Can the Buddha travel back in time?

On page 252 of the Lotus Sutra*, Shakyamuni Buddha introduces to the Great Assembly a group that suddenly appears, having emerged from the earth. About these, the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (BOTE), the Buddha has this to say: “[They are as numerous as] the sands of sixty-thousand Ganges Rivers, and each of these bodhisattvas has a retinue [of bodhisattvas] equal to the sands of sixty-thousand Ganges Rivers.”

Page 260 has this statement by Shakyamuni Buddha about the BOTE, which I personally find to be the most amazing in this entire sutra:

QUOTE:

Ajita, you should understand this.

These great bodhisattvas

for countless kalpas

have practiced the buddha wisdom.

All have been converted by me;

I caused them to set their minds on the great way.

…

When I was in the vicinity of the city of Gaya,

seated beneath the bodhi tree,

I attained the highest, the correct enlightenment,

and turned the wheel of the unsurpassed Law.

Thereafter I taught and converted them,

caused them for the first time to set their minds on

the way.

Now all of them dwell in the stage of non-regression,

and all in time will be able to become buddhas.

What I speak now are true words -

with a single mind you must believe them!

Ever since the long distant past

I have been teaching and converting this multitude.

:UNQUOTE.

The three highlights above illustrate my concern:

In the first: The Buddha was “in the vicinity of the city of Gaya” about 40 years prior to him speaking these words.

In the second: Referring to his Gaya enlightenment (again 40 years prior), he says (“Thereafter”) that he “caused them for the first time to set their minds on the way.”

In the third: The Buddha says he's been “teaching and converting” the BOTE “ever since the long distant past” - which is far greater than 40 years ago, according to the sixteenth chapter.

In response to the above quote, on page 261, appear these words:

QUOTE:

Thereupon Maitrea said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, when the Thus Come One was crown prince, you left the palace of the Shakyas and sat in the place of enlightenment not far from the city of Gaya, and there attained supreme perfect enlightenment. Barely forty years or more have passed since then. World-Honored One, how in that short time could you have accomplished so much work as a buddha? Was it through the authoritative powers of a buddha, or through the blessings of a buddha, that you were able to teach and convert such an immeasurable number of great bodhisattvas and enable them to achieve supreme perfect enlightenment?

:UNQUOTE.

Maitreya misses the point. He doesn't point out the contradiction I detailed in the first, second, and third highlights I described above. As I've progressed in my career of reciting (so far, over 150 times) and pondering the Lotus Sutra, I've had many questions pop into my mind. I'm amazed that Maitreya didn't ask what I am asking. Instead, he shows a willingness to settle for any crumb of an answer from the Buddha. When Maitreya asks “Was it through the authoritative powers...or the blessings of a buddha, that you were able to teach...?”, what would he have said if the Buddha had simply said, “Yes?”

Would he have had any follow up questions? If Maitreya would have remained silent, would any of the other members of the Great Assembly spoken up?

The last words of chapter 15 comprise this question which the Buddha never answers:

     These immeasurable bodhisattvas -

     how in such a short time

     did you teach them, cause them to have aspiring minds,

     and to dwell in the stage of no regression?

My speculation

There are only two ways the Buddha could have converted the BOTE after he attained enlightenment near the city of Gaya as well as since the long-distance past.

The first way

The Gaya enlightenment of 40 years ago was different from the enlightenment in the long-distance past – which also occurred near a city called Gaya. What happened 40 years ago was just a story (an untrue story) the Buddha told his disciples because they weren't ready for the truth. In chapter 16, the Buddha tells us that he did not first attain enlightenment 40 years ago but had done so trillions of years ago in the past. Furthermore, during those trillions of years he never died and is still alive today, even though he gave the appearance of his demise 2,500 years ago in ancient India.

And maybe that's the most important concept – the Buddha's life span, a life span that we too can acquire. At the end of chapter 16, Shakyamuni states:

     This life span of countless kalpas

     I gained as the result of lengthy practice.

     You who are possessed of wisdom,

     entertain no doubts on this point.

     Cast them off, end them forever...

The Second Way: A Tale of Two Gayas (continued)

Maybe something truly profound happened 2,500 years ago in Gaya, India. The sixteenth chapter tells us of the long duration of the Buddha's life. But it doesn't tell us that maybe the enlightenment he gained acquired another feature – one not possessed by Shakyamuni until then. And that is, the ability to travel back in time. How many times do we wish we could turn back the hands of time and do things differently? Maybe Shakyamuni was able to go back in time in order to convert and teach the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, something he had not yet even started to do when he was born on earth 2,500 years ago.

Only then would the part I highlighted in yellow (above, from the Lotus Sutra) make any sense. The Lotus Sutra speaks of even unenlightened bodhisattvas having the ability to expand and compress time – to make a kapla seem like a day, or make a day seem like a kalpa. I guess the meaning of the word “seem” would be a good place to start our meditation on this possibility.

On practice and impatience

What's so odd about the Bodhisattvas of the Earth isn't their appearance – it's how quickly they are ignored! After chapter 15, in which the BOTE are introduced, chapter 16 does not mention them even once! And they are scarcely mentioned at all thereafter. In fact, this question somewhat humorously occurred to me: Did any (or all!) of the trillions of buddhas present when the BOTE made their appearance – all emanations of Shakyamuni – also have their own groups of BOTE they'd taught and converted? And if they did, were those emanations of the BOTE Shakyamuni introduced to us in Chapter 15?

Given how suddenly Shakyamuni Buddha drops the subject of the BOTE, it occurs to me that they don't really matter. What does matter are the two major concepts presented in chapter 16: Shakyamuni's “lengthy practice” and the amazing duration of his life span.

Meanwhile, we're stuck here in this modern world, trying to think of ways to save human beings and attract them to the practice of Buddhism. It seems rather pointless to reflect on the BOTE and how, or if, they fit into how we go about preaching the Law to a world which so desperately needs salvation. The Lotus Sutra speaks so matter-of-factly of periods of time that boggle the imagination. As if we have all the time in the world to convert and save human beings in a world that seems to be rushing toward disaster.

This sense of pending disaster disturbs the tranquility of my mind. But I have to keep reminding myself of the importance of tranquility – that without it, we cannot become enlightened. For encouragement in this area, I look to the last four lines of chapter 16:

     At all times I think to myself:

     How can I cause living beings

     to gain entry into the unsurpassed way

     and quickly acquire the body of a buddha?

[Side Note: the highlight says living beings; it doesn't say “people.”]

The Buddha can “think to [him]self” without losing his tranquility. But I only become agitated with impatience. Then I start to think of others who are impatient – such as the partisans on both sides of the Ukrainian divide. There are, for example, Russian-speaking natives of Ukraine who are willing to do Vladimir Putin's bidding in the name of reclaiming the glory of Mother Russia. Or at least to contain or even reverse subtle and relentless CIA plots against Russian influence in that part of the world.

So many hotblooded patriots out there. So few Seekers of the Way to whom Truth is a glorious god to be served, and to whom efforts to relieve the suffering of others assume paramount importance.

For my own part? All I can do is continue to recite the Lotus Sutra, to meditate as the Lotus Sutra guides me, and to share my thoughts on this blog. Oh, and to pray for inspiration on how to attract and guide living beings so they too will become Seekers of the Way.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc @ yahoo.com

Footnote:

Lotus Sutra* - In today's post, all of my citations from this highly-esteemed text of Mahayana Buddhism come from the version translated into English by Burton Watson, and published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009, bearing the title:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras

"Excuse me, Buddha, but..."

On page 109 of the Lotus Sutra*, Shakyamuni Buddha says:

I am the Dharma king,

free to do as I will with the Law.

My response is: “Except violate it.” Would I actually say such a thing, were I fortunate enough to be in the presence of the World-Honored One? You bet. In fact, I believe the Buddha would have welcomed such a response since he wouldn't have had any use for sissies who just go along without questioning.

The Three Treasures of Buddhism

Buddhists are supposed to take refuge in the three treasures, which are, generally speaking:

• The Buddha

• The Law

• The Buddhist Order

The Nichiren Shoshu Temple agrees with the first two, substituting this for the third: the Treasure of the Priest or, more broadly speaking, the Treasure of the Nichiren Shoshu Temple's Priesthood. How crass, in light of these words from page 201 as spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha:

QUOTE:

Medicine King, if there should be an evil person who, his mind destitute of goodness, should for the space of a kalpa appear in the presence of the Buddha and constantly curse and revile the Buddha, that person's offense would still be rather light. But if there were a person who spoke only one evil word to curse or defame the lay persons or monks or nuns who read and recite the Lotus Sutra, then his offense would be very grave.

Medicine King, these people who read and recite the Lotus Sutra – you should understand that these people adorn themselves with the adornments of the Buddha; they are borne upon the shoulders of the thus come one.

:UNQUOTE.

I am such a lay person, who highlighted “lay persons” above in yellow. The passage doesn't say, “...or defame the priests who read and recite the Lotus Sutra...” So I take exception to being excluded as one of the treasures of Buddhism by this Temple. I have recited the Lotus Sutra well over 150 times, that being a central feature of my practice. As for that – if I heard of someone who read this text “well over 150 times,” I would seek him out and question him. So far, the world hasn't come beating a path to my door. Which is okay but I don't mind saying, I find the silence deafening.

The One Treasure of Buddhism

In both lists of the Three Treasures cited above, the Buddha appears at the top. In my personal list, I consider the Law (aka Dharma) to be of primary importance. There are times when there is no Buddha in the world. But there are never times when there is no Law in the world. I know the Buddha had spoken of risks that the Law would perish. But I'm sure he said that to spur the Buddhist Order into action.

Chapter 7 speaks of the time when the buddha Great Universal Wisdom Excellence attained buddhahood. That was at a time when there wasn't a single Buddha present in the entire universe. But that should not have been a source of undue concern, since the Lotus Sutra speaks of buddhas who have “passed into extinction” - that is, who exert an influence though not manifesting a material form.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc @ yahoo.com

Footnote:

Lotus Sutra* - In today's post, all of my citations from this highly-esteemed text of Mahayana Buddhism come from the version translated into English by Burton Watson, and published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009, bearing the title:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras

Time to establish a new sect of Buddhism?

Introduction

I am about to quote a section of the Lotus Sutra* which has bothered me for a long time. No, strike that: replace “bothered” with “stimulated.” I admit, though, at first I was immensely bothered. I'm going to seriously suggest that a new sect of Buddhism could be based on the difference between the words I highlight below.

QUOTE:

At that time the Buddha spoke to the bodhisattvas and all the great assembly: “Good men, you must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” And again he said to the great assembly: “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” And once more he said to the great assembly: “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.”

At that time the bodhisattvas and the great assembly, with Maitreya as their leader, pressed their palms together and addressed the Buddha, saying: “World-Honored One, we beg you to explain. We will believe and accept the Buddha's words.” They spoke in this manner three times, and then said once more: “We beg you to explain it. We will believe and accept the Buddha's words.”

:UNQUOTE.

When I first read these words, I was astounded. The Buddha said, “you must believe and understand,” but the disciples responded with “We will believe and accept.” What gives? And these weren't just any disciples. Page 231 refers to “eight hundred thousand million nayutas of bodhisattvas mahasattva. These bodhisattvas had all reached the level of non-regression, turned the unregressing wheel of the Law, and had gained dharanis.” Not to mention, they were in the presence of the Buddha – and none of these attributes describes me in the least.

So who am I to even suggest the possibility of creating a new sect? Upon what authority do I speak? Answer: I have no authority and am probably the least impressive person you could ever meet. But the Buddha warned of being overly concerned with appearances, so I have no qualms about lacking credentials and appearance in order to make my dharma offering.

I will now turn the focus of questioning from me to these disciples. Who were they – even in all their profound majesty – to substitute the word “accept” for “understand?” I'm tempted to assume they didn't – that somehow the Lotus Sutra had been hijacked with an intentional word-substitution inserted to confuse future generations of Seekers of the Way. However, the insistence by the Buddha that “Belief and Understanding” are of paramount importance can be supported by the title of the Lotus Sutra's fourth chapter. You guessed it - “Belief and Understanding.”

Perhaps these disciples were bothered by the possibility that they would not be able to “understand.” Maybe they really thought it sufficient to vow to “believe and accept.” Maybe they thought understanding wasn't really possible for them. But that's hard to believe in light of what the Buddha had said earlier – on page 135: “Those who have not yet crossed over I will cause to cross over, those who have not yet understood I will cause to understand...” Therefore? The disciples need not have worried about any inability to understand, since the Buddha himself had told them earlier that he “will cause [them] to understand.”

My proposal

If a group of Buddhists should meet, they might want to consider randomly choosing one of their number to assume the role of the Buddha by stating three times, “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” Then the other members of the group will respond by saying, four times, “We beg you to explain it. We will believe and understand the Buddha's words.”

Now, having said this, am I really proposing that anyone create a new sect based on this exchange? Or am I suggesting that disciples might privately – out of earshot of their sect's hierarchy – try this approach just once? If you are a Buddhist, I won't suggest you do anything at all. [You already know what to do.] I've laid my cards on the table, spoken my piece, and have no desire to personally found such a new sect. As I've often told friends, “I'm a member of a Buddhist sect that has one member and one leader – me, in both cases – and I'm not recruiting.”

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Post-script

I knowingly violated the Soka Gakkai's copyright which states:

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Soka Gakkai.

I used their material in this blog post without even trying to obtain their permission. But they know better than to try to make a big deal out of that. I've attempted to engage the Soka Gakkai in debate over a wide range of doctrinal issues, but to no avail. The worst thing they could do would be to sue me for copyright infringement, thereby offering me a possible platform to challenge their views. A platform I don't currently enjoy.

It's true what is often repeated: Silence is golden. The Soka Gakkai will ignore my challenge.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc @ yahoo.com

Footnote:

Lotus Sutra* - In today's post, all of my citations from this highly-esteemed text of Mahayana Buddhism come from the version translated into English by Burton Watson, and published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009, bearing the title:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras

Judy-ism v. Judaism

My war as a Buddhist against the Abrahamists

Today's piece is more than a whimsical riff based on a pun, Judy-ism v. Judaism. In my text, I hope to reveal certain rather large grains of truth. I don't, however, want anyone concluding I'm anti-Semitic. My objections are always based on faith, not on ethnicity. I am a Buddhist who is at war with all of the Abrahamic faiths.

And “war” is not too strong a word. I firmly believe that most, if not all, of the world's problems stem from the mind and actions of the Patriarch Abraham, who was a profoundly mentally-disturbed man. Any serious pondering on the source of most of our most terrible wars – the Middle East, the so-called Holy Land – should be enough to convince you of this much.

For now, though, I focus on the differences between Judaism and Judy-ism. But...I won't be able to resist going off-topic by critiquing Judge Judy.

In the Beginning

One thing I want to make clear: The word “Judy-ism” is one I apply only to the form of Judaism which is responsible for the anti-Palestinian policies emanating from the government of Israel. I am aware that not all Jews from all sects approve of those policies – and more power to them. But it's Judy-ism that oppresses the Jews' half-brother, the Palestinian (same father, Abraham; different mothers, Hagar and Sarah). And by doing so, such Jews violate the Lord's commandment to “love the stranger.” If they can't even love their half-brother, how could they possibly love the stranger?

As it turns out, they love only themselves and their kind. And for that reason, Israel will never become a light unto all nations. At least, not until enough Jews reject Judy-ism and start reconnecting to the love that created this world.

All things have origins. My use of the word “Judy-ism” started with this fairly recent posting of mine on an internet site:

QUOTE:

Seeking a brand of Nationalism is unbecoming for any religion. But Judaism has degenerated so badly from its connection to Allah*...that it should be called Judy-ism instead. As in Punch and Judy*. Meaning: Not a whole lot going on that's sophisticated, but good for a laugh.

The Jews will not become a light among the nations – they're too petty and self-absorbed with their tribalism to rise so nobly. ... Nationalism is the single greatest threat to world peace, bar none. And the Zionists will do nothing about that.

:UNQUOTE.

I posted this quote with the primary goal of trying to inspire the more open-minded among the Jews to think of ways to move their more knee-jerking fellow tribesmen onto the path of righteousness. And that can only happen if these wayward fellow tribesmen do more than just observe rituals and pass down from father to son the distorted worldview they accept as gospel.

Briefly: Punch and Judy are a married couple with a baby. Punch – as the name indicates – is a very violent man. But his wife Judy can more than capably wield the slapstick as the occasion demands. All of this is played for laughs. As a metaphor, I admit deriving “Judy-ism” from Punch and Judy is weak, since the overall theme seems to suggest “Humorous Violence-ism.” But I had to start somewhere.

This is where Judge Judy comes in

Israel's most important sponsor is the USA. Therefore, I thought it better to conjure up a more relevant (not to mention, accurate) icon than the Judy of Punch and Judy, which isn't that well known here. So I came up with Judge Judy as the face and behavior of Judy-ism as I envision it.

It's not enough to say Judge Judy is a TV icon who wears the robe of a judge, calls herself a judge, has a bailiff who introduces each “case” as “case number [e.g., 567]” as in a real courtroom, and works 5 days per month in the capacity – not of a judge but of an arbitrator. If you're unfamiliar with Judge Judy, this link will help, although seeing is not only believing, it's crucial to the image I'm trying to convey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idcvCPN20Jo

There are many such YouTube links, accessible by googling “YouTube Judge Judy” - so take your pick. In any event, it will be easy to see, especially with the background material I quote below, that Judge Judy is a colossal fraud who is not about justice but is mostly about money and self-glorification.

The name Judith simply means “woman from Judea” in Hebrew. “Judith” was later rendered informally/familiarly as “Judy.” And you know what they say about familiarity breeding contempt. And that's true in this case, the more you read about this very strange “judge.” To me, she's the perfect personification of Judy-ism as I apply that word to the religion as practiced by the Zionist forces that dominate Israeli politics today.

QUOTE:

[SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy ]

[Joseph] Wapner, who presided over The People's Court from 1981 to 1993, is a long-time critic of Sheindlin. ...stating "She is not portraying a judge as I view a judge should act. Judge Judy is discourteous, and she's abrasive. She's not slightly insulting. She's insulting in capital letters."

Judge Judy replied through her publicist, stating, "I refuse to engage in similar mud slinging. I don't know where or by whom Judge Wapner was raised. But my parents taught me when you don't have something nice to say about someone, say nothing. Clearly, Judge Wapner was absent on the day that lesson was taught."

[Here I interrupt this QUOTE. The sentence I highlighted above in yellow is a laugher. Judy's parents might have taught her that lesson, but that never stopped her from calling plaintiffs/defendants “stupid,” etc.]

Since then, Wapner has stated, "She is a disgrace to the profession. She does things I don't think a judge should do. She tells people to shut up. She's rude. She's arrogant. She demeans people. If she does this on purpose, then that's even worse. Judges need to observe certain standards of conduct. She just doesn't do it and I resent that. The public is apt to gain the impression that this is how actual judges conduct themselves. It says 'judge' on the nameplate on the bench and she's wearing a robe."[111]

Sheindlin has since stated, "As a young person, when I had watched The People's Court . . . I said you know what, I could do that. And at least as well because while Joe Wapner is a very good judge, he didn't have much of a sense of humor. And I always knew from a very practical perspective that you have to marry those two things in order to be successful in entertainment."[26]

:UNQUOTE.

Well, at least she's being honest in that last sentence, “...in order to be successful in entertainment,” although one is left wondering how much justice gets served. Her gravest injustice is conveying her set-up as a real courtroom. Isn't there some commission on judicial ethics that could be persuaded to force a voiceover disclaimer on this show, saying, “This is not in any way a real courtroom. What you are about to see is an arbitration in which both parties as well as the courtroom's spectators are paid as are, in most cases, the judgments by the producers of this show.” I would call that “truth in packaging” - as if anyone cares about the truth any more.

Then we have this from an interview in the New York Times:

QUOTE*:

I don’t know if people understand how successful you are. You make $45 million a year, which almost equals the salaries of Jay Leno and David Letterman combined.

Without divulging fiscal information, I will tell you that it’s very gratifying to be rewarded for the work that you do, and syndicated television is a rich genre.

You also have a great schedule — you work only five days a month. That’s about $865,000 a day. Does hearing it put that way embarrass you, or does it make you proud?

[I interrrupt this QUOTE to offer what should have been Judge Judy's response: “That's how much the system is willing to pay me and if you don't like it – fuck you very much!”]

I don’t know how to answer. It’s not a question of how much I make. It’s how much income my program generates. It’s just like tuna fish on toast — if I owned a luncheonette and somebody who worked really hard for me saw at the end of the day my profit from making a tuna fish on toast was $1.50, they would want half the profits from that tuna fish sandwich.

:UNQUOTE.

As for that last sentence, they should not really expect “half the profits,” since they didn't vest any risk in this enterprise. Besides, I'm sure that such an employee could be easily replaced by someone else who is equally as hard working. Sure, Judge Judy has a following but I would hardly call her hard-working or even just.

The only way Judy-ism can work (in “Judge” Sheindlin's “courtroom” as well as in the State of Israel) is for the larger law to be excluded and for those practitioners to become a law unto themselves. Judge Judy does this by allowing contestants to appear on her show only by accepting her verdicts as final – no appeals. Israel does this by attrition – slowly, surely, step-by-step, with no regard for international law, except when convenient.

Judge Judy-ism

So, there we have it: Someone gets paid $45 million per year to trash one of our bedrock institutions – the court system – and gets us to laugh about that. I'm sure there must be multitudes of terrorists out there who would be more than willing to blow themselves up to accomplish what she so easily manages to get paid for doing.

It takes a certain amount of cynicism to do what Judge Judy does in a “courtroom.” It takes a certain amount of cynicism to do what the Jews who practice Judy-ism are doing in Israel.

Are they doing this for laughs, like Judge Judy? Of course – people who think they're better than anybody else – for God knows what reason – like to toy with lesser beings for amusement.

Do they do it for money? Certainly, for if the Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem can be arranged, then Jews from other parts of the world who were too afraid to settle in Israel would come flocking in with tons of money available for investment.

Do they do it for glory? That too – nothing feels better than to be a David who overcomes a Goliath. After the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are annexed, the glory seekers will be emboldened to go after the rest of the land Israel feels God bestowed upon them. That includes parts of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – up to the Nile River. Sound far-fetched? Not if you feel you're on a winning streak, that God is on your side (again), and you've got nuclear weapons. Those kinds of advantages are enough to lead many people astray, to do things which their compassionate hearts wouldn't normally consider.

Two ironies worthy of note

Traditional Judaism maintains that a boy becomes a man at the age of 13. That, of course, is nonsense. That really serves as an excuse for the newly-minted young men to be dominated more fiercely by the menfolk of the community. After being declared “men,” they are weaned away from the influence of their mothers. Which I find to be ironic since the very source that defines Jewishness (aside from those few who seek conversion) is being born of a Jewish mother. But it seems to me to be the epitome of cynicism to take that young “man” away from his mother so he can be forged into an image that would meet the approval of the patriarchs.

And make no mistake about intentions here: Being forced to serve in the military further amplifies this macho ethic, which despises the softer, gentler, more compassionate possibilities that women often bring to the table. And I'm sure, deep down inside, such cynical patriarchs wouldn't mind – at least privately – being called practitioners of Judy-ism. That is, they can do as they please and have the world blame it on the woman, as implied by the word “Judy-ism” itself.

The second irony is this: If the roles were reversed – with Jews living under oppression in the Occupied Territories and Palestinians living in power in Israel, I'm sure there would be Jews radical enough to become suicide bombers themselves. When a people feel they have no other weapons, they find it too easy to set aside religious scruples by blowing up themselves and others. That instinct seems all-too-universal to me.

Conclusion

This is probably one of the most provocative pieces I've posted on this blog. Yes, it is extreme. So I encourage this attitude among my readers who might take offense: Whenever you encounter something new, take from it what is good and leave the rest behind. I'm sure, if you have an open enough mind, there will be at least something that is good and worthy of being prayed upon. And acted upon.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and

former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

Allah* - since the Jews and the Muslims both purport to worship the same monotheistic God, the Jews couldn't possibly object to the idea of a Jew worshiping Allah. Nor could Muslims possibly object to a Muslim worshiping Yahweh.

Punch and Judy* - If you don't know what a Punch and Judy show is, this link will help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy

QUOTE* - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/judge-judy-has-her-day-in-court.html?_r=0