BuddhaJones - Recent Comments

Hamamatsu

jccampb — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:42:27 GMT

wow ... last time I was there was '79 (with HTV ltd.) Sometimes I'd stay in the Ryokan .. sometimes at the Hilton but you're right very, very friendly people. BEST onagi in Japan, best shoyu too. Last time I was there I went to a meeting at someone's house after having just come back (old Shinkonsin) from Fujinomia and Taho- Fuji Dainichirenge-zan Taiseki-ji ... an old geezer got up to give an experience in a tuxedo ... he looked me straight in the eye and said "I have practiced this Buddhism for 50 years" ... I resolved to meet or break his record. snicker.
jccampb

Creative blending

auntie — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:57:18 GMT

Yes, life is complex. I am of the school that we are all profoundly intuitive beings. We do not need to chant or do anything special to become intuitive. We already are keenly sensitive to the complex dynamics of situations, and to the complicated needs and desires of ourselves and other people.

Often I chant to have the courage to live true to my intuitive perceptions.

I am not advocating a type of "anything goes" practice -- the type of practice where you just do whatever you want regardless of others or regardless of what the effect might be, but then chant to make "all good." That is not a healthy way to approach chanting. If you insist on drinking vodka all night, you will have a hangover the next day. Chanting is not "insurance" against getting a hangover.

Rather I mean that I intuitively know when a person needs a kind word from me (or a stern word, for that matter) -- we all know these things, intuitively, but often we fail to act on the information. I wish to courageously follow this intuitive guidance. I wish to speak the kind words that need to be spoken, without a moment's hesitation, even if my jealousy or anger or simple pettiness would have me withhold my generosity.

Having the confidence and self-esteem to trust my intuition is the key to "creatively blending virtue and vice."

Good for her, but...

auntie — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:41:03 GMT

I have mixed feelings. It is always wonderful when someone encounters namu myoho renge kyo and begins to chant. For some reason we feel an affinity for certain celebrities and are delighted when they start chanting because it's as if a friend has suddenly discovered the practice. I know nothing about Amy Winehouse. I would be glad to hear similar news about someone more of my generation. I would feel a sense of kinship with the person on some level.

But Beryl, as you know, the Bowling Club mixes poison with the medicine. They teach ridiculous doctrines and employ (as you pointed out) manipulative techniques and relational aggression to make members dependent on the organization. I would caution all new chanters to be extremely wary of involving themselves with soka gakkai.

I take heart that perhaps this young woman did not actually join the Bowling Club but has just picked up chanting from what she has seen Tina Turner doing online.

You said: "I don't care if she joined the Bowling Club, I just hope she continues her practice."

I too hope that she continues to chant and makes the practice her own. But all too often I have seen the Bowling Club impede growth and independence. I would tell her, "You don't need the Bowling Club. Just keep chanting."

Poll permissions

brooke — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:46 GMT

I went in and did it.

Engyo, when you click on "New Diary" under "Menu" you will see a third field -- scroll past the "main text" field and the "extended text" field -- where you can create polls. Each question/answer line allows only a certain number of characters, so your questions/answers have to be sorta concise. Have fun!

Anyone else want to create polls?

Go figure...

brooke — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:01:18 GMT

They say a woman who has an abortion is murdering her baby, but they don't demand jail time? I guess even they don't really believe their own overheated rhetoric.

I think Sarah Palin is a fantastic choice for McCain. She gives him a chance to with the election.

No one who is serious about Obama is going to be interested in voting for McCain now. That goes for Clinton supporters, too. Palin does nothing to attract Clinton voters. Nada. But McCain has succeeded in generating enthusiasm among Pentecostals, right-leaning soccer moms and the guns-n-jesus demographic.

It helps McCain that the Democrats have been so critical of Palin -- calling her "an insult," questioning her parenting, mocking her beauty queen looks. They seem to forget that being a business owner, a mayor and a governor means you make decisions, set policies and budgets, create jobs and actually run something. Whereas sitting in the senate means making laws -- not executive experience at all.

Besides, if the last two elections have shown us anything, it's that voters don't care about experience. George W. Bush was very light on experience compared to Al Gore.

John Edwards was OK to be a "heartbeat away" from the presidency four years ago, yet his experience in public office was just one term as a senator. (Now we know Edwards was light on experience AND had lousy judgment.)

Obama's relative lack of experience hasn't stopped voters from falling in love with him in 2008. It has worked to his advantage -- he has fresh ideas because he hasn't spent much time in Washington.

Oh, but suddenly "experience" is a big deal for Democrats. I'm a Dem, but I think all the smug strategists in my party should be scared that a gun-toting, marathon-running, moose-eating governor will make the race a lot tougher for Obama-Biden. While the Dems continue to take the allegiance of women voters for granted, the Repubs have reached out to women sympathetic to their party. Brilliant move.

As for the abortion question and Palin, pro-choice women are not going to vote for her. Palin has the cred of walking her talk, which is admirable -- and which is more than most men can claim. To me she is an example of why choice is a beautiful thing. How different the story would be if she had been legally forced to bear her child.

Crime and Punishment

Cultmember — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:51:21 GMT

I'm not aware of any pro-life group that wants to put women in jail for having an abortion. They would punish the doctors or others who perform them.

This issue has been brought to the fore again by McCain's choice for VP. I'm wondering what the women here think of that.

Small World

Cultmember — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:41:23 GMT

JC, I've been to Hamamatsu. A friend of mine in SGI went there to teach English and wound up settling down there. I went to visit him around '93. Nice place with friendly people.

Theravada's Take and My Take

EllBu — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:49:14 GMT

Access to Insight, widely considered the web's best and most comprehensive resource on Theravada, says Shakyamuni believed abortion was wrong because it violated the first of the Five Precepts, "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures." Any monastic who was found to have facilitated an abortion was expelled from the sangha for having broken a cardinal rule of monastic conduct.

The same source allows that Theravadans may choose to eat meat or not, as a matter of personal preference. However, many stop eating meat as they develop compassion for all living beings in the course of their practice.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org...

I oppose abortion entirely, but am forced to recognize that the U.S. is not capable of ending the practice in a way that is compassionate to mothers while saving the lives of fetuses. There are so many factors at work, most of them involving inequitable treatment of people in varying strata of society. It is one of our most ugly and blaring flaws as a nation.

Another is the meat industry, which cruelly abuses and tortures millions of animals to death each year just so consumers can experience the taste of a food that is neither necessary or healthful. I have been a gloriously healthy vegetarian for nearly 40 years, and frankly don't understand how people can think of themselves as "compassionate" while continuing to support such a vile industry.

Polls

beryl — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:04:28 GMT

Good points, Engyo. I will see about giving poll-creation permissions to your account. I know you'll come up with better questions and answers than me!

Brooke, do you know how to do this? Send me e-mail pls.

Responsibility

Engyo — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:03:08 GMT

I am male, but I would certainly like to find ways to make sure that males are given equal responsibility for the outcome of all pregnancies. Since any pregnancy not originating from medical intervention requires two participants, one male and one female, both should share equally in the responsibility for whatever outcome is chosen.

How this can be accomplished, I don't know. I have hopes it would lead to a less callous attitude on the part of many males who deem an unwanted pregnancy to be the problem of the female alone.

Anyone have any interesting ideas?

Individual action

beryl — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:59:37 GMT

I have to agree, jcc. I have noticed that sometimes we Nichiren Buddhists can get caught up in notions of unity/ itai doshin and group membership so much that we forget the power of the individual. I think that Nichiren's teachings emphasize individual action more than collective action, which strikes me as remarkable for a medieval Japanese man. (Go Nichiren!)

Most organized Nichiren groups ask at some point: Are more people joining? Are we growing as an organization? Naturally, this thinking takes the emphasis off the question of whether members are growing individually in their practice and understanding. As a result of mistaken focus (group trumps individual), the power of these groups eventually wanes.

Avoiding dogmatism

beryl — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:42:25 GMT

With issues such as this, I feel it's important to avoid dogmatism. I cannot agree with those who state that according to Buddhism, all abortion is wrong. This view does not take into consideration the myriad circumstances that might be involved -- pregnancy due to rape or incest, medical complications, economic destitution, severe emotional distress, etc. I believe that the woman in question should be allowed to make her own choice based on her circumstances.

At the same time, I do not believe that all abortions are totally OK and should be encouraged. (Actually, I don't know anyone who thinks this.) Abortion is emotionally painful, for one thing, and adoption can be a viable alternative in some situations. Counseling should be available to women pre- and post- abortion. I do think there should be some rules and regulations -- and there are.

Debate about this issue in this country has polarized into right vs. wrong, based mostly on religious views regarding the absolute sanctity of life. Abortion has become a question of morality (dogmatic right vs. wrong) instead of ethics (proper conduct of the individual in various circumstances.)

The dogmatic argument does not take into account the free will of women, or that a woman can have a real, important purpose in life beyond bearing children -- or that investing in sex education for girls and boys, modeling sexually responsible behavior, and providing birth control and health care are key to reducing abortion.

Politics and Religion ...

jccampb — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:08:09 GMT

Brooke ... I don't think they are separate at all. It's where the instigation of action comes from. Again, I think / feel that individuals who are also Nichiren Buddhists ... as individuals .... take their practice into their lives, and in the process of perceiving the true nature of reality? Then they should make their own decisions about what they should do / be involved in, in the Saha world. And you won't get any argument out of me on the Komeito ... snicker. I never have gone on an organized Tozan. Always it was in conjunction with business trips to Tokyo and Hamamatsu-shi. On one of my first trips (while still officially a member of NSA) The Senior Managing Director of our partner firm in Japan, Hamamatsu TV Ltd. Turned to me and said, John, how come you always go do things with those Soka Gakkai people when you come to our labs in Japan? That's just an organization for bored housewife's who have no life.
At the time I was flabbergasted .. it took me ten years to figure it out. I marched in a lot of parades till I did snicker but ... whatever turns your crank as they say.
jccampb

My comments

brooke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:07:58 GMT

...were a general statement. You needn't have take them personally.

But while you're at it, I'd be interested to hear more about why you think politics are separate from the ultimate reality. I was under the impression (from something Nichiren wrote) that no affairs of life or work are in any way separate from the Mystic Law.

Also, I think the political mobilization of millions of Gakkai members in Japan just proves that it is a political corporation focused on the accumulation of power and wealth, not a religious organization at all. The paper that Beryl linked to above shows how the teachings of Nichiren have been exploited for political purposes in the past. The Gakkai corporation is just the latest group to hijack Nichiren.

How much time?

brooke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:56:42 GMT

Glad you're in the "keep it legal" camp. Those who want to outlaw abortion need to answer some tough questions.

Terminate a pregnancy, go to jail: Should a woman be sentenced to one year of prison for using birth control, two years for using a "morning after" pill like RU-486, three years if implantation has occurred, four years if the pregnancy is terminated in the first trimester, five years if there were medical complications with the pregnancy after the first trimester -- but ten years if there were no medically compelling reasons to terminate the pregnancy...?

When anyone says that abortion is "the taking of a life," and is therefor a crime no different than premeditated murder, they need to get specific about how this crime should be punished.

And what about "accomplices" such as the person who supplied the sperm, the phramacist who fills a prescription for birth control or RU-486, the doctor who prescribes these pills or performs an abortion -- how much jail time should they do?

I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them took it lightly. All choices are freighted with karma. I've heard Buddhist theories regarding which actions are helpful and which are harmful to the attainment of enlightenment, but I've never read anything that says people should be prevented from making their own difficult choices on deeply personal matters of life and death.

Poiticians Changing One's Life

EllBu — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:59:39 GMT

"When you think about it,when has a politician really changed anyone's life?"

I think it goes without saying that politicians can and do change the lives of individuals. If we can accept that one of the most common ways for one's life to change is through the introduction, internalization, and actualization of specific ideas, one can easily point to John F. Kennedy as a very obvious recent example of a politician changing lives. We may be seeing this effect again with Barack Obama.

It is also easy to invoke the names of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others of their ilk as more negative examples of this phenomenon. There are even some current politicians I might include in this latter vein, but since they still hold office in the U.S., I'll refrain :)

I think many in the Baby Boom generation would say that John Kennedy changed their lives by changing their ways of thinking, probably directly helping to fuel the whole '60's to mid '70's counter revolution. On a more practical note, if you were mentally ill when Nixon (and I believe Reagan later on) cut funding for housing and services to that population, it would be hard to deny that a politician changed your life, since you may easily have ended up on the streets.

I'm not denying that a Buddhist can potentially alter or even forestall the effects of political change, both internally and externally. I just think it's unrealistic to dismiss the rhetoric and actions of politicians as having no direct effect on the lives of individuals.

Ell

Two different things

Engyo — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:45:34 GMT

Hi Onapath -

Personally, to me there is a big difference between the separation of church and state (as a governmental concept) and separating politics and religions as applied to the individual.

Maybe I wasn't clear - like JCCampb, I feel that politics should be an individual endeavor, and not engaged in by religious groups or traditions (in the USA at a minimum). My personal Buddhist practice certainly informs my personal political viewpoint; what I won't do is translate that into telling my fellow sangha members how they should vote. I don't mind telling them why I may choose to vote a certain way (if asked) but that's as far as it goes, and usually not that far. Again, these are my opinions, and your mileage may vary.

How can politics and religions be separate?

Onapath — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:47:22 GMT

I believe in consistency from beginning to end. From the least among us, to the President. I'm not even certain there is any difference, from a perspective of chanting nam myoho renge kyo, between the power of the least among us and the President.

I do believe everytime anyone chants, even if their attitude is not perfect, their posture sloppy and their emotions wildly out of control, it makes a difference.For them and for the rest of us.

So I believe the engaged Buddhist, the engaged Christian, and even a postive thinking atheist, power the engine of change.

I do not believe it emanates from one candidate, one President, or one powerful donor. When you think about it,when has a politician really changed anyone's life?

Voting ...

jccampb — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:59:05 GMT

I Do hope you didn't misunderstand me Brooke ... Not only do I vote, I've never missed an election. I was simply skating around one of our factions who owns their own political party somewhere ... thus blurring religious organization (not individuals) and political organizations (not Politically involved individuals)

I worked for three sitting Presidents over the years, as well as doing liaison for the Joint Economic Committee when the late Lloyd Bentsen was Chairman on U.S. Japan relations with the old MITI organization. (We had a solar cell we couldn't get made here and were working with member companies of the EIAJ; Electronic Industries Asssociation of Japan. I actually still have a letter of thanks from Lloyd and Ted Kennedy for exposing the then Chairman of Mostek Corporation's lying to the Committee under oath about his supposed inability to sell his products in Japan.

And having been a registered Democrat who often votes Independent, the only reason I'd of ever made fun of Al Gore is that I had the distinct misfortune to actually eternally listen to him in person on the Sci Tech Committee and Senate Banking Comm. and Senate Appropriations Comm., babbling on with technological buzzwords that he clearly didn't know much about, and showing that he was at best a pseudo technological groupie with the bad luck to pick lousy scientific advisers to align with and give him advice. I had one of them in my lab trying to explain how he was going to wrap Mercator project maps around a 20' tall globe and then overlay it with data. (The fella came in with a video of him with Al on his shoulder saying this is my boy here). He was unhappy when he realized he had walked into a room with three actual cartographers.

Since I helped write the original specification for computer manipulation of LANDSAT data? (Before NASA EROS was privatized) I have some small familiarity with the concepts ... Al Gore does not, nor did his technical advisors.. though he constantly represented himself to the contrary.

Am I to gather you also had personal contact with Brother Gore? I only had to cope with him intermittently over the course of 8 years thankfully.
So individuals participating in our system (Buddhist or not) I think you'd have a hard time finding someone more involved in the process. I just think it's individuals who participate, not as a block of religious voters marching in lockstep.
jccampb

Mixed metaphors?

Engyo — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:37:43 GMT

Hi, Beryl -

I am not quite sure your answers go with your question, the way I am reading them anyway.

Should Nichiren Buddhists be concerned about politics?
Yes, politics are an extension of engaged Buddhism
No, the realm of faith should be kept separate
Sometimes, if the issues warrant it
Other. I will comment below.

The answers to me seem to be to a different question, namely : "Should Nichiren Buddhists consider their involvement in politics (voting and/or more) as part of their Buddhist practice?".

Here are the answers I would have given to the original question had I written the poll:

Should Nichiren Buddhists be concerned about politics?

Yes, politics affect our lives, our livelihood, and the society we live in.
No, all we need to do is chant. We can ignore all of that irrelevant stuff.
Sometimes, if/when an issue directly affects us personally.
Other, I will comment below.

Please don't take this as criticism, the question and the answers just didn't fit together for me.

My personal answer to the question is that I believe all citizens, regardless of religious belief or practice should be concerned about politics enough to at least exercise their right to vote.

I firmly believe in the separation of church (temple, community center, synagogue, mosque,etc.) and state. I think that if Nichiren had ever been exposed to such a system, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly as well. I don't believe that any Buddhhist should tell any other Buddhist how to vote on an issue or who to vote for based on the fact of their shared practice, but that's my opinion. YMMV.

Personally

brooke — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:28:27 GMT

I think it's irresponsible for citizens to neglect politics, regardless of religious affiliation. Someone told me that Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to vote because God, not the state, is their true master. I wonder if that argument holds any water with the IRS.

In a democracy, it's your duty to pay attention and exercise your right to vote. I have run into more than a few hipster Buddhists who are too cool to be bothered with voting, or they think voting is a scam or sham. These are the same people who preach peace, love and art -- and are just "sick" about the wars we've waged and global warming and about perceived corruption in government.

How special. Where were you four years ago? Where were you eight years ago? Oh, that's right. You were making fun of that priggish technocrat named Al Gore. what ever happened to that loser?

If you don't vote, you can't complain.

Maddow

brooke — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:12:57 GMT

I only you had seen Rachel Maddow at the makeshift MSNBC studio. That would have been JACKPOT.

MSNBC

Cultmember — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:54:52 GMT

What, MSNBC is not inside the convention? How does that work? I don't get it.

mixing ...

jccampb — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:13:46 GMT

I suspect the wrong premise is at question here. Can Buddhists be political (as individuals) I'd say that's a resounding yes. Can they NOT be political? Again I believe the answer is yes. but as INDIVIDUALS who also happen to be Buddhists. As soon as you raise the banner of transient political expediency over the Law of the Universe by implying Buddhists as a collective group should march in unison (as Buddhists united) on transient matters (because they are all Buddhists?) you (in my opinion) mix food with dung. (I believe we're all familiar with the metaphor). Back to the herding cats concept again. jccampb

New Diary

beryl — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:04:02 GMT

Hey, I suggest that one of you start a new diary if/when you want to continue the abortion debate. Maybe you can spell out your views in a more comprehensive way and invite others to comment as well. Thx.

Politics and Religion ...

jccampb — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:30:44 GMT

Jim Walker did a good job of summarizing our Founding Fathers opinion of the necessity of separating Church and State. Probably THE most significant thing they did.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jeffe...
One of the things that caught me up about this Buddhism some 33 years ago was the common sense of noticing Transient (subjective) and non-transient Truth. Politics, like every other facet of societies are completely subjective, not only to the society in general but to the individual in specific.

How logical it was! And the fact that the only 'real' place you could be as one in mind would be about the only eternal (non-transient) truth, the Law itself! Any other statement of being one in mind (other than about the Law) has to be conditional because each of us have different lives, different experiential backgrounds etc.

This was why the fact that early on I was told there were no "rules" in Buddhism made such brilliant sense to me. No dietary laws, no criteria on how to dress, etc. all of those things and even so many that have ended up in Common Law (forbidding same sex marriage, etc.) are examples of subjective / transient truths that a society as a whole attempts to lay claim to as societal truths.

We have a litigious society because we teach morals in school, not ethics. two concepts that are NOT synonymous. Invariably Morals leads back like the stench of a rotten fish to someone's specific religion and not to the very simple concept that says your right to your pursuit of happiness? Stops where my nose takes up. 2000 years ago? it was a substantially BAD idea to eat shellfish or pork around the Middle East so since the religious bodies (Islam, Judaism)were the only perminent law givers / means of enforcement, these transient truths were made into eternal laws, thus further flawing the nature of their ersatz supposed eternal truths.
Buddhism says you can't change anyone but yourself and your own perception of what the Universe and reality are in relationship to you. I certainly like the observation regarding herding Buddhist cats as a metaphor. I think you can't call anyone more or less Buddhist (candidates) who doesn't Practice Buddhism that (to me)would constitute an oxymoron.
jccampb

Blastocyst=baby?

deardenver — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:55:35 GMT

"Terminating pregnancy at one week is just not the same as terminating pregnancy in the third trimester..." Why isn't it? I don't understand what this sliding scale is based on.

Generally, because a blastocyst is not a baby any more than an acorn is an oak sapling. Two different concepts, two totally different things.

If we don't decide by voting or some other mundane means, how are we going to decide? Is Ikeda, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope going to decide for us?

When it comes to abortion, what is your objection to letting a woman make her own decisions about her own reproductive health?

None of the above

EllBu — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:37:41 GMT

I picked Obama because he is the candidate I am going to vote for. But none of them are more or less "Buddhist" for the simple reason that not one of them practices Buddhism, to my knowledge. How can you be described as any degree of "Buddhist" if you don't practice?

It may be possible to argue over whose known policies and opinions are more SIMILAR to those "a Buddhist" might espouse. But first you have to decide who "a Buddhist" is. The ONLY attribute you can accurately apply to more than one Buddhist is the fact that they practice some form of Buddhism.

Once a definition of "Buddhist" is agreed upon, you next get to argue about who is practicing "true" Buddhism. When that is settled, the next fight will be over who is practicing "true" Buddhism "correctly"! After that, who has the "true mentor." Then who practices "enough." Followed by who practices with the right thoughts in mind (or should it be no thoughts?). And on and on...

Kosen Rufu should be an interesting time. Politics will probably look a lot like "herding Buddhist cats."

Vapid is as vapid does

Cultmember — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:49:57 GMT

(That's a joke) As a society we have to decide how we are going to address life-and-death issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and how best to defend our country. I don't see how saying life doesn't begin or end contributes to the discussion. In fact to me it seems to be saying we can end a life anytime we want because it doesn't really end.

If we don't decide by voting or some other mundane means, how are we going to decide? Is Ikeda, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope going to decide for us?

"Terminating pregnancy at one week is just not the same as terminating pregnancy in the third trimester..." Why isn't it? I don't understand what this sliding scale is based on.

End of Innocence

Onapath — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:36:10 GMT

In another lifetime, I was a guest of Jimmy Carter for his acceptance speech at Madison Square Garden (l976). Yesterday I blogged from an activist forum at the DNC. I am dumbstruck by the loss of innocence. My own and theirs.

The Barrack thing strikes me as cultish, remniscent of my own experience with Buddhism. Even though I temporarily reacted to the emotionalism of Michelle's speech, upon reflection it seemed calculated.

While John McCain used to appear more authentic, I cannot bear to watch him today. Cynthia McKinney may be a nut, nevermind her deliberate extremism. A collegue told me when she worked for Ralph Nader he was 24/7 stoned, before we knew what 24/7 meant.

It is hard to decide if absolute power corrupts, or power corrupts absolutely.