Atonement and...Bill and Hillary Clinton

NOTE:  I had first posted this on Oct. 2, 2007, when I was a declared candidate for the US presidency. Even though I lost that race (obviously), even today I find elements of the following essay to be worthy of note. Enjoy!

My thesis for today:

Bill Clinton should have resigned from the U.S. presidency after being acquitted by the Senate. In fact, not doing so constituted a major sin on the part of the former president. Why? By remaining in office, he severely compromised Al Gore's chances of winning. As a consequence, Bill Clinton is personally responsible for giving us George W. Bush and, therefore, the War in Iraq.

Now hold on thar!

Some of you might recoil in horror after reading my last paragraph. Bill Clinton's presidency was well-regarded by many Americans - and not just the Democrats among them. As wikipedia puts it: "Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus." That and his ratings in post-presidency polls seem to speak well of the man.

However, I'm dead serious.

Suppose Bill Clinton had resigned after he had been exonerated (hmm...can't say that's exactly the right word) by the Senate. He could have worn the mantle of altruism by saying: "Even though the Senate's vote allows me to keep my office, after careful consideration, I realize that I cannot in good conscience remain as your president, having sullied that office and reduced its effectiveness (in my hands) by means of my thoughtless conduct."

How many people do you know who would be so selfless? The Senate vote allowed Clinton to keep his office. He didn't have to resign, so he didn't. Nothing could have forced him out. Therefore, many of his detractors would have held him in higher esteem by virtue of doing something so noble.

I maintain that a Clinton resignation would have assured an Al Gore victory over that cipher Dubya. Especially since Al Gore would have had some time in office as Chief Executive to ingratiate himself into our good graces.

It is not enough to say "I'm sorry"

I know Bill Clinton apologized to the nation for his conduct. However, in my view, an apology must consist of more than just the words "I'm sorry." In my Zaadz posts [Zaadz is now defunct], I have spoken of the dire necessity that wrongdoers seek atonement for their sins.

Bill wanted to say "I'm sorry," put this behind him, and then move on. That's not good enough, but it seems to be what the powerful among us prefer. They just love moving on.

Years have passed since Bill Clinton had passed up the perfect opportunity to atone (by resigning). I have a feeling that even he realizes this on some unspoken level.  But to Bill Clinton, I say, "It's not enough to write a book encouraging others to give*, after you've taken so much. Not even your pledge to donate an unspecified portion of this book's profits will be enough to buy your way into heaven. And, really, isn't that exactly what you're trying to do?"

* [Bill Clinton's book is entitled: Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.]

Failure to Atone

It is said that victors write history books. It's also said: the public memory is short. I will cite the position of the Germans to make a point that applies well enough to the Americans. My warning to the Germans: they should not ever allow themselves to become lulled by their prosperity and the ever-increasing time since WWII ended. They have got to try a lot harder to atone for their genocidal sins. Their current efforts are not good enough, and I will not hesitate to say so.

It's too easy to look at our current comfort level in the United States, while becoming increasingly satisfied with paltry levels of charitable donation. While choosing to remain ignorant of how profound is our footprint on the backs of the powerless of the world. [Out of sight, out of mind, yes?]

The failure to atone will lead to our downfall. And when the fall happens, everyone will ask, "What happened and how?" That's the funny thing about karmic retribution. The web of cause and effect is intricate and the precise form which retribution takes cannot be seen without the Buddha eye. But even without the Buddha eye, this is easy to appreciate: Those who don't exert profound efforts to atone will not mitigate their comeuppance in the least.

Certainly not, Bill Clinton, by writing a book which you delude yourself into thinking will save the world (while hoping everyone will have "moved on and forgotten all that" and think you're such a good fellow).

What about Hillary?

Will the karmic sins of Bill Clinton taint Hillary Clinton? Should they?

The direct answer to both questions is: "yes, without a doubt, inevitably." I will use myself as an example to convey my meaning here. Even though I'm not a typical American by any stretch, I was born here and I have benefited from this system. My karma caused me to be born here, though some Buddhists would argue that I chose to be born here because of my ancient vow to effect profound change. Attempting to fulfill that vow could be construed as the most profound way to expiate my trillions of years of accrued negative karma.

There are a lot of ways to regard why I am here and what that means. But the fact is: I am here, I benefit from this system (with its numerous corruptions) on a daily basis, so why should I be spared from any blowback I might happen to suffer during my life here as an American citizen [UPDATE: I am no longer an American citizen – I renounced that]? The answer is, I shouldn't be spared. Nor do I expect to be spared. In fact, I welcome whatever will come my way. After all, didn't the Buddha teach equanimity?

Bill and Hillary have "shared karma."  She benefits quite handsomely from Bill's networks of connections and donors. Without them (without being Mrs. Bill Clinton), she'd have no more right to expect the Democratic presidential nomination than would any other woman of similar accomplishments. Those are the plusses. However, her karmic connection to Bill Clinton (not to mention, being strongly connected to him in the public mind) is a well-spring of minuses.

The Buddhist Factor

I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will become our next president, especially since there is a Buddhist in the race - me! I will serve in unascertainable ways to derail her. As with other instances of the workings of karma, she will not see why she lost this race. Nor will she see how on earth I could possibly have "taken it away from her" (please note, she feels entitled to this office for none other than nepotistic reasons).

If, however, Hillary Clinton does become our next president, it will be because we (including me) Americans deserved no better. It will be because our system was too flawed to prevent it. It will be because irresistible waves of karma swept her into office, only to dash us all upon the rocks of our own (unatoned for) shared, national, negative karma. It will be because not enough people worked hard enough to forestall the "inevitable." [psst...I could use a little assistance in this regard.]

Final Note to Bill Clinton

I have a piece of advice for Mr. Clinton, for whatever it's worth: "I encourage you to engage in Buddhist practice as a start toward atoning for (at least) your political sins. It's not too late." I would give the same advice to Hillary.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

I am the only candidate presenting a written contract to the voters: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?"

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.

Buddha Beholds Womankind: And She is Good!

Today's quote seems to put women down on a cosmic scale:

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

This statement was attributed to the Buddha!

Since I haven't shown any restraint regarding other faiths, I must be consistent by critiquing my own Buddhist faith. So here goes.

Now it's refutation time

As with all teachings of the Buddha, two determinations must be made:

ONE: Is the statement in question true? [No, I do not believe it is true, nor do I think the Buddha believed it to be true.]

TWO: If it is not true, then why did he say it? [He said it as an "Expedient Means" - a teaching method which has been called the foremost device of the Buddhas.]

Initial Observation

First of all, the Buddha isn't using the same basis of comparison for men and women. That is, he is not comparing men to women in terms of their "karmic impediments;" nor is he considering the "desires and delusions" of each group. Also consider, would a derivative statement be as true as the original (or as false) if in the original you substituted "man" for "woman" and "woman" for "man?"

The element of time seems to be at issue as well: The Buddha is comparing the present-life status of all men to the all-lives status of one woman. I'll rephrase the quote to show this:

QUOTE: If all the desires and delusions of all the men [who are currently alive] throughout the major world system were lumped together, they would be no greater than the karmic impediment [that is, the summation of karma accumulated since the infinite past] of one single woman. UNQUOTE.

 

So why did the Buddha say this?

The Buddha issued this statement to challenge us - men and women alike. The words of the Buddha are supposed to penetrate our deepest mind and speak to our dormant Buddha nature. Upon hearing these words, an enlightened reaction is supposed to manifest which is rather mysterious and beyond closed-system logic.

In addition, he knows that men are insecure and have trouble dealing with women as equals. He knows that women aren't used to being profoundly decisive in the manner of a Buddha. He also knows that if women have strikes against them, men are often the pitchers of those strikes. Makes me wonder what karmic retribution those pitchers must suffer in later lives. [To be reborn as (gasp!) women?]

World-Wide Enlightenment

The human race cannot spiritually advance with one hand tied behind its back, so to speak. Women must come to the fore, breaking the bonds of patriarchy. [This is one reason why I blast the Pope and the patriarch Abraham, among others.] And sympathetic men out there must be willing and patient allies to these women. We need female assertiveness and vitality. We also need men who find virtue in patience and aren't greedy for all the marbles.

This is one reason why I am reaching out to women in my bid to create a new politics. I hope you'll consider: "E who hesitates is lost." Haven't you waited long enough?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

I am the only candidate offering a written contract in exchange for votes: “The Buddha never offered a written contract but I’m not the Buddha. Come to think of it: Neither are my opponents (but they’re not even trying, so maybe that’s the difference).”