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

Specific Introduction

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

General Introduction

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

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

About Nichiren Daishonin

Comparing Two Teachings:

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

In sharp contrast, we have this:

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

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

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

The Supreme Object of Worship:

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

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 28 includes this statement by BUW:

QUOTE:

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

[and]

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

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

Was Nelson Mandela gay?

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

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

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

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


But why say such a thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The fact of the matter

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

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


How much has really changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com