Pending USA response to Syrian chemical attack

It looks like the USA is contemplating a 2 day limited military response to the recent chemical attack in Syria it blames on the Assad regime. It also looks like the USA will not bother to get UN support in the form of a resolution on this; nor will the Obama regime deign to ask Congress for  declaration of war, albeit a "limited" war.

I was so outraged by Secretary of State John Kerry's responses that I wish to precede his quoted comments below with my own comments based on the three yellow-highlighted phrases below.

Kerry speaks of "moral obscenity," "inexcusable [attack on civilians]," and his "very personal" response to videos he'd seen of this attack. Mr. Kerry would do well to remember that the USA itself was the first to use nuclear weapons in war as a terrorist tactic. [Here, I'll say it in a more direct way: "The USA was the world's first nuclear terrorist."] We had no problem bombing Nagasaki, killing between 60-80,000 people (almost all civilians) a mere three days after bombing Hiroshima. Nagasaki had next to nothing in the way of a military presence stationed there and its potential contribution to the war effort was entirely negated by the US Navy, which ensured that none of its materiel could ever leave Japan to support its overseas war effort.

And here's the kicker: The USA didn't bomb these two cities to terrorize the Japanese, but instead to try to throw the fear of God into the Russians whom it saw as their only potential rival as a budding superpower.

So when Kerry speaks of "moral obscenity," I urge him to compare the (possibly) 1,300 killed in the Syrian attack to the (at least) 60,000 killed in Nagasaki. If Kerry wants to see (as he put it) "gut-wrenching" videos, I suggest he review footage of the Nagasaki victims. What really burns me is, there was a time when Kerry at least pretended to be anti-war or at least to have had a conscience about the byproducts of war. But it seems that marrying into money and becoming a part of the oligarchic system really turned his head. Too bad. I have nothing but contempt for this man.

Now for those quotes:

QUOTE [from article posted on YahooNews! on 8/26/13]:

Secretary of State John Kerry left no doubt Monday that the United States believes Syria’s Bashar Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter civilians last week and vowed that the United States will respond to that “moral obscenity.”

“Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass,” he said, in a barb likely meant for Syria and its patron Russia. “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable."

Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, spoke of the attack in very personal terms, describing how he had watched the “gut-wrenching” videos of the dead and dying via social media.

:UNQUOTE.



QUOTE [see NOTE 1 below]:

"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons." And is Kerry equally confident that somehow the rebels themselves don't have any such armaments, either from Assad's stockpiles or from (say) Saudi Arabia? What about the possibility that USA agents in Syria obtained some of these weapons and are responsible for this attack?

I'm at a loss to figure out why Assad, who is clearly beating the rebels and surely wouldn't want to cross any US red lines, would intentionally kill civilians. Unless, and this is a stretch, his intel determined that there was such a large number of rebels holed up (using their proximity to civilians as a human shield tactic) that he wanted to not only be rid of these rebels, but also to send them a message, "Give up the human shield tactic, for we'll use chemicals on any large numbers of rebels we find while considering, much as the USA would, any resulting civilian deaths to be collateral damage."

As a side note, I was intrigued by video footage showing a "victim" of this chemical attack being tended to by a doctor. This doctor was busy massaging the "victim's" knees even though he was undergoing spasms. Strange, indeed.

Me thinks Kerry better stop snorting that ketchup he's become so addicted to. His posturing self-righteousness is an act that grew old a long time ago.

:UNQUOTE.

In my personal opinion

I don't believe the uprising against Assad happened without substantial clandestine support by the USA for many years, possibly decades. Same as in Libya. Events like these don't just happen. However, I do believe the USA was surprised that Assad's regime proved to be a lot more tenacious than at first estimated. Perhaps the USA was hoping Assad's army, which has a sizable enlisted makeup of Sunni soldiers, would rise up in opposition to Assad's Alewite/Shia command structure. Perhaps those Sunni soldiers are fighting to have a country not dominated by Sunni militant extremists. So...we guessed wrong: Not all Sunnis are created equal.

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

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

"There's a special place in hell waiting for John Kerry - right next to that place waiting for Barack 'change-you-can-believe-in' Obama" - Steven Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

NOTE 1: This quote is my response posted to an article posted on YahooNews!, but not to the same article referenced in my first quote.

Follow up on Killing of Jesus Mora Flores

On June 25, 2012, I posted on the killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a post you can read via this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/devils-advocate-for-jesus-mora-flores.html

Since I so rarely receive comments from anybody on any of my posts, I couldn't resist replying to two (or one, posting twice?) who recently offered their thoughts. I replied to their replies on my original post, but I decided to quote my reply in its entirety here, as a separate post, hoping for increased readership on what I consider the strong possibility of a miscarriage of justice. My comment follows:

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

I'm a bit confused by the fact that a second commentator calling him/herself "Anonymous" posted today after the first "Anonymous" posted on Aug. 17. I have to assume these are two different people, though (in either case) the second "Anonymous" should have been sharp enough to see how people might be confused and would have said either "I am not (or I am) the same 'Anonymous' who posted on Aug. 17."

That being said, I will reply to today's "Anonymous" first. You, sir/madam, are an idiot and I wish you wouldn't have "graced" my blog with your miserable four word reply ["you make me laugh"], which really added nothing to the dialogue. If you want to be an idiot, please...post on Yahoo News or any of the hundreds of other sites that are polluted by others similar to you.

As for the first "Anonymous," I just now google-searched to see if there has been any updated story about this killing. And, sure enough, there wasn't, which is something I fault our lame-stream media for - a thing called "failing to update or follow-through."

The original news stories said that an autopsy was scheduled to be completed on Jesus "in a couple of weeks." As I wrote in my original story, I was hoping that autopsy would have addressed my suspicion that dad didn't, as he claimed, beat Jesus to death with his fists - that instead he ran up behind him and planted a flying kick to the back of his head.  And I further suspect the daughter (alleged victim of attempted rape) was nowhere near the scene in which it's possible Jesus was held down while the fatal kick was delivered.

I also would like to know what kind of questions the authorities asked the five-year-old "victim." Surely those could have been revealed while keeping her identity secret.

There's way too much about this story that doesn't make sense. But I am glad to report this much - much to my delight, I noticed I've received an extraordinary number of hits on this post. And, who knows? Maybe that might somehow serve to pry loose the truth. But even if it doesn't, as a Buddhist I know that karma will punish/reward all of the parties involved.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractor's Party

"Yes, I believe every life is worthy, even that of one - like Jesus - who was so 'obviously' guilty that no one thought to consider that he himself was the victim in this case."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

TO: SGI (Part I)

Introduction

Today's post (see text below) is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International. 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. I call this post "Part I," fully expecting that I will post other parts - again, primarily directed to people familiar with the SGI.

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

SUBJECT: Why bother to do gongyo at all?

On August 7, I had a brief meeting with Ethan Gelbaum, Regional Director of SGI-USA who works out of the Chicago SGI Community Center, and his assistant Marty. During that meeting I asked, in words to this effect:

Paraphrase begins:

Since Nichiren claimed that chanting one daimoku is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once, why bother to do gongyo at all, since that consists of reciting only chapters 2 and 16 of the Lotus Sutra? The time spent chanting gongyo would be better spent chanting more daimoku, if indeed chanting one daimoku is equal to one reading of the entire Lotus Sutra.

:Paraphrase ends.

Ethan responded by saying, one purpose of chanting gongyo is to praise those chapters, which are considered in the SGI's view to be the essence of the 28-chapter Lotus Sutra. But another purpose is to refute those chapters, in favor of the superiority of the daimoku to which the Lotus Sutra must be considered secondary in importance. Besides, we follow the example of Nichiren who himself, on a daily basis, chanted daimoku (while stressing its superiority)  and gongyo. We follow his example.

I didn't refute Ethan on the spot, since his response was something I didn't expect. The version I was familiar with, last heard by me maybe 10 years ago, is that chanting daimoku is the primary practice and chanting gongyo is the secondary practice. And each of these practices supports the other. I would like to know who came up with this revised answer (and when), which introduces praising and refuting. Obviously, the powers-that-be must have found the original version somehow unsatisfactory.

My refutation

Ethan, as well as SGI, makes the mistake of considering the Lotus Sutra to be Shakyamuni's Buddhism. However, as the Lotus itself makes clear* - "Manjushri, this Lotus Sutra is foremost among all that is preached by the thus come ones. Among all that is preached it is the most profound." That means all Buddhas stand united behind the Lotus Sutra which declares that reciting the Lotus, and not just its title as reflected in the daimoku, is the more superior of these two practices. In fact, the Lotus doesn't mention the daimoku at all, though Nichiren believed it was implied in its text. For my taste, this implication is so subtle as to be unnoticeable, which is also true of Nichiren's claim that the Lotus's 16th chapter implies the validity of the gohonzon.

Think about what you're doing when you chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - you're repeating, over and over again, "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." Nam means devotion, and Myoho Renge Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese. Some people might quibble that nam doesn't mean "I devote myself to," that instead it simply means "devotion." However, if you're the one sitting in front of the gohonzon chanting copious amounts of daimoku, it stands to reason that, indeed, you are devoting yourself to the Lotus Sutra. Or at least you're devoting yourself to saying that you are.

By refusing to embrace the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra and by insisting instead that chanting daimoku is the equivalent of doing so, the SGI is in effect abandoning the Lotus Sutra. The daimoku by itself is meaningless if the SGI-supported translation of the daimoku's words is embraced without the context of the entire Lotus Sutra. If you look at the translation, after this paragraph, you'll see that the daimoku fails to make sense with the word myoho. What does the concept "mystic law" mean, without the Lotus which defines and makes clear the meaning of that law? The other three words of the daimoku make sense - everybody knows what is meant by devotion; and the concepts of "simultaneity of cause and effect" and "harmonious vibration" are quickly and easily learned. But the word myoho is where the daimoku fails due to being inherently vague, since it needs the Lotus Sutra's text to provide the critical context.

Nam means "devotion;"

Myoho means "mystic law;"

Renge means "simultaneity of cause and effect;"

Kyo means "sutra" or "harmonious sound."

When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant as praise for the Lotus Sutra (or, more specifically, to its 2nd and 16th chapters), wouldn't chanting daimoku only be sufficient praise? When you chant "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra"- again, that's one of the translations of the daimoku as explained above - aren't you already praising the Lotus? So why should an additional, different kind of praise be necessary? Especially since that "different kind" consists of chanting the 2nd and 16th chapters of the Lotus in ancient Chinese - which makes it incomprehensible to the modern chanter. How does chanting words you don't understand suffice as praise?

When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant to refute the Lotus Sutra as a provisional teaching which is inferior to the daimoku, what are we refuting? We are being asked to believe that the daimoku (promoted by Nichiren, who is not a Buddha as explained below) is superior to the Lotus Sutra (promoted by all the Buddhas of the universe). Such a belief is simply indefensible.

I will now cite two sources for my belief that Nichiren is not a Buddha, even though the SGI calls him the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law:

QUOTE:

ONE:  "Why did I first begin to chant as I do? Bodhisattva Jogyo is the one destined to make his advent in this world to propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. But before he had even appeared, I began, as though speaking in a dream, hardly knowing what I was doing, to chant the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and so I chant them now. In the end, is this a good thing I do, or a bad thing? I do not know, nor can anyone else tell for certain." - Letter to Myomitsu Shonin.

The two areas I highlighted are hardly the words a Buddha would be speaking.

TWO:  "...but since I am a common mortal, it is beyond my power to know the past. There is no doubt, however, that in my present life I am the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and that in the future I will therefore reach the seat of enlightenment without fail."

"I cannot hold back my tears when I think of the great persecution confronting me now, or when I think of the joy of attaining Buddhahood in the future."

These two quotes appear on page 386 of The True Aspect of All Phenomena and show that Nichiren, even after he started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, had not yet attained Buddhahood. Instead, he speaks of doing so "in the future."

:UNQUOTE.

Ethan states that we should practice as Nichiren did (even though, as I pointed out, Nichiren is not a Budda). However, even if Nichiren himself said (which I doubt) that we should copy his practice, he might have only said so expecting us to refute him - or at least hoping we'd do so. This link to my essay "Why did the buddha lie to us?" explains the basis for any such hope Nichiren, in emulation of Shakyamuni Buddha, might have entertained:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html

Why gongyo was shortened but not abandoned

I can think of a very practical reason why the practice of chanting gongyo is still embraced by the SGI. Simply put, new members are given something to do. If the only chanting practice consisted of daimoku, new members might get bored and quit the SGI. It is important to give a new member a challenging project such as learning how to chant a rapid and precise gongyo. That would appeal to their work ethic and become a source of pride after gongyo is mastered.

Over ten years ago, SGI realized that doing gongyo in its original format had proven to be burdensome to newer members. Especially considering that parts A and C were accompanied by a single recitation of part B in the morning - a very lengthy part B that consisted of the complete version of the 16th chapter, compared to part C which was only an abbreviated version. In the old days, we used to chant in the morning parts A and C four times and one more time including part B. In the evening, we chanted parts A and C three times.

These days, morning and evening gongyo consist of a single chanting of parts A and C, which is far more quickly done enabling members to chant more daimoku should they desire. Still, logically speaking, I find the SGI lacking in the courage of its convictions by not doing away with gongyo altogether. Since the chanting of one daimoku contains the entire Lotus Sutra - or so SGI claims - then clinging to the practice of gongyo is indefensible. Moreover, it becomes just one more attachment which, after all is said and done, should be eliminated as we proceed down the path of enlightenment.

More on my meeting with Ethan and Marty

Our one and only meeting (on Aug. 7) was brief, primarily concerning itself with whether Ethan would invoke his authority to bar me from ever again entering the SGI's Chicago Community Center. My sin? Having insisted that reciting the entire Lotus Sutra is a practice superior to chanting daimoku, since in the Lotus Sutra itself, the most profound teaching of all the Buddhas, is a statement defining the most ideal practice as consisting of "reading, reciting and pondering the Lotus Sutra and teaching it to the best of your ability."

My greater sin? While in the Community Center, expounding my belief to SGI members concerning the inferiority of chanting daimoku. On July 31, I met two SGI members so we could try the practice of reading aloud from the Lotus Sutra. Via a series of emails to these two members, we decided to take turns reading a brief section of our choosing followed by comments. Each was supposed to take 5 minutes or so for his turn, but I urged that we not do this in the Center itself. I suggested we sit in Joan's** car, parked in the SGI parking lot, and try this exercise there. I thought it prudent to avoid letting others overhear us while engaged in this unorthodox "chanting."

Unfortunately, I chose the wrong time to go to the men's room. Marty, an assistant of Ethan's who knew Joan**, struck up a conversation in my absence and she told him what we were up to. He said, "You don't have to sit in your car. Why don't you let me unlock one of our private conference rooms for you?" But this room access had a price. Marty and a Women's Division leader who unexpectedly appeared asked if they could sit in on our session. I thought the session was very successful but apparently one or both of these leaders reported us to Ethan. So when I showed up on August 7 in order to chant daimoku, without either of my two SGI friends present, Ethan and Marty were waiting for me.

I will write another post with more details concerning my meeting with Ethan and Marty. But for now, I'll close this post. I will also soon be writing about how former and current members of the SGI should go about setting up a virtual samgha.

More, later.


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

clear* - The quote that follows clear* is from page 246 of the Burton Watson translation, published in 2009 by the SGI, of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. It's in the Peaceful Practices chapter (ch 14) of the Lotus Sutra.

** I use the name Joan since I'm sure my SGI friend won't want her name made public on this blog.

"The Act of Killing" - reflections on a movie

Introduction

Toward the end of this post, I will comment on a recent movie I'd seen - a masterpiece called The Act of Killing - which focused on the motivations and emotions of death squad killers responsible for the mass murder of 1,000,000 alleged and unarmed members of the Communist Party in Indonesia in 1965. These crimes against humanity were never prosecuted at the international level nor even investigated - then or since - by Indonesian authorities.

As I watched this film, I noticed that there was only one (indirect) reference to Islam, which is relevant since Indonesia was then and is now predominantly Sunni Muslim. I will begin my essay with a comment on one incident in early Islamic history which, I believe, had a ripple effect concerning the acceptability of violence among Muslims. I will refer to that one incident as I compare it to my personal experience with Buddhists.

Here's a link to The Act of Killing's movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhIRBxbchU


The Origin of Violence in Islamic Culture

I'm going to make a bold assertion here, though it's one I feel is an inescapable conclusion:

Since the Prophet Muhammad was violently introduced to the Quran - at the very beginning - it seems reasonable to suppose that such a violent origin could be expected to have a ripple effect throughout its history.

The following quote, which embraces a narrative supported by Sunni Muslims, illustrates my point:

QUOTE*:

He used to go in seclusion in the Cave of Hira', where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again, till suddenly the truth descended upon him while he was in the Cave of Hira'.

The angel came to him and asked [I've read other accounts that say the angel didn't "ask," but instead "ordered"] him to read. The Prophet replied 'I do not know how to read'. The Prophet added, 'The angel caught me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, "I do not know how to read". Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read" (or what shall I read?). Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said: "Read, in the name of Your Lord, who created, created man from a clot. Read! And Your Lord is the most bountiful" ... [Bukhari, I, No. 3; VI, No. 478; Muslim I, No. 301.]

The narration goes on to tell us that the Prophet went back to his wife Khadija and recounted to her his dreadful experience...

:UNQUOTE*.

So that's how Muhammad was introduced to Islam - with a violence sufficient to induce a distress great enough for him to contemplate suicide, a claim which is supported by similar narratives I've read. It's interesting that one who claims go be the last prophet and messenger of God is the only one to have been terrorized into submission.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the angel in question - Gabriel - didn't simply use these words instead: "In the name of Allah, recite [or repeat] after me." Today, we understand that when the word "read" was used, Gabriel meant "read aloud." But even that doesn't make much sense unless there was a written document on hand from which Muhammad was supposed to read. And for Gabriel to be unaware that Muhammad was illiterate seems unbelievable in and of itself.

Disclaimer: Before any Muslims reading this consider getting upset at me for pointing out these few obvious points, I want you to know that I am a believer who is even more severe with his own faith - which happens to be Buddhism.


By way of comparison: Buddhism v. Islam

I can' speak for all Buddhists, but it's fairly safe to say their forays into violent behavior are few and far between. The only incidents I can think of took place in Sri Lanka and Myannmar, and these were inspired by tribalistic loyalty playing itself out against Hindu/Muslim minorities. However, it might be more enlightening for me to share with you the experience of my personal introduction to a Buddhist sect.

Back in 1975, I was approached by friends of mine who had themselves just recently joined one of the Nichiren sects calling itself Nichiren Shoshu of America (now called SGI - Soka Gakkai of America). These friends had been approached by street preachers who were fairly recent converts themselves. I had always maintained a healthy agnosticism throughout my life, so I liked the way NSA pitched its faith to me:

"We don't ask that you believe, just that you try its practices for 100 days as an experiment. Those practices consist of chanting twice per day for a total of 40 minutes; chant for whatever you want. That's how we ourselves judge the truth of this faith, based on the results we get when we chant. We believe in the Law of Karma, which means this faith is based on cause and effect. If you put out the cause of chanting, you will get the resulting benefits in your life which are the direct results of your practice.

"We also ask that you attend Buddhist discussion meetings once per week and make a modest attempt to learn some of the core concepts. After 100 days, if you're not satisfied with the results you receive, then go ahead and quit - for you'd be a fool to continue without some sign satisfactory to you personally that these practices are valid. If you go to work, you expect to be paid. Same here: The work you do is the effect you put out to consistently practice, and you should expect to get 'paid' for this."

After my 100 days was over, I saw enough results to continue my practice. However, flash forward to today: I am no longer a member of this sect since my in-depth study of its core scripture - The Lotus Sutra - led me to the conclusion that NSA/SGI was practicing in a manner inconsistent with the Buddha's instructions. When I quit, I wasn't beheaded or even shunned. I wasn't told I'd be going to hell for forsaking this sect, only that they hoped I would see the light and return to the fold. Of course, I am hoping they will see the light (or at least the light as I see it), but I know how hard it is for people to break with a tradition they've kept for (in some cases) decades.


The Act of Killing

The Act of Killing is brilliant in its casual, laid back approach, which allowed mass murderers to be treated as people with their own story to tell. It isn't judgmental; it simply unfolds and draws you in. There are scenes which are difficult to look at, which is surprising given that make-up and props are all that's being viewed rather than real blood and guts. That disconnect gives this film its surreal quality. This quote from Wikipedia introduces us to the film's backdrop:

QUOTE**:

When Sukarno was overthrown by Suharto following the failed coup of the 30 September Movement in 1965, the gangsters Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry in Medan (North Sumatra) were promoted from selling black market movie theatre tickets to leaders of the most notorious death squad in North Sumata, as part of the Indonesian killings of 1965-1966. They also extorted ethnic Chinese, killing those who refused to pay. Anwar personally killed approximately 1,000 people, usually by strangling with wire.

Today, Anwar is revered as a founding father of the right-wing paramilitary organization Pemuda Pancasila that grew out of the death squads. The organization is so powerful that its leaders include government ministers, and they are happy to boast about everything from corruption and election rigging to genocide. ...

Invited by Oppenheimer, Anwar and his friends eagerly re-enact the killings for the cameras, and make dramatic scenes depicting their memories and feelings about the killings. The scenes are produced in the style of their favorite film genres: gangster, western, and musical. Various aspects of Anwar and his friends' filmmaking process are shown, but as they begin to dramatize Anwar's own nightmares, the fiction scenes begin to take over the film's form, leading the film to become increasingly surreal and nightmarish. Oppenheimer has called the result "a documentary of the imagination."

:UNQUOTE**.

At first, I was surprised by Oppenheimer's restraint. He barely inserts his own views or questions into the film itself, doing so only once to my recollection. He doesn't give his subjects the third degree or even inquire as to whether they were or are now religious. He doesn't even mention Islam by name, though there's one scene in the movie where the killers are reenacting a brutal interrogation scene but stop when one of them mentions that he can hear (outside in the street) the "call to prayer." At that point, the four reenacters simply pause and bow their heads. I don't know if they were praying or not, since it looked more to me like an embarrassed silence.

The film had lengthy scenes when it was a film within a film or took us behind the scenes showing us what the sets and props looked like and the directorial discussion taking place among these former mass murderers. What struck me in particular was the total impunity with which these killers acted and how laughingly boastful they were of what they had done. Not only that, by all appearances the  vast majority of the Indonesian nation support even to this day what had been extralegal murders.

There's one scene in which a Chinese shopkeeper is being extorted for money in order to help finance a pep rally of Pemuda Pancasila  And this wasn't a reenactment of something that happened almost 50 years ago. This took place as the documentary was being filmed. And it was obvious that this particular extortion was for an amount above and beyond the usual monthly protection money demanded of this poor man.

Of course such a scene couldn't be used as evidence against the extortionist, since it was plainly obvious that no Indonesian court would even consider hearing such a case.

Several times during the film Anwar defines what he is - a gangster - in terms of being a "free man." Apparently, there's a Dutch word that allows such a liberal translation. However, I would point out, "But the fact is, you were and are in a gang which, by more commonly accepted definitions, is a group that operates outside the law. You might be free, but only from the restrains imposed by society and because your gang was supported by the military - as well as the Western democracies."

I don't know how Oppenheimer did it, but somehow he got Anwar to act the part of a Communist who was being brutally interrogated in a newspaper editor's office. That seemed to give Anwar pause as he then felt (though only as an actor) what it was like to have one's dignity assaulted. I also don't know how the filmmaker got one of the killers to dress up in drag for a particularly brutal scene.

Anwar admits to atrocities such as shoving wooden splinters up the anuses of his hapless victims. However, I was hard put to see how such extremes could be justified in the minds of the most fanatical "patriot." Instead of massacring unarmed people who posed no threat to the established order, the authorities could have simply misused the judicial system to dispossess or otherwise harass this minority. The excessive cruelty wasn't necessary from a Machiavellian point of view; the Communists could have been neutralized far more simply, effectively, and humanely - starting with a ban on their political party, which was legally in existence at the time.


Reflections on Indonesia

I admit that a rather macabre impulse made me look up the lyrics to the Indonesian national anthem, entitled Great Indonesia:

QUOTE***:


Indonesia, my homeland
The land where I shed my blood
Right there, I stand
To be a guide of my motherland
Indonesia, my nationality
My nation and my homeland.
Let us exclaim "Indonesia unites!"
Long live my land, long live my state
My nation, my people, entirely
Let us build its soul, let us build its body
For the Great Indonesia.
[REFRAIN]
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!

:UNQUOTE***.

As you can see, there isn't any mention of liberty and justice for all or of reverence for the rule of law. As for "the land where I shed my blood," since Indonesia has always had its military staffed by volunteers and has never seen action except for the local suppression of insurrectionists and separatists, the average citizen never even had a chance to shed his blood. As for "let us build its soul" and "Indonesia unites," those are tacit admissions that true national unity has evaded Indonesia to date.

As for Indonesia being "great," I fail to see it. True greatness lies in the rule of law instead of allowing the continued existence of paramilitary organizations. It lies in protecting the weak and minorities. It lies in abhorrence of corruption. It lies in security forces which don't look the other way when gangsters engage in political and ethnic cleansings.

Two reasons the West isn't worried about Indonesia being Islamic: It's not militantly Islamic and, being a collection of islands, they're not in a position to threaten their neighbors. However, if China should ever decide it wants to exert its naval power in its neighborhood, Indonesia might end up praying the USA comes to its rescue. And if the USA isn't so inclined, well...the ironic result could be payback for those massacres of Chinese and communists nearly half a century ago.


The Act of Killing - post script

It's tragic that so few people will end up seeing this movie, which cost only $1M to make. According to IMDb, on its fourth weekend it grossed $38,537 after being shown on 26 screens in the USA...(sigh). Say, I wonder what the Kardashians are up to?

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

Footnotes:

 * www.missionislam.com/quran/beginrevelation.htm

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Killing

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_Raya

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

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

Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Nichiren Daishonin

So, who is Nichiren Daishonin and why should you care?

Nichiren was a Japanese Buddhist monk who lived from 1222 to 1282, who tried to convert the entire country to Buddhism as he understood it. His belief was that a nation would be subjecting itself to grave peril unless it abandoned heretical Buddhists sects and embraced what he called True Buddhism. For most of his entire adult life, he was homeless and didn't even have a temple from which to preach. While he had devout followers, they were never more than a handful during his lifetime and beyond. In fact, it wasn't until the end of World War II that Nichiren's Buddhism experienced any appreciable growth.

There are a number of Nichiren sects, the largest of which is Nichiren Shoshu which used to be affiliated with a laymen's organization known as the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). To this day, both Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI believe that Nichiren was a fully-enlightened Buddha. More than that - they regard him as a Buddha even greater than Shakyamuni Buddha. The other Nichiren sects regard him as a great bodhisattva, but not a Buddha. The objection I've always had, which SGI could never refute, was that Nichiren never declared his Buddhahood; that this claim was made by others on his behalf.

The essence of Nichiren's Buddhism is his claim that the chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo," which he originated, is the essence of Shakyamuni Buddha's highest teaching - a text known as the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren's belief was that chanting N-M-R-K once was equal in merit to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once, all of its 300 or so pages as translated into English. To me, that defies common sense, since Myoho Renge Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra (in Japanese) and the word "Nam" simply means devotion. So when people chant N-M-R-K, they're "saying," "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." To me, Nichiren's claim about equivalency makes as much sense as someone saying, "I devote myself to War and Peace," without ever having read that novel. And that's the point: The SGI claims it's not necessary to read the Lotus Sutra to gain benefit; it's only necessary to say you devote yourself to it.

When I first joined the SGI is the early seventies, they claimed to have had 10 million members in Japan and 2 million elsewhere in the world. Forty years later, SGI is still claiming those very same numbers, though it's my personal belief that the actual numbers are lower - much lower. And I think that's because they've so actively resisted encouraging their members to read the Lotus Sutra from cover to cover. In fact, I knew a woman who had been a member for over 40 years, who told me she chants N-M-R-K for four hours per day. When I asked her if she'd ever read the Lotus Sutra - even once - she said no. I was struck speechless but thought, "Why don't you take one of those four daily chanting hours and dedicate it to orally reciting the Lotus Sutra?"

I had managed to interest two current SGI members in joining me for a session of reading aloud from the Lotus Sutra (any portion of their choice) for a few minutes and then sharing what they thought about it. Our mistake was doing this in the SGI's Chicago Cultural Center. The Regional Director caught wind of what we did and when I showed up the following week at the Center, without my two friends who couldn't attend, I was told that I would be barred from the Center if I shared my belief about the importance of reciting the actual sutra. So, I agreed to only chant N-M-R-K while at the Center and not share (while at the Center or in its immediate vicinity) my belief that chanting N-M-R-K is an inferior practice.

Two Points to Ponder

The first point concerns the status of the Lotus Sutra in our current era. Shakyamuni speaks of how rare it is to encounter a buddha, and how much rarer to find one who determines the time is right to reveal the LS. It doesn't seem to make much sense for Shakyamuni to have revealed the LS to us, only to have it be considered inferior to the teachings of another a mere 2,000 years after his passing.

The second point concerns how unusual it is for us to have two buddhas appear within such a short period of time in one place - assuming Nichiren is a Buddha. Of course, the whole idea of Shakyamuni manifesting himself for only 50 years or so on earth is unusual, since anything I'd ever read speaks of buddhas teaching in their buddha lands for extremely long periods of time to disciples who have incredibly long lifespans. I can only guess that Shakyamuni showed up on earth at all is due to his great compassion. An average lifespan of 100 years is considered a sign of an extreme lack of merit in a given epoch. And that's the lifespan that Shakyamuni's disciples had. However, it is written that great bodhisattvas will voluntarily descend into hell in order to save people, so I can well imagine Shakyamuni having descended (as he put it) "into the hell that is the three-fold world."

It's hard for us who live in a modern society to consider ourselves backward in any way. But our meager lifespan amply testifies to this status. In short? Even with our great degree of scientific advancement, ours must still be regarded as a society heavy with defilement.

There's an interesting passage in Chapter 16 of the Lotus, in which Shakyamuni says:

QUOTE:

Good men, the thus come one observes how among living beings there are those who delight in lesser teachings, meager in virtue and heavy with defilement. For such persons I describe how in my youth I left my household and attained supreme perfect enlightenment. But in truth the time since I attained buddhahood is extremely long, as I have told you. It is simply that I use this expedient means to teach and convert living beings and cause them to enter the buddha way. That is why I speak in this manner. 

:UNQUOTE.

When I read those first two sentences, I thought, "Wow! What a slam! Shakyamuni just called his earthly disciples 'those who delight in lesser teachings, meager in virtue and heavy with defilement.'" If that's how the Buddha felt about his disciples back in ancient India, then it seems to me that he had to have had a pretty good reason for choosing this group and this time to reveal the LS. Perhaps he was trying to motivate them to greater diligence by giving his gift (the LS) prematurely. But of course, there is no "prematurely" when the Buddha determines that the time is right to reveal his highest teaching. I guess this just goes to show that he who preaches the LS, as Shakymuni encouraged his disciples to do, doesn't have to be perfect.

Final Comments

When I left the Chicago SGI Center last week, the Director told a senior leader to send me an email showing where, in Nichiren's own words, he says, "I am a Buddha." That was four days ago and I've yet to get this email. However, I already know, due to my own readings and inquiries over the last 20 years, that Nichiren never said any such thing.

Now, you might wonder, why would anyone claim that Nichiren was a Buddha in the absence of any such claim from the man himself? In answer, I cite this quote from the Lotus Sutra's 24th chapter:

QUOTE:

If the form of a buddha will bring salvation, he immediately manifests a buddha form and preaches the Law. Thus he manifests himself in various different forms, depending upon what is appropriate for salvation.

:UNQUOTE.

The "he" being referred to in this quote is Bodhisattva Wonderful Sound, but could have been any other highly-accomplished bodhisattva who had the power to shapeshift. The way I see it, there are people who need to believe that Nichiren was not only a Buddha, but the greatest Buddha of all time. Whoever Nichiren was, I believe he manifested himself in a form that (to these particular believers) appeared to be a Buddha. And I'm equally sure Nichiren did so for very good reasons. However, it's time to face a harsh reality: That continuing to insist that Nichiren was a Buddha whose teachings are superior to Shakyamuni Buddha's is not only counterproductive but it's actually harming the worldwide propagation of Buddhist teachings.

There's nothing wrong in admitting, after all is said and done, that certain teachings turned out to be erroneous. There is, however, everything wrong in clinging to a fiction which, to any average thoughtful person, is simply no longer believable.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Shout out to Latvia

I couldn't help but notice the large number of people from Latvia who have clicked on this website. For a nation of just over 2 million inhabitants, it's remarkable that they come in sixth place among those who have accessed this blog. In order of hits, the USA comes first, followed by Russia, the UK, Germany, Canada, and Latvia - which is so radically different from the others on this list.

So why should anyone from Latvia be interested in anything I'd have to say? I'm not asking this question rhetorically. I'm hoping someone can give me a clue. I'm probably one of the most accessible people on the planet, so go ahead and email me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com. Or post a comment here. I have always given lengthy and thoughtful replies to all - actually, the few - who have done so. However, if you would rather not, I fully understand. Even the walls have ears these days, so you don't know if some spy agency is listening in. I always assume that to be the case, and you might wonder why I'm so bold in writing some of my comments. Let it suffice for now to say that I have my reasons - and I even hope the spies are listening. They might learn something. Maybe there's another Edward Snowden reading my comments who is tempted to do what he did. And maybe something I write will give him the courage to do so.

We need more whistleblowers.

I have a pet theory as to why Latvians might be interested in this blog. They have managed to maintain a strong group identity for centuries - avoiding being swallowed up by more powerful neighbors. In that way, I am similar to Latvians in that I managed to not be swallowed up by the propagandistic group think which is becoming more and more entrenched in the USA. I not only insist on not being swallowed up, I insist on growing. Which is where I think the spirit of the Latvian people lies right now. In short? I think you and I have a strong karmic bond as regards independence of thought and sense of self.

In any event, I hope you keep reading my material and invite your friends to do so.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,


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

"I liken what I do on this blog to what shipwrecked sailors used to hope for by putting messages in bottles and tossing them out to sea. In this case, it looks like many of my messages ended up on Latvian shores."