The Parable of the Hidden Jewel: A Novel Interpretation

Introduction

I have recited all 28 chapters of the Lotus Sutra over 150 times within the last ten years. That means, of course, that I have also recited the famous Parable of the Hidden Jewel, which appears in Chapter 8, over 150 times. Today, I want to share some of my impressions of this parable, especially concerning the words "sharply rebuking him."

Concerning this Parable

Immediately following this paragraph, I will quote from parts of Chapter 8 of the Lotus Sutra, which pertain to this Parable. Here's the link to Chapter 8 in its entirety, should you decide to read all of its 11 pages for reassurance that I have not omitted anything of import: http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap08.html . This link claims Burton Watson as the translator (into English), as does the Soka Gakkai International which published The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras in 2009. I mention this, since there are some differences (though minor) between these two translations.

For your convenience, I numbered the lines of text as they appear in the link, but only the verse section. There is a section in prose (also in Chapter 8), which adds some important information - this I inserted between lines 28 and 29. While it was a common practice to offer verse and prose versions of Buddhist teachings, there are noteworthy differences between them. The two blocks of indented lines -  13-28 and 29-36 - comprise the entire parable, while the other numbered lines provide context.

QUOTE [read the two preceding paragraphs before reading this QUOTE]:

1    At that time Ajnata Kaundinya and the others, wishing to state their
2    meaning once more, spoke in verse form, saying:

3    We have heard the sound of this prophecy
4    assuring us of unsurpassed ease and tranquility;
5    we rejoice in gaining what we never had before
6    and make obeisance to the Buddha of measureless wisdom.
7    Now in the presence of the World-Honored One
8    we bewail our faults and errors.
9    Of the Buddha's immeasurable treasure
10  we have gained only a small portion of nirvana,
11  and like ignorant and foolish persons
12  have taken that to be sufficient.

     13  We are like the poor and impoverished man
     14  who went to the house of a close friend.
     15  The house was a very prosperous one
     16  and he served many trays of delicacies.
     17  The friend took a priceless jewel,
     18  sewed it in the lining of the poor man's robe,
     19  gave it without a word and then went away,
     20  and the man, being asleep, knew nothing of it.
     21  After the man had gotten up,
     22  he journeyed here and there to other countries,
     23  seeking food and clothing to keep himself alive,
     24  finding it very difficult to provide for his livelihood.
     25  He made do with what little he could get
     26  and never hoped for anything finer,
     27  unaware that in the lining of his robe
     28  he had a priceless jewel.


"World-Honored One, it was like the case of a man who went to the house of a close friend and, having become drunk on wine, lay down to sleep. At that time the friend had to go out on official business. He took a priceless jewel, sewed it in the lining of the man's robe, and left it with him when he went out. The man was asleep drunk and knew nothing about it. When he got up, he set out on a journey to other countries. In order to provide himself with food and clothing he had to search with all his energy and diligence, encountering very great hardship and making do with what little he could come by.

     29  Later the close friend who had given him the jewel
     30  happened to meet the poor man
     31  and after sharply rebuking him,
     32  showed him the jewel sewed in the robe.
     33  When the poor man saw the jewel
     34  his heart was filled with great joy,
     35  for he was rich, possessed of wealth and goods
     36  sufficient to satisfy the five desires.

37  We are like that man.
38  Through the long night the World-Honored One
39  constantly in his pity teaches and converts us,
40  causing us to plant the seeds of an unsurpassed aspiration.
41  But because we are without wisdom,
42  we are unaware of this, unknowing.
43  Having gained a small portion of nirvana,
44  we are satisfied and seek nothing more.
45  But now the Buddha awakens us,
46  saying 'This is not really extinction,
47  when you have gained the Buddha's unsurpassed wisdom,
48  then that will be true extinction!'
49  Now we have heard from the Buddha
50  these prophecies and descriptions of adornment,
51  and how each in turn will bestow a prophecy on his successor,
52  and in body and mind we are filled with joy.

:UNQUOTE.

My Analysis

Line 31: and after sharply rebuking him,

This line warrants the clarification provided by the following prose section, also appearing in Chapter 8:

QUOTE:  [source: same link as cited above]:

"Later, the close friend happened to meet him by chance. The friend said, 'How absurd, old fellow! Why should you have to do all this for the sake of food and clothing? In the past I wanted to make certain you would be able to live in ease and satisfy the five desires, and so on such-and-such a day and month and year I took a priceless jewel and sewed it in the lining of your robe. It must still be there now. But you did not know about it, and fretted and wore yourself out trying to provide a living for yourself. What nonsense! Now you must take the jewel and exchange it for goods. Then you can have whatever you wish at all times and never experience poverty or want.'

:UNQUOTE.

For the longest time, I reacted badly to line 31, thinking, "How does this poor man deserve rebuke, for the jewel was hidden in his robe - so how could he even know it was there?" However, the yellowed highlight - "In the past I wanted to make certain" - makes clear that the jewel was hidden but wasn't beyond reasonable detection. After all, the poor man must have washed his robe many times since "such-and-such a...year" had passed since the rich man sewed the jewel into the robe's lining.

The lesson on right mindfulness - one of the Buddha's Eightfold Paths - was far more valuable than the jewel itself. Elsewhere in Chapter 8, it says, "The Buddha is like this friend." If so, then the Buddha would have been far more concerned with teaching a lesson on right mindfulness than on making his poor friend materially wealthy. Hopefully, the poor (now rich) man walks away with the jewel, thinking, "How could I have been so unaware for so long that something [the jewel] was so close to my person? How many times was I vaguely aware of a lump when I sat down and shifted my weight? How many times did I hand-wash my robe and not felt a rock-hard foreign presence?"

The Buddha has the gift of being able to prod people into asking questions of themselves, which is a useful basis for meditation.

Now is a good time to provide a definition of mindfulness:

QUOTE [  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism) :


Mindfulness...is a spiritual or psychological faculty (indriya) that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, is considered to be of great importance in the path to enlightenment. It is one of the seven factors of enlightenment. "Correct" or "right" mindfulness...is the seventh element of the noble eightfold path. ...

Enlightenment (bodhi) is a state of being in which greed, hatred and delusion (Pali: moha) have been overcome, abandoned and are absent from the mind. Mindfulness, which, among other things, is an attentive awareness of the reality of things (especially of the present moment) is an antidote to delusion and is considered as such a 'power' (Pali: bala). This faculty becomes a power in particular when it is coupled with clear comprehension of whatever is taking place.

The Buddha advocated that one should establish mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna) in one's day-to-day life maintaining as much as possible a calm awareness of one's body, feelings, mind, and dhammas.

:UNQUOTE.


In effect, the poor man remained poor since his own lack of right mindfulness denied him awareness of the presence of the jewel in his robe. In order to advance spiritually, one has to maintain (as highlighted above)  a calm awareness of one's body... Hopefully, that awareness would extend to include those things closest to one's body.

Then there's the issue of the poor man's state of life. He was poor, lacked right mindfulness, and would drink to the point of having to sleep it off while still in the presence of his good friend. The poor man might well have become rich after cashing in the jewel. But the world is full of stories of poor men who, upon becoming rich, lost everything due to their own character flaws or negative karma, if you will.

The "Buddha" got his friend drunk...

...and presumably had joined him in drinking wine. What to think?

Providing wine and drinking with his poor friend were expedient means (the title of Chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra) by which the Buddha was able to approach the poor man. As for providing the wine, sometimes one has to acknowledge the importance of a negative element in another's life - and then work with that in order to encourage positive elements. As for the Buddha himself drinking alcohol, there are two possibilities:

• He only appeared to drink, which is plausible since one of the Buddha's supernatural powers is the ability to generate appearances;

• He actually did drink, though what actually entered his body wasn't alcoholic since, according to the Lotus Sutra, "poison shall have no power to harm him," and "all that he eats will become like sweet dew."

Concerning that last, some might object that the historic Shakyamuni Buddha has been universally acknowledged as having died of food poisoning. I am probably the only Buddhist who disputes this, claiming that the Buddha used expedient means to give the appearance of his death and, further, that he is still alive today (and not merely with us in spirit).

Lines 1 and 2

I now restate lines 1 and 2 from above:


1    At that time Ajnata Kaundinya and the others, wishing to state their
2    meaning once more, spoke in verse form, saying:

Just to be clear, Ajnata Kaundinya and the others refers to a total of 500 disciples. What we have here is an example of numerous persons engaging in joining their minds. That's what enabled them to speak in unison, uttering words that hadn't been agreed upon in advance.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"Rely on the Law and...," Buddha

Introduction

It is extremely rare for any of my readers to post comments to my blog posts, although I've always encouraged responses. However, on Oct. 22 someone did exactly that. So I will use this post to reply again. I'd already replied once, in the form of a comment posted under his/her original comment. Both of these comments as well as the post commented upon can be seen here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/09/to-sgi-part-2.html

I value your comments and give their contents a lot of thought. I might not agree with what you have to say, but I definitely give your words my utmost attention.

"Rely on the Law and not upon persons."


QUOTE:

The words of the various teachers are in themselves of no use at all. The Buddha gave strict counsel against following them with his statement in the Nirvana Sutra, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”

:UNQUOTE: "The Teaching, Practice, and Proof," an essay by Nichiren written in 1275.

The quote immediately above is a good example of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination - which means simply that there isn't anything that has an existence independent of other phenomenon. As applied to the first sentence (containing the aqua-colored highlight):  Even the words of the Buddhas in themselves are of no use at all. For one thing, even the greatest teachers fail by using words alone if their pupils aren't interested or don't have the capacity to understand the lessons.

The second quoted sentence (containing the yellowed highlight) invites a question: Doesn't the Law require a person or persons to teach it? Since according to dependent origination the Law cannot exist by itself, the Law (in order to be meaningful) has to manifest itself in phenomenon (such as teachers). However, the Buddha spoke of attaining wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom. How can anything come of itself without violating dependent origination or, for that matter, the Law of Cause and Effect?

Obviously, nothing can. So why did the Buddha speak of teacherless wisdom - wisdom that seems to be disconnected from humans as if it's out there just floating around until we acquire it? I think he did so as an encouragement for those people living in a time when there is no Buddha in the world to teach them. However, as the following quote makes clear, the Buddha is always in the world though not visible to us and that the apparently teacherless wisdom has an inconspicuous Buddha behind it, using subtle methods to convey (that is, teach) it to us.

QUOTE [Chapter 16, Lotus Sutra*]:

I am the father of this world,
saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
For if they see me constantly,
arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five
desires
and fall into the evil paths of existence.
Always I am aware of which living beings
practice the way, and which do not,
and in response to their need for salvation
I preach various doctrines for them.

:UNQUOTE.

The sentence I yellowed is one reason why I claim Shakyamuni Buddha didn't die in ancient India over 2,000 years ago. He's alive and with us and I don't mean only in spirit - I mean, he's got a body that is no different from the one he had before he "died." And this body can be shapeshifted as is made clear numerous times in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha is always here, always teaching us but not as he did before, in terms of being the leader of a great assembly of Seekers of the Way well-known throughout the land.

The part highlighted in aqua is fascinating: Why would people fall prey to arrogance and selfishness, abandon restraint, and end up wallowing in sensuality if they see the Buddha constantly? That would seem to cast doubt upon the ability of the Buddha to save people, since his extended presence sends them in the other direction. Maybe the answer lies in having too much of a good thing which comes to be relied on, completely replacing one's own efforts. I think the Buddha subtracts himself from the world - that is, apparently does so - in order to encourage his disciples to stand on their own two feet. He'll always be around to teach us - perhaps by whispering in our ears or setting up object lessons for us - but we'll be thinking we're learning and improving by ourselves. Which is a great confidence builder, so we don't always remain as little children constantly leaning on our teachers.

An evaluation using Ohm's Law

Ohm’s Law can be written: I = V/R

In plain English, that’s “Current equals Voltage divided by Resistance.” However, keep in mind: This only applies in a closed-system known as a circuit. A simple circuit would consist of a battery (voltage source or causative agent if you prefer) with a single loop of wire connecting one of its terminals to the other, with a resistor inserted somewhere on that wire. In the example below, that resistor takes the form of a light bulb, which offers resistance (to the flow of current) which in fact helps define the amount of the current flowing through the circuit.

What I call Om’s Law, on the other hand, can be written: E = C/R [note the similarity with Ohm’s Law stated earlier as I = V/R].

You could say E = C/R means that any given Effect (E) - for example, the current flowing in an electric circuit - can be calculated if its Cause(s) (C) - for example, the voltage provided by a battery in an electric circuit - and Resistance(s) (R) - for example, the resistance provided by a light bulb into which current flows in a circuit - are known. But there is another way of looking at this relationship: Effect is Cause and Resistance. In fact, you cannot obtain any effect without both C & R being present. Most people would be surprised that you simply cannot obtain any kind of effect without resistance also being present. We don't normally think of resistance as being a good thing - framing it as an impediment instead.

Look at E = C/R from this perspective:

E = Enlightenment (the Ultimate Effect which inspires all buddhist practice - that is, to someday become a Buddha, a fully-enlightened one).

C = Cause (all of the positive deeds embraced by the six paramitas**, which buddhists strive to perform, since there can be no buddhahood without a long track record of performing good and selfless deeds).

R = Resistance (all of the negative deeds - or evil karma - which put a drag on our attainment of buddhahood).

In the equation (E = C/R), if R is reduced to a very small value (that is, if most of our negative karma is totally erased), then the value of E would approach infinity, unless of course the value of C is simultaneously reduced to a very small value.

The problem, though, is that R can only approach zero, since it isn't possible to divide by zero - algebraically, that's not permitted. So what this means is, once someone attains Buddhahood, Resistance (R or negative karma) would still be present in his E (or Enlightened) state. Most people would hesitate to consider a Buddha as someone who still has even the smallest trace of sin present in his life. But the irony is, he couldn't be enlightened without it - that little bit of sin will always be present and will always be a factor when "calculating" - that is, considering - the magnitude of his Enlightenment.

Apparently this limiting-but-defining factor has something to do with why not all Buddhas are created equal. The Lotus Sutra cites the examples of several Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have received predictions of someday attaining buddhahood. And there are differences in their characteristics - they're not all the same in terms of any kind of "infinite" aspects. Some have life spans of only one kalpa*** - others with trillions of kalpas***. Some have more followers than others; Shakyamuni is the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (while no other Buddha is mentioned as having such a unique distinction); same with Many Treasures Buddha, being unique in the function of his funerary tower.

So it's obvious that not all Buddhas are equal. Could that mean that there is one Buddha superior to all of the others? Maybe, but he couldn't be infinitely superior simply because it's mathematically impossible to divide by zero as I mentioned earlier.

A disturbing possibility

The Lotus Sutra speaks of devils who will come to reside in certain buddha lands, but will (instead of committing evil acts) support the Buddhist Law. That seems to indicate that even a devil has it somewhere in his heart to someday become a Buddha. Does that, however, mean that a Buddha could have it somewhere in his heart to become a devil?

We freely accept that even a devil could someday become a Buddha. But could we so easily accept that even a Buddha could someday become a devil - that is, backslide - even though the Lotus Sutra speaks of the stage of non-regression?

For now, I'll leave that question for you, since I'm still meditating on the answer.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Asterisked items above

* Page 273 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 273 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

** six paramitas: Six practices (or "perfections") needed to attain enlightenment: almsgiving, keeping of the precepts, forbearance, assiduousness in practice, meditation, and wisdom.

*** kalpa: According to wikipedia: "In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years."

TO: SGI (Part 7: Correct Buddhist Practice)

Specific Introduction

Today's post will convey what I regard to be the correct practice of Buddhism. This is meant to stand in stark contrast to the practices promoted by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

General Introduction

Today's post is the seventh 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

The basis of correct Buddhist practice

As far as I'm concerned and as far as SGI Buddhists should be concerned, the basis of correct practice is the Lotus Sutra. I am aware that SGI places greater emphasis on the opinions of their founding figure, Nichiren Daishonin. But, as I've written before, Nichiren is not a Buddha and in fact declared himself not to be. However, SGI insists it knows better, which is why they promote him over Shakyamuni Buddha.

Since even Nichiren claimed that the Lotus Sutra was the highest teaching of Shakyamuni, I feel I can use that sutra as a reasonable basis for any comments I might make. This is one of its most important statements as uttered by Shakyamuni himself:

QUOTE (see source at the end of this posting):

Gainer of Great Authority, you should understand that this Lotus Sutra richly benefits the bodhisattvas mahasattva, for it can cause them to attain supreme perfect enlightenment. For this reason, after the thus come one has passed into extinction the bodhisattvas mahasattva should at all times accept, uphold, read, recite, explain, preach, and transcribe this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

The part I highlighted in yellow deserves a clarification, which appears on page 205 of the same book quoted above. Not only "can" the Lotus Sutra cause them to reach enlightenment, it is the only means by which they can attain enlightenment :

QUOTE:

But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder, and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to supreme perfect enlightenment. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain supreme perfect enlightenment in all cases do so through this [Lotus] sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

Again, the Buddha himself spoke these words. I inserted "[Lotus]" in this quote, since the context of this quote makes it perfectly clear that the Lotus is the "sutra" the Buddha is referring to.

Correct Buddhist Practice

What should be chanted?

The chanting of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and gongyo (parts A and C) should be discontinued. The Lotus Sutra doesn't mention the daimoku at all, so why should that be considered the primary practice - or even any part of correct practice? And chanting gongyo, as is currrently done, in Chinese basically encourages members to ignore the Lotus Sutra as a whole. Parts A and C come from the Lotus but are not its entirety, which the Buddha says should be embraced. Anyone chanting Parts A and C in Chinese will not be chanting anything they understand. So what's the point?

Instead, I urge that the Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras be chanted in their entirety in English - all 396 pages. There are several English translations of the Lotus available, but (especially for SGI members) the version cited at the end of this post would be most appropriate since that version was published by the SGI.  Some might argue that only the Lotus should be chanted and not to include its opening and closing sutras - known as The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and Sutra on How to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy. However, in my personal opinion based on the references the Lotus makes to these other two sutras, it would be appropriate consider all three as (in effect) the Lotus Sutra. In fact, often these three are referred to as the threefold Lotus Sutra.

As for those who don't understand English, they should chant the threefold Lotus in their own language. The point is to understand what you're reading aloud (chanting) as you read aloud. Only that can build reinforcement and understanding.

My personal practice is to chant in English by directly reading the text cited at the end of this blog, starting at the beginning. The next day, I pick up where I had left off on the previous day. I proceed in this manner until I've read all 396 pages. And then I start at the beginning and proceed to read the whole thing over again. So far, I've read the Lotus over 150 times - but that did not include the opening and closing sutras. I included these within the last 6 months, since my study of these texts and of the Lotus itself convinced me that all three sutras should be recited.

What should be chanted to?

If SGI wishes to practice Buddhism correctly, in terms of what Shakyamuni Buddha (and not Nichiren Non-Buddha) had in mind, they've got to get rid of the Gohonzon as the object of devotion. The Gohonzon served a practical purpose, but only as long as SGI members had memorized gongyo and could therefore concentrate their gaze on this mandala. Since I propose that, for English speakers, the English language version replace the current Parts A and C, and since the entire Lotus is much longer and therefore would not be memorized by most people (nor is that really necessary), how could the Gohonzon remain as the object of worship? The chanter would be holding a copy of this book in his hands and would be reciting what he sees on the printed page. He wouldn't be able to take his eyes off this book unless he had memorized it and could therefore afford to gaze upon the Gohonzon.

The book itself should be regarded, for all practical purposes, as the supreme object of worship. Of course, if it gets damaged or worn out over time, a new copy of this book should be purchased and the old one destroyed, preferably in a respectful manner.

What would a chanting session look like?

Someone chanting alone at home would simply pick up his copy of the threefold Lotus and recite it in the manner I've described above. If a small group of people chant together, they could take turns reading aloud (say) for one minute each and keep taking turns until their agreed-upon time for chanting expires.

Chanting in unison in large groups, even those consisting of dozens or even hundreds (or even thousands) of people is possible. I've experimented with reading the English-language version by reading each syllable in each sentence without any pauses as might be called for when commas appear, reciting one sentence at a time in one breath. The current parts A and C are read that way - as kind of a drone without pauses or emphases. Whoever is leading large-group gongyo would start by reading a predetermined portion for a few minutes without the group joining in until he reaches a predetermined point. Then the congregation would join in, after having gained a sense of this particular leader's speed and rhythm.

Members would follow the leader's cues as to speed, and when to take a breath which is important when reciting sentences so long they can't be recited in one breath. The leader would determine when to take a breath and would simply stop chanting at that point. Of course, the members would keep chanting not knowing the leader had planned to stop for a breath at a certain point. But when they become aware that the leader had stopped, they would stop. And then they would pause until the leader started chanting again. They would let him chant alone for a couple of words until they figured out where he picked up and then they could rejoin him.

This can be done, but you might ask, "What happens if the leader makes a mistake, like losing his place or transposing words or adding or subtracting words?" Any of these errors would obviously throw off the rhythm of the group, but this would be immediately obvious. In which case, the leader simply stops and pauses briefly and then tries again. The leader would pick the place where he went wrong or perhaps start at a place just before that. The members would listen long enough to figure out when and where they should join in. If the leader makes an error toward the end of a sentence, he might not stop in order to try again but instead finish the sentence.

The basic understanding would be that chanting is supposed to stop upon reaching a sentence's period (or question mark). Then everybody takes time to breathe and the leader starts the next sentence, with the members joining him after he utters the first few words, thereby setting the pace.

A possible refinement based on the Practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

For large groups, I like the idea of rearranging the chairs in the meeting hall so they don't all face front. There would be three divisions within this hall - half of the rows of chairs facing (for example) north, the other half facing south, with a separation of these two blocks of (say) ten feet. The leader could sit within this separation with his back to (say) the west wall. That way, you'd have each of these two groups of people chanting toward the other group. That would be preferable to one large mass of chairs facing north directing their chanting at the leader.

Chapter 20 of the Lotus Sutra is entitled "The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging," who practiced by bowing to other people and directing his respectful words toward them. Each half of the congregation chanting to the other half would be paying homage to that practice. In addition, not only does the book assume the status of object of worship, so do the other people to whom one is directing one's voice.

End Comments

The comments above are only my opinion as to what is correct practice. But I encourage these to be food for thought. Members might come up with their own variations, and time to experiment and get used to any new approach would be needed. I don't really expect the SGI to heed my suggestions, especially since the Gohonzon is so central to their practice and world view. It's hard to change, especially when faced with the prospect that 10, 20, 30 or more years of lifetime practice would have to be judged as incorrect. And of course having all Gohonzons ritually destroyed would be hard for long-time members to accept. Perhaps they would do well to reflect on the importance of abandoning inappropriate attachments, which is a basic Buddhist teaching taught by Shakyamuni himself.

I myself chanted for years in the manner prescribed by the SGI, but I don't consider that to have been wasted effort. In my view, anyone's sincere efforts to practice Buddhism is worthy of respect - as long as they keep an open mind about why they might have to change their practice and being brave enough to do so when that time comes.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Source:

Page 311 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 311 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

Simon & Garfunkel & Dadaism

Introduction

There's a line in Simon & Garfunkel's song, The Only Living Boy in New York, that deserves a bit of analysis: "Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am." Today, I will try to connect that line to the art movement known as Dada or Dadaism.

I will also offer a few comments not related to Dada, and will end with a suggestion for Paul and Art concerning another great song of theirs, A Poem on the Underground Wall.

Da-da = Dada?

Paul Simon on occasion will add la-la's and other such fillers to his lyrics - The 59th Street Bridge Song (among others) come to mind. Even The Boxer came close - but only "close" since Paul wrote "lie, lie, lie, lie...") instead of la-la-la... Whew, glad he wrote it as he did, since"lie, lie..." was actually appropriate to the song and profoundly reinforced its theme.

I used to think the "Da-n-da..." line was similar filler - and perhaps it is. I don't know what Paul was thinking as he wrote this beautiful song (scroll down for complete lyrics and a link, with its letters in red font, to a YouTube performance). But I'll offer my interpretation since, as I once told a friend, "It doesn't matter what the artist intended for once he gives his art to the world, the beholder is entitled to his own interpretation."

This is from the song:

"Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am,
The only living boy in New York"

The purist in me would have preferred this:

"Da-da-n-da-da-n-da-da-n-da-da and here I am."

NOTE: Where "n" is used, that's shorthand for "and" - such as in "Rock-n-Roll."

In my rendering, the line would translate as:

"Dada and Dada and Dada and Dada and here I am," with "Dada" = "here I am" since that's what one would expect to hear after so many prior repetitions of "Dada." That's an existential statement of equality saying, "I am a personification of Dada - one who (as quoted below) "[prizes] nonsense, irrationality and intuition." Another possible meaning: Since Art had left NYC to act in the film Catch-22, Paul might have been saying Art (nice pun, eh, with a name like "Art" since Dada was born as an artistic movement) is Dada, like this:

"Art and Art and Art and Art and here I am."

Since Catch-22 was a profoundly anti-war film, any Dadaist would appreciate how Art's participation in this movie was the "negative reaction [to war]" quoted below, in the definition of Dada.

I put "Da-da" up front in my preferred rendering of this line - which to me puts emphasis on Dada, the art movement. If Paul Simon had in mind what I have in mind, he might have written as he did to disguise the reference to Dada by not opening with "Da-da." Sometimes artists don't like to be too direct with their audiences, allowing them to figure it out.

I'll break here to insert a Wikipedia link to Dada and a quote from that link:

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

QUOTE:

Dada was born out of negative reaction to the horrors of World War I. This international movement was begun by a group of artist and poets associated with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich. Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition. The origin of the name Dada is unclear; some believe that it is a nonsensical word. Others maintain that it originates from the Romanian artists Tristan Tzara's and Marcel Janco's frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language.

:UNQUOTE.

My reaction to the immediately preceding quote:

Paul Simon refers to himself as the only living boy in New York, since Art Garfunkel, the only other living boy in New York (in Paul's estimation) had left in the middle of recording an album to act in the movie Catch-22. If we assume New York City to be the center of a big rat race where a lot of alpha males are trying to make a mark, I could see how the soul of an artist would rebel against that. Dada's  "negative reaction to the horrors of World War I" could translate to Paul Simon's negative reaction to the war zone that all-too-often can be New York City.

Calling himself a "boy" is a reaction to all the Type A's running around NYC who are always trying to prove what big men they are. It also harkens to the early part of his friendship with Art Garfunkel, starting when they were 12-years-old when they were both boys.

The quote says "Dada...[prized]...intuition," which is a quality closer to the soul of an artist than "reason and logic."

If Dada's meaning came from "...frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language," that too would work in the line as follows:

"Yes, yes, and yes, yes, and yes, yes, and yes, yes and here I am."

All of those positives (repetitive use of yes) culminating in "here I am." Or, to put a finer point on it: "yes, yes = here I am." Suppose, instead, Dada doesn't mean "yes, yes." Then the line could be interpreted this way:

"Dada and Dada and Dada and Dada and here I am," with "here I am" = "Dada" or "I am the personification of the spirit of Dada.

All those "ahhhs"

I liked how Simon had "trouble" (I think "intentional trouble") singing the lowest note in the song, when he sang the word "York." That was a tip of his hat to how much Garfunkel's singing enhanced Paul's efforts. There's a lovely virtual choral part that repeats several times in this song, which this quote clarifies:

QUOTE [ http://www.allmusic.com/song/the-only-living-boy-in-new-york-mt0033991212 ]:

In an interview with Song Talk magazine, Simon commented, "I like that record, and I like the song, too. That was written about Artie's going off to make Catch 22 in Mexico," referenced in the song's first verse: "Tom, get your plane right on time/I know your part'll go fine/Fly down to Mexico."

In the same interview, Simon goes on to comment on the arrangement: "I liked the 'aaahhhs,' the voices singing 'aaah.' ... It was quite a lot of voices we put on, maybe 12 or 15 voices. We sang it in the echo-chamber...." ...[Garfunkel said], "It's [me and Paul] around eight times screaming, and we mixed it down very softly...I started getting into open-mouth harmony, in a very loud, strident way. We were screaming at the top of our lungs and inside an echo chamber...."

:UNQUOTE.

So the contrast between Paul's badly sung low note and the chorus of angels singing "ahhh" is quite striking - especially since that "chorus" consists of Paul and Art singing in a number of different voices using about eight combined tracks. That chorus was neither Paul nor Art but was a fusion of their voices, each voice representing a different facet of each singer. It might even be thought of as non-sensical to repeatedly sing "ah." But since Dada embraces the non-sensical as part of art, I think it fits. But for those who like a bit a meaning, I offer this: Maybe "ahh...ahh...here I am," could be interpreted to mean "ah [with all of those ah's using the meaning of "ah" as in "relax" - as opposed to the meanings implied in "ah ha" and "ah, I get it"] here I am." In other words, "relax, here I am."

The lyrics themselves and some comments

QUOTE: [ http://www.paulsimon.com/us/song/only-living-boy-new-york ], [After this quote, I will explain why I highlighted some of these lyrics in color.]:

Tom, get your plane right on time
I know your part’ll go fine
Fly down to Mexico
Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am,
The only living boy in New York

I get the news I need on the weather report
Oh, I can gather all the news I need on the weather report
Hey, I’ve got nothing to do today but smile
Da-n-do-da-n-do-da-n-do here I am
The only living boy in New York

Half of the time we’re gone but we don’t know where
And we don’t know where
Here I am
Half of the time we’re gone, but we don’t know where
And we don’t know where

Tom, get your plane right on time
I know that you’ve been eager to fly now
Hey, let your honesty shine, shine, shine now
[da-n-da-da...]
Like it shines on me
The only living boy in New York
The only living boy in New York

:UNQUOTE.

RE: The lines highlighted above

The two lines in yellow are different, which I think must be a mistake (in the case of the 2nd line). Mistake? That might be hard to believe, since this particular site (check it out) seems to be an "official" Paul Simon website. If so, I doubt Paul exercised much control (if any) over content, since the parts I highlighted in green (which are part of the actual song) do not appear in these lyrics as quoted on this website. Listening to the song itself, it's hard to say exactly what Paul is singing in the lines where "da" appears. Perhaps that's just another case of an artist trying to blur his meanings.

RE: "Half of the time..."

A friend of mine saw a recent Paul Simon concert in a relatively intimate venue. He said, "Paul has a wicked sense of humor." This song has one good example of that - where he repeats verbatim the line that starts out with "Half of the time." Some critics might claim that repetition is often the mark of a poor lyricist, one who couldn't think of a better second line. I like to think there are two possibilities, since I respect Paul Simon too much to think he'd ever simply be too lazy or uninspired to come up with a different line:

• After singing "Half of the time..." once, it's repeated since the singers not only didn't "know where [they had gone]," but had forgotten about being gone the first time. Hence, my reference to Paul's sense of humor.

• After singing "Half of the time..." once, the line is repeated in reference to the second half of the time we're are "gone," but "we don't know where." In other words, these lines could be written, "All of the time we're gone..."

A YouTube performance

This link will take you to the track from their album on which Paul and Art sing this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IwYQ1Vqf_4

Re-releasing "A Poem..."

Simon and Garfunkel should consider adding these two tracks (one immediately following the other) to a future album, in this order:

• "A Poem on the Underground Wall, exactly as it appears on their album Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme.

• This same version slowed down to 16 rpms so that anyone playing the album at regular speed (33⅓ rpms) would hear it as a slowed-down version.

Same song, of course. But when played "slowly," it sounds like a completely different song with, I think, a greater sense of presence and darkness.

When I was 14-years-old (in 1965), I slowed this song down by using a record player with 4 speeds: 78 rpm, 45, 33⅓, and 16. In the old days (before CD players), you had to adjust your music machine to play at 45 rpm if you had a (gasp!) vinyl record with only one song on each side. If you had an album, you cranked it down (literally, by using a gear-shift kind of manual crank) to 33⅓ rpm. Certain vintage LPs played at 78.

I never understood what the 16 rpm setting was for, hence my experiment: I played Poem on the Underground Wall, literally, in slow-motion. Just for the hell of it; you know how kids are. Talk about a happy accident! Given the fact that S&G sing so highly and sweetly, notching them down an octave made them sound like (well) regular guys singing.

Even though that was over 40 years ago, I'll never forget how overwhelmed I was by being immersed in the echoes of a subway station late at night as they opened with:

"The last train is nearly due, the underground is closing soon, and in the dark deserted station, restless in anticipation, a man waits in the shadows."

After the last footstepping notes sounded, I felt like I had died and gone to heaven.

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

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

"Thanks for all the memories, Paul and Artie" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Independents, it's time to seize the primaries

My proposal to all you Independents out there:

Right now, take a coin from your pocket and flip it after making the following pledge:

"I will register as a Republican if it comes up heads; if it comes up tails, I will register as a Democrat. I will register in time to participate in - and I will participate in - the next primary election offered by my party."

But why?

As things stand now, with most Independents on the sidelines during the all-important primary elections, by the time you vote in the general election, it will be too late to make a difference. Most Independents know their choices in the general elections are not much to their liking, which is why a significant number of them avoid those elections. So, it's time to change that by giving more moderate and independent candidates your support before and during primary season.

Sure, you're an Independent and proud of it. Perhaps you're not much of a joiner, though you'll occasionally contribute to some worthy cause. But that's about it. So you won't be comfortable joining a party - let alone one of the two majors. But your participation in the GOP/Dem parties will actually enhance your independence by diluting their strength. That is, with more potential centrists/moderates joining the ranks, the more extreme factions will find it harder to control their party's overall direction.

Without your participation, Hillary Clinton will most likely steamroll/bankroll her way to the Democratic nomination with only token opposition. On the GOP side? Hard to tell, but their right wing is in no mood to settle for another Mitt Romney. They'll want one of their guys in charge, which could be someone like Rick Santorum who is currently campaigning under the radar via his website. But equally important are the races for the House and Senate - not to mention for the various state-level positions. And these races are very vulnerable to primary infiltration.

Low Primary Turnout

The key to my strategy lies in how poor the turnout has been, historically speaking, in the primaries for both Democrats and Republicans. And that there are so many unactivated Independents out there. According to http://www.people-press.org :

"In more than 13,000 interviews conducted so far in 2012, 35% of registered voters identify with the Democratic Party, 28% with the Republican Party and 33% as independents."

And that's just among registered voters! Lurking out there is a great army of people who don't even vote since they're disgusted by our whole "participatory" democracy. If this group starts to suspect that  there's a strategy that can break our current adversarial deadlock, we'll start seeing some real change you can believe in.

My firm belief is that the system of primaries conducted by both parties is their gravest weakness in terms of maintaining their considerable power. Consider the following quote from:

http://www.localelectors.org/2012/05/22/why-turnout-in-the-presidential-primaries-was-dismally-low/ :

QUOTE:

...when Rick Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10th [2012], the contest was effectively over, with Mitt Romney being the clear winner....

On April 10th [2012], 25 states with 40 percent of the U.S. population had not even held their primary election or caucus. ..

The bigger story, however, lies in the 25 states that did have a say in who the winner would be. In those states the turnout rates were dismal. Few people realize that the winner was determined by 9.8 percent of the people who were eligible to vote in those states, amounting to a mere 5.2 percent of the people who were eligible to vote in the U.S. as a whole.

[and]

Since there was no contest in the Democratic party, those numbers are undoubtedly smaller than they would have been had Barack Obama been challenged. If he had, the percentages might have doubled. But even a 20 percent turnout is dreadfully low.

Nearly all recent primary elections have had a similarly dismal turnout. Turnout for statewide primaries (U.S. Senate and/ or governor) is typically even lower—usually less than 20 percent and often less than 10 percent—particularly in mid-term and off year primaries.

:UNQUOTE.

The majors have an Achilles' Heel in the form of our primary system. It's time we shot a whole bunch of arrows at it.

But why the flip of a coin?

As I stated at the beginning, flip a coin and let that determine which party you will "join." It doesn't matter if you lean Democratic or Republican in your thinking. What matters is that both parties start to see a large increase in their numbers that could only be attributed to an outside campaign to infiltrate/undermine their idea of business as usual. The popular press and numerous propagandists might succeed in being able to demonize one party more than another. But the truth is, both parties need to be made more accountable and that can only happen with an influx of new people they can't quite figure out.

Predictability is a huge factor in governing the activities of the Dem/Pubs, especially when campaigns start to rev their engines at the beginning of primary season.

Suppose you have a distaste for the GOP (for example), but your coin-flip dictates that to be the party of your "choice." Just look at your ability to vote in their primary as a way to check the mischief caused by its Tea Party extremists who, really, are in the minority. Besides, in the general election, you could vote Democratic if you wanted to.

You might wonder why I focus on the chancy approach of coin-flipping. Wouldn't it be better just to urge Independents to join a party based on whatever reasoning they happen to come up with as individuals? I would say no to that. With coin-flipping, you'll get a 50-50 split which will drive up the number of new members in both parties equally. The effect would be felt more by the Republicans since they have fewer voters registered than do the Democrats. But at the moment, I feel that GOP extremism is a threat larger than Democratic biases.

In any event, it's important to infiltrate both parties and I couldn't think of a better or easier-to-remember formula than flipping a coin.

Some stats to consider

I hope the following will paint a picture of just how awesome an opportunity is presenting itself for Independents to take over and reshape both of the major parties. This in turn will pave the way for true independents to get elected, or at least (for the present) deny extremists from exercising disproportionate influence.

From a Huffington Post article posted on 10/9/13:

"A poll released Wednesday found Americans' approval of Congress dropping near all-time lows as the government shutdown continues with no solution yet in sight.

"The Associated Press-GfK survey found that just 5 percent of the public approves of the job being done by senators and representatives, while 83 percent disapprove. 11 percent said they neither approved nor disapproved."

This kind of stat tends to drive down the numbers who vote in general elections, which in turn gives greater power to those who do vote. And the same could be said of primary participation as well.

Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham

During the 2012 GOP primary in Texas, Ted Cruz beat his one opponent by winning 56.8% of the vote - for a total of 631,316 votes. During the general election, he beat the Democrat by winning 56.46% of the vote - for a total of 4,440,137 votes.

Put another way, 8.25% of Texans who voted in the general election were the deciding factor in Cruz's primary victory. And, remember, in both the primary and the general election, he won with a little over 56% of the vote. Even though a margin of 5% is considered a landslide, his margin was very vulnerable to an infiltration of independents who could have denied him the GOP nomination.

Blake Farenthold of Texas

Blake Farenthold, Republican, of Texas's 27th congressional district illustrates the vulnerability of primaries, even though his was a gerrymandered district drawn to suit GOP preferences. BF won 56.75% of 212,651 ballots cast in 2012 in a district with a population of 702,804 residents. But in the GOP primary, he won in a field of 4 with 71.4% with a total of 27,733 votes. That's right - 27,733 primary voters, which equals a little over 13% out of the total votes cast, snared the nomination for Farenthold. Like Senator Cruz, BF won by about 56% of the vote - again, a figure that galvanized Independents could easily overcome.

Disclaimer

Texas has an open primary system, which means voters don't have to be registered members of a party to vote. So it would seem (perhaps) that Texas's GOP isn't worried about cross-over voting, though of course it could decide someday to change its system depending on (shall we say) external threats. Texas and other open-primary states might be unique cases, but I still believe there are enough Independents who could make a difference if they decided to participate. As for the states (30 out of 50) with closed-primaries, they are the most vulnerable to the infiltration I'm proposing.

End Note

The GOP in particular is the most successful in using gerrymandering to create safe districts for its congressmen. But even in those cases, the influence of determined Independents can still be decisive.

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

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

"If we Independents fail to seize this opportunity, which has really been there all along, we'll only have ourselves to blame" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com