"Rosewater," starring Gael Garcia Bernal

Yesterday, I saw "Rosewater," starring Gael Garcia Bernal, who has starred in some of my favorite movies. However, "Rosewater" was not one of them - being, instead, a stinker of a propaganda piece.

Here's a brief description from Wikipedia:


QUOTE:

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewater_%28film%29 ]

In 2009, London-based Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari (Gael Garcia Bernal) was detained in Iran for 118 days because of a satirical interview he gave regarding the country's presidential election. Bahari was arrested and, while his pregnant fiancee waited for him, spent four months at Evin Prison being brutally interrogated. The film suggests his video evidence of the protests he provided to the BBC was the actual reason for his incarceration.

Bahari was usually blindfolded when being interrogated, and the sole distintuishing feature of his interrogator was that the interrogator smelled of rosewater.

:UNQUOTE.

I didn't read the book upon which this movie was based. But the main thing to keep in mind is, we only have Bahari's account of what went on in that prison.  So I can only comment on what I saw on the silver screen.

There were two elements in particular that gave me pause. Several times during the movie, white lettering would appear on screen mentioning his solitary confinement: For instance, "Day 18 of solitary confinement." But then I would see him with his interrogator. In an interview with the Huffington Post, he said he was in solitary confinement for 107 days [out of his 118 day total). The movie did not convey that at all, unless the filmmakers decided "solitary confinement" meant no contact with the general prison population and no visitors (except his interrogators). My bottom line? If the prisoner is seeing anyone, even if only to be tortured, then that's not solitary confinement.

There was also no invocation of Islam by Bahari's interrogator in an attempt to make Barhari more sympathetic to the Islamic state. And Barhari in the movie said nothing at all about religion, though the Huffington post interview quoted him as saying, "For me because I'm not a believer, I am not a spiritual person..." I take great exception to that: One can be an unbeliever but we're all spiritual people. By that I mean, we all have spirit within us that has its ups and downs - sometimes feeling buoyant, other times down in the dumps.

Some might argue that what I'm calling "spirit" is really nothing more than "mere and transient" feelings. Just because some people can't connect their feelings to any formal theological system doesn't mean those feelings - or spiritual expressions - are any less valid. But, who knows? Sometimes these people do eventually connect to a formal system or even create one after having had a personal revelation or an "Ah ha" moment. For others, their spirituality will always remain vague and outside the realm of a brick-and-mortar church/mosque/synagogue. Perhaps so, but that doesn't doesn't make their feelings any less profound - especially if they base their lives on these and act on them.

Even if Bahari wasn't a believer, I'm sure he wasn't ignorant of the tenets of Shite Islam. But I saw no sign that he tried to appeal to the interrogators on any kind of religious basis. For instance, by trying to claim that it's anti-Islamic to torture prisoners.

There was one part in the movie when Bahari spoke of having gone to New Jersey in order to get massages. His middle-aged interrogator seemed piqued by this, looking more like a young man who'd never gotten laid and wanted to hear more. [sigh] Why is it that we in the West like making our enemies look childish and buffoonish?

I think it's entirely possible that Western media, including Bahari, went to Iran to cover the election in an attempt to make the local regime look bad and to foment disorder. Let's just say, I wouldn't have put it past us. There were massive demonstrations to protest a feeling that the election was being stolen, but the movie didn't present much to suggest this was actually the case. Yes, there could have been voting irregularities, but Ahmadinejad's claim to victory wasn't without plausible merit.

The official Iranian news agency announced that Ahmadinejad won the election by 62% over the 34% garnered by nearest opponent, even though only two-thirds of the votes had been counted. My question is: Even though the official news agency made that announcement, did the officials responsible for counting the votes say, "We're going to stop counting votes now because there's no way Ahmadinejad can lose at this point?" Or did they quietly continue to count all the votes anyway?

In short, what was Iranian law governing this matter?

One of the goals of any nation is to assure domestic tranquility. Perhaps that is why Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at one point, had urged Iranians to unite behind Ahmadinejad, saying his victory was a "divine assessment." Mighty strong words from a virtual pope.

I tend to view movies like "Rosewater" with great skepticism. And I tend to be very suspicious of the posturings of people like Hillary Rodham Clinton who swear up and down that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. But more than that, her real goal is to prevent Iran from prospering to a point that could challenge Israel as the Middle East's greatest power. Her mantra is, "We must do everything in our power to keep them down, while I keep raking in millions." Sorry, but I don't buy into her having the moral high ground.

Of course Clinton, like all of the other naysayers, know that Iran has a right to build a nuclear weapons arsenal by invoking Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But they won't admit this and our lapdog media never breathes a word about this option. ["Come on, Steve Kroft," I dare you."

I think about that whenever anyone talks about what a police state Iran is and that they have such a tightly-controlled media. Our own media in the USA is pretty tightly controlled. As for a US police state? Our two-party system's monopoly, our corporate power, our unconstitutional filibuster, and routine gerrymandering practices exert such great practical control over our population that ordering cops to shoot down citizens in the street isn't necessary.

But make no mistake about this. If the powers that be would ever decide that shooting us down in cold blood had to be done, they would so order.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The mere name 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.

That’s worth repeating: “the mere name of the Lotus Sutra.” The mere name is “Myoho Renge Kyo,” which is its title in Japanese. When the Buddha used the term “mere name,” he must have anticipated the coming of the monk Nichiren who, basically, took that “mere name,” slapped the word “Nam” in front of it, and then dubbed the result to be the basic law of the universe.

Nichiren even went so far as to claim that saying “Nam myoho renge kyo” once was the equivalent of reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. Of course that’s utter nonsense for the same reason that saying the words “War and Peace” once is equal to having read that Russian novel once.

Nichiren advocated the chanting of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo and the daily recitation of the 2^nd and 16^th chapters of the 28 chapter Lotus Sutra. The reading of the other chapters was not advocated. So Nichiren basically positioned himself as the Votary of the Lotus Sutra but not all of it – only the parts he deemed important.

And who was Nichiren (who was not a Buddha) to contradict the Buddha Shakyamuni? In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni repeats, over and over, that appropriate Buddhist practice is to read, recite, ponder, and teach to the best of your ability the Lotus Sutra. And not its “mere name” and not only two of its chapters to be cherry picked by some future monk.

So, who was Nichiren?

It’s not as important to ask that question as it is to ask, “Why did Nichiren’s supporters make such extravagant claims about their master?” Nichiren himself never claimed to be a buddha, which is remarkable given the thousands of pages of written material which form his legacy. Others took it upon themselves to claim that Nichiren was not only a Buddha, but was the first Buddha – the Buddha of beginningless time.

However, all those who attain Buddhahood do so by means of practicing the Lotus Sutra, as is claimed in the Lotus itself. So Nichiren could not have become a Buddha without having engaged in that practice.

The implication is that Nichiren was always a Buddha. But that sounds strange to me in light of his behavior during his life in Japan, from his birth in 1222 to his death (from cancer!) in 1262.

There was a famous incident in which Nichiren was led on horseback to be executed at Tatsunokuchi. On the way, he approached a statue of Bodhisattva Hachiman and asked to halt there while he reminded this Bodhisattva of his vow to protect the votaries of the Lotus Sutra. So there he was – the mighty Nichiren – talking to a rock (that statue), when all he had to do was use his supernatural powers (possessed by all buddhas) in order to save himself. Apparently he forgot that it’s not possible to kill a buddha – which is obvious since killing a buddha isn’t even listed as one of the five cardinal sins of Buddhism.

Also, he overlooks the fact that a buddha only gives the appearance of having a mortal body but in fact is (in a manner of speaking) an immortal, impervious energy being who is a shapeshifter, who once upon a time had a mortal body.

Or perhaps Nichiren might have called the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World’s Sounds for help. Perceiver has an entire chapter in the Lotus Sutra detailing his powers to save living beings in distress who merely once call out his name – it not being necessary to speak to a statue carved in his (assumed) likeness.

Closing remarks

In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni speaks of attaining wisdom that comes of itself – teacherless wisdom. In that spirit, I caution all Buddhists to be very skeptical of claims made on behalf of great teachers – be they the Dalai Lama or icons such as Nichiren Daishonin.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of

the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

QUOTE*:  This quote is from page 352, from the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, as published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009.

Of Devadatta and Shakyamuni Buddha

Apparently, the view of Devadatta I'd been exposed to is not one shared by all who call themselves Buddhists today. So, in an attempt to be respectful to those holding a different view, I invite you to connect to the following link:

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

The view I was taught depicts Devadatta as a villainous figure who, though a cousin of Shakyamuni, tried to kill him and had sought to take over the samgha as a successor to the Buddha. Assuming that view to be the truth, the fact that the Lotus Sutra reveals a prediction by the Buddha that Devadatta would someday himself become a Buddha is, to say the least, remarkable. This is revealed in Chapter 12 of the Lotus Sutra, which is entitled "Devadatta," part of which I'll now quote.

After this quote, I will explain why I highlighted certain words in yellow:

QUOTE*1:

At that time the Buddha [Shakyamuni] addressed the bodhisattvas, the heavenly and human beings, and the four kinds of believers, saying: "Immeasurable kalpas in the past, I sought the Lotus Sutra without ever flagging. During those many kalpas, I constantly appeared as the ruler of a kingdom who made a vow to seek unsurpassed enlightenment. His mind never wavered or turned aside…He did not begrudge even his own being and life. At that period the human life span was immeasurably long. But for the sake of the Law this king abandoned his kingdom and throne, delegated the government to the crown prince, sounded drums and sent out proclamations, seeking the Law in four directions and saying, 'Who can expound the Great Vehicle for me? To the end of my life I will be his provider and servant!'

"At that time there was a seer who came to the king and said, "I have the Great Vehicle text called the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law. If you will never disobey me, I will expound it for you.'

"When the king heard these words of the seer, he danced for joy. At once he accompanied the seer, providing him with whatever he needed, picking fruit, drawing water, gathering firewood, setting out meals, even offering his own body as a couch and seat, never stinting in body or mind. He served the seer in this manner for a thousand years, all for the sake of the Law, working diligently, acting as a provider and seeing to it that the seer lacked for nothing."

:UNQUOTE*1.

So there we have it. Devadatta taught the Lotus Sutra to Shakyamuni, when both were in previous incarnations. Apparently, that meant Devadatta had reached the stage of non-regression (according to the following quote):

QUOTE*2

You [Shariputra] must not recklessly transmit it [the Lotus Sutra]
wherever you happen to wander.
If there is someone who hears it [the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law],
responds with joy and gratefully accepts it,
you should know that that person
has reached the stage of non-regression.


:UNQUOTE*2.

Or did he reach that stage? Since Devadatta was a “seer,” he might have clairvoyantly picked up the Lotus Sutra without anyone actually having preached it to him. Therefore, he didn’t receive the benefit of a preached Lotus Sutra, so his understanding would have been shallow for that reason.

As Buddhists, we’re supposed to teach the Lotus to others to the best of our ability. It was in that spirit that Shakyamuni accepted Devadatta as a teacher. But he left after only 1,000 years of having received Devadatta’s instruction. Even though my first quote indicates, “At that period the human life span was immeasurably long” (which is far greater than 1,000 years, I dare say), Shakyamuni abandoned Devadatta as a teacher after sensing his “masters” infirm grasp of that sutra.

I would love to have been there when Shakyamuni gave his words of farewell to his teacher.

As a side note, I wonder if Devadatta was the first to have imparted the Lotus to Shakyamuni.

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

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

 

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

 

Footnotes:

QUOTE*1 - This quote is from the beginning of Chapter 12, on page 221, from the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, as published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009.

QUOTE*2: Page 109 of the same source as QUOTE*1.