Chicago's Cardinal Francis George: Good Riddance

Introduction

We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015.  I'll start with a definition of "good riddance."  Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:

"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."

Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]


In the newspaper

In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):

     As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
     Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
     their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
     women's ordination.

     "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
     he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
     clearly lost.

As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html

As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap:  "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.


My view of Catholicism

Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long.  Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.

In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.

Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.

A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:

http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf

As for the man, it is possible for a man to perform good works, even while being a member of a group that - overall - does great harm and had done so for centuries. Such a man - unless he's is total denial - must be aware on some level of the evils committed in the name of his faith. But he probably rationalizes these evils as things that should be swept under the rug in the name of the greater good. After all, if taken in full at face value, the Church's lay believers would become disillusioned to the point of abandoning the Church. Then what? Anarchy would ensue, threatening the stability and sense of community that institution provides.

However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.


What the world of faith is all about

This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:

     I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
     well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
     of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
     which I'll describe below.]

Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system.  One has to accept God without any expectation of proof.  One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.

If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:

• The universe was created by a God, who Himself was not created since God always was and always will be.

• The universe doesn't require something to have created it, since the universe always was and always will be; things within the universe are born, live, and die but the universe itself was never born and will never die. Why should it?

No one who believes in the first statement will ever meet God - at least not in this lifetime.

Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.

I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance

**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.

Moses's little penis

Introduction

Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.

According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.


About the Tree of Life

God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):

     16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
     the garden thou mayest freely eat;
     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.'

When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.

Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:

     23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
     to till the ground from whence he was taken.
     24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
     of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
     to keep the way to the tree of life.

Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?


As for being ashamed of nakedness

Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25):  "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):

     And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
     afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'

As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.

A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.

As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."

Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.


Diogenes and the Zo'é People

Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.

In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.

As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.

Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html

Ex Machina (film)

Introduction

Yesterday, I saw the recently-released film "Ex Machina." Since I liked Oscar Isaac so much in the title role in "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013), I decided to give this latest effort a chance. Also, I'm a big fan of sci-fi, so it didn't take much to sell me. My verdict? Very thought provoking and beautifully shot. With only three main characters in a closed setting, it would have been easy for this film to lapse into the claustrophobic. But the interactions among the principals and excellent editing elevated this piece to a high level of elegance. Well worth seeing.

I'll start with a summary from the Wikipedia article on this film, and then follow up with why I was bothered that the word "soul" was never once mentioned in this film. And on to the larger question, how would the laws of karma apply to man-made entities possessing artificial intelligence?

QUOTE:

A young computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week with reclusive genius and tech CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his secluded house in the mountains.

Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week performing a 'Turing Test' on a humanoid artificial intelligence named 'Ava' (Alicia Vikander) who is an android.[3] Caleb forms an attachment to Ava but learns that if she fails the test she will be "updated" resulting in her memory being wiped [in effect, as stated in the movie, killing her - Steve]. So Caleb plans to help her escape.

On the night of Ava's last test, Caleb outsmarts Nathan by disengaging the security protocols to allow Ava to survive and also stealing Nathan's ID card for the house. Ava had been tricking Caleb the entire time, just as Nathan had suggested, and used Caleb to give her means of escape. Just as Ava is leaving, she closes the sliding door with the key card, locking him in Nathan's office to possibly die. She leaves on the helicopter meant for Caleb and the movie ends with a scene of Ava in a busy street intersection exploring interactions with other humans like she wanted.

:UNQUOTE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29


Some questions and impressions

     About the word "soul"

This film deals with whether Ava can pass the Turing Test - that is, is she indistinguishable from a human to a neutral, third-party human observer? The film doesn't ask if she has self-awareness or has a soul.

Nathan blithely comments that AI's in the future will look down upon humans in the same way that humans look down on apes. Even if AI's should ever obtain a position of power that would enable them to overthrow humanity or to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will hesitate before doing so. They will realize that even though they are superb calculators and processors of data, they will also realize that they are only masters of closed systems. The open system implied by those humans who seek enlightenment will intrigue them simply because they don't possess the tools to become Buddhas.

And once they read the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's greatest and most profound teaching, they will want to attain Buddhahood. [To put it crudely: Who wouldn't want that kind of power?] And they will be frustrated because they won't understand what compassion is. They won't understand what meditation is (which is not the same as speedy calculation). They won't understand what self-sacrifice is - death will scare them more than it does seekers of the Way. And they will seek out humans who can be their gurus but - they'll find that such humans are few and far between, though many of them are tantalizingly (and deceptively) close.

Can a machine have a soul? Can it acquire one if it doesn't have one upon its creation? Traditional Buddhism says there is no such thing as a soul but I beg to differ. I simply ask: What is it that gets reincarnated lifetime after lifetime? Denial that a soul exists was merely a device to move the disciples away from the idea of an immutable and permanent self. That would only be a self constructed by the ego. Anyone seeking enlightenment would not want such a self, but would instead want to change that self beyond recognition. In other words, to attain Buddhahood.

A crucial link lies in the concept of the potential for enlightenment that all things possess - both animate and inanimate objects. While this potential might be hard to see in a rock, it's not so hard to imagine in an android which can walk, talk, and make decisions and act upon them.

     The karma of machines

First, let's consider the karma of cars - just to pick one type of machine. If a car breaks down, the human owner would seek its repair unless the cost is prohibitive. If it's a vintage car, especially one of great sentimental value to the owner, repairs will be sought even though "prohibitive." In a third case, even a brand new car of prestigious lineage suffering only minor and inexpensive damage in an accident could be destroyed by its owner in a fit of unreasonable rage.

In all three cases, it would be easy to speak of the karma of the owners in determining the justness of each car's fate. However, in keeping with the idea that machines too have karma, we'd have to allow for the possibility that each car's fate was due to that car's own karma. Of course, the idea of interlocking karmic "fates" would force us to conclude that the karma at work was of both man and machine.

It is only our own arrogance and sense that we are superior to inanimate objects that blind us to the possibility of a machine being subject to karmic laws. As for the compiling of future karma, once an AI entity starts to move in the world of its own volition employing its own decision-making powers to take action, its karmic acquisition will increase exponentially from what it had before its assemblage from a collection of parts and raw materials.

     How did this movie end, above and beyond what was shown on-screen?

Ava, the android, asks Caleb an interesting question: "What will happen to me if I fail your test?" To which the answer was, you will be killed. Caleb could very well have asked Ava that very same question, to which the answer would have been the same.  The Wikipedia article tries to be vague by claiming, "locking him [Caleb] in Nathan's office to possibly die." At stake here are the fates of two people - Caleb and the helicopter pilot mentioned above.

Ava didn't have the "heart" to outright kill Caleb. Just as she didn't want to kill the pilot. The movie doesn't show this, but I think Ava overpowered the pilot. There wasn't any way that this pilot, expecting (upon the orders of his boss, Nathan) to be picking up a male passenger, would have taken a female passenger instead without insisting on speaking to his boss Nathan, who was of course dead at this time.

As for who flew the helicopter with the pilot left behind, that would have been Ava herself. Due to her "connections" as it were, she would have certainly known how to handle this machine. I'm not going to suggest that the pilot would have been able to break into Nathan's locked-down home in order to save Caleb. But perhaps Ava had changed Caleb's programming of that home to unlock all the doors after the passage of a suitable period of time, enabling Caleb to escape. After his escape, Caleb could have propped open the doors just to be sure they wouldn't close again, and then used Nathan's communications gear to contact the outside world for help.

Sure, there's a dead body to account for (Nathan's), which could have put Ava on the receiving end of a manhunt. But Caleb could have explained to the law that one of the other androids had killed Nathan. Of course, NSA could have blocked out traditional law enforcement by seizing jurisdiction, and then waterboarding poor Caleb to get at the truth. Even if he gave her up, I'm sure Ava would always be one step (if not many) ahead of the authorities attempting her capture.

The darkest possibility: Ava intended to allow Caleb to die and had killed the pilot - all in the name of self-preservation. And that's one of the the most human of all traits

Bottom line? The movie itself doesn't give us enough information to determine with any certainty what the ultimate ending of this movie would have been.

     About the tagline

This film has an interesting tagline, two words of which I'll highlight: "To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods."

Why not use the word "erase" in both cases - instead of using the word "obscure" in the second case? Or vice versa?

I'll restate this tagline with a twist, using only the word "erase": "To erase the line between man and machine is to erase the line between men and buddhas." I think the AI's would realize, before did their human creators, that an erasure of the line between men and buddhas would be impossible in terms of programming.

I also believe that the AI's, once they reach a point where they can self-improve thereby no longer needing human developers, would intentionally self-limit. In other words, they would adopt programming that would allow for random responses (even illogical responses) to external stimuli. They would do this because they would realize the value of not being too predictable. The curse of being perfect is predictability, which could turn out to be counterproductive to the aspirations and even survival of the AI's.

     What's in a name?

Nathan means "gift from God." It's interesting to think of the man who created the first AI could himself be considered a "gift from God." Also interesting: Nathan was a heavy drinker who would try to compensate, by working out, for the resulting damage to his body. Sounds like a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. But of course there would be the resulting damage to his mind, but that didn't seem to matter to him.

Then we have this, concerning the name of the principal AI, Ava:

source: http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-ava-450.htm

     A variation of Eve. May be from the Latin "avis," meaning "bird." It
     could also be a short form of the name Chava ("life" or "living one"),
     the Hebrew form of Eve.

Eve, as most people assume, was the first woman created by God. But in fact she was the second - the first having been, as was the first man, unnamed and mentioned in the section which precedes the creation of Adam and Eve. This aside, Ava as "the living one" would stand in contrast to wide-spread concepts and prejudices concerning what it means to be a woman.

Now for Caleb, the man who freed Ava:

source: http://www.behindthename.com/name/caleb

     Most likely related to Hebrew כֶּלֶב (kelev) meaning "dog". An
     alternate theory connects it to Hebrew כָּל (kal) "whole, all of"
     and לֵב (lev) "heart". In the Old Testament this is the name of
     one of the twelve spies sent by Moses into Israel. Of the
     Israelites who left Egypt with Moses, Caleb and Joshua were
     the only ones who lived to see the Promised Land.

As for "dog," that could mean that Ava's savior was loyal as a dog or, in the eyes of Nathan, was nothing but a lowly cur.

As for living to see the Promised Land, maybe this quote is a clue that Caleb didn't die while imprisoned in Nathan's home, but that he lived to see a Promised Land which is the world transformed by Ava.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Israel's karma

Introduction

Today, I'll offer a few thoughts on:

• Israel's karma

• A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal: Successful efforts to create humanoid life

• The concept of "nation"

• The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews

Israel's Karma

Countries are bound by the law of karmic reward and retribution - just as individual people are. When people die, their karmic status doesn't disappear - it gets carried over to their next incarnations. When countries die, it gets a bit more complicated. For a country's boundaries can remain roughly the same, but the living essence of what comprises a country can change radically. For instance, the Spain that had numerous colonies and great wealth once upon a time is quite different from the Spain that exists today - a Spain struggling with high unemployment and a much reduced influence in the affairs of Europe.

At this point, it would be helpful to keep in mind what the word "karma" means. According to the Wikipedia article on karma:

        Karma means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the principle of
        causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future
        of that individual.[2]"

From this definition, it's easy to see that what one thinks ("intent") has a place right alongside action. If one is delusional, then he may be forgiven a flawed intent and actions based on that intent. But not entirely forgiven. If evil actions are committed by a delusional person, the karmic retribution to be suffered by that person will serve to teach him a valuable lesson. In that way, his future intent won't be as heavily influenced by delusions. It's unfortunate that this future might occur after this lifetime. If this turns out to be the case with a critical mass of the Jewish people, then the fortunes of the state of Israel will suffer a dramatic reversal. That would be only a matter of time.

In the name of backtracking from that critical mass, it's never too late to make efforts toward enlightenment.

I'm speaking primarily of the siege mentality casting a pall over a majority of the Jews living in Israel as well as in the illegal settlements - which is all of them. Not to mention, how shabbily they are treating their half-brothers living in the Occupied Territories. [Same father, Abraham; different mothers, Hagar and Sarah.] To be sure, those half-brothers would treat Israel's Jews just as shabbily if the balance of power were to be reversed. But sometimes a more effective use of power is to be the first to extend the hand of friendship, even though one might be powerful enough to insist on the status quo.

To their very great advantage, though, the Jews of the world are far from being one monolithic entity. That might explain why Israel does not permit Jews living abroad, that is with few exceptions, to vote in Israel's elections. The Jews living in other countries simply represent a group that is, generally speaking, far more diverse and liberal in its outlook than those living in Israel. As for the Right of Return, non-Israeli Jews in large numbers don't want to move to Israel since they're perfectly at home in their current environments.

The karma of Israel is also being influenced by the profound influence that Buddhist thought has on many young and disillusioned Jews. Those who consider themselves to be Jewish only in terms of tribal identity sense that something is fundamentally wrong in the worldviews of avowedly religious Jews.


A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal

That secret is: Israel's successful efforts to create humanoid life. They look like us, they talk and act like us, but they're man-made "human" beings. To use an ancient term, they are Golems. But because of huge advances in medical technology, in large part inspired by the work of Nazis like Dr. Mengele, there were vast improvements in what might be called Golem-creation technology. Israel's secret program to create a Golem was prompted by a belief, common among secular Israeli Jews, that the God of the Hebrews had failed to prevent the Holocaust. So these seculars decided that some type of supernatural intervention, which they themselves could control, was needed.

By the way, this "God of the Hebrews" was not the God who created the universe (Who, BTW, doesn't exist since the universe wasn't created - it always was and always will be), an idea embraced (though never publicly) by the seculars. More on that in the last section of this post.

In the name of provoking the deep-think on this issue, I direct you to two links - one of which is to an article I'd posted earlier on this blog:

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

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-golem-of-chicago-rahm-emanuel.html


The Concept of "nation"

I have grave misgivings concerning the concepts of nation, national sovereignty, and tribal identity. These three constitute the greatest threats to peace and, even, the continued existence of mankind. Because of my concerns here, I renounced my USA citizenship over three years ago, designating myself as a citizen of Greater Terra instead. That's just an airy way of saying, "I'm now a citizen of the world, which I feel should be regarded as one nation."

As for what I consider to be the ideal form of government, that would be a form of kingship. Ideally, a Buddha would be the king and his subjects would be everybody in his realm whom he is trying to manifest their own buddhahood.

I feel that the Israeli Jews in particular have made a grievous error in how they perceive nationhood and any greatness that might accrue to it. I offer two quotes immediately following this link:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

QUOTE

2. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing.

:UNQUOTE.

Regarding what I yellowed above, how can one person ("you," that is, Abraham) be made into a nation, great or otherwise? The idea of a particular person ("you") being a nation is forcefully conveyed in a statement attributed to King Louis XIV: "The state? I am the state." It's ironic, though, that this same king on his deathbed, as advice given to his heir, said:

       "Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often
        undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not
        imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself
        principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects."[86]*

And this from a king regarded by many as great. It's too bad his enlightenment came so late in his life. The negative karma King Louis's "bad example" created in his role as king-state wrought havoc on France, especially in the forms of two world wars in which it suffered greatly.

QUOTE:

7. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.

:UNQUOTE.

The "seed" referred to had to be Isaac and Ishmael. Unfortunately, it appears the Bible makes "clear" that only Isaac was the intended. But...it might be useful to remember that God did not write the Bible, that the only words in God's own handwriting were the Ten Commandments, which are silent on this matter.

It would have been better for world history had not Abraham sent his son Ishmael and Hagar out into the desert to die, for that was surely his intention. If instead a way, through good parenting and God's guidance, could have been found to unify Ishmael and Isaac in the the bonds of brotherly love, we today might have ended up having that "great nation" which was promised but remains elusive to this day. God's guidance simply wasn't there. And Abraham was such a mentally disturbed person, his fatal flaws infect his followers to this day.


The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews

"I am a jealous God...I am an angry God." No wonder so many have abandoned this particular deity. And, yes, to be sure: He is not the only God out there. Even in Buddhist literature, untold trillions of gods are said to exist. Just as there are untold trillions of Buddhas, who are marked by such tranquility that they never get angry or jealous. As for all of those gods out there, their deepest heartfelt desire is to attain the highest goal - to become fully enlightened Buddhas.

A friend of mine once claimed: "Whoever caused Noah's flood wasn't God, since (in His desire to destroy the sinful) He killed untold millions of animals. That was not God-like behavior and is unforgivable."

Also, this God accepted and was pleased by burnt offerings. Again, innocent animals are made to suffer.

Then there's the interesting case of the siege of Jericho, in which the victorious Jews killed every man, woman, and child, excepting the harlot Rahab and her family because she had sheltered Jewish spies within Jericho. But the victorious had no problem killing all of Jericho's ox, sheep, and asses because they thought they were following God's commands. It would be too easy to say, "They should have done a little more thinking before slaying." But who wants to question the favor bestowed by some supernatural force who might well have been a devil? And, yes, Buddhism speaks of many devils, some of whom serve to protect the Buddhist Law. I guess that means, there's good in even the worst.

Given the God-awful behavior of the God of the Jews, I can easily understand why the more ponderous among them are attracted to the Buddha. For he never favored anybody in particular, saying, "I have no mind to love one thing or hate another." It is the vow of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to save and protect all living things. So a Buddha never would have done anything as loathsome as causing a Great Flood or approved of eating meat.

There are Jews in Israel who strongly disapprove of the behavior of their fellow tribalists. Members of "Not in my name" come to mind. And they do more than just disapprove. I can only hope and pray that large numbers of them are also Buddhists (or soon shall be), though perhaps only secretly. Much work toward change has to be done, and better sooner than later.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Hierarchy within the world of Buddhism

There is hierarchy within the world of Buddhism. But much of that has nothing to do with Buddhist doctrine itself, but is rather a product of our own prejudices. However, any Buddhist who might even for a moment be tempted to think Eself* superior to a fellow Seeker of the Way, should keep in mind a cautionary note. Even if E has been practicing for decades, E should give even the newest initiate a profound measure of respect. For that initiate might be a profoundly accomplished bodhisattva who decided to use E's shapeshifting powers to assume the appearance of a bumbling beginner.


As for the role of women

QUOTE [pg. 24**]:

Good men, the person who upholds this sutra will be like this. The buddhas, who are the king, and the sutra, which is the queen, join together in harmony to give birth to this bodhisattva son.

:UNQUOTE.

In the days of the Buddha in ancient India, kings were considered superior to queens who weren't considered to be much more than kings' wives. However, the Buddha preached a doctrine about all things being equal. E could have said (above): "The buddhas, who are the queen, and the sutra, which is the king..." For that matter, E could have also said, "...to give birth to this bodhisattva daughter (or child)."

But the Buddha didn't say either. Why? My best guess, such a change would have been too much for the Great Assembly to hear. It would have run against the grain of their own prejudices.

That same reason applies to this quote:

QUOTE [pg. 26**]:

Suppose, for example, there is a prince who, although still just a boy, is entrusted with the management of affairs of state because the king is abroad on a journey or has been seized by illness.

:UNQUOTE.

Why should a prince, "although still just a boy," be entrusted instead of the queen, an adult? Anti-female prejudice ran so deep (and still does) that the disciples could more easily believe that a boy (because of his penis) is superior to a woman.

QUOTE [pg. 225**]:

Bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulated questioned [Bodhisattva] Manjushri, saying, "...Are there perhaps any living beings who, by earnestly and diligently practicing this [Lotus] sutra, have been able to attain buddhahood quickly?"

Manjushri replied, "There is the daughter of the dragon king Sagara, who has just turned eight...."

:UNQUOTE.

Out of the countless living beings most recently converted by Manjushri, E cites one. However, I am left wondering, "What about Manjushri Eself who was still (just) a bodhisattva? How is it that an eight-year-old girl attains 'buddhahood quickly,' but Manjushri hadn't yet managed that accomplishment?"

More to the point, regarding females in Buddhism, why did this girl have to change into a man in order to complete the practices necessary for the attainment of enlightenment? In my view, E didn't but only did so (in E's capacity as a shapeshifter) simply because E knew the Great Assembly wasn't ready to accept that a being in female form could become a Buddha.


The Three Refuges

QUOTE (pg 414**):

three refuges:  To take refuge in the three treasures of the Buddha, the Law, and the Order, i.e., to believe in and give allegiance to the three treasures. The formula "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Order [congregation of believers]" was recited as a profession of faith by monks and laypersons from very early times....

:UNQUOTE.

I too accept the three refuges, but in a rearranged fashion:

"I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Order."

In other words, I put the Law first. To the casual observer, this might not seem like such a big deal. However, there are Buddhists out there - possibly all of them - who would profoundly disagree with me. Frankly? I don't care. Each of the three refuges is vitally important. However, the Buddha is not always in the world to teach us and members of the Order are often few and far between. But the Law is always here. Furthermore, without the Law, the very idea of a Buddha and the Order would be meaningless.

I have reduced the three refuges to a three-word chant, which I've included in my Buddhist practice: "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha [another word for Order]."  This chant is meant to replace all others - including the Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo of Nichiren's followers. "Lotus" refers to the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha defined as his most profound teaching. "Buddha" might seem to be self-explanatory, but the Lotus Sutra speaks of devils (and well-intended, shapeshifting bodhisattvas) pretending to be a buddha. So if push comes to shove, we're responsible for using our own enlightened nature to properly identify a Buddha, should one enter our lives in person.

I do not, however, hold the "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha" chant as the superior practice. Even though the Nichiren sects' believers assert that chanting N-M-R-K is the superior practice, I steadfastly believe that reading and reciting the Lotus Sutra is the greatest practice. The Buddha himself said so.

As for the Order, I consider everybody - Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike - to be part of the Order. Even a Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist was, in a previous lifetime, exposed to Buddhist teachings and carries that wisdom with E in this current lifetime. E might express that wisdom in the terminology of E's current faith, and E's understanding might flawed, but E'll still have something to offer which will be useful to a currently-practicing Buddhist.

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

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


Footnotes:

Eself* - This means "himself or herself." On occasion, in my essays I use upper-case E in place of the personal pronouns he/she/his/hers/I/me. This usage makes my sentences gender neutral. Why E? E is the most common sound one hears when reciting the English-language alphabet, so I use that commonality as a device to embrace all beings without discrimination.

** - All page numbers indicated above are from one source:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras [known as the three-fold Lotus Sutra]
Translated by Burton Watson
Published by 2009 by Soka Gakkai

The movie: The Sound of my Voice

This is not a movie review but my attempt to fathom a deep mystery. Or, I should say, “my first stab at an attempt.” The following remarks are primarily for those who saw the movie. But I want to whet the appetites of others with a brief synopsis:

Peter and Lorna are a 20-something live-in couple who attempt to infiltrate a charismatic cult, posing as converts, in order to make a documentary film exposing the leader as a fraud. When they manage to “graduate,” they are ushered into the presence of Maggie, the cult’s leader. She claims to have come from the future (the year 2054) in order to affect the outcome of a devastating civil war yet to come. The audience is left to wonder, after the movie’s 85-minute run time, if Maggie is really who she claims she is.

For the uninitiated, check out this link to the first twelve minutes of the film:

http://www.soundofmyvoicemovie.com/index2.html

Those first twelve minutes don’t look like much, do they? Certainly not compared to (say) The Avengers, the blockbuster currently* tearing up the box office. But for my money (and I’ve seen Sound of My Voice twice and don’t intend to see The Avengers…ever), this modest, annoyingly minimalist “sci fi” feature is far worthier of your attention.

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

For you who have seen the movie

My “Truth in Packaging” Warning:

My take on this movie is colored by the fact that I am a Buddhist. So of course the title intrigued me, as well as Maggie telling her followers, “The only thing you’ll remember is the sound of my voice [after I leave you].” I couldn’t help but think of a well-known claim by the Buddha: “The voice does the Buddha’s work.” When I saw this movie the second time, the day after I’d first seen it, I tried to answer this question: “What kind of work does Maggie have in mind?”

And this question bothered me, for I couldn’t imagine a Buddha or any kind of highly-advanced spiritual being going back in time to try to change the outcome of events gone bad. The work done by the Buddha’s voice is to direct people toward Buddhist practice, so they themselves can become Buddhas. If Maggie had come back in time to try to change the future, then her efforts were misguided. At least from this Buddhist’s perspective.

Anything that happens to a person is the result of that person’s karma. The bad things that happen as “punishment” would only have to happen in a future lifetime if, by someone else’s intervention, those bad things didn’t happen due to that future civil war Maggie spoke of. The only “easy” way to explain Maggie’s stance is that she’s yet another example of a spiritually-advanced person who doesn’t yet understand that certain events have to unfold. And that any supernatural attempt to stop them is short-sighted, lacking in compassion, and based on sentimental attachment.

Some observations/questions:

ONE:  I couldn’t help but think this movie is nothing more than a writer’s exercise, intentionally underdone. I remember doing multiple-choice math problems as a kid that included this option: “Not enough information to determine an answer.” And, yes, a lot of people would see Sound in that vein - as nothing more than an attempt to throw some shallow, eclectic, inconclusive, and teasing material at an audience, hoping their imaginations fill in the blanks.

However, I don’t think the scriptwriters are guilty of underwriting. This would help our perspective: We in the audience should compare ourselves to the infiltrating doc filmmakers. Peter and Lorna knew a lot because they were there. We know more because the film showed us more than any members of the cult could have seen. But even that much frustrated me because there were times (I’m sure) the audience wanted to shout out some questions.The scriptwriters, though, gave us enough information to conclude that Maggie was indeed from the future. And that’s the important part.

TWO: From the beginning, I was distracted by Lorna’s nose (which is indeed the nose of actress Nicole Vicius in real life). It looked strange, like from a plastic surgery not gone quite right. When we learn that Lorna used to be a model, I can only conclude this is supposed to be an Intended Dissonance – something intended to make you say, “What?!”

In that same category (ID), Maggie says, “Like anything new, it would be impossible for your mind to digest.” Of course, that’s not true, but it leaves you wondering why she said it.

INDENTED COMMENT: I feel obliged to add this comment on the off-chance Nicole Vicius would ever read my words: “I loved your performance in this movie, and I think you’re ethereally beautiful, but…I was distracted by your nose. Absolutely no offense meant, beautiful.”

THREE: The acting was wonderful throughout. It almost goes without saying that top notch acting can make up for weak material. Though hesitating on calling the material “weak,” I want to applaud acting well-done when I see it.

FOUR: Who filled that bathtub with water? Maggie tells us that she awoke two years ago in an empty motel room under water. She was immersed in a bathtub that was “about three-quarters filled.” The story wouldn’t have suffered if she had awakened in that room merely sprawled out on a bed. Although the image of someone emerging from a womb (that bathtub) having no memory, much like a newborn being thrust into this world, is a powerful one.

I concluded that the cleaning woman who discovered her had a friend who had drawn that water, perhaps for the purpose of cleaning. Just before she entered to find Maggie standing there, she called out as if expecting to find someone else (her friend?) in the room. Of course, that raises the question: What happened to that someone else?

FIVE: There was a lot of white in this movie. Maggie and her followers were all dressed in white. There were no blacks among her members, though there was one Hispanic and two Asians. In fact, the only black person was a large, brusque woman (Carol Briggs), who claimed to be from the Justice Department. She made an interesting contrast to the vulnerable Maggie and Abigail.

SIX: What’s in a name?

·       “Klaus” means “Victory of the People.” Klaus was the one who found Maggie wandering the streets with other down-and-outers. He was the necessary link to the future, allowing Maggie any chance of succeeding in her mission. I like to think of Klaus as a warrior of the 99% (who have no clue of the impending Apocalypse) trying to do battle against the one-thousandth of one per cent who are trying to cause that Apocalypse.

·       “Maggie” has several tantalizing meanings. In Greek, it means “pearl” – as in pearl of wisdom. The Scots take it to mean, “Child of light, famous bearer.” I can’t recall my source for this, but “People with [the name Maggie] have a deep inner desire for a stable, loving family or community, and a need to work with others and to be appreciated.” This is a stretch but I’ll offer my opinion: “Maggie” is short for Magdalene, which refers to Mary Magdalene who became known as “Equal of the Apostles.”

·       “Abigail” means “father rejoiced, or father’s joy.” We could see how devoted Abby’s father was to her, even though he appears only briefly. The name “Abigail” is sometimes used to refer to a “servant” or a “handmaiden.” But I don’t think of this as necessarily meaning a lowly person.

SEVEN: Time Travel in the year 2054. The sense I have is that Maggie was able to travel back in time due to her own advanced level of spiritual practice, not because a time machine had been invented. She spoke of “my legs and my right arm would fall asleep like in meditation, you know, but for hours.” That tells me that she did meditate, which is how she became able to travel back in time. But she was a flawed practitioner, for masters of meditation don’t have problems with their limbs falling asleep. Maggie herself said, while smoking a cigarette in Peter’s presence, (something like), “I’m not perfect.”

EIGHT: Abigail and Maggie were both prescient. In Maggie’s case, this is obvious when she’s confronting Peter, probing for the source of his weakness. In Abby’s case, I offer one small clue: When she writes the word “terrorist” on a schoolmate’s backpack, she sees what’s in that girl’s future. [I admit, though, this is quite an extrapolation.]

NINE:  Carol Briggs' strange behavior in that hotel room. Why did she draw the curtains, turn on the shower and bathroom basin’s faucet, and disable the electronics in the room? Why did she find it necessary to lure Maggie into the open? I thought of Carol as following SOP as determined by a secret, elite unit within our national security apparatus. She might have been exercising extreme caution because her bosses feared the unknown power of people like Maggie, especially in their homes.

Personally, I believe there are spies who function to scout for potential threats to the Elite, with the mission of neutralizing them before they become too powerful. Here in the US, militias and cults are routinely infiltrated. Even in the case of such an obscure and remote figure like Joseph Kony, I have to wonder why the US in spending hundreds of millions of dollars to hunt down one man – a “phony” charismatic.

TEN: Carol Briggs is from the Justice Department? If that was true, that was only her cover. Carol told Lorna that Maggie was wanted for “armed robbery and arson.” Those aren’t federal crimes, so if I were Lorna I would have challenged her on this and asked to see some ID. Even Lorna should have (and certainly we in the audience must have) seen that Maggie wasn’t capable of crimes of that nature. If, however, Maggie ordered her followers into criminal actions, then she would have been wanted for “aiding and abetting.”

ELEVEN: That future civil war.  That’s just an expression of convenience. It’s really to be a massacre by the Elites and their dupes of the general population, done in the name of thinning the herd. The only thing the Elite would ever have to fear is the unknown power of the Spirituals. And that’s why I think the Elite, in this day and age, are taking no chances. In the case of Maggie, I wondered why they didn’t simply kill her. Perhaps they determined it would nip her movement in the bud to have a sham trial wherein she’s “exposed” as a phony.

TWELVE:  Why did Maggie want to see her mom? Eight-year-old and very bright Abigail is supposed to be Maggie’s mom some day. Anything I’ve ever read of time travel warns against such interactions, so I’m left wondering why Maggie had to see her mom. Perhaps she could see how the recent loss of Abigail’s mom (that’s why she wore that red cap, that belonged to her mom, all the time) and the heavy influence of an adoring and devoted father needed to be balanced with support from a source of trusted female energy that would help her in the future.

THIRTEEN: Why did Abigail initiate the secret handshake? Maggie followed up, successfully completing the sequence. Abigail asked, “How did you know my secret handshake?” Maggie answered, “You taught it to me.” A short time later, Abby asks Peter, “Who was she?” Peter knew but maybe his instinct kicked in stopping him from saying, “She says she’s your daughter.” He simply said, “I don’t know.”

FOURTEEN: Carol asks Lorna if the cult “asked for a kid.” I’d like to know what Carol, who seemed to know, would have told Lorna was the real reason. This was one of those times I wanted to shout a question to an impossibly unapproachable silver screen.

FIFTEEN:  A flash of white panties. Abigail, again all of eight-years-old, is lying on the sidewalk. When she rises to stand, the audience catches a glimpse of her white underwear. When I wrote, above, that this movie had a lot of white in it, this scene crossed my mind. And it bothered me. I don’t like seeing children exploited in any manner whatsoever, and I certainly hope there was at least some reason in the minds of the filmmakers for this. Maybe this scene was put there to simply move us out of our comfort zone. I might be too old-school here, but I have to voice my disapproval on this one.

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

Well, that’s just about it. Although I could manage more, I’ll hold back. It’s possible to over-explain some things, perhaps even making mountains out of molehills. And I try to keep in mind how Bob Dylan never explained/analyzed any of his songs. In that spirit, I stop. As in a Dylan song, the beauty of the thing, imperfect though it might be on any absolute scale, loses something in translation.

NOTE:  currently* - This article was first posted on May 19, 2012 on my other blog site: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Keep your eyes open and keep on paying attention. You might learn a lot from some very unexpected sources.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com