Bodhisatva Emerges From The Earth

Zoinks!

2007-04-12T12:53:00.000-07:00

All right, how long has it been, really?

Yeah, too long. Way too long.

But, you know how that is, right? It's not that you care any less about the forum, or the format, or the topic being discussed, it's just that the rest of your reality starts demanding your attention, and what you'd thought would only be a couple of days away from the project turns into...well, months, in this instance.

Oh well. I noted some visitors to the site during the hiatus, thanks for coming. Hopefully you'll come out this way again. And feel free to drop a line of interest...thebeigeone(at)gmail.com

That said, I wanna open up the gates to anyone who'd like to see their SGI-Buddhist-related stuff posted on here, contact me at the address given above.

Currently, I'm looking to post (whether by me, or someone else) entries with the following themes:

*On Benefit
*The Three Powerful Enemies
*The Three Obstacles & The Four Devils
*Karma

Hopefully, I will be seeing/hearing from you soon.

--tbo

Daisaku Ikeda's Proposal to the UN

2006-09-07T18:06:00.000-07:00

It's long, but really goes into good detail about the SGI's position on world peace.

Ke, Ku & Chu (The 3 Truths)

2006-08-28T14:39:00.000-07:00

So lately, I've been thinking and reading a lot about the above concept in Nichiren Buddhism. I've been taking an inventory, of sorts, of many things in my life, and figuring out how each item/thing/idea fits into these three truths.

For starters, let me define some terms. Ke(ketai) is defined as the truth of temporary, physical or material existence. Ku(kutai) is defined as the truth of non-substantiality or the spiritual aspect of life. Chu(chutai) is defined as the Middle Way, or that force or energy which binds and harmonizes ketai and kutai. Ke and Ku are two different but inseparable aspects of chu.

In the book I am reading The Buddha in Daily Life - Richard Causton, it states that the three truths are not three separate things but, rather, a means of looking at the entirety of life from three different, though interrelated perspectives. He gives the example of comparing a piece of paper to "our friend John". Side A would represent John's physical appearance which corresponds to ke, Side B would represent John's character which corresponds to ku. However, John's character is only known to you by way of his physical actions, which include: his speech, his gestures, his eyes, and facial expressions etc. So in a sense, you can say that one can only discover the ku of John as it becomes his ke. Each of these, in turn, represent the whole of John's life, which corresponds to chu. Chu is the "essential self" aspect of our life which keeps our physical and spiritual aspects consistent with each other through time. Another way to put it, is Chu is Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, or the rhythm and Law of life itself.

So basically, the important point I took from reading this, is in realizing that there is no fundamental distinction between the physical and spiritual aspects of life. And we, as humans, are representations of the entire process as it was/is/and will be.

From a bodywork perspective, this has intense implications. If my ku is manifest through my ke, then what does that say about what my mind contains? In what ways do I, or don't I reside in a state of chu - or the essential self/Middle Way? How is my spirit manifesting in my body? The book then goes on to tell the story of a woman who basically, after many months of intense chanting and study, made herself asymptomatic from severe epilepsy. At the end of her "treatment" there were no physical manifestations of epilepsy. In the two years I have been practicing, I have read many stories such as this, as well as experienced variations in my own life.

So back to labeling, sorting, and naming things. I started to think about these processes, and how they are showing up in my daily thoughts, actions, and activities.

I started to wonder about pain. Specifically physical pain, but keep in mind, stress can manifest as physical pain, one can be "worried sick", depression has numerious documented physical manifestations. Therefore, where is the line drawn? Is my neck pain, whose onset was a knarly car accident, and made worse by 4 or 5 surgeries, any different than the types of pain I mention in the previous sentence? Does pain exist on a continuum, or is all pain ke? Or is all pain ku? Pain is felt along neural pathways. This pain impulse can be measured, and quantified. If the types of pain I mention, are indeed, pain, then will we come up with different measurements of this pain based on it's root cause?

I'm not sure if I'm come up with any answers or solutions, but it's very fascinating to think about. I've chanted and cried myself out of intense physical pain, on more than one occasion. Is this me attempting to reside in chu? Or is this a placebo and am I still as deluded as ever? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I've decided that the more I can observe the transitions, and manifestations of each of these truths in my life, the more capable I will become of letting them move on to whatever dynamic form they will take next.

The One and the Many: Binary vs. Manifold

2006-08-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

So I have this trouble: I can't seem to stop trying to debate Christians. Not just Christians, but Calvinists, which can make for some pretty heated argument, given that my primary experience with Christianity was through Catholicism, and that I'm now a vaguely pantheistic, gnostic Buddhist doing my best to understand and apply the still new (for me) concepts in the Lotus Sutra, and in Nichiren Daishonin's interpretation thereof. Kind as the Calvinists have been (and seriously, they've been awfully hospitable), it's pretty clear that I represent something insidious.

Anyway, through a series of meetings and digressions, I ended up in this side debate. While the principle I'm defending, in large measure, is pantheism, my relation of that to the doctrines of reincarnation, the ten worlds, and other Buddhist concepts make this argument relevant. Moreover, as Protestant Christianity has, as you can see from the argument, actually taken steps to ensure that the debate can be shut down by a seductive but specious assertion that only the existence of an anthropomorphic, triune deity can create the necessary preconditions for rationality--therefore operating on the assumption that our having the debate at all is proof that God is a scold and Christ is the Messiah--I think it's useful for us Buddhists to at least contemplate throwing a few rhetorical elbows to ensure that our theology is defensible on an intellectual, as well as spiritual, level (though the latter is obviously more urgent).

Some schools of Buddhism posit themselves as atheistic or agnostic; others do acknowledge some sort of deity; most place themselves as squarely pantheistic. Since Nichiren Buddhism holds forth no specific assertions on the matter of deity--or, I should say, since I've yet to encounter any such assertion--it seems to me that the question is fairly elastic, provided that principles like Ichinen Sanzen, mutual possession, kosen rofu and the Law are respected. Were you to quiz the three contributors to this blog on the matter of deity, I guarantee you'd get three different answers. But when we chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo, those differences matter not at all.

My differences with Christianity are a little more difficult to navigate. There are many sects of Buddhism that hold that Christ was a boddhisatva; I'm more than willing to hold to that. On the other hand, Calvinists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible; look at the clever-but-tortured reasoning by which they reconcile the idea of a young (less than 10,000-year-old) universe with the fact that we see the light from stars whose light couldn't possibly have reached us in that time. Now, at root, most of them will tell you that belief in a six-day creation isn't as important as belief in the singular divine status of Christ and the resurrection. Fair enough, but that "singular divine status" becomes something of a sticking point. If the important part to Christians is, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me", then there's clearly a point at which their truth, as expressed, specifically excludes all other paths to truth.

It's a tough puzzle, from this end, because I try--per JJisaFool's reasoned directive--to stick to what's truth, rather than focusing on what's not. But when trying to elucidate my truth, I often runs into opponents who will insist that their truth both excludes and rationally trumps mine. Inevitably, to assert my truth, I must reject at least some part of theirs, and become mired in a hermeneutic battle with those for whom the conclusion is what guides the process of reaching one.

Anyway, take a look at those links. Interesting stuff.

Clarification on last post

2006-07-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

I have chronic cervical radiculopathy due to a discs bulging, and one being herniated, I have regular pain and spasms in the fingers in my right hand so bad that I have to pull them apart.

A "Vocal" String Theory

2006-07-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

Stine here. Thanks for inviting me Beige. Think of me as Bill Nye the Buddhist Science guy, only not as smart, taller, and well, female. You get the idea. I get off on the mind-body connection, why placebos work, the power of telekenesis, and String Theory.

So one of the first things that attracted me to this Buddhism was the chanting. It attracted me as a singer and actress, as a singer and actress with a paralyzed vocal cord, and as a bodyworker. I started chanting as a vocal exercise - that is all. I can tell you my personal story later, the following story is the first big thing that really put me on the path to becoming a Buddhist.

There are all these medical stories in the SGI. Stories of epileptics becoming asymptomatic after chanting for a year, AIDS victims who have faced death multiple times (as in had a T cell count of 13 - that's very low), and are still here to talk about it. I read a story in the World Tribune. There was a woman who had cancer in her entire larynx(voicebox). She had to have the entire thing removed. She obviously had no voice after this. Despite having no voice, she chanted by pushing air through her mouth, and moving her lips. After 2 years of "chanting", this woman went back to the doctor, they did a laryngeal scope, and her body had grown scar tissue that was functioning as vocal cords. The woman could totally speak.

So, cut to last Monday. I came home from a full day of massaging, and was in so much pain, I couldn't sit up, I couldn't move my right hand, and I just cried. I worked just one muscle in my right shoulder (the levator scapulae - for those of you wanting to know such things), I propped myself up, decided I was sick and tired of being a slave to pain, chanted and cried for 45 minutes. At the end of my chanting session, I had absolutely no pain, could move my fingers, and stand.

See, this shit fascinates the hell outta me. Quantum physics, string theory, particle-wave duality, multiple dimensions - GOOD TIMES! I think the bottom line, is that by the end of my life, I just want to be able to put my hands on people, and have them be well. I wanna move things with my mind. You wait man, you wait.

A Manifold Manifesto

2006-07-25T16:52:00.000-07:00

This is thelyamhound.

I still haven't worked out what the relationship will be between this blog and my other one. When Buddhist concepts are directly applied to other things happening in my life--particularly with regards to sex, art, or combat--the posts thereon may appear on both blogs. Or I may try to stick to theory here, application there. I suppose it doesn't much matter; posts will appear where they're needed.

In any case, since this is my first real post on matters Buddhist, it seems fitting that it should debut at BOTH locations. So here it is:

One of the concepts that sits at the heart of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism is Ichinen Sanzen, the observation of 3000 realms in a single moment of life. To me, this is at its heart a doctrine of infinite possibility, as well as part of a broader metaphysical assertion of universal inclusivity, what modern theosophers often call pantheism; Renaissance Gnostic, hermetic philosopher, and heretic monk Giordano Bruno expressed a concept not unlike Buddhism's idea of "mutual possession" when he said, "Anything we tak in the universe, because it has in itself that which is All in All, includes in its own way the entire soul of the world, which is entirely in any part of it."

Or, to paraphrase Heinlein's shaggy-dog barb near the end of Stranger in a Strange Land (I don't think this constitutes a SPOILER, but I'll give y'all a qualified heads up anyway), "Thou art God; but then, who isn't?"

For those, like yours truly, who are better able to grasp an abstraction if it's tied to some sort of rational construct, there is a useful symbolic equation for this concept. The 3000 realms in question are actually the product of the ten basic "life states" or "worlds"; the mutual possession of the ten worlds (simply put, the accepted fact that each life state, or world, possesses the other nine); the ten factors of life, which are the ten ways in which an organism affects--and is affected by--the world and other sentient beings; and the three realms, or spheres of worldly being. Given our ten worlds, and our mutual possession, we begin with 100 possible worlds in any given moment; multiply that by ten factors--the ways in which these worlds, through the individual, affect the literal, observable world at large--and you have 1000 possible "effects"; and finally, multiply those possible effects by the three realms which may ultimately be affected. And so we've reached our number.

Confused yet? Good. I'm going to revisit this equation later, so just let it sit and simmer on the proverbial back burner.

First off, let's take a look at those ten initial "worlds". Where Western morality often focuses on easy duality (good/evil; right/wrong; flesh/spirit), and Western psychology on an ever-expanding litany of emotions and neuroses (and let me say here that there are times where either duality or irreducible complexity are still useful models), Nichiren's Buddhism postulates that our "life states" can be understood by way of ten "worlds". To my still-embryonic understanding, the advantage of equating life-states with worlds, as opposed to emotions, neuroses, or pre-judged moral conditions, is that treating each life state as a "world", with its own rules, its own obstacles, its own character, accurately reflects both the ostensible pervasiveness of any of these states when you feel "stuck" in one and the fact that one may still experience a broad spectrum of emotions while inside.

The ten worlds are best described as follows:

1) HELL - The world or state of Hell is said to be characterized by rage. Because this is our first state, it's important to note that the rage, in this case, isn't directed at other beings or events, but rather at being itself; it's not unlike the existential rage William Blake describes in "Infant Sorrow":

My mother groaned, my father wept,
Into the dangerous world I leapt;
Helpless, naked, piping loud,
Like a fiend hid in a cloud.

Struggling in my father's hands,
Striving against my swaddling bands,
Bound and weary, I thought best
To sulk upon my mother's breast.

This condition could even be seen as a parallel to Sartre's nausea at his recognition of being.

2) HUNGER - Greed is the primary characteristic of the world of Hunger, which can mean both literal hunger and, more generally, the tendency of all organisms to seek acquisition.

3) ANIMALITY - This is where hierarchical struggle begins; the dominant characteristic is foolishness. In a condition of animality, one dominates those which one recognizes as weak, and grovels before those recognized as strong.

4) ANGER - This anger is quite different from the more metaphysically rich rage of the Hell condition. Also called ASURAS, a name for a class of angry spirits left over from Hindu cosmology, the state of ANGER is characterized by perversity and arrogance, and refers broadly to a condition wherein one experiences jealousy, envy, competitiveness, duplicity, and deceit.

5) HUMANITY - This is the state of civilization, the mutual agreements we make with other organisms to effect peace. The tranquility characterizing this state isn't really comparable with the peace that comes with enlightenment, but it's obviously a necessary component of civic life.

6) HEAVEN - HEAVEN--like HELL--represents something far more ephemeral in Buddhist cosmology than in Western theologies. The primary characteristic of HEAVEN is the happiness that comes from material gains and worldly pleasures; unlike true happiness, this "happiness" leads to yet more desire.

7) LEARNING - Also referred to as the realm of VOICE-HEARERS, this state represents the beginning of the quest for enlightenment, the point at which one glimpses truth (which, for one studying this Buddhism, is the moment at which one is introduced to the Lotus Sutra, as summed up and expressed in the law, or Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo).

8) REALIZATION - The realm of CAUSE-AWAKENED ONES, wherein one begins to seek self-improvement through observation or effort; having heard the ring of truth, the "voice-hearer" of the last state now pursues study, engages in meditation through chanting, etc. These last two states are important steps on the road to enlightenment, but are also intrinsically self-centered; these worlds are characterized by an ernest desire for truth couples with a high level of introspection and a certain level of indifference to other sentient beings.

9) BODDHISATVA - When the voice-hearer and/or the cause-awakened one feels compassion rising within him, and he wishes to share what he knows of the truth, to bring others to enlightenment, he has enterered the world of the BODDHISATVA. The self-centered nature of practice then opens itself up into a new mission to help one's fellow beings. While this refers primarily to sharing Buddhism with others, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that anyone engaging in spreading true compassion, through charitible work or other selfless acts, is experiencing this world.

10) BUDDHAHOOD - If the world of the BODDHISATVA is characterized by compassion, BUDDHAHOOD is characterized by limitless compassion and reflexive wisdom, an ability to see all potential at all times in all beings.

Now here's where things get really interesting. We started with these 10 worlds. Our next step is to recognize mutual possession. To make sense of this concept, we need to understand that we ALL possess these conditions, these worlds. Moreover, these worlds all possess each other. What this means is that even if, say, I'm currently functioning in the world of Hell, I still possess the other nine worlds, including the Four Noble Worlds (Learning, Realization, Boddhisatva, Buddhahood); conversely, someone functioning in the world of Buddhahood still possesses the first Six Paths, as well as the three remaining Noble Worlds. In other words, each world possesses all worlds in itself.

This is a recipe for some beautiful--if unrepentantly heady--stuff. If, through practice, I come to function at the level of Buddhahood, recognizing conditions like Hell and Animality in myself creates ground for empathy when faced with someone functioning at those levels; recognition, also, that those functioning on such levels possess Buddhahood allows for greater compassion. But wait; it gets better! Someone whose primary life condition is that of Buddhahood is not always well-served by functioning in that world; for instance, active opposition of injustice may require a Buddha to function in the world of anger. But if one can function in the various worlds with an awareness of the seed of enlightenment at the heart of her being, one may function in the world of Anger (for instance) in a different way than one unaware of--or unconcerned with--mutual possession, for said individual may engage with anger with the goal of sharing boundless compassion.

Remember our equation? Take your Ten Worlds, and assume that each of the ten possesses all ten within itself. That's our first 100.

Our next order of business is to analyze the ways in which each world (or, more importantly, how each organism possessing all ten) becomes manifest in life, space, and time. These are called the Ten Factors of Life, and are as follows:

1) APPEARANCE - Also called FORM or BODY. Refers to the physical properties of being.

2) NATURE - Spiritual properties of MIND.

3) ENTITY - Also called SELF; refers to the confluence of body and mind that establish BEING, or the physical and spiritual aspect of all things).

4) POWER - Also called INHERENT ENERGY: the energy of a person's life allowing a person to act a specific way in each of the ten worlds.

5) INFLUENCE - Volitional activity--the words, thoughts or actions that emerge from an individual based on in which he/she currently resides.

6) INHERENT CAUSE - Karma, basically. Not easily defined, but for these purposes, we can call it the seed of the experience(s) a person will have when all conditions manifest.

7) EXTERNAL CAUSE - Influence from the environment or from other sentient beings.

8) LATENT EFFECT - Internal reaction to any and all phenomena, not yet manifest outwardly.

9) MANIFESTED EFFECT - Observable outcome of the past causes outlined above.

10) CONSISTENCY FROM BEGINNING TO END - The constant interrelation between the first nine factors, representing the cyclical nature of these factors.

So we have our life-states and their mutual possession; we can multiply that total by the Ten Factors, because these are the channels by which our life-states affect the world at large. 100 becomes 1000.

But . . . what of that world at large? Well, according to the doctrine of Ichinen Sanzen, the world itself operates at three different spheres, each of which can be influenced by the life condition of any given individual.

These spheres are:

1) SELF/INDIVIDUAL - Entity composed of the 5 components of life: form, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness.

2) SOCIETY/OTHER SENTIENT BEINGS - Other people, community.

3) ENVIRONMENT/LAND - Can refer both to the Earth, in the strictly environmental sense, or to the nation-state, the confederation between communities.

And so we reach 3000.

The mathematical equation is of more symbolic than literal significance; we could quibble over internal variations in any one of the categories, or the possibility of states between the states, but for the purposes of allegory, what we have is more than functional.

More important than any attempt to empiricize the doctrine is to analyze its metaphysical function. I've already noted that mutual possession gives us ground for empathy and compassion; but of more interest, to me, is that the doctrine in its totality creates a holistic template for unlimited possibility. Ichinen Sanzen is about the pregnancy of any given moment in time, wherein the entirety of any world, any sphere of being, is available; the myriad channels by which one can use one's life-state to interact with and extend compassion to other organisms; and the spheres upon which one can commit such action. As in existentialism, choice becomes the defining characteristic of being . . . and the number of available choices is manifold. Through this realization, we have stumbled upon fertile ground for the discovery of Buddha nature, for enlightenment, for the realization of goals personal and global. Viewed through this lens, we see each moment as an opportunity to effect change in ourselves, and through that, on our communities and on the world at large. My God, it's so exciting, I'm shaking a little just writing about it (of course, I DID have two cups of coffee).

Hope this held the interest . . .

Introducing...

2006-07-25T16:05:00.000-07:00

Just shy of a year later, and, while I'm fully committed to keeping this blog up, the fact of the matter is, coming up with things to say, with research, and yadda and bladda...It's hard to do by myself. So, heeding the words of Paul McCartney, I decided to try with a little help from my friends.

So, please extend a warm welcome to Stine and Lyam White, two friends of mine who have seen a lot with me. Stine's very much a from-the-hip type, up front and honest; she's a massage therapist by day, and fosters a science bent, especially when it comes to NS Buddhism. Ly's on the more exploratory bent, with a light focus on Western dialectics and philosophers. Both are recent adherents to this Buddhism...

While the roster will probably grow and change in the months ahead, what won't change is what, I hope, makes this blog different from most other religioblogs: Candid, from the heart entries, filled with snark, wisdom, and bravery; as well as research. Unafraid to engage in discourse, but not putting up with bullshit. Oh, and cussing allowed.--TBO

An Explication

2006-05-15T16:15:00.000-07:00

Okay, even though, currently, the only people reading this are also reading the other blog...but in case readership eventually picks up here: Go to this entry, and try to read as many of the comments therein as you can (or skim), to get the gist of why this particular post exists.

We'll start off with JJ's last question, as usual:

Why is it that you choose to engage Christianity in some level of discussion at all? What was your intent or goal with the original post?

I guess I just want to bring it back through 66 levels of argumentation and ask what your point was originally.

Not that I can't see one, or in fact many, but I'd like to hear the author of the original text weigh in with intent.

There are many reasons I wrote the piece. Primarily, I wrote it because I have a fascination with items like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other things of that nature...The few facts gleaned from the DSC generally point to a much different interpretation of the stories anyone who has read the Bible are familiar with.

And so, here comes the Judas Gospel, laying waste to the notion of Judas as the biggest traitor in Western thought--an aspect of the Jesus story that I have always had problems with; and, to me, this is a watershed moment. I wanted to share.

Why? Because these items are rarely talked about. Over the last week, I did a random non-scientific polling of various people (around 20, mostly during cigbreaks) here in the hospital, to see if they had any knowledge of this new gospel. These people are educated, some align with Christianity, others don't adhere to anything, most called themselves holiday religious (go to church only during the major holidays, if that, or for special occasions like weddings), or someone who dabbled in many different forms of religions.

Seven out of ten had no idea. This despite several big stories over the last few months. When I asked them what they had thought/knew of Judas in the story, the response was generally "he betrayed Jesus and killed himself." After I told them what the contents of the new gospel were, they seemed to want to think about things a bit more.

I mean, the notion that Jesus and Judas worked together on the betrayal bit may have been hypothesized in The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ, as Lyam noted, but it was treated as a piece of fiction, by those who weren't mobilized into banning the movie...No serious thought was put into it, particularly because there wasn't anything to support that notion.

So, there's the primary reason. In the process of writing it, I included other examples of things that don't jibe with me (providing fodder for the "why you hatin'?" arm of the discussion); but really, I think the last two sentences of the entry itself exemplify the reasoning best:

I don't think the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant, though a lot has been done to distort those teachings over the years...Hopefully, this discovery will cause some reflection and redefining of what that life was about.

That's it. That's the whole kit and kaboodle.

What followed between the entry and Ly's "Nature of Chaos" post was a series of increasingly didactic versions of "what about this (aspect of a major religion's philosophy)?"* and my replying with essentially "yeah, fine, but is that spread? How well has it been expounded?" I take full responsibility for my part in the escalating nature of these trades.

JJ assures me that there are schools of thought that approach Jesus' teachings and the nature of God in the way he'd like for it to come across, though I haven't heard or seen anything from these people (which means please produce it, if you could, when you have time), Stine's assertion that the Mormons teach something about your being able to become a God in your own right, is offset by Miss Uz J's pointing out that it's contingent on a number of things and that it's somewhere down the line (nothing about it happening in this lifetime, or today, or right this minute)...

Here is the trade that sparked the argumentative portion of the commentary, I believe. My bits are in italics, Ly's in plain text:
------

If you believe in the interconnectedness of all things, then even
events that seemingly have nothing to do with us have everything to do with
us.

But can we truly control them, or can we only recognize our part in them
and take responsibility for any behaviour that results from them?

Lastly, just are we are responsible for our own happiness, we are just
as responsible for our misery, anger, jealousies, etc.

Yes. But that doesn't negate the assertion that we have limited control
over the circumstances that surround those, if unlimited control over the way we
respond to those circumstances (within reason). All questions have a finite
number of applicable answers.

The desire to have something greater than us is partly a desire to have
something that lets us off the hook.

Not necessarily. One can accept responsibility for living in hurricane
alley and not having insurance, but that don't mean the storm was bigger than
the little speck of you. Apply that metaphysically: the universe has a destiny
of which you are a part, and even the failures you meet in pursuing your values
are in turn a part of that picture. You're responsible for all things, but that
doesn't mean you control all things.

We might be overwhelmed into thinking otherwise, but we are never
powerless. Never.

Like I said, you're never necessarily powerless per se, but you you're
powerless over certain things. What you have, what belongs to you, are your
choices, and the rewards and consequences that result directly therefrom. All
else, IMO, is chaos.
---------

Because Lyam made mention of the "something to let us off the hook" bit later on in the commentary, I wonder if this is where things got conflated from the theoretical to the personal; because I was strictly speaking in the general sense here, an admitted blanket statement. I mean, can you tell me that people don't use higher power in that sense? Not you, the person reading this; not you, Lyam or Stine or Fuckwad or Miss Uz J, in your day to day life; but those teeming millions out there...Can you tell me that they don't (without the necessary and ever present exceptions to the rule)?

Not pointing that out to wiggle out of anything, because I'm just as guilty in the act of becoming pig-headed over this topic as anyone else; but is this where it started?

Needless to say, Ly and I went on and on over the whole "We have control over everything" (me, simplistic as always)/"Chaos has a bigger role than you'd care to admit" (Lyam, pardon me if I'm misrepresenting your side of the argument) dichotomy.

Then Stine brought this up:
------

Relation - The interrelationship between indirect causes and internal causes.
Indirect causes are various conditions, both internal AND external, that
enable the mechanism of internal causes to produce an effect.
This reads to me as an understanding that there are some external causes over which we have no control.
Latent Effect - the effect produced within a life entity when an internal
cause is activated through its relationship with various conditions.
It would seem that this also refers to conditions, both internal AND external.
I skimmed the discussion, so pardon if I jump into the deep end without a paddle, but it would seem that Nichiren Buddhism does acknowledge that there are influences,
factors, conditions that do exist outside oneself, and do exert force, influence, and energy into our lives. In addition, you add these "factors" into how they interact with the 3000 realms in a single moment of life, and I don't think there are any cut and
dry dogmatic or dialetic answers for anything.
------

This essentially wipes away the argument, in a sense. It also spurred some study into these matters on my behalf, the result of which I will further explicate in the next entry.

*Honestly, I was surprised the Fuckwad didn't jump in with something about Zoroastrianism--tbo

Q&A: SGI v. NSP; On Blasphemy; High Priest Nikken Abe

2006-03-02T14:10:00.000-08:00

Q: Hey, man, I'm konfoozed about something. I [read] your blog and saw numerous references to Nichiren Shoshu, even though you are clearly an SGI-USA member.

Put bluntly, what's up with that? Why even mention Nichiren Shoshu? They're old school, old news, ya know?

I'm just afraid that your readership might think we're a branch of Nichiren Shoshu, when we're just plain done with their asses. - Jason H., Los Angeles, CA

A: Damn good question, and I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to point this out.

Well, okay, for the purposes of this blog, I'm going to place a distinction between Nichiren Shoshu (NS), the School of Buddhism founded by Nichiren Daishonin, and which the SGI members practice; and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood (NSP), currently headed by Nikken Abe, which purportedly represents the NS School.

The reason for this is that I want to make sure people understand that we're not practicing something like Nichiren Shugai (or something similar); which is really quite deceptively close to Shoshu, even using Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo as the basis of their practice, even though what they advocate is pretty damn close to Christianity.

They too call their school "Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism;" to me, this is far more confusing than the SGI v. NS situation.

Thanks for reminding me, however, that I need to elucidate what the distinction is between NS and the NSP; more on this in a few paragraphs. Otherwise, I think it's a small price to pay for accuracy.

Speaking of accuracy, I need to make something clear: My secular friend, JJ, recently asked me if this Buddhism had an equivalent to blasphemy in its doctrines. At the time, I said something like "not as such. You can't slander others, is basically it."

Which, technically, is true. Even though it sounds silly, no one will stop you from saying stuff like, "buddha damnit." (Or from using such colloquiallisms as "thank god," or "jesus h. christ.") Also, most of the things labeled as blasphemous in the majority of religions, are actually encouraged here...Get pissed, demand proof, make threats; particularly if things aren't going your way.

Lastly, the act of slandering another is pretty heinous.

But there is something that, on paper, could equate to what JJ's asking about; which will be the basis for the rest of this entry: Slandering the Lotus Sutra/the votary of the Lotus Sutra, as well as standing idly by while these activities are occurring.

Look up the word slander in the OED, and here's what you get:

1) The utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation.

In other words, the Lotus Sutra (or Myoho Renge Kyo) is a manifestation of the Ultimate Law; don’t fuck with it. Don’t tell people lies about it, don’t mislead them regarding it, don’t spread misinformation or treat it as anything other than a manifestation of the Ultimate Mystic Law of Cause and Effect.

The same goes for those who practice it. You don’t want to think about the immensity of the negative karma you are creating. Also, if you, regardless of whether you practice or not, witness and allow others to defame either the Law or those who practice it, you will also be on the wrong end of karmic retribution. Actually, worse if you practice.

Let me tell ya, this ain't no whistling Dixie, this is straight up shit; so much so, that Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), explicitly stated in the LS that no one, absolutely no one is exempt from this. He was quite vehement about it.

Miao-lo, T’ien-T’ai, and Nichiren Daishonin, successor-philosopher-monk types*, who spent their lives dedicated to studying the numerous sutras, but specifically the Lotus, all noted on the importance of these warnings. They also noted the various predictions warning of “false priests,” though it was Nichiren Daishonin who noted that this title could also be applied to anyone who decides to use the Lotus Sutra as a means of exploiting the innocent, to gain influence and power…to whore the religion out.

The Daishonin's writings mostly consist of letters he sent to his followers. He did have students, but those didn’t come for a while. The majority of his followers were lay-people he would exclaim that they could attain enlightenment without the need for priests (as they were pretty non-existent, ND was a one man show for a quite a while), without giving in to their cajoling, extorting and other condescending or exploitative means. That they could attain enlightenment simply by adhering to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, and by chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (literally “I adhere to the Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra”; variously “the Ultimate Mystic Law” or “of cause and effect as described in the LS”).

He knew, however, that even this stoic teaching could be manipulated, and so he wrote often of rebuking anyone who tried to slander the LS, no matter what positions they held, no matter who they were [Nichiren Daishonin's emphasis – tbo]. It didn’t matter if it was a priest of high stature, he’d write, or if it was a powerful politician, one has to be watchful and admonish those who try to abuse others, and those who slander.

Let’s just say that things in feudal Japan during the 1200s were a bit desperate. Damn if that doesn’t sound familiar.

Next: How all of this applies to Nikken Abe.

*Because of the high number of writings Shakyamuni left behind, priests of the various different schools would argue about which was the Ultimate Correct Teaching. Rulers, who were also Buddhist, would also want to know. So, what would happen quite often, especially if there was a hotly contested issue, is that the rulers would hold debates to settle once and for all (at least for the ruler) which was what. Invariably, those who studied the Lotus Sutra and were steadfast in their learning would always win out. There are exceptions, but these usually had some tincture of intimidation involved, or these students were simply not invited.

On Appreciation

2006-02-27T13:11:00.000-08:00

[The following was written for an SGI District meeting - a neighborhood size meeting, which took place on Monday, February 27th, 2006.]

Like most things relating to Nichiren Shoshu, discussing the concept of appreciation of this Buddhism is somewhat amorphous. Trying to describe it is like trying to describe why you appreciate life itself. You could quote poems, or Nichiren Daishonin directly; you could describe aspects of how this Buddhism has affected you, or how you notice it taking action in your world.

It is a lot like trying to define simplicity using nothing but metaphors. It could get confusingly multi-faceted.

Instead, I will point you to Nichiren's letter to Shijo Kingo named Happiness In This World; for I believe the one of the keys to understanding this concept lays within it.

Specifically, I'm talking about the passage that begins with: "Suffer what there is to suffer, enjoy what there is to enjoy. Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life, and continue chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo, no matter what happens. How could this be anything other than the boundless joy of the Law?"

Please note the brevity of this sentiment (and of the letter itself); please also note the wisdom in this statement.

To say that to base one's life around this simple point of view is challenging is an understatement, especially in the "gotta fix everything now and who can I blame?" society we're currently living in.

Here is a point of view that simply states "good shit will happen to you, bad shit will happen to you; that's the deal. Keep going for what you're going for [continue chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo...], no matter how bad/good things get. Don't puss out."

And how great is that, when you come right down to it? There are no elaborate stories to muddy the issue here; there are no exhortations about mysterious machinations or to simply accept your fate. Neither does it say anything about dwelling or not dwelling on the issue; this passage assumes that you will do what you need to, but advises to continue striving to take your life where you want it to.

To not do so is to deny "the boundless joy of the law." Or to say that life isn't worth living.

How can you not appreciate that?

Endgoal

2005-11-21T10:43:00.000-08:00

The Soka Gakkai’s goal is kosen-rufu – realizing human happiness and world peace by widely spreading the philosophy and ideals of Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism.
-- Daisaku Ikeda

This last Friday marked the 75th Anniversary of the Sokka Gakkai’s establishment (the Sokka Gakkai [SG] is the Soka Gakkai International’s [SGI] predecessor).

Take another look at that quote. It defines one of the most important concepts in this Buddhism.

Kosen-rufu is usually described as “world peace,” but there’s more to it than that. Because this Buddhism respects cultural differences, there’s a certain amount of give involved. Neither yielding nor rigid, it is simply respect.

You, for example, may not be Puerto Rican, you may not be mulatto, your hair may not be curly in nature nor presently in cornrows. You’re probably not an administrative assistant, you may not drive the energizer bunny of beaters, nor prefer wearing Chuck Taylors. Mayhaps, you don’t need glasses, your pants don’t have frayed edges, and odds are 50-50 that you don’t like basketball.

You could be the exact opposite of me in all ways and I still respect you based on what I know.

I just believe that you are a Buddha like me. Maybe your behavior tells me that you don’t know that, and based on your actions I might believe you’re kosher. Whatever. Baseline, you’re a Buddha.

It’s about as close to pacifism as you can get, without getting the heart patch for your sleeve.

Because, it’s not about world domination, or making a Stepford world. You’ll note that the definition says absolutely nothing about “making everyone believe.” No, it says “widely spreading the philosophy and ideals of” this Buddhism.

Ideally, I would do this with conviction, because who listens to pantywaists? But, does that mean I gotta shove it down your throat? No, no it doesn’t. This, however, doesn’t mean you get to walk all over me, either. Do we understand each other? Now think of this as an approach to life, the universe, and the people around you. If we agree that this is pretty cool, great. If not, don’t fuck with me, mine or any around us. Okay, let’s get a beer.

Would you like to know more?

Q&A: "Your Buddhism Is No Match For Mine"

2005-10-31T18:10:00.000-08:00

JJ asks: Your introduction talks about not wanting to get into a pissing contest about whose Buddhism is right. What are the criticisms that this branch of Buddhism receives? Who says it ain't the best and why?

Well, I think I got into some of this in our previous Q&A session, but that's specific to within those people practicing NS. Non-SGI members generally take the side of the Head Priest Nikken, namely that we're arrogant for thinking we can attain enlightenment without his approval. Not really worth commenting on, as I'm pretty sure you can tell which side of the fence I'm on...

From without the NS branch of Buddhism, the charges are numerous and varied, which are voiced by folks both familiar and un-familiar with the practice:

It's a greed-based religion. This one is usually levelled by Zen Buddhists, as well as those who've been talked to by someone who has been chanting for money or a car or whatever.

Zen Buddhist say this because their philosophy ("Only by eliminating earthly desires will you attain enlightenment") is in stark contrast to the NS philosophy ("By pursuing earthly desires, you will attain enlightenment"). I'll save further Zen v. NS comparisons for a later entry.

Those who aren't practicing any form of Buddhism are similarly turned off by the attachment to material things, which is ponderous.

Look, I'll be honest, I've been chanting for a new(er) car (and it seems like I'll be getting one), and the reason is simple: My current one is a piece of shit. It gets me from point A to point B, usually with some struggle. Who, in these circumstances, wouldn't want a new car? And as long as we're looking for something, why not ask for the moon (in my case, I'd like a 70s - 80s Mercedes)? Am I gonna get the Mercedes? Probably not right now, but it's a goal, and one never knows when you're gonna get what you want. I'll continue trying to get one, at the very least.

It's not a matter of status, you, generally, don't have to worry as much about newer cars. The same way one doesn't have to worry with more money coming in the door, or a better job than the one you currently have, or an apartment that's better than the one you're living in.

It's a lazy-man's religion. You only practice when you really need to. This one's funny to me.

This charge comes from people who notice that members who practice only talk about it when there's a crisis afoot. Which, in and of itself, is a good point. Members should talk about the good easy times, as well as the shit times.

However, what better test of a belief system than when the shit's coming down? Does it come through? Is the desired effect reached? This is a proof-based practice, after all.

And American Buddhists are human, like everyone else: We only really pipe up when we're excited, or when shit's happening. Else we're viewed as arrogant/delusional for only talking about the good times.

It's not really Buddhism. And in a sense, this is correct, despite the fact that the ontology could be legitimately followed right to Shakyamuni/Siddartha.

The niggle here is simply that the focus of this Buddhism is on attaining wisdom in the here and now, embracing our human nature in the process. The basis of this Buddhism is that we can do this in our present beings, we don't have to live lifetime after lifetime, eternity after endless eternity (as some Hinayana/Mayahana sutras espouse) to merely become a Bodhisatva. We don't need to carry out various and sundry austerities and hardships, nor deny our basic needs to be enlightened.

Neither do we believe, for example, that only one man can be a Buddha at a time or that Shakyamuni is reborn in one person throughout the lifetimes (as Tibetan Buddhism claims, or someone better redefine what the Dalai Lama is about).

The concept of Nirvana/Hell in the here and now is also specific to this Buddhism (others may have adopted it, but textually, this is where it started).

I mean, the list is endless, but what it comes down to is this: This Buddhism is an anomaly in its theories and philosophies, even amongst other Buddhist texts. What it espouses is unique in its world, to the point of being unrecognizable to those who do not adhere to it.

Let me know if this doesn't cover your question, as I am sure you will. I may add to it later.

RIP Mrs. Parks

2005-10-25T14:02:00.000-07:00

And thanks for everything, ma'am. As much of a pain in the ass, I'm sure, your corns and tired body were at the time, it was from such tiny circumstances, and the denial of such a basic human need for rest, that finally awoke an entire nation to its gross injustices. Church bombings didn't do it. The lynching of Emmett Till didn't do it. (One last on Emmett Till.*)

What did it was your sitting your tired ass down at the end of an exhausting workday. And for that I salute you wholeheartedly. I'm sure you were surprised that from such a small action, so much would be made from and of it, but, usually, that's all it takes. Thanks for having the guts to not bend on that fateful day.

This society has made some progress, and there's still plenty of room for growth, but none of it would have been listened to if we didn't have something as prosaic as "let the damn woman sit the fuck down" to point to.

I, for one, will mourn your loss, and celebrate your life.

PS - For (President of the Buddhist Layman's Organization SGI) Daisaku Ikeda's impressions of Mrs. Parks, click here.

*I just recently found out about Emmett Till, and his story should be taught in classes, along with the heroics of Mrs. Parks, Dr. King, and Mr. X.--tbo

Q&A

2005-10-21T11:34:00.000-07:00

JJ asks: If you can imagine a judge with a divinely perfect understanding of Mystic Law, and that judge administers the Mystic Law, is that any different [than god, TBO assumes]?

Yeah, but there is no judge. I mean sure, you could postulate that there is a judge, if that makes it convenient for you.

However, what this does is add an extra step/barrier that really isn't necessary. It puts a nebulous entity in charge, or in control, or the thing to answer to, and there's no room for that in this Buddhism.

Here's the thing I keep coming back to: There is no uber- in this Buddhism, and any attempt to place one there fucks with the fabric of the thing. There's a universal wisdom we aspire to attain, but ultimately it is up to us to get it, no one marshals it out. In other words, everything is equal, and there is no need for anything more.

This human insistence on having some kind of stopgap in place that determines the good, the bad, the meting of justice, etc. just complicates things needlessly, and allows for the possibility of someone coming along and taking advantage of that situation. I know you're trying to understand this Buddhism, JJ, and the above is an attempt to do so (or at least equate it with other religions), but my answer becomes the question "Why do we need one there? Why do we need a judge? Or an entity of any kind?"

We can talk until we're blue in the face about how such things make it easier for people to believe/comprehend, or that if you truly study a given source material it all comes down to the same thing. And, in essence, this is correct.

The danger comes in just how complacent, lazy, hypocritical, and gullible said given source material makes its followers. In other words, how easily could it be corrupted and maintained to stay that way.

You could argue that the basic tenets of Christianity, the stuff expounded by Jesus, if you study it close enough, expounds, in a similar fashion, the ideals of this Buddhism. Which may or may not be true, but we've seen how easily corruptible these teachings have become. (My personal belief, close but no cigar. If Jesus were really expounding these ideals, he wouldn't have died either on the cross, nor as a martyr.)

This is not to say that this Buddhism isn't corruptible.

As recently as 1990, Nikken, the current head priest, has essentially excommunicated members of the SGI, because, as he says "only through my approval can you gain enlightenment." Quite pope-like. The Head Priest position within Nichiren Shoshu, is simply to study and serve the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, as well as the various sutras written by Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), but specifially the Lotus and Nirvana Sutras (Nirvana sutra exists simply to support the Lotus, think of it as a big epilogue). Nikken demanded money and fealty.

Thankfully, Nichiren Daishonin couldn't have been more damning in his warnings about this very thing, and spoke directly to anyone who decided to pick up his theories. Namely, to actively oppose anyone who attempts to tamper with the tenets of this Buddhism. *

There have been plenty of examples of this occurring, but the SGI is the only organization involving non-priests who took up this call. Around the time, during WWII, the Japanese government said that all existing religions must embrace and promote the practice of Shinto, to encourage a nationalistic unity.

The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood gave in. It was at this point that the SGI members started rebelling, then drew fire and persecution from the government. The SGI had been founded by a frustrated school teacher, who happened to stumble upon this Buddhism at a late age, nary a moment in any kind of religious teaching.

And this is what separates this organization from most other organized religions (current Nichiren Shoshu priesthood included), no where else will you find a body of laymen willing to stand up to a supposed authority and quote Cartman "fuck you, I do what I want (in this case, get enlightened by my own damn self)!"

Okay, this is a rambling answer, and written sporadically throughout the day. My apologies if it lacks cohesion, or if it doesn't answer your question at all. Feel free to take me back on topic, if that's the case.

nam-myoho-renge-kyo

*Another important exhortation: "If you embrace this Buddhism and it does not work for you, you can shout it from the mountains, you can discourage others from embracing it. Only, you must embrace it fully." I paraphrase, but that's the gist.

Karma On A National Level

2005-09-02T01:54:00.000-07:00

[I write the following with the utmost sympathy and passion for the plight of those caught in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.]

In the past five days, we've seen devastation second only to last year's tsunami in the Far East, heard reports of depravity on the streets, rape in the Superdome, snipers attacking fleeing hospital patients, policemen nearly killing a restaurant owner who wanted supplies so he could cook for the victims. From the media we get the usual pablum, and racial profiling (whites "find", blacks "loot").

And from our government? A vacationing Secretary of State watching Broadway shows, shopping for expensive shoes, and taking lessons on her backswing; an emergency relief infrastructure compromised due to National Guard/Armed Forces Reserves being used in a far off war; missing transport for thousands of poor people (mostly black) who couldn't find a place to stay, or find their own means of leaving town; and a vacationing president who takes two full days to react to what was obviously a national disaster, says the government doesn't have enough money to really help out anyone down there, asks his financially-strapped populace to help out, and (get this) turns to the international community for compassion.

Pretty fucked up, huh?

Now, if this were some other country, most wouldn't blink an eye. As horrendous as the footage from the far east was last year, there was still a certain amount of "that's over there" going on. Because this is happening here, when people look at the malignant chaos happening in New Orleans, they find themselves shocked (much as it happened during post-9/11), and ask, "what's going on?"

Well, there are plenty of scientific and political reasons for what's happening (read Molly Ivins' latest column for a sharp and incisive viewpoint on all this), but let's look at something a little more ephemeral: Karma.

Most of us are familiar with the basic concept of Karma. You know, cause and effect, what goes around comes around, etc. etc. What most don't realise, but many intuit, is that it's not just a person to person thing. Karma affects everything, and can grow in scope from person to community to area, growing in size to global and universal proportions.

The various sutras are filled with dire warnings about what happens to those who trangress the Mystic Law*, but many aren't as vivid nor as strenuous as those dealing with the events surrounding the activities of a "corrupt leader of a nation." (The worst is saved for the "enemy of the Lotus Sutra," which we may get into at some future point.)

Here, these are the direct result of continued unjust behavior by said corrupt leader (i.e. - burdening of the poor, killing of the innocent, influence by greed; but in Nichiren Daishonin's time, the biggest offense was, ahem, religious persecution). If this unjust behavior goes on unabated, and the ruler's power runs unchecked, then misfortune will befall the land/population.

These take the form of fires, lack of rain or too much rain, tumult, riots, death, revolutions, earthquakes, attacks from invading armies, comets from the sky (which, as recently as the 1800s were seen as a bad omen in Asian cultures)...

Now, let's see...Corrupt leader of a nation, religious persecution, abuses of power, burdening of the poor, greed influenced decisions, deaths of innocents. Okay, now, attacks from invading armies, riots, natural disasters, drought, civil unrest...

hmmm...

If the actions taken in the name of this country continue to be as rampant as they have been, we still haven't seen anything yet.

*Some would argue that, etymologically speaking, there isn't any difference between a god one worships, and a Mystic Law one should adhere to. The difference lay with where the power resides, one asks you to not to do something because it may piss off a higher power, the other places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the person. One tactic uses fear, the other attempts to appeal to wisdom.

There is a difference, subtle, but important.

The Standard Introductory Entry

2005-09-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

So, okay, here's the deal:

I've been a practicing Buddhist for lo these past 11 years. Yeah, I sometimes stop going to meetings, and my studying also wavers, but I've been chanting ever since I began. This, most emphatically, does not make me an expert by any means.

But what is blogging, if not a forum for general louts like myself to post their semi-informed rantings and writings to the world at large?

And so, my writings for this blog are going to be based on the things I've learned, read and experienced during my tenure as a practicing Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist (SGI division). I am not interested in flame wars. Intelligent discourse, maybe, but I'm not really interested in getting into a "your buddhism is no match for mine" type of pissing match. (By the way, the water is deep, too.)

Make no mistake, this won't be no namby-pamby, sit in the corner and go "ohm" type of Buddhist bullshit...

Perhaps an origin story might be useful:

Blahblah mommy egg and daddy sperm, blahblah raised Catholic, blahblah became a Buddhist, blahblah.

Now, during the course of practicing, I've noticed these huge echoes between the things I was reading (Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, amongst others), and the world at large. As I became more aware of the echoes, the more I wanted to tell the world.

And there was my problem: Where do I start? I can't do so on most public forums, because, let's face it, who wants to hear "if Bush keeps this up, there will be a ton of shit falling on our heads later on*" from anyone? Let alone from someone saying that with a religious bent.

Therefore, my desire to say something diminished, even if my need didn't.

Somehow, it almost took me a full year of blogging, before using this forum dawned on me. It took a hurricane nearly destroying a major US city and its ensuing chaos for me to realize it. More on this later.

Better late than never, I suppose.

*As I was wont to do to the poor gals on the Meese list.

---------------------------------
7/25/06 Addendum:

Just shy of a year later, and, while I'm fully committed to keeping this blog up, the fact of the matter is, coming up with things to say, with research, and yadda and bladda...It was hard to do it by myself. So, heeding the words of Paul McCartney, I decided to try with a little help from my friends.

While the roster will probably grow and change in the months ahead, what won't change is what, I hope, makes this blog different from other religioblogs: Candid, from the heart entries, filled with snark, wisdom, and bravery; as well as research. Unafraid to engage in discourse, but not putting up with bullshit. Oh, and cussing allowed.--TBO