Reprimanding Nichiren Daishonin

Introduction

I so badly wanted today's essay to be perfect. So I delayed writing it for weeks in order to give it more and more thought. But I came to realize that I cannot achieve the perfection I seek in this version which I decided to post today. So I'll call it a first draft, just so I can at least give you something to ponder. I might end up rewriting it, perhaps many times, in the name of seeking the perfection I desire. Or maybe I'll just leave you with this version, warts and all, hoping you will be able to see what I'm driving at.

I hate doing that, though, since I think it's a writer's job to get it right. Why should you, the reader, be burdened with trying to figure out “what I'm driving at?” If I can't make my points – all of them – as clear as possible, then I feel I have failed you. However, if I don't at least start with this “first draft,” then I will truly have failed you. I don't have the luxury of time, since my oncologist says I am dying of liver cancer. The longer I wait, the greater the chance that I'll lose whatever powers of explication I have left.

So, for better and worst, I offer you this version.

So, what is “this version?”

This version is a fictitious letter to Nichiren, a Buddhist monk who lived in Japan from his birth there until his death – from 1222 to 1282. Nichiren himself was one of the most prolific writers whoever lived, in his capacity as the founder of a what has become a group of religious sects still in existence today. Many of his writings are still with us, consisting of various treatises and letters to his disciples.

Nichiren received letters, so I'm styling today's posting as such a letter from “Anonymous.” I'll explain why within the letter itself. But right now, I'll explain why I think Nichiren and my letter to him should be regarded by a larger audience. In the realm of religious affairs, there are few leaders and many followers, some of whom make exaggerated claims on behalf of those leaders. And certainly there is a lot of charlatanism and pretension in this realm.

It is my hope that you will be able to discern certain universal points I'm trying to make, even though you yourself might not know much about Nichiren's Buddhism or, for that matter, about any other kind of Buddhism. But within all faith traditions, there are leaders and there are followers. And some of these followers try to become leaders themselves by “interpreting” what the founding leaders had to say. It is these mantle-assuming followers who I fear the most and who I believe pose a huge threat to the sacred spirituality of the many. This threat is looming so large these days, I feel it must be vigorously opposed or else world peace itself might be threatened.

In that spirit, I offer the following letter - “Reprimanding Nichiren.”

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

Reprimanding Nichiren

I address this to you, Nichiren, called by your followers “Daishonin” [Great Sage], whom I have never met. You don't know me and in fact we have never met face to face. I was, however, one of those who happened to hear your first sermon concerning the Fundamental Law of the Universe which you claim to have discovered – Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. This is known as the Daimoku or Great Invocation, the chanting of which you promote as the most profound of Buddhist practices. I was in the background, out of your line of sight, though I caught an occasional glimpse of you as you spoke. Perhaps you also had caught a glimpse of me. But my point is, we are not personally known to each other in any discernible way.

You claimed that this Law is implicit within the pages of the Lotus Sutra*, the Buddha's greatest sermon. But I couldn't help but notice some disturbing aspects of your presentation. When Shakyamuni Buddha revealed the Lotus Sutra to his audience in ancient India, he manifested his supernatural powers – powers which all buddhas are said to possess. When you spoke, I saw no such manifestations.

Shakyamuni Buddha addressed a Great Assembly of accomplished and profound disciples. You addressed a rather ordinary, non-descript group of villagers, only some of whom were more than passingly aware of the major concepts of Mahayana Buddhism.

When Shakyamuni Buddha presented the Lotus Sutra to the world, Many Treasures Buddha appeared in his magnificent Treasure Tower to bear witnesss to the truth of his words. When you presented Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to this small group of villagers, Many Treasures was nowhere to be found. The Lotus Sutra states**:

“...if there are those who preach the Lotus Sutra, this treasure tower will in all cases come forth and appear in their presence, and [Many Treasures Buddha's] complete body will be in the tower, speaking words of praise and saying, 'Excellent, excellent!'”

Since Many Treasures Buddha did not appear, I can only conclude that whatever you were preaching was NOT the Lotus Sutra, even though you claim that your Law is hidden within its pages. At this point, it would be useful to emphasize: “There is no such thing as the Daimoku Sutra, unless you want to claim that your various writings (commentaries, actually) should be considered as this Sutra.” However, since you are not a Buddha***, that would be quite a claim. I duly note that you, at least so far, have not done what all buddhas do – bestow predictions of the attainment of Buddhahood on selected disciples within their entourage.

Perhaps others think of you as a Buddha or perhaps future disciples will try to make that claim on your behalf. But you know and I know that such claims would be false, though perhaps well-intended. What we both know is what you freely admit – you are from a chandala family. Your father was a lowly fisherman who had once held a minor position as a government official. But he fell from grace and was reduced to ensnaring fish for a living. Not only for his living, but for yours as well. And you'd never overcome the shame of this fall from grace. Living in a society that treasures status and maintaining face, you couldn't help but be affected by your father's decline of fortune.

But an opportunity came your way – a chance to obtain an education at the local Buddhist temple. You were young, eager, and had a quick and able mind. You learned to read. You learned to debate, by which means you saw that even the mightiest of men could be felled by the power of well-thrusted words. So you prayed to become the wisest man in Japan. I wonder, though, if you sought wisdom in order to lead others to self-fulfillment. Or if you sought wisdom to enable you to lord over others.

I would have been far more impressed if, instead, you had prayed to become the most compassionate man in Japan. But I suppose wisdom is a more universally appreciated quality among the men of influence in this country whom you'd hoped to impress. And impressing men in power can be very satisfying to those who hail from a chandala background, wouldn't you say?

Regarding your Gohonzon

One of your most cherished contributions to humanity is a great mandala known as the Gohonzon or the Supreme Object of Worship. This object is composed of written Chinese characters painted (in sumi ink) on either a paper or a wooden surface, and is activated by means of an “eye-opening” ceremony. And of this, you had written: “I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life in sumi ink, so believe in the Gohonzon with your whole heart.”

I have objections to certain aspects of your Gohonzon, which prevent me from embracing it as a suitable object of worship. Down the center of the Gohonzon appear, in lettering more prominent than those not in the center, the words “Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.” Under those words, in lettering of equal size and prominence, is your name – Nichiren.

Some might view this positioning as symbolic of you upholding the Law. However, I would have felt more comfortable if you had painted the word “Buddhas” instead of your name in particular. Or, even better, “Teachers of the Law” - for Buddhas aren't the only ones who preach the Lotus Sutra (of which you claim the Daimoku is its essence).

The eleventh chapter of the Lotus Sutra states, “If one upholds this [sutra], one will be upholding the Buddha's body.” However, it is worthy of note that not only is the Buddha's body upheld by his disciples, sometimes the Buddha upholds his disciples as mentioned in Chapter 10.

“...the people who read and recite the Lotus Sutra...they are borne upon the shoulders of the [buddha].”

Buddhist practice is very much a two-way street. It's not just a matter of lowly, unworthy disciples fawning over a buddha, of which there are untold trillions. So the fact that you saw fit to place your name under the fundamental law of the universe is bothersome to me. The implication is that you have this unique relationship with the Law, which no buddha has ever claimed.

Your name is prominently displayed in large characters, but the names of the buddhas Shakyamuni and Many Treasures are displayed in much smaller characters. This seems disrespectful – even arrogant.

I also noticed that you include on your Gohonzon the name of a fellow Japanese national known as Dengyo the Great. But absent from the Gohonzon is any mention of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy, who is the subject of the last chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which includes these words:

“And after [Shakyamuni Buddha] has entered extinction, I [Bodhisattva Universal Worthy] will cause [the Lotus Sutra] to be widely propagated throughout Jambudvipa and will see that it never comes to an end.”

To which Shakyamuni Buddha replied: “And I will employ my transcendental powers to guard and protect those who can accept and uphold the name of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.”

Not only is Universal Worthy the subject of the last chapter of the Lotus Sutra, he is the subject of the so-called “Closing Sutra” which follows the Lotus. This Closing Sutra is called, “Sutra on How to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy,” which contains these words of Shakyamuni Buddha:

“...for the sake of living beings of ages to come who wish to practice the unsurpassed Law of the great vehicle, and who wish to study the practice of Universal Worthy and to carry out Universal Worthy's practice, I will now explain the method that they should hold in mind.”

From the words in these preceding paragraphs, you can see that Shakyamuni Buddha holds the bodhisattva Universal Worthy in great esteem. Yet, you don't – at least not to the extent of including his name on your Gohonzon. This is a slight I cannot forgive.

I thought of an improvement in the layout of your Gohonzon, should any of your future disciples decide that there exists a oneness, an integration, of you and the Law. Your name should not appear under the Daimoku, but should instead appear in one of two formats:

As a tiny character superimposed on or proximate to the character “Myo” or as a number of tiny characters so displayed on or near the entire Daimoku. The idea of the latter is, of course, an allusion to the idea that a buddha can manifest buddhas that are numerous (actually, infinite) emanations of himself.

The whole idea of “object of worship” is rather fluid. For me, the object of worship is the printed version of the Lotus Sutra from which I read aloud on a daily basis. For the disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha who lived when he did, the object of worship was his face upon which they focused and would not for a moment look away.

And there was a time when Shakyamuni, before he attained enlightenment and while he lived as a great king, said, “Who can expound the great vehicle for me? To the end of my life I will be his provider and servant!” This offer, appearing in the Devadatta Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, is followed by these words:

“At that time there was a seer who came to the king and said, 'I have the great vehicle text called the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law. If you will never disobey me, I will expound it for you.”

At this point, this seer (who was an incarnation of Devadatta) became this king's object of worship in a manner of speaking. Which is interesting, since Devadatta later tried to kill Shakyamuni Buddha when they lived in ancient India those thousands of years ago.

The Daimoku

You make much of the “fact” that Shakyamuni Buddha doesn't explicitly identify the fundamental law of the universe by which all buddhas attain enlightenment. Since, however, you acknowledge the Lotus Sutra as the greatest of sutras, you are forced to claim that Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (not to mention the Gohonzon) is implicitly revealed in the Lotus.

However, when you revealed to the world this most profound Law, what have you really given to us? The word “nam” simply means “devotion” – no mystery there, since it is well known that enlightenment is obtained by means of a devotion to lengthy and well-defined practice.

The word “Renge” means “cause and effect.” This is the basic law of karma which, to your amazement, had been developed by the Chinese teacher Tientai into a doctrine he called the mutual possesion of the ten worlds. This is his contribution, not yours, and is the subject of his commentaries which are not the equivalent of a buddha's sutras.

The word “kyo” refers to “sutra.” So the only word which even remotely connects to this Law you've “revealed” is “myoho” which means Mystic Law. However, to call something a “mystic law” is not the same as telling us what that Law is.

There is a sutra which precedes the Lotus, though is mentioned favorably within its pages, which refers to the doctrine of immeasurable meanings. This is the idea that there is one single Law from which all of the other laws or teachings of the buddhas are derived. However, note carefully: This Law is treated by the Buddha as subordinate to the Law revealed in the Lotus.

However, the Law of Immeasurable Meanings and the Law revealed in the Lotus have at least one thing**** in common: “Only between one buddha and another can it be fully comprehended.” This tells me that there is no one single buddha who can stand alone in his understanding. And that seems to be a confirmation of the well-known doctrine of dependent origination. When these thoughts occurred to me, I was stunned and unable to believe. I'm still struggling and vow to attain full understanding of this amazing assertion.

As for the source of immeasurable meanings, my best guess is that the Void is this source. The buddha taught that all phenomenon are to be regarded as being “like” empty space. I think he was trying to tell us that that's exactly where all phenomenon come from. And I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense, in that there's more empty space in the universe than anything else. By meditating fiercely on the Void, we can see all the possible variations of material existence. But...we're supposed to ignore these or else our quest to transcend them will be overwhelmed by an overabundance of irrelevant detail.

Conclusion

Your emphases on the Gohonzon and the Daimoku serve to give focus to the practice of sincere laymen who wish to pursue the buddha way. However, ultimately this focus only serves to cause believers to reject significant portions of the Lotus Sutra in favor of your own writings, which have come to be treated as superior to the words of the buddha by your disciples.

For this, all good intentions aside, you must be severely reprimanded.

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

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:

Lotus Sutra*

     All references to the Lotus Sutra are to a work entitled, “The Lotus Sutra and its Opening and Closing Sutras,” translated by Burton Watson, and published and copyrighted in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai.

states**

     on page 210

since you are not a Buddha***

     Nichiren never claimed to be a buddha, in fact referring instead to when in the future he hoped to attain Enlightenment.

one thing****

     The following quote appears on page 18.

God's Original Sin - Updated

If it can be said that all men are guilty of Original Sin, then it can also be said that God is guilty of an Original Sin of His own.

Before the Creation, there was only God and God was perfect. By introducing something that wasn't God (even though it was His creation), He introduced the imperfect into being. In effect, one could say God created the stage for the introduction of sin. Before the Creation, there was no sin. Afterward, sin came into being. And this was God's doing since, as I said, before the Creation there was only God and therefore there was only perfection. Why deviate from that?

As for Eve being tempted by the forbidden fruit - please. If God really didn't want that fruit to be eaten, He would have either not placed it so tempting close to Eve or He would have had it under guard 24/7. In effect, God wanted Eve (and/or Adam) to eat that fruit - that was His will.

As for "How did you know you were naked?"... Revulsion to nudity being considered "knowledge" had a lot more to do with the personal hangups of Moses than with anything God had predetermined was the product of "knowledge." Tradition has it that Moses had written the first five books of the Old Testament. That view has its detractors, with them citing other sources. Be that as it may - whether Moses or others as authors - no one is saying "God wrote it as surely as His script defined the Ten Commandments." And, frankly, I don't care what men happened to have thought God had in mind.

It has been claimed that faith in Jesus Christ can overcome Original Sin. But tell me this: Who can God turn to in order to atone for His Original Sin?

As for God creating in phases over a period of six days and exclaiming, “It is good,” I would have to ask, “Compared to what?”


Personal Story:

For years, after taking a nice hot shower, I would exclaim to myself, "Wow, that John the Baptist feller was really on to something with this water fetish of his." But fetishes are not reality, much like claims that wine is the blood of Christ and a wafer is His body. Or, for that matter, chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo once is equal to chanting the entire Lotus Sutra once. I know rituals have a place, but stupid claims don't. If one wants to get closer to God (or whatever higher power he seeks), it would be best to abandon stupid claims and to stop following the men who espouse them.

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

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

A Variety of Religious Observations

I'd like to share a few thoughts concerning the spiritual realm. My hope is that you'll find them to be useful points of reflection. As my blog readers know, I have been a harsh critic of certain aspects of Buddhism. So I guess that makes me an Equal Opportunity Critic. But my goal is not to be critical for its own sake. As Isaac Newton once said, “The reason I see farther than most is that I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” I want that next religious genius to have stood on my shoulders, saying, “Something Steve said triggered a line of thought that led me to this (profound realization).”

I try very hard to reduce the complex to simplicities. I hope the following stays within that spirit.

* * * *

The dual creation of man:

Source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

In Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27, man and woman are created simultaneously out of separate material (that is, no Adam's rib), but were not named.

In the very next verse, they are blessed.

In Genesis, Chapter 2, verse 7, Adam is created, with Eve following in verses 21 & 22, but they are not blessed. Furthermore, they were created on the seventh day – the day of rest – before which all creation was supposed to have taken place.

Whatever happened to the man and woman created in Chapter 1? Also, why were the first men and women told by God to be vegetarians, while Adam and Eve were not - and who in fact were meat-eaters who made burnt offerings to please the Lord?

* * * * * *

God's Original Sin:

If it can be said that all men are guilty of Original Sin, then it can also be said that God is guilty of an Original Sin of His own.

Before the Creation, there was only God and God was perfect. By introducing something that wasn't God (even though it was His creation), He introduced the imperfect into being. In effect, one could say God laid the groundwork for the introduction of sin. Before the Creation, there was no sin. Afterward, sin came into being. And this was God's doing since, as I said, before the Creation there was only God and therefore there was only perfection. Why deviate from that?

As for God creating in phases over a period of six days and exclaiming, “It is good,” I would have to ask, “Compared to what?”

The Scam of Original Sin

I've never liked the idea of original sin. It seemed too much like a contrivance to keep the virtuous from automatic entry to heaven. And would make unnecessary the good offices of the Church. No matter how good a person might be, he'd still need God's grace or Jesus's services. In other words, such a person would have to rely on someone outside of himself for salvation. Of course, to keep people in such a state of bondage suits both the religious and secular authorities just fine, thank you very much.

But I'd object if someone said to me, “Records show that one of your ancestors had an unpaid parking ticket for his chariot in ancient Rome, and now we'd like you to pay that ticket – plus interest.” As for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden, I didn't eat it. And, besides, I was never clear on how knowing one was naked should cause feelings of shame.

But can I condemn Original Sin without also condemning the Buddhist notion of immutable karma? There is a difference – for ultimately, no karma is immutable. It only seems that way to someone who has not yet undertaken religious practice to overcome it. But it can be overcome, which is the difference between how the East and West view this matter.

The Gift of Life

We're supposed to be grateful for the gift of life that has been bestowed upon each of us. However, in what way did we exist before this gift of life was bestowed? We could not have been grateful until this gift was bestowed, simply because we weren't alive yet.

If someone were to give me a diamond ring, I could accept or reject it – simply because there is a self that exists capable of such a choice. In the case of the gift of life, there is no choice. So what kind of a gift could that possibly be?

Maybe a better way to put it: We should be grateful for having been created. But even with this, the same problem persists – what's the difference between us having been created (or not) and why should we be grateful one way or the other?

Buddhism works its way around this by claiming that we were never created (and neither was the universe for that matter), that we were always alive. Even in between reincarnations, our life force still exists but only in a dormant state. There is nothing to be grateful or ungrateful for – we simply have existence now as we've had since the infinite past and will into the infinite future. We simply are, but we have the possibility of attaining perfection (that is, buddhahood).

* * * * * * * *

The soul:

Buddhism teaches the non-existence of the soul. But then I ask, “What is it that gets reincarnated over and over again?” There is some essence to each of us that seeks to attain a high degree of polish – to become better people. I suspect the non-existence part was taught to pry people loose from the egotistical attachment to a version of themselves which is in their comfort zone.

* * * * * * * * *

Thou Shalt not lie:

It is Buddhist dogma that the Buddha never lies. But I have easily picked up on at least two instances of him lying in Lotus Sutra, his greatest sermon. I think he intentionally lied, hoping his disciples would call him on it. But it's human nature to be uncomfortable with finding fault with those we love. Hence, their unwillingness to speak out and their herculean efforts to reach a state of mind in which they could believe that he really didn't lie.

I was always amazed that there isn't any commandment against lying. The closest we have is, “Thou shalt not steal.” For by lying, the liar steals from someone a true version of reality upon which he could have made wise choices. But that explanation is a little too nuanced for my taste; I'd still prefer a “Thou shalt not lie” commandment.

* ** * * * * * * * *

The goal is to seek power over others:

The main purpose of religious organizations – Buddhist ones included – is to gain power by asserting control over their flocks. Politicians tend to support such groups because it is to their own secular advantage to have individualistic tendencies suppressed by various religious dogmas. Conformity is always the goal, with questions discouraged.

When I see preachers like Joel Osteen performing in front of thousands of paying customers, I think, “Money is playing way too important a role here.” Wherever a charismatic preacher speaks, the collection plate isn't far behind. That's why I set up a blog in which I advance the idea of a virtual congregation. No hierarchy, no collection plates, all are equal and invited to speak. So far, alas, no one has taken me up on this but I'm sure this is the right way to go.

* * * * * * * *

Isaac and Job

The main lesson of the Binding of Isaac and of the story of Job is – the virtue of obedience. I was disappointed Abraham didn't immediately say to the Lord, “No, I will not kill my son – not even for You. If You want him, You take him. I will not be a party to this.” I was also disappointed that Abraham saw fit to kill a defenseless ram as an burnt offering to God, as if God loved the smell of burning meat.

Some say God was testing Abraham. Perhaps so, but that doesn't forgive him murdering an innocent,defenseless ram.

As for Job, I was aghast that God permitted the Devil to wreak such havoc on Job, to basically settle a dispute between them.

The point in both cases seems to be: God can do anything He wants to you in the name of testing you, and all you can do is submit and hope to be strong enough to pass and obtain rewards that will surely follow. At least, that's what religious authorities would like us to believe.

* * * * * * * *

Too many rules – created by men, imposed on other men:

All of the rules Jews are expected to follow were basically an invention of the rabbis to make it impossible not to sin. That's why they are made to feel they have to atone once per year – Yom Kippur.

One Jewish woman once told me, “All the rules we women have to live by are a plot to destroy Jewish women.” She was more right than she could have imagined. The “need” to control women was felt even among the pagans. For how could Alexander the Great's conquering armies have ranged as far as India if they had had any doubts about their wives fooling around at home?

* * * * * * * *

An oddity concerning the story of Noah:

QUOTE: Genesis, Chapter 7:

Source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

:UNQUOTE.

Verse 2 speaks of loading the ark by twos or by sevens, but lines 8 and 9 – which should be read together since they are one sentence – speaks of all beasts (clean and unclean) entering the ark by twos. Whatever happened to “by sevens?”

* * * * * * * * * *

The (alleged) pain and suffering of Jesus, especially on the cross:

If Jesus is God (as in the Trinity), then surely He had the power to dial down any susceptibility to pain He might have had. If Jesus was only a man, then perhaps he had learned the secrets of deep meditation from the yoga masters when (or so it is speculated) he visited India. I was always impressed by how the Buddhist monks could self-immolate and yet feel no pain. Or at least they looked so calm, it was hard to believe they were in any kind of pain.

* * * * * * *

Dying for someone else's sins:

“I died for your sins. If you believe in my sacrifice, then you will have eternal life.” - I paraphrase, of course.

I can't see any cause-and-effect relationship here. If a man walked up to me and said, “Let me make love to your girlfriend for you. It was be as if you did, if you believe.” In the same manner, how can what someone else does erase my sins? There can't be any spiritual progress by relying on an outside force; we have to take personal responsibility.

* * * * * * *

What to say in the Afterlife:

Suppose it's true, about entry to Heaven only via acceptance of Jesus (or, more broadly, belief in God).

I can imagine a virtuous person standing before the pearly gates being offered one last chance to accept Jesus. Suppose this person would say directly to Jesus, “I choose not to accept You. Does that mean I will suffer the eternal torments of hell? If so, that sounds a lot like, 'Love me or I'll kill you.'

“But I suggest an alternative. Instead of making me undergo eternal torment, I ask that God simply dis-create me. He created me, surely He can reverse the process. Erase me as if I'd never existed. If He won't do this and insists on torturing me, wouldn't that make Him the Greatest of All Imaginable Terrorists?”

* * * * * * * *

Good works:

Many claim that it is not enough to do good works to assure entry into Heaven – the grace of God is required. To my ears, that sounds rather whimsical. And also works to the advantage of charlatans who would have us feeling at the mercy of forces we can't even influence let alone control. They want us to believe we have only one life to get it right, which instills fear they can use to their advantage. Which is why they fought so hard to suppress the doctrine of reincarnation.

* * * * * * * *

Well, that's about it, in terms of a brief summary of how I see things. Hope it proves useful.

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

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

Reflections on eating meat

Introduction

Today's post deals with eating meat. But I end up going on an epic Biblical tear before I finally end this piece.

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

Before I was diagnosed with cancer, I was quite the carnivore. Now? Even the thought of eating meat is revolting. Not that I have much of an appetite anyway – chemo will do that to you – but I simply can't have meat in my diet any more. When I pass a Burger King, I feel like I'm in the presence of a crematorium. When I passed a new chicken place in my neighborhood, I looked in the window and saw 20 corpses on a massive grill. Oh, the horror!

I even had a weird dream about shopping in a meat market. I saw the various displays of animal products – butt steak, pigs knuckles, pork bellies, and chicken breasts. Then I saw an alternate version of this shopping spree, only this time the shopper was a man-sized chicken dressed in a business suit. And he went to an aisle where, at first, I saw him looking at a sign. It read, “human breasts.” Then I looked up from the sign and saw in a cellophane-wrapped package – female human breasts. They were double-D cup size, skinned, and ready for cooking.

I woke up in a cold sweat.

When was it okay to start eating meat?

I'm going to address this question from the biblical* point of view, starting with these verses from Genesis, chapter 1:

QUOTE:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

:UNQUOTE.

Verse 27 says God created a male and a female.

In verse 28, God blesses them – sure, why not? Although why is this blessing not mentioned in Genesis's chapter 2, verse 7, where it is written:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Wait a minute. Man was created twice? The first time in Gen. 1, verse 27; the second, in Gen. 2, verse 7? And this second man was not blessed? And it was the “LORD God” in Gen. 2, who “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” but only God (not the “LORD God”) who created the first man and woman? I'd like to know whatever became of the man and woman created in Genesis 1.

* * * * * *

Time out to mention another curiosity:

Genesis, Chapter 2, tells us:

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

God's work was done, according to verses 2 & 3. However, a few verses later (Verse 7), the LORD God (guess that's different from God) created Adam and Eve.

* * * * * *

Maybe this rule from Gen 1 was only meant to apply to the people created in Gen 1:

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

In the very next verse, God tells the animals what their food is and (in effect) not to eat each other:

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

In Genesis 2, God does not tell Adam and Eve (who are, obviously, the second set of created humans) that plants are to “be for (your) meat.” So it appears that Genesis 2 introduces a rule change – it's okay to eat meat. By the way, my practice of Buddhism inclines me toward this rule: “It's never okay to kill an animal to eat its meat.”

But Cain thought it was okay to kill an animal so as to make a burnt offering to God, thinking God was a meat-eater. Cain thought it was okay to bash in its fucking skull with a rock and, with his own bare hands, clean the animal. That included removing its shit-filled intestines so as to properly prepare it for grilling for the pleasure of the Lord.

Now let us skip ahead to Genesis, Chapter 8:

20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour...

So, the LORD loves the smell of burning meat. Maybe He would have loved the smell of cooking meat emanating from the Nazi's crematoria. Why not? Meat is meat, right?

I have no problem heaping scorn upon the God (and LORD God) written of in the Bible. He is the product of a certain schizophrenia in man who wrote the Bible in the first place. Very great evil has been done in the name of the Lord, and it's about time people see this “Lord” as He really is and stop committing very great evils, in His name or otherwise.

And what is He, really? Nothing more than a myth. And One who needed a rest after six days of creating stuff. I hope He wasn't terribly exhausted by His efforts, though I have to wonder: What kind of a God needs to rest? This God sounds more like a man to me.

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

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:

biblical* - Today's post cites only Chapters 1, 2, & 8 of Genesis, King James Version. This link is to chapter 1, from which you can click to access the other chapters  http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

Because it's Japanese Buddhism

Two words can answer this question: Why is Soka Gakkai's* version of Nichiren's Buddhism so popular in Japan? Because it's:

Japanese

Buddhism

My emphasis on the first word is entirely intentional – and accurate. Out of the 12 million SGI members worldwide, 10 million live in Japan. By the way, those two numbers are the same as I heard back in the heady days of the early '70s, when SGI thought it was going to lead the world to the Promised Land.

That didn't happen. What did happen was early, explosive growth in post-war Japan due to the efforts of two charismatic leaders – Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. And their success was completely understandable. The Japanese militarists were thoroughly discredited – Japan, much like other societies, hates losers. I'm sure the ordinary Japanese citizen at the time duly noted that their puffed-up military brass didn't commit hara-kiri when they lost. Even though their earlier rhetoric extolled the virtues of the samurai ethic.

And when the United States became the world's first nuclear terrorist by dropping two atomic bombs in Japan, those same ordinary citizens became acquainted with the western concept of hell fire. It's not surprising, then, that a good number of these citizens converted to Christianity. That's a pity, since it's always a mistake to embrace the “might is right” philosophy.

The SGI's major error was in failing to de-Japanese their movement. Their silent prayers bear ample testimony to this failure – members are asked to offer prayers of gratitude to six people – all Japanese:

The first three of the temple's high priests (who lived in the 13^th and 14^th centuries) and the three presidents of the SGI lay organization (who were alive when World War II broke out).

I especially object to the inclusion of the currently living SGI president. There seems to be something very premature in offering eternal gratitude to someone who is still alive and can therefore still fall into evil ways. But more importantly, I have to ask: Where is there any prayer expressing appreciation for Shakyamuni Buddha who had given the world the Lotus Sutra*, Buddhism's highest teaching? Even the founder of the SGI's religion – Nichiren Daishonin – agreed with that and identified himself as a disciple of Shakyamuni.

And yet, no prayers of gratitude go to that Indian prince of antiquity, who gave up his throne to save the world. Maybe because he wasn't JAPANESE? I really hope that's not the reason, though it might explain the SGI's odd abandonment of the Lotus Sutra. On the one hand, they have their members chant “Nam Myoho Renge Kyo,” calling the chant the fundamental law of the universe which can be used to tap into one's buddha nature.

It's ironic, though, that all these chanters are repeating, over and over again, is, “I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra.” That's the literal definition of NMRK. How can they claim to devote themselves to the Lotus and yet fail to read, study, ponder it, and teach it to others – as Shakyamuni himself defined as Buddhism's highest practice?

Instead, SGI members are taught to read the writings of the founding monk Nichiren Daishonin, who declared that he was not a buddha though SGI claims he is. Back in the 70's, I remember SGI-USA's Young Men's Division members being encouraged to memorize one of President Ikeda's poems. Why not, instead, memorize a short section of the Lotus Sutra, with each member being encouraged to select a section based on his own preferences?

But, no. Daisaku Ikeda fancied himself a poet and, being in charge, was in a position to “suggest” - “Why don't you memorize my poem?” He was also in a position to “suggest” to legions of Japanese housewives - “Why don't you stand on street corners and sell my newspaper?” And they did, because they thought they were putting out a good cause in the name of faith. Perhaps so, but today Daisaku Ikeda is a very wealthy man due in part to their efforts. As for those women? Not so much wealth for them.

So we have Daisaku Ikeda on the one hand who amasses great material wealth and who makes a showy spectacle of hobnobbing with world leaders and cadging honorary doctoral degrees from an obscene number of the world's universities. On the other hand, we have Shakyamuni Buddha, a prince who gave up his wealth and kingdom and abandoned any lust for worldly glory.

And worse? Nowhere in the SGI's silent prayers are members encouraged to pray for the attainment of enlightenment for themselves or for others. The SGI is profoundly guilty of dumbing down Buddhism because they're actually afraid of members who might stop swallowing SGI's oversimplifications once they start making serious spiritual progress. And then they might start questioning the leadership – heaven forbid.

Based upon these concerns, I established the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus Sutra. There is no organizational structure in this Samgha. No membership lists, no dues, no requests for donations, no 501c(3) status, no hierarchy, no temple or other property, no dress code, and no commandments other than to read, recite, ponder, and preach the Lotus Sutra. As for taking action to promote Buddhism within the larger society, I'm open to suggestions and I'll make suggestions, especially within the posts on this blog. As for the worthiness of any suggestions, we should leave that to our own enlightened nature to determine.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus Sutra and

former candidate for USA president (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

Soka Gakkai's* - SGI-USA refers to the part of the Soka Gakka International (SGI) based in the United States. Though headquartered in Japan, this international organization has branches in many of the world's nations.

Lotus Sutra* - The Lotus Sutra is traditionally considered to consist of, broadly speaking, three sutras – the Opening Sutra (“Immeasurable Meanings”), the Lotus Sutra, and the Closing Sutra (“Universal Worthy”). These consist of about 400 pages in English, with the Lotus being by far the longest. It takes me about 35 days to recite all three. I've recited the Lotus over 150 times, but have included the other two sutras about two years ago.

Behold, the Lord

It came to pass, not long after the year 2014, that God suddenly appeared in a sparsely populated part of North Korea. He wasn't there one moment, and in the blink of an eye in the next moment, there He was. At exactly noon, He appeared as an ordinary man of six foot, four under a brilliant sun in a cloudless sky – not moving, not saying anything, His white robe flowing with whatever mild breeze happened to stir. He looked exactly as Michelangelo depicted Him on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapter in the Creation of Adam.

It didn't take long for a local resident to alert the military authorities, which dispatched a truckload of soldiers to confront the Lord. They thought He was just some imperialist yankee stooge in a robe and sandals who was where he didn't belong. So they piled out of their trucks to arrest Him, but couldn't get closer than ten feet. Some who were stronger managed to push to within nine feet of Him, but were exhausted by the effort. They yelled and screamed at Him, but He just aloofly beheld them. One of the soldiers, by order of his superior of course, fired a shot intended to strike a foot of so from His feet.

The bullet couldn't penetrate whatever it was that had held the soldiers back.

Of course escalations followed, each more severe than the last. With the last being the most interesting – Kim Jong-Un ordered a tactical nuclear artillery shell to be fired at Him from a howitzer. This was to explode about 100 feet over His head. And it did explode, as best it could. The fireball managed to expand to a diameter of about 20 feet and then it disappeared. Totally, without a trace. And He, just as before, just stood there with His robe billowing in the breeze, remaining silent.

At the same moment the fireball disappeared, the flesh from Kim's body disappeared. Only his bones, locked in place and supporting his military uniform, remained with his full head of ridiculously cropped hair still on his head. Kim just stood there like a mannequin fixed to the spot he had lived on just a moment before. His generals ran screaming from the spot.

Then He spoke: “Do not stop anyone from crossing your border to see me.” Then He added one more command as He, for just a moment, appeared as Kim would have appeared, complete with military uniform, had he still been alive: “That's an order.” And then He assumed His prior appearance.

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

The first group of pilgrims came from among the various elites of world society. But He made immediately clear, “I will answer questions but you will not prevent anyone who wants to see Me, no matter how humble, from doing so.”

“I have a question, Lord,” asked the Pope. “Where's Jesus?”

In answer, the Lord laughed and then said, “Next question.”

The Chief Rabbi of Israel asked, “When will the first messiah appear?” And the Lord laughed even more heartily than before. But this time He had a follow-up: “Here I stand before you, the Lord of all Creation, and you ask Me about the Messiah?”

“How do we know you're the Lord of all Creation?” asked an aide, as ordered by some anonymous superior. Then He pointed to the sun, which promptly disappeared; and pointing again a few minutes later, it reappeared. Then He said, “Behold,” and everybody in this gathering found themselves totally naked. But, again, only for a few minutes.

Then someone asked, “Why are You here?”

“To answer questions and to talk to you. Haven't you always been complaining about my absence in the world, about my refusal to talk? Well, here I am. Oh, and please, it won't be necessary for anyone to make a pilgrimage to this spot.”

Later, that evening, He reconfigured all of the stars in the heavens so as to make the night sky look totally alien even to a child. After an hour, He reset the stars to their former locations.

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

And this came to pass the very next day: For millennia, God was nowhere to be found; for one day, He was to be found in North Korea; thereafter, He came to be found everywhere. Slowly, at first – only a couple of dozen simultaneous appearances were reported in a variety of spots around the world. The most striking were three: He suddenly appeared out of thin air in the Pentagon War Room, walked up to the President, put His arm around his shoulder, and said, “I hope you don't mind me sitting in on your meeting.” Similar appearances occurred in China and Russia; it was reported that His spoken Russian and Mandarin were as excellent as His English.

The half-time show at this year's Super Bowl was (shall we say?) divine. The music was blaring, dozens of half-naked dancers were contorting as the lead female singer was writhing suggestively. And then He appeared among them. And the music stopped, and the dancing stopped – cold. He didn't say a word, but a few of the dancers beat a hasty retreat to put on more clothes. And one of the star players threw his helmet to the ground and walked off the field, never to play again. Out of remorse for a devastating hit he made on an opponent in the second quarter. As it turned out, that opponent was able to walk again, making a full recovery, thanks to his crippler always being at his side giving encouragement and expressing his sorrow.

Within a few months, tens of millions of these “God copies” (clones if you will, but only if you will) were walking the earth. But I think I was the first (and maybe the only) to be blessed with a personal, one-on-one visit. I was alone, stuck in an elevator between floors. I had just successfully called for help and was told the repairman should be there in an hour. Then the elevator's phone went dead. And so did my cell. Then He appeared.

“You've waited all your life to talk to Me. Go ahead.”

“I don't believe you are God. Suppose you are, though, and I choose not to follow you. What then? What becomes of me when I die? Where do I go? What do I do?”

“There are many places to go, many things to do.”

“So what will happen to me won't have anything to do with the so-called unspoken commandment: Love Me or I'll kill you? That is, or I'll condemn you to an eternity of suffering in Hell?”

“That kind of love is born from insecurity, as manifested by too many men toward too many women. And I assure you, I am not insecure. I come from a place of unconditional love. Whatever happens to you, will be as your karma dictates. And will be affected by the power of your own will.”

Then He assumed the appearance of Shakyamuni Buddha or, rather, of what we've commonly assumed that buddha would look like.

“Are you a buddha?”

“No, but there are people who need to see a buddha.”

“Are you God?”

“No, but there are people who need to see God.”

“You called Yourself the Lord of all Creation.”

“I lied.”

“How did you make the sun disappear and the stars relocate?”

“I did no such things, but I could have. Since the disruptions to other civilizations not-of-this-earth would have been too great, I merely made all of you think I affected the sun and the stars.”

“Are there others like you?”

“More than you can imagine. As for others who could become like me, even more than that. You, for instance.”

“Why did you appear as the God of Abraham? Wouldn't that have shaken the faith of Buddhists?”

“Well, there are Buddhists and there are Buddhists. Those beyond a certain level of development wouldn't believe for one instant that this God could really exist. As for the other Buddhists – those still new to the Way – that group would be cared for by the first group, guiding them to the correct understanding.”

“How long will you stay in the world?”

“In an hour, your rescuers will find you alive and alone in this elevator. And I will no longer appear anywhere else in this world.”

“Is there anything You want me to do?”

He didn't say a word but changed His appearance one last time, so He looked exactly like Me. I took one long, last, calming gaze into His eyes – My own eyes.

Then He was gone.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the

United States of America (in 2008 & 2012)

contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com