TO: SGI (Part 8: A few comments on Nichiren)

Specific Introduction

Today's post will convey a few of my thoughts on Nichiren. These are meant to stand in stark contrast to the views held by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

General Introduction

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

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

About Nichiren Daishonin

Comparing Two Teachings:

It would be useful to compare the circumstances surrounding the revelations of these two teachers' highest teachings - Nichiren Who-Was-Not-A-Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha. When Shakyamuni revealed the Lotus Sutra, there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance, to say the least. Shakyamuni gave demonstrations of his supernatural powers, which started (as mentioned in the Lotus Sutra itself)* with him emitting "...a ray of light from the tuft of white hair between his eyebrows...lighting up 18,000 worlds in the eastern direction." In addition, the Lotus Sutra mentions a great assembly containing untold trillions of great bodhisattvas who listened to his preaching of the Lotus Sutra. Not to mention, Many Treasures Buddha put in an appearance in order to bear witness to the profundity of the Lotus as preached by Shakyamuni.

In sharp contrast, we have this:

When Nichiren delivered his first sermon in which he advocated his doctrine that Nam Myoho Renge Kyo contains the essence of Buddhism and is in fact its fundamental law, nothing special happened. There wasn't any Great Assembly in attendance, Many Treasures Buddha was absent, and there were no auspicious signs or portents - and certainly no manifestations of any supernatural powers which Nichiren might have possessed. In spite of this, the Soka Gakkai considers the daimoku to be superior to the Lotus Sutra, and Nichiren to be superior to Shakyamuni.

To call the Lotus Sutra "Shakyamuni's Buddhism" (as does the SGI) would be inaccurate, since he did not write this sutra - nobody did.  It ended up in written form and for that reason it might be logical to assume that someone had to have written it. My own view is that it ended up being manifested in written form but is, essentially, the product of the collective enlightened "mind" of the universe itself. The Lotus Sutra itself claims to have been the cause whereby Shakyamuni and all other Buddhas of the universe attained their enlightenments. And it will be the means by which all future buddhas will attain their enlightenments.

Nichiren's unique claim is that the diamoku (the secret and mysterious law of the universe) is hidden within the Lotus Sutra and is to be considered its essence and driving force.

The Supreme Object of Worship:

This whole business of "hidden within the Lotus Sutra" has always bothered me, since I certainly haven't been able to find this "hidden" truth. And I've recited the Lotus Sutra over 150 times over the past seven years. Moreover, Shakyamuni stated that all of his doctrines had been clearly revealed during his lifetime. So I'm forced to conclude that there is no hidden truth. And that applies to something else Nichiren claimed was hidden deep within the Lotus Sutra - the Gohonzon, also known as the supreme object of worship.

Within the pages of The Threefold Lotus Sutra**, the term "supreme object of worship is mentioned exactly once (on page 364):

QUOTE:

These three kinds of the Buddha's bodies are the blessing-field for gods and men, and the supreme object of worship.

:UNQUOTE.

When the Buddha was in the world, he himself was the supreme object of worship. The Lotus speaks of bodhisattvas not taking their eyes off of him for even an instant. But now that the Buddha is no longer in the world, we're supposed to believe that a scroll of paper (the gohonzon) can stand in his place. And we're supposed to direct our practice toward this scroll. But that makes no sense. If we practice as the Lotus Sutra directs us, then our eyes should be on the Lotus Sutra's pages as we recite from the text of those pages. In the Buddha's absence, his highest sutra should be the supreme object of worship.

Bodhisattva Superior Practices (BSP) vs. Bodhisattva Universal Worthy (BUW):

I have read that the Soka Gakkai considers Nichiren to have been a reincarnation of BSP. But I've also heard SGI claim that Nichiren is a Buddha. So which is it - was he a Buddha when he lived in 13th century Japan or was he a Bodhisattva?

If any claims are to be made on behalf of Nichiren's secret identity, it would make more sense to advocate that he was BUW instead of BSP. There is precious little mention in the Lotus Sutra of BSP, but a great deal is said of BUW. The latter has the entire 28th chapter dedicated to him. Not to mention the entire closing sutra, which immediately follows the Lotus's last chapter,The Sutra on how to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.

Chapter 28 includes this statement by BUW:

QUOTE:

"World Honored One...If when the Lotus Sutra is propagated throughout Jambudvipa there are those who accept and uphold it, they should think to themselves: This is all due to the authority and supernatural power of Universal Worthy!"

[and]

"And after the thus come one has entered extinction, I will cause it [the Lotus Sutra] to be widely propagated throughout Jambudvipa and will see that it never comes to an end."

At that time Shakyamuni Buddha spoke these words of praise: "Excellent, excellent, Universal Worthy!"

:UNQUOTE.

Given the prominent role the Lotus Sutra describes for BUW, I'm surprised the Soka Gakkai would advance the idea that BSP would have any even remotely comparable role to play. There is one faint reference in the Lotus Sutra (p. 252) upon which the SGI might base any claim of BSP's importance (note my highlight):

QUOTE:

After I [Shakyamuni Buddha] have entered extinction these people [the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, led by BSP]  will be able to protect, embrace, read, recite, and widely preach this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

Maybe saying they "will be able to" is not the same as saying they "will protect, embrace...this sutra."

In any event, nobody has yet "widely preach[ed] this [Lotus] sutra." Nichiren did not do so, the SGI has not done so, and neither has BUW nor BSP. And the very numerous Bodhisattvas of the Earth have yet to make their presence known. As long as the Soka Gakkai and other pro-Nichiren sects continue to disregard the Lotus Sutra, relegating it to the status of a mere historical curiosity, the world will have to wait for the dawn of the Age of Worldwide Enlightenment.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

NOTES:

(as mentioned in the Lotus Sutra itself)* - Unless I say otherwise, I am referring to Burton Watson's English-language translation of the following source which was copyrighted in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai: The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras.

The Threefold Lotus Sutra** - Published by Kosei Publishing Company, first edition in 1975, 22nd printing in 2005, by a team of translators which didn't include Burton Watson.

Conversation with "god(?) - a fantasy

Conversation with “god(?)” – a fantasy

It’s sweetly warm and humid on my little mesa in the Grand Canyon. My campfire crackles quietly as little embers fly up to greet the moon, a giant among the trillions of stars in the deep night sky. I am so utterly alone here, thinking how true it must be – that there are parts of the Grand Canyon where no human has ever tread.

This is all part of an inspired deal I had made – to come here alone if I should win the lottery. To say “deal” is misleading since I didn’t make any deal with anybody in particular. Isn’t that supposed to be important? I bought the ticket and said out loud, being sure no one could hear me: “I swear this oath: If I win, I will never claim the prize and will destroy this ticket, never to tell anyone I’d won.”

That was part of the deal; the other part was a whimsical afterthought. Spinning a globe of the earth, I declared: “If I win, I will go to that spot my finger lands on and seek ‘god’ – whatever ‘he’ might be – and try to talk to ‘him.’ Who knows? Maybe ‘he’ll’ talk back.” So I had closed my eyes, jabbed my finger, then looked where I was to go if…big IF.

A few days later, big IF became big THEN: I found out I won – in fact, I was the sole winner of $180 million dollars. Then in the privacy of my room, I burned the ticket completely to ashes, rubbing it to dust with my fingers. I had kept my word, then started packing my bag, not feeling any sense of loss at all but hopeful of a very big gain.

That was three weeks ago and here I sit, my spectacular view in all directions simply amazing. “Well,” I speak up, “time to get started.”

I rise and face the moon, clear my throat and begin:

“I don’t expect to hear any answers, but I will speak my piece anyway. Even if I am to hear an answer, how could I know its source? God/god? Devil/devil? Other/other? I’ve often wondered how Mohammed was so sure he knew the owner of the voice in that cave in which he was first told (threatened?) to ‘Recite!’ This doubt finds wording in many forms – including this: How can one know the will of God?

“I myself am an agnostic. I don’t know if You exist or perhaps once existed and no longer does. I don’t know where everything came from, but I am curious. I’ve always asked a lot of questions and I’ve always loved a good puzzle. So, for the sake of argument, I will address the God of Abraham. Here goes…

“Concerning the punishment of sinners: Why subject them to eternal torment? Why not just dis-create them? You created them, surely You can simply give the word (as it were), then they would be no more. But keeping them in existence just to torture them for all eternity, wouldn’t that make You the greatest terrorist of all time?

“Some say, among the powers of God must be the power to create other Gods? What say You of this? Do You leave it for only Yourself to be Godly? Are You wary of competition; are You uneasy about the universes They might create?

“Many believe You created the Universe and are its master, and that You could just as easily destroy it without a trace. Tell me, could You instead leave the Universe intact and will Yourself out of existence, also without a trace? And even more difficult, once You’d will Yourself out of existence, could You summon Yourself back?

“And most difficult of all? Deciding to shift back and forth from existing to not existing? Multiple times? If so, how many? And what would determine how many and how long you’d stay out of existence each time, leaving the universe Godless?

“Was there only one Creation? Did You suffer even one moment of gnawing doubt before You uttered, ‘Let there be Light?”

I pause, draw a deep breath, and say, “That’s all I have to say.” Time passes, the fire crackles, a soft breeze stirs, coyotes howl in the distance, a single eagle soars overhead, I wait but not for long.

I sigh and kick out the remains of my fire, pick up my bag, and turn to go. From behind me, I hear a voice saying, “Wait.” But I do not wait, I do not turn to see the speaker, for I am no longer curious. I already have the answers I seek.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

“It’s okay, it really is, if God speaks and You don’t answer; but if a buddha speaks, you should listen" - Steve Searle

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I

I call this post, “A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I” – the Buddhist being the wholly Trinity of Me, Myself, and I. “Part I” is merely a label of convenience – meaning that I do not intend to give (here and now) my detailed impressions of the entire Bible. At some future date, I might post a Part 2, 3, 4 etc, but at this point, I only have a yawning enthusiasm to do so.

To be fair, I’ve read precious little of the Bible’s texts. Oh, I’ve tried over the decades to fathom its mysteries but I just couldn’t penetrate the archaic, flowery, and (in my opinion) vague and stilted prose.

However, I feel I’ve been blessed with an open mind (which used to be called liberal, but not in polite society any more). So I want to give you an idea of what goes through my mind as I try to process certain “givens.” Toward that end, I’m going to touch on the Old Testament stories of Job, and of Abraham in the episode commonly called the Binding of Isaac.

QUOTES* followed by COMMENTS

In my usual style, I will QUOTE source material and follow with my COMMENTS. I purposely omit entire sections of narrative on which I don’t intend to comment.

  * All QUOTES are from http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.og/

From the Book of Job

QUOTE:

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

COMMENT:

The word “perfect” hit me like a brick. Did the text mean “perfect” as in “[only] as perfect as a mere man can be?” “Perfect” covers a lot of territory – so much that the entire rest of the sentence could have been omitted after that word.

QUOTE:

His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

COMMENT:

“Five hundred she asses,” you say? What? No he asses?

“The greatest of all the men of the east,” you say? There were no kings who were greater? Not to mention, how should one define “greatest” in this context? Does the mere possession of wealth make one great?

Can you imagine the sheer number of acres which had to be at Job’s disposal to feed all this herd? And the number of herders under his employ? Job was very rich, to say the least. But whenever I hear of a man’s wealth, a couple of things are at work in the back of my mind. How did he obtain this wealth; or was it all just bestowed upon him as blessings from the Lord? How did he defend himself from pilferage or blatant thievery?

I never begrudge a man his fortune but it does give me pause. Especially since, as the old saying goes, “Victors write history books.” So if the Bible should be at least partly regarded as a history book, shouldn’t we be suspicious as to how much of that historical reporting is (shall we say) self-serving or self-vindicating?

QUOTE:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

COMMENT:

Why is Satan permitted to attend a gathering of the LORD and the sons of God? Unless he too should be considered a son of God?

QUOTE:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

COMMENT:

What a strange greeting is, “Whence comest thou?” More to my sensibility would be, “What brings you here?”

And what a strange answer. A good friend tells me that “in the earth” refers to exactly that – literally, “inside the earth,” which contains an underground world much embraced by devotees of the Hollow Earth narrative. As for “walking up and down in it,” could the “walking up” part refer to how he got from within the earth to its surface?

QUOTE:

[NOTE: This section follows the immediately preceding QUOTE(D) section.]

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

COMMENT:

Of course, the rest of the story is well known – how Satan is permitted by the LORD to put Job through a variety of trials. Satan claimed Job would curse the LORD if he were to lose his divinely provided bounties and if his health or life were to be threatened.

However, suppose instead Satan did not challenge the LORD. Suppose instead he said something like this, “You say, ‘[there is] none like him,’ and that he is ‘a perfect…man.” If there are none like him and he is perfect, you’re saying he is the only man among the entire multitude alive at this moment who is perfect. He may well be perfect – I won’t challenge that. What I will challenge – How is it that he is the only perfect man? How poorly you have nurtured the human race that this must be so.”

Of course, if Satan had offered these alternate words, must we assume that God would never have tested Job? Remember: It was Satan who, only after being permitted to do so by the LORD after challenging the LORD, had savaged Job so terribly. So if God had it in His mind that Job was to be tested, and if Satan hadn’t been a willing tool in this test, would God have tested Job in another way? Maybe deciding to test Job directly Himself, without Satan’s assistance?

QUOTE:

So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

COMMENT:

Eww…Much of the rest of what follows contains speeches made by Job after seven days of silently suffering from these boils. He is in utter agony and yet – he manages to speak so eloquently. Why is that? How is that possible? [Again, I had trouble penetrating his meaning but I could sense how others could obtain at least the general drift of Job’s words.]

QUOTE:

Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.

COMMENT:

Sounds like his wife is saying, “Since you’re in such awful physical pain, why not cut short your life by cursing God. For then He shall surely smite thee, removing you from this life and from any life hereafter. If your pain is so great, how could you be expected to endure it without [apparent] end?” [NOTE: It could not have been known to Job for how much longer he would suffer, nor by what means.]

QUOTE:

[This immediately follows “Curse God, and die” from the above QUOTE.]

But he said unto her…shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

COMMENT:

I will answer his question (“…and shall we not receive evil?”) with an emphatic, “No, we shall not – at least, we should not receive evil and still call God great.” The whole thrust of this story seems to be, “If we can only man up and suffer silently at the hands of our superiors, bounty shall surely be ours.” That ethic has been suggested to all of the lowly throughout all of the ages by all of our superiors. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it; and it surely doesn’t mean we have to call them “great” as they torture us.

QUOTE:

[After Job’s trials are over and he is no longer suffering.]

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before…every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

COMMENT:

Why did all of those people give Job money? He surely didn’t need it, for as the next QUOTE tells us:

QUOTE:

So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

COMMENT:

What, still no he asses? What’s with that?

After most of Job’s herders had been killed by Satan’s hand, where did Job find replacements to manage this even larger-than-before flock? Did he enslave them, which was not an uncommon practice of the time? How did he obtain extra land for their forage and roaming?

QUOTE:

He had also seven sons and three daughters.

COMMENT:

Ah, these would have been to replace those seven sons and three daughters which the LORD God had allowed Satan to kill earlier in this narrative. I don’t know how Job felt about losing his first ten children; I don’t even know if he mourned their loss. But here and now, I (in the twenty-first century) will say a prayer for them. For the narrative continues by saying, “And thus lived Job an hundred and forty years…So Job died, [being] old and full of days.” Sad this couldn’t have been said of his dead children.

The Binding of Isaac

Much of what I’ve heard about Abraham has forced this conclusion: Were I to see Abraham approaching me as I should walk down the sidewalk, I would cross the street to avoid him.

Since the story of the Binding of Isaac is so well-known, I will not summarize it here but I will furnish a link should you care to review its words, which are rather few in number:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Genesis&chapter=22&verse

More QUOTES and COMMENTS follow:

QUOTE:

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering?

COMMENT:

In answer to that question, Abraham lies by saying:

“…My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”

Since Issac was supposed to have been a rather profound individual in his own right, Abraham should have said, “You are to be that lamb. I will bind and cover thee with sticks which I shall set aflame, after I slit your throat so you feel no pain. For God has told me to make of you a burnt offering.”

To me, this is what makes an offering profound – that it is voluntarily given, not demanded as tribute is demanded by all-too-common tyrants.

QUOTE:

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

COMMENT:

There’s no hint in this telling that Isaac resisted in any way or said anything. This is part of the problem I have with Abraham – it’s always all about Abraham. You’d think this story would allow for some words or actions to be offered by the man who is about to die.

QUOTE:

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

COMMENT:

This was done after an angel of the LORD told Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, and indeed had praised Abraham by saying, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearst God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.”

So there we have it:

1)   God tells Abraham to kill his son and burn him up as an offering;

2)   An angel of God, at the last moment, tells Abraham not to kill his son.

3)   However, no mention is made of that angel (or God Himself) asking for a substitute burnt offering (that ram).

4)   That substitute was Abraham’s inspiration of the moment upon seeing some poor, defenseless animal trapped.

5)   The angel of God did not stop Abraham from killing the ram.

If I were any kind of a fiction writer, I might have added these considerations toward the end of this story:

Killing that ram was the real test which God had in mind for Abraham.

The binding of Isaac wasn’t much of a test since God told him to kill his son but withdrew that order. In other words, Abraham didn’t have to do any thinking, he simply followed the words of the Lord. However, killing that ram was a thought that came directly from Abraham, unsolicited by God. That ram, as a symbol, would have been Jesus Christ in disguise, of whom the world (or at least Abraham) was not yet ready.

The irony is that this ram was “attached” to a wooden framework (his horns caught in a bush) in a manner similar to how Jesus Christ was to be later crucified. So, in his own way, Abraham pre-crucified Christ so to speak. If that was the case – God was truly forgiving indeed.

QUOTE:

…I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] on the sea shore…

COMMENT:

Hmm…as many as all that, eh? That’s way more than the known population of the earth.

QUOTE:

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

COMMENT:

In my humble opinion, the descendants of Abraham (specifically, those of Isaac) haven’t done much to bless “all the nations of the earth.” When’s that supposed to happen?

As for “because thou hast obeyed my voice,” I would have much preferred “because thou hasn’t obeyed my righteous laws.” Harkens to an age old situation: Just because one hears the voice of one claiming to be God, doesn’t make it so. Even today, there are too many claiming they did some really awful things because “God told me to.” Well…something told them to but…

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

In closing

Please, don’t get the wrong idea. I’m just as questioning of Buddhist scripture as well, much to the discomfort of my fellow Buddhists. Which might explain why we no longer keep each other’s company.

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

“Why is it that children can offer interesting questions, but they seem to lose that ability when they get older? Where’s Peter Pan when you need him?” - Steven Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A Buddhist revises the Cain and Abel story

The complete title of the following is:

Cain and Abel: Revised for your Reflection by Steven Searle, the Buddhist

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. [NOTE: Numbered passages such as this one are from Genesis 4, King James Version of the Bible.]

 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

And Cain had many thoughts as he labored in the fields:

"I labor mightily in the fields, while my brother idly watches his flock of sheep. I, however, bear no enmity toward my brother, for he is decidedly weaker than I and a dreamer. On the other hand, I revel in the exercise of my greater strength, knowing it feeds my father and mother. And also feeds Abel honestly, for the Lord has not granted us permission to eat meat. Neither did the Lord forbid it, but I am still anxious about the matter.

"Abel brings meat aplenty to our family, of which he, Adam and Eve partake. I, however, cannot fathom this slaughter, which the Lord has not directly permissioned. Also, the Lord is silent when I question him on this matter.

"Aye, gladly, then, do I labor in the fields, though the sun burns me hotly and the soil yields grudgingly."

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Cain's thought was not to influence the Lord nor seek His favor. Rather, it was to influence Abel thusly: "If Abel sees me give away a portion of that for which I have worked so hard, maybe he will reconsider his idle ways and what they mean to the lives he takes among his flock. As his older brother, I owe him an example. As I owe to my father and mother to be my brother's keeper."

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain thought unto himself, though he said nothing to the Lord:

"The Lord has asked me three questions, which I am too angry to answer at this time. But I know the answer to anger: Hard work. Whenever I labor in the fields, I become calm. I know I am more fiery than Abel, so it is that Abel shall never know how hard work and purpose can forge our minds. Poor Abel. He thinks to please the Lord at the expense of the life of a living animal."

So it was that Cain walked away from the presence of the Lord, not witnessing what happened next between the Lord and Abel. Though the Lord "had respect" for Abel's offering, that was feigned for two reasons. For the Lord had been taken aback by Cain's offering. Never had He been offered anything before, though He supposed that pride might well up within Cain's breast should He appear to respectfully accept Cain's offering.

Also, He wished to wait until Cain's departure before addressing Abel:

"You expect me to ... eat that!?"

Abel: "I offer you my best."

The Lord: "If you had offered to Me a live firstling for Me to uplift straight unto heaven, that would have been more acceptable. But this? You offer to Me a thing from which you've taken life and you call that your best?"

Abel silently withdrew from the presence of the Lord, crushed by the censure of his Lord. Walking further and further, when sure he was unobserved, Abel found himself a precipice and threw himself from it in despair. Cain, walking by, saw this and ran up to Abel's crushed and dying body:

"Oh, Abel, why did you do this thing, end your own life?"

"Cain, I am saddened beyond relief at my Creator's censure. I can no longer remain here. Without Him, my life has no meaning."

"But we do not know what death will bring."

"Maybe it will be like sleep: mostly blackness, quietude, and visions of better things."

"Or maybe not."

"Or maybe not. Please, my brother, do not tell the Lord of this."

9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

And Cain thought: "The Lord asks where is Abel as if He doesn't know...and I think: He truly doesn't know. Maybe there are certain things He chooses not to know. Also, He does not answer my question ‘Am I my brother's keeper?'"

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

And Cain thought unto himself:

"The Lord God truly does not know. Not if He has to ask, ‘What hast thou done?' I am sure He hears the voice of my brother's blood, but that voice I'm also sure is not to accuse me of misdeed. It is surely only the cry of agony. The Lord God knows my fire and thus suspects I could kill my brother. Yet I shall remain silent as to Abel's demise, since I have promised my brother that I would not reveal his secret."

Many years passed and Cain had reflected frequently upon the nature of the Lord and the meaning of his exile. He thought thusly, but never expressed aloud his thoughts, preferring to keep them unknown to the Lord who (who knows?) might be listening:

"I have kept my promise to my brother Abel, though I wonder: What has become of Abel? Where is he? How is he? Is he somehow with the Lord? If so, has he spoken of my innocence? If the Lord knows my innocence (that is, if Abel has told Him), my continued suffering must then be for reasons known only to the Lord. Aye, I am used to hardship and I do thank the Lord for my continued strength to endure it.

"I also thank the Lord for my good wife, who ‘knew' that I had killed Abel (for I never told her otherwise), yet also sensed me to be a good man. She accepted me and loved me, though I had displeased the Lord. This speaks well of her, and till my dying day I will consider her to be the greatest gift of all from the Lord to me.

"I find it interesting though (in the privacy of my unspoken thoughts) to know that my Lord had chosen to remain ignorant of certain things. Though why should that surprise me. For had He not surprised us all by speaking falsely -- lying -- when saying:

‘17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'"

And so these came to pass:

The first offering unto the Lord. This was made by Cain, though in Cain's mind, the benefit was intended for Abel and not for the benefit of the Lord.

The self-imposed ignorance of the Lord concerning the affairs of man. God asked, "Where is Abel thy brother?" He asked because He didn't know, and because He had seen the effect of His words upon Abel. Worried about Abel, He looked for him but found Cain instead and so asked him, "Where is Abel thy brother?"

The profound sacrifice of Cain. He kept a promise made to his brother though incurring punishment from the Lord in exchange.

Steven Searle's End Note:

I am aware that the account in Genesis specifically says that Cain slew Abel. However, keep in mind that this account is known as "The First Book of Moses Commonly Called Genesis." This Book might have had more authority had it been known as "The First Book of God..." It is important to keep in mind that it was Moses who wrote this book. Moses was not only "just" a man, he was also a Jewish partisan. Unlike the Ten Commandments which were rendered in God's own handwriting, "Genesis" was in Moses' own writing and, I'm sure, was rendered through the various lenses of his experience.

Divinely inspired? Perhaps, perhaps not.

More to the point: My rendering of the Cain and Abel story claims things God did not know, which I had written as: "Maybe there are certain things He chooses not to know." If that is the case, then how could Moses know something (that Cain slew Abel) that the Lord God Himself did not know? It is on this basis that I chose to revise the Cain and Abel story as I did.

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

“It’s not good enough to merely read scripture; one has to read between the lines and figure out (for himself) what is true and what is false" - Steven Searle

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

On the Alleged Sufferings of Christ - and why a Buddhist should care

Intro: Today I cover a number of bases, including:

·       The suffering of Jesus Christ

·       The Bird is the Word

·       Pooping in the Garden of Eden

·       My Muslim companion’s lament

Question: How much, if at all, did Jesus Christ actually suffer?

That question can be asked most pointedly if this claim is true: That Jesus is God or, at least, is part of the Trinity (each part of which is coequal, therefore all of which is God).

If someone nailed such a God to a cross, would that God feel any pain? Could that God feel any pain? As to "would" - He would feel pain only if there are pain receptors in that flesh and blood body which could possibly register any kind of impression on His (shall we say?) larger "Body." As to "could" - He could, simply because what could there possibly be that God could not do - including not feeling pain if He chose not to feel it.

But I have a problem with any kind of pain which God could feel compared to any kind of pain which mortal man could feel. Our pains have meaning in that, if intense and sufficiently prolonged, we become focused exclusively on the moment and we fear death. I doubt God could have those kinds of pains. What? God fearing death? Out of His many powers, surely this is one He does not have: The "power" (i.e. ability) to fear death.

The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson

In 2004, I saw Mel Gibson's bit of indulgent pornography aka The Passion of the Christ. This isn't exactly what I'd call a date movie, unless your date loves gore galore. I suspected, even back then, its intention was to push our buttons. My fellow audience members had several thoughts:

• I don't think I could endure that kind of pain with any kind of dignity.

• Jesus didn't even say "ouch" once.

• He didn't even flinch [NOTE: That's a very guy thing.]

• Imagine! He went through all that for the sake of my salvation.

• Imagine! He had His only begotten Son go through all that for the sake of my salvation.

I remember being pissed as I watched (as much as I could stomach) of the flogging, seeing this as just another cheap propaganda ploy to make We-the-People feel low down (in comparison) and unworthy. How would the Monty Python players have worked this material? Maybe something like this: As John Cleese (playing Jesus) collapses at the feet of Graham Chapman, Chapman responds to the head-to-toe wounds on Jesus by drawing back and exclaiming, "Ewww!" To which "Jesus" Cleese motions him closer in order to whisper in his ear:

"I know it looks bad, old friend, but I can't feel a thing! You know, nerves disconnected from my brain and all that. Some kind of birth defect, I suppose. Very useful at the moment, wouldn't you say? But...don't tell anybody. That would spoil the effect."

Then there's the theme of sacrifice

Then there's the aspect of God sacrificing His son (which is really Himself), much as Abraham was asked to sacrifice his own son Isaac. But there's a difference. Abraham, as a father, would suffer the pain of separation from Isaac. But God, on the other hand, wouldn't really be sacrificing anything at all by having his "Son" be "killed" thereby effecting a reunion with God.

The Word? The Bird is the Word!

A born again friend of mine refuses to even say the name "Jesus Christ" - in reference to the Savior. Her claim is that the name "Jesus" is nothing more than a derivation of "Zeus," the name of the King of the Greek gods. It's meant as an homage to the ancient gods of mythology. I don't know (or care, actually) about any of that, but I found her next comment to be interesting. She refers to the Savior as "The Word."

When I was in high school, I heard a crazy little tune by The Trashmen called The Bird is the Word. So, whenever she mentions "The Word," I smile to myself thinking of that tune and those mindless lyrics. [Not to mention that scene in Pink Flamingos, featuring Bird being "lip" synched in an especially disgusting way.]

Her source for "The Word" comes from the Bible (John 1:1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Naturally, I have a lot of problems with that verse, including: What is meant by "in the beginning?" If the Creational beginning is meant, then "The Word" did not exist prior to the Creation? And then there's the matter of which particular Word are we talking about? Curly is a word, as also are Moe, Shemp, and Larry.

And, furthermore, was it a Written Word? Or was it a Spoken Word which was meant to just sort of hang forever in the air? In either event, it is written that "The Word became flesh." To which I'd say, "That's quite a trick! Even better than creating Man from dust."

Pooping in the Garden of Eden

I have often wondered about these lines from the Bible (Genesis): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Pray tell: Why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? Even after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? If the capacity for shame or embarrassment had been within them, that was only because that's how God made them. For without this created capacity, no amount of (so-called) "knowledge" should have induced shame in them.

[Personally? I think Moses and the other Patriarchs were unduly weirded-out by nudity, and that served to slant our theology forever after.]

Again I invoke the Monty Python players, this time to recreate the scene of the first defecation in the Garden of Eden - that of Adam in the presence of Eve. They're strolling in the Garden, side by side, when Adam stops suddenly, feeling an urgent call of nature. He then squats, poops, and rises without shame before Eve. And she, also unashamed, looks upon the ground, then at Adam, then upon the ground once again and says, "I had no idea, from your outward appearance, that you had that in you. Do you suppose I will be similarly afflicted?"

"Why say you ‘afflicted,' woman, as if this is a bad thing? There is no sin here."

Time out [or "enough, already"]: I will leave it to Monty Python's diehard fans to flesh out this scene, if any of them so desire. Of course, developing this scene any further becomes somewhat of a moot point if none of the excretory functions had been performed in the Garden prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit.

My Muslim Companion's Lament

I buy my breakfast coffee from a Muslim man, who I think of as "my companion" - or one of them. All of us are companions to each other who are spiritual seekers struggling through this life, even though we're not of the same faith. He and I were talking about how hard it is to meet women. He's in his mid-30's and has never been married, though I could tell he is very keen to enter that stage of life with all of its blessings, including fatherhood.

Then I thought of the meaning of the word Islam: "the total surrender of oneself to God." I thought, "If this man is a Muslim and has totally surrendered himself to God, then why would he care one way or another for a wife?" That's a silly question, though, since God created Eve because it is not good for man to be alone. Though of course man was not alone and never would be - as long as he had God. But that's not the same thing, is it?

In conclusion

Much of my carrying on (above) is meant as an exercise, meant only to be an ice breaker of sorts. It's just a means to stimulate an inquiry: "What exactly do you believe in? And why?" I ask myself these very questions all the time.

While I feel that religion can be a beautiful thing, it can also be said: "It brings out the worst in us as well as the best." Much work needs to be done to minimize how it so effectively brings out the worst in us. Are there any new prophets among you who are willing to do this work?

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com