Reverend Greg

I just discovered this website yesterday and I've only read a few posts so far. Look forward to reading more.

However, I still haven't figured out how to respond to old postings, so I'm posting my comment to "Faith in the Japanese" from Feb of 2007, here, because I couldn't figure out how to comment on that post.

On that post someone wrote in brackets [note that all the attending leaders of the American institutions were Japanese].

Many of the directors of these institutions have been people of other nationalities. It just happed to be at that particular meeting that all of the people meeting were Japanese.

For example, the first director of the Boston Research Center of the 21st Century was Virgina Strauss (not a man and not Japanese).

The current director of the Toda Institute of Peace and Policy Study is Majid Tehranian (definately not Japanese).

I'm sure there are many others that I'm not yet aware of.

That's my 2 cents. I'll try to come up with more change for other post later.

Peace!

what are you afraid of Clown Hidden. You will bleached bones, dust and mud before you know it.

Mark

Vanya,

A few points:

We need to rethink what is 'right intention.' The word translated as right can mean wholsome, skillful, or correct. Here, wholesome seems to fit. Unwholssome intention is rooted in attraction, aversion, and ignorance. Those can expanded out into a long list of unwholesome bonno / klesha or negative emotions, desires, and concepts. So right intention does not simply mean to simply mean well. It is also does not mean to subsume our self centered to some collective fabrication like race, nation, or sect. That is changing the prideful ego conceit [mana and mada]into bigotry.

Another thing, Faith or Shradha is intended to counter doubt in the sensae vicikiccha; which is debilitating fear, timidity, suspicion, mistrust, cynicism, and so on. Being overconfident, cocky, triumphal, fanatical, overzealous, pridefully arrogant, and so on, is not Buddhist Faith. That simply trades one kind of klesha for others.

Ome more thing is that right intention is primary. The first thing to do is work on our emotions, mental attitudes, and so on. That does not mean that any sort of harsh speech or harmful action can be excused because we mean well. Note that in Chapter 1, the Bodhisattva of Compassion becomes confused, so he turns to the Bodhisattva of wisdom for advice. We also learn that the Bodhisattva of Compassion was a Fame Seeking Bodhisattva in a past life. There is a fine line between egotistical, bigoted do gooding and real empathic compassion rooted in Bodhicitta.

Finally, formal moral and ethical codes are all relative, provisional fabrications. Still, we are wise to be mindful of social norms in this area. Nichiren was very mindful of Confucian ethics. He also advised his followers to only carry out shakubuku {in the strict sense of refuting or correcting false views} in formal, public settings; and to follow all the rules of etiquette for his time and place.

Robin, let me ask you this: Mark's intentions are good. He thinks he is saving people with his extreme statements. Does that make what he says OK?

Vanya,

I knew you would write that. It appears to be your mission to find any inconsistencies between people's intent, speech and actions. I am saying it is not about that. We all err, that is why we need to practice.

Generally speaking, most SGI members will think what Ikeda said is just fine. But if Mark Rogow does something similar, it is just horrible.

Karma is created by intentions, speech, and actions. Intention is the most important, then speech, then action. If we practice to have the right intention, right speech, and right action will follow eventually.

As for topic, you tried to make it about Chuck. I think the topic is "Fundamentalism in all it's myriad diversity."

So we learned Vanya like top play "gotcha." I already knew that. My point is that I am interested WHAT is right, I am not that interested
in WHO is right. I am not looking to align with some sect that is more right than the others.

I think Nichiren Shoshu is wrong on most matters of doctrine. However, in terms of practice, they clearly make what I think is a correct distinction between kito and kanjin. So I keep that idea.

BP 110/70.

Charles

Charles, take it easy, your blood pressure.

I am quite dispassionate. Please read my reply to Chris on our private e-mail list about objectively evaluating phenomena, groups and individuals. It is quite simple Charles. Teach Ikedaism or DaiGohonzonism under the guise of the Lotus Sutra and you will suffer severe punishment. To point this out is walking in the footsteps of Nichiren Daishonin. You should try a little dispassion.

Mark

Vanya,
You talk about Robin when he is not the topic of conversation.

Maltz

Robin, You quote Ikeda when he isn't even the topic of conversation, then four paragraphs later you say it's not about who is right. It seems to me that for you it is very much about who, not what, is right.

You mention Tozan....
Did you know where they got the word?
in 1260 all the Buddhist priest went to the top of Mt. Fuji for 3 weeks at the coldest time of the year, with no shoes, many priests from many different sects. Shingon, Pureland, Nichiren was there, Some we never heard of...

When they came down after 3 days, and drinking cold water first, than cool water, and then warm water, and then nice miso soup, they checked all their feet.

Only Nichiren had his TOES-ON (BADDA BOOM BADDA-BING)

Honen would not use a blanket to get warm because he thought there was a cover charge!!!!

Maltz out

"Someone wrote:

"If you condone or tolerate those things he said, sorry for you."

I, Charles Atkins, wrote that.

You, Mark Rogow, wrote:

"Once again, it is the world of suffering where one speaks the truth [that slanderers will have their heads broken into seven pieces] and instead of being praised for revealing the ugly faces of these destroyers of Buddhism, he is admonished and sternly criticized."

More curses? The Lotus Sutra clearly states that curses are returned to the sender, so let's wait and see whose head is split into seven pieces.

You're being admonished and criticized, not because you represent a lofty truth that other's cannot possibly understand because they suffer from incorrigable disbelief, but because you espouse a highly venomous teaching that is more akin to Bible-belt evangelical Christainty than anything remotely resembling the Buddhism taught in the Lotus Sutra.

After reading Graham Lamont's reply on Rev. Greg's site, for a brief moment, I had compassion for you. But the poison has sunk so deeply within your mind. Your sect will hover around zero American members, not because we don't understand or don't have the capacity to learn, but because we can clearly see that you folk are spiritually insane and on the fast track to the very hell you have been condeming all of us to. What a pity. I have been informed that you are a very nice man, but, apparently don't have a mind of your own, and have lost the ability to distingush between good food and feces. I guess we will all get to watch you self-destruct. How sad.

I have nothing against you personally, as I don't know you. What turns my stomach is what you have done to the message of the Lotus Sutra. For that, you must pay dearly, not us.

Charles

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your apology. I didn't think you were being sneaky; I thought that others who had never seen the Buddha Jones site might not recognize Lisa's writing and might mistake it for your writing since it was posted in its entirety on your blog. I hope that as your write more in your blog you will develop an authentic voice of your own. And temper that voice with the 4 immeasurables that Byrd recently blogged about.

I'm going to assume that your question was for the Rev. Greg, as I have no moderation/deletion privileges here.

Someone wrote:

"If you condone or tolerate those things he said, sorry for you."

Once again, it is the world of suffering where one speaks the truth [that slanderers will have their heads broken into seven pieces] and instead of being praised for revealing the ugly faces of these destroyers of Buddhism, he is admonished and sternly criticized.

Mark

Dear Clown Hidden:

Not believing that Nichiren Daishonin's teachings are Buddhism is cause for your further descent. Cause and effect is real and taking responsibility for everything that happens to us is Buddhism.

Mark

Hi Michele.
I apologize. This is one of the very few times in hundreds of posts where I forgot to attribute an entry to an author. If you will notice, very prominently displayed on my blog is a link to the Buddha Jones archive. If I wanted to be sneaky about things I would never have posted a link where you could find the post quite easily.

A question.. Why did you leave my post on actual proof but remove the other one? Are the people I cite there more culpable or are they more hardened enemies of the Law, able to handle the stark effect of their slander?

Mark

"Chuck may have been talking about concepts; but it is those concepts that lead Mark to his conclusion. As I pointed out they even used the same wording. When Chuck says "SGI members are beleaguered," he is indeed talking about individuals. Just because he doesn't mention any names doesn't excuse it. I prefer Mark's approach as it is more honest, and exposes the "concept" for the ugly belief that it is."

John, is this ugly?

"The distinguishing features of all who have turned against the Soka Gakkai in the past are ingratitude, arrogance, self-interest and envy. Individuals who forget their gratitude to their mentor and betray their fellow members inevitably embark on [a] course resulting in their own terrible suffering." -- Daisaku Ikeda

At any rate, how is discussing the general effect ideas have on people, less honest than gossip about specific individuals? If something is less hurtful, less apt to offend, and more apt to find receptive ears; somehow less honest?

I guess we also talk about emotional honesty versus intellectual honesty. I try to do both. If I feel ticked or hurt, I try not to post. As time passes, I succeed more often.

A person coming from kindness and compassion; and one coming from enmity and vengefulness, can transmit pretty much the same information, but with different vibes.

Discussing WHAT is right and superior, is much different from discussing WHO is right and superior. Sometimes people will reply to me that I am just saying such things to build myself up. I sometimes suspect that reveals their own motives.

robin

Ashley, I am aware of the power of speech. But if you don't take an absolutist position, then you take a subjective one, where lines must be drawn. Who is going to draw them? You? Me? Ms. McKinnon? Congress? I'm not comfortable with someone else drawing them for me.

We have certain freedoms in our society and sometimes we pay a price for them. As a society we must decide where the balance is between freedoms and costs. I prefer to err on the side of freedom. You may have a different view and I respect that.

Of course this is Greg's site and he can decide what's fit to print. Mark has other outlets for his vitriol and he has blogs elsewhere. I see the offending post has been removed, but Mark's blog is still here.

Chuck may have been talking about concepts; but it is those concepts that lead Mark to his conclusion. As I pointed out they even used the same wording. When Chuck says "SGI members are beleaguered," he is indeed talking about individuals. Just because he doesn't mention any names doesn't excuse it. I prefer Mark's approach as it is more honest, and exposes the "concept" for the ugly belief that it is.

Perhaps we could discuss further this concept of reward and punishment and why it leads people to say the kind of things Marks does (he ain't the first).

Hi Greg,

Aside from the other things Mark Rogow has written, he posted this:

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/kemponhokke/archives/002642.html

without any attribution to its author, Lisa Jones. I think if he is going to post an article written by someone else in its entirety, he ought to at least give an accurate attribution, rather than leave it standing looking like it was his own writing.

Michele

A suggestion for Vanya: A couple of books that may help you to reassess your thoughts on the concept of free speech. 1) "Only Words" by Katherine McKinnon, 2) "Words That Wound". The book is at home, and I do not recall the author at the moment. Reading both of these were instrumental in opening my eyes much wider to the scope of issues involved around 'free speech'. If I learned one thing from my many years of participating in the SGI, it was to think twice before I take an absolutist position on anything under the sun. It definitely was a lesson on what not to do in terms of adopting a viewpoint. It is still hard for me to lose that edgy, rightous belligerance I so succumbed to over the years.
Anywho, just a thought.

Ashley

I really don't see any pooint in re-printing anything like this. It only makes things worse. Greg, we all know that people have said a lot of nasty things in the past. The question is: will it continue in the future?

I'd like to see FWP go bak to being a place where people can discuss policy and Buddhism intelligently.

Please help us to do that, and simply exercise your powers as the webmaster here to bring things back into line. You won't be seen as a tyrant if you do (except by those who have an advantage in purporting to be persecuted when they are not being persecuted). I, for one, will thank you for it. Mark can take his nastiness elsewhere -- it's a big internet -- and we here can simply re-determine (gee, where did I get that language from?) to be more courteous in the future.

Please stop stoking the fires and get us out of this mess. Your pal in LA, Byrd

Vanya, the distinction Chuck made is talking about principles, concepts, and methods; and the effects they have on people in general; as opposed to or rather than gossiping about and smearing specific people.

As I have told Rogow myself, he has the letter of the teaching pretty much spot on.

gassho

robin

"My vow of silence begins... now."
- Cosmo Kramer

I thought Charles was on strike. What's all this engaging and associating going on on here?

Vanya wrote:

"I don't see much difference between you and Mark on this issue."

Are you an idiot? You really didn't understand that article in the slighest. No one else had that problem, just you, apparently.

I really have no more to say about Rogow, and you're analysis of my earlier blog is bizarre, to say the least. I have no interest in your opinion so save it for someone who cares. I closed off my comment section because I said my piece and wasn't looking for a "commentary." Get a life, or better yet, get a brain.

Charles

Mark: "It (sons of SGI leaders dying) is the result of abandoning Shakyamuni Buddha and appropriating the Lotus Sutra and the name of Nichiren Daishonin for the cult that is the SGI."

Charles: "It is my opinion that the general membership in the SGI – especially here in the U.S., is beleaguered because of several fundamental errors. The first is doctrinal errors such as believing and teaching that Nichiren is the true Buddha of Mappo while diminishing Shakyamuni. Another is promoting the Gosho above the Lotus Sutra."

Sounds judgmental to me.

You don't have to name individuals. It's a small group, and anyone who knows what you are talking about, knows who you are talking about. I don't see much difference between you and Mark on this issue.

Vanya wrote:

"I dunno, Charles, you made similar statements (similar to what Mark Rogow is saying in his latest posts) in your July 29, 2006 post "The Well Worn Path From Life to Death." (I'm not keeping track of all your posts, I found it by searching)."

I do know, Vanya. My post was not disrespectful to any individuals. It's hard to believe that is what you got out of it.

From one viewpoint, it may appear that people devoted to one sect or another suffer more tragedy than others, but the truth is that shit happens, and sometimes really bad shit happens, to all of us. And death is infrequently timeley nor is it pretty, no matter how devoted you are to any teaching. Are you capable of making that distinction? My post of 2006 was one of curiousity, not one of judgment. No one has the moral authority to say what he did.

I strongly believe in the freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech has limits and consequences. You don't scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater and you don't tell terroists how to make WMD. Irresponsible, yet free speech has its consequences. If you condone or tolerate those things he said, sorry for you.

Charles

I can't post a comment on Charles' latest posting so I will post it here. Hope that's OK.

I dunno, Charles, you made similar statements (similar to what Mark Rogow is saying in his latest posts) in your July 29, 2006 post "The Well Worn Path From Life to Death." (I'm not keeping track of all your posts, I found it by searching).

I've only posted once on FWP but I had similar misgivings about it because of the writings of some of the other posters here. Ultimately I decided posting here was not an endorsement of anything else written on the site. Furthermore I absolutely believe in free speech and would never try to suppress anyone else's speech. Protest what they have to say, sometimes, but most of the time just ignore it. That's what I (usually) do with Mark as I see no point in responding to him on any level.

I do respect your opinion, but I have to ask how you square your earlier comments with your response to Mark.

I don't think the author should be allowed to misrepresnt buddhism like this. They will be ignored by anyone with wisdom, but the ignorant and superstitious will have their fires stoked. Religious fanatacs are dangerous generally and even though this one seems like a cartoon there's nothing funny.