Mitt Romney and the Three Jesuses

There is the Jesus who Mitt Romney believes in. And there is the Jesus who American Evangelicals believe in. They will both readily admit that there are differences in these two versions of Jesus. But in the exchange quoted below, Romney didn’t mention anything about these differences, nor did his questioner appear to either know or care:

QUOTE:

“Gov. Romney, I’m for you,” his second questioner, Betty Treen of Hilton Head, told him, “But I need to ask you a personal question. Do you believe in the divine saving grace of Jesus Christ?”
"Yes I do,” Romney replied…“I happen to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior…”

:UNQUOTE: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/14/news/la-pn-romney-talks-religion-in-south-carolina-20120114

Let’s imagine an encounter in the Afterlife between Betty Treen, Mitt Romney, and their two Jesuses. [Don’t worry, I’ll get to that third Jesus fairly soon.]

Betty and Mitt are (presumably) in Heaven when two Jesuses appear before them, each claiming to be The Jesus. One embraces Mitt and acknowledges Himself as the Jesus described by the Mormons. The other, as the Jesus as described by the Evangelicals. They look exactly alike, but it’s their pedigree and nature-of-divinity which is in question.

Mitt and Betty each ask their respective Jesus, “Have I been saved?” To which, they get a Yes. Then, on a hunch, they turn to the other Jesus and ask the same question, “Have I been saved?” To which, each gets a No.

Then I walk up to this group with a third Jesus who looks exactly like the other Two. We had been talking before approaching the others, but I won’t get into details about that. I start speaking to the Third Jesus, as Mitt, Betty, and the Other Two listen.

Me – “I can’t tell You that I believe in You, but I can say I have some awareness of You.”

Him – “Tell me about this awareness.”

Me – “I know only that You are one god among untold trillions who has engaged in Buddhist practice for untold trillions of years to become a fully-enlightened Buddha.”

Him – “Tell me what you don’t know.”

Me – “I don’t know how much progress You’ve made or how much farther You’ve yet to go.”

Him – “Do you want to ask Me if you’ve been saved?”

Me – “No, I don’t, for I already know the answer to that: My salvation – like Yours (that is, our attempts to become Buddhas) – is a work in progress.”

Him – “So you don’t want to ask Me if I can save you?”

Me – “No, for I know You can’t – not by Yourself. I want to ask if You think I have done enough in my small capacity as a mortal to save others.”

Him – “That’s funny, for I was about to ask you the same question of My efforts.”

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

The Moral

It takes a long time to get it right – far longer than can be done within the space of one lifetime. And our current place in this drama can best be explained by considering lifespan. Here on this Earth, it’s rare for a person to live longer than 100 years. But that relative lack of longevity is a function of our sins. For it is commonly held, among Buddhists at any rate, that the human lifespan has easily exceeded one million years in bygone eons.

So, in spite of the advance of our technology, we are still too petty, mean, self-absorbed, and lacking in compassion. Translated karmically, that means we’ve earned the short lifespans which we, ironically, think of as long – compared to the historical lifespans of which we’re aware. But our shiny gadgets blind us into believing we’re superior to our ancestors. That’s only because we’ve forgotten our ancestors who lived trillions of years ago.

But forgetting is something that has come too naturally to us. There is more and there are ways to remember. One of the ways is to follow the Buddha’s last advice to us: “Don’t follow persons, follow the Law.” He further explained that that Law was to be found in a text called the Lotus Sutra, which he urged future generations to read, recite, ponder, and practice. After having read the Lotus Sutra (aloud, on a daily basis) well over 120 times (all 324-pages of it), I think I’ve solved a mystery. This mystery:

QUOTE:

“…what the Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law. The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas.”

:UNQUOTE: (source: The Burton Watson translation)

My question is a fairly obvious one: How can we Seekers of the Way be expected to understand the Buddhist Law, even when expounded directly to us by a Buddha, for that Law “can only be understood and shared between Buddhas?” And yet, the Buddha preaches this Law so that we (who aren’t yet Buddhas) can attain Enlightenment which, by definition, means that we understand this Law.

Then it occurred it me, this…some kind of answer, which I won’t claim to be the final answer but will hope is a work in progress:

The only reason the Buddha preaches to us is that he knows: within each of us a Buddha is already living. This is known as our “Buddha nature.” That’s the one to whom the Buddha is talking when he preaches to us. But since we’re such fragmented and (usually) unfocused people, we don’t connect easily or often to that inner Buddha.

All this takes patience and practice, for which the Lotus Sutra is a necessary guide. It also helps to know that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive, never having passed away in India over 2,000 years ago as is commonly believed. The Lotus Sutra makes clear why that is so.

But why is that important? Didn’t the Buddha say, “Don’t follow persons, follow the Law?” If he’s so important to our attainment of Buddhahood, are we to assume he’s the Law itself and not a person? Again, the Lotus Sutra makes that clear. Shakyamuni Buddha stopped being a “person,” in the ordinary sense of the word, trillions of years ago. And there’s more than one Shakyamuni Buddha since the Lotus teaches how all Buddhas are capable of creating emanations of themselves (or clones, to use a modern though crude word). Since there’s more than one Shakyamuni Buddha and, for that matter, there are trillions of other Buddhas, we wouldn’t be “following persons” – that is, not in the sense of identifying any one in particular as necessary for our salvation (read: for our attainment of Buddhahood).

Disclaimer: All of this is just my opinion; I wouldn’t pretend otherwise. And even if I would, what difference would it make for, who am I?

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only thing that needs saving is ourselves, from ourselves, for our non-selves, which can best be done by trying to save others. And that can be best done incognito” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Reflections on Anders Breivik

Conclusion (rendered in advance):

Anders Behring Breivik was wrong to have killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians – 69 by gunshot, 8 by bomb blast.

My personal stake:

I have personal reasons for opening this essay with my Conclusion. First, it would be too easy to delve into various subtleties of this case and overlook what is most important: What Breivik did was wrong. Also, Breivik and I are both lone wolves, though (to mix two species) of very different stripes. What he did not only gives lone wolves a bad name, it gives anxious authorities that much more reason to harass us. This unwanted attention actually bodes badly for all who care about ever-shrinking personal liberties.

The lone wolf who is willing to sacrifice himself on the altar of militant action is next-to-impossible for anti-terrorism forces to defeat. The lone wolf has no chance of realizing his goals and few of inspiring other solitary actors, but his threats against our lives and liberties are very real.

Of course, the cynic might claim any effort on my part to denounce Breivik’s actions or philosophy could be nothing more than a smokescreen. There have been anti-Islamic right-wingers who have denounced his methods to (probably) protect themselves from the wrath of the public and the authorities. So, I am not going to denounce Breivik or wish him any harm. All I will try to do here is to point out a few things. I don’t pretend to know all the answers, but I can ask a pretty good question or two. So, bear with me.

Anders Behring Breivik, personally speaking

I can only offer some superficial impressions, since I don’t know Mr. Breivik at all. My first impression, after skimming his 1,500 page compendium (see link at end of this essay): “Looks to me like all of us, including Breivik himself, are once again victims of a man with a complicated mind.”

There’s nothing wrong with having a complicated mind. Sometimes, though, it prevents one from seeing the forest for the trees or from appreciating different sets of complications embraced by others.

Anders is a good-looking young man who will never himself know the mixed-blessings that are marriage and fatherhood. Unless there’s something about the Norwegian system of justice I don’t know about (and also assuming he is found criminally responsible). Judging by his photos on the internet, he likes to strike a pose – dressed in a military uniform or in a compression suit wielding an assault rifle. This reminds me of too many young people I know who thrive on role-playing games. I find myself wishing they had personalities of their own.

The only unflattering picture I’ve seen of Anders is as a prisoner sitting in a squad car. There, he looks a lot like Jared Lee Loughner, who allegedly tried to kill U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in January of this year.  A friend of mine, having seen pictures of both, said, “These men were under mind control, not responsible for their actions.” I do not accept this conclusion, though I offer it here as one (remote) possibility.

Point/Counterpoint

I’m going to quote portions of Breivik’s manifesto as “Points,” responding to each with my “Counterpoints.”

Point [This is the text of Breivik’s title page]:

2083

A European Declaration of Independence

De Laude Novae Militiae [translation: In praise of the new knighthood]

Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici [translation: Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (aka Knights Templar)]

By Andrew Berwick, London – 2011

Counterpoint:

The year 2083, in the title, refers to the time when Islamic influence in Europe will be totally eliminated. Obviously, Mr. Breivik has no sympathy for those who think the world will end in the year 2012.

I’m not clear on why the memory of the Knights Templar is invoked, since many Europeans see themselves as unabashed secularists. Centuries of religious warfare have weaned many on the continent away from religious banners. Even Breivik himself says he’s not a very religious person.

Point

It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing Islamisation.

Counterpoint

Of whom is he speaking when citing “our identity?” A European may well be a European (as opposed to an Antarctican), but a Norwegian would not identify as an Irishman. Nor would a Spaniard identify as a German. Nor would members of various youth movements think they’ll ever get old or conservative. And his last bit about “national sovereignty” is odd, considering his piece is entitled “A European Declaration of Independence.” The last time I checked, Europe is not a nation.

Point

More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe; yet, they DO NOT have the permission of the European peoples to implement these doctrines.

Counterpoint

How does he make the leap to “therefore?” If this 90% and 95% are “supporters of [Euro] multiculturalism,” why would they support Islamic colonization of Europe? You’d think they would support measures to protect that multicultural flavor, which in fact would be enhanced by including Muslim immigrants.

Anders Breivik seems to think all Muslims are cut from the same (monolithic, terrorist) cloth. Even within the countries of the Islamic world, there are profound differences among Muslims. The Shia of Iran and Sunni of Arabia think of each other as heretics. And the Sufi of, among other places, Africa, are certainly not to be ignored. As for Muslims living in Europe, many had fled from oppression in their homelands and welcome the chance to prosper and raise families in a more tolerant Europe.

As for Anders’ claim “they DO NOT have the permission of the European peoples to implement these doctrines,” how does he know that? If the 90% and 95% he speaks of embrace multiculturalism, there’s a better than even chance their constituencies feel the same way. If the immigrant Muslims inspire their established countrymen in any bad way, religious differences are not the cause. Lagging assimilation into the larger society and a bad economy (causing competition for scarce resources) are likelier culprits.

As for “Islamic colonization” – say what? The actions of Europe and the US in Afghanistan and Iraq are far more colonial in nature than those of the Muslim immigrants trying to eke out a better life in Europe. If Anders Breivik had really wanted to fight a more direct Islamic threat, he could have joined Norway’s armed forces, volunteering to join their contingent in Afghanistan. But, no, he decided to resist Norway’s military conscription laws (three times) on the flimsy excuse that he didn’t want to put his life on the line for the sake of Norway’s political parties.

What the hell is the Norwegian military doing in Afghanistan anyway, other than doing the bidding of a US which expects Norwegian tribute?

Point

As we all know, the root of Europe's problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism).

Counterpoint

Again, Breivik speaks of European nationalism but really means European nationalisms (plural). Besides, a lack of self-confidence is probably the real issue in his own case. How else to explain the “confidence” of a man who would shoot unarmed civilians (children) like shooting fish in a barrel? How else to account for a man who wears a military uniform, but only to pose for photographs?

Some miscellaneous comments

On terrorism

I am a Buddhist, so I always ask myself, “What would the Buddha do?” I can’t see Shakyamuni shooting fish in a barrel, or even going fishing. So I let his behavior be my guiding light.

There are people who think they have to resort to terrorism, including many in my own government. There are some who do this out of desperation – real or imagined. But in too many cases, this is just taking the easy way out and shows a certain lack of creativity. Quite often, there truly are better ways – think, people, think.

On nationalism

Nationalism, and the elites supported by this ism, are the deadliest threats to world peace. We have to find ways to open borders, not close them; to fight elitism and promote the universal brotherhood of man.

On religious differences

I look forward to the day when Buddhism gains a wider audience in Europe.  Especially when its central tenet of compassion for all can overcome “How can I get more for me and my kind?” The spirit of almsgiving drives us to ask, not how much we can take but how much and in what ways can we give? However, I am not referring to popularly practiced versions of Buddhism. I have my own ideas of what is properly Buddhist, which I invite you to view elsewhere on this blog.

On Breivik’s killings on that island

Anders might have been thinking, “If I kill their kids, they’ll see that no safe haven exists anywhere.” Not to mention, “I’ve given them a reason never to forget my message.” Well, that sounds an awful lot like, “If a nice Norwegian boy like me can do such an awful thing, imagine what Muslims (who we ‘know’ are a whole lot worse) will do once they establish a firmer foothold in Norway.”

I can’t help but thinking that Breivik had better strategies at his disposal. He risked huge backlash and would have made recruitment to his cause more difficult in the face of hostile public and law enforcement responses. Suppose that Norway’s Islamic community had stepped forward and donated blood to local hospitals tending to Breivik’s wounded, thereby gaining a respect unintended by this attacker. These attacks by Anders seem too much like a flash-in-the-pan approach, which is at odds with the long-term (nearly 10 years!), systematic approach he’d taken toward the development and writing of his ideas.

Given this contradiction, it would be well worth pondering whether Breivik was manipulated by some invisible hand. The easiest way to approach that line of thinking is to ask, “Who would stand to gain the most from Breivik’s actions?” My best guess? Euro elites who are wary of infiltration by agents of Islamic elites.

On Multiculturalism

I don’t look at differences among people in terms of their “culture” but in terms of their karma. It’s easier to think only of culture, since that takes into account certain obvious traits. However, karma extends back in time to cover actions performed by individuals over untold numbers of lifetimes. Westerners don’t like dealing with anything outside the box, since they’re much more comfortable with what they can see before their very eyes. For this reason, they make good accountants. But the accounting that really counts takes much more into consideration than what we can see with our eyes.

Since that is deemed too difficult, if not unreliable and downright mystic, pragmatic people tend to denounce or marginalize karmic considerations. However, the plain truth is: People are a whole lot more complicated than that and so is the truth.

On forgiving Anders Breivik

Shakyamuni Buddha said*, “I look upon all things as being universally equal. I have no mind to favor this or that, to love one or hate another.”

The Buddha saw past cultural differences, and differences of caste and gender. He saw our universal equality which, as he clarifies later, means the ability of each of us to become a fully-enlightened Buddha. Love has nothing to do with getting there, nor does hate. Each of us thinking (obsessively!) of all others as potential Buddhas will help each of us to realize that loftiest of all goals.

The Buddha even saw potential in a mass murderer known historically as Angulimala, who cut off the fingers of his 1,000 victims in order to make a grotesque necklace. If the Buddha could welcome such a man into his order of monks, to work on atoning for his murders, the least we can do (for now) is to stop thinking bad thoughts about Anders Behring Breivik. And maybe even buying him a beer when he gets out of jail.

Conclusion (repeated from above)

Anders Behring Breivik was wrong to have killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians – 69 by gunshot, 8 by bomb blast.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There are too many people with too much to gain who are trying to hide too many things from us to indulge in any leaping to conclusions.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Link to Breivik’s compendium: http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf

   * According to the Burton Watson translation of the Lotus Sutra, see chapter 5.  

On waiving copyright, and Israeli and Tibetan clinging

Today I will address my personal decision to waive copyright protection. However, I will then transition to how Israel and Tibetan Buddhists, each in their own way, are guilty of clinging. Or, put a better way, guilty of attachments which block the path to enlightenment. And, yes, even the Israelis, though not Buddhists, hunger to become fully-enlightened Buddhas – they just don’t fully realize this yet.

Waiving copyright

I hereby waive copyright protection for any and all material posted (or to be posted) on this website. Nobody has to ask my permission to use, rework in their own style, or compensate me in any manner. I don’t even ask that users acknowledge me as a source. The only limitation is that I maintain the right to post and utilize, without payment of any fee, any and all such material as I see fit under my own name. [NOTE: It’d be a hell of thing if someone developed one of my themes, copyrighted that for themselves, and were to tell me I couldn’t use my own original source material.]

Naturally, if anyone reading this wants me to address some type of “permission” or memo of understanding directly to them concerning (say) any one of my ideas on this blog, I would be more than happy to do so.

Now why, you may ask, would I do such a thing? I can’t remember where I’ve heard this (and right now, I’m too lazy to try to google the source): “If you show me a man who says ‘This is mine,' I’ll show you a thief.” That’s my guiding principle here. Now that doesn’t mean you can approach me on the street and ask me to surrender my underwear on the spot. In that particular case, there are other considerations involved which I won’t get into here.

A more accurate view would be to consider my waiving to be a form of almsgiving – Buddhists such as myself are supposed to be big on that. It is written: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” But I don’t waive in order to be flattered; I do so in order to inspire. Must be the teacher in me that delights when someone can take a concept I’ve initiated and more fully develop it. Or even rework it in a form far superior to my original.

Don’t be deceived, though. My waiving is not entirely selfless, for I do gain something from this mindset. I have found that by not zealously clinging to my writings, I have become more creative. [Translation: I give up something, but I get much more in return.] I’m not sure why that is, but I’ll hazard a guess. People who cling excessively to “their” ideas get trapped in their own style of thinking. But by “giving it up,” I free myself from those chains. By not weighing myself down by saying, “This is mine, mine, mine,” I have discovered that internal doors of the mind open up bringing me fresh inspiration.

Yeah, I know…sounds kind of hokey, I suppose. But there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere. At least, this seems to work for me.

The Buddha’s teaching on clinging

We form attachments – that’s what we humans do. But when we obsess about these, to the point of desperate clinging, the internal calm needed to attain enlightenment is disturbed. We end up thinking so much about our “things,” we can’t focus on what is necessary for enlightenment. Desire is a good thing – for instance, the desire for enlightenment. But that’s about it.

Israeli clinging

I shouldn’t really say “Israeli” when I mean Zionist, so I stand corrected.

The Zionist clings to his (false) notion that God gave to his tribe a homeland. By the way, this territory far exceeds the Occupied Territory and Israel itself, but that fact is not trumpeted by the Zionists. They’re taking action, one step at a time. First, flood the West Bank with as many settlements as possible so as to dilute any possible Palestinian territorial claims. Then…ah, yes, then will come that time in the perhaps not-too-distant future when the Zionists can press their claims for the rest of the land they wish to annex. Again, this is a far greater mass than is currently appreciated by the popular press.

Personally? I don’t think God made any such gift to the Jewish tribes, at least not for all time. Even if He did, for the sake of argument, I view such a gift as a divine test. Case in point: If someone gives me a present, it’s mine to do with as I please. If I wish to share it with someone else, or even give it away entirely, that would be my prerogative. After all, unless it’s the kind of gift given with strings attached, I would be free to dispose of it as I saw fit. Once given, such a gift then becomes my personal property.

In the case of the Jewish tribes, if God did indeed give them (for instance) land now known as the West Bank, that doesn’t mean those tribes have to greedily cling to that land as if it’s a lifeline the loss of which would surely lead to drowning. Perhaps the tribes are being tested to see if they would be willing to give some of their (supposedly) God-given land to their stepbrother, the Arabs living in the West Bank. Stepbrothers? Yes, same father (Abraham), different mothers (Sarah and Hagar).

Here’s the test: If the Jewish tribes can stand idly by while their stepbrothers are living lives of misery and privation right next door to them, as a result of actions they themselves have inflicted, then how can it be said they are following the commandment to “Love the stranger.” If they can’t even show any love for their stepbrothers, how can they love those even stranger still?

This is no small question. For if the Jews are to be a nation which will be a light unto other nations, they’ve got to show loving kindness toward their own kin. If they can’t do even that much, then they might as well forget about that “light unto other nations” stuff. It doesn’t take much to see that Israel is not considered exemplary by the other nations of the earth – except perhaps the United States, though mostly because we find Israel useful as an ally.

Tibetan clinging

I don’t have any idea how the average Tibetan living in exile in India feels about the loss of his homeland. I don’t know if he has any expectation of regaining that homeland. But I do know this much: Far more important than their homeland is their religion – though I wish certain others could come to feel the same way. Homelands come and go. We leave this life only to be reincarnated elsewhere. And it’s doubtful that that “elsewhere” will turn out to be the homeland we’ve become familiar with in this life.

The Buddha himself set the best example by giving up his homeland. More than that, he gave up the throne which he, as a prince, would have inherited. By giving up his homeland, he gained far more than he lost. Excessive identification with a way of life or a particular piece of real estate turns out to be a hindrance to our spiritual progress.

I have a strong disclaimer, though, concerning the authenticity of the Tibetans’ adherence to Buddhist doctrine. From what I can see, they seem to have become too focused on the worship of the Dalai Lama and to various local protective deities. They have only the most indirect connection to the Buddha. If they had a firmer connection, they would abandon the unique, local variant of “Buddhism” which I call “Tibetanism.”

To me, the Dalai Lama, as the spiritual leader of his people, is especially at fault since he does not follow the Buddha’s most supreme teaching – the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha told his followers to abandon all of his prior teachings, since they had been meant as only a prelude to the revelation of the truth, known as the Lotus. However, the Dalai Lama says nothing – not one single word – in support of this highest doctrine.

He does, though, say a lot about other irrelevant stuff – and he giggles perhaps a bit too much.

The Buddha taught that the most ideal Buddhist practice is to read, recite, ponder, and spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Since the Dalai Lama has not done that, he must be considered a heretic. And this label is doubly-damning because the Dalai Lama should know better.

However, all that having been said, I do not consider the Lama to be an evil man. He’s just another victim of clinging – in his case, to his homeland’s customs, language, tribal costume, and to the reverence his people feel for him. About that last: It’s hard to shake off the addiction to being worshipped. This is a trap which ensnares leaders the world over – from the secular (Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of presidents-for-life) to the religious (Popes and lesser pretenders to godliness).

The Dalai Lama has a real and enduring value in that complete strangers to Buddhism are attracted to him. I’m not sure why, though that is not as important as them making some kind of initial connection to Buddhism. Even if that connection isn’t the most ideal.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We would all gain much if we mediated on our attachments and tried, at least for a moment or two, to abandon them. Might open up whole new worlds.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Buddha in the eyedropper

QUESTION:  How can an eyedropper help explain the difference between what happens when a Buddha dies and when an ordinary mortal dies?

DISCLAIMER:  (sigh) I’m about to use an analogy, knowing full well that some are better than others. This one might be particularly weak but I hope it contains enough to make the point.

What death means:

Imagine someone holding an eyedropper full of water, leaning over a ship’s railing while far out at sea. He extends his hand and squeezes the dropper so all its water falls into the ocean. Now compare that eyedropper with one individual’s physical body, and think of the water in that dropper as that one individual’s life-force. You can call it soul if you wish, since even within a Buddhist’s analogy that term will do.

For this analogy to work, think of water in that eyedropper in these two ways:

·       as ordinary molecules of water;

·       each molecule possessing the soul/spirit of that individual.

Once that dropper has been emptied, that person has “died.” His life-force joins the life-force of the greater living entity known as the ocean, which is the birthplace of all such uniquely individual life-forces. As time passes, all of those molecules will spread out and (given enough time) be thoroughly integrated into all the oceans of the world.

The deaths of an ordinary mortal and a Buddha can be described in such a way. However, the Buddha, faced with the prospect of his loss of identity (his unique water contained in that unique eyedropper being evenly dispersed throughout a greater whole) is not afraid because he’s done this before. The common mortal, facing such an unknown prospect, is terrified by thinking he’ll be spread out, diffused, and mixed with others.

What rebirth means:

The common mortal’s water molecules will eventually leave the ocean, evaporating to the sky above. Then they will fall as rain, mixed with other water molecules from sources other than his eyedropper. That water could go through a large variety of paths before it, once again, fills another eyedropper…only to be discharged again into the ocean. A long time will pass before that ordinary mortal’s water finds its way into an eyedropper, and a longer time before such an eyedropper gets emptied into the ocean.

To be sure, that second eyedropper will not contain much more than one or two molecules from that original eyedropper. Which is why the spirit of the thing matters. Just imagine that spirit was able to be conveyed to whatever alien water molecules that one original molecule was able to come in contact with, eventually ending up in that second eyedropper with them.

Of course, that would mean the other molecules from that original eyedropper would still be in the ocean or might have found other destinies. That’s one reason why, either common mortal or Buddha, there’s a little of each of us in everything – though that “little” is not always consciously aware of its former source or identity.

The common mortal is a slave to this never-ending cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. A Buddha is not. Because of his enlightened condition, he could remain forever in that ocean and never reenter mundane reality. He could but he never does. Because of his great compassion for others, he wills himself to be reborn and does so with great precision.

In fact, he could be reborn immediately. As soon as his water, released from its original eyedropper, hits the ocean, it could immediately reverse its path and reoccupy that same eyedropper! Or could enter another eyedropper which had just been emptied overboard from another ship.

Even harder to believe? Suppose there were 1,000 such ships and eyedroppers scattered all over the earth’s oceans, which all at the same time had emptied their individual eyedroppers. One Buddha, from one eyedropper, could immediately reoccupy all of those eyedroppers after their original occupants’ molecules had been dumped overboard.

Now you might think that would be impossible, for how could the molecules in one eyedropper disperse themselves in all directions and travel so quickly as to be in position to reenter those 1,000 remote eyedroppers at the same time? The key is to consider the spirit of the matter. Of course, the numerous molecules from that one eyedropper could not travel that fast. But the spirit of those molecules could be instantaneously relayed to other molecules in the vicinity of those other ships.

The scripture states that a Buddha has the power to manifest an infinite number of bodies (to make an infinite number of copies of himself), so that he can be in many places at once. If that’s what it takes to reach the people who need to hear his teachings.

Transmission of a Buddha’s life-force

That Buddha’s life-force happened to be in that one eyedropper, though we won’t consider for now where else his spirit might also be. We’ll just consider that one source – that one eyedropper. Once that emptied dropper’s water hits the ocean, the spirit of a Buddha could instantaneously be passed from molecule to molecule, even to molecules of rock in the center of the earth, if the Buddha chose to pass through the center of the earth in order to reach someone on the other side of the earth.

That person might end up with one of that Buddha’s molecules in his body, as part of his body, as the molecule does its indirect preaching within that common mortal’s body. That Buddha molecule could take any form – as a water molecule flowing in that mortal’s bloodstream. Or as a calcium atom absorbed into his bone tissue. Or even as part of his brain, which would start to make sense for most people (within the confines of this analogy). The form it takes is irrelevant. The fact that it’s there and can convey, in even the most indirect way, the Buddha’s teaching will bestow many blessing on that common mortal.

In closing:

This analogy is entirely mine, not coming from any of the Buddhist scriptures. Nor does it come from my teacher – since I don’t have one, except Shakyamuni Buddha himself. And, no, it didn’t come from him.

I am a Buddhist who is a member of a sect that contains only one member – me. My primary practice is to recite the English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra for an hour every day – though I often fall short of that goal. So far, I’ve read the entire 324-page volume of the Burton Watson translation over 130 times during the last five years. If you took only 120 copies of that book and stacked them up, that would make a pile ten-feet in height.

Now that doesn’t make me particularly enlightened, except I will claim such a constant recitation is the Buddha’s will. I can only take what I think I’ve learned and try to pass it on to somebody else. That “passing on” is important, for that will in turn refine my understanding.

As time passes and my practice deepens, I might conclude that this eyedropper analogy is profoundly faulty and unworthy of anyone’s consideration. That might well come to pass, but for now I offer it because I think it has value.

After all is said and done, that’s the best anyone can offer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The basic difference between a Buddhist and an Abrahamist (Jew, Christian, Muslim, et al): It’s not a matter of life-and-death; it’s a matter of lives-and-deaths.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mysteries of the Lotus Sutra

QUESTION: How would a Christian feel if he found out his Bible was incomplete? For instance, suppose he learned that Jesus had written down His teachings, but that they had been lost or destroyed?

A similar question crossed my mind as I read the Lotus Sutra, considered by the Buddha to be his highest teaching. This passage appears in the Lotus:

QUOTE*:

I have heard this Lotus Sutra with its eight hundred, thousand, ten thousand, millions of nayutas, kankaras, vivaras, akshobhyas of verses.

:UNQUOTE.

So, based on this quote, just how long is this teaching supposed to be? Apparently, the number of "verses" exceeds the number of atoms in the entire (known) universe.

What to think? The Lotus is a religious text after all; so it might (for that reason) be the victim/beneficiary of (er) exaggeration.  The text we have in our possession today boils down to only 326 pages, after being translated into English. And, no, it's not 326 pages of teeny, tiny print.

Where are all these "lost" verses? And what are they?

After having read all 326-pages of the Burton Watson translation for a total of 130 times out loud, I have an idea – derived mostly from what I’ve read in between the lines (perhaps such derivations should be considered part of the Lotus). My personal view is: Not only has the Lotus Sutra been in existence since the infinite past; it's also a work in progress. Each time a Buddhist tries (or, in the far-flung past, tried) to encourage someone to practice Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra, he adds to the Lotus Sutra itself. In a manner of speaking, he is the Lotus Sutra itself.

Each word uttered, in the name of conversion, becomes part of a growing body of words called the Lotus Sutra.

I have also heard a claim to this effect, "The words of the Buddhas never differ, no matter where in the universe they preach." I take that to mean, "The words these Buddhas decide to use - chosen because they know their listeners and what will move them - contain the essence of Buddhism, even though the words that issue from their mouths aren’t the same." That is to say, a word heard by one person is heard (that is, processed) by that person in the same way a different word is processed by another person. In that sense, these two different words are the same word – in effect.

This serves to add further complication:

"This Law [Lotus Sutra] cannot be described, words fall silent before it" and "...what the Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law. The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas."

Words may well "fall silent before it," however words are exactly what the Buddhas use to attract people to the Lotus Sutra so that they too may become Buddhas. Buddhists would call this effective-though-seemingly-useless employment of words "mystic" or an example of "skillful means." Perhaps words can succeed only when a Buddha (or when the Buddha that exists within all of us) uses them, in which case I am suggesting that more is conveyed than just an aural output.

As if this weren't vague enough, allow me to further confound: The Lotus speaks of "wisdom that comes of itself, Buddha wisdom." This hints that it's not even necessary to have a Buddha teach us in order to attain enlightenment. In fact, the Lotus speaks of individuals who "prefer solitary practices."

I would answer: wisdom might "appear" to come of itself, but nothing ever happens without cause. When the onslaught of wisdom finally comes to a person, it feels like it's coming out of nowhere. But in reality, it's been a long time coming and has been stoked by eons of practice over many lifetimes and by the hidden supportive action of visible friends – as well as those not visible.

As far as "solitary practices" are concerned - even in exile, even in solitary confinement, we are never truly alone. The Buddha is always with us, trying to teach us. I address this more fully at: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/11/buddha-speaks-within-your-mind.html

Please note where it says "point of death" in the following:

QUOTE*:

When this monk was on the point of death, he heard up in the sky fully twenty thousand, ten thousand, a million verses of the Lotus Sutra that had been previously preached by the Buddha Awesome Sound King, and he was able to accept and uphold them all ... [therefore] his life span was increased by two hundred ten million nayutas of years, and he went about widely preaching the Lotus Sutra for people.

:UNQUOTE.

This means, when this particular monk was on the verge of dying, he "heard," "accepted," and "upheld" all these verses (even though “all,” in this case, doesn’t comprise the entire Lotus Sutra). Quite a feat, when one is at the "point of death." This indicates to me that some kind of compression is taking place; that a great deal of "information" was being introduced to and processed by "this monk" within a very brief time. This points out one of the features I most admire about the Lotus: It respects the potential (or capacity for absorption) which anybody can develop ... over time (that's the catch, "over time").

This next quote testifies to the power which the Lotus Sutra can bestow on its practitioners (please note the words "good men or good women"):

QUOTE*:

Moreover, Constant Exertion, if good men or good women accept and uphold this sutra after the Thus Come One [Buddha] has entered extinction, if they read it, recite it, explain and preach it, or transcribe it, they will acquire twelve hundred mind benefits. Because of purity of their mental faculties, when they hear no more than one verse or one phrase [of the (Lotus) sutra], they will master immeasurable and boundless numbers of principles. And once having understood these principles, they will be able to expound and preach on the single phrase or a single verse for a month, for four months, or for a whole year, and the doctrines that they preach during that time will conform to the gist of the principles and will never be contrary to true reality. If they should expound some text of the secular world or speak on matters of government or those relating to wealth and livelihood, they will in all cases conform to the correct Law.

:UNQUOTE.

In other words, you don't have to be anyone special in order to obtain this power; all you have to be is a good man or a good woman who embraces this teaching. Insofar as everybody has the potential to become a Buddha, nobody is (or has to be) special or different from anybody else. In addition, we do not have to be slaves to someone else's interpretation of the Lotus. We may feel free to expound to the best of our ability, without having to use someone else's words. ["someone else" = a contemporary teacher of Buddhist doctrine]

For members of the Soka Gakkai, in particular

I hesitated (but only briefly) before deciding to continue this post by offering this advice to members of the lay organization of Buddhists known as the SGI (Soka Gakkai International, which emphasizes the chanting of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo):

QUOTE*:

As long as a person has not yet heard. Not yet understood. And not yet been able to practice this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that person is still far away from [the supreme enlightenment of the Buddha]. Why? Because all [practitioners] who attain [enlightenment] in all cases do so through this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

As much as I admire their efforts and love them, I must conclude that my fellow SGI members are not practicing Buddhism correctly. The Buddha (above) made clear how indispensable the Lotus Sutra is to the attainment of Buddhahood. He also makes clear that to "practice this Lotus Sutra" means (among other things) to "read and recite it." This is what my friends are not doing.

Instead, they are taught to recite (on a daily basis) only two of the Lotus's 28 chapters - and in ancient Chinese! So they are being taught to ignore the other 26 chapters and to only recite two chapters in a language they don't understand. Therefore, they are not encouraged to seek understanding (except on the rare occasion when excerpts in English are published in SGI periodicals).

I would encourage my friends to discover what I have discovered: The value of practicing correctly, which means embracing and trying to understand the entire Lotus Sutra. Nothing less will do.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"Not everything in life comes with an instruction manual, so we’re fortunate when something this important does.”

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* All quoted material is from the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra.