The Parable of the Burning House

Opening Statement

I will make some comments on the famous Parable of the Burning House, which is told in Chapter 3 of the Lotus Sutra (see Footnote 1).  But first, some thoughts on the role that lies play in Buddhism.

If the Buddha would ever have to lie to assure my enlightenment, I would rather never become Enlightened. On the one hand, it is written that the Buddha never lies. However, toward the end of Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, there appear these two sentences spoken by the Buddha:

• "They [the buddhas] act in order to save living beings, so what they say is true and not false" - p268.

• "In view of the circumstances, however, no one can say that I have been guilty of lies or falsehoods'" - p270.

Regarding the first sentence, "what they say" is true or false irrespective of the motive for ":what they say." That is, motive has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of a statement.

Regarding the second sentence, "circumstances" have nothing to do with one being "guilty of lies." If someone wants to call an object black (even though it is really white), he is lying regardless of any "circumstances."

And finally, we have this quote:

QUOTE:  And the Nirvana Sutra also says, "If all the desires and delusions of all the men throughout the major world system [one major world system equals one billion worlds] were lumped together, they would be no greater than the karmic impediment of one single woman. UNQUOTE: [Source: Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Vol. 3, p. 20]

I believe the Buddha made such a statement hoping his disciples would rise up in protest, saying, "That's not true!" In other words, to test his disciples. But, alas, they didn't protest and therefore failed his test.


The Parable of the Burning House

The Buddha tells this parable, in which he appears in the role of a rich man. He then explains to his disciples that the burning house is a metaphor for the everyday, ordinary world. If one refuses to leave this burning house, then he won't be able to escape its dangers and won't be able to transcend that world.

The parable begins on page 91 of the Lotus Sutra, the opening paragraph containing these lines:

QUOTE:

...his wealth was beyond measure. He had many fields, houses, and menservants. His own house was big and rambling..

:UNQUOTE:

By "his own house," it's safe to assume that's the house he lived in, though the preceding sentence says "He had many...houses..." Maybe his sons lived in one or more of those other houses. In his "own house" lived 500 people and an assortment of dangerous creatures. In addition, this house was in a state of severe disrepair. His 50 sons had gone into this house and were so distracted by the games they were playing, they didn't perceive they were in mortal danger because of a fire that was engulfing the house.

The rich man (the Buddha) runs into the burning house, trying to explain to his sons that they should get out before they get killed. But they ignore him, being absorbed in their games. Then the rich man tells his sons that there are fabulous, jewel-encrusted animal-drawn carts outside the house, one for each of them. But they have to leave the house immediately in order to claim them. Which they eagerly do.

The Buddha explains that this house owner is so wealthy, that he could give one such cart to every person in the whole country and still not exhaust his wealth. So that made me ask a couple of questions:

• If he was so rich, why didn't he post guards to prevent his sons from entering this dangerous, ramshackle house?

• If he was so rich, why didn't he raze this house after building a new one for the 500 people that lived there? Or he could have built two replacement houses - one for the 500 and one for the various monsters that lived there.

But since that rich man (symbolically representing the Buddha) didn't do that, if any of the sons had died in the fire or been devoured by the monsters living there, the Buddha would have been at fault. I found it interesting that the house represented the mundane world, which the Buddha owned. Not only "owned," but had allowed to reach a state of decrepitude which had made it into a firetrap

On page 94, the Buddha says, "He [the Buddha] is born into the threefold world, a burning house, rotten and old, in order to save living beings from the fires of birth, aging, sickness and death..." Not only is he "born into the threefold world," but since he owns this house and is responsible for its condition and could have replaced it, then the Buddha should be held responsible for any death or injury which might occur in a house he failed to replace.

Maybe the mundane world has the problems is has due to the unexpiated karma of the Buddha himself. Which is why he feels such a strong sense of obligation to return to such a world to make pure that which he bears some responsibility for having made impure.

I have no idea if this is the case, but his ownership of the house and neglect in replacing it made these thoughts occur to me. Of course, maybe I'm dead wrong about this, since it can also be argued that most metaphors are flawed.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

All references to the Lotus Sutra above, which cite page numbers, refer to:

The Lotus and its Opening and Closing Sutras,
translated by Burton Watson,
published in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai.

This link will connect you to an on-line version of the Lotus Sutra, also translated by Burton Watson, which lacks page numbers:

http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap03.html

Chicken Dreams

I became a vegetarian one year ago. Before that, I was an avid carnivore, though I tried to work veggies into my diet when the thought occurred to me. But, hands down, I loved meat, especially burgers and steaks.

Maybe it was the chemotherapy that got to me, since one day I vomited up my meat meal and swore, "No more." I've been on chemo since October of 2012 to treat a terminal liver condition called Metastatic Colangio Carcinoma.

Since then, I've had dreams, though perhaps it would be more accurate to say "semi-conscious imaginings." Here's one:

I had seen a TV commercial showing a woman shopping, and she stopped at the butcher's counter. She saw a package labeled "chicken breasts," and said, "Let me have that.

In my imagining, I saw a grocery store full of six-foot tall chickens who were dressed as we humans would be dressed. They were doing their shopping. One female walked up to the butcher's counter. She saw a package that said "female human breasts," and said, "Let me have that." I saw this as a commercial with the camera working its way slowly up the package. I saw the label, "female human breasts." But, mercifully, the camera did not proceed any further, so I didn't get to see the awful contents of that package.

Here's another:

I was tied to a chair in a kitchen, and was forced to watch a chef take a live chicken, kill it, chop off its head, pluck out its feathers, and cut it up till he isolated the parts he wanted - the breasts. Then he prepared one of his signature dishes, cooking the breasts and mixing in the spices and other ingredients to enhance the chicken's flavor.

He knew I was a vegetarian, but that didn't daunt him. He waved this meal under my nose and asked, "Smells pretty good, right?" I said, "Knowing you killed an animal to make a meal out of its muscles is disgusting." Then I vomited on his plate. He tossed the compromised meal into the garbage, swore at me and left after cutting me loose.

I said a prayer: "I pray that this chicken can be brought back to life." And, sure enough, all the parts in the garbage reconstituted to make the original living and breathing chicken.  The bird started pecking away at a pile on the table which was the source of the breading with which his breast muscles had been coated before being baked.

I said, "I'm hungry." The chicken said, "Try this breading, it's actually pretty good." So I did - I joined the chicken in having a vegetarian feast. I'm sure the chicken appreciated that.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A form of monks' greeting

I heard about a greeting meant for monks, strangers to each other, who might happen to meet when traveling in opposite directions on a road in ancient India. One would say to the other:  "Who is your teacher and what are your practices?" And the other would answer these questions and ask them of the one.

There were a lot of different sects in India during the time when the historic buddha (known as Shakyamuni Buddha) lived. And they had a teacher or guru, and varying numbers of disciples. The ancient Indians took their religions very seriously.

If someone would ask me those two questions in this modern day, I would reply:

"My teacher is Shakyamuni Buddha, and my practices are to read, recite, ponder, and to the best of my ability teach the Three-Fold Lotus Sutra. For Shakyamuni stated within its pages that these practices constitute appropriate practices after he [gave the appearance] of his death. He further stated that all Bodhisattvas attain Buddhahood by means of the Lotus Sutra, which he identified as his greatest teaching."

Wait a minute, you might ask, how can Shakyamuni Buddha who died and was cremated over 2,500 years ago be my teacher? He mentioned in the Lotus Sutra that there is "wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom." If so, then I wouldn't need a teacher of any kind, not even Shakyamuni.

My belief is that the Buddha made this statement as an expedient means, a device to open up our minds to the lessons the universe itself (we suppose) has to offer. However, there is no such thing as "wisdom that comes of itself." Everything has a cause. Such wisdom might seem to come of itself, but my belief is that the Buddha himself whispers in our ears. Then we end up assuming any wisdom we obtain just pops into our heads - uncaused.

Consider this passage from the Lotus Sutra (see Footnote 1):

QUOTE (page 270-271):

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 so that living beings in their befuddlement
do not see me even when close by.
When the multitude sees that I have passed into extinction,
far and wide they offer alms to my relics.
All harbor thoughts of yearning
and in their minds thirst to gaze at me.
When living beings have become truly faithful,
honest and upright, gentle in intent,
single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha,
not hesitating even if it costs them their lives,
then I and the assembly of monks
appear together on Holy Eagle Peak.
At that time I tell the living beings
that I am always here, never entering extinction,
but that because of the power of expedient means
at times I appear to be extinct, at other times not,
and that if there are living beings in other lands
who are reverent and sincere in their wish to believe,
then among them too
I will preach the unsurpassed Law.
But you have not heard of this,
so you suppose that I enter extinction.,

:UNQUOTE.

So there it is, but there is more. For the last 8 years, I've practiced alone - that is, without the benefit of a samgha, that is, a congregation of fellow believers. During those years, I've read an English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra over 175 times. If you  made a stack of  this one-inch thick book, that would make a pile over 15 feet high.

In response to my lack of a samgha, I invented a Virtual Samgha. This is a website on which I post essays I've written on a variety of religious topics - not just dealing with Buddhism. I invite comment on these essays, but in the less-than-two years of its existence, I've receive precious few comments.  All good things take time to gain traction, so meanwhile I wait for the Buddha's words to come true in my case, that I will find good fellow students with whom I can study the Lotus Sutra.

Meanwhile, in my war against brick-and-mortar churches, I state:

"I am a member of a sect that has exactly one member - that would be me;
that has exactly one leader - that would be me;
I'm not recruiting though I welcome dialog;
and I don't want your fucking money."

That is, I despise collection plates, though if you want to give alms, make any donations to a cause of your own choosing. For me? That's the United Negro College Fund to which I make donations designated as reparations owed by me - a white American who benefited quite handsomely from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

I encourage you to set up your own on-line Virtual Samgha.  Mine is at:
http://LotusSutraChampions.blogspot.com

Meanwhile, I will continue to practice on my own, since the Buddha has spoken of those seekers of the Way who prefer solitary practices.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

Any mention in this post concerning the Lotus Sutra refers to this version, which you don't have to buy since it's available on-line, free of charge:

The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras

[That is, the Lotus Sutra, which is preceded by The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, with the Lotus being followed by the Sutra on how to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.  These three are collectively known as the  Three-Fold Lotus Sutra.]

Translated by Burton Watson
Published in 2009 by Soka Gakkai

 

March Madness: Bread and Circuses

I've been watching the elite teams of college basketball on TV during my hospitalization of the last 32 days. I don't really follow sports at any level, but I do appreciate a beautifully executed play. Always did, even as a kid. And I can appreciate these plays all the more, since I don't really care who wins. Never did, even as a kid. As I watched these highly-motivated young men perform their ballet-like motions for us, I couldn't help but wonder: "Do they put as much drive and focus on their collegiate studies or do they do only an average job, saving their best efforts to train for and play this sport they love so much? And which many have been playing since they were eight-years old?"

For those many who don't make it to the NBA, I wonder what the future holds for them. When they look back on their lives - decades from now - will they conclude that their appearance (win or lose) in the Sweet Sixteen marked the high point in their lives?"

How many of them will take their bachelor's degrees in Communications and apply for a master's program that's more challenging? Or will they appear in an Enterprise Rent-A-Car commercial? I remember seeing one a few years ago that boasted of hiring a large number of former college athletic stars - of whom about 30 were featured in a group shot with sub-titles under their images. These titles gave their names and sports, and the year(s) they'd won a championship.

They all looked pretty happy, but maybe that's because it's better to have a job than not have one. They also looked pretty young, so I hope they don't become lifers at Enterprise. If they do, that's when bitterness starts to set in - the regrets that come from not motivating themselves to train for a better job. That bitterness intensifies when they ask themselves, "Why couldn't I have motivated myself to train for a better career with the same intensity with which I had trained as a student athlete?" Damn good question. Maybe a kick-ass life/career coach would have made a difference.

We are the New Roman Empire. Most of us have enough bread but circuses are needed to entertain We-the-People.  More and circuses that are bigger and grander than the ones that seemed adequate only a year ago. You know, so we don't get restless and start thinking about political issues. March Madness has been a smashing success for decades. This could be for a number of reasons:

• Older Americans admiring the youthful enthusiasm of the student body in attendance;

• Watching the trumpeters in the band sway from side-to-side as they play their college's fight songs;

• Admiring the athleticism of the players, doing things our older bodies can no longer do;

• Witnessing how much the players want to win - with some of them crying with abandon when they lose, with us thinking wistfully, "I used to care like that but I've become too cynical and resigned;"

• Seeing an underdog team beat one much more highly rated.

I admit that I watch the Sweet Sixteen tournament. But I will never buy a ticket to see a live game. And I refuse to buy the products advertised on TV, from sponsors of these games. I think these kids are being mercilessly exploited, so I refuse to further that cause. Maybe, just maybe enough other people will come to feel and act as I do, and that this circus will fold its tent and disappear. Then maybe, just maybe these kids will crack those books and develop more than just their muscles and the particular skills native to their sport of choice.

And then maybe, just maybe we'll collectively abandon the circuses and start participating in politics.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Importance of Fear

TIME:  The end of World War II

EVENT:  A very special and secret meeting

The leaders of the allied powers got together and reached a consensus:

"The war was very good for us, in terms of giving us the chance to exercise unquestioned and absolute power. The people were behind us all the way. Now that the war is over, our ability to exercise such power will be greatly reduced.What shall we do?"

One approach these leaders all agreed on:  Some kind of threat was needed, which is why the specter of the UFO menace so dominated the news during the 50's and 60's. You don't hear so much about little green men plotting against planet earth these days. That's because even the "best" threats lose their power over time - especially if there's nothing behind them besides anxious governments trying to scare their populations.

I'm not saying, extraterrestrials don't exist. I'm saying, the allied governments did their level best to go into overdrive to convince us that ET's were an imminent threat to our security. And these efforts were made by more than just a handful of nations - a lot more.

Of course,.there were other agents of fear. For five years, the US was the only nation that had nuclear weapons. So a lot of countries in addition to the USSR had to worry about that. The US authorities found it useful to scare us by proclaiming, "There's a Communist under every bed."

Now we've become more sophisticated. The United States uses the War on Terror to nibble away at its citizens' liberties while expanding its ability to make war on just about any country it chooses, if it decides terrorists are being allowed to operate within its borders. Not to mention the prospect of hackers wreaking havoc on our financial system or draining our savings accounts.

I asked one veteran who was taking classes at the university of my employment, "What's the greatest threat to US security?" He said, "Losing the Global War on Terror." I countered with, "The two-party system" - though I should have added, "and  the unconstitutional US Senate's filibuster."

Russia got tired of the war of attrition the US was engaging in, trying to marginalize Russia as a world power.  So it decided to whip up nationalist sentiments and memories of ancient glory going back to its Czarist past. It looks like Vladimir Putin figured correctly that Barack Obama wouldn't intervene militarily in the Crimea (now annexed to Russia) and the separatists who are using heavy weapons trying to win independence for the eastern part of the Ukraine.

Obama's hesitancy, I'm sure, was inspired by the EU members that whispered restraint in his ear - notably Germany.

I'm sure Putin and a great majority of his fellow countrymen were deeply insulted when Tom Brokaw's book came out, declaring that the Greatest Generation lived in the US during World War II. I would agree with Putin and any other Russian nationalist that the Greatest Generation were the Soviets of that era who'd suffered so horribly when battling then Nazis.

The USSR lost 24 million people - 14.2% of its population, which is 42 times greater than US losses.
The US lost 420,000 or .32% (that is, less than one-third of one per cent.). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

These days, it's not national governments trying to control local populations that we have to fear. It's oligarchs who have forged alliances in order to cement their hold on power. Local governments fear the oligarchs so much, they won't lift a finger to act against them. If you doubt this, just look at the unwillingness of US regulatory agencies to even investigate allegations of financial wrongdoing. For instance, in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in 2008, not a single player - high level, low level, or anyone in between - ended up going to jail for his crimes.

The failure of the SEC to act against Bernie Madoff's $50B Ponzi scheme testifies to either the incompetence of those regulators or their willingness to look the other way. Of course, Barack Obama didn't sack anyone within that agency, probably figuring, "Hey, I've got to work with these people. And I don't want to create a chilling effect on investors, even those who are breaking the law since they contribute a great deal to our economy." Ah, ever the practical man is this Barack Obama, who had sworn to defend our laws as generated by the Constitution.

Regarding the downfall of Madoff, this is an excellent book tracing the author's efforts to air the truth when he realized Madoff was engaged in a scheme of epic proportions:

No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller, by Harry Markopolos.

I can't wait to see what new instruments of fear will be used against us. But I'm sure of this much, no matter which new boogeymen will arise,  No One Will Listen when it comes to whistleblowers who try to unmask these guys..

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Chicago's recent mayoral debate

The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on March 17, 2015. Nowhere in this article does it mention that the Tribune had already endorsed Rahm Emanuel for re-election. That kind of disclaimer is vital and should have appeared. I will highlight certain portions in yellow and then I'll insert my comments in green.

QUOTE: [Chicago Tribune editorial - see Footnote 1]

TITLE:  By 6:15, it was over
Subtitle:  Garcia doesn't make a case to unseat Emanuel

You knew it would come, everybody knew it would come: How can City Hall make a mandatory $550 million payment to police and fire pension funds? Sure enough, kaboom, first question. What followed was Monday evening's mayoral debate, reduced to its essence:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel's staccato recipe for fixing City Hall's pension crisis leapt from higher employee contributions [Chicago's powerful unions will resist this or will want a pay raise to soften the blow] to a broader-based sales tax, to a city-run casino, [If a casino is that important, why hasn't Rahm managed to conjure one up in his first term?] to TIF surpluses. [TIF money is supposed to be used to upgrade economically depressed communities.] He concluded with an overarching rationale: Financial stability will give people "the confidence to bring jobs and people back to Chicago [So why, under Rahm's leadership as mayor over the last four years, has Chicago's bond rating sunk five times, so it's now only two steps above junk status?]

And Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia? The first words from his mouth: "It depends." Because his team has to "open up the books to understand what the real finances of the city are." Garcia didn't answer the question [Garcia did answer the question. It seems the Tribune failed to realize the huge advantage enjoyed by the incumbent in that only Rahm knows what's in the books.] but did get in an off-topic jab about Emanuel subsidizing rich people.

OK, we thought, he'll find his footing. Soon came a question many Chicagoans ask: property tax increase. Discuss.

Emanuel flicked at his earlier answer and said, "Everything I'm doing is to avoid a property tax increase." [That doesn't mean that, once re-elected, Rahm won't ram such an increase through the City Council - a Council known to be Rahm's rubberstamp.] But Garcia doubled down: "You cannot move forward until you show the taxpayers of Chicago where the money is going." Ouch. [What do you mean "Ouch?" Chuy's right on this point. Maybe this would have been a good time for the Trib to mention their bias - that they had already endorsed Rahm.] A second admission from Garcia that, nearly five months into his campaign for mayor, he doesn't talk even to the nearest billion about City Hall finances. [How can he talk, until he sees those books?] The closest he got was a shot at Emanuel for failing to get Chicago's house in order, and "now talking in a sophisticated way about how he's going to do it." The obligatory next line - Here's how I'm going to do it - never arrived. [This line couldn't have arrived since, again, one cannot offer a plan without knowing the detailed financial records at Rahm's disposal. As for Rahm, he's had four years to "do it," but hasn't.]

On it went: Garcia, asked how he would replace the $70 million in revenue from the red light cameras he promises to remove? "That is part of the challenge." With each wan answer from Garcia [Garcia's simply repeating an inconvenient truth - one which the Tribune doesn't like since it favors the strongman model personified by Rahm], Emanuel  filibustered anew about his plans to right Chicago with a mix of reform and revenue. ["filibustered" is a strange choice of words here. But it can't mask why Rahm hasn't managed, in four years, to implement these reforms and obtain those revenues.]

Fifteen minutes into the hour, the debate was as good as over. The longer the men talked, the more obvious it was that this was a debate about one, and only one, candidate's ideas.  ["Ideas" which Rahm had four years to implement but hasn't. "Ideas" which Garcia honestly admitted he couldn't offer unless he had access to the same secret financial records enjoyed by Rahm.]

One cliche of this race is that Garcia's sole platform plank is: "I'm not Rahm."

That's not fair; Garcia plainly loves Chicago and wants to revive its moribund neighbors. [If we know that much about Garcia, that's all we have to know. Rahm cares more about his buddies in high finance - that much we do know.] But given a wide-open chance to explain the financial plan that will make his dreams possible, he stuck to platitudes. ["Platitudes?" Another strange choice of words. Garcia simply admitted he needs more information upon which to base a plan.] We watched every minute. But we didn't have to.

:UNQUOTE.

Apparently whoever had written the editorial quoted above in its entirety wasn't aware of the following or chose to ignore it. Here, I make no comment:

QUOTE: [See link on Footnote 2 to see complete version of this Sun Times article]

• The decision by Moody’s Investors Service to drop Chicago’s rating for a fifth time under Mayor Rahm Emanuel — from Baa1 to Baa2 — may cost the City of Chicago tens of millions of dollars.

• He noted that even before the downgrade, the state of Illinois had the lowest credit of all 50 states, and the city of Chicago had the worst credit rating of any major municipality except Detroit.

:UNQUOTE.

Many of Chicago's voters will be over-impressed by the recent announcement that the Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) has been sold  for a record $1.3 billion. They'll conclude, "It seems someone is so bullish on Chicago that they'd sink that much cash into obtaining this property." Maybe the truth is, these investors are bullish on Chicago's established business district but - there's a lot more to Chicago than this.

The next article doesn't have anything to directly do with Rahm or Chuy, but will give you an idea of the political culture at the state level they'll have to navigate once elected. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.

Again, I comment in green what I highlight in the article in yellow:

QUOTE: [Chicago Tribune lead story, see Footnote 3]

TITLE: Lobbyist sues to boost pension for 1 day as sub in classroom
By: Ray Long

A union lobbyist who qualified for a teacher pension windfall by subbing at a school for one day is suing a state retirement board because his benefits were scaled back once his sweet deal was exposed.

Retired Illinois Federation of Teachers lobbyist David Piccioli, 65, is arguing that lawmakers violated the state constitutional provision that says a pension cannot be "diminished or impaired" once it is set.

Piccioli is already collecting $31,485 from the Teachers Retirement System. If he wins his case, his teacher pension could increase by more than $36,000, the Tribune estimated - more than doubling what he gets now.

["more than doublnig" based on one day served as a substitute teacher - and that will be for life!]

[more follows]

:UNQUOTE.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

Footnote 1:

Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2015

Footnote 2:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/401903/moodys-drops-chicagos-bond-rating-another-notch-two-levels-junk-status

Footnote 3:

Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2015

Netanyahu's next moves

Benjamin Netanyahu just won election to his fourth term as Israel's Prime Minister in a come-from-behind victory. "Bibi" had a little help from two sources:

• Speaker of the House John Boehner's invitation to the Prime Minister to address a joint session of Congress on March 3;

• "Bibi's " announcement on the last day of his campaign for election that as long as he serves as prime minister of Israel, there will not be an independent Palestinian nation.

It surely didn't hurt "Bibi's" cause when Israeli television showed footage of the PM getting a standing ovation from our Congressmen who have become too used to telling anyone who will listen how much they love and support Israel.

As for coming out against an independent Palestine, he must have felt truly desperate to have tipped his hand since he would have better served his cause by pretending to be open to the possibility of a two-state solution. In order to win this election, Netanyahu had no problem dashing Palestinian hopes and thereby driving moderates into the open arms of militants bent on attacking Israel in small and (when possible) large ways.

I personally believe Netanyahu has two long-range strategies in mind which he will employ when he feels the time is right:

• He will expel all non-Jewish Israeli citizens from the country or he will at least strip them of their Israeli citizenship in support of his doctrine that Israel is a Jewish nation;

• He will move to annex the land which Israel's right wingers believe God had promised the Jews thousands of years ago, which includes the entire West Bank, most of Lebanon, and parts of Egypt and Syria.

Bibi is still under the almost hypnotic influence of his hawkish father, even though Benzion passed away in 2012. In response to Bibi's moves against the establishment of an independent Palestine, Palestinians and their allies will do anything within their power to oppose such moves. For they know if they were to roll over and play dead, thereby allowing the PM to have his way in the West Bank, right wing Jews will become intoxicated due to this success. Then they'll simply go nuts in their attempts to expand Israel's borders to include the land God promised them.


But there's a problem

I think God is testing the Jews. He might or might not have promised them this land. But land promised can be shared. Once a gift is given, then the recipient can do what he wants with it, unless there were strings attached. In which case it wasn't really a gift, now was it?

If the Jews insist on expanding their territory thereby increasing the poverty and suffering of their half-brothers, then they will pay a terrible price. Jews and Muslims have the same father - the patriarch Abraham - but different mothers - Hagar (matriarch of the Islamic people) and Sarah (matriarch of the Jewish people). If the Jews insist on continuing to treat their half-brothers so shabbily, they will have failed God's test. And the promise that the Jewish faith will become a light unto all nations will have been destroyed by the secular tribalist known as Benjamin Netanyahu.

A sad transformation

BN is known to me as Been-Jammin' Knittin'-Yahoo for these reasons:

• Been-Jammin' - a derivative of his first name of Benjamin - which means, "The PM has done his best to 'jam' up the peace process, to gum up the works in a sabotage kind of way. He's 'been jammin' ' for as long as he can, as much as he can."

• Knittin' - as in the photo below in which the PM knits his eye brows in anger.

• Yahoo - a yahoo is a person who, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "very rude, loud, or stupid." The Israeli PM sure comes across that way when he feels stressed out.

Compare these two images

 


It wouldn't take much to morph the photo taken by Jack Guez (AFP) so it looks like a perverted version of Yosemite Sam (shown above), a creation of Warner Brothers. Sometimes the actions of real, live people makes them appear cartoonish.

 On a more serious note

Maybe it's about time to implement the eighth of the thirty-one promises contained in my contract when I ran for President against Obama and Romney in 2012:

QUOTE: [source:http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html ]

[source: The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for U.S. President]

EIGHT [of 31 points]:  I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress if it has any provision for any type of aid or loan to Israel or Egypt.

:UNQUOTE [I was the only presidential candidate in the history
                        of this country to offer an enforceable, written contract
                        to the voters in exchange for their support].

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Black Baptists? Are you kidding me?

Why is it that Blacks living in the United States adopted the religion of their slave masters? And to this day, continue to worship the God of the Abrahamists? I'm not only talking about the Black Baptists mentioned in this article's title. There were Blacks sold into slavery by Arab slave traders, so embracing Islam seems to be yet another form of acknowledging the supremacy of the conqueror. Not to pick on US Blacks, I note that a lot of Japanese converted to the religion of the conqueror when they lost World War II.

I further note: Might doesn't make right, but that point is lost on most people.

I'm sure various Black communities in the South found solidarity and mutual support to be uplifting as they suffered under Jim Crow laws. As they say, "Any port in the storm." But surely they had to be aware that they could not set foot in any of the Christian churches attended by whites. And they bore witness to how white churches close to their communities did not support them in their struggle for civil rights in the 1960's. Jesus might indeed have been willing to save them, but their white "brothers" in faith didn't lift a finger. Some of these "brothers" rode with the Ku Klux Klan on Saturday night, only to put on a suit and tie to attend church services the next day.

I guess people need hope so desperately, they're willing to overlook a great deal of bad history and sin. These days, a lot of poor and struggling middle class folk are easily swayed by smooth talkers who preach, "God wants you to be rich." That pitch is aimed at Blacks and Whites alike, so at least color knows no barriers in that regard. The truth? God wants you to be holy, to be so filled with goodness that you no longer care about such worldly things as the accumulation of vast wealth.

But there is a greater truth: The God of the Abrahamists (you know, the One who said, "I am an angry God"), is only one of untold trillions of gods throughout the universe who want to someday elevate themselves above their mere godly status so that they can become fully-enlightened Buddhas. Which is the highest possible goal.

But most US blacks haven't heard of this. Maybe the lack of millionaire Buddhist televangelists is at fault for failing to reach out to the Black community. Or maybe Blacks are attracted to prosperity Buddhism as they would be to prosperity Christianity. In any event, Buddhism is a hard sell in this primarily Christian and materialistic country. But if you are a member of a Christian denomination, I want you to think about a couple of things:

• Can you name even one individual who emerged as a leader in his own right from Joel Olsteen's or Creflo Dollar's megachurches? Don't we overly emphasize charismatic leaders who we know as household names but who treat their congregants as being worthy only of contributing to the collection plate? And there's always a collection plate, isn't there?

• If you believe God created the universe, there's a problem. Before the Creation, all was perfect since only God existed. After the Creation, there was God and there were the things God created. These "things" God called "good." But as good as they were, they lacked the perfection of God Himself simply because they weren't God. So, due to God's decision to create, the universe became less pure. Not to mention that sin emerged. That wouldn't have happened if God hadn't created anything. If He'd left well enough alone (that is, didn't do the Creation thing), the universe would have contained only God and would have remained perfect. So you could conclude that the act of creation was God's original sin.

• It's just as easy to say, there's a God who was uncreated and has always been as it is to say, the universe was uncreated and has always been. If you embrace the latter view, it's not necessary to invent a God the Creator.

• So you think Jesus died for your sins? That is, someone other than yourself can act on your behalf? Suppose someone walked up to you and said, "Let me make love to your wife. It will be the same as if you made love to her, but only if you believe it will be the same." Could you really believe such an outlandish claim? The claim that Jesus (or anyone or thing else) can save you is equally outlandish.

I offer,.free of charge, access to a link that contains essays I've written over the last three years that will challenge your current beliefs and invite you to think for yourself. This link is a haven for those who are suspicious of traditional brick-and-mortar churches, or are dissatisfied with what their owners have to offer.

Think about what I am offering:

"I am a member of a sect that has exactly one member - that would be me, and has only one leader - that would be me. I'm not recruiting members for this sect, though I welcome dialogue, and I don't want your fucking money. In fact, I encourage each of you to establish such a sect in your own name."

Here's the link I mentioned above:  LotusSutraChampions.blogspot.com

As for starting your own Buddhist practice, here's my advice:

Set aside 30 minutes every day to:

• Close your eyes and meditate in silence, while trying not to think about anything;

• Chant these words repeatedly: "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha."

• Read out loud from an English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha claims is the highest teaching of all the buddhas in the universe.

• Talk to others about the insights you gain and the questions that arise in your mind. I offer, again free of charge, my ears to hear you out. But it doesn't have to be me. The link above provides my contact information and a chance for you to comment on the essays I've posted.

These points are my personal recommendations, which others might find fault with. But you've got to start somewhere and you'll find this approach will open doors for you and prove to be richly rewarding.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Football: Interception in the End Zone

I have never posted anything dealing with sports. And that's been over a period of over eight years - and covers all of my 479 essays on this site. But there are a few things I want to get off my chest concerning American football.

The first concerns a rule change I'd like to see implemented: If a defending team's player intercepts a pass in their end zone but is tackled before he has a chance to advance the ball beyond the end zone, the current rules identify this as an example of a touchback. The intercepting team is then awarded the ball on its own 20-year line.

My view is this: Since the intercepting player has possession of the ball, the other team should be awarded two points as if this were a safety. And, just as in the safety scenario as it's currently defined, the intercepting team would then kick the ball from its own 20-yard line to the other team.

It always seemed strange to me that an end-zone interception would result in the ball being advanced to the 20-yard line of the interceptor and awarded to that team. After all, they obtained possession of the ball by means of this interception, therefore they control the ball at this point, so being tackled in the end-zone would seem to result more logically in two points (as in a safety) for the other side.

* * *

My next point concerns the recent announcement by San Francisco 49ers' linebacker Chris Borland that he is calling it quits. After his one and only season, in which he performed outstandingly, he decided the risk to his health due to future concussions was too great for him to remain in the game. So, at the age of 24, facing a loss of future stardom and tons of money, he decided enough was enough.

I salute this young man for resisting the pull of a culture that most would find hard to resist. At the same time,  I admit that I've been a football fan (though never a player on even a high school team) since I was a pre-teen. Yes, I know about the current scandal concerning concussions and I detest the NFL's attempt to put spin on the dangers. But I don't feel guilty about watching their games, which I do only on television. I justify my viewings by not buying any of the products advertised by sponsors. Simply put, I don't buy product.

I hope, though, that the NFL will engage in research to develop gear that can better protect players. The NFL is wealthy enough and there's enough at stake that they can afford to do this. They can even work with universities that have football programs and, ideally, sports medicine programs. Football is a fascinating sport and I'd hate to see fan support wither away over time due to player safety issues. Meanwhile, I'll watch but won't financially support this enterprise.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Creation of Adam

Today, I make a few small observations of Michelangelo's famous "Creation of Adam," as it appears on this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam#/media/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1n_%28Miguel_%C3%81ngel%29.jpg

I couldn't get over how gnarly God's left hand looks.

Even stranger: Why is God wearing clothes instead of being completely naked? Was He ashamed of His nakedness? A nude God would have been shocking back in the day. Or would it have? Maybe if anyone had qualms about this, an endorsement by the Pope would have smoothed things over. Except of course the Muslims would have been livid at any depiction of God, clothed or unclothed.

How would Christians react to a nude God today? Maybe the evolution of Catholicism would have been quite different had this depiction of God been in the nude. Food for thought.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Senator Ted or Raphael Cruz?

There is no legal entity known as Ted Cruz. The Senator from Texas at issue here is Raphael Cruz - since he never went before a judge to legally change his name. I figure Raphael is a self-hating Hispanic who wants desperately to be as white as possible. How is it that the US Senate allows Cruz to be listed on its website with Ted as his first name? How did he ever get on the ballot for his various elective offices as Ted Cruz?

The wikipedia bio lists him as Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz. But Senator Cruz lists his name as Ted Cruz  without the quotation marks. He was named after his dad, Raphael Cruz, so to abandon the name of his father is disrespectful to say the least. [That's the clue that told me he's self-hating of his ethnic heritage.]

Senator Raphael Cruz is a dangerous narcissist who thought it was his place to hold the entire US Senate hostage as he read "Green Eggs and Ham" on national television as a bedtime story for his daughters. And this as a freshman senator who is so hungry for the spotlight, fame, and approval, he doesn't mind showcasing his sense of entitlement.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

American volunteers for ISIS

Mohammed Hamzah Khan, aged 19, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Chicago on Jan. 8. He had been arrested at O'Hare Airport by the FBI for trying to join ISIS. My personal opinion? I don't have a problem with Americans joining ISIS. In fact, I believe it is their constitutional right to do so:

Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

One such right is the right of self-defense. If one thinks of one's self as being part of a larger entity - for instance ISIS and the ideals it represents - then one has a right to defend that self.

Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

One such power reserved to the people is the power of individual sovereignty.  When the 13 states joined the union, they had surrendered a portion of their state sovereignty - but not all of it. In like manner, the individual citizen has a degree of sovereignty. If the US Congress had declared war on ISIS, then Khan could not have exercised his personal sovereignty. But...Congress did no such thing.

He should have

Khan could have avoided this mess when he was stopped for questioning at the airport. Typically, the FBI asks, "Where are you going and why?" All Khan had to do was say, "That's none of your business." Once Khan admitted he was going to join ISIS, then the FBI had probable cause to obtain a search warrant which yielded evidence that he intended to join ISIS.

If Khan had said "None of your business," the FBI would have had to let him board that plane. There are lots of people who fly to Turkey, so the FBI would not have had probable cause.

Closing Comments

As for it being against the law to support terrorism, then it should be against the law to join the CIA or the US army. They engaged in terrorist acts - enhanced interrogation and waterboarding come to mind. Our own police departments also do this, though we don't even think twice when we hear of suspects being interrogated for 20 hours straight. During the Israeli campaign to free themselves from British rule, there were young, idealistic Jews from the US who joined a variety of militias, some of which engaged in terrorist acts; they weren't stopped at the airport and questioned.

Then there's the case of a young, former US military man who was interviewed recently on TV. He is now fighting with the Kurds against ISIS. However, I don't recall that US policy involves boots on the ground, only that advisors would help out. Is this man in violation of US policy?

So where do we draw a line or should we? Maybe Western volunteers for ISIS might end up getting killed in battle, or come to recoil from the horrors of war, or serve as a moderating influence within ISIS. Of course, that last is dangerous and might cost them their lives. Once a person makes a decision to engage in an activity that might cost him his life, he should be respected for his decision to the greatest degree possible and allowed to proceed.

If convicted, Khan could face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Fifteen years? That ought to be enough time to further radicalize this young man. Not to mention his circle of friends and family members. One thing we've become very good at: Creating more terrorists.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Smiley face "news" presenters lulling us to death

Since I've been hospitalized for 26 days now - and I'm still confined - I've watched a lot of TV news programs. Oh my God, how horrible! We get to be treated to TV personalities (these aren't journalists) who seem to be programmed to nice us to death. They are all so bubbly and pleasant in how they come across individually and in how they treat each other. And there is almost never any disagreement, they all being on the same page as it were.

Yes, we had a brutal winter, but TV coverage was overkill. And there was the raging controversy about the color of a dress - white and gold or dark blue and black. Lots of air time was used on that one. And I can't stand to hear about how so-and-so at some red carpet event "rocked that dress." Reminds me of the comment most commonly used by strangers when seeing a young girl with her mom at a park: "Oh, she's so cute!" Well, got to start somewhere so this kid will be focused on rocking a dress within a few short years.

And of course there's the over-emphasis on famous chefs who give demos of their favorite recipes. These famous and well-paid TV "journalists"/personalities can't stop fawning and ladling praise. But we never hear about Iran's nuclear option (to use a very bad term): Any time their government wants to, they can invoke Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - as had North Korea - and legally (according to that treaty which we also signed) build a nuclear arsenal.

Article X

Article X allows any nation to withdraw from the treaty and acquire nuclear weapons if its government feels its national security is threatened. And Article X allows for any nation to act unilaterally - that is, not having to obtain permission from the UN.

Nope, you'll never hear about Article X on the morning news because Charlie Rose and others are too busy yucking it up. And bombarding us mercilessly with endless coverage of weather-related damage. Not to mention photos submitted by viewers.

Senate Filibuster

You'll also never hear claims that the Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional. The U word seems to be anathema and will never be uttered, not even in passing. Talking heads routinely say, "And it will take 60 votes in the Senate to pass this measure." That claim is wrong, wrong, wrong as I explain at this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html

The Second Amendment's demise

Whenever the US Constitution's Second Amendment is mentioned, usually after some horrific shooting, this question is never asked:

Why didn't the Amendment simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" That's ironclad. But instead we were given this, with the added text I highlight in yellow:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The point? If it should ever come to pass that "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of a free state, then the entire Second Amendment becomes null and void. Since "being necessary" was the foundation of the amendment, if "being necessary" is no longer the case, then those yellowed words become a kill-mechanism which voids the entire amendment. In other words? The Founding Fathers would have served their purpose far more effectively by simply having the amendment read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As for the yellowed text:

We have never had a "well regulated militia" on a broad national basis, the National Guard units being the exception. And the Guard units alone aren't necessary to our security, since our regular armed forces are more than equal to the task.

As for the ideal of an armed citizenry as a potential counter balance against the threat of our central government assuming dictatorial powers, there's no way such a force could resist the full onslaught of federal troops.

So much for the Second Amendment but...you'll never hear Charlie Rose talk about any of this.

ISIS

I'd also love to hear on the news: "You've seen endless images of Toyota trucks used by ISIS bearing mounted machine guns. Our investigators, after interviewing US authorities, have traced the VIN of some of these battle-damaged and abandoned vehicles. And they were purchased by ____ and sold by ____."

How free do you feel now?

Make no mistake: The news in this country as portrayed on TV is very tightly controlled. In that sense, we live in a totalitarian society where access to real news and alternate, non-government approved news is tightly controlled. For all of our highly-touted freedom, we might as well be living in North Korea. Yes, we are more affluent but if that changes - a very real possibility - then what will we have left to brag about?

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Ferguson, Missouri

I was watching Fox News earlier today and saw something rather amazing - well, "amazing" by my standards. It seems the man who had shot two police officers a few days ago has been apprehended, along with the gun he used. Apparently, this man had come from out of town to attend the anti-police demonstrations in front of the local police station.

A detective was interviewed by Fox. He was a very fit, well-dressed, barely-middle aged black man with close-cropped hair. He spoke disparagingly of "outside agitators" who'd come to Ferguson to make trouble. He said that locals were anxious to see that normalcy be restored, especially small business owners who'd seen their businesses take a hit.

I don't know the politics of Ferguson or if the resignations of six top officials should satisfy the demonstrators. They are calling for the resignation of the mayor, who said he would remain on the job.

That comment about "outside agitators" struck me. It was outside agitators who had joined Martin Luther King Jr as he attempted to cross the Edmund Bettus bridge in Selma, Alabama 50 years ago. Governor George Wallace had spoken derisively of "outside agitators," as had numerous mayors and governors across the South. They assured the world that they were capable of solving their own problems without having to suffer from the interference or pressure of outsiders.

Hearing this black detective deride outside agitators was doubly ironic:

First, he was channeling the words of racist officials uttered 50 years ago,
and the two police officers who'd been shot were not locals - they were outsiders.

As a Buddhist, I despise violence. But I am forced to note that Dr. King's non-violent civil rights movement would not have succeeded in the long run if the white establishment didn't at least worry that this movement could take a violent turn. And that there were blacks outside his movement who had guns and were willing to use them.

I remember radicals within Nelson Mandela's movement who had planted bombs with the intention of damaging the government's infrastructure. No one was supposed to get killed, but at least one innocent bystander was. The intention was to get the attention of the authorities, to show them they had something to fear. Especially, if the radicals were to decide to escalate their activities.

In my own case, I have never engaged in or been a victim of violence - with two exceptions. I was in a fist fight in the seventh grade - I lost. And I had been jumped, along with my brother, by four young men 35 years ago. I got banged up pretty good, but I managed to bite the nose of one of my attackers. My brother, who knew martial arts, took care of the others.

Looking back on my life, I took an inventory of the many in positions of authority who had abused me, against whom I could not retaliate. But I found out later that most of them had suffered a profound reversal of fortune. It is written in the Lotus Sutra - and here I paraphrase: "If one hurls insults to the Buddha's face for 1,000 years, he will suffer severe recompense for this action. But if one directs even one insulting or disparaging word against a man who embraces the Lotus Sutra, his punishment will be much more severe."

I have found that to be true in my case, with one man being suddenly struck by a brain cancer that killed him in short order. While it's true that I myself have been diagnosed with terminal liver cancer and given only five to eight months to live, I'm still here 30 months later - much to the amazement of my oncologist. And my current condition is stable and non-life threatening.

I don't think the natives of Ferguson, Missouri are going to convert to Buddhism any time soon. Though I am amazed that the Black man has adopted the religion of his slave masters. Can't get over how many Black Baptists there are. But being a practical sort, I thought of a solution. I think the federal government should set up sting operations with the intention of catching local cops behaving badly. The initiation of these operations should be well-advertised in advance, though only the feds would know the details and set up and control the environment of these stings.

I think cops far too often are the beneficiaries of local and state official agencies and sympathetic citizens all-too-eager to look the other way. That shit's gotta stop.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

German karmic retribution

Sometimes I have imaginings of alternate universes. This is one such, though before I proceed, I want to let you know I'm not beating up on the Germans of whom I find much to admire:

Joseph Stalin announcing to the world at the immediate conclusion of World War 2:

"The Soviet Union announces the annexation of East Germany as an official part of the Russian state. Only Russians and, by approval of the party, other citizens of the USSR will be allowed to live in this newly-annexed part of Russia. All Germans currently living there will be dealt with as follows, unless they are allowed by another country to emigrate. And they won't be allowed to leave before all of their wealth is confiscated.

"Any Germans remaining in East Germany after a year has passed will either be executed or force marched to their new homes and assignments in Siberia."

This scenario of course didn't happen - here. But it did happen in at least one of the alternate universes which are out there. In such a place, nobody in Europe or the United States could have protested Stalin's policy. Didn't the Germans embrace genocide? Surely they of all people would understand why Stalin decided to exterminate so many millions of their race.


Karmic Retribution

Hans Frank said, "A thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased." A thousand years? Loyal Nazis at the highest and lowest levels of the extermination campaigns against their fellow man will pay the karmic price during their many reincarnations over billions of years. Those loyalists who have passed away - and I include among their number those who cheered enthusiastically at all those rallies and parades - are currently roasting in hell. And, no, those who had turned to God or Jesus for forgiveness have found out: That didn't work!

Hans Frank also said this [my comments are highlighted in blue, and are in response to those words I highlighted in yellow]:

QUOTE [source: See Footnote One]:

There is still one statement of mine which I must rectify.  On the witness stand [at the Nuremburg war crimes trials] I said that a thousand years would not suffice to erase the guilt brought upon our people because of Hitler's conduct in this war. [NOTE:  Your people are guilty because of what they did. They were not the innocent victims of "Hitler's conduct in this war." Hitler had, shall we say, a little help in carrying out his policies.] Every possible guilt incurred by our nation has already been completely wiped out today, not only by the conduct of our war-time enemies towards our nation and its soldiers, which has been carefully kept out of this Trial, but also by the tremendous mass crimes of the most frightful sort which - - as I have now learned - - have been and still are being committed against Germans by Russians, Poles, and Czechs, especially in East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, and Sudetenland. Who shall ever judge these crimes against the German people?

:UNQUOTE.

[NOTE:

I want to address the section above which follows Every possible guilt. What Germany's enemies did will only somewhat reduce Germany's negative karma. The nation has yet to endure the full force of the karmic retribution for what it did - and, yes, nations as well as individuals are subject to the laws of karmic retribution (and reward, I must add). Those German supporters of Hitler who lived during the war and have since passed away and are right now screaming in hell. And, no, their pleas for forgiveness directed toward God or Jesus failed to save them.

And you too will roast in hell if you fail to take measures to save the dearly departed. Even if you were born after the war. You are part of a nation that sinned and will have to pay the price. But Buddhist practice can help reduce the severity of your punishment.

You can save your dead ancestors and can save yourself. If you engage in Buddhist practice and pray for them, that will help reduce the time they'll have to suffer. From billions of years to perhaps only a few hundred million. Right now, Germany is prospering, so it's all too easy for their citizens to be lulled into a false sense of security. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to practice Buddhism like your hair is on fire. Abandon the Catholicism and the Lutheranism - I can't believe there's a faith bearing the name of a man (of course, Martin Luther, its founder).

Hans Frank was correct in citing the atrocities committed against Germans by its war time enemies. Those war criminals will have their own negative karma to overcome and they will also suffer in hell. And so will the American and British airmen who bombed Dresden, as well as those ordinary citizens back home who had cheered what they did. As will the descendants of the British redcoats who had wreaked so much pain and suffering in the Third World. As will Americans currently trying to force their way of life and their dominance on the rest of the world. Which is why I renounced my American citizenship over three years ago.

:NOTE]

This is my understanding of Nazism: Some people are better than others and they have a right to enslave or exterminate inferior humans. However, this is a somewhat more accurate statement: Some people appear to be better than others. There might have been profoundly accomplished Bodhisattvas who were killed in the concentration camps. They might have been members of an "inferior" race - perhaps they had been born into the Jewish tribe. Killing such a person can have a ripple effect that harms or even destroys an entire nation.

If you think you're better than someone else, it is your responsibility to embrace that man, show him loving kindness, give him alms, and - above all - encourage him to join you in Buddhist practice.

Now, you might ask, "What is Buddhist practice?"  There are many opinions on this, and many teachers who run schools based on their interpretations of correct Buddhist practice. Most importantly: Overcome the Germanic tendency to ask, "Who's in charge?" Answer: The Buddha, who walks among us, is in charge and he will find ways to teach and encourage you though he rarely reveals himself. After 27 years of practice, I haven't seen Shakyamuni Buddha or any of the other trillions of Buddhas currently teaching throughout the universe.

My own recommendation:

I was an agnostic before I joined a Buddhist lay organization known as the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). I had joined at the encouragement of my friends who had recently joined in the summer of 1974. I was eventually kicked out of the SGI in 2013 as a heretic, though they didn't use that word.

My form of Buddhist practice for the last ten years has been to "read, recite, ponder, and teach to the best of my ability" the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha identified as his highest teaching. Within the pages of the Lotus, the Buddha repeatedly states that after his (apparent!) passing in ancient India, future generations are to "read, recite, ponder, and teach to the best of my ability" the Lotus Sutra.

I read from a text often referred to as the three-fold Lotus Sutra, which is entitled:

The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras

These sutras cover almost 400-pages as translated into English by Burton Watson, and were copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009, though there was an earlier version which I'd also used. I have read other English-language translations from which I've profited, but I really enjoy the Watson version's simple elegance. This text appears on-line and can be accessed at no cost. I have orally recited the three-fold Lotus over 175 times. That would make a stack fifteen feet high, since this text is about one-inch thick.

I don't have a teacher or even any fellow Buddhists to practice with. I would really enjoy the company and input of the latter, but I practice alone since no one's come into my life with whom I can practice and discuss the meanings contained within this text. Undaunted, I simply remember the Buddha's words as expressed in the Lotus, concerning "Buddha wisdom, teacherless wisdom, wisdom that comes of itself."

I don't endorse brick-and-mortar "churches," which is why I established the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus at this site, which contains 80 of my essays on various Buddhist doctrinal issues:

lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com

Though this site has had over 2,000 hits over the last few years, I've received only two comments. Maybe the virtual samgha blog site that you establish for the benefit of your circle of internet contacts will prove to be more successful than mine. I sincerely hope so and wish you the best in that endeavor.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

http://www.cwporter.com/thousand.htm
 

A Creative way to reform the US Court system

Are you tired of activist judges in the federal court system? Judges who (allegedly) have appointments for life, and who are therefore unaccountable except that they can be impeached? [NOTE: And that almost never happens, since impeachment is so difficult to engineer.] Are you tired of five-to-four decisions of the Supreme Court, which seem to indicate that no one really knows what the Constitution means? If they did know, we'd surely see more 9-0 decisions - or at least 7-2.

There is a creative way to make a profound change in our federal judiciary, which would not require a Constitutional amendment. This would introduce greater accountability. I propose a contractual approach based on an oath, which only the US President can enable. Primary season will soon be upon us, though hopefuls for their party's presidential nomination are currently jockeying for advantage. I hope one of these hopefuls will make the following one of his campaign promises:

QUOTE:

I will not nominate any person to be a judge in the courts mentioned in Article III, Section 1 [quoted below] - both the Supreme Court and the "inferior" courts - who will not sign the following contract:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Justice/judge of [for example] the U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years, after which I will resign from that office. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the "good behavior' rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.

:UNQUOTE.


For the Record:

The yellowed part below makes clear that the judges involved do not have life-time appointments as is commonly assumed. I am using the idea of "during good behaviour" and the fondness for oath taking which our Constitution embraces in order to advocate for this radical change. Of course, once a judge resigns upon completion of his 5-year term, he could be renominated and reconfirmed by the Senate.But of course his successful resumption of office would depend on whether his conduct while in office is judged to have been an example of "good behaviour."

QUOTE:

Article III, Section 1:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

:UNQUOTE.

This idea, establishing five-year terms, is something I came up with when I had run for president in 2012. I had incorporated this concept into my binding electoral contract, which is here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"Obama's U.N. End Run Around Congress on Iran"

Introduction

Today's post is in four parts, following this introductory section:

An opening statement

Excerpts from Article II of the U.S. Constitution

A Huffington Post article entitled, "Obama's U.N. End Run Around Congress on Iran"

UN Charter's Chapter VII excerpt


Opening Statement

Today's essay deals with blowback from the letter signed by 47 GOP senators. That letter began with these words:   An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The blowback involves the alleged power of the imperial president to enter into agreements with foreign powers by calling them "executive agreements." That concept isn't mentioned in the US Constitution - only his power to make treaties is listed. And that can only be done with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Which makes me wonder: Why didn't the Senate insist that two senators - one from each party - be allowed to attend the nuclear negotiations? Their role wouldn't have been as negotiators but as agents who would silently observe the proceedings and periodically report to the Senate in order to generate constitutionally required "advice" for the President.

If we had a Senate with independents as members, the Senate would have been more protective of its powers. Instead, the power of the political parties tended to virtually grant the president (also a member of a political party) ever-expanding powers. Of course, the concept of political party is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

Excerpts from Article II of the U.S. Constitution

I'm going to quote Article II of the Constitution, but only the parts that list the powers of the president. The essence of those parts are highlighted in yellow, whereas my comments are highlighted in blue. As you'll see, the President was never intended to have as much power as he's managed to acquire over the centuries.

QUOTE:

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[NOTE: It says "executive power," not "autocratic power." The President shall have "executive power" to "execute the will of the Congress." Articles I, II,and III are in the order listed for a reason - with Congress (Article I) intended to be the superior branch of the three as evidenced by its power of impeachment over the other two branches, whereas Congress is immune from attacks (such as dissolution).]

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

[NOTE:  Army and Navy? What about the Air Force? Why wasn't a constitutional amendment passed to account for the Air Force? Yet another instance of the Constitution being ignored.]

he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

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

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

[NOTE: There is no mention of any presidential power to enter into "executive agreements" - thereby bypassing the Senate - with foreign powers.]

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;

he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers;

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,

[NOTE: That is, he shall execute the will of Congress (by means of his executive power) the laws passed by Congress, even those which passed over presidential veto.

and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

:UNQUOTE.


A Huffington Post article entitled,

"Obama's U.N. End Run Around Congress on Iran"

Text I highlight below in yellow, I will comment on in blue:

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-laurenti/obamas-un-end-run-around_b_6869108.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


 Source:  Huffington Post
           TITLE:  "Obama's U.N. End Run Around Congress on Iran"
           by Jeffrey Laurenti, Int'l Affairs analyst and commentator
            posted 3-14-2015

The 47 Senate Republicans who warned Iranians against any nuclear agreement with Barack Obama that a Republican successor could revoke "with the stroke of a pen" billed their audacious letter to the clerical regime in Tehran as a civics lesson in the American constitutional system.

It has become instead an embarrassing testament to senators' ignorance not only of American constitutional practice but of the enforcement powers vested in the United Nations Security Council and vetted by the Senate when it approved ratification of the U.N. Charter seventy years ago. [NOTE: That doesn't mean the Senate surrendered its Constitutional power to give "advice and consent" and to ratify treaties. Only a Constitutional amendment could allow that.]

GOP signers anticipated an outcry from the Obama administration; the president wryly remarked on the irony of "some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with hardliners in Iran." [NOTE: It wasn't "some members," it was a substantial block (47) of the body that is empowered to "advise and consent" and to ratify treaties. These 47 were merely informing the Iranians how our system works, so they wouldn't be surprised if the next president should dismiss any agreement "with the stroke of a pen." Should that happen, the Iranians would come to even more profoundly distrust us.] Some were a bit surprised by a broader public reaction--gauged less by the editorial pages of leading newspapers than by the fervor with which the blogosphere picked up the charge of "Traitors"   [NOTE: Let's get one thing straight - there's no way 47 senators will be brought up on charges of treason.] leveled by the New York Daily News, of all newspapers.

Given Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's dark suspicions about "Zionist" control of the U.S. Congress, the letter's originator, Arkansas freshman Thomas Cotton, and his supporters could reasonably have supposed that their vow to undermine an executive agreement could flip the crusty cleric against the putative pact. [NOTE: There is no such power of the president listed in the Constitution that mentions "executive agreements" - only the treaty making power is mentioned which the President shares with the Senate. He can't make treaties on his own.]

Khamenei is not known for a subtle mastery of international public relations, but the supreme leader's public reply Thursday had surprising resonance globally, particularly among America's European allies. The Republican senators' letter, he said, was "a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within." Far from turning against the nuclear talks, Khamenei reaffirmed support for his negotiators.

[NOTE:  Wouldn't it be funny if Khamenei refused to sign off on any negotiated agreement until, upon his insistence, the US Senate voted by two-thirds to ratify this treaty?]

But it was Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif who administered the coup de grâce to the pretensions of Cotton's constitutional tutelage. If an agreement is reached between Iran and the Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany, he said, it will be embodied in a Security Council resolution--enforceable under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. [NOTE: But an "agreement" is not the same as a treaty, so any such agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.]

Cotton seems never to have learned about the Charter while at Harvard Law School, and Zarif's reference apparently sailed over his and most other signers' heads. But Senate foreign relations committee chairman Robert Corker--who had pointedly refused to sign the Cotton letter--quickly realized that a Security Council resolution would render the Republican roadblock in Congress redundant.  [NOTE: But this "resolution" could not come to pass without the Senate ratifying the treaty it would be based upon.] In a letter of Obama, he implored the president to indicate "whether you are considering going to the United Nations Security Council without coming to Congress first."  [NOTE: Why did Corker merely ask this of Obama instead of insisting, "You've got to obtain the Senate's approval of this treaty before you go to the Security Council."

The answer is obvious, and Corker knows it. No member of the Security Council seeks its legislature's approval ahead of a vote in that body. [NOTE: No member of the Security Council is bound by our Constitution.] The elder president George Bush went to the Security Council for a resolution approving military action to expel Iraqi occupiers from Kuwait months before he asked Congress for a war powers authorization to use American forces. [NOTE: If Congress would have said "No," it wouldn't have mattered if Bush had obtained a Security Council resolution of approval. Only Congress has the power to declare war.]

When the Senate debated ratification of the U.N. Charter in July 1945, the most troubling issue for many conservative senators was the legally enforceable character of actions the Security Council might take under Chapter VII. Would it allow a president to circumvent the Congress--and order U.S. forces into war without congressional authorization? [NOTE: No, it wouldn't - unless a Constitutional amendment had been passed to allow such circumvention, ignoring the sole power of Congress to declare war.]

Seventy years later, the issue of the interplay between the Security Council and the Congress has returned, but with an ironic twist. The Security Council, it turns out, is much more of a brake on impulses to go to war than is the Congress. (Exhibit A: Iraq 2003.)

In the current case, the council's permanent members would be adopting a resolution to neuter Iran's nuclear program in order to avoid a war, while the demand of congressional opponents and embattled Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu for ending Iranian nuclear enrichment admits of one option only--war.

[NOTE:  All Iran has to do is to invoke Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as had North Korea. Article X allows any state to withdraw from the NPT and legally build a nuclear arsenal if it feels (not needing the OK of the UN) that its national security is threatened. With all this talk of war, Iran would be totally justified in feeling threatened.]

There is, to be sure, another irony. Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly in 1987, Khamenei himself, then president of Iran, derided the United Nations as a "paper factory" churning out "worthless resolutions." At the time, Iranians were incensed that the Security Council, in a shocking display of moral relativism, was calling evenhandedly for a ceasefire in the seven-year Iran-Iraq war rather than acting against the brazen aggressor in Baghdad who had launched it. But when the council finally imposed sanctions to compel an end to the fighting, supreme leader Ruhollah Khomeini was forced to "drink the bitter cup" of peace without justice.

U.N. sanctions have clearly brought home to Tehran the costs of its pursuit of nuclear threshold capabilities. [NOTE: Once Iran invokes Article X, those sanctions would become illegal.] If the "P5 plus 1" do conclude an accord with Iran, [NOTE: Which it can't, since any such "accord" would be a "treaty," Constituionally speaking, needing to pass muster with the Senate.] the Security Council resolution that lays out the timetable for implementing agreed controls over Iran's nuclear program will presumably prescribe as well the phase-out of the international sanctions regime. The Europeans, who have been the linchpins of the sanctions, will be as glad as the Chinese, Japanese, and Russians to end them.

At that point, hawkish congressional conservatives in Washington will be very much on their own. They can look to the success of their comprehensive, solitary, 53-year embargo against Cuba for their model. [NOTE: That embargo is a violation of international law.]


UN Charter's Chapter VII excerpt

I'll only quote the title and opening section, followed by my comment.

QUOTE:

TITLE:  Chapter VII:  Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

:UNQUOTE.

Only Congress has the power to declare war and thus enable the US to legally vote for war under Chapter VII's provisions.

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

 

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