The Dalai Lama: That's one silly man

I once saw the documentary film by Rick Ray: 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama. Its centerpiece is the one-on-one interview conducted by Ray, where he asks his ten questions. I welcomed this opportunity to learn more about this esteemed holy man, since I am a Buddhist who doesn't know much about the Tibetan variation.

I did learn a few things from this movie, but my overwhelming impression? What a silly man! I mean, early in the movie Ray talks about Dalai's infectious laugh, which we then get to hear. I found his laugh to be irritating, forced (at times), and too frequent. He also struck me as arrogant, in a first impression sort of way.

As a Buddhist Leader

I admit that I've never read any of his writings nor heard anything of him, except that he's charismatic and has influenced a lot of people. [Oh, and Hollywood seems to adore him.] Whenever I hear that someone's a Buddhist, I have two questions:

ONE: Who is his teacher?

TWO: Which Buddhist scripture does he regard as supreme?

Regarding ONE: He embraces the patriarchs of his particular school. This whole "teacher" thing, however, is very problematic to me. Among various popular press Buddhist journals (for example, Tricycle, What is Enlightenment?), new practitioners are encouraged to connect to a teacher. More than "encouraged," the notion of the master/disciple relationship is touted as critical.

I see teachers as doing more harm than good. If you want to learn about Buddhism, it is most beneficial (at least in the beginning) to connect to a group of practitioners. However, be wary of teachers. One of the main teachings of the Buddha is "to rely on the Law, not on persons." I feel that too many teachers try to become "the Law." Also, the Buddha taught about the "wisdom that comes of itself," "teacherless wisdom," and the inherent risks of forming attachments.

After practicing Buddhism for 21 years, I am convinced there is only one appropriate teacher for this age - and that's Shakyamuni Buddha who (contrary to popular belief) is still alive and well, and quite willing to teach us - if we are open to letting him.

Regarding TWO: Same problem as with ONE: Dalai embraces the texts particular to his school. Shakyamuni Buddha spoke of The Lotus Sutra as being his ultimate teaching, and urged his disciples to "honestly disregard" his earlier, preparatory (i.e., provisional) teachings. However, being only human and steeped in his own country's tradition, Dalai formed an attachment to the writings peculiar to his sect. [Again, the dangers of forming attachments.]

Conclusion Regarding ONE and TWO:

The Dalai Lama is a heretic. I know that's a word with a horrible history, but I don't hesitate to use it here for one reason: The Dalai Lama should know better and someone's got to tell him.

His Meeting with Mao

In the movie, we're told of a dinner party at which the young Dalai is sitting next to Mao, who leans over and says [something like], "Religion is the opiate of the people." That's when Dalai realizes that the Tibetan religious status quo won't be allowed to persist.

However, Dalai should have responded to Mao by saying:

"I know what you're saying, but please reconsider Buddhism. Your own country, China, has been home to many wisdom traditions, of which Buddhism is one. In fact, Chinese monks and scholars have profoundly shaped Buddhist thought for centuries. And there is good in this tradition which can help your People's Revolution.

“The Buddha spoke of an ideal ruler called a ‘wheel-turning sage king,' and I hope you decide to become one. I know that your Communism doesn't believe in kings, but I also know your people look up to you as a strongman. You can use this high regard to their advantage by helping to thoroughly liberate them. Liberating the people is the loftiest of ideals, which is exactly what the Buddha tried to do in his time - regardless of gender or class or unsavory past. I hope you can do so in your time, and I hope you'll consider giving China's Buddhist legacy a chance to liberate the masses.

“Buddhism can give the Chinese Communists the classless society they envision. Better than that: A society where everyone is a Superman, working doggedly to attain their own enlightenment and that of their neighbors.

“You showed the mind of a seeker of truth by looking beyond the horizon [literally!] for a teaching which would benefit your people. All I ask is that you don't disregard the ancient wisdom of your own homeland. And I would like to offer my services to you, in this endeavor."

Okay, that didn't happen

Even though Dalai never spoke these words to Chairman Mao, I feel that China will nevertheless undergo a spiritual revolution fueled by reconnecting to its ancient Buddhist tradition. Those seeds of enlightenment were planted long ago in the collective consciousness of the Chinese and will not remain dormant much longer. Surely there are many loyal Chinese who dislike seeing their leaders in Western-style business suits embracing Western materialistic values.

As a Buddhist, the DL knows that nothing happens by accident - that the destiny of individuals and nations is based on laws of karmic retribution. So he can't really feel too badly about Tibet's loss of independence. Karmically, that had to happen. But it saddens me that he missed a golden opportunity to help resurrect Chinese Buddhism.

Shakyamuni Buddha was able to prevent an invading army from entering his homeland, by simply sitting in meditation in the path of the advancing army. This force turned back at least once (and perhaps a second time, though my recollection is hazy on that count). However, this invading force did eventually return and bypass the Buddha, resulting in the subjugation of his country. Not even the Buddha was able to single-handedly thwart the karma which dictated the conquest of his native land. But at least he tried.

God-King

There was a scene in 10 Questions that bothered me, showing 30,000 of the young Lama's countrymen surrounding him to "protect their God-King." That's backwards: Great bodhisattvas are supposed to protect their people, not the other way around.

I am reminded of the Five Cardinal Sins of Buddhism:

(1) Killing one's father, (2) mother, (3) or a monk of great spiritual attainment; or (4) causing disunity among members of the Buddhist order; or (5) injuring a Buddha.

Stop right there: How is it that killing a Buddha is not listed among those top five sins? Simply because it is not possible to kill a Buddha. That is the level of attainment for which the Dalai Lama (and all Buddhist practitioners) should aspire: To become Buddhas. Nobody talks about actually becoming a Buddha (complete with the supernatural powers described in the Lotus Sutra), though Shakyamuni Buddha himself made it clear that everybody could do so. [So let's start talking about that, more and more often.]

To me, that's where the Dalai Lama falls short: He never had it in his mind to become a Buddha. If he had, his mission on earth would have been made far easier.

What would "the Base" think?

If any among the GOP Base would view 10 Questions, they would probably react by saying: "What a goof!" Which is too bad, since the Lama himself promotes religious tolerance. But merely paying lip service to brotherhood is not good enough - not for a Buddhist who should embrace the doctrine of conversion through Skillful Means. People are way too skeptical these days to be persuaded by a simplistic monk. To my fellow Buddhists, I say:

We can reach even those in Baseland, those who comprise a New Silent Majority: Those who live in the Old Confederacy who don't think NASCAR racing is all that, who don't shout hallelujah when the local preacher mixes politics with religion, who weren't football heroes or cheerleaders (or especially popular in any other way) in high school or college, who despise having to vote for the lesser of two evils offered by the Dem/Pubs. These are the New Silent Majority who have theological questions but are afraid to ask them, who have significant intelligence which their society does not appreciate, and great love of a country which is sadly lacking in statesmen though has politicians galore.

We can reach these people by showing them bold leadership and a compassionate vision of the future. It is time to break the mindset imposed by narrow visions and narrower religions, which limits our presidential candidates to only a small range of issues. I hope that my blog entries on this site have shown a wide variety of political options, which can inspire even more from the People themselves. I'm counting on arousing the deep-seated desire of all people to become Buddhas. That desire has been within all of us since the infinite past, but (as the Buddha preaches) will not become manifest until the time is right.

The time is right - now. Let's do it.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

“Declare your independence by voting for Independence. Time to sweep the Dem/Pubs from power and create a real Buddha land.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Unmistaken Child, a Buddhist movie

Intro:

Yesterday, I blogged my opinion that the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist heretic. Today, I post a bit of back up for that opinion in the form of a movie review. I had seen the Unmistaken Child about two years ago, and these are my impressions based on that viewing:

Opening Statement:

I had problems with the film Unmistaken Child, especially since I happen to view Tibetan Buddhism as a serious hindrance to the worldwide attainment of enlightenment. For what the Dalai Lama preaches is not Buddhism but, indeed, is (only) Political Tibetanism.

The movie's basic premise:

A monk searches for his recently-deceased master, and finds him in the form of an 18-month-old child. There was a Q&A after the screening I'd attended which was hosted by a gentleman who mentioned something quite interesting. I didn't catch his name, but he was from a local Tibetan cultural society and was not an official spokesman for the film. [In fact, he made a pitch for donations for his local society.]

He said there are dozens of such young people in each of the Tibetan monasteries, who had been (basically) taken from their families after being declared reincarnated masters. My gut reaction upon hearing that: "Well, that's one way to ward off depletion of the ranks of monks."

Ty Burr, movie critic, had this to say in his July 17, 2009 review:

QUOTE:

We [the film's viewers] simply are present from 2001, when the 84-year-old Geshe Lama Konchog died, to 2005, when the toddler recognized as his reincarnation was presented to the Buddhist community of Nepal and beyond....The film's central character, actually, is Tenzin Zopa, the tenderhearted young acolyte whose life, since the age of 7, has been devoted to serving Geshe Lama. Upon his master's death, the grieving Zopa is instructed by the Dalai Lama himself to seek out the reincarnated boy, a task he feels unsuited for.

:UNQUOTE.

Some of the problems I had with this movie:

·         "Existence after existence these living beings are reborn in company with that Bodhisattva, hear the Law from him, and all have faith in and understand it" - Lotus Sutra, Chapter 7. I understand the concept of living beings being reborn in company with their teachers. I'm not clear at all on the (apparently Tibetan) concept of teachers being reborn in the company of their disciples, especially so soon after they pass away. And even murkier to me is the idea that monks have to go scouring through the countryside to find their former masters in the form of newborn babes. My view? If he's truly any kind of master, he'll find his disciples (not the other way around)!

·         The film shows 27-year-old Tenzin Zopa telling us how "lost" he felt after the death of his master, to whom he was faithful servant for 20 years. Zopa tells us, while lamenting his personal disorientation, "I didn't know what to do." If Zopa's master was truly worthy of the title "master," then he would have better prepared his young servant for the eventuality of his passing.

·         I was amazed by the palatial residence of the Dalai Lama, and the huge throng of monks who live with him in Dharamsala. I couldn't help thinking: "Wow, where's all the money coming from to support this group?" I personally tend to be wary of worldly and wealthy monks, especially those who are international celebrities. And especially those who had accepted money from the CIA.

·         Moviegoers were treated to the sight of a child crying (the Unmistaken Child, that is) as his hair is being shaved off with a razor. I might not be an enlightened Tibetan lama and never even went to barber school but I know this much: It causes a lot less pain to first give the initiate a haircut with an ordinary pair of scissors and then shave off what's left over. That's loving kindness! When the child wouldn't stop fussing and crying out "Please don't cut off my hair," at the half-way point of his tonsorial he was conveniently taken off camera to a private room to finish the job.

·         The child's parents were asked to permanently give up their child to the monastery. The mother had trouble with this, but I was wondering if she really had the option of saying no. [You know, cultural pressure and all that; people, that's what theocracy looks like.] Also, the movie didn't make clear (didn't even bother to ask) whether the parents would have any visitations rights. My heart went out to the mother, who was "asked" by a benevolent kidnapper to give up the fruit of her womb.

·         Unmistaken Child is really a terrible movie. I might not be a famous film critic like Ty Burr (quoted above), but I am absolutely amazed that any professional critic can fawn over such flawed minimalism when, indeed, a more in-depth treatment of this search-for-reincarnated-masters theme is called for. For instance, Ty might have started by looking at this movie's protagonist's website. That's right, the simple, unassuming disciple in search of his master is, upon closer inspection, quite a sophisticated fellow - which I suspected right away upon hearing how well he spoke English in the movie (an ability unnoticed by Ty). Anyway, for the curious, here's Tenzin Zopa's website: http://geshezopa.blogspot.com/

The larger issue of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism

Make no mistake about this: The Dalai Lama is a Pope. I have trouble with Popes. Don't much like them. They take too much and give so little in return. I've seen footage of Dalai Lama's supporters calling him a "god" or a Buddha. But I would ask them a few questions:

·         "Why does your God need to refer to an oracle [Nechung - the State Oracle of Tibet]?"

·         "Why was your God not able to protect Tibet from the Chinese?"

·         "Why is the Dalai Lama afraid of the deity Dorje Shugden, going so far as to forcibly suppress his worship among Tibetan Buddhists? I understand that one who is a Buddha is totally without fear. So if the Dalai Lama is a Buddha, why is he afraid of Dorje Shugden? [Apparently, the Lama fears for his life and his followers believe this.]

·         "The Dalai Lama admitted he himself once worshipped Dorje Shugden (whom he now refers to as ‘evil'), but now says that was a mistake. Let me see if I'm understanding this: Our Dalai Lama (the God King or, as some claim, a Living Buddha) actually admits to having made a mistake of this magnitude?"

·         "How did it come to pass that the United States, back in the 1950's, allowed China to march into Tibet unopposed? Tibet must have had some terrible karma for it to have fallen so easily - at a time when the US possessed nuclear weapons and China did not."

·         "How much money does the Dalai Lama call ‘mine' - what is the extent of his personal wealth? No one seems to talk about that at all."

·         "Why does your Buddha lament the loss of Tibet's sovereignty, the loss of his country? Shakyamuni Buddha voluntarily gave up his kingdom, and lived to see it conquered by a foreign army. Perhaps the Dalai Lama should more deeply contemplate the notion of impermanence."

During my campaign against Barack Obama for the US presidency, I had blogged frequently on my beliefs of the evils of national sovereignty. And I pledged to work for the elimination of nationalism and the concept of national borders. However, the Dalai Lama seeks to restore his old fiefdom. Maybe he should redirect his efforts toward making all land on earth an enlightened Buddha land. Nations come and go - that is the way of impermanence. Only the Buddhist path to enlightenment is worthy of any kind of serious attention as a global goal.

End note

This link is a fascinating view of what might be motivating the strange behavior of the Dalai Lama in his efforts to suppress Dorje Shugden's followers. Written by a westerner who had served on numerous occasions as the Dalai Lama's translator:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/HelmutGassner01.pdf

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"The Dalai Lama is the head of the Yellow Hat Sect, while I myself (tongue in cheek) wear a paisley hat which is invisible - so what's the point, one might ask? As for the Dalai himself, as long as Shakyamuni Buddha is alive, we don't need a Dalai to play with. As for all these Tibetan masters flying around, well, the world really is full of magicians though one should carefully ponder the source of their magic" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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 Dalai Lama's affair with monsters

Have you ever seen pictures of the protective deities embraced by Tibetan Buddhists? Some of them look like scary monsters. Pretty scary, indeed. And attempting to visualize these deities is part of the Dalai Lama's practice - part of what every Tibetan Buddhist practices.

Another part is dedication to a guru (teacher). And frankly, I don't get it. The Buddhism I know teaches this:

QUOTE:

Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said:

"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teachings."

[and]

"After my death, the Dharma [Buddhist Law] shall be your teacher. Follow the Dharma and you will be true to me."

[and]

"During the last forty-five years of my life, I have withheld nothing from my teachings. There is no secret teaching, no hidden meaning; everything has been taught openly and clearly." [Sorry, guys, but this means there are no esoteric teachings - Steve.]

:UNQUOTE:  The Teaching of Buddha, copyright 1966 by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai.

But I know why Dalai thinks so

There is a reason for everything. So even though, as one commentator expressed it, the Buddha meant, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law [Dharma]," the worship of protective deities has legitimate roots. For instance, the Buddha's highest teaching, The Lotus Sutra, assures great benefit for those who are "holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds."

But the Buddha encourages us to "hold fast" to a particular Bodhisattva for one very good reason: The purpose is to give (in this example) Perceiver of the World's Sounds a chance to fulfill his vow to protect practitioners of the Way and thereby more quickly attain Buddhahood himself.

In other words, our devotion to a particular bodhisattva is not only meant to help us, but it's meant to help that bodhisattva attain Buddhahood.

There are 52 stages of bodhisattva practice, and those at the very highest stages (such as Perceiver) have god-like supernatural power, which they have sworn to the Buddhas to use in order to protect common, ordinary Buddhists including laymen living and working in society. However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow [I'll explain that a bit later].

Meanwhile, consider what Shakyamuni Buddha has to say about Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds:

QUOTE [quotes from the Buddha in The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation]:

"If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, should enter a great fire, the fire could not burn him. This would come about because of this bodhisattva's authority and supernatural power. If one were washed away by a great flood and called upon his name, one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." [Page 299]

[and]

"If a person who faces imminent threat of attack should call the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, then the swords and staves wielded by his attackers would instantly shatter into so many pieces and he would be delivered." [Page 299]

[and on page 301]

 "Suppose also that there is a person who accepts and upholds the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds and even just once offers him obeisance and alms. The good fortune gained by these two persons would be exactly equal and without difference."

NOTE: That second person the Buddha is referring to is referred to in an immediately preceding passage:

"...suppose there is a person who accepts and upholds the names of as many bodhisattvas as there are sands in sixty-two million Ganges, and ...he offers them alms...What is your opinion? Would this good man or good woman gain many benefits, or would he not?"

:UNQUOTE.

But - and this is a big BUT...

The Buddha encourages us to "hold fast to" and give alms to various Bodhisattvas. For instance, he says on page 323: "And I will employ my transcendental powers to guard and protect those who can accept and uphold the name of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy."

BUT... the Buddha puts things in perspective with this key passage:

QUOTE:

"Even if a person were to fill the whole thousand-million fold world with the seven treasures as an offering to the Buddha and the great bodhisattvas..., the benefits gained by such a person cannot match those gained by accepting and upholding this Lotus Sutra, even just one four-line verse of it! The latter brings the most numerous blessings of all."

:UNQUOTE: [The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation, page 285]

So even though The Lotus Sutra shows us the Buddha praising and encouraging devotion to the great Bodhisattvas, he is very keen to reinforce that it is the Lotus Sutra that is most praiseworthy and beneficial of all.

When vows aren't upheld

I had a particular incident in mind when I had written above: "However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow."

It was over 5 years ago when my local Buddhist congregation learned that a long-time practicing laywoman member had not only been murdered, but her body had been hacked into pieces, placed into garbage bags, and ended up in a dumpster. During the memorial services, I kept waiting for the senior layperson to answer a question surely on the minds of many:

"If practicing SGI Buddhism is supposed to protect you from evil, why didn't it save this poor woman?"

While it's true that various entities have sworn to protect followers of the Way, it's also true that sometimes they f**k up. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are not gods with omnipotent powers to protect; they themselves are limited by and subject to the law of karma - even though the Buddha claimed: "I am free to do what I will with the Law." [Still trying to figure out exactly what that means!]

Too many within the Western traditions think of them (erroneously) as being Christian God-like, though The Lotus Sutra does have this interesting statement from the Buddha:

"I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

This is a bit subtle, but notice that he didn't say, "I am the one who..." For "the one" would describe a Western God. When Buddha says "I am one," in effect he's saying "I am one among many - including you who aspire to become Buddhas (once you reach that point) - who knows all things..."

Concerning this woman's violent death: There are other possibilities. The great Bodhisattvas - protectors of Buddhists worldwide - could have protected her but chose not to or perhaps that she herself had declined their protection! In the world of Buddhism, timing is important. Maybe she had to die when she did so that she could be reborn where - and when - she was most needed. And that wouldn't necessarily be here on planet earth.

As for the violence of her murder: That could well have been an exaggerated compression effect, which would serve to expiate huge chunks of her past negative karma. Wiping the slate clean in one stroke, as it were.

Why the Lotus Sutra?

I am on my 125th oral recitation (which is my daily practice) of the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra. When you consider that its 324-pages comprise a volume one inch thick, that would "translate" to a stack ten feet in height were 100 such volumes to be piled up. Or put another way - 32,400 pages. This is the largest part of my Buddhist practice; the other part being my attempts to share what I've learned along the way.

Each time I read this book, I pick up something I had missed in prior readings. You can easily see why I focus on this particular sutra when you consider:

Key Quotes from The Lotus Sutra

QUOTE [Page 98]:

"Those who have not yet crossed over I will cause to cross over, those not yet freed I will free, those not yet at rest I will put at rest, those not yet in nirvana I will cause to attain nirvana. Of this existence and future existence I understand the true circumstances. I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 164]:

"The sutras I have preached number immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions. Among the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand. Medicine King, this sutra is the storehouse of the secret crux of the Buddhas."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 165]:

"The way of the bodhisattva is the same as this. 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 that person is still far away from anuttara-samyak-sambodhi [the supreme enlightenment of a Buddha]. But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra."

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"That last part is worth repeating: "Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra." And yet, I don't hear the Dalai Lama spending oceans of time praising and teaching the Lotus Sutra. Instead, he speaks of Tibetan autonomy and plays with monsters. For these reasons, I dub him heretic." - Steve.

Was the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

My answer

No, Muhammad was not a pedophile. That's my answer, even though he had married Aisha, one of his 13 wives, when she was six and he was 54. This marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine years old.

Background comment

This comment deals with why I ask this (title) question in the first place: I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali, now an atheist after having been a Muslim in her formative years, brought up the subject in Infidel.

So, being the modern man that I am, I searched the internet. I saw that many who have a problem with Muhammad, because of Aisha, also have problems with Islam in general. I have not encountered any instance of Muslims expressing even mild disapproval of this marriage - then or now.

But I can see why Infidel's author was bothered enough to at least bring up the subject. Though it seems much of Ali's discomfort stems from non-Islamic forces: The clannish patriarchal system of her native Somalia and the pre-Islamic custom of Female Genital Mutilation widely practiced in many African countries. Though Ali is not an Islamic scholar, her voice definitely adds a needed dimension to issues pertinent to (especially) immigrant Muslim communities in the West.

About Muhammad and Aisha and the Dalai Lama

The biggest reason I don't have a problem with Aisha's pre-teen marriage is, Muslims don't seem to have a problem with it. And it is here that I want to tread very carefully: Muslims consider slandering or insulting the Prophet to be a grave offense. However, I am not as concerned with slandering the Prophet as I am about distressing Muslims. These are flesh and blood, real live people to whom the teachings of Muhammad are profound.

Would I slander someone's father? Would I heap scorn on someone's brother or sister? Would I disrespect someone's son or daughter? No, to all of these questions, simply because that "someone" would not tend to be as receptive to anything else I might have to say. It is true that I have disparaged the Pope and the Dalai Lama but they are merely ordinary mortals, not on the same level nor as central to their faith traditions as are, say, Jesus aka “The Word” and Shakyamuni Buddha...or Muhammad.

In the case of Aisha, I can only wrap my mind around her marriage by reason of exceptionalism. That is, if Aisha had been divinely intended for Muhammad, then I will not argue against the will of Allah. But if 40-year-old Joe Shmo down the street wanted to marry his 10-year-old neighbor, I'd have a problem with that.

[Wait...(pause)...maybe not. Maybe Joe Shmo also falls under the rubric of exceptionalism. Everything depends on context – for example, how the 10-year-old girl feels (let’s assume we’re dealing with a female here). And her father. And the community. If Joe Shmo can somehow overcome (shall we say?) “negative feedback,” then perhaps Joe is exceptional. However, (shall we also say?), “The burden of proof is on Joe.”]

In like manner, I've heard criticism of the Dalai Lama for having his kin working in high-level positions in his government. I, speaking as a Buddhist, can only say: "Well, why not? People who were disciples of a great leader in a past life could well be expected to be reincarnated as a relative in this life." [Exceptionalism, once again rears its head.] Not that I'm saying the Dalai Lama is a "great leader," for his message is too narrow and, I think, soon after his passing, he shall be quickly forgotten - both his person and his particular message.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have heard that Ayaan is despised by many in her original homeland, Somalia. And others hold her in low regard for having forsaken Islam, currently embracing atheism instead. However, since Ayaan is only 40-years-old and, as her book Infidel reveals, has always been a seeker, I sense she will abandon atheism. Worse than her embrace of atheism, though, is her embrace of the American Enterprise Institute. But I suppose she had to grab a lifeline when it was thrown to her - when she had to flee for her life from Holland, the job AEI offered here in the States was truly a life saver.

I sense in Ayaan Hirsi Ali an intelligent and independent woman who will sooner than later move away from the AEI. The stench of the company that group provides will prove too overpowering.

I think Ayaan has a lot to offer her fellow Muslims, and they will find a way to process what she'll have to say, after they find a way to forgive/reconcile with her. And she will find a way to promote her message - after she discovers exactly what that message is. Toward that end, I would encourage her to pray or elsewise engage in a spiritual practice.

Muslims in general

Ah, that's a tough one. How can I speak of Muslims in general? The rich Saudi prince doesn't have much in common with the taxi cab driver in Gaza city or the followers of any of the Iranian ayatollahs. Or the rice farmer in Indonesia. In the final analysis, it won't matter how I react to these different Muslims. It will matter far more how they react to each other.

That being said, I find it ironic that Muslims swear a belief in the End of Days (especially, if that Day is to come any time soon), since it will take a long time (centuries?) for them to discover each other. [And I think Allah would be pleased if they did...but, again, that takes time. So how could He destroy the world before giving His flock enough time.] If, however, something which Muslims can call an End of Days occurs (though I as a Buddhist might give it another name, such as the end of a kalpa), I sincerely hope that Day won't occur until Muslims work out their differences and show the rest of us what it means to be an ideal Muslim in this day and age.

[Yes, that's a friendly challenge and an invitation, since I have a lot of faith in you.]

I feel a kinship with Muslims, though I know only a few of them personally. What I've read in books and seen in movies (especially these movies) has influenced me greatly:

Battle of Algiers (1966, directed by Pontecorvo)

Brothers (2004, directed by Bier)

Cache (2005, directed by Haneke)

Days of Glory (2006, directed by Bouchareb)

Iron Island (2006, directed by Rasoulof)

Osama (2003, directed by Barmak) [Nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, by the way.]

Secret of the Grain (2007, directed by Kechiche)

I eagerly await the contributions Muslims have yet to make in answer to:

What is the ideal society? Who should rule? In an Islamic society, what forms could dissent, loyal opposition, and expressions of individuality take? What constitutes good behavior? How will you treat those who have mistreated you [US military should have more than a passing interest in this one]?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

"I couldn't help but notice that the famous narcissist Christopher Hitchens had written the foreword to Infidel. Hitch is well known for having written, God is Not Great. He might want to read Hitchens is Not God by Great. Just saying" - Steve.