Holocaust: “Night” by Elie Wiesel

Invitation and Introduction

First, I invite you to actually read Elie Wiesel's Night, if you haven't done so already. At 34,800 words - a liberal estimate - Night's 109 pages make for a quick read. If you have already read Night, I invite you to re-read it, while bearing in mind my (following) critique.

Second, my words today will offer my analysis of Night, based on quotes from that novel.

Opening Statement

Given the fact that Elie Wiesel was, at the time Night was written, a journalist by training and had self-imposed a ten-year vow of silence before setting pen to paper, it must be concluded that Night is poorly written. Please bear in mind that my remarks address Night's literary merits and are not meant as any commentary on the Holocaust itself.

Quotes and Remarks

QUOTE [This comment appears as a testimonial preceding Wiesel's text.]: "As a human document, Night is almost unbearably painful, and certainly beyond criticism." - A. Alvarez, Commentary: END QUOTE.

REMARKS: With all due respect, nothing is "certainly beyond criticism." As for "unbearably painful," Alvarez must have no clue.

QUOTE (from the back cover of Night): "To the best of my knowledge no one has left behind him so moving a record." - Alfred Kazin: UNQUOTE.

REMARKS: I myself have not researched Holocaust literature at all, not even having read The Diary of Anne Frank. I do not doubt, for one moment, the awful truth of the Holocaust. Though I am an optimist by nature, I know full well what my fellow humans are capable of. As for Mr. Kazin's quote above, I certainly hope he is wrong in saying, "no one has left behind him so moving a record." To me, that says the personal stories of the Holocaust have been woefully under-reported.

QUOTE (Page 4): Each [Jew] had to go up to the hole [mass grave] and present his neck....How had Moshe the Beadle escaped? Miraculously. He was wounded in the leg and taken for dead. UNQUOTE.

REMARKS: According to Wiesel's account, "each [Jew] had to ... present his neck." If so, then how did Moshe the Beadle manage to be "wounded in the leg." The text doesn't even say that Moshe was shot, only that he was "wounded."

QUOTE (Page 40): [My father] was always elsewhere, lost in his thoughts. (Once a cousin came to see us at Sighet. She had been staying with us and eating at our table for over a fortnight before my father noticed her presence for the first time.) UNQUOTE.

REMARKS: This is one point in particular where the author severely challenges his readers' faith in his narrative. Come on, who can believe that a new addition at the family dining table would go unnoticed for two weeks?

QUOTE (Page 41): At the beginning of the third week [at Auschwitz], the prisoner in charge of our block was deprived of his office, being considered too humane. Our new head was savage, and his assistants were real monsters. UNQUOTE.

REMARKS: Then the book proceeds to tell us nothing at all of these men, in what ways his assistants were "real monsters." This is an instance, one of many, in which I consider Night to be incredibly underwritten. I mean, Wiesel spends over a year in concentration camps, yet manages only 34,800 words to convey his experiences?

Elie Wiesel's Foot

A great deal of Wiesel’s narrative is dedicated to a forced march, which he survived in spite of having a foot which had been recently-operated on. I don't see from his narrative how his account is believable, though of course history is full of incredible stories of personal heroism. After his ordeal, Wiesel’s foot was not amputated. You will easily see from the following why I am amazed to the point of disbelief on this aspect.

QUOTE (page 76): "I trust you absolutely, Doctor."

"Well then, listen to me. You'll be completely recovered [from this one hour operation] in a fortnight. You'll be able to walk like anyone else. The sole of your foot was all full of pus. We just had to open the swelling. You haven't had your leg amputated. You'll see. In a fortnight's time you'll be walking about like everyone else." UNQUOTE.

Page 78 [Three days after his operation, Wiesel has to join a forced evacuation from Buna]: "My wound was open and bleeding; the snow had grown red where I had trodden."

Page 79: "But I could not sleep [my last night in Buna]. My foot felt as if it were burning."

Page 79:  "I tried to find a shoe that was too large. In vain. I tore up a blanket and wrapped my wounded foot in it."

REMARK: From his text, we are to believe that Wiesel was force-marched 42 miles while wearing a shoe on one foot and a torn-up blanket on his other (wounded) foot. I'm amazed that this blanket did not fall off during his ordeal.

Page 80: "At six o'clock the bell rang. The death knell. The burial. The procession was about to begin its march."

Page 83: "When I came to myself again, I tried to slacken the pace. But there was no way. A great tidal wave of men came rolling onward and would have crushed me like an ant.

[New paragraph] I was simply walking in my sleep. I managed to close my eyes and to run like that while asleep. Now and then, someone would push me violently from behind, and I would wake up."

REMARK: The forced march was in mid-January when it "snowed relentlessly." How does one run in one's sleep through slippery snow, without slipping or being jostled by others running behind him?

Page 82: "Because of my painful foot, a shudder went through me at each step."

REMARK: They had been marching (jogging, actually) from 6 p.m. till dawn the following day, covering 42 miles before arriving at Gleiwitz. And, incredibly, Wiesel managed to do this on a recently-operated on foot. He continues on page 87, saying: "My wounded foot no longer hurt me. It must have been completely frozen."

Page 91: "We stayed at Gleiwitz for three days. Three days without food or drink." [Then the prisoners marched to an open field close to Gleiwitz and boarded a train.]

Page 95: "Ten days, ten nights of traveling [on a train, in cattle wagons with no roofs]."

REMARK: Ten days traveling, exposed to the elements? It gets viciously cold in Germany in January. How could Wiesel write something like this and not thank God Almighty for a true miracle - that he had survived those ten brutally chilling days? In Night, Wiesel bitterly condemns God, though I wonder if he comes to thank God in his later books. This is especially important, since it's well known that there are Holocaust survivors who became not only atheists, due to their WW II experiences, but worse, became hardened cynics. And many of them might have bestowed this legacy to their children, who are in the Israeli army now and can think only and exclusively of their own pain, Jewish pain, and cannot feel the pain of the other.

Conclusion

Elie Wiesel has written a narrative which did not move me nearly as much as it should have. In fact, the movie The Grey Zone was far more impacting. Elie of course had to tell his story, and each individual has the right to tell his story as he chooses. I did not suffer as did Mr. Wiesel, so that is perhaps the reason why I am simply not appreciating his words as he'd chosen them.

To Mr. Wiesel (and others), though, I will offer this: Everybody has the right to tell their story, but please: Don't forget, as you write, that there are thinking, feeling human beings out there who will read your words and interpret them based on their own perspectives. As you write, please keep us in mind, for we want to hear your story...so help us believe and understand.

Disclaimer

There will be detractors who will say, "Steven Searle is nothing more than a clever anti-Semite." And, indeed, it might seem that I am devoting a great deal of my presidential campaign to issues pertaining to Israel. However, ponder carefully, one and all: Only time will tell, but you will see that I am in fact a good friend to the Jews. So it is with friendship in my heart that I speak as I do, including these words: "Perhaps the Jews (especially of Israel) will come to realize that the ancient ideal of monarchy is more suitable to their national and religious character - and destiny."

It might seem odd, in this day and age, that a candidate for the US presidency would actually suggest that a nation give up its democracy and return to kingship. For which I offer two reasons: It's Biblical (and even Buddhistic), and Israel's current democracy has not brought forth the leaders necessary to realize its age-old dreams. [You can do waaay better than Binyamin Netanyahu as your Prime Minister.] [Of course, come to think of it, we could have done waay better than Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan, to name a few.]

Is it not written that the Lord works in mysterious ways? Perhaps even through a medium such as myself?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

"Isn't it about time we had a president who not only reads but thinks about what he reads...moreover, one who bothers to think at all?"

Opposi-tions Compose the Universe

Introduction

I think I've figured out where "everything" comes from. It was 20 years ago, during a hot August day in Chicago, when I wrote the following 830-word essay (while nursing a quart of Old Style beer). Personally, I believe this defies all known classification systems, but (please) judge that for yourself.

Here's a challenge: After reading, answer this question: Is this for real or is it some kind of joke?

What are Opposi-tions?

There's a hidden meaning behind the equation (+X) + (-X) = 0. If we think of zero as meaning "nothing," then the equation tells us that "nothing" has component parts which, when added together, give us "nothing." What are these component parts? I give the (+X) and the (-X) a special name: Opposi-tions (say uh-POZ-i-TIE-ahnz).

What is an Opposi-tion? Well, let's put it this way: Physicists can stop looking for the smallest sub-atomic particle, for what could be smaller than the building blocks of "nothing?" These most basic building blocks of all Creation exist in either of two forms: as Positive Opposi-tions (+X) or Negative Opposi-tions (-X). I call them Opposi-tions because the one type (+X) is opposite in nature to the other type (-X).

This is what we have so far: "If you have one Negative Opposi-tion and one Positive Opposi-tion, you can create one unit of nothingness (a single Voidic Atom) by adding them together." What do I mean by "adding them together?" This adding process is done by what I call the BAF - the Basic Additive Force. Well, since we have Opposi-tions of opposite nature, I guess we need an opposite to the BAF. I name this the Basic Subtractive Force (BSF). The BSF must be present to pull "nothing" apart; that is, to pull (+X)'s away from (-X)'s.

This is the only logical way we can start the process of Creation - with "nothing" to start with. However, a sufficient application of the BSF would soon give us a great number of "free" Opposi-tions to work with. Depending on how many of (and in what manner) these re-configure, specific members of the most basic group of sub-atomic particles are created. These, in turn, combine to form the sub-atomics we're familiar with. Once these larger particles are created, the familiar rules of physics come into play to finish the process of Creation.

This theory doesn't need a Big Bang to explain the creation of the universe. Perhaps Creation (and Un-Creation?) are processes still at work - at this very moment. If so, where does God (or, as some people call it, "the Law") fit in? Consider these possibilities:

ONE: God is Everything and Nothing.

That is, He's the essence of matter (in the forms of the two types of Opposi-tions) and He's the essence of energy (in the forms of the BAF and the BSF) and He's Nothing (when Opposi-tions are "added" together to form Voidic Atoms). This view is a form of neo-Pantheism. In order to consider God to be Everything (and, yes, Nothing is a part of Everything!), He has to, on occasion, manifest Himself as Nothing.

Consider God as a Force. When parts (or aspects) of this Force become restricted - as does energy "contained" in atoms, for instance - then this Force manifests itself as things - i.e., as particles of matter, not just as energy. Since "things" and energy are accounted for - and are the only "things" that make up the universe - Materialists can be satisfied with this first possibility.

TWO: He's only the BSF.

Without the BSF, only Nothing would exist (if "Nothing" can be said to "exist"). Since it seems that a lot of people don't feel pressured to explain where "Nothing" came from, calling the BSF "God" (a God that didn't have to create Nothing but only used it as raw material for creation) would be acceptable. This view is the closest to the traditional Judeo-Christian stance: God is a Thing which existed side-by-side with the Void, and then used "elements" of the Void (a usage we call Creation).

THREE: He just can't be the BSF.

Knowing that BSF stands for "Basic Subtractive Force" - also knowing that subtraction is a negative, "taking away" process - would prove to be bothersome to those who think of God as a positive, giving Thing. The very idea of negativity being the Cause of Creation seems to be sacrilegious. This view is closest to being superstitious and is based on know-nothingism.

FOUR: Perhaps He manifests Himself as both the BAF and the BSF.

Some people would insist on this "because" one of the powers of God must be the ability to create nothing from something as easily as to create something from nothing. If God were a duality, He could very well be both types of forces - the BAF and the BSF - simultaneously. A scientist would be the first to point out that, in nature, there is no such thing as a monopole - that is, for example, a magnet with only a south pole (or only a north pole). A logician would be the first to point out that there can be no "up" without a "down," no "in" without an "out," no "plus" without a "minus." Furthermore, "ups" and "downs" are not two separate things, but are aspects of one basic, primality.

This view is closest to being "fair" - or logically even-handed - or scientific - or even a manifestation of the Yin and Yang principle.

Conclusion

When I wrote this, I had fun doing so. And that's important, since religious contemplation too often tends to bring out a lot of dark heaviness. I hope you can at least see the humor in this piece. At most? I hope you can see its implications.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

“I may well be wrong about this, but here goes: If you don’t have leaders who can challenge basic assumptions and engage in fresh, original thinking, you won’t get anything but the same old tired ‘solutions’ to the world’s problems.”

The Last American in Guantanamo will be...

The Last American in Guantanamo will be...me! This presumes that I prove successful in my bid to be elected U.S. president in 2012*. I will order all U.S. military personnel out of the Guantanamo Bay enclave in Cuba, intending to be the last American to formally occupy that land. [That’s a provision in my current written contract, same as it was for the 2008 election.]

After waving goodbye to the last of our departing troops, I will turn around (alone) to face the thousands of Cubans standing, with hope in their hearts, outside the gates of this U.S. military base. I will then open these gates, allowing them to enter and enjoy that "ultimate sovereignty" over Guantanamo which the U.S. has always claimed was Cuba's. I envision many of these thousands weeping for joy and kissing the ground.

In fact, if Castro were to be present, I would like to walk up to him, shake his hand, and say, "Welcome to Guantanamo. Sorry it took so long to return it to your people." [Hmm…wouldn’t that make an interesting scenario for a campaign commercial specially scripted and staged for TV? I wonder who I could get to play Castro…wait!!! I wonder if the real life Castro would be agreeable to this. What a coup that would be!]

Abandoning Guantanamo is one of the two recognized methods for returning that land to its rightful owners. [The other method: obtaining consent from the U.S. government.] Since the U.S. president can order troop movements (in effect, "abandoning" that site) without consulting with Congress, I will proceed immediately to do just that. I will also encourage Congress to normalize relations with Cuba. That, unfortunately, the U.S. president cannot do by himself, though it is an action long overdue.

We would stun the world with this unexpected bit of do-the-right-thing. This one simple gesture, of course, cannot undo the immense harm wrought by certain parts of our foreign policy. "Certain parts," for example, inspired by greed, fear, and a compulsive need to dominate based on a haughty superiority complex. However, I believe yielding Gitmo would have an enormous ripple effect throughout the entire third world. Maybe some analysts abroad would see this gesture for what it is: A sign that the United States is losing some of its fear.

I am the only presidential candidate you will ever hear talking like this. [During the 2008 campaign, when I’d originally posted this essay, I had closed this paragraph with: “Hilary Clinton, Bill Frist, John Kerry, John McCain, and none of the other contenders will. It's not that they lack courage (I'm sure, under given circumstances, they all have lots of courage); it's not that they lack intelligence (I will stipulate that all of them are far more intelligent than I). What they lack are the vision and the wisdom which a strong Buddhist practice would provide. And I'm not shy about saying so.”]

Among my opponents [will be a] lot of career politicians who are steeped (well-marinated, one might say) in business as usual. Also among them are a lot of lawyerly types, those of wealth who feel they're entitled, and those who are just plain power-hungry. And then there's me: Steven Searle, the fighting Buddhist.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“To show my dogged determination concerning the return of Gitmo to the Cubans, I spent $444 to post an ad three times saying so in In These Times (appearing in the July, Aug, & Sept. '06 issues).”

  * Actually, I had posted a variation of this essay on-line during my 2008 bid for the presidency. Well…if at first you don’t succeed…

 

Chicago Cubs going for a Grand Rip-off

The owners of the Chicago Cubs baseball team want a $300 million upgrade of their ballpark. They also want Illinois taxpayers to pay for it.

According to the Chicago Tribune (Nov. 12, 2010):

“The owner of the Chicago Cubs will ask the state to borrow up to $300 million in a bond offering to make extensive renovations at Wrigley Field that would ensure the team can play at the historic ballpark for another 50 years.”

QUESTION:  Why is a privately owned, profit-making business asking the state for money?

A BETTER QUESTION:  And why is the state even considering such a proposal?

My Proposal: The Feds should pass a law barring states from offering incentives to professional sports teams, a practice which encourages relocation. If a team wants to call (for example) Chicago, Illinois home, it should build and maintain the necessary infrastructure. This is done by digging into their own pockets or borrowing the money by (themselves) signing a loan form. To cover all bases, though, this same law should place a cap on the rate at which states can tax sports franchises within their borders.

Let’s do the math

Actually, let’s not do the math. The non-mathematical truths are painful enough to behold. Money will be raised by the state selling these bonds, which will have to be repaid – with interest. Since the state would be putting its credit rating on the line, the enabling legislation would have to contain provisions to prevent default. Such provisions would force taxpayers to make up the difference if all didn’t go according to plan. For instance* - "The Cubs' owner… is seeking a safety net in case the amusement tax does not cover the bond payments. Ricketts [the team’s owner] would like the bonds to be backed by revenue streams that are assigned to the facilities authority [a state agency], including a 2 percent hotel tax.”

For one thing, the money collected from the amusement tax should be allocated by our state legislators to meet the needs of our citizens – not to cover expenses which benefit a private corporation. Same with the “revenue streams that are assigned to the facilities authority.”

Consider*: “If the legislation is passed, Ricketts and his family have promised to invest about $200 million in redeveloping the Lakeview neighborhood outside the stadium…” My translation of this statement: “If the state borrows $300 million to benefit my private company, that frees up $200 million of my money for me to indulge in potentially very profitable real estate speculation – which happens to be in the neighborhood of my stadium.” [I wonder if this promise to “invest about $200 million” will be a written promise with seizure of assets a consequence of non-performance. Will such a written promise be a condition for passing this legislation? Nothing in the news reports answers these questions.]

How crass! And this man has the balls to claim*: “The state has no credit risk here…no one is losing anything. It’s not a new tax, and it’s not increasing taxes.”

No credit risk? Any time bonds are floated, there’s a “credit risk.” Who’s this guy kidding? And to minimize that risk, the taxpayer will be tapped to protect the investment of the bondholders. Translation? Taxes will be raised or money will be borrowed.

A Better Idea

Maybe Ricketts should offer a different pitch (which is fitting for the owner of a baseball team): “Give me $300 million, but it won’t be used to rehab the ballpark. Instead, we will use the money to buy the best ballplayers on the market so the Cubs will have a real chance of winning the World Series. And keep winning it, year after year.”

How about that? For my entire life (of 59 years), my hometown Chicago Cubs have personified mediocre baseball. They are the perfect .500 ball club. Yes, I’ve gone to some of their games, but only because a relative got me in for free. Cubs ballpark (known as Wrigley Field) is a beautiful throwback to a bygone era – a nice way to spend a summer day, blessedly exposed to the elements. Maybe the shock of winning the big one would be too much for Chicago’s ever loyal, diehard fans. A bigger shock would be to see Cubs owners step up to the plate and take personal responsibility for their team’s destiny. But…this is Illinois – one of the most corrupt states in the union – and taking personal responsibility is not expected.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I fully expect that, somehow or other, the people of Illinois will be sucked into this scam.”

 * All quoted material comes from the Chicago Tribune's November 12, 2010 edition.

Dubya's head added to Mt. Rushmore

Today, I will share a horrible dream I had (starring Barack Obama and Dubya). Then I will address the Fed’s recent decision to pump $600 billion into the economy – as well as other horrible things.

I had a dream

In the not-too-distant future, I envision a special, elite ceremony at the Mount Rushmore National Memorial. You know the one: From 1934 to 1939, likenesses of the heads of four US presidents were blasted into the mountain bearing that name. By “elite,” I mean to say this ceremony is not open to the public, but only to the highest of the high among the people who really count. Real Americans – that is, not the Great Unwashed who aren’t part of the Club.

The occasion is the unveiling of a fifth head, recently added to those of the other presidents who have stared out silently for more than 50 years. Master of Ceremonies is former President Obama, who will unveil the newly added head – that of President George W. Bush (who is also present).

Barack Obama says (in part):

“It is my great pleasure to unveil the likeness of one of our greatest US presidents, George W. Bush. The sculptor who had undertaken this project back in 1934 had selected Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln because they played such major roles in preserving the Republic and expanding its territory*. Due to his visionary foresightedness in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have definitely expanded our territory – not only in those two countries but in others as well. For instance, President Bush’s successors oversaw territorial acquisitions in Africa, in response to the threat of Chinese imperialism.

“As for ‘preserving the Republic,’ well let me tell you: No truer words were ever spoken than ‘There’s nothing like a war to unite a people,’ so in that sense – the Republic was definitely preserved from potentially undermining domestic agitators.”

[As I said, this gathering was not open to the public nor – I’ll add now – the press, which will have, by that time, become irrelevant as a political force.]

George Bush responds (in part):

“I wish to thank President Obama for his kind words. But more than that. I wish to thank him for faithfully carrying out my legacy, though many ignorant people at the time thought he would actually reverse our gains by prematurely pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally salute Barack Obama who had taken very much to heart these lines in the fourth stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner: ‘Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just.’ And President Obama did exactly that – he conquered, which is the real American Way."

Steven Searle chimes in (from some black hole jail cell):

[After being informed of George Bush’s deification ceremony by a CIA interrogator.]

“I don’t suppose too many people saw that one coming back when Obama was on the campaign trail in 2008. Oh, well…it’s true, you know: One way or the other, people get the kind of government they deserve.”

Democracy doesn’t work in the USA

We don’t have freedom of choice any longer. At least, not in the political realm. About the only choice we have is when asked questions like: “Would you like fries with your Big Mac?”

For instance, take the current decision by the US Federal Reserve Board to crank up the printing presses and add $600 billion to the money supply. This decision was announced after the recently-concluded mid-term elections. Excuse me, but I don’t remember seeing Ben Bernanke’s name on the ballot. Neither he nor any of the seven Fed Board of Governors members who voted on this measure was elected by We-the-People.

Ah, but you’ll say, “They were duly elected by Senators after being appointed by a duly-elected President.”

Oh, I get it. We’re supposed to elect Congressmen to represent us, then they get to elect others (like Fed Board members) to represent them. Or, more accurately, to do the dirty work that no Congressman wants to actually vote for or against. That sounds like an awful lot of passing the buck to me.

The reality is: The Fed now makes foreign policy and taxes us (this last bit is done by creating an artificial inflation that lessens the value of our savings). Whatever happened to “No taxation without representation?” Again, I didn’t elect any of the Fed Board Members. And neither did you, or you, or you, or...

As for the Fed “makes foreign policy,” Fed dropped this bombshell just before our President went to a meeting of the G20. Without a doubt, this action by the Fed will impact the world economy and damage our relationships with allies. It will also wreak havoc on the economies of developing nations. All this, and Obama had no input. Our president got to stand before the G20 and say, in effect, “I have no control over what the Fed does.”

There is a difference between delegation of authority and its abdication. And that happens a lot in the United States. For instance, when Congress doesn’t want to be directly responsible for going to war, it passes a war resolution (in effect) giving the president the power to go to war if he feels justified in doing so. This happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan. By means of this dodge, Congress doesn’t have to take heat from the voters if the war goes badly or if it’s later discovered we had no real reason at all for going to war in the first place. They can just point at the Chief Executive and say, “It’s his fault.”

The Great Scam continues:

The American people must love being ping-ponged. First the Republicans become increasingly perceived as the bad guys. Then the Democrats become the bad guys, so we’ve got to get the GOP back in power again. [Then we’ll forget their sins and seek a Democratic savior.]

Obama was supposed to be the anti-war candidate. That was his disguise, though never his real intention. But once elected, he showed his true colors. He upped the ante in Afghanistan, calling “victory” there “vital.” But that turned out to be alright with his supporters, who rationalized by saying, “Well, at least he’s not Bush.” [NEWS FLASH: Oh yes he is!]

That’s not much different from Lyndon Johnson who was ballyhooed as “the peace candidate” – until he was elected, that is. Then the heat of a long, drawn out war “forced” him to deny himself candidacy for a second term of office. Actually, he would have won reelection, but the elite decided (they decided for Johnson) that the public needed a new face. You can keep feeding people the same old shit as long as you put a different label on the can.

The important thing was that the war in Vietnam continue uninterrupted. Which gave rise to Richard Nixon and his “secret plan” to end that war. His intention, however, was to continue support for the South Vietnamese without using US ground troops. He thought he could do this by means of unlimited, offshore bombing raids. You know: Keep the US body count down and the public won’t squawk.

Then came Watergate, and Richard Nixon ended up in hell where he belongs.

There is a way out

American voters have no choice, and will continue to have no choice as long as they embrace a Two Party System. The only reasonable alternative is a Zero Party System which is, in effect, government by independent, rather than party-affiliated, legislators. And the greatest impediment to this idealized system is the Office of the President itself. We obsess too much about which one particular man we should elect as Leader of the Free World. And that stops us from paying greater attention to Congressional elections.

We seem to have this need to believe our nation must be embodied in the person of one man who “represents” us, in the sense that his is the face presented to the world. One man – one figurehead.

This is nothing more than a variation of King Louis XIV’s famous declaration, “I am the state.” We-the-People, back in the mid-1700’s, disagreed with that. However, allegiances to old doctrines die hard. I don’t know why this is true, but too many seem to have a need for a living Godhead to worship. One that happens to be their president.

We don’t need a president, truth be told. Oh wait, there is one exception: I guess we need one guy to push the button so we can play our part in World War III’s nuclear exchange. If so, then I propose we cease direct election of the president and, instead, have the Senate elect as president one of their fellow senators. This “president,” however would have no other power than to push that button. He would be specifically barred from attending foreign conferences and “speaking” on our behalf. Congress itself could well decide who to send to various international meetings.

But…only a Congress that consists of independents, who each represents a Cross-Section of the electorate. I will quote from my written contract to the voters I’d submitted as a candidate for US President in the 2008 election:

QUOTE:

I will aggressively seek to completely replace our Constitution by means of establishing a Constitutional Convention, which will (hopefully) consider implementing a system I've created: Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR), which is briefly introduced in the next paragraph.

Cross-Sectional Representation: The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body, members of which will serve six-year terms.

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The choice is very simple: Either we elect independents (and only independents) to Congress or we’ll continue being ping-ponged.”

   * “These presidents were selected by Borglum [the sculptor mentioned in the Obama quote, above] because of their role in preserving the Republic and expanding its territory” – SOURCE: Wikipedia (Mount Rushmore article)

The Buddha Speaks within Your Mind

Today, I am going to offer a unique and novel view about one of the Buddha's teaching techniques, which I've never encountered from any source. This is strictly my own interpretation:

I propose that the Buddha was able to not only read minds, but was able to speak within the minds of his many disciples. He did so by imitating each disciple's inner voice of conscience.

I reason as follows:

ONE: When the Buddha taught the Great Assembly cited in the Lotus Sutra, he addressed "living beings from numerous worlds" simultaneously. He had to have had some way (other than speaking) to convey his teachings, since any one language he might have spoken would not have been understood by most in that Assembly.

TWO: It's an acknowledged power of a Buddha that he can read minds, so it's not that great a leap (given the nature of his other supernatural powers) to conceive that he could speak within each of our minds (by throwing his voice, in a manner of speaking).

THREE: One of the powers of a Buddha is the ability to generate and sustain an infinite number of (what are called) emanation Buddhas. This is done so that the Buddha could simultaneously teach his path to enlightenment to living beings on other worlds, even while he was/is on earth teaching us. [I say "was/is" because (as I've written earlier) I believe that Shakyamuni Buddha did not die thousands of years ago in India, but is in fact still alive and among us.]

FOUR: Buddhism speaks of humans (and other living beings) as being possessible by spirits. We in the West are familiar with claims of demonic possession, for which exorcisms are necessary. [I find it interesting, though, that Westerners don't dwell on angelic possession.]

FIVE: I believe that each of us (yesterday, today, and tomorrow) is co-inhabited by one of Shakyamuni Buddha's spirit emanations. I don't say that we're "possessed" by this spirit, since it doesn't seek to dominate or control us. What does it do? It resides silently within us strictly as an observer, watching our lives (from our point of view) and looking for opportunities to teach us. When it senses an opportunity, then it speaks. When your internal dialog kicks in (when you are, in effect, arguing with yourself), one of those voices could well be the Buddha's.

SIX: The Buddha "speaks" within us by disguising his voice as the voice of our conscience, our unspoken inner voice. Why? It is written that "the voice does the Buddha's work." It is not written that it necessarily has to be the Buddha's own undisguised voice. With students who are prideful and stubborn, it is helpful for a good teacher to make new ideas seem (to the student) to be his or her own ideas. We tend to resist the ideas of others a lot more than ideas we think are our own.

SEVEN: The Buddha only sparingly uses this power to disguise his teaching voice as your own inner voice. For several reasons: We might get suspicious if too many unusual thoughts welled up from within. And the Buddha knows that we must be allowed to make our own mistakes and so at times withholds his teachings.

EIGHT: Why wasn't this power described in the sutras which were faithfully handed down by his disciples over the centuries? The Buddha purposely remained silent since he knew that our fragile egos would be shaken to the core if we knew he was always within us. In a sense, we'd become afraid of our own shadows (innards!), not knowing which of our thoughts were genuinely ours.

A Sacred Relationship

The sacred relationship is not the one between master and disciple, but is instead the one between a disciple and the Law. When the Buddha spoke of "wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom," he was trying to free us from the limitations of teachers. Many modern Buddhists behold their teachers with starry-eyes and sometimes suspend their own personal judgments (thinking themselves unworthy).

QUOTE:  In a scripture called the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha says, "Rely on the Law and not upon persons." ... Not relying upon persons means not relying on persons other than the Buddha...UNQUOTE.

This quote is attributed to Nichiren Daishonin (1222-1282), who was the founder of a school of Japanese Buddhism. Naturally, I saw this teacher in a favorable light because his modern day disciples first introduced me to Buddhism in the early ‘70s.

However, for many of us, there comes a time when we disagree with our teacher, sometimes even rejecting him. I came to reject Nichiren simply because I know that Shakyamuni Buddha is still in this world, perfectly willing to teach me. So it is Shakyamuni I embrace as a teacher, but...I don't rely on him. I rely on "the Law and not upon persons." Even though Shakyamuni speaks within my mind using my own voice, that is still the voice of a person which I do not rely on, and do not have to rely on.

Since each of us has the capacity to become a Buddha, if we encounter a universal truth, it resonates within us thereby awakening our Buddhahood. Therefore, no actual teacher is required.

NOTE: The item quoted above is from Volume 4, page 175-6 of The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

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

The Buddha of the Dead Sea

Background:

The Buddha of the Dead Sea is about a fictitious holy man who lives alone in a Lotus flower-shaped houseboat in the middle of the Dead Sea. He is on a widely-known, non-stop praying mission to convert the Dead Sea to a Living Sea of fresh water, and thereby convert the whole of the Middle East to a Buddha land.

Thesis: The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is to debunk the Abrahamic faiths by showing the power of the Buddha Way.

Invitation to you:

I would love to see a play or a movie based on this concept, for which I claim original visionary credit. However, the writing of plays or of movies is beyond the scope of my abilities. Therefore, I invite you to do the writing, and to feel free to use any of the following ideas I've listed.

Naturally, any and all rights would belong to you. As for my own reward: Just knowing I'd inspired you would be more than enough.

A Sketch of the Lead Actors

The Dead Sea itself:

There are aspects of the Dead Sea which would serve well to describe the Middle East. These can also serve to compare Abrahamic to Buddhistic notions of life and death:

·       Its shores are the lowest areas of land on earth, at over 1,300 feet below sea level. So, like the Middle East, the Dead Sea is in a "low" way, its waters (a symbol of life) dead-ended with nowhere to go.

·       The small size of the Dead Sea makes it an ideal and intimate stage upon which this story is played out. Were it too large, the Buddha of the Dead Sea wouldn't loom that large himself.

·       Water, by virtue of entering the Dead Sea, "dies" (that is, loses its potential) by having to remain in that body. Such water could be reincarnated (or come back to life, as it were) only after it leaves the Sea by evaporating and then falling elsewhere as life-giving rain.

·       The Dead Sea is one of the world's saltiest (deadest) bodies of waters. It is becoming even "deader" by having its fresh, incoming waters diverted for human and agricultural use. There is a real danger that this icon could disappear entirely and, even though "dead," end up wreaking environmental havoc (causing more death, quite literally) due to its absence. [It's interesting how the dead support the living.]

·       There are plans, in the exploratory phase only, to dig a canal connecting the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, in hopes of raising its level. This project would also provide hydroelectric power as the Red Sea waters power turbines by means of the power of their downward flow toward the Dead Sea. This same downward pressure could be used in a Reverse Osmosis process to provide fresh drinking water, though the downside to that is the salts that are filtered out would be flushed into the Dead Sea.

·       The Bible speaks prophetically of the Dead Sea healing and becoming a body of fresh water, with fish living in it some day (Ezekiel 47). However, the way in which it becomes a Living Sea is by means of an ironic Buddhist fulfillment of this prophecy, which serves as the climax of my story.

The Dead Sea Buddha himself:

This is the main character in my story - a true mystery man unknown by anybody, with no traceable history. Referring to himself simply as the Buddha of the Dead Sea, he lacks even a name, birth certificate, or any documentation that he even exists. Furthermore, he denies that he is a citizen of any country. Complicating matters for any who would try to discern his origins, he speaks several languages fluently.

He encounters no objections from Israeli or Jordanian authorities when he asks permission to live in solitude in the middle of the Dead Sea on a floating houseboat. His wealth, in the form of gold of uncertain origin, suffices to build this houseboat and to arrange for supplies to be flown in occasionally via seaplane.

The Lotus

The Lotus is the name of the houseboat, which is the Buddha's dwelling. The flowering plant known as the lotus is a significant symbol among Nichiren Buddhists, with whom I was personally connected.

This plant, lovely to behold as it floats serenely on the surface of a pond, actually draws its nourishment via a root feeding off the muck on the bottom. Comparing it to a human being, the flower represents the potential all of us have to manifest the "bloom" of Buddhahood - even though we are connected to and nourished by muck (that is, by our earthly desires).

Also, the Lotus is a symbol of an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism - the simultaneity of cause and effect. The fact that the Lotus is the only plant that flowers and seeds at the same time, is interpreted symbolically as meaning:

When a person takes appropriate action (creating a cause) leading toward enlightenment, there is an immediate (though subtle, internal) effect which is a manifestation of this enlightenment. That's what's meant by "the simultaneity of cause and effect," which refutes the notion that any possible manifestation of effect takes place much later.

Two dedicated disciples of this Buddha

These two provide logistical support for Dead Sea Buddha, arranging for occasional deliveries of supplies he needs. These two are also unknown, untraceable mystery men but they are unique and provocative in their appearance. They'd dyed their skin and hair saffron (a traditional Buddhist color), and wear saffron-colored clothes. However, one wears his hair and clothes in the style of a Hasidic Jew; the other of an (Islamic) Whirling Dervish.

All appearances are just that - only appearances - as the "dervish" states, "Before becoming a Buddhist, I was a Jew," and the Hasidim states, "Before becoming a Buddhist, I was a Muslim." Both men, however, are inseparably close friends, explaining to people, "In a past life, we were brothers."

The authorities

Toward the end of this story, there is a scene on the Lotus, featuring a confrontation between this Buddha and men (it's always men, isn't it?) who represent the interests of the locals. Four are from the Israeli side, and four are from the Islamic side - each group having one member from the clerical side.

The Buddha makes an offer to these men, after performing a miracle in their presence. This offer is the dramatic high point of this piece.

The Setting:

In the near future, at the time when the Red Sea to Dead Sea Canal is nearing completion, the Buddha of the Dead Sea invites the eight men (referred to, above) to receive a gift from him. He had already sent them a plan, of his own creation, detailing a revolutionary new technology for desalination of the waters about to flow in from the Red Sea. He is able to lure them to the Lotus by promising something even more profound, but only to be bestowed on board the Lotus.

The climax

It is late in the evening when the eight men of authority board the Lotus to meet the Buddha and receive his gift. After pleasantries are exchanged, the Buddha gives each of his guests a large cup and instructs them to dip it into the Dead Sea and drink the water.

The eight look at each other, and one finally says, "You know we can't drink that water - unless ... unless these cups are designed to make fresh water out of salty."

The Buddha says that these are just cups to hold water, not to change it. But he also says, "Go ahead and drink anyway. If you are not sure, then take only a small sip."

The guests do as instructed and are amazed to be drinking fresh water. Then the Buddha's two disciples, witnessing this from nearby, look at each other, nod in agreement, and then take a running leap into the (now) Living Sea, letting out a hearty "Yee-ha!" before disappearing below the waves.

When they surface, one yells out, "Look! I can swallow this in good health!" Another one fumbles with his hands and yanks something to the surface, "Look! A fish! For the first time in 2,000 years, a fish lives in the Dead Sea!"

Later, when pressed for an explanation, the Buddha tells these authorities that he just now made the entire Dead Sea into a body of fresh water - "no more salt!" And he adds: "If you have any doubt about the power of a Buddha to perform this kind of miracle, then you have much to learn about Buddhism."

But there's a catch:

The Buddha informs his guests that this now-living sea won't stay that way, unless each of the eight agrees - before dawn - that it should. Even one dissenter would be enough to cause the Dead Sea to return to its past, hostile state. Then he says, "I'm leaving you now to talk this over. In your wisdom or perhaps in your foolishness, you might decide the sea was better off dead. You might decide the prospect of a Living Sea to be detrimental somehow, even though it would allow the entire surrounding areas to come to life."

Before he leaves the room, the Buddha looks at one of the eight (Muslim or Jew, I will not say) and beckons him, "Come outside with me, I need a word with you in private."

When alone, the Buddha says, "I know you're a suicide bomber. Tell me, are you surprised the bomb didn't go off when tried to detonate it shortly after you arrived here? Don't be surprised - I rendered it harmless."

[It turns out the bomb is in this guest's artificial leg.]

The Buddha concludes: "I especially wanted you to be here, because of the special challenge you represent. You think I'm some kind of demon, since you can't think outside the limits of your own faith. But what I said still goes. If you are the only one to decide that this sea must not live, then it shall not. Of course, if it does live, that will stand as proof of the power of Buddhism, since the whole world knows I've been praying to convert the Dead Sea for years, from my home here on the Lotus."

One additional detail:

In the closing scene, the Buddha gives the suicide bomber a special gift - the artificial limb is transformed into his own original flesh and blood. The wannabe bomber is overwhelmed by joy at his sudden conversion, but he's still torn by his deep-seated doubts about the Buddha.

The benefactor looks at this man and says, "If you or any of the others decide the Dead Sea shall not live, then your leg will become as it was before - artificial and containing a bomb. But I promise you this, that bomb will not explode.

"You have a lot to think about - before the sun rises."

An Unconventional Buddha

I want to portray this Buddha non-traditionally, since that might serve to reach a wider audience. On occasion, throughout this story, this Buddha swears and comes across as a cranky old man. When challenged about this, he paraphrases one of the teachings found in the Lotus Sutra:

QUOTE [with paraphrase underlined]:

If the form of a Buddha will bring salvation, he immediately manifests a Buddha form and preaches the Law. If the form of an asshole will bring salvation, he immediately becomes an asshole and preaches the Law. Thus he manifests himself in various different forms, depending upon what is appropriate for salvation.

:UNQUOTE [Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation, page 296]

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

"We need a fresh approach to quenching the fires of hatred in the Middle East. Maybe what is needed is a nice cool drink of water from an unexpected source" - Steve.