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

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.

Mitt Romney’s Mormon speech

Introduction:

There’s an old saying: “Careful what you say…it could come back to bite you in the ass.” In that spirit, I offer my take on a speech delivered by Mitt Romney back on November 6, 2007. That speech was important then (since Romney was a POTUS candidate). And it’s important now, since I’m confident Mitt will give it another go in 2012. [NOTE: I had posted much of this essay on-line in December of 2007.]

Now for some ass-biting…

Introducing Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney could have said: "When I place my hand on the Book of Mormon and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."

But no, he didn't say this. On November 6, after being introduced by (former) president George H.W. Bush, Romney didn't utter that sentence. Instead of "Book of Mormon" (which he holds to be superior to the Bible), he said "Bible."

Didn't the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith, say: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book?" ["any other book" includes the Bible, which Mormons believe contains (at least) errors of translation.]

So why did Mitt Romney say "Bible" instead of Book of Mormon? If I were Mitt, I would have praised this "most correct of any book on earth" and proudly said "that book is what will swear me in." Of course, the religiously tolerant America which Romney praises in his speech would understand, wouldn't it?

I've already made clear how I feel about which book will serve to swear me in as your next president: The Lotus Sutra.

"...my highest promise to God"

So Mitt Romney thinks that the presidential oath of office should become his "highest promise to God." I'm sure a lot of evangelicals must have shuddered when he said that. Well, those who actually bothered to really think about what Mitt was saying should have shuddered. Any Christian's "highest promise to God" goes something like this:

"I promise to do, by the grace of God and of Jesus Christ our Savior, anything within my power and ability to convert non-believers to the saving graces of Christ our Lord."

That's the highest promise to God, thank you very much.

Of course, such a promise doesn't necessarily conflict with the oath of the presidency, which states:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Of course, if Mitt Romney were truly to defend the Constitution of the United States, he would loudly proclaim his intention of rejoining Maine to Massachusetts, and West Virginia to Virginia, since Maine and West Virginia are unconstitutionally-created states. I argued this point here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/illegal-states-of-maine-west-virginia.html

In addition, Romney would never hold the rights of the unborn (who have no rights under the Constitution) to be superior to those of abortion-seeking women (who do have constitutionally-protected rights). Not if he really wanted to defend the Constitution. I presented my 14^th amendment argument in support of Choice here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html

Somehow, I don't imagine that Mitt Romney, or any of my Dem/Pub opponents, would really support the Constitution to the extent I just described. They have, shall we say, other agenda.

A Buddhist's highest promise

As for my highest spiritual promise, it goes something like this:

"I vow to guide as many people to the practice of Buddhism as possible, so they might become Buddhas."

Unlike Romney, I am willing to talk about my religion, while being careful to add that I am not a spokesman for any particular Buddhist sect. In fact, I proudly declare:

"I am a Buddhist, who is a member of a sect containing just one member (that would be me)." [So, obviously, I am not seeking to promote one organized religion at the expense of others. Perhaps that's what the evangelicals fear most about Romney's Mormons.]

As an American, I believe in the market place of ideas, so I would be keen to share my ideas about Buddhism for public consumption. And why not? Just because a man attains the presidency doesn't mean he gives up his First Amendment rights to free speech. Or his right to practice his religion (and, yes, spreading the word about Buddhism is part of practicing my religion).

My view would be: My fellow citizens elected me to be their president, so my intention is to go down in history as this country's greatest President who also happened to be its greatest friend to the rest of the world. I can be both: A Buddhist and this greatest President.

Reflections on Romney's speech

The Points below are quotes from Romney's speech; Counterpoints are my comments to those Points.



POINT:

Mr. President [Bush], your generation rose ... to vanquish the Soviet Union.



COUNTERPOINT:

I wonder how Russian President Vladimir Putin felt when he read those words. And, make no mistake about this, he has read those words. In the process of writing a speech about religion, Romney rather carelessly uses language which might rile a rival. [Perhaps Putin might be thinking, "Vanquished, eh? We'll show you."]

Here's food for thought: We might want to actually thank Russia, for without their competitive presence (and their nukes), the American Oligarchs might have even more boldly advanced their notions of world domination.



POINT:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.



COUNTERPOINT:

Actually, what freedom really requires is an open-minded and ethical public which participates actively in the affairs of state. Under my administration, I hope to usher in an era of genuine democracy. And, no, we don't have that now - we have (barely) a "constitutional republic" (whatever that means). My goal is to create a political environment in which citizens crave to participate as a labor of love, instead of one in which many can't even be bothered to vote.



POINT:

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.



COUNTERPOINT:

Wouldn't that depend on the faith? Suppose a candidate believes that human sacrifice is appropriate religious practice - shouldn't we reject such a candidate for having such a faith? Of course, the sarcasts among us might claim that the War Machine routinely demands human sacrifice. But I'll leave that alone for now.



POINT:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.



COUNTERPOINT:

I'm sure Mitt Romney meant to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of a God..." He must have meant to say "a God," since Mormons believe that more than one God exists. [As a Buddhist, I have no problem with numerous Gods, because I think of them as Bodhisattvas who are on the path of practice, seeking to become Buddhas (of which there are also many in number).]

Witness these comments, concerning Mormon Gods:

QUOTE:

"I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." And (from fifth president of [Mormon] Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow): "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be."

:UNQUOTE.

I am also sure that Mitt has been asked another "fundamental question": Do you believe in the supremacy of the Bible? He does not deal with that question in his speech, though clearly he must believe the Book of Mormon to be superior to the Bible.



POINT:

[Our nation's founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom.



COUNTERPOINT:

Maybe what they had really discovered was "the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of individual interior space against statist intrusion."



POINT:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.



COUNTERPOINT:

Why should we accept Mitt Romney's assurances? He speaks as a member of a group which had suffered persecution and had developed a closed-mouth siege mentality. Mitt himself refuses to release his income tax returns, which (by the way) I defend as his right. However, I have been reflecting lately on certain issues:



• What kind of connections does Mitt Romney have, which indeed might be far more valuable than mere monetary assets? He is, after all, a descendant of a Mormon apostle.


• What kind of (possibly hidden) financial arrangements are possible in a secretive group which had a leader like Brigham Young who had 27 wives and 56 children? What kind of financial underpinning could support such large families? Have those types of creative financing survived to this day? [Don't hold your breath, waiting for lame-stream media to ask such questions.]



POINT:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God....We should acknowledge the Creator.

 COUNTERPOINT:

Obviously Mitt Romney has never encountered Buddhism, which doesn't believe in a God or a Creator. Ironically enough, though, I think of Mormons as being the most Buddhistic among the Western "Christian" believers.



POINT:

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.



COUNTERPOINT:

I would be quite satisfied, instead, with judges who would busy themselves with interpreting the law and would just leave it at that.



POINT:

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost [my underscore and emphasis], but also to every child of God.



COUNTERPOINT:

"to our fellow Americans foremost" - there's a certain selfishness in such a phrase, which will appeal to those who say, "You're either for us or you're against us."



POINTS:


• I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.


• ...the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights...



COUNTERPOINT:

I find it interesting that Romney invokes Martin Luther King, abolition, and civil rights in this speech (in Texas yet!). We might look back on this speech of November 6, 2007, as being the (intentional) "blunder" that sank Romney's 2008 candidacy, simply because in it he reminded voters in the Deep South of his liberal background.



Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"Religious debate is important in a presidential campaign, simply because I believe it's high time that the nonsense espoused behind closed doors in some of our churches desperately needs broad public scrutiny" - Steven Searle

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Cohen & Wilber & Shakyamuni Buddha

I would like to share my views concerning two New Age gurus: Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen.

Starting with Ken Wilber:

I've only read one of his books, though I know he's written voluminously on, well, everything (or so it would seem). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a whole shelf at Borders filled with many of the books he's written over 30 years. So I bought a copy of A Theory of Everything and found it to be at least worthy of note. I've also read about him in Andrew Cohen's magazine, What is Enlightenment?

Ken may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but to me he seems primarily an academic, especially considering his love of constructing models. It also didn't take me long to catch on to at least two distinct advantages he enjoys:

ONE:  How much his four quadrants model looks like the Cartesian coordinate system most of us first encountered in high school math class. Make no mistake about Wilber's model, though: It is not that x-y axis system. However, at least subconsciously, he can reach people by utilizing something they're already familiar with. Talk about the power of symbols!

TWO:  Having a great buzz word like "Integral." I'm sure he was well-intentioned when choosing that word, but it's also true that there are a lot of people running around saying "Integral this" and "Integral that" who have only scratched the surface of his massive amount of written material.

None of this is to say that I think Ken Wilber is a bad man. The only danger I can see is that too many people might be tempted to go along with his program without making any real attempt to understand it. Or worse: abandoning any efforts to do their own thinking. Or far worse: Not attempting to seek their own Buddhist practice and, thereby, their own enlightenment.

As I said, I have read only one of Ken Wilber's books. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose a thesis: Ken Wilber's written materials contain very little praise of Shakyamuni Buddha and very little teaching of the Buddha's doctrines. This is just a thesis offered by me, a man who doesn't know one way or the other. However, I invite anyone reading this to direct me to some of Wilber's writings which specifically attempt to analyze Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, especially those most profound teachings which are contained in The Lotus Sutra.

[NOTE:  All references herein to The Lotus Sutra concern the version translated into English by Burton Watson. This version is free and available in its entirety on-line.]

My gut instinct tells me that Wilber has not addressed The Lotus Sutra at all, though what appears on page 200 of the Lotus should have been of special interest to him before he wrote all that stuff:

"Do not try to apprehend phenomena, to understand or to see them" - Shakyamuni Buddha.

It seems to me, Ken Wilber has tried too hard to ignore these words of the Buddha.

Now, on to Andrew Cohen:

From page 75 of issue #33 of What is Enlightenment? magazine:

Andrew Cohen speaking to Ken Wilber:

"I asked him at one point, ‘Rinpoche, what's the difference between someone who is serious about awakening and someone who is not?' And he said, ‘That's easy. The people who are serious are all Mahayana Buddhists, and the people who are not are all Hinayana Buddhists.' And he wasn't kidding. I was backpedaling in my mind, wondering how this extraordinary man could be as enlightened and as fiercely independent as he appeared to be and simultaneously be holding on to such foolish ethnocentric notions."

I thought it was rather odd that Cohen didn't come right out and ask Rinpoche what he meant by this. I mean, he bothered to ask a question but didn't bother with a follow up.

I don't know how Rinpoche might have replied to a Cohen follow up, but this is what I would have said, for I happen to agree with Rinpoche's assessment, but I don’t give a blanket seal-of-approval to all of the Mahayana teachings:

“That’s easy. The people who are serious are those who read, recite, ponder, and share (with others) The Lotus Sutra [claimed by some to be the highest of the Mahayana teachings].”

The Lotus Sutra states several important points, which are unique to that sutra:

[Page 166]

All bodhisattvas who attain the enlightenment of a Buddha in all cases do so through the Lotus Sutra.

[Page 207]:

This Lotus Sutra is the secret storehouse of the Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones. Among the sutras, it holds the highest place.

[Page 274]

To put it briefly, all the doctrines possessed by the Thus Come One, all the freely exercised supernatural powers of the Thus Come One, the storehouse of all the secret essentials of the Thus Come One, all the most profound matters of the Thus Come One - all these are proclaimed, revealed, and clearly expounded in this [Lotus] sutra.

[Page 35]

In the Buddha lands of the ten directions

there is only the Law of the one vehicle,

there are not two, there are not three,

except when the Buddha preaches so as an expedient means,

merely employing provisional names and terms

in order to conduct and guide living beings

and preach to them the Buddha wisdom.

The Buddhas appear in the world

solely for this one reason, which is true;

the other two are not the truth.

Never do they use a lesser vehicle

to save living beings and ferry them across.

[Page 31]

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "The Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and convert the bodhisattvas. All the things they do are at all times done for this one purpose."

[Page 31]

These living beings, by listening to the doctrines of the Buddhas, are all eventually able to attain wisdom embracing all species.

[Page 98]

I [Shakyamuni Buddha] am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way.

[Page 165]

...if they are not willing to see, hear, read, recite, copy, embrace and offer alms to this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that such persons are not yet practicing the bodhisattva way in a fitting manner.

[Page 229]

[Note: Since this next quote tells us that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive and with us to this very day, we don't really have to worry about finding a guru, something which Cohen and others strongly urge of us. With Shakyamuni Buddha with us, who really needs any other teacher?]

In order to save living beings,

as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana

but in truth I do not pass into extinction.

I am always here, preaching the Law.

I am always here,

but through my transcendental powers

I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement

do not see me even when close by.

[Page 240]

How much more in the case of persons who read, recite and embrace this sutra! Such persons are in effect receiving the Thus Come One on the crown of their heads.

[Page 162]

Medicine King, these persons who read and recite the Lotus Sutra - you should understand that these persons adorn themselves s with the adornments of the Buddha; they are borne upon the shoulders of the thus Come one.

This last quote is one of my inspirations for conducting my Buddhist practice as I do. My practice consists of reading out loud from the English language version of The Lotus Sutra as translated by Burton Watson for one hour per day. I do not meditate. I do not focus on my breath. I make no attempt to enter a trance. And I don't do yoga. I simply read aloud from the Lotus Sutra, try to understand it, and try to encourage others to do the same.

So far, I’ve read the Lotus over 120 times. This would make a stack of books ten feet tall, since each copy of the Lotus is about one inch in thickness. And each time I read it, I manage to pull something new out of it. Go figure.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“When looking for a guru, take that grain of salt, for (as the Buddha taught): What you are seeking is wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom.”

The Parable of the Honest and Excellent Physician

Introduction:

Looking back, I should have thanked Mike Huckabee for having intentionally thrusted religion onto the center stage of the 2008 presidential election. Most Americans fully understand this truism: war is too important to be left to the generals. I hope that Huckabee, as a preacher himself, can appreciate another truism: Religion is too important to be left to the preachers. I hope to thrust religion onto the center stage of the 2012 election. Consider the following parable to be part of that thrust.

The Parable Begins:

“I wrote the following parable as a reaction to a lie told by the Buddha in the famous The Parable of the Excellent Physician (Juryo Chapter, Lotus Sutra)” – Steven Searle.

Imagine a wise and skilled physician who can compound medicines to cure any disease. He has 50 sons and 50 daughters, each of whom he loves dearly. A man of great wealth and renown, he lives on a great estate with many wives and others who are zealous in their care of these children.

He journeys to a distant land at the personal request of the king. In his prolonged absence, the children’s caretakers become lax in their attentiveness. They see that the older children seem very able and very willing to take care of themselves and their younger brothers and sisters. The older children try very hard to be good guardians and the younger ones are cooperative and obedient.

This respect worthy relationship is due to the great, all-encompassing love felt by each child for each brother and sister, and to the immense respect they all have for their father. The caretakers, over time, lose their sense that even the most capable of their charges are still only children and are still in need of guidance. They are overly impressed with what is, in reality, a very limited form of enlightenment being manifested by the children. This enlightenment appears to be very profound simply because the caretakers themselves have only a limited capacity to judge and weigh the merits of the various types of enlightenment.

Left to their own devices, some of the older children gain access to a supply of various ingredients. When mixed together, these attain the appearance and taste of something quite desirable – but, in fact, would cause slow and painful death if ingested. The older children are so impressed with their alchemy that they forget their father’s oft-issued warning: “Just because something appears to be good, does not mean that it is. Many have died from such a delusion.”

The older children eagerly share the product of their “enlightenment” with their younger brothers and sisters. All eat fatal portions with great abandon and with great pleasure, all delighting in this great discovery. Before long, however, they all become ill – imperceptibly at first, but within a few days, many are reduced to a state of animality.

At this time the father comes back to his home and finds that his children have poisoned themselves. Some are out of their minds with delirium, while others are not so badly affected. Seeing their father so close to them after such a prolonged absence, all are filled with joy and kneel down to entreat him, saying, “How wonderful that you have returned safely! We were stupid and have poisoned ourselves. We beg you to give us some medicine to save our lives.”

The father quickly determines the nature of that which the children have eaten. Gathering the appropriate ingredients, he grinds, sifts and mixes them together in a large iron vessel. He offers this preparation to his children, saying, “Approach this vessel and benefit from its contents. This action will save your lives!”

Each child approaches this wondrous vessel – some with palsied steps, others with great conviction. But the medicine smells foul and causes the children to cry out, “This awful concoction cannot possibly save us; it must be an even deadlier poison. Our father must be making a mistake here.”

The father immediately scoops a generous portion from the vessel; then, with great melodramatic flair, chews and swallows it. Those who are not out of their minds, follow their father’s example, not even waiting to see if the concoction is in fact poisonous. Their faith is rewarded with a rapid clearing of the mind and an appreciable lessening of bodily discomfort. The father exhorts the other children to follow his example. The cured children are quick to again follow their father: They too exhort the unconverted children to partake of this foul-tasting but life-saving medicine.

The good doctor sees his dying children being exhorted by his cured children and also by the shame-faced caretakers. Such caring! Such devotion! He also sees his own shortcomings. Though he reads the minds of the caretakers, thus coming to know of their dereliction, he realizes that he has to shoulder a significant portion of the responsibility here. [Imagine! The children of a physician poisoning themselves!] But he also realizes that if any of his children die, that would be due to karma: his as well as theirs.

The father senses, correctly as it turns out, that the unconverted children will not be persuaded to take this life-saving medicine. As his mind races desperately for a solution, a daring plan starts to take shape. Perhaps he could, on some pretext, announce his departure, leaving behind this wonderful medicine, and then later send a messenger to announce his death to his children. This ruse could serve to shock them sufficiently into taking this medicine and saving their lives.

But…this would be a lie. And this physician was renowned even more for his honesty than his excellence. He could not tolerate even the thought of telling a lie, of creating a false cause for which false effects would eventually arise. True, this lie could save his children’s lives. But this would only be an immediate, short term effect. The false effects would become apparent and indeed multiply and assume great karmic depth as his children reflected more and more on the fact that their father could lie.

In a loud and clear voice full of conviction, the father chants a prayer in the presence of his children and caretakers. It does not take long for the cured children and the caretakers to join in the good doctor’s prayers – prayers which are most appropriate for this era and place. Before too long, even the sickest child is at least murmuring these prayers.

These prayers succeed in saving some lives; however, all 50 of this excellent and honest physician’s sons die, leaving him with 50 daughters. This is a terrible state of affair in this particular country, in this particular era, where only male offspring are deemed to be worthy inheritors. The bereaved father chants earnest and heartfelt prayers for the sake of his departed sons. Then he addresses his daughters and their caretakers:

“I purposely rejected a scheme which could have saved the lives of my sons. [After detailing the ruse of lying about his own death, he continues speaking.] I am telling you this now because of my firm conviction that NO lie is acceptable, not even this lie: silence about my contemplated ruse: in effect, pretending now that I had done all I could to save the lives of my dear sons. I tell you this because my sons already know of my contemplated ruse from their particular vantage point and because of this which I sincerely believe: Especially when it comes to matters of knowledge, daughters should not be treated any differently than sons.

“From death must come value which we must create. The first value to be created from the death of my sons is that I hereby voice my conviction that you, my daughters, are the equal of my sons. You shall inherit my estate upon my death. I will see to it that our king is persuaded to change the evil customs that lessen daughters in the eyes of the people. The king owes me favors and I know he will listen to me.

“Some of you may hate me for, in effect, killing your brothers by not lying about my demise. But I have never told a lie nor withheld the truth and I urge you to vow to always do the same. Your brothers are merely not with us at present. However, they died ideally: due to a cause of their own creation, and quickly. If I had lied to save them, then they would be encouraged to rely on unnatural interventions to save them from the folly of their ways. There’s no enlightenment to be gained by following that path. Their premature deaths are a cause that serves to obliterate evil karma which they’d accumulated from the distant past. Dying young, under favorable circumstances, can do this.

“If you must hate me for my truthfulness, then remember this: ‘One must learn not only how to love one’s enemies, but also how to hate one’s friends.’¹ It’s alright to hate me, but I implore you: learn how to hate me. Also consider this: If the circumstances of their deaths can speed their attainment of enlightenment, for how long can you hate me?

“The most useful, value-creative truth at this time is that it is really only a matter of time before you are reunited with your brothers. And I assure you: it will not be long at all before you are reunited.”

This parable has a delightfully improbable ending, although probability has nothing to do with the Law. Over the course of the next few years, this excellent physician brings into this world 50 babies whose mothers tragically die in childbirth and whose fathers are not honest enough to stay around to care for them. These 50, all boys, become the adopted sons of the excellent and honest physician. They, the daughters, and the father all sense the honest origins of the 50 boys. Yet, true to his word, upon his demise, it is the 50 daughters who inherit this honorable physician’s estate. And true to their upbringing, these true daughters treat these “true” sons truly – as equals.

¹ With apologies to Nietzsche’s Zarathustra.

:The Parable Ends.

In Closing:

I believe that everybody has religious or spiritual truth buried within; though with many (especially politicians), it’s buried pretty deeply. This extends even to atheists and agnostics, though they might refer to such truth using a variety of names: insight, perspective, common sense, wisdom, heightened practicality, etc.

As your next president, I want to encourage a national dialog on matters of ethics, spirit, skepticism, and various types of logic and foundation. This should extend to inviting our children to listen to our wisdom and to share with us their versions of reality. Even our youngest citizens should be shown that there is a great diversity of feeling on these subjects, even in their local communities.

Even within our schools, I would encourage dialog sessions including opinionated members of the community invited as guest speakers (I would gratefully accept such an invitation to speak). Or students could join me on the White House lawn with other adult citizens. As a Buddhist, I would offer an opportunity for anyone present to join me in a brief chanting session to kick off such gatherings. At least, for the first such gathering. For future gatherings, other leaders and non-leaders should offer their opening prayers.

Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.” To which I would add: “…not entirely, and certainly not at the expense of its humanity.” I hope my presidency creates space for more and more people to openly and actively – even in public forums – reclaim that humanity, even at the expense of business.

Haven’t we paid enough for long enough? Isn’t it time we got our money’s (and not just our legal tender’s) worth?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“You do not have to stand alone in your darkest hours, for I shall be with you in spirit and in quest. I hope you will do the same for me” – Steve.