America is on the verge of change, at least on the surface. The Democratic Party has come down to two choices: Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I like that one candidate is black and the other's a woman. Our country is ready for either. If only one of them was something other than your church going Christian - a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Pagan, an athiest! Good lord, let's mix it up.
It’s fascinating to see so many people involved in the process, especially young people. How wonderful for them. The truth is, though, that I'm a nasty old cynic. That cynicism developed through the experience of watching the never ending freak show of Chicago politics, where bribery, clout. and "the fix" grease the machine. I can’t help but think of the two party system as an illusion - no, a delusion. In reality, what we really have is a one party system where presidential candidates make promises that are rarely kept and the backroom deal is still real forum for change, with a wink and a promise for future favors. So often, we choose the lesser of two evils, and that has made politics an unpalatable process for many. Wars have been fought and people have died to give people the right to vote, instead of living in a country controlled by dictators, generals, or as in the past, monarchs for life. For us, this election is different – at least on the surface. No matter who wins, I 'm prepared for whose gonna lose - us.
The one fact that troubles me most is that the president, no matter whom they might be, is not the one responsible for the economic crisis we are in, nor are they fully responsible for war. The blame for the majority of our problems falls with the congress. Greed and self-serving desire is at the root of our countries woes. When you have lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry able to influence or buy critical votes that screw the average person while enriching corporations, you’re not talking democracy anymore; you’re talking the dark side of capitalism. But that’s another blog, for more astute pundits and opinionated pinheads. I am, after all, just a grouchy old veteran who hooks up his bullshit meter whenever I hear the candidates talk.
Since it’s come down to three candidates, I will give you my opinion. In the past, I’ve voted Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian. I don’t give a rat’s rump what a person’s party is, their race, or religion. I regard their words with the same suspicion that a parent does when they ask their teenager what they did at the sleepover at their friend’s house. I also watch for micro-gestures of the face and especially the hand, having learned long ago that even the best liars can’t really hide the truth for long. I listen for the timbre of the voice and for those city-slickin’, silver tongued, lawyer-like phrases, that can be taken a couple of different ways. You remember of course, “that depends what the definition “is” is.” I knew when we invaded Iraq that it was a lie. It was flabbergasting to me how so many people believed otherwise. I cold see Colin Powell's nose growing longer, the more he spoke. If you’ve reached that level of deception, I assume you’re a professional liar already and will have to prove yourself. What our country needs now – at all levels, are statesmen, not opportunistic politicians.
John McCain looks like he’s going to be the Republican nominee. There’s no point going over his military record as everyone knows he was a fighter pilot and POW, during the Vietnam War. He probably killed numerous military personnel and civilians back then. But after all, he was just following orders. He wants to continue the war in Iraq. Can he beat the democratic candidate? It’s possible, especially when you understand that Bush didn’t win the popular vote against Al Gore. If the military industrial complex needs him to continue their rape of the U.S. treasury, he could be the next president. But get out and vote, just the same, just pray that the election doesn't come down to Florida election judges - we all remember that, don't we?
Hillary Clinton is on the ropes – thank God, thank Buddha, and thank the American public. There’s a sick part of me that would love to know what Bill would be doing in the Lincoln bedroom while she was on Air Force One. Although she’s from Park Ridge, Illinois, the home of one of my naughtiest old girl friends, back in the day, I think of her politics like I think of a weather vane. Which ever way the popular winds are blowing, Hillary is pointing that way. Universal health care? Fabulous idea! Now please get real on how that can work. Would I vote for Hillary? I just caught her most recent speech, uh oh, the BS meter just redlined. Who’s the libertarian candidate?
Barack Obama has the juice and momentum. He talks like JFK, looks like a GQ model, and he’s got a smile as bright as a supernova. A black American president? It’s a good idea. Ophra has approved, so how can we say know (no)?Look where the white president's have gotten us, so race should not be an issue of any sort. Hell, I'd vote Lam the grey alien and his one world government if he were running on the best platform. To my way of thinking, Obama's election to the presidency would do wonders for race relations in our country, but based on all the fiends, lunatics, and closet-klan morons out there, I'd beef up the secret service. The one selfish reason I may vote for Obama is because he's on the Veteran’s Affairs Committee and knows first hand that the VA needs proper funding, which IT DOES NOT GET! It’s appalling to me, that we fight these wars, tie yellow ribbons around trees in our home towns and say "support our troops." But when they get home, they can’t get jobs because employers think they have PTSD and will go postal, they fall through the cracks and don’t get proper medical treatment, their lives are permanently scarred, and the government is super slow or utterly negligent in helping those veterans. With Obama, the BS meter is starting to smoke, but at least it's hopeful BS - he does have a good rap. For that reason, I will probably vote for Obama, even though the fix may be in for the "bomb, bomb, bomb -bomb, bomb Iran" warmonger. Remember the old Chicago advice for election day - "vote early and vote often."
Here is part two of my interview with a doctoral student, putting together data for his thesis.
UOI: I’m surprised to hear you say that you would kill someone for writing something offensive. I thought Buddhism was a pacifist religion.
CA: Where’s your sense of humor? “Never say never” about killing. I must confess, I’m more like Aleister Crowley than Mahatma Gandhi. It’s true, one of the great axioms of Buddhism is to “do no harm.” It might also seem contradictory that I eat meat and because of that, some cute critters must die. This idea of not killing is influenced by Jainism and Brahmanism – yet it’s really a practical contradiction.
For example, every time you breathe in air, all kinds of opportunistic organisms invade your body seeking to take hold. They become targets of our immune system. Our body is designed to kill them, whether you consciously want that to happen or not. At every moment, your immune system is killing off errant cells, microbes, disease germs, and viruses, without mercy. If it weren’t for killing on this cellular level, we would all die quickly. The question then, Is your immune system “you,” or is it some alien biological apparatus that’s encased in our flesh? The answer’s obvious, we’re all killers at the top of the food chain. I once had a sarcastic exchange with one of my Kundalini yoga teachers that eating vegetables could be an act of killing as they are alive too. Little did I know at the time that science would later demonstrate that even these so-called insentient forms of life make chemical and energetic protests to their harvest or demise that can be recorded by sensitive electronic equipment. To live, something must die.
UOI: That’s not what I’m talking about, Charles. I’m talking about the intentional act of killing. I mean killing people.
CA: Intention is the operative word. If you’re in combat and your platoon buddies are in peril, it would be your duty to fire back with extreme prejudice to kill the enemy. Of course, some people refuse to defend themselves because of strict ideological beliefs, but the instinct to protect is deeply ingrained in us and it’s hard to program out. Whenever I think about this subject, I recall a female farm cat I had. I had a Chesapeake Bay retriever who got a little too curious sniffed one of her kittens to rough. That cat, who didn’t weight more than ten pounds, jumped in the air at that dog. She came down on that dog’s head with both claws. That cat tore that dog’s face up. It was a brutal lesson for my dog and a reminder to me of how a mother protects her young. An hour later, they were pals again.
Look, if someone broke into your home and was going to rape or kill your parents, how would you respond? Pray for them? Reason with them? No, unless you were a sniveling coward, you would defend your family to the death.
I make no apologies for being the kind of man who would take whatever action I had to, to protect my troops, my family, my friends, or even someone I didn’t know, if need be - and I have. Being a Buddhist does not mean that you detach from defending yourself or taking action to protect others. On the contrary, I think it’s cowardly to allow evil or violent people to harm others without attempting to defend them, even at the cost of your life.
Intention defines the morality of our actions. Accidentally running over someone with your car is a lot different than being drunk and killing a pedestrian. Defending yourself in an unprovoked attack is much different than a premeditated murder. Even the courts recognize that!
UOI: What I’m getting at, Charles, is the contradiction of killing someone, when you’re supposed to be a pacifist.
CA: But I’m not a pacifist, I’m a man. Pacifism is an ideal - biology comes down to fight or flight. Reasoning with someone that want’s to do you harm is always an option, but sometimes you don’t have time to reason, you need to act, and fast. I try to be someone who has compassion, but has the balls to protect myself, or others, when necessary. In my mind, idealism is noble, but it goes out the window when someone is threatening you or someone you love with a knife. My definition of “pacifism” is “the intention to do no harm.” A wise person knows when it’s necessary to act. Hesitating could endanger you or your loved ones. Doing nothing when something needs to be done is cowardly.
The Buddha urged his disciples to “kill the will to kill,” which I assimilated long before I became a Buddhist. In defense of my loved ones, my country, or those who need defending, I’m a protector first and a pacifist second. Let me make myself clear. I would never harm someone for what they wrote about the Buddha. I would probably admonish them with words, but I’d save their ass whuppin’ for karma and the universe. For those in peril, I would do what any warrior would do, with the least amount of collateral damage. Isn’t it better to die protecting someone than living like a coward? Let me give you an example.
Right after I got out of the Army, I happened to be in an apartment where several girls lived. A man, high on drugs and AWOL from the Army came in with a hunting knife threatening the women. They were terrified. There wasn’t a lot of time to waste. I sprung into action and disarmed him. It wasn’t easy, but I subdued him until the police arrived. There was no doubt in my mind that this lunatic was capable of killing those girls to get money or sex, so I took him out first. Although I wasn’t practicing Buddhism then, it was, in my opinion, the Buddhist thing to do.
UOI: Okay, okay, I get it. Let’s talk about the sect of Buddhism you mentioned in your book, “Modern Buddhist Healing.” I did a search of the SGI and was surprised to see what a controversial group it is. Part of my thesis touches on the influence of sectarian Buddhism in America. I must admit, I was surprised by the hostility of the SGI against Nichiren Shoshu. In my research, the SGI is branded as militaristic. It seems as if it promotes world peace through doctrinal confrontation and assimilation. That seems odd to me, but maybe you could explain that.
CA: Although I practice Nichiren Buddhism as an independent, apart from the SGI, I have the utmost respect for the organization and its international president, Daisaku Ikeda. There’s more than a few people who would say that I can’t be an independent Nichiren Buddhist and a student of president Ikeda. Well, that’s absurd. It’s like saying I can’t be a Nichiren Buddhist because I regard Shakyamuni as the true Buddha instead of Nichiren! Some have said that if you leave the SGI, you have betrayed the master or are against the organization. That sounds a lot like the thinking of warmongers here in the U.S. who say “our country, right or wrong,” or “if you don’t like it here in America, move to some other country.” Sorry, I can be an independent, revere president Ikeda and his good works, and still love the SGI. I think what betrays the spirit of Nichiren and what the SGI was founded on is to blindly accept what you’re told without question and promote doctrine that’s clearly in contradiction to the Lotus Sutra.
I respect the original intention of SGI, and especially the people in it. The SGI saved my life, and for that I’m eternally grateful. It’s true that the SGI has made enemies. You can’t go around disparaging other sects or religions and expect to get love in return.
For more than thirty years I was on the front lines promoting Nichiren Buddhism and the SGI. The life training I received there was intense and transformative. Most of the negative things that have been written about the SGI stem from its radical approach to the correct form of Buddhism to be practiced in this particular age. It also got bad press and made enemies because of its propagation efforts that we call shakubuku. We’ve been known to badger and bully people to join the movement. We’ve created a reputation of being very aggressive and uncompromising in the correctness of our view.
UOI: And what is that view?
CA: That Nichiren Daishonin, the founder, is the true Buddha of the latter day of the law and the Lotus Sutra or SGI way, must be spread throughout the world to usher in a peaceful age known as kosen-rufu. The idea is that 1/3rd of the world population needs to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The SGI claims to be the embodiment of the Buddha’s will and the way to make this process a reality.
UOI: You sound dubious when you say that.
CA: Yeah, I am dubious.
UOI: According to the number’s I’ve seen there are only 10 million members worldwide, mostly in Japan and a few hundred thousand here in the U.S. That’s a long way from 1/3rd of the world population.
CA: Based on the Lotus Sutra itself, over the past five years, my viewpoint has changed on the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu doctrine.
UOI: So you no longer ascribe to their fundamental doctrine?
CA: I believe that the SGI’s strong suit is cultural exchange and humanistic education. We used to put on the world’s greatest culture festivals – events that had the power to break down all barriers between people and bring joy into their lives. The SGI also is a great training ground for young people who need discipline and direction in their lives. People need to understand the law of cause and effect. We call this karma. They need to understand that their problems originate within their own lives, and can only be conquered by their own efforts. We call that human revolution. In other words, you and you alone are the source and solution to your problems. The SGI teaches people how to use their practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to awaken their highest potential. We recite portions of the Lotus Sutra to a mandala known as the Gohonzon - to tap into our higher power or Buddha nature. Of course, there’s more.
We’re shown how to study and how to propagate the practice to others in need. There’s no shortage of suffering people. We teach people “how” to study. We accomplish this through a highly organized network of groups with the district discussion meeting at the center. It’s a very cool forum where everyone can share their experiences and bond in a unified objective. There’s a family feel to it as these meetings usually happen in someone’s living room.
And might I add, this is a great cause to get behind. World peace is vital. The human race is in deep trouble. With a never ending succession of wars, terrorism, crime, a liberating, positive force needs to win over peoples minds before we destroy ourselves is deeply needed.
UOI: True, the world is becoming more chaotic. What does the SGI say about global warming?
CA: I can’t tell you what their official statement is, but I can tell you what the Buddhist perspective is. We’re stewards of mother earth, it gave us life and the earth can make us disappear without missing a revolution. If we look beyond the natural cyclical changes of heating and cooling the earth goes through and look at the human factor, it’s clear why we are in trouble.
Much of our problem can be traced to the three poisons of greed, anger, and stupidity that infect the human mind. Greed seems to drive the chaos. Add into that a blindness that disregards cause and effect and you’ve got a snapshot of the polluters of twentieth century. Garbage in, garbage out. Add to that the religious component of God giving man dominion over the earth and you have your recipe for disaster. It’s human arrogance to turn a blind eye to exhausting precious resources, like deforestation, and then dumping poisons into the water and atmosphere. We’re destroying what keeps us alive.
UOI: In Christianity, you have the end of days and in Hinduism you have Kali Yuga. What does Buddhism say about these times?
CA: It’s Ironic. Although the Lotus Sutra defines this era as one of darkness and evil, we must pass through this gauntlet to establish a peaceful world.
UOI: So there’s hope?
CA: The Lotus Sutra is an ancient text that praises the one-vehicle dharma that’s never actually revealed. Nichiren came along in thirteenth century Japan to identify exactly what this liberating dharma was. It’s the title of the Lotus Sutra, Myoho-renge-kyo. He added the Sanskrit word “Namu,” and declared that Namu-myoho-renge-kyo was the means for individual enlightenment and the way to establish world peace. I’m convinced that he’s right. No matter what the Lotus Sutra, Bible, Koran, of other holy books say, healing the planet, saving humanity is up to us, now. If we don’t wake up, humanity, maybe all life here as we know it, may cease to exist.
UOI: Earlier you praised the SGI, but you separated from them. What was it that caused you become an “independent,” as you say?
CA: The SGI was like my parents. They raised me, taught me many things. They gave me a moral compass and set my feet on the path to awakening. My real parents gave me life and provided for me until I could mature and make my own way in this world. They were Lutheran and I became a Buddhist. Although I loved my folks, and at some later point understood their sacrifice for me, I eventually developed my own worldview.
A similar process occurred with me, and the SGI. About five years ago, I realized that there were anomalies in the doctrine that I had been vaguely aware of before, but rationalized. Upon further study and meditation, those contradictions became more pronounced and needed to be reconciled. Once I confronted those contradictions and resolved them, my life went through a profound transformation.
UOI: What were those contradictions?
CA: It was asserting that Nichiren was the true Buddha, when there was no doctrinal evidence of that in the Lotus Sutra, or in Nichiren’s own writings. He never claimed that, ever! Nichiren followed Shakyamuni and the Lotus Sutra, and the SGI wanted us to follow Nichiren and his Gosho. The order is Shakyamuni, the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren, and his Gosho. Chanting to the Gohonzon, which is central to being a Nichiren Buddhist, which I am, is in reality a state of life that’s directly connected to the dharma of the Lotus Sutra and the Buddha. Although this may seem like a small thing to an outsider, it makes all the difference. I would liken it to being told to regard your uncle as your father or your aunt as your mother. I believe that this error was deliberate and expedient, occurring centuries ago for debatable reasons. As for me, once I figured it out, my life was transformed in wonderful, fantastic ways. I’ve been asked if I feel this way, why don’t I join up with other Nichiren schools that have this doctrine, like Nichiren Shu? My answer is that I am, and will probably always be, an SGI member at heart. In my mind, the truth of the dharma is what matters.
Part Three Coming, the Finale
This is the verbatim transcript of a recently conducted interview with me by a student at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for a part of his doctoral thesis. I occasionally get requests for interviews, but usually turn them down. Since this request had a local angle, and was not initiated to sell magazines, I thought it might be a worthwhile cause. As it turned out, the interview was a good experience. Why this aspiring young scholar chose me, I’m not entirely sure. There are candidates with far more experience and renown. One could make the argument that I am a sectarian bore, or that my knowledge of Buddhism is dwarfed by others.
His explanation for choosing me was pretty simple. He said that my books were the most interesting and when he later learned that I only lived a couple miles from his apartment, he knew that it was kismet. This interview took place over a few days and is quite long, so I will give it you in two or three installments, starting with today’s offering. I’m not entirely sure what he intends to do with this information, except that I made sure he signed off on an agreement that I own the copyright of my words (seen here) and that unless he gets my written permission, his use of my words were limited to his thesis. Obviously U of I is the student and CA is moi.
UOI: You were referred to me by a colleague as a healer and Buddhist master. I’ve read your two books and some of your other on-line writings and would like to conduct this interview to discover the differences between Buddhism and other religions. Let’s start with your background. When and why did you, an American, decide to become a Buddhist.
CA: First, I am very uncomfortable being termed a “healer” and especially “a Buddhist master.” Healer has a connotation as someone who heals another, like a Christian faith healer or a shaman. A medical doctor is also thought of as a healer. I am neither a faith healer nor a physician. I don’t heal anyone. What I do, is teach people how to heal themselves with Buddhist methods of meditation, prayer, and with the use of mantras.
Master? If you’re not the Buddha himself, you’re still a student, no matter how great people think you are, no matter how long you’ve practiced. No master claims they’re a master, if they do, run the other way as fast as you can.
UOI: Okay, that’s an important distinction. But let’s get back to how you got into Buddhism versus Christianity.
CA: From the age of awareness, say five, I was a non-believer. It’s as if I were pre-programmed.
UOI: Were you raised Christian?
CA: Yes, Lutheran. The conservative, Missouri Synod branch. All the kids on my father’s side of the family were baptized and required to go through the confirmation process, whether we wanted to or not. I was from that generation where kids did what they were told, so that was that.
UOI: What got you interested in Buddhism?
CA: It was probably my father’s influence. He was exposed to Buddhism in China during WWII and explained reincarnation to me when I was a boy. He spoke with some respect about Buddhism and what he experienced, so I probably noticed that. He also spoke of the cruelty of the Japanese, so I was leery about telling him that I had become a member of a Japanese Buddhist society.
UOI: How did he react?
CA: He didn’t care because my life was so messed up at the time. I think the thing that warmed him up was that my first teacher of Buddhism was a Korean woman. After I brought him to a potluck and he tasted her food, she won him over.
UOI: So when did you take your Buddhist vows?
CA: I’m not a priest, so there were no vows, but I participated in what we call a gojukai ceremony in 1974. In that ceremony, we affirm three vows to practice and protect our form of Buddhism before a priest. But to be more precise, I began practicing Eastern religion in about 1965. I started with a book on yoga and somewhere in 1969 or so, I moved into an ashram in Los Angeles to learn Kundalini yoga.
UOI: Do you use yoga in your Buddhist practice?
CA: No, but there are some elements that I keep up with, like the occasional pranayamic breathing, although, I contend that the proper recitation of the Lotus Sutra and it’s primary mantra, has the identical effect of controlled yogic breathing.
UOI: Why didn’t you continue on that course?
CA: Their yoga practice was excellent, but the austere lifestyle and the rest of the practice wasn’t for me. For example, you were required to chant their mantra to a photo of their master. That was a deal breaker for me, but I did so for a while. I refuse to worship or idolize any living person, no matter how wonderful they seem. I did adopt their vegan lifestyle for a few years, but realized at some point that it had nothing to do with enlightenment. And, besides, we are after all omnivores, and I like the occasional juicy burger. For me, the big lifestyle issue was no sex outside of marriage and procreation. I liked girls and they liked me back, so that was the deal breaker.
UOI: So there’s no prohibition of sex outside of marriage or procreation in your sect?
CA: No. Sexual activities outside of marriage is deemed as an evil act because it can and does cause harm to one’s partner and destroys the family. Sex for pleasure is natural, but outside of marriage or a committed partnership, sex usually has some emotional fallout. Sex, based on love or mutual respect, whether inside the bonds of marriage or in a committed relationship is natural, and is not prohibited for laymen. How a priest handles celibacy, when celibacy is required is a controversial idea. Repressed sexuality, no matter why it is suppressed, tends to find expression in deviant ways. The Catholic clergy and Hare Krishna movement and others are stark examples of celibacy turning people of original good intention into pedophiles and sexual predators. I’m not sure how some priests or celibates control natural urges, but it must come down to channeling that energy into something positive or creative. I think Buddha remarked that if there had been another desire to conquer, as powerful as the sex drive, he might not have become the Buddha!
UOI: Interesting. Let’s change the subject. What was it about Buddhism that attracted you?
CA: Enlightenment. Responsibility for your own destiny. Power. Not Christianity. It seemed that the path I was on had come to a dead-end. I took all that was useful for me from Kundalini yoga and at the time, I was deeply immersed in the occult. It was the early 70s, and I was deeply involved in the use of psychedelic drugs. I was trying to use them in magickal ceremonies and for Tarot divination. Adventurous, too be sure, but a bad idea.
I considered Aleister Crowley to be my teacher. I studied all his works. After a couple of years of yoga, acid, and magick, my mind became clouded. I had been corresponding with Dr. Israel Regardie, and he severely reprimanded me for being a dumb ass. My parents were ashamed of what I had become. I was unhappy. I had fathered a child out of wedlock and my friends thought I gone mad.
There must be some truth to the old adage that when the student is ready, the teacher appears, because at my lowest moment, someone introduced me to Buddhism and the mantra, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The funny thing about that is I had heard that mantra in 1969, but it didn’t sink in at the time. I guess I wasn’t ready.
UOI: Aleister Crowley? Wasn’t he considered the evilest man in the world?
CA: Apparently he really pissed some people off. As a writer, as an authority on magick and mysticism, he was one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. In retrospect, he was also a snob, a bigot, and, if you pardon my bluntness, an asshole of cosmic proportions.
UOI: Let’s change the subject again. What is it about Buddhism that differs from the message of Christianity? Let me explain that a little better. There are obviously big differences, like God and life after death. What, in your opinion are the more subtle differences?
CA: I don’t think you can have this comparison without looking at the obvious differences. Buddha never denied the existence of God or gods, he merely asserted that God or gods were irrelevant to one’s attainment of enlightenment. There are numerous references to gods in the sutras, but in that context, the gods serve the Buddha, and Buddha serves living beings.
UOI: What about Christ? What is the Buddhist view of Jesus, not only as the son of God, but as the sole source of salvation?
CA: Of course, Jesus comes into the picture long after the Buddha, so there is no reference to him in the sutras. But Jesus is highly respected in Buddhism as one who made the supreme sacrifice for living beings. He has all the attributes of a great bodhisattva and is therefore worthy of the utmost respect. With that said, the entire Christian mythology veers from the constraints of reason and rationality into the realm of the supernatural, which is at odds with the practicalities of Buddhism.
UOI: How so?
CA: The whole matter of the resurrection is a classic example of myth and metaphor taken as literal and true. And by the way, the supposed powers of resurrection are in no way exclusive to Christianity. The sutras speak of Buddha resurrecting 500 people murdered by warfare, with a blue lotus flower. It would be a mistake to interpret this legend as a literal fact, just as it is a gross error in interpretation to believe that Jesus rose from the dead after three days, then after appearing to his disciples, ascending into heaven. I think we are talking about the transformation of the spirit and redemption through death.
My personal opinion is that Jesus did not die on the cross, but survived his ordeal and went into self-imposed exile, but that’s not provable either. I once had a clergyman assert that if Jesus survived the crucifixion, that would destroy Christianity. I disagree. My opinion is that you don’t need supernatural nonsense to make a religious teaching a valuable or uplifting path. If you strip all the supernatural nonsense from the Bible and other holy books, including the supernatural mythos expounded in Buddhism, you get lessons on the right way to live and treat others. Isn’t that enough? The problem with religion, as I see it, and by religion, I include Buddhism, is that it becomes warped by the skewed interpretation of its believers. From religion, you are likely to get war, inhumanity, superstition over science, and a focus away from the here and now toward something that can’t be proven, outside of yourself – something that exists only in your mind or beliefs, but without truth or true substance. Emptiness is as close to the truth as you can get. Buddha never said, “I am a Buddhist.” Jesus never said, “I am a Christian.”
UOI: I recently read a Zen koan that asked what would you do if you met the Buddha on the road. “Kill him,” was the answer. What does that mean?
CA: That’s an offensive koan to me. I have never been a fan of the Zen philosophy. In fact, my master, Nichiren, strongly rebuked the way of Zen. I would call it dhyana disguised as devotion.
UOI: Well, what does it mean, “Kill the Buddha?”
CA: It means that enlightenment is innate. You must kill the need to look outside yourself for awakening. Enlightenment is self-realized and requires nothing external. So there is some truth to the idea that faith in the Buddha or some master thwarts our ability to realize what is already a fully developed enlightened being at the core of our life. Without doubt, we need teachers, but once we know the basics, it’s our responsibility to awaken. We can’t use Buddha, God or Jesus as a crutch. Here’s my koan, “What do you do if you meet the Buddha on the road? Ask forgiveness for having killed the writer of that koan.”
Part Two coming soon….