"Rely on the Law and...," Buddha

Introduction

It is extremely rare for any of my readers to post comments to my blog posts, although I've always encouraged responses. However, on Oct. 22 someone did exactly that. So I will use this post to reply again. I'd already replied once, in the form of a comment posted under his/her original comment. Both of these comments as well as the post commented upon can be seen here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/09/to-sgi-part-2.html

I value your comments and give their contents a lot of thought. I might not agree with what you have to say, but I definitely give your words my utmost attention.

"Rely on the Law and not upon persons."


QUOTE:

The words of the various teachers are in themselves of no use at all. The Buddha gave strict counsel against following them with his statement in the Nirvana Sutra, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”

:UNQUOTE: "The Teaching, Practice, and Proof," an essay by Nichiren written in 1275.

The quote immediately above is a good example of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination - which means simply that there isn't anything that has an existence independent of other phenomenon. As applied to the first sentence (containing the aqua-colored highlight):  Even the words of the Buddhas in themselves are of no use at all. For one thing, even the greatest teachers fail by using words alone if their pupils aren't interested or don't have the capacity to understand the lessons.

The second quoted sentence (containing the yellowed highlight) invites a question: Doesn't the Law require a person or persons to teach it? Since according to dependent origination the Law cannot exist by itself, the Law (in order to be meaningful) has to manifest itself in phenomenon (such as teachers). However, the Buddha spoke of attaining wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom. How can anything come of itself without violating dependent origination or, for that matter, the Law of Cause and Effect?

Obviously, nothing can. So why did the Buddha speak of teacherless wisdom - wisdom that seems to be disconnected from humans as if it's out there just floating around until we acquire it? I think he did so as an encouragement for those people living in a time when there is no Buddha in the world to teach them. However, as the following quote makes clear, the Buddha is always in the world though not visible to us and that the apparently teacherless wisdom has an inconspicuous Buddha behind it, using subtle methods to convey (that is, teach) it to us.

QUOTE [Chapter 16, Lotus Sutra*]:

I am the father of this world,
saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
For if they see me constantly,
arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five
desires
and fall into the evil paths of existence.
Always I am aware of which living beings
practice the way, and which do not,
and in response to their need for salvation
I preach various doctrines for them.

:UNQUOTE.

The sentence I yellowed is one reason why I claim Shakyamuni Buddha didn't die in ancient India over 2,000 years ago. He's alive and with us and I don't mean only in spirit - I mean, he's got a body that is no different from the one he had before he "died." And this body can be shapeshifted as is made clear numerous times in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha is always here, always teaching us but not as he did before, in terms of being the leader of a great assembly of Seekers of the Way well-known throughout the land.

The part highlighted in aqua is fascinating: Why would people fall prey to arrogance and selfishness, abandon restraint, and end up wallowing in sensuality if they see the Buddha constantly? That would seem to cast doubt upon the ability of the Buddha to save people, since his extended presence sends them in the other direction. Maybe the answer lies in having too much of a good thing which comes to be relied on, completely replacing one's own efforts. I think the Buddha subtracts himself from the world - that is, apparently does so - in order to encourage his disciples to stand on their own two feet. He'll always be around to teach us - perhaps by whispering in our ears or setting up object lessons for us - but we'll be thinking we're learning and improving by ourselves. Which is a great confidence builder, so we don't always remain as little children constantly leaning on our teachers.

An evaluation using Ohm's Law

Ohm’s Law can be written: I = V/R

In plain English, that’s “Current equals Voltage divided by Resistance.” However, keep in mind: This only applies in a closed-system known as a circuit. A simple circuit would consist of a battery (voltage source or causative agent if you prefer) with a single loop of wire connecting one of its terminals to the other, with a resistor inserted somewhere on that wire. In the example below, that resistor takes the form of a light bulb, which offers resistance (to the flow of current) which in fact helps define the amount of the current flowing through the circuit.

What I call Om’s Law, on the other hand, can be written: E = C/R [note the similarity with Ohm’s Law stated earlier as I = V/R].

You could say E = C/R means that any given Effect (E) - for example, the current flowing in an electric circuit - can be calculated if its Cause(s) (C) - for example, the voltage provided by a battery in an electric circuit - and Resistance(s) (R) - for example, the resistance provided by a light bulb into which current flows in a circuit - are known. But there is another way of looking at this relationship: Effect is Cause and Resistance. In fact, you cannot obtain any effect without both C & R being present. Most people would be surprised that you simply cannot obtain any kind of effect without resistance also being present. We don't normally think of resistance as being a good thing - framing it as an impediment instead.

Look at E = C/R from this perspective:

E = Enlightenment (the Ultimate Effect which inspires all buddhist practice - that is, to someday become a Buddha, a fully-enlightened one).

C = Cause (all of the positive deeds embraced by the six paramitas**, which buddhists strive to perform, since there can be no buddhahood without a long track record of performing good and selfless deeds).

R = Resistance (all of the negative deeds - or evil karma - which put a drag on our attainment of buddhahood).

In the equation (E = C/R), if R is reduced to a very small value (that is, if most of our negative karma is totally erased), then the value of E would approach infinity, unless of course the value of C is simultaneously reduced to a very small value.

The problem, though, is that R can only approach zero, since it isn't possible to divide by zero - algebraically, that's not permitted. So what this means is, once someone attains Buddhahood, Resistance (R or negative karma) would still be present in his E (or Enlightened) state. Most people would hesitate to consider a Buddha as someone who still has even the smallest trace of sin present in his life. But the irony is, he couldn't be enlightened without it - that little bit of sin will always be present and will always be a factor when "calculating" - that is, considering - the magnitude of his Enlightenment.

Apparently this limiting-but-defining factor has something to do with why not all Buddhas are created equal. The Lotus Sutra cites the examples of several Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have received predictions of someday attaining buddhahood. And there are differences in their characteristics - they're not all the same in terms of any kind of "infinite" aspects. Some have life spans of only one kalpa*** - others with trillions of kalpas***. Some have more followers than others; Shakyamuni is the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (while no other Buddha is mentioned as having such a unique distinction); same with Many Treasures Buddha, being unique in the function of his funerary tower.

So it's obvious that not all Buddhas are equal. Could that mean that there is one Buddha superior to all of the others? Maybe, but he couldn't be infinitely superior simply because it's mathematically impossible to divide by zero as I mentioned earlier.

A disturbing possibility

The Lotus Sutra speaks of devils who will come to reside in certain buddha lands, but will (instead of committing evil acts) support the Buddhist Law. That seems to indicate that even a devil has it somewhere in his heart to someday become a Buddha. Does that, however, mean that a Buddha could have it somewhere in his heart to become a devil?

We freely accept that even a devil could someday become a Buddha. But could we so easily accept that even a Buddha could someday become a devil - that is, backslide - even though the Lotus Sutra speaks of the stage of non-regression?

For now, I'll leave that question for you, since I'm still meditating on the answer.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Asterisked items above

* Page 273 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 273 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

** six paramitas: Six practices (or "perfections") needed to attain enlightenment: almsgiving, keeping of the precepts, forbearance, assiduousness in practice, meditation, and wisdom.

*** kalpa: According to wikipedia: "In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years."

TO: SGI (Part 7: Correct Buddhist Practice)

Specific Introduction

Today's post will convey what I regard to be the correct practice of Buddhism. This is meant to stand in stark contrast to the practices promoted by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

General Introduction

Today's post is the seventh installment in my "TO: SGI" series, which is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html

The basis of correct Buddhist practice

As far as I'm concerned and as far as SGI Buddhists should be concerned, the basis of correct practice is the Lotus Sutra. I am aware that SGI places greater emphasis on the opinions of their founding figure, Nichiren Daishonin. But, as I've written before, Nichiren is not a Buddha and in fact declared himself not to be. However, SGI insists it knows better, which is why they promote him over Shakyamuni Buddha.

Since even Nichiren claimed that the Lotus Sutra was the highest teaching of Shakyamuni, I feel I can use that sutra as a reasonable basis for any comments I might make. This is one of its most important statements as uttered by Shakyamuni himself:

QUOTE (see source at the end of this posting):

Gainer of Great Authority, you should understand that this Lotus Sutra richly benefits the bodhisattvas mahasattva, for it can cause them to attain supreme perfect enlightenment. For this reason, after the thus come one has passed into extinction the bodhisattvas mahasattva should at all times accept, uphold, read, recite, explain, preach, and transcribe this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

The part I highlighted in yellow deserves a clarification, which appears on page 205 of the same book quoted above. Not only "can" the Lotus Sutra cause them to reach enlightenment, it is the only means by which they can attain enlightenment :

QUOTE:

But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder, and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to supreme perfect enlightenment. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain supreme perfect enlightenment in all cases do so through this [Lotus] sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

Again, the Buddha himself spoke these words. I inserted "[Lotus]" in this quote, since the context of this quote makes it perfectly clear that the Lotus is the "sutra" the Buddha is referring to.

Correct Buddhist Practice

What should be chanted?

The chanting of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and gongyo (parts A and C) should be discontinued. The Lotus Sutra doesn't mention the daimoku at all, so why should that be considered the primary practice - or even any part of correct practice? And chanting gongyo, as is currrently done, in Chinese basically encourages members to ignore the Lotus Sutra as a whole. Parts A and C come from the Lotus but are not its entirety, which the Buddha says should be embraced. Anyone chanting Parts A and C in Chinese will not be chanting anything they understand. So what's the point?

Instead, I urge that the Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras be chanted in their entirety in English - all 396 pages. There are several English translations of the Lotus available, but (especially for SGI members) the version cited at the end of this post would be most appropriate since that version was published by the SGI.  Some might argue that only the Lotus should be chanted and not to include its opening and closing sutras - known as The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and Sutra on How to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy. However, in my personal opinion based on the references the Lotus makes to these other two sutras, it would be appropriate consider all three as (in effect) the Lotus Sutra. In fact, often these three are referred to as the threefold Lotus Sutra.

As for those who don't understand English, they should chant the threefold Lotus in their own language. The point is to understand what you're reading aloud (chanting) as you read aloud. Only that can build reinforcement and understanding.

My personal practice is to chant in English by directly reading the text cited at the end of this blog, starting at the beginning. The next day, I pick up where I had left off on the previous day. I proceed in this manner until I've read all 396 pages. And then I start at the beginning and proceed to read the whole thing over again. So far, I've read the Lotus over 150 times - but that did not include the opening and closing sutras. I included these within the last 6 months, since my study of these texts and of the Lotus itself convinced me that all three sutras should be recited.

What should be chanted to?

If SGI wishes to practice Buddhism correctly, in terms of what Shakyamuni Buddha (and not Nichiren Non-Buddha) had in mind, they've got to get rid of the Gohonzon as the object of devotion. The Gohonzon served a practical purpose, but only as long as SGI members had memorized gongyo and could therefore concentrate their gaze on this mandala. Since I propose that, for English speakers, the English language version replace the current Parts A and C, and since the entire Lotus is much longer and therefore would not be memorized by most people (nor is that really necessary), how could the Gohonzon remain as the object of worship? The chanter would be holding a copy of this book in his hands and would be reciting what he sees on the printed page. He wouldn't be able to take his eyes off this book unless he had memorized it and could therefore afford to gaze upon the Gohonzon.

The book itself should be regarded, for all practical purposes, as the supreme object of worship. Of course, if it gets damaged or worn out over time, a new copy of this book should be purchased and the old one destroyed, preferably in a respectful manner.

What would a chanting session look like?

Someone chanting alone at home would simply pick up his copy of the threefold Lotus and recite it in the manner I've described above. If a small group of people chant together, they could take turns reading aloud (say) for one minute each and keep taking turns until their agreed-upon time for chanting expires.

Chanting in unison in large groups, even those consisting of dozens or even hundreds (or even thousands) of people is possible. I've experimented with reading the English-language version by reading each syllable in each sentence without any pauses as might be called for when commas appear, reciting one sentence at a time in one breath. The current parts A and C are read that way - as kind of a drone without pauses or emphases. Whoever is leading large-group gongyo would start by reading a predetermined portion for a few minutes without the group joining in until he reaches a predetermined point. Then the congregation would join in, after having gained a sense of this particular leader's speed and rhythm.

Members would follow the leader's cues as to speed, and when to take a breath which is important when reciting sentences so long they can't be recited in one breath. The leader would determine when to take a breath and would simply stop chanting at that point. Of course, the members would keep chanting not knowing the leader had planned to stop for a breath at a certain point. But when they become aware that the leader had stopped, they would stop. And then they would pause until the leader started chanting again. They would let him chant alone for a couple of words until they figured out where he picked up and then they could rejoin him.

This can be done, but you might ask, "What happens if the leader makes a mistake, like losing his place or transposing words or adding or subtracting words?" Any of these errors would obviously throw off the rhythm of the group, but this would be immediately obvious. In which case, the leader simply stops and pauses briefly and then tries again. The leader would pick the place where he went wrong or perhaps start at a place just before that. The members would listen long enough to figure out when and where they should join in. If the leader makes an error toward the end of a sentence, he might not stop in order to try again but instead finish the sentence.

The basic understanding would be that chanting is supposed to stop upon reaching a sentence's period (or question mark). Then everybody takes time to breathe and the leader starts the next sentence, with the members joining him after he utters the first few words, thereby setting the pace.

A possible refinement based on the Practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

For large groups, I like the idea of rearranging the chairs in the meeting hall so they don't all face front. There would be three divisions within this hall - half of the rows of chairs facing (for example) north, the other half facing south, with a separation of these two blocks of (say) ten feet. The leader could sit within this separation with his back to (say) the west wall. That way, you'd have each of these two groups of people chanting toward the other group. That would be preferable to one large mass of chairs facing north directing their chanting at the leader.

Chapter 20 of the Lotus Sutra is entitled "The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging," who practiced by bowing to other people and directing his respectful words toward them. Each half of the congregation chanting to the other half would be paying homage to that practice. In addition, not only does the book assume the status of object of worship, so do the other people to whom one is directing one's voice.

End Comments

The comments above are only my opinion as to what is correct practice. But I encourage these to be food for thought. Members might come up with their own variations, and time to experiment and get used to any new approach would be needed. I don't really expect the SGI to heed my suggestions, especially since the Gohonzon is so central to their practice and world view. It's hard to change, especially when faced with the prospect that 10, 20, 30 or more years of lifetime practice would have to be judged as incorrect. And of course having all Gohonzons ritually destroyed would be hard for long-time members to accept. Perhaps they would do well to reflect on the importance of abandoning inappropriate attachments, which is a basic Buddhist teaching taught by Shakyamuni himself.

I myself chanted for years in the manner prescribed by the SGI, but I don't consider that to have been wasted effort. In my view, anyone's sincere efforts to practice Buddhism is worthy of respect - as long as they keep an open mind about why they might have to change their practice and being brave enough to do so when that time comes.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Source:

Page 311 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 311 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

Simon & Garfunkel & Dadaism

Introduction

There's a line in Simon & Garfunkel's song, The Only Living Boy in New York, that deserves a bit of analysis: "Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am." Today, I will try to connect that line to the art movement known as Dada or Dadaism.

I will also offer a few comments not related to Dada, and will end with a suggestion for Paul and Art concerning another great song of theirs, A Poem on the Underground Wall.

Da-da = Dada?

Paul Simon on occasion will add la-la's and other such fillers to his lyrics - The 59th Street Bridge Song (among others) come to mind. Even The Boxer came close - but only "close" since Paul wrote "lie, lie, lie, lie...") instead of la-la-la... Whew, glad he wrote it as he did, since"lie, lie..." was actually appropriate to the song and profoundly reinforced its theme.

I used to think the "Da-n-da..." line was similar filler - and perhaps it is. I don't know what Paul was thinking as he wrote this beautiful song (scroll down for complete lyrics and a link, with its letters in red font, to a YouTube performance). But I'll offer my interpretation since, as I once told a friend, "It doesn't matter what the artist intended for once he gives his art to the world, the beholder is entitled to his own interpretation."

This is from the song:

"Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am,
The only living boy in New York"

The purist in me would have preferred this:

"Da-da-n-da-da-n-da-da-n-da-da and here I am."

NOTE: Where "n" is used, that's shorthand for "and" - such as in "Rock-n-Roll."

In my rendering, the line would translate as:

"Dada and Dada and Dada and Dada and here I am," with "Dada" = "here I am" since that's what one would expect to hear after so many prior repetitions of "Dada." That's an existential statement of equality saying, "I am a personification of Dada - one who (as quoted below) "[prizes] nonsense, irrationality and intuition." Another possible meaning: Since Art had left NYC to act in the film Catch-22, Paul might have been saying Art (nice pun, eh, with a name like "Art" since Dada was born as an artistic movement) is Dada, like this:

"Art and Art and Art and Art and here I am."

Since Catch-22 was a profoundly anti-war film, any Dadaist would appreciate how Art's participation in this movie was the "negative reaction [to war]" quoted below, in the definition of Dada.

I put "Da-da" up front in my preferred rendering of this line - which to me puts emphasis on Dada, the art movement. If Paul Simon had in mind what I have in mind, he might have written as he did to disguise the reference to Dada by not opening with "Da-da." Sometimes artists don't like to be too direct with their audiences, allowing them to figure it out.

I'll break here to insert a Wikipedia link to Dada and a quote from that link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

QUOTE:

Dada was born out of negative reaction to the horrors of World War I. This international movement was begun by a group of artist and poets associated with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich. Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition. The origin of the name Dada is unclear; some believe that it is a nonsensical word. Others maintain that it originates from the Romanian artists Tristan Tzara's and Marcel Janco's frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language.

:UNQUOTE.

My reaction to the immediately preceding quote:

Paul Simon refers to himself as the only living boy in New York, since Art Garfunkel, the only other living boy in New York (in Paul's estimation) had left in the middle of recording an album to act in the movie Catch-22. If we assume New York City to be the center of a big rat race where a lot of alpha males are trying to make a mark, I could see how the soul of an artist would rebel against that. Dada's  "negative reaction to the horrors of World War I" could translate to Paul Simon's negative reaction to the war zone that all-too-often can be New York City.

Calling himself a "boy" is a reaction to all the Type A's running around NYC who are always trying to prove what big men they are. It also harkens to the early part of his friendship with Art Garfunkel, starting when they were 12-years-old when they were both boys.

The quote says "Dada...[prized]...intuition," which is a quality closer to the soul of an artist than "reason and logic."

If Dada's meaning came from "...frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language," that too would work in the line as follows:

"Yes, yes, and yes, yes, and yes, yes, and yes, yes and here I am."

All of those positives (repetitive use of yes) culminating in "here I am." Or, to put a finer point on it: "yes, yes = here I am." Suppose, instead, Dada doesn't mean "yes, yes." Then the line could be interpreted this way:

"Dada and Dada and Dada and Dada and here I am," with "here I am" = "Dada" or "I am the personification of the spirit of Dada.

All those "ahhhs"

I liked how Simon had "trouble" (I think "intentional trouble") singing the lowest note in the song, when he sang the word "York." That was a tip of his hat to how much Garfunkel's singing enhanced Paul's efforts. There's a lovely virtual choral part that repeats several times in this song, which this quote clarifies:

QUOTE [ http://www.allmusic.com/song/the-only-living-boy-in-new-york-mt0033991212 ]:

In an interview with Song Talk magazine, Simon commented, "I like that record, and I like the song, too. That was written about Artie's going off to make Catch 22 in Mexico," referenced in the song's first verse: "Tom, get your plane right on time/I know your part'll go fine/Fly down to Mexico."

In the same interview, Simon goes on to comment on the arrangement: "I liked the 'aaahhhs,' the voices singing 'aaah.' ... It was quite a lot of voices we put on, maybe 12 or 15 voices. We sang it in the echo-chamber...." ...[Garfunkel said], "It's [me and Paul] around eight times screaming, and we mixed it down very softly...I started getting into open-mouth harmony, in a very loud, strident way. We were screaming at the top of our lungs and inside an echo chamber...."

:UNQUOTE.

So the contrast between Paul's badly sung low note and the chorus of angels singing "ahhh" is quite striking - especially since that "chorus" consists of Paul and Art singing in a number of different voices using about eight combined tracks. That chorus was neither Paul nor Art but was a fusion of their voices, each voice representing a different facet of each singer. It might even be thought of as non-sensical to repeatedly sing "ah." But since Dada embraces the non-sensical as part of art, I think it fits. But for those who like a bit a meaning, I offer this: Maybe "ahh...ahh...here I am," could be interpreted to mean "ah [with all of those ah's using the meaning of "ah" as in "relax" - as opposed to the meanings implied in "ah ha" and "ah, I get it"] here I am." In other words, "relax, here I am."

The lyrics themselves and some comments

QUOTE: [ http://www.paulsimon.com/us/song/only-living-boy-new-york ], [After this quote, I will explain why I highlighted some of these lyrics in color.]:

Tom, get your plane right on time
I know your part’ll go fine
Fly down to Mexico
Da-n-da-da-n-da-n-da-da and here I am,
The only living boy in New York

I get the news I need on the weather report
Oh, I can gather all the news I need on the weather report
Hey, I’ve got nothing to do today but smile
Da-n-do-da-n-do-da-n-do here I am
The only living boy in New York

Half of the time we’re gone but we don’t know where
And we don’t know where
Here I am
Half of the time we’re gone, but we don’t know where
And we don’t know where

Tom, get your plane right on time
I know that you’ve been eager to fly now
Hey, let your honesty shine, shine, shine now
[da-n-da-da...]
Like it shines on me
The only living boy in New York
The only living boy in New York

:UNQUOTE.

RE: The lines highlighted above

The two lines in yellow are different, which I think must be a mistake (in the case of the 2nd line). Mistake? That might be hard to believe, since this particular site (check it out) seems to be an "official" Paul Simon website. If so, I doubt Paul exercised much control (if any) over content, since the parts I highlighted in green (which are part of the actual song) do not appear in these lyrics as quoted on this website. Listening to the song itself, it's hard to say exactly what Paul is singing in the lines where "da" appears. Perhaps that's just another case of an artist trying to blur his meanings.

RE: "Half of the time..."

A friend of mine saw a recent Paul Simon concert in a relatively intimate venue. He said, "Paul has a wicked sense of humor." This song has one good example of that - where he repeats verbatim the line that starts out with "Half of the time." Some critics might claim that repetition is often the mark of a poor lyricist, one who couldn't think of a better second line. I like to think there are two possibilities, since I respect Paul Simon too much to think he'd ever simply be too lazy or uninspired to come up with a different line:

• After singing "Half of the time..." once, it's repeated since the singers not only didn't "know where [they had gone]," but had forgotten about being gone the first time. Hence, my reference to Paul's sense of humor.

• After singing "Half of the time..." once, the line is repeated in reference to the second half of the time we're are "gone," but "we don't know where." In other words, these lines could be written, "All of the time we're gone..."

A YouTube performance

This link will take you to the track from their album on which Paul and Art sing this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IwYQ1Vqf_4

Re-releasing "A Poem..."

Simon and Garfunkel should consider adding these two tracks (one immediately following the other) to a future album, in this order:

• "A Poem on the Underground Wall, exactly as it appears on their album Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme.

• This same version slowed down to 16 rpms so that anyone playing the album at regular speed (33⅓ rpms) would hear it as a slowed-down version.

Same song, of course. But when played "slowly," it sounds like a completely different song with, I think, a greater sense of presence and darkness.

When I was 14-years-old (in 1965), I slowed this song down by using a record player with 4 speeds: 78 rpm, 45, 33⅓, and 16. In the old days (before CD players), you had to adjust your music machine to play at 45 rpm if you had a (gasp!) vinyl record with only one song on each side. If you had an album, you cranked it down (literally, by using a gear-shift kind of manual crank) to 33⅓ rpm. Certain vintage LPs played at 78.

I never understood what the 16 rpm setting was for, hence my experiment: I played Poem on the Underground Wall, literally, in slow-motion. Just for the hell of it; you know how kids are. Talk about a happy accident! Given the fact that S&G sing so highly and sweetly, notching them down an octave made them sound like (well) regular guys singing.

Even though that was over 40 years ago, I'll never forget how overwhelmed I was by being immersed in the echoes of a subway station late at night as they opened with:

"The last train is nearly due, the underground is closing soon, and in the dark deserted station, restless in anticipation, a man waits in the shadows."

After the last footstepping notes sounded, I felt like I had died and gone to heaven.

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

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

"Thanks for all the memories, Paul and Artie" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Independents, it's time to seize the primaries

My proposal to all you Independents out there:

Right now, take a coin from your pocket and flip it after making the following pledge:

"I will register as a Republican if it comes up heads; if it comes up tails, I will register as a Democrat. I will register in time to participate in - and I will participate in - the next primary election offered by my party."

But why?

As things stand now, with most Independents on the sidelines during the all-important primary elections, by the time you vote in the general election, it will be too late to make a difference. Most Independents know their choices in the general elections are not much to their liking, which is why a significant number of them avoid those elections. So, it's time to change that by giving more moderate and independent candidates your support before and during primary season.

Sure, you're an Independent and proud of it. Perhaps you're not much of a joiner, though you'll occasionally contribute to some worthy cause. But that's about it. So you won't be comfortable joining a party - let alone one of the two majors. But your participation in the GOP/Dem parties will actually enhance your independence by diluting their strength. That is, with more potential centrists/moderates joining the ranks, the more extreme factions will find it harder to control their party's overall direction.

Without your participation, Hillary Clinton will most likely steamroll/bankroll her way to the Democratic nomination with only token opposition. On the GOP side? Hard to tell, but their right wing is in no mood to settle for another Mitt Romney. They'll want one of their guys in charge, which could be someone like Rick Santorum who is currently campaigning under the radar via his website. But equally important are the races for the House and Senate - not to mention for the various state-level positions. And these races are very vulnerable to primary infiltration.

Low Primary Turnout

The key to my strategy lies in how poor the turnout has been, historically speaking, in the primaries for both Democrats and Republicans. And that there are so many unactivated Independents out there. According to http://www.people-press.org :

"In more than 13,000 interviews conducted so far in 2012, 35% of registered voters identify with the Democratic Party, 28% with the Republican Party and 33% as independents."

And that's just among registered voters! Lurking out there is a great army of people who don't even vote since they're disgusted by our whole "participatory" democracy. If this group starts to suspect that  there's a strategy that can break our current adversarial deadlock, we'll start seeing some real change you can believe in.

My firm belief is that the system of primaries conducted by both parties is their gravest weakness in terms of maintaining their considerable power. Consider the following quote from:

http://www.localelectors.org/2012/05/22/why-turnout-in-the-presidential-primaries-was-dismally-low/ :

QUOTE:

...when Rick Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10th [2012], the contest was effectively over, with Mitt Romney being the clear winner....

On April 10th [2012], 25 states with 40 percent of the U.S. population had not even held their primary election or caucus. ..

The bigger story, however, lies in the 25 states that did have a say in who the winner would be. In those states the turnout rates were dismal. Few people realize that the winner was determined by 9.8 percent of the people who were eligible to vote in those states, amounting to a mere 5.2 percent of the people who were eligible to vote in the U.S. as a whole.

[and]

Since there was no contest in the Democratic party, those numbers are undoubtedly smaller than they would have been had Barack Obama been challenged. If he had, the percentages might have doubled. But even a 20 percent turnout is dreadfully low.

Nearly all recent primary elections have had a similarly dismal turnout. Turnout for statewide primaries (U.S. Senate and/ or governor) is typically even lower—usually less than 20 percent and often less than 10 percent—particularly in mid-term and off year primaries.

:UNQUOTE.

The majors have an Achilles' Heel in the form of our primary system. It's time we shot a whole bunch of arrows at it.

But why the flip of a coin?

As I stated at the beginning, flip a coin and let that determine which party you will "join." It doesn't matter if you lean Democratic or Republican in your thinking. What matters is that both parties start to see a large increase in their numbers that could only be attributed to an outside campaign to infiltrate/undermine their idea of business as usual. The popular press and numerous propagandists might succeed in being able to demonize one party more than another. But the truth is, both parties need to be made more accountable and that can only happen with an influx of new people they can't quite figure out.

Predictability is a huge factor in governing the activities of the Dem/Pubs, especially when campaigns start to rev their engines at the beginning of primary season.

Suppose you have a distaste for the GOP (for example), but your coin-flip dictates that to be the party of your "choice." Just look at your ability to vote in their primary as a way to check the mischief caused by its Tea Party extremists who, really, are in the minority. Besides, in the general election, you could vote Democratic if you wanted to.

You might wonder why I focus on the chancy approach of coin-flipping. Wouldn't it be better just to urge Independents to join a party based on whatever reasoning they happen to come up with as individuals? I would say no to that. With coin-flipping, you'll get a 50-50 split which will drive up the number of new members in both parties equally. The effect would be felt more by the Republicans since they have fewer voters registered than do the Democrats. But at the moment, I feel that GOP extremism is a threat larger than Democratic biases.

In any event, it's important to infiltrate both parties and I couldn't think of a better or easier-to-remember formula than flipping a coin.

Some stats to consider

I hope the following will paint a picture of just how awesome an opportunity is presenting itself for Independents to take over and reshape both of the major parties. This in turn will pave the way for true independents to get elected, or at least (for the present) deny extremists from exercising disproportionate influence.

From a Huffington Post article posted on 10/9/13:

"A poll released Wednesday found Americans' approval of Congress dropping near all-time lows as the government shutdown continues with no solution yet in sight.

"The Associated Press-GfK survey found that just 5 percent of the public approves of the job being done by senators and representatives, while 83 percent disapprove. 11 percent said they neither approved nor disapproved."

This kind of stat tends to drive down the numbers who vote in general elections, which in turn gives greater power to those who do vote. And the same could be said of primary participation as well.

Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham

During the 2012 GOP primary in Texas, Ted Cruz beat his one opponent by winning 56.8% of the vote - for a total of 631,316 votes. During the general election, he beat the Democrat by winning 56.46% of the vote - for a total of 4,440,137 votes.

Put another way, 8.25% of Texans who voted in the general election were the deciding factor in Cruz's primary victory. And, remember, in both the primary and the general election, he won with a little over 56% of the vote. Even though a margin of 5% is considered a landslide, his margin was very vulnerable to an infiltration of independents who could have denied him the GOP nomination.

Blake Farenthold of Texas

Blake Farenthold, Republican, of Texas's 27th congressional district illustrates the vulnerability of primaries, even though his was a gerrymandered district drawn to suit GOP preferences. BF won 56.75% of 212,651 ballots cast in 2012 in a district with a population of 702,804 residents. But in the GOP primary, he won in a field of 4 with 71.4% with a total of 27,733 votes. That's right - 27,733 primary voters, which equals a little over 13% out of the total votes cast, snared the nomination for Farenthold. Like Senator Cruz, BF won by about 56% of the vote - again, a figure that galvanized Independents could easily overcome.

Disclaimer

Texas has an open primary system, which means voters don't have to be registered members of a party to vote. So it would seem (perhaps) that Texas's GOP isn't worried about cross-over voting, though of course it could decide someday to change its system depending on (shall we say) external threats. Texas and other open-primary states might be unique cases, but I still believe there are enough Independents who could make a difference if they decided to participate. As for the states (30 out of 50) with closed-primaries, they are the most vulnerable to the infiltration I'm proposing.

End Note

The GOP in particular is the most successful in using gerrymandering to create safe districts for its congressmen. But even in those cases, the influence of determined Independents can still be decisive.

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

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

"If we Independents fail to seize this opportunity, which has really been there all along, we'll only have ourselves to blame" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

TO: SGI (Part 6: "First-class" Gohonzon)

News Flash: On Tuesday, Oct. 1, I returned my Gohonzon, via first-class mail, to the SGI's Chicago Community Center.

General Introduction

Today's post is the sixth installment in my "TO: SGI" series, which is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html

Specific Introduction

I'm going to give the reasons why I gave up my Gohonzon and mailed it instead of returning it to SGI in person. I'll also address:

• Why I don't chant daimoku or do gongyo anymore (that is, parts A and C), even though I still "assiduously practice" - which is what the word "gongyo" means - by reciting the entire Lotus Sutra.

• Expedient means versus lying.

• Why Nichiren would make such an obviously false claim: "Chanting daimoku once is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once."

• My attempt to reconcile my practices with SGI's.

My Gohonzons - I had 3 of them

I was given a Gohonzon when I first joined SGI (then known as NSA) in 1974. I destroyed that Gohonzon in 1976 as a symbolic act upon quitting this group. I didn't chant at all during the following 17 years, after which I rejoined SGI at the urging of a friend. I was told that SGI had changed from being a heavy-handed, authoritarian cult to a group that was more supportive of its members.

When I rejoined the SGI in 1993, I specifically declined offers to give me a new Gohonzon. Even back then, I sensed that the Gohonzon wasn't an integral part of the practice, since even blind people can chant and when Nichiren was about to get his head lopped off, he didn't say to his guards, "Excuse me, can I have access to my gohonzon before you kill me?" He knew that his actions and what was in his heart were the things that really mattered.

Actually, I had made my own Gohonzon back in 1993 - just a sheet of letter-sized paper with 3 columns of words in English, which I chanted to for about 2 or 3 years. These words were of particular importance to me - for instance, the names of my good friends and enemies, brief descriptors of milestones in my life, titles of a variety of buddhist doctrines, the daimoku itself...all together, about 60 entries. That's what I chanted to, my own personalized Gohonzon; and that's what I insisted everyone had a right to do - chant to their own personalized Gohonzon.

And, no, it isn't necessary for these personalized Gohonzon to be subjected to an eye-opening ceremony. There is no truth to the claim that such a ceremony somehow mysteriously activates Gohonzon. All it does is give the priesthood something to do, which puts them in a position of superiority over the laity.

I did, however, relent and apply for an official Gohonzon from the SGI in 1996 (3 years after rejoining SGI), no longer chanting to my self-created version and only sporadically to the official version. My practice always consisted of chanting, not being concerned about chanting to anything in particular. Again, I didn't see the Gohonzon as an integral part of my practice.

For the last six years, my Gohonzon wasn't enshrined in a butsudan; I had it safely stored away in a shipping tube. Only recently did I buy a butsudan and re-enshrine it. But during its years of storage, I didn't really miss it. However, when I went to the SGI Center (during the weeks this summer before I was banned), when I chanted to that Gohonzon, I did not take my eyes off of it and I did my best to concentrate on it. I couldn't say the same for some of the other members I chanted with, who seemed too easily distracted or outright bored. I couldn't help but suspect: "There's got to be a reason for this."

[Side Note: Since I was banned from the SGI Center, that's why I mailed in my Gohonzon rather than relinquish it in person.]

In Nichiren's day, it was common for Buddhists to chant to paintings or statues of Shakyamuni. And Nichiren knew how powerful it would be to give members something to focus on as they chanted. It also put him in a position to grant or deny gohonzon, thereby laying the groundwork for a discriminating priesthood. I remember my last district chief accused me of trying to create a new religion in which some people were understood to be better than others. Actually, SGI does exactly that - by creating two classes of people, members and non-members or those who have Gohonzon and those who don't.

About the Daimoku, which I no longer chant

Recently, I made a conscious decision to stop chanting daimoku. Instead, when I feel the urge to say something brief (as when I'm washing dishes, for example), I simply say, "Hail to the Buddhas," or "Namu Saddharma-pundarika Sutra." That last is the Sanskrit equivalent of the daimoku. Since Sanskrit is closer to the language Shakyamuni spoke, I feel more comfortable with that than with Nichiren's daimoku. Whenever I have an appreciable block of time on my hands with which to practice (say, at least 15 minutes), I don't waste it on repeating the Lotus Sutra's title (which is, in essence, what the daimoku is). Instead, I read as much of the English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra as I can.

That is and should be our bedrock practice.

Expedient or Skillful Means

I feel I owe Nichiren and the SGI a huge debt of gratitude, for without them, I would never have sought the Law. The problem with both, however, lies in their abuse of the concept of "expedient/skillful means." When using skillful means, I find too often a willingness among SGI members (especially leaders) to lie when trying to do shakubuku or convey doctrine. It even bothered me when I read that the Buddha told lies, as is openly revealed in the Lotus Sutra (but which, of course, weren't called lies...but that's what they were).

I figured out why Shakyamuni did that, but I've found no one else anywhere who shares my view, which I posted at this link: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html

It is not okay to lie to people - ever. My feeling is, if I have to tell a "white lie" to get someone to chant, then I'd rather they never practice. For sooner or later, the lies catch up to the liar. People aren't stupid. If they have half an ounce of intelligence, they'll figure out the lies. Problem is, too many folks themselves live lives rooted in lies, so they "understand" why they were lied to. But, to me, lying spoils the purity of transmission of the Law. It's better to simply not go there.

Reconciliation of Practices - Mine and SGI's

I was looking for a way to integrate my practice of reading the Lotus Sutra with SGI's practices. And I found I couldn't do it. When I recite from the Lotus Sutra, my eyes are focused on the text in front of me which means I couldn't be looking at the Gohonzon. Then it occurred to me why Nichiren (and therefore the SGI itself) was so dismissive of the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra. Which has everything to do with why Nichiren would claim that chanting daimoku once was equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. And that's simply because in Nichiren's time, very few people knew how to read.

Even for the illiterate, Nichren's recommended style of practice was easy. All they had to do was go to enough meetings to hear gongyo being chanted, so they could commit it to memory simply by listening - which was how it was done in Shakyamuni's day. Nothing was written down until after the Buddha died; the disciples simply listened and committed to memory. If Nichiren had insisted that his converts recite the entire Lotus Sutra, many wouldn't have been capable of such a feat of memory. And that would have taken their eyes off the Gohonzon, since their gaze would have been fixed upon the Lotus Sutra's text - again, assuming they knew how to read.

Not to mention: Familiarity with the Lotus Sutra might have also caused members to come up with questions which Nichiren (much like the SGI today) couldn't answer.

SGI won't listen to or answer any doctrinal questions until members start turning in their Gohonzons and stop paying zaimu (tithing) and stop subscribing to publications. Isn't it sad that a religious organization will only respond to a loss of revenue? Hmmm...come to think of it, that's how Daisaku Ikeda got so rich, by having legions of Japanese ladies selling his newspaper and, later, his other publications.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Obama's options to break the budget impasse

Obama has an interesting card he can play if the GOP House insists on defunding the government. He could wait, maybe a week, and then announce that the FAA will furlough all of its Air Traffic Controllers. Since most US controllers work for the FAA, that would effectively shut down the movement of aircraft over the entire country - similar to what happened during 9/11. Obama could use this as a threat, saying: "In one week, I will order the FAA to furlough all controllers unless one of two things happens: Either Congress passes a budget bill that I can sign or private donations will have been received sufficient to pay controllers' salaries and to sufficiently fund all other government operations for two months. As the two months near their end, I'll reevaluate the situation with an eye toward repeating this process.  All donations would be returned - at no interest - but only if Congress, when it passes this budget, authorizes such reimbursement."

The President wouldn't be doing anything to hurt the controllers. Congress would, by failing to pass that budget. Or the public would, by failing to donate. Actually, I had in mind that donations would only be accepted from corporations or the 1%. That ought to put a finer point on things.

Some people might consider stopping air traffic to be drastic. But what would be worse - taking decisive action or letting the USA's economy suffer a slow but sure death over a period of several months? To be sure, there's no need for Obama to act immediately. He would have everything to gain by continuing his refusal to "negotiate" Obamacare in exchange for funding the government. I say, let the GOP twist in the wind for a while longer, for surely more people would blame them than him. But my advice to Obama would be: "Don't wait too long or else people will perceive you as indecisive."

The GOP better think long and hard about how long they want this shutdown to go on. Sooner or later, Obama might decide to exercise yet another option, by whispering in Boehner's ear, "Either you take charge and pass a budget bill that doesn't mention Obamacare or I'll introduce you to certain executive powers I have to declare an emergency and take care of this thing myself. Think about it and have a nice day."

In that vein, there was an interesting story in the news about how two US generals were sacked for failure to take appropriate and obvious security measures to protect a US base in Afghanistan from the Taliban. I don't see how a general gets dumped for this, let alone two generals. There's way more going on here than meets the eye, more than anything going on in Afghanistan. I'm betting it's a form of warning to other generals, in terms of how Obama will use the budget crisis (this one or another one in the future) to claim executive authority to override Congress's impasse. He can do this, but first he has to make sure the military brass is sufficiently cowed into inaction. Firing a couple of generals is a good warning shot across the bow, since firings at this level are virtually unheard of.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"Money for Nothing" - a doc film about the Fed

I saw this newly-released doc film on Friday, Sept. 20, its complete title being: "Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve."

[sigh] There have been a number of films and books which try to educate the masses about our national finances. The audience I sat with, though modest in number, really tried to concentrate and learn something from this particular exercise.

One overpowering question that popped into my mind as I watched: "Did the Fed itself produce this as a self-serving propaganda piece?" Whatever mistakes the Fed made - concerning, for example, its reaction to the 2008 meltdown due to the housing bubble - were explained away mainly along these lines: "Oh, mistakes were made because, even though correct theoretical options had been known in advance, the fed had decided instead to operate based on principles they were more comfortable with." That, coupled with a tendency of the Fed's board to vote in lockstep with whomever happens to be their current chairman, made this abundantly clear (at least to me):

Congress has to be ultimately responsible for decisions such as whether to adjust the prime interest rate and is abdicating its authority by pushing it off on this so-called independent operating agency. Throughout the entire movie, there is absolutely no case made in favor of abolishing the fed or intervening in its affairs, nor is even any proposal for a Congressional audit mentioned. The only scene (exactly one) that came close showed Ron Paul at a GOP function saying (without the film bothering to give any of the details of his arguments) that the Fed ought to be abolished. So you could say, "This film featured a cameo appearance by Ron Paul."

And there were no other dissenting voices to be heard proposing that the Fed be abolished or perhaps be subjected to Congressional overview or even an audit. Perhaps Congress should insist on full input of all of the deliberations of the Fed, as they occur, with access to whatever source materials the Fed backs up its decisions with.

And just in case you think the Fed isn't really that important, check out this partial mission statement:


QUOTE [http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System:

[The Federal Reserve System's] duties have expanded over the years, and today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, include conducting the nation's monetary policy, supervising and regulating banking institutions, maintaining the stability of the financial system and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.

:UNQUOTE.


The Fed is too closely aligned with the interests of the banking community, which did not (for instance) want to see the highly-lucrative derivatives market regulated. That reminded me of the SEC failure to investigate the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme even though they had been contacted (for years!) by a man with solid evidence. This is the opening of a very good wikipedia article:

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

Harry M. Markopolos (born October 22, 1956) is an American former securities industry executive and an independent forensic accounting and financial fraud investigator investigator.

Markopolos discovered evidence over nine years suggesting that Bernard Madoff's wealth management business, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, was actually a massive Ponzi scheme. In 2000, 2001, and 2005, Markopolos alerted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the fraud, supplying supporting documents, but each time, the SEC ignored him or only gave his evidence a cursory investigation. Madoff was finally uncovered as a fraud in December 2008, when his sons contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After admitting to operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history, Madoff was sentenced in 2009 to 150 years in prison. In 2010, Markopolos's book on uncovering the Madoff fraud was published, titled No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller.

:UNQUOTE.

To this day, no heads have rolled at the SEC for their massive failure to follow up on Markopolos's charges. Frankly? I would call that not only collusion within the SEC but also collusion within the Obama administration itself. If the regulators don't, can't, or aren't competent enough to regulate, then we'll always be at the mercy of those financial manipulators who are all too willing to game their system. And their power is growing by leaps and bounds as the financial sector as a "contributor" to the national economy continues to post gains over services and manufacturers.

Sure, we'll continue to be treated to Congressional hearings featuring mouthpieces for the bankers. We'll see stern-faced legislators grilling industry representatives as to why things went south so badly. But what we won't see is any move for Congress to take direct responsibility as spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from which I'll now quote selectively with my comments in brackets:

QUOTE:

The Congress shall have power...to pay the debts and provide for the...general welfare of the United States...

[Instead of the word "power," I wish the word "obligation" would have been used instead. However, I don't think We-the-People will, for much longer, tolerate a Congress that had the "power" but didn't use it. And We won't tolerate an excuse like, "We in Congress delegated that power to regulate the banking system." During the Day of Reckoning, We will be asking Congress, "Why didn't the buck stop at your desks?" In order for the "power...to pay the debts" to have any meaning, debt payments cannot be forever delayed. For doing that actually harms the "general welfare of the United States."]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

[The unsupervised (by Congress) power of the Fed to increase or decrease the USA's money supply by its own machinations makes a mockery of Congress's power to "borrow money." For any amount Congress wishes to borrow could be reduced or increased in value depending on those machinations.]

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...;

[The actions of an uncontrolled, unaudited, unaccountable Fed reduce the power of Congress to regulate this commerce.]

To establish...uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[How are bankruptcy laws "uniform...throughout the United States" if some enterprises are allowed to be bailed out at taxpayer expense because they're deemed "too big to fail?" Sounds to me like any enterprise that big was allowed to get that big by a Congress that failed to legislate or regulate appropriately.]

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...;

[Congress should never have been allowed to delegate its authority to "regulate the value thereof" to an unaccountable and independent Fed. That's too similar to another power Congress has chosen to delegate - the option of making war if, in the judgment of the President, that's what ought to be done. Only Congress has the power to declare war.]

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...

[One would hope that any laws that avoid "carrying into execution" (because Congress chose to abdicate its authority) would be considered unconstitutional. Some would argue that Congress simply can't be bothered with the day-to-day governance of our financial system. However, that's where my two plans come in, detailed in links immediately following this QUOTE.]

:UNQUOTE.

The aforementioned links

This link includes a section called "My vision for a Streamlined Congress":
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/long-arm-of-law.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/09/pro-democracy-amendment.html :This link includes Section 4 of my Pro-Democracy Amendment:

QUOTE:

Section 4.

If a legislator, at any place or time, publicly declares his vote in favor of any measure pending or not-yet-introduced in his legislative body, his vote shall be considered valid toward passage, unless he should publicly withdraw his vote prior to passage. If the number of legislators making such publicly-declared votes in favor of any particular measure exceeds half the number of legislators in that body, the measure shall be deemed to have been passed by that body.

:QUOTE.

Some questions inspired by the film

• Why can't we borrow all we want? I'm sure a lot of average voters, unschooled in finance, wonder if there is really any upper limit to how much debt we can absorb. More than that, suppose there is such a limit, we violate it, and all hell breaks loose. I'm sure many of these same voters, at least in the backs of their minds, are thinking: "Since the USA has the strongest military in the world, couldn't we simply use that force to impose our will on the rest of the world should the financial system collapse due to our own excesses?" The answer to that question, of course, is a resounding "Yes!"

• What if the Fed and Congress hadn't intervened during the 2008 housing bubble crisis? There was vague and overgeneralized talk about how intervention prevented a crisis of profound and international proportions. But did it really, at least compared to what will happen because we still haven't fixed any of the underlying problems? I would like to see a doc film showing what could have happened if the government or the Federal Reserve System (not the same thing, by the way) hadn't intervened. My personal view? Future events will show that we would have had a net gain if we'd allowed our financial system to take the hit it deserved due to its own irresponsible actions.

Spermin' Herman

Ah, yes. Herman Cain. Former candidate for the GOP nod to face Barack Obama in 2012. He of the sex scandals, which made him the butt of a lot of late-night comedians' jokes. Maybe I'm a simple man - too simple - but I can't help but shake the feeling that much of what we need to know about the Fed could determined if we could answer one simple question:

How on earth did an idiot like Herman Cain manage to become chairman of one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks?

QUOTE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain:

Cain served as Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Omaha Branch from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991. He became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992. He served as deputy chairman from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1994, and then as its chairman until August 19, 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics.

:UNQUOTE.

Afterword

Today, I'm going to see yet another doc film concerning the larger financial picture - this one called Inequality for All. It got a pretty good write-up on Rotten Tomatoes at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inequality_for_all_2013/

Hopefully, I'll be joined by legions of the USA's citizens who are as profoundly ignorant of finance as I am and, together, we will try to march forward, however gradually, toward a more complete understanding of this subject.

As a side note: One source that I found succinct, revealing, and very readable is the (gasp!) book by Matt Taibbi bearing this intriguing title:

Griftopia:

Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids,

and the Long Con That Is Breaking America

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

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

"Educate yourself now or pay the price later" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com