The precepts of the Lotus Sutra are viewed from two aspects. First, they are precepts of comparative myo, or comparative wonderfulness; second, they are precepts of absolute myo, or absolute wonderfulness.
First, with regard to the term “precepts of comparative myo,” it means that, when the Mahyana and Hinayana precepts set forth by the Buddha in the first forty and more years of his preaching life are compared with the precepts of the Lotus Sutra, the former are seen to be “rough precepts,” while the latter are seen to be “wonderful precepts.” The precepts set forth in the various other sutras are disliked because the are precepts before the truth was revealed, precepts to be practiced over numerous kalpas, precepts of those forever predestined by nature for the two vehicles, while the precepts of the Lotus Sutra are the precepts of the truth, precepts for the immediate attainment of enlightenment, precepts allowing persons of the two vehicles to attain Buddhahood. When the latter are compared to the former, one can see which are rough and which are wonderful. Therefore we speak of the latter as “precepts of the comparative myo.”

THE FIRST THING
It cannot be an easy task to translate an ancient language into something a modern person can recognize as a coherent sentence that will resonate its meaning within the reader. That being said, what first attracted my attention to this passage is that, in my anally retentiveness, I noticed the conclusion is inconsistent with the premise. I’m not sure if this is because of a mistake by the publisher, the translator, or Nichiren himself. But the conclusion in this case should be that the “latter” becomes “precepts of the absolute myo.” This would make it consistent with other letters by Nichiren where he argues absolute over provisional in context with capacity and time.

“Question: We are told to discard sutras that are not complete and final and adhere to those that are complete and final...”

“Answer: The words ‘complete and final’ or ‘not complete or final’ have different meanings depending on the context...”

Nichiren goes on to argue in this letter that sutras preceding the Lotus are valid contextually in terms of the capacity of those being preached to, but are incomplete when compared to the Lotus in terms of absoluteness. Without arguing what the term “expedient” can refer to in its various contexts, the pre-Lotus sutras are an austerity and offer a Buddhahood that is inferior to the Lotus Sutra’s:

“When Buddhist teachers who base their teachings on the sutras preached in the first forty and more years claim that such sutras are fitted to the capacity of the people, they do so because they have not yet understood the true nature of the Buddha’s teaching.” Page 118.

Nichiren makes this same case for the Lotus Sutra in very extensive arguments in The Object Of Devotion For Observing The Mind, The Opening Of The Eyes, and numerous other letters.

In The Teaching, Capacity, Time, and Country, Vol.I, page 49, Nichiren argues capacity/time contextually in terms of the wisdom of the teacher:

“If even Shariputra, the foremost in wisdom among the disciples of the Buddha, failed to understand people’s capacity, then how much more difficult must it be for ordinary teachers today, in the Latter Day of the Law! Ordinary teachers who lack the understanding of people’s capacity should teach only the Lotus Sutra to those who are under their instruction.
Question: What about the passage in the Lotus Sutra that says, ‘Do not teach this sutra to persons who are without wisdom.’
Answer: When I speak of understanding capacity, I am referring to preaching by a person of wisdom. Again, one should preach only the Lotus Sutra even to those who slander the Law, so that they may establish a so called ‘poison-drum relationship’ with it. In this respect one should proceed as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging did.”

It appears that Nichiren has “faith” that the Lotus Sutra will eventually lead those two to enlightenment even in a negative relationship.

What is unclear is if those seeds lead to Buddhahood in same lifetime. If not, the “poison-drum” is an austerity and is an expedient means. Nichiren’s caveat seems to be Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, i.e. treating people with the greatest respect. I’m not acquainted with how other organizations operate, but I’ll venture to say that the SGI-USA has the first half of this equation down pat.

THE OTHER THING
Here the translator refers to “myo” as “wonderful” which is a reading that I have seen from other Nichiren sects. I actually prefer “wonderful” or “wonderous” over “mystic” as those two are more accessible to a commonsensical, reality based daily life as it exists in today’s modernity.

We in the SGI-USA usually refer to Myo as “mystic” as in The Mystic Law. One explanation of the word “mystic” from an English dictionary describes it as this:
a person who seeks by contemplation and self surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
And the explanation of “mystical” is:
transcending human understanding.
Therefore, “mystic”, by this definition, is the personification of that which is “mystical”.
So it would seem that when we Nichiren Buddhists refer to the “mystic law” we are referring to the personification of that which is transcendental to our understanding but is becoming integrated into our very person. But is that actually what we believe? When we refer to the “mystic” law we really think in terms of the “mystical” law, something that is apart from ourselves. And we don’t think of ourselves as “mystics”. Why is that? Is it because this law can only be understood between Buddhas and we don't see every person we come into contact with in our daily life as a mystic? Perhaps. Words that have a nuanced meaning that may differ from culture to culture may be at times problematic. As a person living in a time of sharing vast amounts of information, there's a big difference, to my way of thinking, between having the potential to become an enlightened individual and having the potential to become a mystic.

WND Vol. II

The Unanimous Declaration By The Buddhas of the Three Existences regarding the Classification of the Teachings and Which Are to Be Abandoned and Which Upheld

Not just one of the most beautiful letters Nichiren had written, but somebody gave it quite a handle too.

My wife and I had gone to our itty-bitty condo in Utah, which we rent out when not being used by us, during Thanksgiving week and packed the lock out with presents for the kids, the youngest being 18 and the rest are in their 30's. I have come to think of the Christmas holiday as not much more than a reason to leave LA and get away from it all, especially the madness, the sadness, the franticness that Christmas seems to bring out of many people. As a matter of fact, that's why I bought the place 15 years ago when I was flush. And I like to ski. It's at 8,000 feet altitude and walkable to the slopes. With an unobstructed view of the mountains that takes your breath away so much so that you don't need to ski to enjoy being there. Food tastes better. Books read better. Music sounds better. I described it to a writer once and he ironically dubbed it "Nirvana".

The condo itself was originally two bedrooms. I converted an aditional small space into another room with a bed. By small I mean I actually built a bed in the room like a ship in a bottle. It's not a room so much as a cocoon. The living room sofa has a bed in it too.
So technically it sleeps eight. But six is very manageable. Six humans that is.

So the plan, and we had a plan, was for six humans and three small dogs; a pug Adel, a miniature Pom puppy Tater Tot (a miniature Pom is like a regular Pom with the same amount of hyper activity in half the body and half the brain), and a mutt named Celie, whom I've written about before. I went a week ahead of everybody else to do what us handy guys do; fix stuff. Secretly I imagined myself skiing most of the time. (Ha ha ha!) I took two of the dogs, the ones who don't mind the cold so much, with me. It's about a twelve hour drive, which I like do do in one shot while listening to books on tape. My wife and I, when we travel together, don't listen to the same stuff. She likes Danielle Steel and Nora Roberts. They put me into a diabetic coma. I like Richard Dawkins or Cormac McCarthy both of whom my wife finds tediously boring. She refers to them as my "Buddha Buddies". She doesn't practice Buddhism. I don't get it either. But I think it has something to do with the fact that I chant daily and therefore I'm obsessed with Buddhism. I brush my teeth twice a day too but she doesn't refer to my preferred reading as my "dental care cronies".

When me-and-them-there-dogs-got-to-where-we-was-agoin', it was cold. Really cold. 40 degrees below freezing. When I open the car door, the dogs jumped out then jumped right back in and asked to go home again. They knew I was tired from twelve hours behind the wheel so they told me that they'd take turns driving home. I tried to explain to them that we were on vacation, this was going to be fun, and that their licenses were for being vaccinated, not driving a vehicle. "Besides, dogs shouldn't drive at night." That's what I told them and they bought it. Hey, they're dogs and the Dog Whisperer told me to take charge, so I did.

Once inside I discovered that we had no running water. With the subzero temperatures even the dogs could figure out that the pipes had frozen somewhere. So at 3AM I found myself crawling in the crawl space (thus the name) looking for busted pipes with a miners light strapped to my forehead and pulling a space heater behind me, my thinking being the sooner I started the thaw, the sooner I could take a pee inside. I got no sympathy from the dogs.

At the end of the crawl I didn't find any busted water pipes. I did find that I couldn't turn around. So while I laid there on the frozen subfloor slab, I tried to recall what Charles Bronson did in the Great Escape. Or that old guy from Strangers On A Train. I also remembered some lyrics from Big John and Timothy. Those motivated me enough to put everything into reverse. I couldn't help but laugh at myself thinking that here was yet another occasion where if I could only pull my head out of my ass I could at least see where I was going.

The next day I left dozens of messages for plumbers before finally actually speaking to one who said they would be there when they could. Everyone everywhere had busted pipes. I was fortunate to even get a hold of one. I was also fortunate to get ahold of my neighbors and let them know that there was a problem. They got me access to their places because all the pipes run under each other's units. The next night when the plumber finally came we found that someone (no one copped to it) had turned off my neighbors heat and all the pipes froze under that unit. 24 hours later, we could flush again. So where did I go pee for two days? With the dogs, of course. Where did I do everything else? At Home Depot of course. I learned a lot of clever things when I was younger and living in my car.

This whole time I was chanting that things got resolved asap and that I wouldn't let this be too distracting while I got the place ready for the family. It did and I wasn't. So far, so good. Then my wife called.

She was on the way, driving separately, and informing me after the fact that she was bringing two aditional BIG DOGS, Brutus a boxer and Igor a bulldog, belonging to HER kids. One of HER kids initially wasn't coming, but now is coming and bringing a friend. "I'm driving so I gotta go. Bye." Click. She knew intrinsically that I'd say no to the dogs for sure, possibly even say no to HER kid who changed their mind, so she took me out of that equation. We now had 8 humans and 5 dogs. 13 mammals. 16 feet and 20 paws. That's when the water heater broke.

Okay, so now I'm getting pissed. I have to get ahold of the plumber again, drop a grand for the Christmas-time-priced water heater, and text my wife to drive slower so they don't show up with the unwanted BIG DOGS, which would in turn drive the sequestered little dogs crazy all the while I have men, pipes and welding torches all over the kitchen.

Things I don't want to hear from my wife when she show's up:
"Did you get all the food on the list I gave you?"
"Oh boy, it's Christmas!"
"So, how's it been skiing?"

"The purpose of this passage of commentary is to assure foolish persons of this latter age that they are included among those who can carry out the practice. The term "the ordinary distracted mind" is used in contrast to the term "the mind fixed in concentration." Chanting the Lotus Sutra means chanting all eight volumes, one volume, one word, one phrase, one verse, responding to the sutra with joy for single moment and continual propagation to the fiftieth person. The words "whether sitting, or standing, or walking" means that there is no objection to [fixing your whole mind on the words of the Lotus Sutra while] carrying out the activities of daily life. The term "whole mind" does not mean the mind that observes the truth. It is the mind that is found within the ordinary distracted mind of daily life."

WND VOL. II
On the Protection Of the Nation

I felt entitled to be upset. I was justified in my anger. I was mystified as to why no one else could see what I see. I was like an angry American Idol reject; synonym-delusional.
I had a conversation with my wife where I told her what a selfish and stupid thing this was to bring too many people and animals together in too small a space because now no one was going to have a good time because everyone had to spend it cleaning up dog pee and dog poop and walking these dogs out in subzero temperatures. Of course I was talking about me. Of course this was in my head and not actually to my wife's face where she could hear. Of course this was while I was chanting. Of course I was so resentful. Of course I tried to mask it for a day or so. Of course that didn't work and the tension was palpable.

I teetered on this edge, chanting in my distracted mind, unresolved, as to whether or not to just go to a very miserable place and drag everyone with me, when I found the energy-life force to make the determination not to go there. Yes I got up three hours before everyone to walk the dogs in stages; feed them; walk them again; go to the balconies and pick up frozen poop; carry buckets of hot water to wash off frozen pee; then make coffee while I went and chanted for five minutes. When everyone else got up I would great them with "Who wants breakfast before I go ski?" Something changed in me. I liked me. I could enjoy all this now. I could appreciate being with these people and their dogs. It became mutual. There was a balance that came with my change in attitude, because now everyone else could see too that dogs needed to be looked after when the dogs needed it and not when they got up. Everybody pitched in. The change was a half conscious choice, but that only came after I had the energy that comes with HOPE. The hope came from me. It was there all the time, just the other side of despair.

We had the best time for the whole rest of the time. (Tater Tot too) Later in the week the eight of us were invited to dinner at a friends home. It's a really big home. They are really sweet people. They are also zillionaires. They invited anyone who wanted to ride home on their private jet. So when the time came, they took three people and three dogs. Super cool. Because that gave me time to clean the condo before the housekeepers I hired to clean, came to clean. And don't react like I'm the only anally retentive person who does this either! You know who you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html

My friend was all excited about it. I'd never heard of Robert Lanza. But the article in the Huffington left me skeptical and negative about what he was saying. So I look up the author and found the complete article:

http://www.dynamicdata.com.au/biocentrism.htm

On first reading Biocentrism appeared to be very scientific. And Robert Lanza definitely has credentials. But something didn't sit right. So I read it again and again. It appeared that he was criticizing Creationism. But them it also appeared he endorsing Anthropic Bias. So I decided to check what my favorite Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, thought about a fellow biologist. The same day as the Huffington article was posted, was a complete rebuking posted on Dawkins site. Biocentrism is the Anthropic Bias Principle on steroids.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

Dan Barker, Author of "Losing Faith in Faith:" "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."

I’d wish I could say that most Nichiren Buddhists are closer to a humanistic and rational belief system but I can’t. I know just as many who practice like a Born-Again-Buddhist-Bush, who literally “ask the Gohonzon”, as those who practice with themselves as the center of responsibility. I could be wrong, I have been many times before and I look forward to learning the error of my ways in the future, but at this juncture in my life I think one of the big conundrums I see that leads to suffering in mankind is the very human condition of spirituality.

As a species we are very attached to the manifestations of our spirituality whether they be mudras or attitudes. There are hundreds of gestures from Brahmanism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The American evangelicals raising either one or both hands with head up and eyes closed to accept the gift of grace from God is very similar to the American Indian, with hands lowered and head up in the appeal to the Great Spirit. Christians and Buddhists pray with palms together. Every culture shows respect by bowing, kneeling, or lowering oneself to a greater authority, perhaps an imitation from nature which evolved into culture.

Attitudes about spirituality are something unique to our species:

“I got’ure Merry Christmas, right here pal!”

I’m going to give a couple of examples from recent experience, but I want to preface it with the statement that I believe the attitude could be from any religion, Judaic, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Brahman, Buddhist, Shamanism, Odinism, etc. I was at an SGI discussion meeting and an individual spoke up and said that she’d like to share something with the group. She produced a photograph that she had taken, reproduced, and handed out to everyone. She qualified her story which followed the pictures with the statement, “I’m a very spiritual person,…”. Two things immediately popped into my mind: One, she felt that people might think her behavior odd, so she needed to mollify everyone’s skepticism by invoking that sacred and subjective untouchable, spirituality; two, she felt that she was more spiritual than everyone else. What she ended up sharing was a picture of sunlight on her bathroom shower curtain in a form that she interpreted to be a fairy who came to visit her. The fairy came every day for a week. Her reaction isn't spiritually different from someone who looks at a sunset and believes there is an omniscient omnipotent being that created it or someone who sees the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich. I feel very spiritual after watching The Incredibles. Tearfully so.

The second example is a simple statement: “That wasn’t very Buddhist-like of me.” The meaning is that there is an indicative way to behave, an attitudinal mudra, that is Buddhist, separate from the rest of daily life and humanity. To my mind this defeats the whole purpose of practicing Buddhism, and is an endemic problem contained within the concept of the spirituality evoked by all religions.

Me at a World Peace gathering.

REALLY?

"A COLD BUCKET OF PAIN IN MY FACE"

REALLY?

"FROZEN AS SNOW ON THE PEAK OF A HIMALAYAN MOUNTAIN IN WINTER"

REALLY?

MY RE-WRITE:
It was hot in Bodh Gaya. When wasn't it? And the way Yasodhara looked in that flimsy saffron burnoose just made things hotter for me. She walked willfully towards me and I sensed that she wasn't in the mood for transcending attachments. Tossing a long strand of her raven black hair back away from her face in a gesture defying the warm breeze that that blew it there, I could tell she was cumin onto me like curry on rice.
"Is that a Bodhi tree you're sitting under, or are you just happy to see me?"
"Stop kidding around, Yasi. I'm not in that world."
But I didn't mean it. And she knew it. Her third eye could always see right through my bullskrit.
"You know what they say", she said, "when Gotama's away..."
"Wait. Don't tell me," I said. "He doesn't understand your desires. Spare me. I've heard it all before in a previous life time."
She threw her head back with a laugh that was both maniacal, angry, and sexy. Both those things.
"Ha! Just the opposite. He understands me too well. He understands everything. And I'm sick of it! Do you hear me? Sick of it!"
When she sat down next to me, I knew my mud pie was cooked.
"Don't get me wrong. I like a wise guy. As long as he knows how to use his wisdom. Do you know how to use it? Do you?"
She was so close to me I couldn't tell which ear she was whispering into. One thing I knew for sure. This path I was on was going to land me in a lower world and it wasn't Tierra del Fuego.
"Come on Shariputra, show me your Treasure Tower!" When we fell into each others arms, we just kept on falling. And they call me smart! How dumb can a sap get?

My dog Celie was outside this morning when I started to chant. I could hear her come through the doggie door and back into the house. It’s a straight 60-foot shot down a hallway from there to where I sit. And I could see my little black speed racer, who I’ll match with any dog for a 60-foot race, tearing down the tile towards me with her tug of war toy in her mouth. She’s become part of my ritual. Or we’ve become part of each other’s. There are always a couple of forgotten dog items around my chair, which I pick up daily just like I used to do with my toddler children. But for the first five minutes of each morning and evening’s chant, I play tug of war with Celie. Then I play tug of war with myself. For everyday morning and evening when I chant I ask myself this: if my daily actions are predicated on my beliefs, then what do I believe and why do I believe what I believe.

I feel very appreciative to have the opportunity to ask those questions and a place to ask them. I feel even more appreciative to have a reason to ask them. Occasionally I conjure up a memory of an action, something I did or said or didn’t do or didn’t say, and find myself incredulous that I once believed that whatever it was, was without consequences. That I wasn’t responsible. That I was entitled. That I was justified. So I make a little vow to myself to try and not be repetitive and forgive myself. This requires patience. And I find the energy I need to keep on keeping on through my Buddhist practice and the support of my friends and the fellowship of others, Buddhist and otherwise.

I consider myself aligned to the SGI. There are those who therefore think I will practice and behave like how they believe an SGI member will practice and behave. And there are those in the SGI who don't think I'm a proper member if I don't practice and behave like they do. I practice Buddhism like an atheist. Well,…as close as can be done for someone who sits in front of an altar twice a day that is, LOL! Probably an incorrect analogy. Perhaps a better way to describe it would be "a healthy skeptic trying not to become a cynic". I try to keep any cult-ture out of my practice and this is reflected, or in this case not reflected on my altar: no water, incense, candles, greens, etc. There is an occasional note to myself, but that’s subjective, not cultural. Don’t use beads. Don’t genuflect to the Gohonzon when coming or going. In other words, most of the indicative actions of what someone else might consider propriety, I consider superfluous by the very quality of being indicative. The vow that I make daily to this external manifestation of my potential enlightened condition should suffice for it is already all that I am or can be. I guess I just don't want any religion in my religion. Tug of war. To put that all into one figure of speech, I don't need the beads. And I don’t begrudge those who need the beads when they use the beads. And I try to show the same patience to them as I do to myself if they take exception to my actions which are based upon my beliefs that have changed with time, experience, and the insight afforded to me by contemplating my life on a daily basis.

Three of my favorite sources for reflections on the human condition are
The Lotus Sutra
Shakespeare
Star Trek (original)

Here are some musings on individuality. Please feel free to contribute.

“And what a variety of senses you have.
This thing you call... language, though...
most remarkable.
You depend on it...
for so very much.
But is any one of you really its master?
But most of all...
the aloneness.
You are so alone.
You live out your lives...
in this...
shell of flesh,
self-contained...
separate.
How lonely you are.
How terribly lonely.”

Spock as Ambassador Kollos from Star Trek “Is There In Truth No Beauty?”

“We are all star stuff that has attained consciousness.”

-Carl Sagan

“The fundamental teaching of the Lotus concerning the reality of the universe amounts to this, that every being exists and subsists by virtue of the inexhaustible qualities inherent in each. There are innumerable individuals, and also groups of beings, including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, celestial beings, mankind, furious spirits, beings in the purgatories, etc. Their respective characteristics are unmistakably distinct, but their qualities and conditions are constantly subject to change, because in each of the beings are inherent the qualities manifest in others, the differences arising simply from the varying configuration of the manifest and the potential qualities. Moreover, even taking the existences as they are at a given moment, they cannot subsist but by mutual interaction and influence. To subsist by itself by no means signifies to be separate from others; on the contrary, to interact one with another is the nature of every particular being. These features of existence are the laws or truths (dharma), and the cosmos is the stage of the infinite varieties and interactions of the dharmas, in other words, the realm of ‘mutual participation’.”

Masaharu Anesaki- Nichiren The Buddhist Prophet

“If our humanity is found and developed within the context of relations with other people, unbridled individualism is a condition stripped of these connections. The respectful acknowledgement of the existence of others is always predicated on the ability to master and rein in one’s private desires, and this cannot be developed except within the framework of human interaction. There is thus an intolerable vacuity at the heart of such extreme individualism, an instability and insecurity that haunts it and proves the extent to which it is estranged from any normal, healthy way of being. It is ultimately incompatible with our striving to be human.”

Daisaku Ikeda- 2006 Peace Proposal

“Both early Buddhist teachings and systems theory emphasize that causation, as the interaction of mutually conditioning phenomena, entails the radical impermanence of these phenomena. Entities are ever-changing, because they participate in and are subject to relationships in a world constituted by relationships.”

Joanna Macy – Mutual Causality In Buddhism And General Systems Theory

“In his life-form the individual is necessarily only a fraction and distortion of the total image of man. He is limited either as male or as female; at an given period of his life he is again limited as child, youth, mature adult, or ancient; furthermore, in his life-role he is necessarily specialized as craftsman, tradesman, servant, or thief, priest, leader, wife, nun, or harlot; he cannot be all. Hence, the totality- the fullness of man- is not in the separate member, but in the body of the society as a whole; the individual can only be an organ. From this group he has derived his techniques of life, the language in which he thinks, the ideas on which he thrives; through the past of that society descended the genes that built his body. If he presumes to cut himself off, either in deed or in thought and feeling, he only breaks connection with the sources of his existence.”

Joseph Campbell- The Hero With A Thousand Faces

“To ‘experience the full realm of Buddhahood’ refers to the doctrine of the ten factors. One comes to fully realize and understand that these ten factors and the Ten Worlds are mutually inclusive, that the causes and effects of the Ten Worlds and the ten factors, the two types of wisdom provisional and true, and the two kinds of realms are all contained
within one’s own life, within everyone’s life without exception, and hence one can fully comprehend the Buddha’s words.”

WND Vol. II page 854

“Everything flows.”

-Heraclitus

Scarecrow
Look! Here's someone who can help you.
Dorothy
Oh - will you help me? Can you help me?
Glinda
You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.
Dorothy
I have?
Scarecrow
Then why didn't you tell her before?
Glinda
Because she wouldn't have believed me. She had to learn it for herself.
Tin Man
What have you learned, Dorothy?
Dorothy
Well, I - I think that it - that it wasn't enough just to want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em. And that it's
that - if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard,
because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with. Is that right?
Glinda
That's all it is!
Scarecrow
But that's so easy! I should have thought of it for you.
Tin Man
I should have felt it in my heart.

BUDDHISM OF THE HEART

The Lotus Sutra-Chapter 4-Belief and Understanding
Translated by Burton Watson
"World-Honored One, we would be pleased now to employ a parable to make clear our meaning. Suppose there was a man, still young in years, who abandoned his father, ran away, and lived for a long time in another land, for perhaps ten, twenty, or even fifty years. As he drew older, he found himself increasingly poor and in want. He hurried about in every direction, seeking clothing and food, wandering farther and farther afield until by chance he turned his steps in the direction of his homeland.

"At this time the impoverished son wandered from village to village, passing through various lands and towns, till at last he came to the city where his father was residing. The father thought constantly of his son, but though he had been parted from him for over fifty years, he had never told anyone else about the matter. He merely pondered to himself, his heart filed with regret and longing. He thought to himself that he was old and decrepit. He had great wealth and possessions, gold silver and rare treasures that filled and overflowed from his storehouses, but he had no son, so that if one day he should die, the wealth and possessions would be scattered and lost, for there was no one to entrust them to.

"This was the reason he constantly thought so earnestly of his son. And he also had this thought: If I could find my son and entrust my wealth and possessions to him, then I could feel contented and easy in mind and would have no more worries.

"World-Honored One, at that time the impoverished son drifted from one kind of employment to another until he came by chance to his father's house. He stood by the side of the gate, gazing far off at his father, who was seated on a lion throne, his legs supported by a jeweled footrest, while Brahmans, noblemen, and householders, uniformly deferential, surrounded him. Festoons of pearls worth thousands or tens of thousands adorned his body, and clerks, grooms and menservants holding white fly whisks stood in attendance to left and right. A jeweled canopy covered him, with flowered banners hanging from it, perfumed water had been sprinkled over the ground, heaps of rare flowers were scatted about, and precious objects were ranged here and there, brought out, put away, handed over and received. Such were the many different types of adornments, the emblems of prerogative and marks of distinction.

"When the impoverished son saw how great was his father's power and authority, he was filled with fear and awe and regretted he had ever come to such a place. Secretly he thought to himself; This must be some king, or one who is equal to a king. This is not the sort of place where I can hire out my labor and gain a living. It would be better to go to some poor village where, if I work hard, I will find a place and can easily earn food and clothing. If I stay here for long, I may be seized and pressed into service! Having thought in this way, he raced from the spot.

At that time the rich old man, seated on his lion throne, spied his son and recognized him immediately. His heart was filled with great joy and at once he thought: Now I have someone to entrust my storehouses of wealth and possessions to! My thoughts have constantly been with this son of mine but I had no way of seeing him. Now suddenly he had appeared of himself, which is exactly what I would have wished. Though I am old and decrepit, I still care what becomes of my belongings.

"Thereupon he dispatched a bystander to go after the son as quickly as possible and bring him back. At that time the messenger raced swiftly after the son and laid hold of him. The impoverished son, alarmed and fearful, cried out in an angry voice, 'I have done nothing wrong! Why am I being seized?' But the messenger held on to him more tightly than ever and forcibly dragged him back.

"At that time the son thought to himself, I have committed no crime and yet I am taken prisoner. Surely I am going to be put to death! He was more terrified than ever and sank to the ground, fainting with despair.

"The father, observing this from a distance, spoke to the messenger, saying, 'I have no need of this man. Don't force him to come here, but sprinkle cold water on his face so he will regain his senses. Then say nothing more to him!'

"Why did he do that? Because the father knew that his son was of humble outlook an ambition, and that his own rich and eminent position would be difficult for the son to accept. He knew very well that this was his son, but as a form of expedient means he refrained from saying to anyone, 'this is my son.'

"The messenger said to the son, "I am releasing you now. You may go anywhere you wish.' The impoverished son was delighted, having gained what he had not had before, and picked himself up from the ground and went off to the poor village in order to look for food and clothing.

"At that time the rich man, hoping to entice his son back again, decided to employ an expedient means and send two men as secret messengers, men who were lean and haggard and had no imposing appearance. 'Go seek out that poor man and approach him casually. Tell him you know a place where he can earn twice the regular wage. If he agrees to the arrangement, then bring him here and put him to work. If he asks what sort of work he will be put to, say that he will be employed to clear away excrement, and that the two of you will be working with him.'

"The two messengers then set out at once to find the poor man, and when they had done so, spoke to him as they had been instructed. At that time the impoverished son asked for an advance on his wages and then went with the men to help clear away excrement.

When the father saw his son, he pitied and wondered at him. Another day, when he was gazing out the window, he saw his son in the distance, his body thin and haggard, filthy with excrement, dirt, sweat and defilement. The father immediately took off his necklaces, his soft fine garments and his other adornments and put on clothes that were ragged and soiled. He smeared dirt on his body, took in his right hand a utensil for removing excrement, and assuming a gruff manner, spoke to the laborers, saying, 'Keep at your work! You mustn't be lazy!' By employing this expedient means, he was able to approach his son.

"Later he spoke to his son again, saying, 'Now then, young man! You must keep on at this work and not leave me anymore. I will increase your wages, and whatever you need in the way of utensils, rice, flour, salt, vinegar, and the like you should be in no worry about. I have an old servant I can lend you when you need him. You may set your mind at ease. I will be like a father to you, so have no more worries. Why do I say this? Because I am well along in years, but you are still young and sturdy. When you are at work, you are never deceitful or lazy or speak angry or resentful words. You don't seem to have any faults of that kind the way my other workers do. From now on, you will be like my own son.' And the rich man proceeded to select a name and assign it to the man as though he were his child.

"At this time the impoverished son, though he was delighted at such treatment, still thought of himself as a person of humble station who was in the employ of another. Therefore the rich man kept him clearing away excrement for the next twenty years. By the end of this time, the son felt that he was understood and trusted, and he could come and go at ease, but he continued to live in the same place as before.

"World-Honored One, at that time the rich man fell ill and knew he would die before long. He spoke to his impoverished son, saying, "I now have great quantities of gold, silver, and rare treasures that fill and overflow from my storehouses. You are to take complete charge of the amounts I have and of what is to be handed out and gathered in. This is what I have in mind, and I want you to carry out my wishes. Why is this? Because from now on, you and I will not behave as two different persons. So you must keep your wits about you and see that there are no mistakes or losses.'

"At that time the impoverished son, having received these instructions, took over the surveillance of all the goods, and gold, silver and rare treasures, and the various storehouses, but never thought of appropriated for himself so much as the cost of a single meal. He continued to live where he had before, unable to cease thinking of himself as mean and lowly.

"After some time had passed, the farther perceived that his son was bit by bit becoming more self-assured and magnanimous in outlook, that he was determined to accomplish great things and despised his former low opinion of himself. Realizing that his own end was approaching, he ordered his son to arrange a meeting with his relatives and the king of the country, the high ministers, and the noblemen and householders. When they were all gathered together, he proceeded to make this announcement: "Gentlemen, you should know that this is my son, who was born to me. In such-and-such a city he abandoned me and ran away, and for over fifty years he wandered about suffering hardship. His original name is such-and-such, and my name is such-and-such. In the past, when I was still living in my native city, I worried about him and so I set out in search of him. Sometime after, I suddenly chanced to meet up with him. This is the truth my son, and I will in truth am his father. Now everything that belongs to me, all my wealth and possessions, shall belong entirely to this son of mine. Matters of outlay and income that have occurred in the past this son of mine is familiar with."

"World-Honored One, when the impoverished son heard these words of his father, he was filled with great joy, having gained what he never had before, and he thought to himself, I originally had no mind to covet or seek such things. Yet now these stores of treasures have come of their own accord!

“The title of the Sutra, says Nichiren doctrine, is the essence of the whole sutra, the holy teaching of the Buddha’s life, the principle of all things, and the truth of eternity; the fullest implications of the title are inexplicable and inconceivable, understood not even by subordinate Buddhas. The title of the original doctrine is to be believed in, not understood.” pages 31-32, Buddhist Prophet Nichiren-A Lotus In The Sun by Bruno Pertzold

I know many people who struggle with study. I’m one myself. Perhaps, like me, they equate “wisdom” with the use of accumulated knowledge, which is in itself taking an action based on reason. It is very important to come to an understanding of what the definition of faith is in context of this Buddhism. For when I am instructed to substitute faith for wisdom, I may very well wait for someone of faith to tell me what I should think and feel.

“To know what a given belief is about, I must know what my words mean; to know what my words mean, my beliefs must be generally consistent. There is just no escaping the fact that there is a tight relationship between the words we use, the type of thoughts we can think, and what we can believe to be true about the world.”
Sam Harris, The End Of Faith

Page 49, May-June Living Buddhism, Lecture by Mr. Ikeda;

By "substituting faith for wis-
dom" (footnote 22)--bringing forth Buddha
wisdom through faith in the correct
teaching--we, as ordinary people, can
triumph over fundamental darkness
just as we are. The power with which we
can subdue fundamental darkness is
solely the power of faith, our minds
and the inherent enlightened wisdom
within our own lives.

Firstly the footnote looked as if it was a quote lifted from a source so I looked at footnote 22 which reads:

"Substituting faith for wisdom: the principle that faith is the true cause for ataining supreme wisdom, and faith alone leads to enlightenment. In general, Buddhism describes supreme wisdom as the cause of enlightenment. According to the Lotus Sutra, however, even Shariputra, who among the Buddha's 10 disciples was revered as foremost in wisdom, could attain enlightenment only through faith, not through wisdom."

So it appears that it really isn't a quote from a specific source as
the quotation marks infer, but a non-sourced cite. As we read the
second sentence, which is used to qualify the preceding one, it has
the appearance of making logical sense until you look at the grammar
which is confusing in that it asks the reader to make a connection
from faith to our minds, which, according to the cite, is not the
source of enlighten wisdom. The premise
relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.
It gives no clue to what faith means.

REALITY BASED FAITH

But even if it was grammatically correct, it's very Kantian in that
it's using logical wisdom from the same plane it claims is inherently
delusional, to argue against the same logical wisdom from that plane,
to a wisdom that may only be known through a faith, which exists
regardless of our existence. The famous "leap of faith" attributed to
Kierkegaard, the belief in something without, or in spite of, empirical
evidence, lives in a paradox for there is no reason for anyone to leap
without unreasoned external encouragement. Kantian faith, in my
definition, is different than Buddhist faith. Kantian faith, like his
disciple Kierkegaard, is Christian and is a belief in something that
has no factual reason for belief or actual evidence to the contrary.
Buddhist faith, in my definition, is based in the same daily
experience as stubbing your toe and falling to the ground: everyone
experiences the same result and it is only subjective in the degree to
which it hurts when you land. But everyone falls in the same
direction. Nobody except Jesus and Mohammed ever fell up and that's a
conjecture based faith.

What do we mean when we use these words: faith, trust, belief, understanding, knowledge, reason, logic, wisdom, and truth. Here are several examples, many conflicting, of what some believe to be a reflection of the term “faith”:

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.--ST. AUGUSTINE

Life is a battle between faith and reason in which each feeds upon the other, drawing sustenance from it and destroying it. -- REINHOLD NIEBUHR

Faith... Must be enforced by reason...When faith becomes blind it dies.-- MAHATMA GANDHI

He who loses money, loses much; He who loses a friend, loses much more, He who loses faith, loses all. --ELEANOR ROOSEVELT

Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope or confidence. --HELEN KELLER

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step. --DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. --ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. --ARTHUR C. CLARKE

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt --UNKNOWN

Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. --BLAISE PASCAL

Faith is not belief. Belief is passive. Faith is active.--EDITH HAMILTON

Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.--KAHALIL GIBRAN

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.--FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to. --GEORGE SEAT

Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe. --VOLTAIRE

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. --IMMANUEL KANT

DEATH BY FAITH

“Some say we do not need to know what the Lotus Sutra means. To want to know is seen as mistrust; a lack of faith. Others say we should not chant any other mantras; that would be disloyal. Critical thinking or discernment is seen as an enemy of faith. Anti-intellectualism is conflated with faith. It also becomes thinkable to launch smear campaigns against competing 'faiths;' in order to discredit them; to inspire distrust of them. So heart felt faith can spiral downward into its own 'enemies' of fear, superstition, intolerance, and bigotry.” Robin http://mettasense.blogspot.com/2009/04/three-levels-of-faith.html

Wausau, Wis. Leilani Neumann has been convicted by a jury of her “peers” of second-degree reckless homicide. Her daughter, Madeline Neumann, died of untreated diabetes March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she suddenly stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called 911. Her defense attorney, in response to his client being labeled a religious zealot who let her daughter die as a test of faith, stated "Religious extremism is a Muslim terrorist. They are saying these parents were so far off the scale that they murdered their child. The woman did everything she could to help her. That is the injustice in this case."

Injustice indeed! In trying to deflect away from his client and towards a different type of extremist, the defense missed the actual point. He could have just as easily turned inward to everyone in the courtroom. Chances are that most people in that courtroom, the accusers, the accused and the “peers”, believe in the same Bible that the Nuemanns’ and their friends put their faith in. So how could she possibly be found guilty? But since we live in a nation that runs on the law of man and not God, most people cherry pick which parts of the Bible to follow. If you go strictly by the Word, you may end up in jail. The desperate effort of the defense to deflect what their client was accused of to another religion makes one ask the question that most people do not ponder; why do we believe what we believe?

PROVE IT

Like Scully, I trust my partner but I “believe” in scientific empiricism not phenomenalism. Yet for 35 years I have invoked a phrase that provokes what I “believe” to be empirical phenomena. And for the last 10 years I have endeavored to take away anything that may be strictly subjective in order to find what may be termed as an authentic truth that transcends both the temporal and secular affairs and yet at the same time cannot exist outside of either. Sounds a lot like Kant. The truth is out there and in there. But what I believe needs to be based in common sense. For example, and sticking to a fictional theme which many people have “faith” in, I have no reason to believe that this planet has, within the span of time that humans have had a recorded history, been visited by extraterrestrials. There isn’t any solid evidence. It makes as much sense as the movie Signs; a species of life that has mastered time and space travel (but can’t get out of a locked closet) uses their technology to come to a planet two-thirds water (which is deadly to them) to eat us. It’s a lot of fun, but when all is said and done “It’s a cook book!” And yet some people believe, in spite of the lack of evidence or the face of evidence to the contrary. Believing in an anthropomorphic, metaphysical being who is both omniscient and omnipotent is what the term “FAITH” means in the Judeo/Christian culture I was raised into. But people will suspend their disbelief when they want to believe.

“Many today regard any kind of belief---and religious faith, in particular—as somehow in opposition to reason or at the very least as a sort of paralysis of the faculty of reason. There are, indeed, fanatical religions in which faith opposes reason. But it is an erroneous leap of logic to assume on this basis, and without any evidence, that all religions are so. That itself is irrational and can be characterize as a kind of blind faith in it’s own right.”
Daisaku Ikeda, The Wisdom Of The Lotus Sutra, Vol. II, Belief and Understanding.

Spoken like a man of religion in defense of religion. I couldn’t disagree more. And there is at the very least a couple of millennia worth of recorded evidence that every religion enables the suppression of reason through faith. Even Buddhism. Here's a question for the guest blog: can somebody still be my mentor if I disagree with him? Or maybe the question should be, can I still be a disciple? Will I be guilty of cherry picking? Will I survive the repercussions from from the other disciples? (Please note: the reason that I have read Kant, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Augustine, Aquinas and more, is because Mr. Ikeda has quoted from their works more than once in a positive way in shedding light upon Buddhism. And I was curious as to why, they being bastions of Christianity. All of them have an affinity towards finding an ultimate "truth" which cannot be understood through reason alone. They were, as the Lotus Sutra states, looking for a single moment of belief and understanding in which faith and reason are inseparable yet cannot be reach through an intellectual process. They were perhaps trying to find their version of Ichinen Sanzen through an external faith in God. But, as Nichiren consistently points out, one needs the correct vehicle to put faith into. But Mr. Ikeda in no way excludes reason or wisdom when it comes to faith as you will read below. In fact, he and one of the worlds most active atheists, Richard Dawkins, who refers to "faith" as the root of all evil, find a point of convergence regarding Buddhism.)

THE CULT OF FALLING UP

Everyone I have ever met on good ole planet earth during my lifetime has experienced falling. And everyone has always fallen in the same direction: towards the earth. I have complete faith in my belief that if I stub my toe on an unseen crack in the driveway on the way to my mailbox, I will fall towards the earth. In fact, if I say, “I fell down” it’s redundant. And because I am resolute in my belief about the potential injury I may suffer, because my experience has never once proven otherwise, I have found myself, and the rest of humanity, going through extraordinary dance-like gyrations in order to remain upright in an effort to save us from the impact from the fall. Until recently I never understood the exact physics behind the why of what happens when the gravity of the mass of earth attracts the mass of my body. When I hit the earth, the electrons composing the molecules of my body mass and the electrons of the mass composing the earth repel each other showing that the electromagnetic force is even stronger than gravity. But that really didn’t matter to me growing up. I just knew after a few times that in falling, I scraped the skin off my knees and hands and it hurt. So I tried not to let that happen whenever possible. If I were to start a religion or a cult using other religions as a template, the first thing is to find something that the followers must suspend their disbelief about. The Cult Of Falling Up is based upon the premise that a true believer has faith that on judgment day everyone who is saved will fall up. I doubt that I will have many disciples accompany me to my rooftop to test their faith. Or maybe I will.

BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDING

“Buddhism, the ‘religion of wisdom,’ is an extremely rational religion. In fact, it is so rational that many Westerners even question whether it can be classified as a religion, since it does not teach the existence of a supreme being in the image of humankind.”
Daisaku keda, The Wisdom Of The Lotus Sutra, Vol. II; Belief and Understanding.

“And I shall not be concerned with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.”
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; The God Hypothesis.

“In the beginning, we require some degree of trust to get past mistrust, suspicion, and cynicism. So we suspend skepticism; and give it an honest shot….Nichiren called this 以信代慧 {ishin daie} or substituting faith for wisdom. I think Nichiren stressed trust because distrust, suspicious doubt, and cynicism tend to disable us before we even start, or cause us to quit at the first bump in the road. Who has time to sort out all the competing claims? So people tend to put their trust is something, to anchor themselves. However,, Nichiren Shonin said people were trusting the wrong things; like an all knowing Sensei, government authorities, or secret transmissions. He concluded that the Lotus Sutra was the best place to anchor one's practice; the best source to trust. Moreover, he evidently thought Chapters two and sixteen provided the keys. I think one can do worse.” Robin http://mettasense.blogspot.com/2009/04/three-levels-of-faith.html

(Actually, in regarding re-defining faith, I think one can do better. But I encourage everyone to read in their entirety all the quotes from their original sources.)

“While looking at various texts, I noticed that there were a number of words being translated as faith. After a lot of back-translating, I came up with three main Sanskrit words; Shraddha, Prasada, and Adhimukti. This gets a bit convoluted, because different teachers and schools use these terms differently. Also, translation from Sanskrit to Chinese was a chaotic mess. So, keep in mind that I am oversimplifying for clarity. Shraddha 信 {shin} means to believe in, to trust. Yogarchara breaks this down into Cognitive Faith 信忍 {Shinin}, Emotive or Joyful Faith 信樂 {shingyo}, and Volitional Faith 善法欲 {zenbo yoku}. Prasada 信心 {shinjin} is a deep or profound faith, a heart felt conviction or trust. Note that Prasada has a lot of other translations, the most common appears to be 清浄 {shojo}; which is also a translation of vishuddha, a term that means spiritual purification. For present purposes, 信心 shinjin works. Adhimukti 信解 {shinge} translates as a faith based on understanding. Adhi means something like primordial or source. Mukti means liberation or emancipation and the translation, ge 解, means to unravel. Shin {trust}, shinjin {heart felt faith}, and shinge {faith with understanding] all have a shared meaning; while each has a distinct nuance.” Robin, Three Levels of Faith

The 4th chapter of the Lotus Sutra is translated as BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDING, or in Sanskrit, Adhimukti. The bottom line of the metaphor it tells is that the son believes in and has faith in himself and in doing so gains what he had not sought nor coveted: a storehouse of treasure which comes to him of its own accord.

“These teachings are stated in the Lotus of Truth, and have been explained and elucidated by many a great master of the past; but they remain simply doctrines, so long as they are merely understood, and not personally experienced. Vain is all talk and discussion concerning existences and reality, unless the virtues of existence are realized in one’s own person.” Masaharu Anesaki, Nichiren the Buddhist Prophet, page 78.

Everything I am about to address has been discussed before and will probably continue to be. It is not that these topics are new. It is just my time or my turn to do so because for if I do not some may infer that my silence implies complicity. Point of fact I am directing this to those who visit this blog and have a capacity equal to its latitude. I apologize for its length. It has been gestating for over a year.

After sequestering myself from contact in any form with the Soka Gakkai, or NSA as it was known then in America, other than what effects I observed it had upon my ex wife and our child, I re-engaged myself after 20 years of solitary practice. I was completely unaware of any changes that had taken place. For example, I walked into the now defunct North Hollywood Community Center in 2000 and saw chairs to sit on and no delineation for men to sit on one side and women on the other. I saw for the first time pictures of the Sho Hondo being demolished. When I asked the lady behind the desk what had happen she was apoplectic in describing how the evil priesthood, as she collectively demonized them, had bulldozed that particular Great Secret Law. They were also keeping another, the Dai Gohonzon, all to themselves, and had excommunicated we lay practitioners who followed the organization, now referred to as the SGI, once aligned to the same priesthood. Okay, what’d else I miss as Rip Van Buddhist? And where can I get a handkerchief to wipe off this woman’s spittle?

“All dreamers and sleepwalkers must pay the price, and even the invisible victim is responsible for the fate of all. But I shirked that responsibility; I became too snarled in the incompatible notions that buzzed within my brain. I was a coward...
But what did I do to be so black and blue? Bear with me.”
Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man

And lest the reader jump to conclusions about where this is headed I will reiterate Ellison; bear with me.

My re-reading of Ellison’s novel was like listening to jazz and I find myself, and my Buddhist belief system, reflected in both. Critical examinations of Ellison’s existentialism have said that his identity as an African-American author and the rallying point it provided eclipsed his efforts of trying to define himself not just as a black man but as an everyman; “trying to find an authentic way of being in an absurd world.” Gordon Marino

One of my favorite comedians is Steven Wright. He is authentically absurd:
I BOUGHT A DOG THE OTHER DAY. I NAMED HIM ‘STAY’. IT’S FUN TO CALL HIM. “COME HERE, STAY! COME HERE, STAY!” IT DROVE HIM INSANE. NOW HE JUST IGNORES ME AND KEEPS TYPING.

And as second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda shares: “The Soka Gakkai is my life. It must always remain an organization of pure faith that exists to accomplish kosen-rufu. We must never stand by and let our precious organization be polluted by impure hearts and minds!” (The Human Revolution, p. 1902).

Technically, it is Ikeda who is sharing in his never-ending narrative. This quote, however, is being used by those in power in the SGI-USA to justify their purposes, a mandatory signature contract between anyone up for a potential leadership position or those already in place.

Here is a quote for my purposes:
“President Toda detested formality. For this reason, as his disciple, I have tried to place foremost emphasis on substance. Formalities are important in certain cases, but mere formality that lacks substance is an evil. Formality is provisional and substance, essential. Formality is conventional and therefore conservative, but substance provides the impetus for progress and development.”
Daisaku Ikeda, My Dear Friends In America

The above issue that Mr. Ikeda addresses is so omnipresent in the SGI-USA it could be approached through many avenues. But I believe the next sentence is the quickest way to the cul-de-sac that they all lead to, and the endemic problems found there:

“Not signing, therefore not accepting the Code of Conduct for Leaders, disqualifies one from leadership in the SGI-USA.”
SGI-USA.

The only justification for the above quoted sentence about the code of conduct is the sentence itself. It is not a choice being handed out, but the illusion of one. The word for that is coercion. It is mandated constraints, which render the substance of the individual second to the signing of the form. Its makers, above the individual, value the form, and all it’s formality.

“If blinded by the mirage of an organization, a leader tries to operate by giving orders and applying pressure, nothing will change, because no spontaneous or genuine power will be generated among the people who make up that body.”
Daisaku Ikeda, My Dear Friends In America

The reasons behind the code of conduct and it’s ancillary enforcer, the mandatory signature form, have been stated by those extolling its merits as protecting the members of the SGI-USA from unscrupulous or misguided people in positions of leadership. I find that ironic. Misguided people wrote it. It does, however, tell one how to act, how to think, and my personal favorite, how to feel about your actions even before you take them.

A DIVERSE ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT TOLERATE DIVERSITY

“One who has the courage to speak the truth lives a truly splendid and fulfilling life. In any sphere of society, if one loses this courage and becomes obsequious, one cannot resist exploitation by corrupt authorities.”
Daisaku Ikeda, My Dear Friends In America

Something that hasn’t changed either in the twenty years I was absent nor the last ten I’ve been present, is the size of this formal and orchestrated movement of propagation in this nation. At least, not inside the organization itself. It’s about the same size as it was thirty or so years ago. Maybe even a little smaller. Perhaps that is because it practices exclusivity. It is a diverse organization of people that does not tolerate diversity of behavior. The mandatory signature form is a very good example of this. When the formalized leadership is more concerned with the rigidity of conformity than with substance, then people who have relinquished their substance will find it very uncomfortable to have those around them who have not. Actually, the obsequious people, to use Mr. Ikeda’s word, that have been created will pester those of independence to become like them. If that doesn’t work, they will be shunned. These newly shunned people become invisible. It’s easy to slip out the back door when you can’t be seen.

I have no idea what the numbers are exactly, but for arguments sake let’s say that for every member that continues to practice under the SGI-USA umbrella, there are more, many more, who have left. Now some of those no longer practice at all. Some still practice, as I did, solo. Some come back only to leave again. I personally know people who have a Gohonzon enshrined that they are reluctant to chant to and equally reluctant to take down. So again for arguments sake and based on the fact that somewhere around 800,000 Gohonzons have been handed out in America, and there are 50,000 to 150,000 active in the SGI-USA today, let’s figure this out. Ex-members who still practice, practice part time, or don’t practice at all out number the organizational members around 8 to1. That’s a conservative estimate both ways.

IN MY HOUSE THERE IS A LIGHT SWITCH THAT DOESN’T DO ANYTHING. EVERY SO OFTEN I WOULD FLICK IT JUST TO CHECK. YESTERDAY I GOT A CALL FROM A LADY IN GERMANY. SHE SAID, “CUT IT OUT.”
Steven Wright

What would happen if all these invisible people suddenly became visible? What if at every district meeting there appeared a proportionally appropriate number of ex members who for some reason decided to re-engage? If you have a district of 40 members on paper where 10 people usually attended meetings, what if suddenly there were 20 extra people? And what if when the person leading this supposed meeting referred to Daisaku Ikeda collectively as “our mentor” as most of the top leadership do, and suddenly 20 non-obsequious hands were raised protesting that decision being made for them? I believe that protest is at the crux of what Nichiren terms Kosen-rufu and Daisaku Ikeda calls human revolution. Telling people, however, who their supposed mentor is, is not the same as leading them to an arena of discovery.

“TO BE A HERO YOU NEED TO LEARN TO BE A DEVIATE BECAUSE YOU’RE GOING AGAINST THE CONFORMING OF THE GROUP.”
Philip Zimbardo TED-How people become monsters or heroes.

“YOU NEED THE DEVIATE TO TELL YOU WHEN YOU’RE BLOWING IT.”
Lenny Bruce

The movie Gandhi has many great quotes. Here are just two:

Brigadier: You don't think we're just going to walk out of India!
Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out. Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.

Gandhi: We think it is time that you recognized that you are masters in someone else's home. Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must, in the nature of things, humiliate us to control us. General Dyer is but an extreme example of the principle... it is time you left.

What if instead of marching TO the sea to make salt in protest, a half a million invisible Buddhists re-engaged and marched FROM the sea to a building on the corner of Wilshire and 6th in Santa Monica. And what if when they got there, they exclaimed, “Cut it out.”

Of course the very nature of autonomous thinking makes such a gathering highly unlikely. Richard Dawkins postulates in his book The God Delusion that the very nature of atheists makes them nearly impossible to organize. Being independent they see no need to formalize a group that exists to expound the fact that something that they do not believe in does not exist. Like cats, free thinkers are independent. It would be like trying to herd cats. But what if?

And since we started with the absurd, is it too absurd to think of the Soka Gakkai USA as the mire, the bog, out of which blossom the flowers of Kosen-rufu?

I wish there were still the obvious cultural diversity issues, like men sitting on one side of the room and women on the other, so that there wouldn’t be this superficial illusion of how much we’ve changed. (Please note I’ve included myself as part of this organization) I have several people with whom I share these issues and from whom I have sought council. Some are within the SGI-USA leadership and some are not. Some are not Buddhist. I have the good fortune to call them my friends. Not one of them actually needs a position or a label to engage with people in a helpful compassionate way. One of them did once comment that because of the culture of origin it might take 500 years for this Buddhism to incorporate itself into American society. At times I think this extreme. At other times the cynic in me thinks this optimistic because there has been no room at the top for any other version. It has been orchestrated shut and there will be no tolerance for any deviation by deviates. But another of my good friends appeals to me with hope and says we are all deviates for each other: blossoms.

Speaking of orchestration, I’ve got to share the new SGI-USA Men’s Division flag and mottoes.

SGI-USA Men’s Division Mottoes
 as 

Proud Disciples of SGI President Ikeda
“America’s Roaring Lions,
Turn Winter into Spring”
“Disciples, Advance Triumphantly
with Stalwart Resolve”
“Lion Kings of America,
Seize Resounding Victory”
January 2, 2009
Daisaku

I’m so disappointed. I was hoping, absurdly so, for “Interrupting Cow Carpe ‘Moo!’ Diem”. I’m not anything like a lion. In fact lions aren’t anything like the human qualities we attribute to them. Lions function by their evolved animal instincts. They roar. They procreate. They eat Christians. Being an instinctual beasts they don’t discriminate between belief systems and would find Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists just as tasty. The males also kill all the progeny of the previous male when they take over a pride. Unlike humans, lions don’t have the capacity to be proud when they do it.

The flag? Well, it speaks for itself. Volumes. But it doesn’t speak for me. One of my friends, Julie who actually gave me permission to use her name, said the only thing missing on it was a penis. I guess they had to draw the line somewhere. So here it is. And a hardy “Sieg Heil” to us all!

I think that one of the reasons relating a personal experience about the results of doing this practice is so difficult is because it’s so profoundly complicated. One of my all time favorite shows was called Connections by James Burke. The first episode starts with him standing on a field in England where the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. He explains that the Normans won because they had one piece of weapon technology that the Saxons didn't: the stirrup. Then he proceeded to show how that battle and specifically the stirrup, which may have originally been brought to China by Buddhists from India and then found it's way back to what was to become Europe, eventually lead to the technology which enabled him to be holding an aluminum valise which contained a small nuclear weapon. This alternative view of how things change wove together events, which may appear happenstance but in reality are co-dependent.

Around the same time, remember this is years ago, I made up a card, which on one side said “Acting Work” and on the other “New Agent”. And on occasion I chanted about these two items. Over these years I have created a plethora of little cards, all folded so that they sit neatly one on top of the other in a pyramid. I now have a legion of writings and names of people on inverted v-shaped cards, which could be shoulder harnessed by tiny villagers in Dept.56, although none of them say “The End Is Near” or “Eat At Joes”. (Of course people who buy those tiny villages do so for fantasy and because they’re quaint. Not so they can see a mini reflection of society with a mini town homeless guy with mini Tourette’s living behind the mini abandoned Linens-n-Things.)

But what I mostly chanted about during that time was my teenage daughter, who I had gotten full custody of and was raising (that’s the optimistic term) as a single parent. That was really my full time job and that was where most of my daily life effort was directed.

As the years passed and my daughter became more and more responsible and independent, I found I had more and more time for myself. I recently went back to acting class to knock off some of the rust. The teacher was an old friend so it was a safe place to fail. He didn’t think I would need much work, but as it turned out, he was wrong. The work I was giving him was exactly what was on the page. What was missing was me having fun. And that took a while to rediscover. At the same time I serendipitously (99% hard work which miraculously appears as fortune) acquired a new agent who started sending me out to audition again. Then I realized this all seemed familiar. Except I wasn’t in my early thirties any longer. I’m already on my pension attempting to start over. How extraordinarily exciting!

Then one day a few months ago my new agent sent me to audition for a Soap Opera. I have mostly done only comedy. I called my friends who have done Soaps and got their advice: just be confident. I called my Buddhist actor friend and told him about the audition and related a story of my last audition for something that wasn’t necessarily humorous. The piece was for CSI, written with humor, but I decided to give my best straightforward serious reading of the material. Forget any humor or comedy. Afterward the director who was in the room watching the readings came to me and said, “That was really different. We haven’t seen anything like that today. Could you do it again but leave the comedy out?” I started to laugh and told him that I didn’t think this was going to work out because he just got my best shot at being serious. Some of us just twinkle. But my Buddhist actor friend told me that he never thought of me like that. So I chanted until I didn’t think of myself like that either. I went to the Soap audition filled with confidence.

As it happens, my sister in law works on the Soap show in the make-up department. I went to visit her. While I was there I started talking to some guy and we had the best conversation. While I was driving home my sister in law called me and asked how long I had known the guy I was talking to. I said we just met there in the room. Apparently, everyone thought we’d been friends for years because of the way we spoke to each other. I didn’t even know his name. He was an actor on the show. He’s been on it for twenty plus years. He went to the producers and pitched me to them.

Okay that was the set up. Here’s the real experience. The next day Friday I was in Phoenix for a fundraiser, (say that three times) when I found out I got the job, which started on Wednesday. There were other actors there who’d been on Soaps and they all told me with a deadly serious look in their eye to know the lines because you only get one take. My career started in commercials where it took five days to do twenty seconds of dialogue. And being out of town (not to mention out of practice) I wouldn’t get to look at the script until I got back on Monday.

I was surprised to find myself suddenly filled with doubt. And fear. So much so I made myself physically ill and was fantasizing ways to avoid. But because of the experience of going through the same thing with My Friend for six months, I had a pretty good idea why, where, and how this fear and doubt suddenly sat on my shoulders. I started chanting to the corner of my hotel room to overcome myself. This heated battle (there is a singe mark on the wallpaper) went on for three days until I could get home and get my hands on that damn script. I worked hard to replace fear and doubt with hope and joy. I couldn’t fake it either. No “acting” confident. It had to be real.

And I got help as I helped myself. I called my friend whose name is on the card and told him I was nervous. He told me that after so long in the business I was lucky to still find something to make me nervous. Bam! He’s so right! Energy is energy. I used it to work for me when I chanted. Or in ichinen sanzen terms, whatever world you think you find yourself in is a gateway to the other nine including becoming an enlightened being in a life moment of three thousand connections.

When I got to work, I was ready because I had become more than what I used to be as an actor and as a person. And I had the best time I’ve ever had on any acting job. I also got the most positive feed back I’ve ever gotten. Five episodes turned into ten, which turned into twenty. But the absolutely best part was that several people, some actors and some crew, went to the producers and said, “can we keep this guy”. Whether they do or don't seems inconsequential. I’m way ahead of the game because next to “I love you dad,” that’s the greatest compliment I’ve ever gotten. It's not an Emmy, or an Oscar, it's the Ichinen Sanzen Award. I’m very appreciative for being able to utilize this Buddhist practice.

I wanted to comment on Charles blog but for some reason I'm unable to so I'll do it here. Great blog on targeting. A "sign" is a definite target. How long my mind stays focused is another issue. But here's a little something from WND Vol. II On The Protection Of The Nation,pages 120-121

“The reason is that the Great Teacher Miao-lo declared that if people of dull capacity or those lacking in wisdom in this latter age carry out the practice of the Lotus Sutra, they will find it easy to practice, for Bodhisattva Universal Worthy and Many Treasures and the Buddhas of the ten directions will appear before them. Thus he states: “Chant the Lotus Sutra with your ordinary distracted mind. You do not have to enter into a state of mental concentration. Weather sitting, standing, or walking, just fix your whole mind on the words of the Lotus Sutra.”
“The purpose of this passage of commentary is to assure foolish persons of this latter age that they are included among those who can carry out the practice. The term “the ordinary distracted mind “ is used in contrast to the term “the mind fixed in concentration.” Chanting the Lotus Sutra means chanting all eight volumes, one volume, one word, one phrase, one verse, or the daimoku, or title, and includes responding to the sutra with joy for a single moment and continual propagation to the fiftieth person. The words “whether sitting, standing, or walking” mean that there is no objection to fixing your whole mind on the words of the Lotus Sutra while carrying out the four activities of daily life. The Term “whole mind” does not mean the mind that is concentrated in meditation, nor does it mean the mind that observes the truth. It is the mind that is found within the ordinary distracted mind of daily life.”

Don't forget to pack your travel altar when pilgrimaging from Kamakura to Mt. Minobu.

I'm pretty sure it's not photoshop as they are for sale. But for ye of little faith...

Different helmet

Don't forget your omamori...

How about Bishamonten, god of war and warriors, guardian of the north and one bad ass shoten zenjin.

This is listed as "Kamakura Head Priest".

There are a thousand new Bin Ladens’ arising to take his place and to do the work he started with their ministers of information distortion. "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do," Ann Coulter. How do the bin Ladens of the world get people like Ann Coulter to do his bidding?

That was an example of how to play. Here is an actual game that was played.

Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio talk show host from the Ann Coulter school of bulimic libel (a regurgitation of misinformation which cannot be fully digested because of it’s spurious quality which, after partial ingestion, the brain turns it into poison and the person becomes a expiator/carrier) in a game on the Bill O’Reilly Show on 10/09/2008:

Laura
Bill, can I just ask you question?

Bill
Sure.

L
Why is it that Bill Ayers likes Barack Obama so much?

B
Because, Barack Obama, is a very liberal guy.

L
But what is it about Obama that Bill Ayers, a guy who still wont apologize for his bombings and still cops that capitalism should be overthrown by any means necessary, why does he like this guy, Barack Obama? What is it about Obama that these far left people from Chavez to Mahmud Ahmendijad to members of Hamas, what is it that they like? I think that is a legitimate question. It’s not a personal attack. It’s a question that needs to be asked in this campaign.

B
Look, I did ask him the question and he answered the way he always answers.

L
Yeah, slippery.

B
Yeah, well look, he’s not going to say anything in any debate forum that “I love Bill Ayers” and that “I love Hugo Chavez”. But here’s the deal, the American independents are tending to go to Barack Obama because they’re angry about the economy. John McCain has one more chance next Wednesday to try to blunt that movement. So you suggest he do what?

L
I suggest Bill, that McCain needs to tell a quick narrative of how he got here and push back really hard, Bill, on the idea that this is the fault of free market capitalism because right now we’re on the verge of jettisoning all the wonderful principles of the free market that make America what it is today. He needs to stand up for the free market and offer a positive vision for economic growth. He has to do that, Bill, while also reminding us of who Obama really is in his far left view points that will ultimately tank our economy. That’s what he needs to do.

B
It’s not easy because it’s a very complicated matter.

L
It’s not that complicated. He can do it.

END OF SEGMENT

"Liberals prefer invectives to engagement"-Ann Coulter