The USA's unconstitutional Constitution

Introduction

On an on-line message board, I stated that the USA's Constitution was unconstitutionally brought into being. This is what I'd posted, quoting part of the USA's first constitution - a document known as the Articles of Confederation (AOC) - and quoting part of the USA's second constitution - known simply as the Constitution.


QUOTE:

Compare Article XIII of the Articles with Article VII of the usurping, unconstitutional Constitution: 

Article XIII: "...And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Article VII: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

The Articles do not allow for a complete replacement (same as in our current Constitution) and can only be amended with the unanimous consent of "every State." The Con (the Great Con, I call it) could be ratified (thereby replacing the Articles entirely) if at least nine states agreed - though that ratification would apply only to those consenting states. Which is why, nowhere in the Great Con is any mention made of "the Union shall be perpetual," as stated in Article XIII and several other places in the Articles. Which became problematic before the War of Secession (not the Civil War, since that's a misnomer).

Yup, Patrick Henry had it right - he smelled a rat. Our Constitution was born in secrecy and yet, ironically enough, a lot of us have a problem with secret courts and mining of personal data. Go figure.

:UNQUOTE.


Let's think about this very carefully

The United States of America has held itself aloft as a beacon of hope for humanity. But the plain fact of the matter is, the usurping of the Articles of Confederation was done for the benefit of those who wished to establish a strong central government in order to further their goal of establishing an aristocracy. The Founding Fathers saw a golden opportunity to enrich themselves and establish a dynasty without having to worry about interference from Europe, an entire ocean away.

I encourage you to read the Articles of Confederation and compare it, as I did, to the current US Constitution. You'll notice several striking differences. To begin, the AOC has this interesting sentence:

"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" - quoted from Article XIII.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any such God-talk. And yet, the Constitution stresses oath-taking to secure its support whereas the AOC has no such language. Now why do you suppose that is? It's my belief that the Founding Fathers did not want to run the risk that their creation - the Constitution - would someday be replaced by a cabal acting (as they did) in secret. So they included the following language in the new document, per these two quotes:


QUOTE [from Article VI]:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.

:UNQUOTE.


QUOTE [from Article II, Section 1]:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."

:UNQUOTE.


The striking feature of both quotes is that nowhere is there any mention of taking these oaths "so help me God." In other words, as long as an oath is sworn (or affirmed), it doesn't matter toward whom that oath is directed - be it God or Satan himself. And I believe this was by design. And before anyone accuses me of libeling our noble Founding Fathers, I hasten to point out that these were not entirely Godly men, as witnessed by the fact that many of them owned slaves.

Wait, it gets even more interesting, since the Founders wished to ensnare the military into obligating its support for the new Law of the Land. The following two quotes trace the oath of enlistment from pre- to post-Constitution days.


QUOTE:  http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

History of the Oath of Enlistment

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army.

The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:

I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be true to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read [in part]: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962.

:UNQUOTE.


QUOTE [effective as of 1962]:

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." [This last sentence is optional.]

:UNQUOTE.

It's absolutely amazing that our military doesn't take an oath to protect and defend the USA's land or its people. Our troops, as of 1962, swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." And that part about bearing "true faith and allegiance to the same" is interesting because the words "the same" refer to the Constitution - not the United States or its people. While the pre-1962 oath made a big point that troops would "serve them [the United States] honestly and faithfully," it still says nothing about defending the people. That seems to be telling us that it is the state that is important, rather than the people.

As a side note, it's interesting that the pre-1962 oath focused on this - "serve them honestly and faithfully." I emphasize the word "them" here. One would think, if the reference was intended to be the United States, that the word "it" (one nation, singular tense) would have been used. However, I feel use of the word "them" was an attempt to pretend that individual state sovereignty still existed and meant something. Since, however, the concept of states' rights had been irreversibly shattered by the central government, it had become necessary to replace the military oath with a version that focused only on defending the Constitution. We have come a very long way indeed!

Just to be sure that the Constitution is always to be held paramount, this quote seals the deal:


QUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States [3].

Text of the Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I wil bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God [1].

:UNQUOTE.


About the "perpetual union"

And then we have this embarrassment from the AOC, which was not carried over to the new Constitution and for good reason. 

QUOTE from Article XIII:

And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

:UNQUOTE.

The "good reason" I'm thinking of is practical. Since the idea of a "perpetual" union is several times mentioned in the Articles, how could the new Constitution also speak of a perpetual union that it set up under its own very different terms? Some perpetual union! The Articles spoke of a group of nations (a United Nations of states, if you will) that maintained to a great degree their own sovereignty while stating (per Article III of the AOC) that "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other."

In short? The AOC never intended to create a new nation but, rather, to establish a mutual defense bloc. The Founding Fathers, however, foresaw the possibility (under the AOC) that European scheming might undermine that pact to the detriment of their own larger financial interests. Not to mention, it's always easier to control one bureaucracy instead of thirteen separate ones.

Besides, there was the embarrassing fact that, until the Constitution was ratified, there would be still be states that operated under the AOC which had also ratified the Constitution. Until at least nine states ratified the new Constitution thereby rendering the AOC moot (in those "at least nine states"), it would have been awkward to still be operating under a document that referred to a perpetual union while supporting another document that also insisted on a "perpetual [though radically different] union." And suppose only 9 states had ratified the new Constitution, the remaining 4 would have been stuck with the AOC and its high preaching of a "perpetual union." Having two groups of states, each claiming to be a "perpetual union" though operating under different constitutions, would have made for quite a few uncomfortable moments during aristocratic gatherings. And that is why the "perpetual union" statement wasn't included in the Constitution.


And why does all this matter?

It's easy for USA's citizens to feel superior to the Egyptians who had ratified their own rather convoluted and lengthy mess of a constitution. Not to mention, superior to the European Union which so far has met resistance in attempts to ratify its own constitution. However, before we start talking about our mission from God and how much the Holy One smiles upon the fortunes of our union, it's best to put things in perspective by pointing out the realities of the past. Only by doing that, can we squarely face the fact that the Founding Fathers had motives which were not entirely pure. And that will help us shed an attachment to a document which a lot of USAers insist, for no good reason, can never be replaced.

It can be and it should.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"It's always a mistake to presume that God endorses a human enterprise; an even bigger mistake to believe there ever was a God of the Creation. To this day, humanity suffers from the hubris of the Abrahamists. Yet there is still hope."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Buddhism: Dharani, Daimoku, and Daisaku Ikeda

Introduction

Even though I direct this post primarily to buddhists (in particular, to Soka Gakkai buddhists), I also direct it to followers of other faiths. One of my goals is to encourage believers to challenge their leaders and to investigate the traditions and scriptures they revere. Especially the scriptures. When I was a member of the Soka Gakkai, the vast majority of members I'd encountered - including leaders - had never read more than a smattering of passages from the Lotus Sutra. That's equal to a Christian never having read his Bible or a Muslim paying scant attention to his Quran.

Conclusions

I will attempt to justify my conclusions in the following sections, but I want to put these conclusions first - front and center - for emphasis (definition of terms follows this section):

• The daimoku is not an example of a dharani nor is it the essence of the Lotus Sutra; rather, it's the statement of a vow.

• The overemphasis on the importance of chanting daimoku is actually destructive since it encourages people to avoid reading, reciting, and pondering the Lotus Sutra in its entirety. For if people come to believe that the benefits of chanting one (or 10, 100, or 1000) daimoku are equivalent to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once (or ten, one hundred, or one thousand times), people will be tempted to ignore the Sutra in favor of reliance on this catch-phrase.

Definition of Selected Terms

daimoku - The invocation of the chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo which, according to Nichiren Buddhist groups (of which the Soka Gakkai is but one of several such), has such great power that saying it once is equal to having read the entire Lotus Sutra once. This, by the way, is a claim that I vehemently deny and will explain below.

dharani - "A spell or formula said to protect the one who recites it and bring benefit by virtue of its mystic power" - according to glossary definition offered by translator Burton Watson.

Ikeda - Daisaku Ikeda, 3rd president of the Soka Gakkai, a layman's buddhist organization headquartered in Japan with a worldwide membership of 12 million, with 10 million of those living in Japan.

Lotus Sutra - Believed by many Buddhist sects as being the most profound teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha by means of which all bodhisattvas are enabled to attain enlightenment. The Burton Watson English-language translation of this runs to about 228 pages.

nayuta - an ancient Indian numerical unit meant to indicate a very large number, which (according to some sources) is as low as 100,000 and (according to others) as high as 1 trillion.


Order of Presentation

I will open with quotes from Daibyakurenge, which purport to be from a transcript of a dialogue between Daisaku Ikeda and members of the Soka Gakkai's Study Department (see Footnote 1). Within that quote, I will insert my own comments in paragraphs, the first words of which are highlighted in yellow (highlights in green will be explained soon after they appear). At the end of this dialogue, I close with my refutation of this claim made by Daisaku Ikeda: "In particular, the source of the enlightenment of all Buddhas is the implicit teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo."

Then I will quote the entire Dharani chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which is all of five pages long. This chapter's passages will be interspersed with my own interpretation of selected portions.

Finally, I will close with a third section that is highly critical of Daisaku Ikeda and, by implication, others who deny the importance of reading, reciting, studying, and pondering the entire Lotus Sutra.

From Daibyakurenge

QUOTE [see footnote 1]:

Not Even the Buddha Can Fathom the Power of Daimoku

       The Buddha said to Medicine King, "If there are good men or good
       women who offer alms to Buddhas equal in number to the sands of
       eight hundred ten thousand million nayutas of Ganges [Rivers], what 
       is your opinion? The merit they gain will surely be great, will it not?"

[This is worthy of note. Put another way, this passage tells us to count all of the grains of sand in one Ganges River. Then multiply by two factors: 810,000,000,000 and at least 100,000, that last number being a conservative estimate of the magnitude of one nayuta.]

       "Very great, World-Honored One."

       The Buddha said, "If there are good men or good women who, with 
       regard to this [Lotus] sutra, can accept and uphold even one four-line 
       verse, if they read and recite it, understand the principle, and practice
       it as the sutra directs, the benefits will be very many."(LS26, 307-308)

[I found it interesting to compare the two answers given above: "Very great," and "very many." The first response ("very great") doesn't take into account exactly what kind of alms are to be given to this vast number of Buddhas, for almsgiving in Buddhism could be as modest as a simple bow of the head or as profound as donating one's kingdom. Obviously, the greater the donation, the greater the benefit to be received. On the other hand, elsewhere in the Lotus, embracing the Lotus is considered the equivalent of giving alms to all of the Buddhas in the universe, not just "merely" those 810,000,000,000X mentioned above.]

Saito:  The "Dharani" chapter begins with Bodhisattva Medicine King asking Shakyamuni how much merit or benefit people can gain from accepting and upholding, reading and reciting, studying the meaning of or copying the Lotus Sutra.

       Without replying to this query, Shakyamuni poses the following question 
       to Medicine King:  "If there are good men or good women who offer alms 
       to Buddhas equal in number to the sands of eight hundred ten thousand 
       million nayutas of Ganges, what is your opinion? The merit they gain will 
       surely be great, will it not?" (LS, 307).

[Saito is wrong to claim that Shakyamuni didn't reply to Medicine King's query. I highlighted in green the first words, above, of the three paragraphs which followed Medicine King's query. The Buddha starts, in paragraph one, by asking about alms made to a huge number of Buddhas. His introduction of this huge number was intended to give his disciples a reference point for his paragraph three's "very many" comment, by means of which he compares the benefits of those alms to the benefits gained by embracing one four-line verse of the Lotus Sutra. While Shakyamuni didn't state that these benefits are equal, he also didn't even bother to use more than "one four-line verse" of the Lotus Sutra as the basis of his comparison. The Buddha was expecting his listeners to compare the two sets of benefits without necessarily connecting all of the dots for them.]

When Medicine King says that the benefit of such people will be very great indeed, Shakyamuni instructs him:  "If there are good men or good women who, with regard to this sutra, can accept and uphold even one four-line verse, if they read and recite it, understand the principle, and practice it as the sutra directs, the benefits will be very many." (LS26, 308)

Suda:  He says that by accepting and upholding just a single verse of the Lotus Sutra we will gain the same benefit as we would by making offerings to an infinite number of Buddhas. When you stop and think about it, this is really remarkable.

[Suda's comment above indicates he disagrees with Saito's assessment about the Buddha not having replied to Medicine King's query. When Suda opened with "He [the Buddha] says that...," one must assume Suda's referring to what was said by the Buddha in the material just quoted from the Dharani chapter; if not, he should have cited the source he had in mind. However, if indeed referring to the Dharani quote, Suda is wrong in claiming the benefit being the same. The Buddha's comment concerning the benefits of upholding "one four-line verse" was limited to "...the benefits will be very many," rather than that these benefits would be the same. And when Suda speaks of "making offerings to an infinite number of Buddhas," he must surely be aware that the number 810,000,000,000X is not an infinite "number;" since even greater numbers than these are indicated elsewhere in the Lotus. There is a certain intolerable sloppiness in Saito's and Suda's responses that have appeared far too often and from far too many others among the official SGI analyses of scriptural matters.]

Ikeda:  How is this possible?  It's because the Lotus Sutra is the source of the enlightenment of all the infinite numbers of Buddhas in the universe. In particular, the source of the enlightenment of all Buddhas is the implicit teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. This daimoku is the sutra's undiluted and pure essence.

[I'm going to reply to Ikeda's preceding comment in the next nine paragraphs which conclude this section.]

:UNQUOTE.

The Lotus Sutra itself makes clear that the Lotus Sutra is the source of enlightenment, just as Ikeda claims. However, Ikeda's last two sentences are mere conjecture offered without any proof. I've personally read, aloud, the entire 228-page Lotus Sutra 130 times, and I could not discern anywhere within those pages any (even faint) hint of support for Ikeda's claims.

As for Ikeda's claim concerning "the implicit teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo," I offer this from the Lotus Sutra's chapter 21 (see footnote 2), in which the Buddha states (with my emphasis in yellow):

       If in the process of entrusting this sutra to others I were to employ these 
       supernatural powers for immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands,
       ten thousands, millions of asamkhya kalpas [NOTE: a conservative 
       estimate of a kalpa's duration is 16 million years] to describe the benefits
       of the sutra, I could never finish doing so.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 
       sutra.

There will never be any shortage of people running around claiming that they discern "implicit teachings" in religious scriptures, teachings which no one prior to them or only an elite has noticed. However, I take comfort in the part I highlighted immediately above - that is, "clearly expounded in this sutra" - which argues against such esoteric interpretations.

The first highlighted item - "I could never finish doing so" - refutes the claim which serves as a heading for this SGI article - that is, "Not Even the Buddha can Fathom the Power of Daimoku." A more accurate heading would have been, "Not Even the Buddha can Fathom the Power of the Lotus Sutra," since (according to the above passage) the Buddha is talking about "the benefits of the sutra." The Lotus Sutra does not mention the concept of the daimoku even once or even faintly/indirectly/etc. 

Basically, the chanting of daimoku is an act of vow-taking. Myoho-Renge-Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra as rendered in Japanese, and the word "Nam" means devotion. Therefore, when a person chants Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, he is basically saying "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." My complaint is simply this: How can a person claim to be devoting themselves to the Lotus Sutra (the Buddha's highest teaching) if all he does is chant, over and over again, his claim that he is devoted? It seems to me that true devotion would be manifested by an immersion into the text of the Sutra itself.

The only way believers can propagate the Law contained in the Lotus Sutra is for them to actually read it. For only then will they have the background needed in order to "make distinctions" - that is, comments based on the text which come from within and are meant as examples by which potential converts can attain understanding of the Lotus's various doctrines. I cite the following quote (my emphasis in yellow) from the Buddha found in Chapter 10 of the Lotus (see footnote 2):

       You should understand that these people are great bodhisattvas who have
       succeeded in attaining supreme perfect enlightenment. Pitying living beings,
       they have vowed to be born among them where they may broadly expound 
       and make distinctions regarding the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law. How 
       much more so is this true, then, of those who can embrace the entire sutra 
       and offer various types of alms to it!

Over and over again, within the text of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha urges his disciples to read, recite, ponder, and embrace the Lotus Sutra - all of it and not merely its title. And that's why I am no longer a member of the SGI, and have reduced the amount of daimoku I chant in favor of the practice favored by the Buddha as mentioned in the Lotus itself - to read, recite, ponder and propagate the entire Lotus Sutra.

The Dharani Chapter in its Entirety

I'm now going to quote the entire Dharani chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which consists of five pages. I will insert some of my own comments in paragraphs the first words of which will be yellowed.


QUOTE [see footnote 2]:

CHAPTER 26

Dharani

At that time the Bodhisattva Medicine king rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, pressed his palms together and, facing the Buddha, spoke to him, saying, "World-Honored One, if there are good men or good women who can accept and uphold the Lotus Sutra, if they read and recite it, penetrate its meaning, or copy the sutra scrolls, how much merit will they gain?"

The Buddha said to Medicine King, "If there are good men or good women who offer alms to Buddhas equal in number to the sands of eight hundred ten thousand million nayutas of Ganges, what is your opinion? The merit they gain will surely be great, will it not?"

"Very great, World-Honored One."

The Buddha said, "If there are good men or good women who, with regard to this sutra, can accept and uphold even one four-line verse, if they read and recite it, understand its meaning and practice it as the sutra directs, the benefits will be very many."

At that time Bodhisattva Medicine King said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I will now give to those who preach the Law dharani spells, which will guard and protect them." Then he pronounced these spells:

       anye manye mane mamane chitte charite shame
       shamitavi shante mukte muktame same avishame sama
       same kshaye akshaye akshine shante shame dharani
       alokabhasha pratyavekshani nivishte abhyantaranivishte
       atyantaparishuddhi ukule mukule arade parade shukakashi
       asamasame buddhavilokite dharmaparikshite samgha-
       nirghoshani bhasyabhasya shoddhi mantra mantraksha-
       yate rute rutakaushalye akshara akshayataya abalo
       amanyanataya.

[It is worth noting that the number of Buddhas affiliated with each of the following dharani spells (starting with the next quoted paragraph's claim of being "equal in number to the sands of sixty-two million Ganges Rivers") is far smaller than the number of "Buddhas equal in number to the sands of eight hundred ten thousand million nayutas of Ganges" mentioned in paragraph two. As I proceeded to read the Dharani chapter, I kept waiting for the Buddha to say something like this, "And I will guard and protect the preachers of the Law by giving them the ultimate dharani which is held most sacred by all Buddhas - that being the mystic invocation of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo." Of course, the Buddha said no such thing because it's simply not true. For if it were true, then the Dharani Chapter would have been the ideal place for such a revelation. Or at least, somewhere within the Lotus would have been such a revelation since the Buddha said (as I'd quoted earlier), "...all the most profound matters of the thus come one - all these are proclaimed, revealed, and clearly expounded in this sutra."]

[Some sects of Buddhism are so enamored of the physical aspects of the Buddha, they make much of claims concerning his magical hand gestures and spells allegedly uttered by the him. However, nowhere within the Lotus are any of these mentioned as a causative agent for the miracles performed by any of the buddhas. For when the Thus Come Ones want to perform any supernatural wonders, they simply will them into being.]

"World-Honored One, these dharanis, these supernatural spells, are pronounced by Buddhas equal in number to the sands of sixty-two million Ganges Rivers. If anyone should assault or injure these teachers of the Law, then he will have assaulted and injured these Buddhas!"

At that time Shakyamuni Buddha praised Bodhisattva Medicine King, saying, "Excellent, excellent, Medicine King! You keep these teachers of the Law in your compassionate thoughts, shield and guard them, and for that reason you pronounce these dharanis. They will bring great benefit to living beings."

[The praise just offered by the Buddha is not because of the dharani just uttered by Medicine King but because of "[his] compassionate thoughts."]

At that time Bodhisattva Brave Donor said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I too will pronounce dharanis to shield and guard those who read, recite, accept, and uphold the Lotus Sutra. If a teacher of the Law acquires these dharanis, then although yakshas, rakshasas, putanas, krityas, kumbhandas or hungry spirits should spy out his shortcomings and try to take advantage of them, they will be unable to do so." Then in the presence of the Buddha he pronounced these spells:

       jvale mahajvale ukke mukke ate atavati nrite nritavati itini
       vitini chitini nritini nrityavati

"World-Honored One, these dharanis, these supernatural spells, are pronounced by Buddhas equal in number to the sands of the Ganges River, and all of them respond with joy. If anyone should assault or injure these teachers of the Law, then he will have assaulted and injured these Buddhas!"

At that time the heavenly king Vaishravana, protector of the world, said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I too think compassionately of living beings and shield and guard these teachers of the Law, and therefore I pronounce these dharanis." Then he pronounced these spells:

       ade nade nunade anadu nadi kunadi

"World-Honored One, with these supernatural spells I shield and guard the teachers of the Law. And I will also shield and guard those who uphold this sutra, making certain that they suffer no decline or harm within the area of a hundred yojanas."

At that time heavenly king Upholder of the Nation, who was in the assembly along with a host of thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of gandharvas who surrounded him and paid him reverence, advanced to the place where the Buddha was, pressed his palms together and said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I too will employ dharanis, supernatural spells, to shield and guard those who uphold the Lotus Sutra." Then he pronounced these spells:

       agane gane ghori gandhari chandali matangi janguli
       vrunasi agasti

"World-Honored One, these dharanis, these supernatural spells, are pronounced by forty-two million Buddhas. If anyone should assault or injure these teachers of the Law, then he will have assaulted and injured these Buddhas!"

At that time there were daughters of rakshasa demons, the first named Lamba, the second named Vilamba, the third named Crooked Teeth, the fourth named Flowery Teeth, the fifth named Black Teeth, the sixth named Much Hair, the seventh named Insatiable, the eighth named Necklace Bearer, the ninth named Kunti, and the tenth named Stealer of the Vital Spirit of All Living Beings. These ten rakshasa daughters, along with Mother of Demon Children, her offspring, and her attendants, all proceeded to the place where the Buddha was and spoke to the Buddha in unison, saying, "World-Honored One, we too wish to shield and guard those who read, recite, accept, and uphold the Lotus Sutra and spare them from decline or harm. If anyone should spy out the shortcomings of these teachers of the Law and try to take advantage of them, we will make it impossible for him to do so." Then in the presence of the Buddha they pronounced these spells:

       iti me iti me iti me ati me iti me nime nime nime nime
       nime ruhe ruhe ruhe ruhe stahe stahe stahe stuhe shuhe

"Though he climbs upon our very heads, he will never trouble the teachers of the Law! Whether it be a yaksha, or a rakshasa, or a hungry spirit, or a putana, or a kritya, or a vetada, or a skanda or an umaraka, or an apasmaraka, or a yaksha kritya, or a human kritya, or a fever, a one day, a two day, a three day, or a four day, or up to a seven day or a constant fever, whether he is in man's form, in woman's form, in young boy's form, in young girl's form, though only in a dream, he will never trouble them!"

Then in the presence of the Buddha they spoke in verse form, saying:

       If there are those who fail to heed our spells
       and trouble and disrupt the preachers of the Law,
       their heads will split into seven pieces
       like the branches of the arjaka tree.
       Their crime will be like that of one who kills father and
       mother,
       or one who presses out oil,
       or cheats others with measures and scales,
       or, like Devadatta, disrupts the Order of monks.
       Anyone who commits a crime against these teachers of
       the Law
       will bring on himself guilt such as this!

[This entire section on the rakshasa daughters is remarkable for at least two reasons:

• Even though these are monsters (demons), even they have a desire for enlightenment deep down inside which caused them to promise the Buddha they too would protect the preachers of the Law;

• These monsters are the only ones, among the others who had given dharanis of protection, to actually offer protection above and beyond mere words, as evidenced below when they say, "...we will use our own bodies to shield and guard those who [embrace] this sutra."]

After the rakshasa daughters had spoken these verses, they said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, we will use our own bodies to shield and guard those who accept, uphold, read, recite, and practice this sutra. We will see that they gain peace and tranquility, freeing them from decline and harm and nulling the effect of all poison herbs."

[I highlight in yellow one sentence in the following paragraph in order to emphasize the contrast between those who uphold the "mere name of the Lotus Sutra" - that "mere name" being Myoho-Renge-Kyo - and those who "uphold it in its entirety" which is what the Buddha defines as appropriate practice in many places within the Lotus Sutra. I noticed that the Buddha didn't say in the yellowed sentence, "If you can shield and guard by means of dharanis those who accept and uphold..."]

The Buddha said to the rakshasa daughters, "Excellent, excellent! If you can shield and guard those who accept and uphold the mere name of the Lotus Sutra, your merit will be immeasurable. How much more so if you shield and guard those who accept and uphold it in its entirety, who offer alms to the sutra rolls, flowers, incense, necklaces, powdered incense, paste incense, incense for burning, banners, canopies, music, who burn various kinds of lamps, lamps of butter oil, oil lamps, lamps of various fragrant oils, lamps of sumana flower oil, lamps of champaka flower oil, lamps of varshika flower oil and lamps of utpala flower oil, and who in this manner offer hundreds and thousands of varieties of alms. Kunti, you and your attendants should shield and guard teachers of the Law such as these!"

When [the Buddha] preached this Dharani chapter, sixty-eight thousand persons gained the truth of birthlessness.

:UNQUOTE.

Closing Comments

I would like to close by commenting on a statement offered by Daisaku Ikeda in the interview quoted at the beginning of this piece (see FOOTNOTE 1):

QUOTE:

Japan today is facing a difficult economic situation. For precisely that reason, I hope all of our members will acquire immense benefit now. I would like to see each one gain inexhaustible good fortune. When times are good, anyone can do well. It is when things get tough that we see what we are made of. That is when our faith is put to the test. It is important that we patiently strive to forge open a way to hope.

:UNQUOTE.

I think it's sad that someone like Ikeda - leader of an international layman's religious organization - ties the concept of "immense benefit" to "a difficult economic situation" and speaks of "anyone can do well" in terms of financial gain. It's even sadder that he promotes the abbreviated Buddhism of chanting the daimoku at the expense of embracing the entirety of the Lotus Sutra.

But who am I that anyone should pay heed? Ikeda is very rich and is surrounded by an adoring cadre of yes-men. I am very poor, pretty much alone in life (please, not that I'm complaining since I've got a lot of hermit in me), and am dying of cancer - well, at least that's what my oncologist claims. Ikeda has about 300 honorary doctorates/professorships from universities/colleges worldwide - but not one earned doctorate. I have one degree only - and that was an AA I earned in my early 20s. So, in terms of pedigree, credentials, and the trappings deemed valuable by most members of society, nobody should pay any heed to any of my words. In my defense, all I can say is, "Let the Lotus Sutra be your guide - but for that to happen, you've got to read it."

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"I owe the SGI a tremendous debt of gratitude for having exposed me to Buddhism in general and the Lotus Sutra in particular. But I couldn't tolerate their dumbing down of doctrine which is very disrespectful of their own members. So I became a member of a sect that has only one member and one leader (me, in both cases) and I'm not recruiting."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes

Footnote 1:

March 1999 issue of the Soka Gakkai's study journal Daibyakurenge, though I wish I had found the SGI direct link to this source. Google: Wisdom Lotus Sutra March 1999 Daibyakurenge.

http://www.slashdocs.com/kkkvxm/wisdom-of-the-lotus-sutra-50.html

Footnote 2:

These are a direct quotes from the Burton Watson English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra published in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai.

The Purge (2013)

I saw The Purge over the weekend. For the 3 days running from June 7-9, its opening days, it ranked #1 in the USA earning $34M. When I learned it had been made for only $3M, I was surprised at its fairly high visual quality. I was, however, disappointed that director/writer James DeMonaco failed to see a better way to end his film. I suspect his failure, which was obvious to me and must have been equally obvious to anyone else who saw this movie, was responsible for its tepid Rotten Tomatoes review. Only 43% of the audience "liked it."

Spoiler alert:  I'm going to (eventually) give the ending away, as well as give my thoughts on how it should have ended. But first, a brief summary of this film's backdrop:


QUOTE: [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purge ] :

In 2022, the United States is a nation reborn ruled by the New Founding Fathers of America. To maintain low crime and unemployment rates throughout the year, the government has installed an annual twelve-hour period called "The Purge" during which all criminal activity, including murder, becomes legal. The only rules during The Purge are that "Level 10" government officials must remain unharmed and usage of weaponry above "Class 4" is forbidden. The Purge is designed to act as a catharsis for the American people, so that they may vent all negative emotions however they desire.

:UNQUOTE.

There are additional rules: Emergency crews (hospital staff, fire fighters, police) will not respond to any calls or provide any services during the Purge, which runs from 7 PM until 7 AM on the anointed day.

We follow one particular white, wealthy, and armed family living in a gated community, which observes the Purge by locking down and waiting for the mayhem outside their doors to cease. Mr. Sandin, head of this household, makes a comfortable living selling home security devices which abound in his own home. The irony is, his own home gets broken into which he explains to his wife by saying these devices don't work absolutely in all scenarios against a determined foe.

So this movie, which takes place almost entirely within the Sandin's home, is basically a home invasion thriller.

Shortly after the Purge commences, Sandin's 12-year-old son briefly disables the security system to allow a bloodied black homeless man to take shelter from his pursuers. They aren't hot on his trail, but they're close enough to figure out that he'd taken shelter in this particular house. They demand release of their victim within an hour or else they'll break in and kill everyone.

The family argues about this victim's fate. He's was already wounded in the belly by his pursuers and his wound is aggravated when Mrs. Sandin pokes him several times with a knife to get him to stop struggling as her husband duct-tapes him to a chair. However, they decide they simply can't throw him to the wolves. Soon thereafter, the outsiders break in and the family scatters as the homeless man flees to another part of the house. Most of the rest concerns how the family manages to kill many of the intruders, though Mr. Sandin is killed by the leader of the group - wonderfully played by Rhys Wakefield.

At the end, the family is saved by a group of five neighbors who finish off the remaining intruders. But these neighbors really came to kill the Sandins. Just as that's about to happen, the homeless man appears killing one of the neighbors which causes the others to surrender. The HM offers to kill them if Mrs. Sandin "gives the word." But she decides to spare them, satisfied to hold them until the Purge ends at 7 AM after which she releases them.

The ending

As I said, the movie ended in a rather uninspired way. No, wait. I take that back. It seemed like a case of a writer wanting to sabotage his own movie, since there was a far superior and obvious way this could have turned out.

After the four neighbors are released, the HM also starts to leave. Mrs. Sandin stops him by asking, "Are you alright?" He says yes and turns to go after she thanks him. And that's it.

My reaction was, "You've got to be kidding; this guy saved your lives." As I said, the HM had a belly wound which Mrs. Sandin had poked with a knife - twice. So I dare ask, "How is he alright?" Not only that but her husband is dead and the house is a wreck on the inside mostly because of the vandalism of the intruders. And this is a very large house indeed which could easily house 3 or 4 extra people. Considering this, I offer:

Mrs. Sandin should have stopped him by saying, "Mi casa es su casa [My house is your house.]" She could have offered to let him stay - not forever but "we can talk about that later, but meanwhile, I would like to pay you to help clean this place up. After we tend to your wounds of course."

Closing thoughts

Considering its ultra low budget, this was a very good movie but could have been memorable with the change I suggested. I've seen a lot of bad movies where the actors made the difference and/or a delightful twist occurs - ideally toward the end. The actors in The Purge all did a wonderful job, but...I sure wish I knew what the hell the writer/director was thinking with his ending.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
"(sigh) Sometimes I think I missed my calling in life and should have gotten into film."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Questions of Sovereignty

Today, I'm going to raise some questions concerning the concept of personal sovereignty and discuss these in terms of:

• vote selling;

• Chicago's 75-year parking deal, in reference to the 99-year lease of Chinese lands to the United Kingdom;

• several unions promising not to sue;

• the Chicago Teachers' Union's potential to be a game changer in Chicago.

I define personal sovereignty as that degree of personal freedom of action which an individual possesses and which cannot be infringed upon by the state. In the United States, personal sovereignty - while not using those words - is enshrined in the Preamble of the US Constitution as well as in the Bill of Rights, especially in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. These are stated, respectively, as highlighted below:

• "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The Preamble doesn't say, "We the states of the United States...," or "We the federal government of the United States." The concept of something that transcends state and federal authority is immediately introduced in the Constitution. In fact, "We the People" transcends the Constitution itself, since this sentence strongly implies that if "We the People" wanted to form an even more "perfect union" than the one created by this Constitution, We could do so. Interestingly enough, this Constitution fails to provide any mechanism for doing so. But that's not important: Where there's a will, there's a way.

• "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not even the Constitution, due to failure to enumerate, can serve to limit the rights "retained by the people" - "retained" by virtue of the people's sovereignty, as opposed to the sovereignty of the United States and the individual states.

• "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This language acknowledges an entity ("the people") that has "powers" and an existence of its own that can sit at the bargaining table as an equal to the states and central government.

The problem, of course, lies in the fact that the Supreme Court has seized the power to interpret the Constitution, which could render We-the-People helpless should it decide to ignore our rights.

Vote Selling

I have the right to own property, which means I can sell any property I own. I have the right to vote, but...I can't sell my vote to the highest bidder. Why not? Why should a person's vote be held in any esteem greater than that of other forms of property owned by that person? Some will claim that vote selling is immoral. Please. If someone were to conclude that it doesn't really matter who gets his vote since the status quo will prevail no matter what, it would seem to be immoral to deny that person the chance to at least make a couple of bucks by selling his vote.

Efforts to control the vote have existed in this country since the very beginning when only people (men only) who owned property could vote. Since then, the privilege has been granted to increasing categories of citizens. I even hesitate to call voting a "right" since it seems more like a privilege granted by legislatures than anything God-given.

I broach this subject:

• to claim more freedom of action for individuals, which should be their birth right in the first place, and

• to highlight my belief that we should have as few laws as possible that restrict our ability to engage in a wide variety of contracts and behaviors - which should include the right to contract for same-sex and polygamous marriages.

Chicago's 75-year parking meter deal

QUOTE:

Chicago Parking Meters LLC rolled us once. In 2008, the company struck a deal with Mayor Richard Daley and a compliant City Council that gave it control of meter revenue for 75 years in exchange for what's now universally recognized as an astonishingly paltry one-time payment of $1.15 billion.
:UNQUOTE [source: article by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, dated May 26, 2013]

Most of that $1.15 billion has already been spent, which leaves us without the benefit of 70-years' of parking meter revenue which could have paid for a lot more than $1.15 billion in city projects. Former mayor Richard M. Daley should be in jail for his leading role in this travesty.

I don't understand how a city gets to sell off part of its sovereignty. Could Hawaii sell off one of its islands for 75-years, while only technically holding on to its sovereign claim to that land, in order to serve as a naval base for China? How does a current group of leaders have the right to make such a deal so far into the future, a future in which those not-yet-born citizens had their birthright sold out from under them before they had a chance to say "no?" I think a very potent lawsuit could be founded on this basis. Yes, it would most likely get tossed by a Democratic party judge, but could serve as a rallying point even in failure.

The only reason Chicago's voters don't openly rebel and throw out the bums is, this is a one-party town in which political power is very tightly controlled. Not to mention the media which, except in a few rare  instances, can't say enough good things about (especially) the mayor. In spite of the de facto powerlessness of Chicago's voters, they still possess sufficient personal sovereignty to justify voiding this contract made not in their best interests. The question becomes: How to invoke their sovereignty to not only void this deal but to oust from power those who supported it?

A 99-year UK lease compares with Chicago's 75-year lease

QUOTE:

Under the convention the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories" were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free[1], expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong.[3]  Claude MacDonald, the British representative during the convention, picked a 99-year lease because he thought it was "as good as forever."[4]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory

This 99-year lease was nothing more than an imperialist's territorial grab, for I feel the UK never intended to return that land to China. However, political fortunes have reversed since the late 1800s. No longer does the sun never set on the British Empire. And the sun may yet come to never set on an empire which China might attempt to establish.

The 75-year parking meter deal in Chicago is comparable in terms of its attempted denial of sovereignty.

Several unions promise not to sue

QUOTE:
A union-backed plan to reform the worst-funded state pension system in the United States will be introduced in the Illinois Senate...

John Cullerton...said on [Monday, May 6, 2013] he plans to introduce the new bill endorsed by public labor unions and bring it to a vote by the full Senate on Thursday.

... The unions had vowed to sue over the rival bill narrowly passed by the Democrat-controlled House last Thursday.

"When this bill is passed, they're not going to sue," Cullerton told reporters...

Cullerton estimated the Senate measure could save the state about $46 billion over 30 years, though he acknowledged the projected savings could rise or fall, depending on choices people make among options offered by the bill [I will comment on this below].

By giving the state's public-sector workers a choice in how their pension and health benefits are allocated, the bill seeks to avoid [an Illinois state] constitutional prohibition against reduction in benefits promised to public sector workers.

UNQUOTE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/usa-illinois-pensions-idUSL2N0DN1QX20130507

Cullerton's plan may be "union-backed" and endorsed by "public labor unions," but I'm sure this was not done by the formal process of collective bargaining nor rendered into a written, contractual form. I'm also sure the unions could change their minds and sue after all. But even if they didn't sue, who's to say that individual union members couldn't? Answer: A judge will summarily dismiss such a suit by ruling that individual union members don't have standing to sue; that only their unions do.

And that's where I must object: A union is supposed to represent its members but not exclusively - members should be able to represent themselves by virtue of their personal sovereignty. However, institutions (like the state legislature) much prefer to deal with other institutions (like labor unions), shutting out individuals as often as possible. An individual should be able to sue, not based on any violation of a written labor-mangement agreement (for in this case, there is none), but on a violation of the state's constitution. That document clearly states:

"Article XIII, SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

Section 5 dovetails nicely with my concerns as indicated in the yellowed highlight above. If Illinois can save up to $46 billion over 30 years based on "choices" made by members as offered in this bill, that means (quite simply) that Section 5's prohibition against diminishing pension benefits is being violated. And it doesn't matter if "choice" is involved, since (constitutionally speaking) benefits would be reduced to the tune of that $46 billion. And Section 5 doesn't give any wiggle-room by allowing for "choices" (coerced ones at that) to be made according to the terms of a statute.

As for why the unions would go along with this: frankly, I don't care. There are times when a union will act according to its own agenda, which isn't necessarily rank-and-file friendly.

There was a time when unions had their place, but I draw a line when their place becomes greater by means of diminishing or eliminating the place individuals should have, especially in courts of law. As a closing thought here, I offer a reform: Citizen courts should replace judges in the ability to issue binding verdicts. Especially since it happens too often that judges are far more interested in denying access to any hearing which considers the merits of a case, especially by using the excuse that a suing party doesn't have standing. That becomes just another excuse to deny personal sovereignty.

Chicago Teachers' Union v. Mayor Rahm "the Golem" Emanuel

The CTU has floated the idea of finding a candidate to support who will try to unseat Mayor Emanuel in the next election. I would suggest they expand that strategy by announcing: "The CTU wants to support an independent candidate for mayor, and other independents for the 50-seat city council so as to eliminate the rubber-stamp nature of that body."

CTU can't act alone in this, since the Mayor and his council allies would be quick to accuse them of trying to win elections for the sole purpose of advancing this union's interests. The problem is, the CTU is one of the few independent institutions of sufficient size (manpower and financial muscle) which can effectively challenge the city's one-party establishment. However, there are possible allies - including university professors who could offer themselves as candidates. There are always a fair number of them who are in between positions, retired, or able (should they win) to take sabbaticals or reduced academic workloads in order to serve. Another potential source of candidates and supporters lies in Chicago's sizable retirement community.

Not to mention: Aldermanic pay is over $100,000 dollars per year - not bad for a virtually part-time job.

There are many Chicagoans like myself who are independents or are Democrats who are sick and tired of how this one-party town is run by a cabal of greedy, connected men who treat this city like a cash cow. CTU could challenge them but must avoid the appearance of seeking candidates who would be nothing more than union puppets. This can be done and should be - in the name of trying to establish in at least one little corner of the USA a greater degree of personal sovereignty than generally exists in the rest of the country.

Who knows? This might be the beginning of a trend.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance by those brave enough to insist they still have personal sovereignty."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com