Some Christian and Buddhist reflections

Introduction

Today I’m going to begin by commenting on material I encountered on the Unity Church website at http://www.unity.org. I don’t have any particular interest in Unity Church, but I noticed that some of their material triggered a response deep within me. So I want to share some of that with you.

Then I'll make some comments under these headings:

• You don't have to find a congregation in order to worship.

•  What are your practices? 

Unity Church

From the Unity Church website:

“The five basic ideas that make up the Unity belief system are:”

[NOTE: My comments are indented and follow each numbered point taken from that website.]

1. God is the source and creator of all. There is no other enduring power. God is good and present everywhere.

But what is God? For instance, to say Michelangelo was the source and creator of great works of art gives us no idea of what kind of person he was, but instead only gives us an inferential means of knowing anything at all about this man. Quite often in the art world, we find artists to be eccentrics who are really marginal (if not outright detestable) human beings who had managed, through their art, to put their best foot forward.

God can't be "present everywhere," for if He were, He'd have to be "present" in evil. That wouldn't be possible if God were always good.

Then there's the issue of the Creation itself. Since God was perfect, He should have let well enough alone and not created anything. Since He was the only thing in the universe and in fact was the universe prior to the Creation, then the introduction of created things introduced imperfection and things that were not God into that universe. Can an entity responsible for introducing imperfection be considered perfect after that?

During one of the few times I presented publicly, I asked my audience what they considered to be the ultimate power of God?" One man responded quickly though predictably, "The ability to create other Gods entirely equal to Himself." I used to give that answer myself until I thought of something even more radical. Since the ability to create (or more precisely, the ability to create something from nothing) is considered a uniquely Godly power, I offered its opposite: "Then so must be the ability to Dis-Create - that is, to turn something into nothing." A more radical part follows: "Wouldn't it be amazing if God could Dis-Create Himself, so that the Universe would be godless? And even more amazing if, after Dis-Creating Himself, Re-Created Himself as He was before? And even still more amazing if He Created, Dis-Created, and Re-Created Himself on a routine basis?"

My only purpose in asking such questions is to whet the appetites of others so they stop and think about what God is. For God isn't what the local Muslim imam or country preacher says He is, even if these (usually) men try to quote scripture to back them up. God is what you say He is or at least He is in a functional and applied way - that is the truth of the matter.

2. We are spiritual beings, created in God’s image. The spirit of God lives within each person; therefore, all people are inherently good.

Instead, I would say, "We are beings who have spiritual potential but it's not necessary for God to exist for this to be so." We know we exist; we can't be as sure that God does. In second place to the knowledge of our own existence, we know other people exist. We can learn an awful lot by trying to connect to the existences of those entities whose existences are universally accepted. Trying to connect to other entities not knowable as we know ourselves and our fellow humans is fine, but shouldn't stand in the place of knowledge of ourselves and human others.

If, however, it is true that "the spirit of God lives within each person," then it doesn't become necessary to seek a direct and personal connection to an external entity of Whom direct knowledge is (to say the least) limited to only a precious few. If we can connect to "the spirit of God [that] lives within each person [or, more precisely, within each created being]," that should be sufficient.

3. We create our life experiences through our way of thinking.

Our way of thinking is important but far more important is how we act. Quite often, we are pulled in different directions by conflicting thoughts and desires even while in the midst of taking action that favors one of those conflicting thoughts. These conflicts can be difficult to overcome as we seek serenity, but after all is said and done, no matter what we think, we end up doing something (or other). And even if we are massively indecisive and do nothing at all, well...doing nothing is a form of taking action, though it be a non-action. And all actions (active or passive) have consequences some call karma.

4. There is power in affirmative prayer, which we believe increases our connection to God.

Maybe we should try harder to put God first, care only about Him, and let the chips fall where they will, firm in the faith that however those chips fall is the will of God. It's okay to want things or to want one's life to have certain accomplishments or outcomes. But it's also okay if none of our desires are fulfilled if that be the will of God.

5.Knowledge of these spiritual principles is not enough. We must live them.

True enough - action must be taken. However, after action is taken based on "knowledge of these spiritual principles," sometimes the unexpected results of our actions causes us to rethink either our knowledge of these principles, the principles themselves, or both.

The Nature of Humankind

[Again, my comments are indented and follow each of the numbered points taken from the Unity website.]

1) We are each individual, eternal expressions of God.

Does "eternal" mean that we've always existed (as in having had past lives) or only that after we're born into this one-and-only life, we exist eternally from that point on as a soul either ending up being damned or saved based on the consequences of our one life as lived on this planet at this time?

2) Our essential nature is divine and therefore inherently good.

Some hold the view that within each of us is the capacity for great good and great evil (the Dr. Jekyll vs. Mr. Hyde view) or for occasional good and evil depending on our circumstances, mood, etc. The purpose of Buddhist practice is to reach a place called the Stage of Non-Regression (or not backsliding). Each disciple knew he had been born into this world with a heavy load of defilement due to sinful actions in past lives. But each one practiced meditation, compassion, and almsgiving hoping to erase the pending onslaught of karmic retribution which was to be the result of his sins catching up to him. This view is called Lessening Karmic Retribution.

To say we have only one essential nature seems more hopeful than accurate; accuracy perhaps lying in this: We are a composite of natures, some more dominant in particular individuals than in others.

3) Our purpose is to express our divine potential as realized and demonstrated by Jesus and other master teachers.

I take "divine potential" to mean "Buddha nature" or the capacity to become completely and exclusively good. A lot of my fellow Buddhists don't fully appreciate exactly what a Buddha is, but I urge them to read the Lotus Sutra which gives a description of the supernatural powers of such an accomplished one. One such power: The ability to generate an infinite number of (for lack of a better word) clones of ourselves so we could be simultaneously present anywhere in the universe where people were eager to hear the teachings. The acquisition of this ability (its cause) is born of the desire of the disciple to save all living beings; that is, it is born of great compassion.

I got into an argument at one local Buddhist meeting (of the Soka Gakkai International - USA) when I spoke of working toward attaining Buddhahood. I was informed that we're already Buddhas (huh?) and that Enlightenment isn't a destination but an ongoing journey during which we manifest our Buddhahood in our daily lives. I simply reminded them that the Lotus Sutra (which they claim to follow) speaks constantly of when certain individuals were predicted to become the next Buddha by a currently living Buddha.

I like the reference above to "other master teachers." Even the Buddha taught that not everyone would benefit from his teaching but could benefit from others. He didn't insist that he was the one and only possible path to salvation/Buddhahood. He went even further on his deathbed by telling his disciples, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law."

4) The more we awaken to our divine nature, the more fully God expresses in and through our lives.

Another word for Buddha is "A Fully-Awakened One." What is called "God," I simply think of as a universal though impersonal Law. A lot of people get stuck (due to our ingrained patriarchal, male-dominated history) on needing to believe in God as a human-shaped father figure. Due to my belief in the ability of teachers to shapeshift, I believe there are enlightened entities who show themselves as human-shaped father figures (alleged to be gods) if that is what is required to move particular individuals closer to perfection of understanding and of being.

“Our Teachings” - All numbered points are from the Unity site, followed by my indented comments.

1) Heaven is not a place, but a state of consciousness; we create our own heaven and hell here and now.

We also create our own heaven and hell that we'll live in after our death and into our next lives - all based on actions taken in this life and prior lives.

2) We all have an innate capacity to know God through direct experience.

Perhaps we have this "innate capacity," but I'm hard put to imagine there could be more than (maybe) ten people on the entire planet who have ever spoken to God and had Him speak back - which is what I would take "direct experience" to mean. But even in the case of ordinary mortals who have had ample opportunities to interact with others (that is, to "directly experience" them), how many times have we heard them later exclaim, "I thought I knew this person - I had no idea he was capable of doing something so horrible."

3) The “Christ” is that part of God that is in every person. There is a spark of divinity within all people, just as there was in Jesus.

Then what is the difference  (if any) between Jesus and other people? Since we all have that spark of divinity within, then it must be possible for a common mortal to become the equal of Jesus. But that runs into the claim that Jesus was divine - some even saying that He is God or at least a co-equal part aka the Trinity.

4) Prayer works.

I would instead say, "Prayer can be effective but its results aren't always guaranteed or predictable." I knew a heavy smoker who developed oral cancer. He was a top Chicago-area Buddhist lay leader. So he decided to chant four hours per day to overcome his cancer. After all, there were known instances of others who had done exactly that. But in his case, he died anyway. Some might say this is proof that chanting doesn't always work. But I would add the word "yet." I am confident that his chanting served to erase a sizable portion of his bad karma, but it wasn't enough to erase the part that caused him to get cancer in the first place. Maybe his death from cancer was not overcomeable with the amount of practice he had already invested. Maybe cancer was a teacher he had to have in order to feel the pain necessary to become more compassionate toward the sick.

Of course, what I don't like about such a view is it lacks falsifiability. If "prayer works," then it must work all the time, though it must be asked "how much prayer and how sincerely must it be offered?" If no test can be proposed the failure of which would disprove "prayer (or chanting) works," then to continue to believe that "prayer works" becomes only a matter of belief which in the face of failure is explained away rather than ending up being seen as proving prayer doesn't work.

5)   We are here to set a positive example and be a role model for others.

We can do this without having any religion or spirituality at all.

6) We are here to make the world a better place.

Even an atheist could embrace that view, while knowing that nothing happens by itself and a better world is preferable - that is, he knows he has to work toward this goal. I guess the question becomes, "How much effort and of what kind do I want to personally expend?" If a person were told that committing 90% of his waking moments to working in a food pantry would improve the world by .00000001%, he'd have to ask himself, "Is it worth it?"

Jesus

"We see Jesus as a master teacher of universal truths and as our Way Shower" - Unity website.

Does Unity see Jesus as having eternally co-existed with God and as God having manifested Himself in human form - as in the Trinity? Does Unity say anything about Jesus being the sole path to eternal salvation?

I have heard the claim that Jesus died for our sins and that by accepting Jesus, one was guaranteed heaven (barring backsliding, of course). I've always had a problem with my salvation being dependent on what someone else did, having put it this way:

"Saying that someone died for my sins, is like saying, Let me make love to your wife instead of you doing so; it will be as if you made love to her."

I take responsibility for my own actions by realizing I died for my own sins. But I do realize that having good teachers can help me to advance spiritually. Maybe I could save myself by myself, but it would be hard to do. Besides, it must be remembered that we are never by ourselves, even if we can't see the individual spirit teachers that surround us and are dedicated to us.

The Bible:

"Unity founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore studied the Bible... The Bible continues to be a valuable spiritual resource for us." - Unity website.

Would Unity be tolerant of those who read the Bible but interpreted in ways other than the Fillmores’? What about the 300 gospels mentioned below? Are they considered part of the Bible embraced by Unity?

QUOTE [source: http://www.easysurf.cc/christ.htm ]

Over three hundred other gospels were ordered to be destroyed [by the Council of Nicea, which was dominated by the supporters of St. Paul] - including all Gospels written in Hebrew. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorized gospel would be put to death.

:UNQUOTE.

I'd like to address this claim from the Unity Website: 

Affirmative prayer is the same method of prayer Jesus taught when he said, “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mark 11:24).

I'd be more comfortable with this change: "...believe that you will receive it." The actual quote urges us to be self-deceiving. And worse, if someone should ask us if got that thing we'd prayed for yet. If we were to answer "I have already received it" but in fact had not, then we'd be guilty of lying. I've always been bothered by the lack of this commandment within the Abrahamic traditions and the Buddhist ones: "Thou shalt not lie."

You don't have to find a congregation

in order to worship.

I myself was part of a Buddhist congregation until I was kicked out for being a (for lack of a better word) heretic. I miss a lot of the people and the warmth of fellowship offered by most of them. But it didn't take me long to treasure my new status as a solitary practitioner. I realized that, if it's traditional friendship that I want, I would have to take action toward gaining that. However, that's complicated by the fact that I love everybody but don't attach to any one person or group of persons exclusively. It can rightly be claimed that the Buddha didn't have any friends, though his disciples would have died for him - just as he would have died for them. I suspect the same could be said of Jesus.

I enjoy the give-and-take of sharing personal experiences with others, but I am careful to keep in mind that that kind of relationship can serve to limit our vision as well as to expand it.

What are your practices?

I did some rethinking about something I learned decades ago, which was this: In ancient India, whenever two wandering monks would happen to cross paths, they had a universal greeting: "Who is your teacher and what are your practices?"

What I failed to appreciate until now is the meaning of "what are your practices?" I assumed the answer would be a simple statement of the practices taught by one's teacher. But instead, what is being asked is "What are your practices?" That is, these two monks were inviting each other (notably, out of earshot of both teachers and fellow congregants) to share notes on what each of them personally practiced.

In my case, I start my answer with, "My teacher is Shakyamuni Buddha whom I (unlike any other Buddhist on the planet) believe to still be alive today, is always close by even though I don't see him, and is trying to teach me by nudging me in certain directions so I learn by experience rather than words. After all, at a certain point, words fail and experience must become the teacher." This bothered my congregation because they accept Nichiren of Japan (born 1222 AD) as their teacher, but aren't bothered at all by the fact that Nichiren never claimed to be a Buddha but instead claimed to be a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha.

As for my practices, I simply pointed out what Nichiren himself acknowledged - that the Lotus Sutra is the highest of the Buddha's teachings (as claimed by Shakyamuni himself), and is in fact the highest teaching of all Buddhas in the universe (though not all Buddhist schools accept that claim). And in that Sutra, we are urged toward the highest practice, which is "to read, recite, and ponder the Lotus Sutra."

The hardest part for my fellows to accept was my rejection of the primary importance of chanting "Nam myoho renge kyo." Since that practice isn't even mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, how can that chant be considered so important? The irony, of course, is that I probably wouldn't have even encountered the Lotus Sutra or been attracted to it unless I had chanted Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. So, even though the group I joined was (as it turned out) fatally flawed, I owe them a debt of gratitude for having influenced my thinking. Whenever a bad person or group can influence in an unintended but good way, that is called having a "poisoned drum" relationship with that person.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's son summed it up best (and here I paraphrase): ‘We are here to help each other get through “this thing,” whatever “this thing” turns out to be.’”

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.

I challenge the SGI to a debate

Intro:

The following is a challenge to those who are defenders of one form of Buddhist orthodoxy. However, I think much of what follows would ring true for my brothers and sisters of other faiths as well.

My challenge:

I am willing to debate anyone concerning the validity of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. You know its practitioners as chanters of "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo."

More specifically, I challenge those who are members and leaders of the Soka Gakkai International, up to and including President Daisaku Ikeda. In a larger sense, I represent all laypersons who have dutifully - over a period of many years - sat in congregations listening to sermons, but still have nagging doubts. Or, even better, who have figured out where their own faiths have gone wrong and end up urging reformation of those faiths.

The debate I envision is open to anyone in the SGI who considers himself a defender of the faith. We could debate publicly or privately: Your choice.

Here are some points which could be covered in a debate.

Debating Points

ONE:  Why don't we ever have any "sermons" after Sunday morning chanting sessions at the SGI's Chicago Culture Center? Frankly, the closing comments made when we finish chanting are an embarrassment. The Lotus Sutra encourages us to preach, yet we don't. And, no, it doesn't count as "preaching" when some senior leader reads a line or two of guidance written by some other senior leader, who then encourages us to dress warmly on cold winter days and to always drive safely. Years ago, we used to have an occasional lecture analyzing the writings of Bodhisattva Nichiren, but we don't even have those any more.

TWO:  How many more times are we going to see those terribly boring videos of President Ikeda? How many more times are we going to hear how many honorary degrees he's been awarded? How many famous people he's rubbed elbows with? Give people a reason to be enthusiastic about bringing themselves (and guests) to our Sunday morning gatherings. Give them the benefit of hearing the uncensored wisdom of the "ordinary" members (and not only the leaders) from the stage of the Ikeda Auditorium.

THREE:  We are practicing correctly only if we are persecuted for our beliefs and actions - the writings of Nichiren are very clear on this point. For most of us, the obstacles in our personal lives can't be considered to be forms of persecution. As long as we continue to practice incorrectly and not make waves (no serious efforts to spread the teachings to others), we will continue to be left alone by the powerful forces which would otherwise persecute us. And you must have noticed by now, they are very much so leaving us alone.

FOUR:  Never once, in all of his many writings, did the founder of SGI's Buddhism (Nichiren Daishonin, 1222-1282) ever refer to himself as a Buddha (not even once saying, "I am the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law"). A Buddha always declares his Buddhahood - often and publicly. And he shows proof by demonstrating his supernatural powers. So why does the SGI claim that Nichiren is a Buddha in the absence of any claim or of any proof?

FIVE:  SGI makes a distinction between a True Buddha and a provisional Buddha, claiming Nichiren to be a True Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha to be a provisional Buddha. SGI uses this device in an attempt to belittle the teachings of Shakyamuni and elevate the teachings of their founder Nichiren. However, even Nichiren agrees that Shakyamuni’s teachings in the ultimate Lotus Sutra are second to none. In fact, Nichiren refers to himself as a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. But in this modern day and age, the SGI claims that we are to ignore the Lotus Sutra (claiming it to be irrelevant) and only consider the teachings of Nichiren (and the writings of President Ikeda!).

In this, the SGI is making a profound mistake. Buddhist scriptures can be classified as True or Provisional, but there are not two different kinds of Buddhas (one superior and the other with an expiration date). Since Nichiren did not declare himself to be a Buddha, SGI has no business promoting him and demoting Shakyamuni.

SIX:  In order to elevate the importance of their founder, Nichiren, SGI teaches that the advent of Nichiren was predicted by Shakyamuni himself. For years, I heard this claim at SGI meetings: "The Buddha predicted that another, greater than himself, would be born during the fifth 500-year period after his passing in a country northeast of India." The source of this claim was never cited, but I can tell you one thing: It's not within the text of the Lotus Sutra.

But this claim becomes irrelevant, since it could only be true of Nichiren if he had been born on or after the year 1500 (instead of in 1222). Even SGI President Ikeda has written that Shakyamuni lived "about 2500 years ago." In Nichiren's time, however, it was believed that the Buddha died around 1,000 BCE. If that were true (and it's not), only then could Nichiren have possibly been the predicted one.

SEVEN:  If Nichiren is a Buddha, then why do we call him Nichiren Daishonin? Why don't we call him Nichiren Buddha? I knew a long-time SGI member, born in Chicago, who said, "The word daishonin is Japanese for Buddha." Wrong! Daishonin means "great sage," while butsu means Buddha. When SGI tried (maybe ten years or so ago) to promote the use of commonly understood terms and avoid esoteric Japanese words, I had asked a question which was never answered:

"Since SGI publishes a book entitled The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, why don't they change its title to The Major Writings of the Sun Lotus Buddha? After all, they are the publishers and they claim to desire to use common English words wherever possible."

EIGHT:  Nichiren wrote that chanting the phrase Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo once has the same benefit as reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. If that's true, why does SGI bother to include sutra recitation as part of its daily liturgical recitation? This recitation takes a few minutes but that covers only a few small portions of the Lotus Sutra. Since those few minutes would be better spent chanting more N-M-R-K (each utterance of which is equal in benefit to one recitation of the entire Lotus Sutra), why should a member waste his time by chanting any sections of the Lotus at all?

It takes less than five seconds to chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo once. It takes 13 hours to read the entire Lotus one time aloud. If both actions are equal in benefit, why should anyone do other than chant N-M-R-K?

NINE:  Why did Nichiren state, chanting N-M-R-K once is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once? Shakyamuni Buddha states, in the Lotus Sutra itself, that proper Buddhist practice consists of reading, reciting, and pondering this Lotus Sutra. He didn't say, "Just repeat its title [which is what N-M-R-K is] over and over and consider that to be equal to repeatedly reading the Lotus."

Nichiren made such a statement in order to entice his largely illiterate audience to make an initial connection to Buddhist practice. In 13^th century Japan, Buddhism was regarded by commoners to be a mysterious realm accessible only to intellectuals. Of course Nichiren realized that people who could be lured into practicing at such an elementary level could also be gradually introduced to core concepts alluded to in the chant itself and in the complete Lotus Sutra. However, he had to find some means to initially attract people.

I don't deny that repeatedly chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo opens doors. It does and it has the power to improve lives and bring benefit. Before I started asking hard questions, I chanted many long hours in many different settings. Maybe that's how I got to the point where I could actually ask hard questions. The longest I had chanted (that is, just chanted N-M-R-K) was for 17 hours, with 5 minute breaks every hour on the hour.

But ... it slowly dawned on me that Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo was not a substitute for the Lotus Sutra. In fact, the recitation of the entire Lotus Sutra is what is promoted by the Buddha [read: Shakyamuni] himself.

TEN:  In the SGI, we often refer to ourselves as the Bodhisattvas of the Earth. After reading the Lotus Sutra over 120 times, I can only conclude that we are not the BOTE (although they are present in this day and age, acting invisibly behind-the-scenes). BOTE are disciples of the Buddha going back trillions of years, who vowed to spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra - but there's a problem. There are supposed to be billions of them and they're supposed to be flawless in conduct and godlike in appearance. I don't see them (do you?) and they are certainly not anyone I've ever met in the SGI. Though I've met a lot of wonderful people in that group.

But I know people like to be stroked. Which is why leaders in the SGI tell their members, "You are the BOTE - destined to save the world by propagating True Buddhism." These same leaders, however, don't ever emphasize how flawless these BOTE are. To do so would cause members to say, "Huh? That can't be us." Which is why, I suspect, we are not encouraged to read the Lotus Sutra since doing that would lead members to a different conclusion:

"What we really are, are the Teachers of the Law mentioned in the Lotus, who are flawed human beings with shortcomings." That doesn't sound as grand and glorious as the BOTE - but it happens to be the truth.

ELEVEN:  I don't consider President Ikeda or even Nichiren to be my sensei. To me, sensei is Shakyamuni Buddha who did not die centuries ago in India . The 16^th chapter, which SGI members chant every day, says so [but they don't understand this, because they chant it in Chinese!]:

"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."

Since Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive and can be sensei to anyone who accepts him in that role, it is a mistake to accept anyone else as sensei.

TWELVE:  Over and over again in the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni urges us to "accept, uphold, read, ponder, and recite this Lotus Sutra." That's correct practice, but SGI doesn't encourage this. SGI urges us to "follow the strategy of the Lotus Sutra," but discourages us from actually reading it. Instead we are urged to recite only brief parts of the sutra in a language we don't even understand. So how could we possibly ponder it?

THIRTEEN:  When I tried to explain (at an SGI discussion meeting) that we are not Buddhas, the leader/moderator said we should pursue that topic another time. I claimed that we are seekers of the Way, on the path to Buddhahood, but that we are not yet Buddha's - we're only working on it. One SGI leader even claimed that Buddhahood is not a destination but a journey. Bullshit. The Buddha speaks of countless individuals, including himself, who attained Enlightenment. That means, they crossed a threshold: After a given point in time, they became Buddhas remaining so forever after; before that, they were not yet Buddhas.

Closing Thoughts

I was banned by my local SGI leader from attending any more meetings at her home, since (she claims) I seek to propagate a new religion entirely different from SGI's brand of Nichiren Buddhism. What I had sought was a debate, but I guess that was too much to ask. Too threatening. Might get too many people questioning certain basic assumptions robotically carried around for decades.

I am not introducing anything new in the area of Buddhist doctrine. I seek to prevent a corruption of the teachings by so-called modernization. Well, no, I take that back. I am introducing a few new elements - but they are only new in the sense of not having been spoken of by others before me. But these are not really new, simply because they are truths open to anyone who reads the common language of the Lotus Sutra. [For instance, one such new element is my claim that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive. But as I said...]

I know there are others like me in the other faith traditions - Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike - who cringe when they feel their teachings are being corrupted by worldly men with agendas of their own. There are Jews who tell their fellow Jews: "What you do is not in my name." There are Catholics who doubt the worldly Pope, certainly not thinking him infallible. There are Christians who loathe egotistical, self-idolizing televangelists. There are Shiites who think the world suffers from too many Ayatollahs [one of them, a billionaire!].

I believe that together - we, the devout laity of the world - must challenge our religious institutions. This challenge will do me good, it will do you good, and it will be good for the overall spiritual welfare of the world's people. Then, of course, world peace cannot be that far behind.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"It has been written that the voice does the Buddha's work. If so, then it is time for the SGI to speak up. Debate me." - Steve.