Q&A
JJ asks: If you can imagine a judge with a divinely perfect understanding of Mystic Law, and that judge administers the Mystic Law, is that any different [than god, TBO assumes]?
Yeah, but there is no judge. I mean sure, you could postulate that there is a judge, if that makes it convenient for you.
However, what this does is add an extra step/barrier that really isn't necessary. It puts a nebulous entity in charge, or in control, or the thing to answer to, and there's no room for that in this Buddhism.
Here's the thing I keep coming back to: There is no uber- in this Buddhism, and any attempt to place one there fucks with the fabric of the thing. There's a universal wisdom we aspire to attain, but ultimately it is up to us to get it, no one marshals it out. In other words, everything is equal, and there is no need for anything more.
This human insistence on having some kind of stopgap in place that determines the good, the bad, the meting of justice, etc. just complicates things needlessly, and allows for the possibility of someone coming along and taking advantage of that situation. I know you're trying to understand this Buddhism, JJ, and the above is an attempt to do so (or at least equate it with other religions), but my answer becomes the question "Why do we need one there? Why do we need a judge? Or an entity of any kind?"
We can talk until we're blue in the face about how such things make it easier for people to believe/comprehend, or that if you truly study a given source material it all comes down to the same thing. And, in essence, this is correct.
The danger comes in just how complacent, lazy, hypocritical, and gullible said given source material makes its followers. In other words, how easily could it be corrupted and maintained to stay that way.
You could argue that the basic tenets of Christianity, the stuff expounded by Jesus, if you study it close enough, expounds, in a similar fashion, the ideals of this Buddhism. Which may or may not be true, but we've seen how easily corruptible these teachings have become. (My personal belief, close but no cigar. If Jesus were really expounding these ideals, he wouldn't have died either on the cross, nor as a martyr.)
This is not to say that this Buddhism isn't corruptible.
As recently as 1990, Nikken, the current head priest, has essentially excommunicated members of the SGI, because, as he says "only through my approval can you gain enlightenment." Quite pope-like. The Head Priest position within Nichiren Shoshu, is simply to study and serve the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, as well as the various sutras written by Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), but specifially the Lotus and Nirvana Sutras (Nirvana sutra exists simply to support the Lotus, think of it as a big epilogue). Nikken demanded money and fealty.
Thankfully, Nichiren Daishonin couldn't have been more damning in his warnings about this very thing, and spoke directly to anyone who decided to pick up his theories. Namely, to actively oppose anyone who attempts to tamper with the tenets of this Buddhism. *
There have been plenty of examples of this occurring, but the SGI is the only organization involving non-priests who took up this call. Around the time, during WWII, the Japanese government said that all existing religions must embrace and promote the practice of Shinto, to encourage a nationalistic unity.
The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood gave in. It was at this point that the SGI members started rebelling, then drew fire and persecution from the government. The SGI had been founded by a frustrated school teacher, who happened to stumble upon this Buddhism at a late age, nary a moment in any kind of religious teaching.
And this is what separates this organization from most other organized religions (current Nichiren Shoshu priesthood included), no where else will you find a body of laymen willing to stand up to a supposed authority and quote Cartman "fuck you, I do what I want (in this case, get enlightened by my own damn self)!"
Okay, this is a rambling answer, and written sporadically throughout the day. My apologies if it lacks cohesion, or if it doesn't answer your question at all. Feel free to take me back on topic, if that's the case.
Yeah, but there is no judge. I mean sure, you could postulate that there is a judge, if that makes it convenient for you.
However, what this does is add an extra step/barrier that really isn't necessary. It puts a nebulous entity in charge, or in control, or the thing to answer to, and there's no room for that in this Buddhism.
Here's the thing I keep coming back to: There is no uber- in this Buddhism, and any attempt to place one there fucks with the fabric of the thing. There's a universal wisdom we aspire to attain, but ultimately it is up to us to get it, no one marshals it out. In other words, everything is equal, and there is no need for anything more.
This human insistence on having some kind of stopgap in place that determines the good, the bad, the meting of justice, etc. just complicates things needlessly, and allows for the possibility of someone coming along and taking advantage of that situation. I know you're trying to understand this Buddhism, JJ, and the above is an attempt to do so (or at least equate it with other religions), but my answer becomes the question "Why do we need one there? Why do we need a judge? Or an entity of any kind?"
We can talk until we're blue in the face about how such things make it easier for people to believe/comprehend, or that if you truly study a given source material it all comes down to the same thing. And, in essence, this is correct.
The danger comes in just how complacent, lazy, hypocritical, and gullible said given source material makes its followers. In other words, how easily could it be corrupted and maintained to stay that way.
You could argue that the basic tenets of Christianity, the stuff expounded by Jesus, if you study it close enough, expounds, in a similar fashion, the ideals of this Buddhism. Which may or may not be true, but we've seen how easily corruptible these teachings have become. (My personal belief, close but no cigar. If Jesus were really expounding these ideals, he wouldn't have died either on the cross, nor as a martyr.)
This is not to say that this Buddhism isn't corruptible.
As recently as 1990, Nikken, the current head priest, has essentially excommunicated members of the SGI, because, as he says "only through my approval can you gain enlightenment." Quite pope-like. The Head Priest position within Nichiren Shoshu, is simply to study and serve the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, as well as the various sutras written by Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), but specifially the Lotus and Nirvana Sutras (Nirvana sutra exists simply to support the Lotus, think of it as a big epilogue). Nikken demanded money and fealty.
Thankfully, Nichiren Daishonin couldn't have been more damning in his warnings about this very thing, and spoke directly to anyone who decided to pick up his theories. Namely, to actively oppose anyone who attempts to tamper with the tenets of this Buddhism. *
There have been plenty of examples of this occurring, but the SGI is the only organization involving non-priests who took up this call. Around the time, during WWII, the Japanese government said that all existing religions must embrace and promote the practice of Shinto, to encourage a nationalistic unity.
The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood gave in. It was at this point that the SGI members started rebelling, then drew fire and persecution from the government. The SGI had been founded by a frustrated school teacher, who happened to stumble upon this Buddhism at a late age, nary a moment in any kind of religious teaching.
And this is what separates this organization from most other organized religions (current Nichiren Shoshu priesthood included), no where else will you find a body of laymen willing to stand up to a supposed authority and quote Cartman "fuck you, I do what I want (in this case, get enlightened by my own damn self)!"
Okay, this is a rambling answer, and written sporadically throughout the day. My apologies if it lacks cohesion, or if it doesn't answer your question at all. Feel free to take me back on topic, if that's the case.
nam-myoho-renge-kyo
*Another important exhortation: "If you embrace this Buddhism and it does not work for you, you can shout it from the mountains, you can discourage others from embracing it. Only, you must embrace it fully." I paraphrase, but that's the gist.
posted by the beige one at 11:34 AM
6 Comments:
My question was really specifically to your asterisk on the previous post. This one:
*Some would argue that, etymologically speaking, there isn't any difference between a god one worships, and a Mystic Law one should adhere to. The difference lay with where the power resides, one asks you to not to do something because it may piss off a higher power, the other places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the person. One tactic uses fear, the other attempts to appeal to wisdom.
There is a difference, subtle, but important.
My argument is that there is not really a difference here, or that the difference is one created and not inherent to the notion of Mystic Law and God. I just keep coming back to the idea that much of what you are seeing seems backlash to your prior religious experience (pre-Buddhism). Anger at the concept of God, even as expressed in your pointed use of the little g.
It also has to do with the different ways we understand the concept of God. Mine seems to me less routed in the Judeo-Christian ethic than yours. I don't speak of God as he or imagine a personality there - such things are just, as you allude to, human beings' need to anthropomorphize (quite probably as a crutch, but not necessarily one that has to be denigrated, despite the evil that it potentially allows to seep in).
In philosophy, when wrestling with the question of the existence of God, the definition of God is a being of omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection, but the "being" there is shorthand. It is just as easily all that can be known, all power that can be exercised, and goodness/truth. Which I would still call God, and is how I would describe, from my detached, non-adherent reading, as Mystic Law as well.
Which is why I so bristled at you a year and some back when you responded to my question "What does one do if God shows up?" with "I'd tell him to fuck off." The "him" you inserted was yours, not mine, and illustrates exactly the limits of people's ability to discuss God as a concept.
'Nother words, I've already taken God back from the Christians. I think you still let them dictate what the word means, and that is the source of the resistance to my belief that God and Mystic Law are different aspects of the same Vishnu.
(Side note, I roundly reject your notion that had Christ been expounding the same tenets, he wouldn't have died as he did. The spin, the trappings of it, might have been different, but is there not also a history of persecution against practitioners and teachers of your faith? Jesus was gonna get hisself killed by power eventually, unless he gave up teaching.)
And, clearly, even you must agree that corruptibility does not mean that that which is to be corrupted is as a result wrong. That the Bible has been corrupted doesn't necessitate that it does not and never has contained some Truth.
Is the problem for you really God? Or the way God has been tarted up?
Couple of things first:
1) The small "g" god thing I do is kind of my way of reclaiming the word. Also, in Buddhism, all gods are spelled with the small g. It's gotten to be habit.
2) If, as you say, your belief is that god and Mystic Law (I did that one to piss you off) are one and the same, why do you insist on creating a "judge" or a persona who administers the law? No matter how you word this particular argument, I will deny it.
I never took philosophy. It's an interesting thing, but I don't have time to delve into it, and if I did, it isn't something I want to dive into.
And I think you'll find that the majority of the population is in the same boat as me. Most of the population, when they hear the word god, think of the big G God, the one that's been taught to the populace for a couple thousand years. And yes, the tarted up "God" does chafe my ass.
(Tangent: This may be an apocryphal story, but some random nun who ran a Catholic school was quoted as saying "if you give us your child for 5 years, they will be Catholic for life." I was in a Catholic school for this amount of time, and I still struggle with thought patterns I now believe to be erroneous. I fight this pernicious battle constantly, and I will do so with any concept or language that comes close to reminding me of that crap.)
That said, I understand and grok your definition of the big G god. Congratulations, and you can keep it. Good luck convincing the Christians it's not their word anymore.
Me? I say let them have the fucking word, I have no interest in reclaiming it.
(Conversely, why do you insist on owning the word, what's so important about it? If it truly isn't any different than my saying "the Mystic Law," why are you so recalcitrant about my refusing to acknowledge it? more on this in a mo.)
I don't agree with the following statement:
...but not necessarily one that has to be denigrated, despite the evil that it potentially allows to seep in
do you know how many people hide behind statements like "god willing" or "god works in mysterious ways" or "god must want something else for me" to cover up a failure, or an inability to take action towards something they want? This is where the "evil" starts seeping in, if ya ken that.
That's the kind of crap that needs to be denigrated, because a faulty belief that's allowed to fester helps no one.
...illustrates exactly the limits of people's ability to discuss God as a concept
Yeah, exactly, and, you know, this concept of God you'd like to dispute has been ingrained for far too long in the Western subconscious. It is hardwired into our lizard brains. I guess what I don't get is why you want to tilt at this particular windmill.
That the Bible has been corrupted doesn't necessitate that it does not and never has contained some Truth.
I never said it didn't, but do you realize how much study has to be done in order to extract these truths in a clear and concise way, so as to avoid corruption? And then teaching that to others? It's a lot of work, on top of the work it'd take to ensure that whoever is listening is listening in the right manner.
...but is there not also a history of persecution against practitioners and teachers of your faith?
Oh, there is, and I'll spare you the details right now. Suffice it to say that Nichiren faced persecution from the highest office in Japan (exiled twice to the wastelands of Japan, and within seconds of being beheaded). He lived to die of natural causes, however. Shakyamuni also faced persecution during his time, and he also died of natural causes. Because they did not give up. They did not let seeminly inevitable circumstances and pressure crush either their spirit or their will to show the correctness of their beliefs. For, like Jesus, they were persecuted for their beliefs, only they lived flip off their tormentors another day.
And that is the biggest difference between your man Jesus, and the boys from the East side.
I only got two things right now - just got back from a long morning trip and need to scrub up.
I actually think you'd like philosophy, if you understood what it is. It is a way of thinking about and talking about problems. It allows you to work without the constraints of "you know how many people..." things without denying the truth of those statements - they are beside the point, for the point of discussion.
And, overall, I think you give the Christians too much credit, taking much time to discuss your deal in comparison to, or defining in opposition (no, not always, and obviously I'm drawing you into that here).
There is a certain light within you that I call a relationship with Truth. Something is working to enlighten you. I have seen that same light in some Christians. No, not all, not by a long shot, but neither do I see it in all practicing Buddhists or Taoists or Jews or Muslims or atheists. Hain's never seen it in a Scientologist.
So, I push because there is a commonality between you and, for example, my friend Kyle from Western. I'm not so much interested in the differences between you and he as that commonality. Anger and self-righteousness cloud people's ability to see it (and, for the record, I accuse you of the former and never the latter, except in the last line of your comment - "your man" indeed, when you know full well I'm a man without a country, and with some intense study of the texts of every major world religion, excepting the aforementioned L-Ronners, and the non-Sutra texts of yours), and make them focus on the differences.
More later, perhaps, but maybe not until Monday. Busy weekend.
I do understand what philosophy is, I just find it an overly intellectual exercise that tends to take one out of the moment. Not to come across as an anti-intellectual, it's just that more thinking isn't the answer to my problems. I find that, more often than not, it's usually the cause of my problems.
And, forgive me, but I don't see the practical usage of general philosophy on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps you can supply an example.
Besides, I don't want to "work without the constraints of 'you know how many people...'," because, in my mind, these are very real considerations in the non-abstract world.
But it sounds as if you're frustrated with my pedestrian desire to include everything and the kitchen sink in our discussion. To whit:
I think you give the Christians too much credit, taking much time to discuss your deal in comparison to, or defining in opposition (no, not always, and obviously I'm drawing you into that here).
You know, you're a cagey SOB, and I'm glad you included that parenthetical statement, because that is exactly where your initial question leads one.
However, what you're seeing me railing against is not just Christianity, it's any religion that insists on the imposition of 1) an uber (any Uber: God, Shiva, Siddhartha, Allah, the forests, etc.) and 2) a nirvana/heaven in an afterlife.
Put it this way: Under your redefinition of "God," would you consider yourself to be "God's equal?"
Beyond this, the "your man" line is meant to the theoretical reader who may be out there, and I actually thought it was funny (especially the "boys from the East side" bit). Also, it's an extenuation of the "Jesus/Buddhist forebears" comparison that had been going on in this thread. I never meant it as a personal slam.
Please consider an open invite to a future Buddhist meeting. Not for the purposes of proselytation, merely so that you can meet other NS Buddhists than myself. I'd be curious about your take on them.
"If you embrace this Buddhism and it does not work for you, you can shout it from the mountains, you can discourage others from embracing it. Only, you must embrace it fully."
Does this open up the stock response? "If it did not work for you, you must not have embraced it fully."
Has some tautological properties, that.
Does this open up the stock response? "If it did not work for you, you must not have embraced it fully."
Has some tautological properties, that.
yeah, I can see that. Please remember that the statement made was my paraphrasing of the matter.
Beyond that, though, the statement is meant as encouragement to those who are struggling.
The purpose of the "but you must embrace it fully" portion of the quote is mainly to remind the practitioner that any effort or endeavor requires one's full effort.
Get angry, curse if you have to. Demand that the gods should help and protect you in the matter. whatever you do, though, you must muster all of your energies and bring those to bear on your goals.
The statement is almost an equivalent to a "double your money back guarantee," where the maker knows his product is so stable and quality, that the likelihood of the guarantee being claimed is nonexistent.
Post a Comment
<< Home