Contempt of Court? Contempt of defendants

Today, I'll open with: Meanwhile, an 83-year-old nun shivers from the cold while waiting to be sentenced - bail denied.

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

Before, I quote from an article about this nun, I will tell you what I would have done had I been on that jury - I would have voted "not guilty." To be sure, Sister Megan Rice and her two co-defendants were guilty of "something." But I am not one of those people who would blindly follow a judge's instructions to the jury. I don't believe in giving any judge the kind of discretion in sentencing this judge enjoys.

In fact, I advocate that anyone serving on a jury consider my example. But do be careful. When sitting with the other members of a jury in deliberation, don't participate. If asked why you're being silent, just say, "I will listen to your deliberations and make my decision from there." Note: I didn't say, "...and base my decision on your deliberations." I'm not sure how the jury process works, but don't expose yourself to any danger by trying to convince the Sheeple on your jury to vote as you'll vote. Word might get back to the judge who would all too happy to slap you with a contempt of court citation and make you pay for a new trial with a new jury.

I'm not sure if it's against the law for me to advocate this form of jury tampering, but I don't care. There are a lot of things against the law that are just plain unfair, and I feel someone must speak out against them. The judiciary in this country has way too much power, and the unfairness of minimum sentencing guidelines - though not a factor in this case - makes justice a difficult outcome in a USA courtroom.


Details of the case

I can't do better than to quote from a January 27, 2014 article concerning this case, so here goes:

QUOTE [Note the sections I highlighted in yellow]:

[source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-nuclear-20140128,0,4144945.story ]

An elderly nun and two other activists were ordered to pay about $53,000 restitution for breaking into a Tennessee defense facility, but must wait [until Feb. 18] to hear how much prison time they could face after a judge [on Jan. 27, 2014] suspended sentencing due to bad weather.

Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli, and Greg Boertje-Obed admitted cutting fences and making their way across the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in July 2012, embarrassing U.S. officials and prompting security changes.

U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar in Knoxville on Tuesday ordered the protesters to pay $52,953 to cover repairs to the facility where enriched uranium for nuclear bombs is stored...

Rice and the others admitted cutting fences and making their way across the expansive grounds of the complex to spray-paint peace slogans and hammer on exterior walls. When a guard confronted them, they offered him food and began singing.

The three were convicted by a federal jury last May of damaging national defense premises under the sabotage act, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, and of causing more than $1,000 of damage to U.S. government property.

Federal sentencing guidelines call for Rice, 83, to receive up to a little more than seven years in prison; Walli, 65, more than nine years; and Boertje-Obed, 58, more than eight years. The defendants have been in custody since their conviction.

...

Prosecutors have asked that the defendants receive sentences in line with federal guidelines. The defendants have asked for lesser sentences [which could include "time served," since there is no minimum sentence required].

Bill Quigley, one of the attorneys of the defendants, said in an interview last- week all three are in good health, but Rice, who turns 84 January 31, is "freezing cold in jail."

Defense attorneys argued in court documents that the three were "completely nonviolent" when they were arrested.

"They used the occasion to present symbolically their passion for nuclear disarmament," defense lawyers wrote.

...

Prosecutors contended the break-in at Y-12, the primary U.S. site for processing and storage of enriched uranium, disrupted operations, endangered U.S. national security, and caused physical damage.

:UNQUOTE.


My reaction to this article

No, they didn't endanger U.S. national security. If anything, they enhanced it by bringing to the attention of the authorities (and the voting public) how easily this secure site could be compromised. I'm sure the resulting measures to increase security will make it impossible for any terrorists out there to duplicate or surpass their feat.

A possible 20-year sentence for cutting fences and spray-painting slogans? Are you kidding me? That might be how the law reads and how the Sheeple on the jury ruled, but where's the justice? If any kind of additional jail time is ordered by the judge, I would see that as his agreement that there must be payback for this hippie-scum having embarrassed the authorities. It bothers me that the prosecutors added a charge of sabotage against these defendants. It bothers me even more that a compliant jury went along with this. And it bothers me most of all that this judge has this kind of latitude in deciding how much jail time must be served - ranging from time served to 20-years.

If I would have been on that jury, I would have turned a deaf ear to even making these defendants pay for damages. Instead, they should be given a medal for their service to humanity.


More on judicial arrogance

I'll close by citing two stories illustrating how our judiciary has become less of a force for justice and more of a force for oppression.

The President's Power to Pardon

This is an example of an increase in power by means of an "interpretation" of the law:

QUOTE:

[source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-pardon4.htm ]

When it was established that the pardon is to be used solely to grant reprieve from affronts committed against the United States, a loophole was opened. Pardons have been demonstrated to not legally have an effect on contempt of court charges since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States; instead, it's considered an affront to the court.

:UNQUOTE.

Since when is "the court" (or at least, any of the federal courts) not considered part of the United States? The courts must obey rules set down by the United States - in the form of guidelines legislated by Congress. So the Courts don't stand alone, to be regarded as outside of the United States. Article II of the US Constitution makes this clear when it says:

"...and [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Nothing is mentioned about sparing the federal courts from the President's power to "grant reprieves and pardons." Besides, who cares if the court is affronted? The entire nation was affronted when the Confederacy sought to secede from the Union, yet the President granted pardons to thousands of that union's officials. How does the Court rate (what basically boils down to) a created exemption from the Constitutionally-granted power of the President?

Answer? It doesn't.

Bonanza

I was in a courtroom once, as a defendant in a case. I chose not to stand when the judge entered the courtoom and the deputy announced, "All rise, court is now in session." I knew I was risking a contempt of court citation even though I had my reasons for not standing, including: "It's against my religion." Fat lot of good that would have done me if the judge had felt offended. But she chose to ignore my seated self.

That made me think of an episode of an old TV series from the 1960's, which had run for 14-seasons - Bonanza. Anyone USAer growing up in the era would remember the Cartwright family. They owned a ranch in Nevada (bordering Lake Tahoe) called The Ponderosa in the 1860's. That particular episode showed a trial with a very unusual aspect - at least "unusual" to my modern eyes. After the trial was over and the judge read the verdict, he gaveled the session to a close BUT...nobody said, "Please rise." The pounded gavel indicated the session was over, so court was no longer in session. Hence, no "need" to rise at the conclusion of this trial.

In fact, those present stood up and engaged each other (including the judge) in casual conversation.

I didn't see the beginning of this trial, so I don't know if a deputy had said, "All rise..." But my sense of what I remember led me to conclude: If the judge bangs the gavel, that alone should start the proceedings without any necessity to rise in the presence of an authority.

How times have changed!

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

Today, I'll close with: Meanwhile, an 83-year-old nun shivers from the cold while waiting to be sentenced - bail denied.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Grimm's Tale about the "f**king balcony"

Introduction

By now, I'm sure you've all heard about this threat made by a Congresssman in the House, after President Obama gave his State of the Union speech on Tuesday: "...I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." I will recap this in a moment, but for those of you who already know what's been reported, I offer this:

If I were that reporter, Mike Scotto, I would have responded in this way to Congressman Grimm's apology:

"I cannot at this time accept your apology, since I don't believe it is being sincerely offered. My knowledge of your past and what you did and said to me on Tuesday indicate you are a man in serious need of (at least) anger management counseling. Until you take at least that step, I cannot accept your apology, though I hasten to add: Even though you broke the law by your actions and words, I won't hold that against you personally since I believe you are mentally disturbed. If you can't bring yourself to seek treatment, I will urge that you be arrested for assault."


What happened on Tuesday night?

To answer that question, I will offer two sources from which I'll quote in part - the second of which includes a video clip which speaks volumes:

QUOTE:

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grimm_(politician) ]

On January 28, 2014, NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto attempted to question Grimm about the [federal] investigation [of his campaign finances] while conducting an interview about the 2014 State of the Union Address. Grimm refused to answer and initially walked away. However, while Scotto was tossing back to the studio, Grimm abruptly collared Scotto [with the news camera capturing this exchange] and told him, "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." When Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," Grimm replied, "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy." Grimm later issued a statement defending his behavior... The next day, Grimm contacted Scotto to offer an apology for his behavior, which Scotto deemed to be sincere.[46] He also issued a written statement apologizing for his behavior, saying, "I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool."[47]

:UNQUOTE.


QUOTE: [This link includes a live video clip of the encounter]:

[source: http://news.yahoo.com/-i-will-break-you-in-half---republican-congressmen-threatens-to-throw-reporter-off-balcony-during-interview-053744777.html ]


Grimm, first elected to office in the 2010 midterm elections, was seemingly unapologetic after the interview, issuing a statement carried by the New York Daily News, which reads:

“I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests. The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic.”

Grimm continued, “I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won't be the last."

:UNQUOTE.


The case against Congressman Grimm

I'm sure that Grimm's lawyer, should this assault case ever end up in court, will spin Grimm's threatening words like this:

"My client didn't actually threaten this reporter with imminent bodily harm, so he didn't have any reason to believe he was in immediate danger. Reinforcing that, it must be remembered that this incident took place in public, with hundreds of people present including House security staff."

To which a prosecutor might counter:

"The presence of security staff is never a guarantee of personal safety when confronted by an obviously angry man who was overreacting without provocation to a reporter's question. This reporter could reasonably be expected to know about, and did in fact know about, an incident involving the Congressman in July of 1999."

This is the incident I'm referring to:

QUOTE:

[source: Reference 8 of the wikipedia link inserted above, which is an article written by another reporter named Evan Ratliff]:

The part of the article Grimm referenced involved an incident in July, 1999, at a night club called Caribbean Tropics, in Queens. At the time, Grimm was an agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An off-duty N.Y.P.D. officer named Gordon Williams, who was working at the nightclub, says that just after midnight Grimm entered with a woman. The woman’s estranged husband, who happened to be at the club, heatedly confronted Grimm. Williams helped separate the pair, for which Grimm thanked him. Williams recalls that Grimm then told him that the husband “don’t know who he’s fucking with … I’ll fuckin’ make him disappear where nobody will find him.”

:UNQUOTE.

While the Ratliff article doesn't prove (or disprove) what Grimm said or did in July of 1999, the reporter (Mike Scotto) should very well have been aware of (in the course of his research as a reporter into the Congressman's background) the strong possibility that he was being confronted by a man with past issues of anger, narcissism, and entitlement.

Grimm had served as an active duty marine from 1989-1991 and worked for the FBI as an agent for nine years. That FBI experience should have amply prepared him to deal with a reporter's unexpected question posed after Obama's speech. Grimm might have thought he was being ambushed by being asked an off-topic question. But surely, with his FBI background, he had to know that people acting as interrogators (in this case, a reporter) will do anything they can to obtain information.

Besides, all Grimm had to do was say: "I can't take the time right now to properly respond to that, since I am already running late for other interviews I committed to earlier." There! How hard is that?

I don't believe Grimm when he later claimed that "[I lost] my cool." I also question his claim that his Italian mother didn't raise him that way. Perhaps she didn't raise him that way, but I'm sure there were other forces in his background that did serve to "raise him that way." As a Buddhist, I wonder if his Italian karma was at work in shaping his world view - including his idea that there are "boys" out there whom he is entitled to "break in half." The Roman Empire was held together for centuries by violent men who engaged in all manners of torture including crucifixion. Just because that Empire eventually fell doesn't mean those torturers disappeared. They had children, who had children, who...led to Michael Grimm.


Conclusion

Grimm deserves to be censured by House and defeated for reelection. He deserves to be censured by the GOP, which recently (in its Arizona branch) saw fit to censure John McCain for being too liberal. He also deserves to be arrested for assault.

I would hedge my words by saying, "...unless he seeks psychiatric treatment." But people like Grimm would never consider such an option. His very first response (cited above) shows that he saw absolutely nothing wrong with what he did and said on live television broadcast from the US House of Representatives. But I'm sure his handlers and higher-ups in the GOP urged him to apologize and get this behind him (and behind the Party of No).

But my conclusion remains: This is a mentally-disturbed individual who either has to deal with his demons or else be dealt with.

As for why the reporter accepted Grimm's apology, it might be hazardous to his health not to - considering Grimm's connections in law enforcement.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Sacrificing of Dennis Rodman

I posted the following comment to a discussion board, concerning Dennis Rodman's recent gifts to the North Korean head of state:

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

QUOTE: According to federal regulations, “luxury goods” as defined by this law include “luxury automobiles; ...recreational sports equipment; tobacco; wine and other alcoholic beverages; musical instruments...collectible items....” :UNQUOTE.

These regs are just another example of federal intrusion on the rights of the sovereign citizen. For one thing, these regs are unconstitutionally vague. For instance, if Rodman had given Kim a basketball, would that have been a violation of the "recreational sports equipment" ban? If he had autographed that basketball, would that be a "collectible item?" If Rodman gave Kim an ordinary car, would that be okay since only "luxury automobiles" are banned? If Rodman had given Kim one cigarette from a pack in his breast pocket, would that have violated the "tobacco" ban? If Rodman had given Kim a penny whistle, would that be a forbidden "musical instrument?"

As for the liquor, it could be argued that Rodman was trying to poison Kim, which I'm sure State would try if it could.

Our lawmakers devolve into clownish caricatures when they show their control-freak side by passing bans like these. Such bans will do nothing to change Kim's behavior (or his access to such "luxury" goods). They will, however, go a long way toward implementing our own government's policy of intimidating its own citizens. And maybe that's precisely the point.

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

Of course, our lamestream, lapdog media did its utmost to paint Rodman as an unstable, alcoholic crazy. I understand: They're just doing their job. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

In fact, we need more rogue players since they tend to introduce an element of chaos which might actually help change things.

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

UPDATE:  I originally posted this on Jan. 27, which was before I saw an interesting interview on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Jay asked Magic Johnson what he thought of Rodman's actions. Magic said he had a problem with him going to a country which said it wanted to hurt us. Jay nodded sympathetically, but I thought: "Lots of countries would love to hurt us, and some even say so. Which might be a good reason for someone as unlikely as Rodman to, in a manner of speaking, circumvent normal diplomatic channels in an attempt to make a difference."

Not to mention: Dubya basically made a not-so-veiled threat when he famously said, "You're either for us or against us." Yes, in the name of rhetoric and appealing to the base, politicians will make threats. But I think the more mature among us know that most of these are harmless.

Jay is a great entertainer and Magic is a legendary basketball player. But this knee-jerk pandering to sensitive "patriots" is unbecoming and shows these two are obviously functioning out of their element. Some people might be bothered that Rodman called Kim "my friend." So what? That's his call and perhaps some good might come of it.

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"Killing Jesus" by Bill O'Reilly*

Introduction

I just finished reading Bill O'Reilly's best selling book*, Killing Jesus. I did learn a few things, which I will double-check against other sources...just to be sure. But more importantly, this book became a source of some powerful arguments against Christianity which I, as a Buddhist waging war against the Abrahamic traditions, hope to use to full advantage.

I will deal with the following questions:

• What about the incident between Jesus and the Temple's money changers, and the larger issue of graven images?

• What about the curious incident of the bronze snake?

• Did Jesus make a mistake when answering this question: "What is the greatest commandment in the law?"

• Did Jesus travel to India?

• Did Jesus feel anything when he was scourged and crucified?

• "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

• At the end of this essay, I will include a few miscellaneous thoughts.

The money changers and graven images

I open with a quote from page 121 of Killing Jesus, with my highlights in yellow:

QUOTE:

Tables piled with coins line one wall, in the shade of the Temple awnings, lorded over by scheming men known as shulhanim, "money changers." In long lines, out-of-towners await their chance to exchange their meager wealth in the form of coins minted by agents of Rome. The Roman coins are adorned with images of living things such as gods or with portraits of the emperor. But this coinage must be converted into [shekels], the standard currency of Jerusalem. In keeping with the Jewish law forbidding graven images, these special coins are decorated with images of plants and other nonhuman likenesses.

:UNQUOTE.

Compare my two yellowed areas above: The Roman coins bore the images of living things; however, the shekel displayed images of plants. A plant is a living thing, is it not? Since it is, then there can't be any objection to the Roman coins solely on the basis that they were adorned with images of living things. At least, there shouldn't be any objection coming from Bill O'Reilly. But what about from God?

This is contained within the 10 Commandments, according to the King James Version of the Bible:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."

There is some debate over what was meant by "graven image," with some translations saying, "carved image" instead. However, the commandment is broader than that when it says "...or any likeness..." The ban wasn't only against statues but included all images ("likeness[es]"). And that makes sense since, for example, the Egyptians (using, as a foundation, their pictorial writing - hieroglyphics) could have painted a picture (that is, an "image") of one of their gods on a scroll and worshipped that. Surely the commandment would have banned the worship of such a painting.

It's important to keep in mind that there are two separate "thou shalt nots" in the above-cited commandment. It's not okay to make such images, and it's not okay to worship them. That first "thou shalt not," if followed literally, would mean (for instance) that the Mona Lisa and other great works of portraiture would have to be destroyed. More than that, the photo of your wife on your desk should never have been taken.

Personally, I like the use of the word "graven," especially as it applies in a modern context. That is, when metal plates are engraved so as to enable the printing of paper money. Paper money didn't exist in Jesus's time nor anywhere on earth until the Chinese introduced such currency after 600 AD. But lo and behold, the modern shekel (in its paper form) is adorned with human likenesses, which (according to O'Reilly as quoted above) is forbidden by Jewish law. For instance, the old shekel's 10,000 unit bill is adorned with an image of Golda Meir.

So much for adhering only to "non-human likenesses," as mentioned by O'Reilly above.


About that bronze snake

This incident was not mentioned in Killing Jesus. However, I include it since it's interesting in and of itself and was something I stumbled across while researching the "graven image" theme in O'Reilly's book. I'll start with a quote:

Source: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," (Wikipedia article title):

QUOTE:

The Book of Numbers contains a narrative in which God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake as part of addressing a plague of venomous snakes that had broken out among the Israelites as a punishment for sin. The bronze snake is mentioned again in 2 Kings 18; however, rather than remaining a memorial of God's providence, it became an idol that the people named and worshiped. Thus the bronze snake was destroyed in King Hezekiah's reforms.[39]

:UNQUOTE.

I find it interesting that God tells Moses to make a graven image, which is in violation of one of the Ten Commandments I cited above. Equally interesting? If God wanted to address "a plague of venomous snakes," He surely wouldn't have needed Moses's help to do so. God could have merely willed that they be gone and not have involved the making of a bronze snake. As for choosing a snake (instead of, say, a mongoose), how ironic that God would choose the symbol of Satan. Yeah, things like this bother me in that nobody seems to question them; surely Moses didn't object at the time.



The Greatest Commandment?


QUOTE [Page 205 of Killing Jesus]:

Soon the Pharisees step forward to take their turn. "Teacher," asks their leader, a man known for being an expert in the law, "what is the greatest commandment in the law?"

Under the teachings of the Pharisees, there are 613 religious statutes. Even though each carries a designation marking it as either great or little, the fact remains that each must be followed. Asking Jesus to select one is a clever way of pushing him into a corner, making him defend his choice.

But Jesus does not choose from one of the established laws. Instead, he articulates a new one: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment."

The Pharisees stand silent. How could anyone argue with that? Only, Jesus goes on to add a second law: "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."

Jesus has now defeated the sharpest minds in the Temple. ...

:UNQUOTE.

I'll now expand on the three items I highlighted above:

Asking Jesus to select one is a clever way - No, it isn't. Jesus was reputed to have been quite capable of holding his own when discoursing with the rabbis of the Temple when he was 12-years-old. So He should have been quite capable of being able to answer such a question and defend his choice. That's what scholarly rabbis do - they debate. And this question isn't really difficult at all.

Instead, he articulates a new one: - 

Jesus either erred in his statement of the Greatest Commandment or else He created a new one by replacing one word at the very end. This is how it appears in Deuteronomy 6:4-5:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Instead of "might," Jesus says "mind." In the Gospels, there's a bit of inconsistency. Matthew substitutes "mind" for "might" as O'Reilly claims Jesus did. Mark and Luke insert "mind" but keep "strength" as well. In any event, the Temple lawyers let Jesus's version fly right over their heads - they should have challenged His addition of the word "mind." They could have scolded Him for an inaccurate statement of the commandment and given Him a chance to correct Himself. If he said, "I meant what I said," then the Pharisees could have challenged Him, "And who are you to add even one extra word to the Holy Text?"

[In the next section, I'll explain why (in my opinion) Jesus added the word "mind."]

It would have been interesting (though it didn't happen) if the Pharisee repeated the Greatest Commandment and asked a follow-up question (note my highlights):

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might - so sayeth the Law. But answer me this: If all of our love is to go to God, wouldn't that leave us with none left for our wives and children?" Now that would have been a worthy question.

And here's an even worthier question: "How can it be that a Commandment was issued to 'love the Lord your God?' For how can anyone order others to love him? Behind every Commandment is an implied threat - for example, to violate 'thou shalt not murder' invites eternal damnation. But if someone doesn't love God but is virtuous in every other way, is he to be similarly damned? The answer appears to be yes, for 'I am a jealous and angry God [and if you don't love me, I'll damn you to eternal torment].' What would that make such a God, but an insecure entity who would deserve the title of Universe's Greatest Terrorist?"

Yeah, I just said that, and I meant every word. So, would I be afraid if it turns out that there really is such a God about to cast me into a lake of fire? No doubt about it - I'd shit my pants for sure. But I've already got my reply to the question He'll surely ask, "And what do you have to say for yourself?" My response: "Instead of making me suffer for eternity, why don't you simply dis-create me? That is, undo me, body and soul, so that I no longer exist. I came from nothing and You created me; return me to nothingness by dis-creating me."

[If more people considered the power of this response, we'd go a long way toward dialing down the fear element our Christian priests like to overwhelm us with.]

Jesus goes on to add a second law - O'Reilly's wording makes it seem that Jesus created a second law, when it fact it comes straight from Leviticus 19:34:

"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God" - King James Version.

I can only conclude that O'Reilly was wearing the hat of the propagandist when he wrote as he did on page 205 or that he was being very sloppy in his writing.


Why Jesus included "mind" in the Greatest Commandment

There are about 18 years in the life of Jesus of which there is no historical record - from age 12 to 30. Of course there is some speculation, including that He went to India and learned some very useful Buddhist teachings. Perhaps He was attracted to India in the first place because He'd heard of the Buddha - which is plausible - and was amazed at teachings that stressed compassion and almsgiving - teachings in short supply among the Pharisees and their Roman overlords.

Buddhists, because of their emphasis on meditation, place a great deal of emphasis on the power of the mind. Maybe that's where Jesus got the idea to include "mind" in the Greatest Commandment. You might remember stories of monks who doused themselves with gasoline and self-immolated during the Vietnam War. I remember those images well, especially how they appeared so calm and devoid of pain. That's just one example of the power of the mind at work.

That would be a useful skill to posses - how to negate pain through meditation (or a deep trance, if you prefer) - if one knew that, one day, one was going to be scourged and crucified for one's beliefs.

Another useful belief would be reincarnation. I remember having read a book by a tenth-generation rabbi named Benjamin Blech: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism. In it, he addresses the topic of reincarnation by saying (words to this effect) - One can either believe in reincarnation or not and still be a good Jew. From that, I'll take it that Jesus planned on coming back at least one more time.

If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God (or has a partly divine nature), he wouldn't have needed to exercise powers of the mind to avoid physical pain. Of course, we mortal human beings are supposed to identify with Jesus because he could feel pain and suffer just like any mortal man. That would make us more sympathetic to his message. However, if He had godly powers, He could have simply (to put it crudely) turned off his pain receptors and not felt a thing as He was being tortured and killed. Or, hopefully, His Heavenly Father could have done that for Him should He Himself not been able to quite manage the feat.

Since so many people need to believe in a Jesus who suffered, He might very well have put on a very good act - even though He felt absolutely no pain. 


Jesus and the taxman

On page 204, this question is asked: "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" And is answered by means of this exchange:

QUOTE:

"Why are you trying to trap me? Jesus seethes. He asks for someone to hand him a denarius. "Whose portrait is this? he asks, holding up the coin. "And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they answer.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," Jesus tells them. "And to God what is God's."

...The brilliance of Jesus's words will last throughout the ages."

:UNQUOTE.


Forgive my immodesty here, but if I'd heard that I would have said, "But everything belongs to God, doesn't it? So are you saying we should render nothing unto Caesar? Even if we allow that all Roman money belongs to Caesar, the Romans could insist that we exchange all of our shekels for denarii and then proceed to pay all of this money (since it belongs to Caesar) in taxes. As for all of the shekels possessed by the Romans, they could reassure the Jews by saying, 'Oh, those belong to your God, alright, so we will render them to God as soon as He shows up to claim them.'

"Besides, any talk of not paying what Caesar demands would mean death. Just what is it that you're advocating? And please don't be so vague by talking about rendering unto Caesar whatever money we have that bears his image. Even Caesar would agree that we earned that money, just as he would insist that we pay a portion of it to him in taxes. And how much of that 'portion' could be deemed reasonable is something we're hardly in a position to negotiate. After all, we are a conquered people. I'm sure Caesar wouldn't overtax us to the point that we'd perish or else he wouldn't have any future source of income derived from taxation. I can only hope that our own priests try to keep in mind just how little we are capable of paying them."

I don't know how Jesus would have responded to my inquiry. But it does appear that O'Reilly very much likes such exchanges to be brief and to call them brilliant.


Miscellaneous Comments

• From page 205: "Once again, they try to pierce the aura of Jesus's vulnerability with a religious riddle, and once again they fail." There are two errors in this sentence, concerning "vulnerability." I'm sure O'Reilly meant to say "invulnerability," though the word "infallibility" would have been a better choice. O'Reilly was sloppy here.

• When Jesus said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," He was being at least disingenuous. For Pilate could have said, "You act like a king in this world, for you have worked to attract a following." Of course Jesus was hinting at a larger world, but this earthly world is easily part of that larger kingdom. If not, then those who predict Jesus will rise again to rule on earth would be hard pressed to answer this question: "Rule over what? Since His kingdom is not of this world."

• When the Magi brought treasure chests full of gold as a gift to baby Jesus, I can't help but wonder, "What eventually happened to all that wealth?" I hope Mary and Joseph didn't donate all of it to the Temple. Still, the fate of that money is curious.

• When I wrote about graven images (above), I couldn't help but think of Michelangelo's famous image that appears on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - "The Creation of Adam." Consider these oddities (and there are others) as you take a look at the image on this link: (1) To render an image of God must surely be blasphemous - no wonder the Muslims hate Catholicism; (2) I thought Adam was created by God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life - now that would have made for a more accurate (and interesting) version than the fingertip-to-fingertip version rendered by Michelangelo; (3) Why did the artist render Adam as having such a small penis - man, that thing is microscopic! Behold! Here's the link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=michelangelo+creation+of+adam&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aNnfUpb7NIWC2AXA8oCIBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=643#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=QwaUmQWd1fAG8M%253A%3BWErH5U_y-u4rsM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prlog.org%252F11178287-the-creation-of-adam.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prlog.org%252F11178287-why-michelangelo-is-so-famous.html%3B1404%3B924

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

Steven Searle, Just Another Member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

* Bill O'Reilly wasn't the only author involved in this book - someone named Martin Dugard is the acknowledged co-author.

Two Dicks: Jesus Christ and Bill O'Reilly

Introduction

Yeah, I know. Pretty ballsy of me to call Jesus Christ and Bill O'Reilly a dick in one breath. You know what? After a while, one gets so tired of bullshit (BS), one is forced to speak up.

The Christian BS is just one derivative of its source - the Abrahamic BS. All of the off-shoots of Abrahamism have done so much harm to humanity - far more harm than good - that it's imperative that Buddhists (of which I am one) speak up. In the name of being Teachers of the Law and of having compassion for all living beings, it is unconscionable for us to remain silent. Many of my fellow believers believe in trying to embrace those of other faiths. Fine - I'm OK with that. But when scathing criticism is called for, it is not an option to remain silent.

As for Bill O'Reilly, I dedicate today's post to something he'd written in his bestseller*, Killing Jesus. I shall write more, at a later date, concerning that book. But for now, I concentrate on an incident O'Reilly relates (inadequately, I believe) in that book. Which is why I concluded, at least in view of this incident (widely known as, "cursing the fig tree"), that Jesus acted like a real dick. As for O'Reilly? Anything I've read or heard of the man conjures up an image of a vain, proud little man with a big mouth - who doesn't mind acting the part of a dick himself once in a while.


Cursing the fig tree

I'll begin by quoting the entire segment in Killing Jesus, which deals with the fig tree, with certain words I chose to highlight in yellow:


QUOTE [Page 200 of Killing Jesus]:

"Rabbi, look," exclaims a disciple as they walk past the fig tree Jesus confronted yesterday. Its roots are shriveled. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" the disciple asks.

"Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer," Jesus responds.

For years to come, the disciples will marvel at what happened to that simple tree. They will write about it with awe, even decades from now, and quote Jesus's two-sentence response. Even though Jesus has performed wonders in front of them, this one seems to amaze them almost more than any other.

:UNQUOTE.


Jesus "confronted a fig tree?" Say, what? I went to wikipedia (quoted below) to find out how Jesus did this, which is something Bill O'Reilly fails to mention in his book. Then there's the matter of talking to mountains. Sure enough, BO quotes Jesus as saying to a mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea." I'm forced to conclude: Plants and inanimate objects must have consciousness and be capable of taking action. And then Jesus bleats about the power of faith enabling anyone to kill fig trees and order mountains to jump into the sea. Of course, I couldn't help but wonder, "Suppose the mountain has even more faith and prays that the guy ordering it to jump into the sea ends up jumping into the sea himself."

If mountains can act, it seems reasonable to assume they're capable of praying. Just saying.

This quote from Wikipedia includes details omitted by O'Reilly; this quote includes my highlights which I'll address below:


QUOTE:

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree ]

Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25[2]

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

 ...

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

:UNQUOTE


"Jesus was hungry" - I'm surprised He would curse a fig tree for failing to feed him, even though it was "not the season for figs." If Jesus had confronted an entire orchard of fig trees which couldn't feed him, would He have murdered the whole lot? Jesus - one who was capable of fasting in the desert for 40 days seems to have been pretty cranky on this particular morning. Jesus - who managed to feed 5,000 people with five small loaves of bread and two fish couldn't manage to feed Himself through some miracle? He couldn't have blessed that tree so that it could satisfy His hunger?

Jesus had no problem murdering a fig tree. Just as His Father in Heaven had no problem murdering all of those animals that perished in the Flood. [NOTE: If the Father meant to kill the wicked and spare Noah, he wouldn't have needed an overkilling Flood to do it - He could have just zapped them out of existence.] But, no, apparently He was so angry ("I am an angry God."), that He ended up doing more than just excising a cancer. In like manner, Jesus's anger got the better of Him in the case of this tree.

Like Father, like Son?

“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” That curse could have been fulfilled by Jesus rendering that tree barren for the rest of its days. Or by causing its fruit to be so bitter as to be shunned by everyone. But, no. Jesus chose instead to murder this tree - a tree that had a soul, or at least a consciousness (if not, then Jesus would have been wasting words by talking to it).

"whatever you ask for in prayer" - Nonsense. Who could believe this? If I chose to "ask for in prayer" that my enemies be struck dead, would that come to pass? These words are the foundation of the so-called prosperity theology embraced by preachers like the ever-glib Joel Osteen. I wonder how Joel would answer this post.

"...if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them..." And yet Jesus didn't follow His own advice by forgiving the fig tree.


End comments

I'm surprised that Bill O'Reilly didn't see fit to address any of these issues I raised above. But then, he would probably cop out by saying, "I wrote a history, not a theological study." Uh, huh. More likely? Bill's "know nothing" Catholicism prevented him from formulating these questions. I've always maintained that no one with a functioning brain could possibly be a Catholic - or, for that matter, a member of any of the other Abrahamic off-shoots. But maybe I am being too harsh in my words - for all of these believers of nonsense have functioning brains, all right. They simply chose to shut down their brains concerning matters of faith.

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

Steven Searle, Just Another Member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

his bestseller* - Bill O'Reilly wasn't the only author involved in this book - someone named Martin Dugard is the acknowledged co-author.

Thinking about your prayers

Introduction

Today, I'm going to write about prayer in such a way that not only Buddhists could appreciate (since they are my primary, intended audience), but also those who worship in other traditions. There is a basic prayer in Nichiren Buddhism which is supposed to contain the essence of all of the Buddha's doctrines. The chanting of this basic prayer is defined as the primary practice: Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

[Spoiler alert: I'm going to propose replacing this prayer with another, which also consists of six syllables: Lotus, Buddha, Sangha.]

I don't know if all of the other religions of the world have a basic prayer of utmost, primary importance. But they do have prayers with words, which probably aren't analyzed in any particular depth. And that makes sense, since most believers are not priests or have much of a theological bent. Too many prayers are offered up in a robotic, knee-jerk kind of way by force of habit. Still, I think it's important to know what one is praying, to have a grasp of its import. To believers everywhere: "It's your time that you spend praying. Don't you owe it to yourself to reflect deeply on the meaning of your words? For prayer without any attempt to understand becomes nothing more than lip service!"


Disclaimer

When I refer to Nichiren Buddhists, I am referring either to the Nichiren Shoshu sect or its former (prior to being excommunicated) lay organization known as the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

When I cite the Lotus Sutra, I am referring to the version published in 2009 by the SGI, as translated into English by Burton Watson.


The temptation to oversimplify

Nichiren (1222-1282) was a Japanese Buddhist monk who gave the world Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. He insisted that chanting this prayer (called the daimoku) is the most powerful means at one's disposal for attaining Buddhahood. It also, as part of this process, has the power to thwart evil and to help the faithful realize their personal goals. I have heard the daimoku compared to an acorn, which (though small and inconspicuous) "contains" the oak tree which it can become. Similarly, the essence of all of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are "contained" in the daimoku.

These assertions come from Nichiren - who was not a Buddha, though some Nichiren Buddhists make that claim on his behalf. He, himself, never claimed to be a Buddha.

There is great power in simplification. But there is also a great pitfall, which I can sum up in terms of what I call The Great Irony:

"Even though Nichiren Buddhists chant N-M-R-K (which means, "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra"), they don't make it part of their practice to actually read a translated version they can understand, preferring instead to study the writings of Nichiren. Again, Nichiren was not a Buddha, but Shakyamuni (who gave the world the Lotus Sutra) was. And that Lotus Sutra defines correct Buddhist practice as reading, reciting, pondering, and teaching to the best of one's ability the Lotus Sutra - the whole thing, not just its title which (in Japanese) is "Myoho Renge Kyo."

Nichiren claimed that chanting the daimoku once was equal to have chanted the entire Lotus Sutra once. That's some claim, considering the fact that the Lotus Sutra consists of over 300-pages when translated into English. I can understand the temptation to find the essence of a body of complex doctrine. But...there is such a thing as dumbing down, which denies to the faithful the most profound benefits of Buddhism.

I think Nichiren made such a claim as a way to attract the average Japanese person living in his era - a person who was, more likely than not, illiterate. He probably felt, "Once they start practicing on a very basic level, they can learn about theory later." I'm also sure that monks who had read the Lotus Sutra (and who knew better) didn't contradict Nichiren's claims on behalf of the daimoku. They knew what he was doing and why he made such a claim. And they, too, were interested in attracting the common man so that he could start working toward his own enlightenment.

The "vital importance" of the daimoku can be seen in this quote from page 352 of the Lotus Sutra:

QUOTE:

The Buddha said to the rakshasa daughters, "Excellent, excellent! If you can shield and guard those who accept and uphold the mere name of the Lotus Sutra, your merit will be immeasurable. How much more so if you shield and guard those who accept and uphold it in its entirety...

:UNQUOTE.

I highlighted "...mere name..." to draw attention to the fact that that "mere name" (Myoho Renge Kyo) is the daimoku after Nam (which means "devotion") is added. Nichiren places great importance on the title of the Lotus Sutra (which is what the word "daimoku" means - "title"), whereas Shakyamuni placed greater emphasis on the entire sutra - not "merely" its title.


What did the daimoku mean to Nichiren?

Yes, Nichiren chanted daimoku. But not always, as this quote reveals:

Source of quote:
http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=2223 


QUOTE:

On the twelfth day of the ninth month [of the year 1271]...Hei no Sae-mon and a group of warriors rushed to Nichiren's dwelling at Matsuba-gayatsu and arrested him. Around midnight, Nichiren was taken by Hei no Saemon's men to the execution grounds on the beach at Tatsunokuchi.

As the party passed the shrine of the god Hachiman, Nichiren requested that he be given a moment. His request was granted, and he turned to address the deity of the shrine. Nichiren reprimanded Hachi-man for failing to protect him, saying that he was the votary of the Lotus Sutra, whom hachiman had vowed to protect in the presence of Shakyamuni Buddha.


:UNQUOTE: These quoted paragraphs are only a small portion of the text on the link cited above.


Nichiren is about to be beheaded. You would think he would be chanting daimoku to save his life, but no, he reprimands Hachiman. This whole business of reprimanding one particular deity ignores the fact that the Lotus Sutra lists a large number of beings who had sworn to protect the votaries of the Lotus Sutra. Besides, if Nichiren were really a Buddha, he wouldn't have needed anyone's protection, for it is not possible to kill a Buddha. The Five Cardinal sins of Buddhism include "injuring the Buddha" as being worthy of hellish punishment. If it were possible to kill a Buddha, surely that would have been listed as a cardinal sin, but it wasn't.

Nichiren had written, in "Conversation Between a Sage and an Unenlightened Man":

"If only you chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo, then what offense could fail to be eradicated? What blessing could fail to come? This is the truth, and it is extremely profound. You should believe and accept it."

When push came to shove and Nichiren's life was at stake, he chose to face Hachiman and reprimand him rather than chant daimoku which should have led to the protection he was seeking as evidenced by his question: "What blessing could fail to come?"


How much daimoku should be chanted?

This is an important question, since Nichiren Buddhists define the chanting of daimoku as the primary practice, and the sutra recitation during Gongyo (consisting of only chapters 2 & 16 of the Lotus Sutra) as the supporting practice. In that light, I find it strange that neither the SGI nor Nichiren Shoshu gives much in the way of guidance on this matter. The SGI merely says, "Chant daimoku to your heart's content." Nichiren Shoshu offers the following:

Source of quote:

http://www.nichirenshoshumyoshinji.org/faq/gongyo.php

QUOTE:


When chanting Daimoku during Gongyo, put your hands together and hold them at the chest naturally. Look at the character "Myo" on the Gohonzon as much as possible. Again, there is no restriction as to how much or how long you must chant Daimoku. You may chant as long as you like.

:UNQUOTE.

"You may chant as long as you like" overlooks "...but there is a certain minimum you must chant." My instinct tells me that, when doing gongyo, spend (at least!) as much time chanting daimoku as you do chanting the sutra. I find it hard to believe that spending more of our precious time on earth on the supporting practice could be acceptable.


My proposal: Replace daimoku with...

As I had written above, replace Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo with "Lotus, Buddha, Sangha" - in which "Lotus" is understood to be the highest teaching of all Buddha's in the universe, "Buddha" is understood to be Shakyamuni Buddha (since he is the one who brought Buddhism to this world and is still alive to help us, if only we become receptive to his assistance), and "Sangha" is understood to be the entire community of believers (and not only those in the monastic community).

I'll explain that last: Since the Lotus Sutra places great emphasis on all believers teaching to the best of their ability, and mentions that some people aren't open to monks who preach but will respond to common, ordinary people, all such teachers of the Law should be included in the sangha. The monk is idealized but shouldn't be regarded as the only possible teacher, since the monk all too often doesn't know enough about the everyday world to make his teachings relevant to the more worldly seekers of the Way.

As for how much of my proposed daimoku should be chanted, the real question is, "Under what circumstances should it be chanted?" Since I regard the chanting of the Lotus Sutra as the primary practice, my formal daily gongyo consists of reading aloud from its pages. And I don't chant any daimoku (that is, L-B-S) at that time. I regard the daimoku as supporting practice, as something I might do when waiting for a bus or walking down the street. Do I think my version of daimoku has any mystic powers? Only to the extent that it reminds me of my larger Buddhist practice. The Lotus Sutra, on the other hand? Yes, that has mystic powers.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo

TO: SGI (Part 10: What, no priests? That's wonderful!)

Specific Introduction

Even if you're not a buddhist (and even if you're an atheist), I think you'll find it fascinating that a layman's religious organization (a corporation, no less) not only rebelled against its priesthood which resulted in its excommunication, but this same corporation (the SGI - Soka Gakka International) now claims to be the legitimate authority on matters of faith. This is a truly unique distinction, which raises questions about the legitimacy of both parties.


General Introduction

Today's post is the tenth 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 Two Major Forces

There are two major forces vying for the loyalty of SGI members:

• The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, which demands that the lay organization (SGI) follow the high priest in much the same way as Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope;

• The SGI leadership, which called the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood heretical, starting with now-retired High Priest Nikken Abe, who retired in 2005. Nikken's counterpart in the SGI, Daisaku Ikeda (though also in his 80's) has not retired and is still its president.

Actually, each side has called the other heretical and has overwhelmed us with their charges and defenses. It's my intention here to identify the points which are essential, while discarding those that aren't necessary, if your intention is to identify which side to support. Naturally, I turn primarily to the Lotus Sutra* - not to the writings of Nichiren (who-is-not-a-Buddha), Daisaku Ikeda, or Nichren Shoshu priests. Let's start with these selected quotes from Shariputra (the Japanese rendering of the name is Sharihotsu) on page 85*:

QUOTE:

At first, when I heard the Buddha's preaching, there was great astonishment and doubt in my mind. Is this not a devil pretending to be the Buddha, trying to vex and confuse my mind? I thought.

[and]

The world-honored one preaches the true way. [Devils] would not do that. Therefore I know for certain this is not a devil pretending to be the Buddha.

:UNQUOTE.


My comment on the above quote:

The most important point is, Shariputra had to reach his conclusion on his own, not by relying on some outside authority. How could he have done otherwise? He couldn't have asked (what appeared to be the Buddha), "Are you really the Buddha or are you a devil pretending to be the Buddha?" And so it must be with current followers of the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood as well as SGI members. You're on your own here, trying to figure out who's right.

And you might feel unequal to the task. After all, Shariputra was considered the wisest of the voice hearers, yet he admitted in the above quote "At first, when I heard the Buddha's preaching, there was great astonishment and doubt in my mind." The "preaching" being referred to is Shakyamuni's revelation of the profound doctrines in the Lotus Sutra's preceding chapter (Ch 2). Yet, upon hearing this "preaching," Shariputra did not respond with faith and understanding, but with "astonishment and doubt."

Can we lay persons hope to do any better than the wise Shariputra? At this point, I wish to offer my conclusion that this issue (of whom to follow) is actually quite easy to resolve. The points I'm about to raise are derived from my having recited the entire Lotus Sutra** over 150 times over the past seven years. You might not be impressed by that, but humor me by hearing me out and then see if you can refute my words.

Before I deal with SGI vs. Nichiren Shoshu, indulge me as I comment further on this same quote, which I'll repeat for your convenience:


QUOTE:

At first, when I heard the Buddha's preaching, there was great astonishment and doubt in my mind. Is this not a devil pretending to be the Buddha, trying to vex and confuse my mind? I thought.

[and]

The world-honored one preaches the true way. [Devils] would not do that. Therefore I know for certain this is not a devil pretending to be the Buddha.

:UNQUOTE.


Why would Shariputra immediately ask, "Is this not a devil pretending to be the Buddha?" Why "a devil?" There is yet another possibility listed on page 337:

"If the form of a buddha will bring salvation, he immediately manifests a buddha form and preaches the law."

Shakyamuni spoke those words to Bodhisattva Flower Virtue, speaking about Bodhisattva Wonderful Sound. Maybe, instead of a devil trying to vex and confuse the Great Assembly, what appeared to be Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't a devil but was instead a shape-shifting bodhisattva who couldn't manage to preach in a way that would immediately leave no doubts in Shariputra's mind. As it turned out, it was Shakyamuni himself who couldn't preach in that way. But, as Shariputra continued to listen to Shakyamuni's preaching, he concluded that it was indeed Shakyamuni who was doing the preaching.

Again, Shariputra had to reach that conclusion by himself, for himself. And so must we, concerning the issue of whom to follow and (more broadly) what to believe.

My side note regards Shariputra's statement (above), "The world-honored one preaches the true way." In order to make his determination of whether the preaching he heard was from a devil pretending to be the Buddha or from the Buddha himself, he would have had to have known what the true way was. How did he know that?

Whom to follow - SGI, Priests, or...?

Nikken Abe is flawed because...

...he ordered the destruction of the shohondo. This temple was meant to fulfill the third of the Three Great Secret Laws, to serve as the sanctuary for the Dai-Gohonzon. This temple was built on land owned by the Nichiren Shoshu with money donated (mostly) from the Soka Gakkai. And let's be quite clear about this: Nikken Abe had approved this construction and then, for no good reason, ordered this destruction.

At first he tried to say, the shohondo's roof might collapse during an earthquake, killing any members who might be inside or (at least) possibly damaging the Dai-Gohonzon itself. Of course, I'm forced to ask a number of questions:

• Why was the shohondo built in the first place in an area (allegedly) known to be prone to earthquakes?

• Before construction commenced, wasn't some kind of building permit required from the secular authorities which (presumably) issued their approval knowing about the possibility of earthquake damage?

• Even if an earthquake did occur, wouldn't the power of the Dai-Gohonzon itself prevent the roof collapsing? Nikken, Nikken, where's your faith?

Next, Nikken Abe tried to say that the Dai-Gohonzon should not be housed in a temple built (mostly) by means of the financial contributions of slanderers - that is, of SGI members, the vast majority of whom did not choose to abandon SGI in favor of Nikken. This is where Nikken made his critical error of judgment. He should have kept the shohondo intact, so as to allow SGI members to reap the benefit of their contributions mostly by standing as a beacon to entice their return to the Nichiren Shoshu fold.

As for contributions from slanderers being bad, we're all slanderers or had been in some past life to some degree or other. Accepting money from tainted sources should be seen as a way to show mercy, thereby allowing less-than-perfect human beings a chance (by means of such almsgiving) to create a cause for their own eventual attainment of buddhahood.

Daisaku Ikeda is flawed because...

...he allowed his name to be added to the silent prayers as follows:

QUOTE: [from the current version of the third silent prayer]:

I acknowledge my debt of gratitude and offer appreciation to the three founding presidents — Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda — for their eternal examples of selfless dedication to the propagation of the Law.

:UNQUOTE.

In my view, it is the height of arrogance for one to say, in effect: "You should worship me because I'm in a position of power to add my name to your prayers, even though I'm still alive and could conceivably act in a way to sully my own previously admirable reputation." To me, this is the most egregious example of self-service by the powerful. Two other examples come to mind:

• Daisaku Ikeda is constantly reminding us of how many academic honors (including honorary doctoral degrees) that are constantly being bestowed upon him. Apologists will claim that he brandishes these degress for the sake of the members - but I doubt that, since it's not really necessary for the purpose of attaiming kosen-rufu. But it might be necessary to shore up the ego of a man who never attained any type of college degree at all and likes the sound of being called "Dr. Ikeda."

• Daisaku Ikeda can't seem to let go of power. Even though Nikken Abe, his priestly rival, retired years ago after he reached 80, Daisaku still clings to the title of SGI President well into his 80's.

So, who shall we follow?

That's an easy question to answer - we should follow Shakyamuni Buddha himself, who is still alive and with us now. He did not die nor was he cremated over 2,000 years ago in India, even though this is what "everybody" says and is what history teaches us. Apparently, I'm the only one who makes this claim, which I base on two factors:

• A question: How could Shakyamuni, master of cause and effect and "one who sees all things and knows all things," have possibly unknowingly eaten food that poisoned him?

• Even if he had eaten something poisonous, the Lotus Sutra makes clear that an enlightened person cannot be killed or even injured this way, even after having ingested something deadly.

I hope this quote from the Lotus Sutra* (page 270) will give you cause for reconsideration in this matter:


QUOTE:

In order to save living beings,
as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana
but in truth I do not pass into extinction.
I am always here, preaching the Law.
I am always here,
but through my transcendental powers
I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement
do not see me even when close by.

:UNQUOTE.


It's up to each of us to open our hearts to Shakyamuni's preaching, even though we can't see him. Only he can save us from the temptation to follow leaders who we can see and who we have formed attachments to.

When I first joined SGI (then known as NSA) in the early 70's, a lot of my fellow members were impressed by the unbroken chain of High Priests who propagated Nichiren's Buddhism ever since the time of his death in 1282. Now that members find Ikeda and Nikken being cast in dubious lights, we're actually free to use our own wisdom (inspired of course by Shakyamuni) and make up our own minds. Even though we can't see or hear Shakyamuni, we can build a path toward him by doing what is urged in the Lotus Sutra: We should practice by reading, reciting, pondering, and teaching to the best of our ability the Lotus Sutra - the entire Lotus Sutra, and not just (as both the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu urge) the 2nd and 16th chapters therein.

If we practice correctly, that is - if we practice as the Lotus Sutra says we should, we will acquire the wisdom necessary to know what to do. The hard part, for any Nichiren Buddhist, would be to embrace the practice of "chanting" the entire Lotus Sutra which would mean we would abandon the Gohonzon, gongyo (that is, the chanting of the 2nd and 16th chapers only), and the Daimoku. These should be abandoned since they are nowhere mentioned in the Lotus Sutra and are the inventions of Nichiren - though I'm sure his intentions were good in terms of being expedient means to attract people to engage in some type of a beginner's Buddhist practice.

Members who wish to doggedly cling to their familiar practices would do well to think about the Buddha's words concerning breaking the bonds of attachments.

Some Additional Considerations

Admonition #17 of 26:

The second High Priest of Nichiren Shoshu, Nikko Shonin, wrote 26 admonitions shortly before he died. Since Nikko is still highly regarded by the SGI, since he was claimed to be Nichiren's direct successor, the SGI has cited one of his admonitions (#17) in their war of words with Nikken Abe:

"Do not follow even the high priest if he goes against the Buddha's Law and propounds his own views." - source:

http://www.sokaspirit.org/resource/living-buddhism/an-explanation-of-nikko-shonins-26-admonitions-part-ii

I wish Nikko had better clarified his meaning, perhaps by writing this instead:

"Do not follow even the high priest if he goes against the Buddha Nichiren's Law and propounds his own view."

I believe Nichiren Shoshu, from as early as Nikko Shonin's day, created unnecessary confusion by insisting on calling him Nichiren Daishonin as broadly and often as it did. Of course, Nichiren himself didn't help matters by denying he was a Buddha, though he had managed to obliquely identify himself as (possibly) a reincarnation of  Bodhisattva Superior Practices.

Even though the SGI cites this admonition, it seems to counter the SGI's claim that the priesthood is wrong to claim itself superior to the laity. Since Nikko had written, "Do not follow even the high priest...[my emphasis]...," Nikko seems, by use of the word "even," to be holding the high priest in higher regard than other priests or the laity. Perhaps Nikko was thinking that some devil might appear in the form of a future high priest and try to lead Nichren believers astray.

This does get complicated, doesn't it?


Your role, in light of the "Entrustment" Chapter

Chapter 22 of the Lotus Sutra ("Entrustment," page 319) says:

QUOTE:

At that time Skakyamuni Buddha rose from his Drarma seat and, manifesting his great supernatural powers, with his right hand patted the heads of the immeasurable bodhisattvas mahasattva and spoke these words: "For immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of asamkhya kalpas I have practiced this hard-to-attain Law of supreme perfect enlightenment. Now I entrust it to you. You must single-mindedly propigate this Law abroad, causing its benefits to spread far and wide."

...You must accept, uphold, read, recite, and broadly propagate this Law, causing all living beings everywhere to hear and understand it."

:UNQUOTE.

I can imagine myself (and you) being there as Shakyamuni patted the heads of these "immeasurable bodhisattvas mahasattva," but not patting my head (or yours, either). I can imagine that we were part of this Great Assembly but in some capacity other than these bodhisattvas. I can imagine being excited to be there to witness this entrustment, even though it wasn't directed to me and others like me (and you). I can even suppose that Nikken Abe and Daisaku Ikeda had been there and had their heads patted by Shakyamuni. But I can also imagine my impatience at seeing these two failing to step up to the plate and propagate as Shakyamuni instructed

I can also imagine that I am telling myself, "If the great anointed ones aren't taking action, I guess it's up to the second, third, and fourth stringers (like me) to do something in the name of making even a token effort to lead others to the truth." Even though my understanding of Buddhism is far from perfect, even though I have Stage IV liver cancer with the doctors saying "There is no cure - you have probably have less - a lot less - than five years to live," I hope through my puny efforts (beginning with my blog posts) to inspire the anointed ones to wake up and do what they'd promised Shakyamuni Buddha they'd do.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus Sutra and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa-cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

the Lotus Sutra* - There are several English-language translations of the Lotus Sutra widely available. But the version I'm citing in this blog was translated by Burton Watson, upon the Soka Gakkai's request to this translator of world-renown, and published by the SGI in 2009. This nearly 400-page work is entitled The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, the entirety of which is commonly known as the Threefold Lotus Sutra.

the entire Lotus Sutra** - I have recited "the entire [English-language version of the] Lotus Sutra" 150 times, but not exclusively the Burton Watson version and not the Opening and Closing Sutras. However, I included these two sutras as part of my recitation practice after realizing how closely linked they are to the Lotus; these two I've recited approximately 15 times.