.

  * All QUOTES are from http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.og/

From the Book of Job

QUOTE:

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

COMMENT:

The word “perfect” hit me like a brick. Did the text mean “perfect” as in “[only] as perfect as a mere man can be?” “Perfect” covers a lot of territory – so much that the entire rest of the sentence could have been omitted after that word.

QUOTE:

His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

COMMENT:

“Five hundred she asses,” you say? What? No he asses?

“The greatest of all the men of the east,” you say? There were no kings who were greater? Not to mention, how should one define “greatest” in this context? Does the mere possession of wealth make one great?

Can you imagine the sheer number of acres which had to be at Job’s disposal to feed all this herd? And the number of herders under his employ? Job was very rich, to say the least. But whenever I hear of a man’s wealth, a couple of things are at work in the back of my mind. How did he obtain this wealth; or was it all just bestowed upon him as blessings from the Lord? How did he defend himself from pilferage or blatant thievery?

I never begrudge a man his fortune but it does give me pause. Especially since, as the old saying goes, “Victors write history books.” So if the Bible should be at least partly regarded as a history book, shouldn’t we be suspicious as to how much of that historical reporting is (shall we say) self-serving or self-vindicating?

QUOTE:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

COMMENT:

Why is Satan permitted to attend a gathering of the LORD and the sons of God? Unless he too should be considered a son of God?

QUOTE:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

COMMENT:

What a strange greeting is, “Whence comest thou?” More to my sensibility would be, “What brings you here?”

And what a strange answer. A good friend tells me that “in the earth” refers to exactly that – literally, “inside the earth,” which contains an underground world much embraced by devotees of the Hollow Earth narrative. As for “walking up and down in it,” could the “walking up” part refer to how he got from within the earth to its surface?

QUOTE:

[NOTE: This section follows the immediately preceding QUOTE(D) section.]

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

COMMENT:

Of course, the rest of the story is well known – how Satan is permitted by the LORD to put Job through a variety of trials. Satan claimed Job would curse the LORD if he were to lose his divinely provided bounties and if his health or life were to be threatened.

However, suppose instead Satan did not challenge the LORD. Suppose instead he said something like this, “You say, ‘[there is] none like him,’ and that he is ‘a perfect…man.” If there are none like him and he is perfect, you’re saying he is the only man among the entire multitude alive at this moment who is perfect. He may well be perfect – I won’t challenge that. What I will challenge – How is it that he is the only perfect man? How poorly you have nurtured the human race that this must be so.”

Of course, if Satan had offered these alternate words, must we assume that God would never have tested Job? Remember: It was Satan who, only after being permitted to do so by the LORD after challenging the LORD, had savaged Job so terribly. So if God had it in His mind that Job was to be tested, and if Satan hadn’t been a willing tool in this test, would God have tested Job in another way? Maybe deciding to test Job directly Himself, without Satan’s assistance?

QUOTE:

So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

COMMENT:

Eww…Much of the rest of what follows contains speeches made by Job after seven days of silently suffering from these boils. He is in utter agony and yet – he manages to speak so eloquently. Why is that? How is that possible? [Again, I had trouble penetrating his meaning but I could sense how others could obtain at least the general drift of Job’s words.]

QUOTE:

Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.

COMMENT:

Sounds like his wife is saying, “Since you’re in such awful physical pain, why not cut short your life by cursing God. For then He shall surely smite thee, removing you from this life and from any life hereafter. If your pain is so great, how could you be expected to endure it without [apparent] end?” [NOTE: It could not have been known to Job for how much longer he would suffer, nor by what means.]

QUOTE:

[This immediately follows “Curse God, and die” from the above QUOTE.]

But he said unto her…shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

COMMENT:

I will answer his question (“…and shall we not receive evil?”) with an emphatic, “No, we shall not – at least, we should not receive evil and still call God great.” The whole thrust of this story seems to be, “If we can only man up and suffer silently at the hands of our superiors, bounty shall surely be ours.” That ethic has been suggested to all of the lowly throughout all of the ages by all of our superiors. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it; and it surely doesn’t mean we have to call them “great” as they torture us.

QUOTE:

[After Job’s trials are over and he is no longer suffering.]

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before…every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

COMMENT:

Why did all of those people give Job money? He surely didn’t need it, for as the next QUOTE tells us:

QUOTE:

So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

COMMENT:

What, still no he asses? What’s with that?

After most of Job’s herders had been killed by Satan’s hand, where did Job find replacements to manage this even larger-than-before flock? Did he enslave them, which was not an uncommon practice of the time? How did he obtain extra land for their forage and roaming?

QUOTE:

He had also seven sons and three daughters.

COMMENT:

Ah, these would have been to replace those seven sons and three daughters which the LORD God had allowed Satan to kill earlier in this narrative. I don’t know how Job felt about losing his first ten children; I don’t even know if he mourned their loss. But here and now, I (in the twenty-first century) will say a prayer for them. For the narrative continues by saying, “And thus lived Job an hundred and forty years…So Job died, [being] old and full of days.” Sad this couldn’t have been said of his dead children.

The Binding of Isaac

Much of what I’ve heard about Abraham has forced this conclusion: Were I to see Abraham approaching me as I should walk down the sidewalk, I would cross the street to avoid him.

Since the story of the Binding of Isaac is so well-known, I will not summarize it here but I will furnish a link should you care to review its words, which are rather few in number:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Genesis&chapter=22&verse

More QUOTES and COMMENTS follow:

QUOTE:

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering?

COMMENT:

In answer to that question, Abraham lies by saying:

“…My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”

Since Issac was supposed to have been a rather profound individual in his own right, Abraham should have said, “You are to be that lamb. I will bind and cover thee with sticks which I shall set aflame, after I slit your throat so you feel no pain. For God has told me to make of you a burnt offering.”

To me, this is what makes an offering profound – that it is voluntarily given, not demanded as tribute is demanded by all-too-common tyrants.

QUOTE:

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

COMMENT:

There’s no hint in this telling that Isaac resisted in any way or said anything. This is part of the problem I have with Abraham – it’s always all about Abraham. You’d think this story would allow for some words or actions to be offered by the man who is about to die.

QUOTE:

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

COMMENT:

This was done after an angel of the LORD told Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, and indeed had praised Abraham by saying, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearst God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.”

So there we have it:

1)   God tells Abraham to kill his son and burn him up as an offering;

2)   An angel of God, at the last moment, tells Abraham not to kill his son.

3)   However, no mention is made of that angel (or God Himself) asking for a substitute burnt offering (that ram).

4)   That substitute was Abraham’s inspiration of the moment upon seeing some poor, defenseless animal trapped.

5)   The angel of God did not stop Abraham from killing the ram.

If I were any kind of a fiction writer, I might have added these considerations toward the end of this story:

Killing that ram was the real test which God had in mind for Abraham.

The binding of Isaac wasn’t much of a test since God told him to kill his son but withdrew that order. In other words, Abraham didn’t have to do any thinking, he simply followed the words of the Lord. However, killing that ram was a thought that came directly from Abraham, unsolicited by God. That ram, as a symbol, would have been Jesus Christ in disguise, of whom the world (or at least Abraham) was not yet ready.

The irony is that this ram was “attached” to a wooden framework (his horns caught in a bush) in a manner similar to how Jesus Christ was to be later crucified. So, in his own way, Abraham pre-crucified Christ so to speak. If that was the case – God was truly forgiving indeed.

QUOTE:

…I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] on the sea shore…

COMMENT:

Hmm…as many as all that, eh? That’s way more than the known population of the earth.

QUOTE:

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

COMMENT:

In my humble opinion, the descendants of Abraham (specifically, those of Isaac) haven’t done much to bless “all the nations of the earth.” When’s that supposed to happen?

As for “because thou hast obeyed my voice,” I would have much preferred “because thou hasn’t obeyed my righteous laws.” Harkens to an age old situation: Just because one hears the voice of one claiming to be God, doesn’t make it so. Even today, there are too many claiming they did some really awful things because “God told me to.” Well…something told them to but…

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

In closing

Please, don’t get the wrong idea. I’m just as questioning of Buddhist scripture as well, much to the discomfort of my fellow Buddhists. Which might explain why we no longer keep each other’s company.

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Why is it that children can offer interesting questions, but they seem to lose that ability when they get older? Where’s Peter Pan when you need him?” - Steven Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com