Back in 2004 I rewatched the Poseidon Adventure with Yumi, and then wrote the following comments on the Nichiren Shu Yahoo group. Seeing as how a remake of the Poseidon Adventure is coming out this year I am reposting my comments regarding the original cinematic classic of American existantialism:
Hi all,
Just a week or so ago, my wife and I watched the Poseidon
Adventure. Yumi loves disaster movies, suspense, thrillers,
etc...and we had gone to see the Day After Tomorrow and were not so
thrilled. I then told her about the Poseidon Adventure and she had
to see it. Now that movie we both really liked.
Now I hadn't seen that movie since I was little, and it was being
shown on t.v. Seeing it again I was struck by one of the major
themes of the movie - it was all about the Death of God theology
which was popular back in the 60s and early 70s. Death of God
theology was the work of liberal theologians who were trying to
express Christianity in a world where Nietzche's declaration
that "God is dead" seemed to have captured the minds of many modern
people (maybe more in Europe than in the States). The priest
character played by Gene Hackman in the movie typifies (maybe even
caricatures) this kind of theology. He preaches that God wants
people to get off their asses and save themselves, that God has no
time to look out for everybody. Basically he is saying that as far
as we should be concerned, God taught us to take care of ourselves
and we should do so because God is not going to look out for us. The
ship's chaplain objects to this kind of teaching, insisting that it
is not very comforting. Ultimately he objects because it is a
teaching that is meaningful only to the strong and not to the weak.
The test of their respective theologies or approaches to life comes
after the Poseidon has capsized and the two priests are trapped in
the upside down ball room of the sinking ship with a few dozen
passengers. Hackman's character insists on taking those who are
willing and trying to find a way out by going up to the bottom (now
the top) of the ship. The chaplain insists on staying behind with
the others and awaiting rescue (even though he concedes that this is
highly unlikely - but he choses solidarity with those unable or
unwilling to help themselves). When Hackman and his group barely
escape the flooded ballroom and the others all die, it seems as
though his view is vindicated in the movie. But is it? Not all those
who follow Hackman make it (including Hackman himself but more on
that later), whereas the chaplain may have shown a more self-
sacrificing compassion in staying with the others.
But this dilemma is not solely a Christian one nor only a modern
one. It is basically the old argument between salvation by faith or
by works. In Japanese Buddhism it became an argument between tariki
(salvation by the Other-power of the Buddha's grace) and jiriki
(salvation by the self-power of one's own efforts to attain
buddhahood). Typically Pure Land Buddhism is identified as tariki,
wherein people recognize the inability of the self to undo
selishness and instead rely entirely on Amitabha Buddha's power to
enable them to be reborn in the Pure Land. Zen is typically
identified as self-power as Zen practitioners imitate the silent
meditation of the Buddha to attain enlightenment through their own
contemplations. But really, if you ever press a Zen or Pure Land
practitioner on this point, they will conceded that ultimately there
is neither self-power nor Other-power. There is just non-dual
realization.
Getting back to the Poseidon, how do things work out for Hackman's
priest character and those who follow him? One interesting twist is
that Ernst Borgnine plays a cop named Mike Rogo who has a lot of
trouble following Rev. Scott (Hackman). Ultimately he does, and in
the end he overcomes his own despair and rage to do the right thing
and follow through on Rev. Scott's lead (and ultimate sacrifice).
Which makes an interesting point - even the way of Death of God or
self-power requires faith. So it is not as though faith vs. works is
the same thing as faith vs. disbelief.
The other twist is that there was something that Rev. Scott missed
in preaching the save yourself version of Christianity. If one looks
upon Jesus as an example to follow and not as someone who is going
to save us in spite of oursleves, than that means taking up the
cross oneself and not just saying that Jesus bore it for us. Rev.
Scott seems to learn this at the very end when he rails against God
for all the death and for not only being absent but for seemingly
working against them. After this post-modern equivalent of "God why
have you forsaken me?" he leaps to his death (and strangely his
death is a combination of scalding, falling, fire, and drowning) in
order to save the others. He himself, in rejecting grace has had to
assume the cross himself but in doing so has provided the salvation
he promised to the others. Not to leave out any angles, there are a
lot of Jewish motifs in this film as well, and perhaps Rev. Scott is
also a kind of Moses who brings his people almost to the promised
land but is unable to enter himself.
The final twist is that after all this, the survivers are still
trapped within the upside down hull. They get out because a rescue
party outside the hull hears them banging on the inside.
Those on the outside cut their way in and then fly the survivers to
safety. So ultimately, after exhausting their own efforts and coming
to a dead end (the unbreached) hull - they must still call out to be
saved by those on the other side. Self-power (which got them that
far) has given way ultimately to Other-power. The Death of God has
resolved itself into an imitation of God (Rev. Scott) and finally a
calling out to God (knock and you shall receive - knocking on the
hull).
In terms of Buddhism, I have noticed that even the Pure Land
founders like Shinran and Honen had first exhausted every self-
powered effort to change themselves and had ultimately come to what
they felt was a dead-end. It is not as though they copped out and
found a loophole in the Law (Dharma) without trying. The Zen
Masters, on the other hand, also seem to exhaust their efforts, and
ultimately their enlightenment comes from (as Dogen put it) "dropping body and mind." So even in the lives of the founders of the seemingly dichotomous paths of self-power and Other-power one sees the confluence of both. Nichiren also realized this and wrote that the Lotus Sutra seems to teach self-power but is not self-power because the self contains all the ten worlds and in fact all life and so is not just the self, and seems to teach Other-power but is not Other-power because the buddhas are all within ourselves and so not simply Other. The Poseidon Adventure, then, is like a metaphorical illustration of this confluence.
Note 4/19/06 I really hope the remake doesn't suck, but I would be very surprised if the new version carries over the metaphorical and even parable like nature of the Gene Hackman version. If they just present it as a CGI enhanced remake of an adventure/disaster movie and miss the underlying theme of the Death of God, they will have missed the whole point of the first film. On the other hand Death of God is not really on the cultural agenda anymore, it's more like God will be the Death of US, or at least "His" (sic) fanatical believers will be.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
As I said a blog entry or so back (or maybe it was elsewhere) I have a love-hate kind of attitude towards religion.
Oneof the things I hate about religion and religious organizations is that often they become havens for people with mental disorders. Rather than helping liberate them or at least alleviate the symptoms, some religious groups even exacerbate the problem. They even go so far as to sacralize (to make sacred) some qualities that are actually symptoms of mental illness. So for instance I have been reading about the Moussoui (sp?) trial and how he has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. In London, apparently, he got serious about Islam, but then he hooked up with extremist-fundamentalists and the mainstream mosque (unable to deter him) kicked him out and left him to the fundies (not that I blame them - I mean what can you do? You can't force someone to get medical treatment and stay away from fundamentalist extremists - though I wish we could but that would require a totalitarian state). So certain religious groups thrive on mental illness. You can say that they are by, for, and all about perpetuating mental illness cloaked as religious virtue.
Anyway, just out of curiousity I started thinking about many fo the religious (or "spritiual") people that I have known and it made me wonder about certain things. So let me offer this: How many people do you know in religious groups who are like this:
A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
1. is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost
2. shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
3. is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
4. is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)
5. is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
6. is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things
7. adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes
8. shows rigidity and stubbornness
Perhaps one can even think of whole organizations that behave that way. In fact, those qualities are often what will shoot you up to leadership positions in some groups. They are in fact the symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Here is the page I got it from:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe10.html
How about the rank and file members of religious groups? What would be good qualities for them to have according to many religious organizations? How about:
A pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others
2. needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life
3. has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval. Note: Do not include realistic fears of retribution.
4. has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his or her own (because of a lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities rather than a lack of motivation or energy)
5. goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others, to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant
6. feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself
7. urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship ends
8. is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself
Sound like anyone you know? Sounds like the "member in good standing" in many religious groups I could name (but won't). These are actually symptoms of Dependent Personality Disorder:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe09.html
The thing is, I don't want to put down those with "personality disorders." I'm not perfect myself. And really, "personality disorders" like the two above are not really "mental illness" as far as I am concerned but more along the lines of the flaws and weaknesses of the human condition. But what disturbs me is that these are disorders, this is dis-ease. They are afflictions that cause suffering to ourselves and others, and yet in too many religious groups they are the very qualities that are often praised, cultivated, and reinforced. So religion is far from harmless, it often deliberately creates personality disorders, reinforces those already present, exploits those disorders to grow and perpetuate itself, and in extreme cases such as with Moussoui it even attracts and exploits the mentally ill for its nefarious ends.
Now I also believe that there are religious people and groups who work very hard to overcome their own weaknesses, infirmities, and disorders and who do their best to help others become liberated as well. I think that the historical Buddha was one such person, and he and his followers left behind a rich heritage of methods and techniques for helping others overcome their afflictions. But as with any group of people, many Buddhist groups are run by and for those who have mistaken what is problematic or even harmful for a virtue.
The point of this? Let the buyer beware and don't mistake afflictions for liberation.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
1. There is no evidence that Nichiren was ever fully ordained in the Tendai
school. There is also no evidence that he wasn't, but Prof. Nakao pointed out that only well connected monks were fully ordained. Most were just given tokudo, so technically they were just shamis (novices). Based on this answer, it seems to me that when Nichiren said he was a "monk without precepts" what he meant was that even though he had never formally taken up the Bodhisattva precepts or the monastic precepts he was still living in accord with them. It didn't mean that he had rejected them or wanted his disciples to not follow
monastic or bodhisattva precepts. It also means that he did not think it was necessary to take them formally either, as he may not have. This also explains to me why he would have wanted a new precept platform of the essential teaching, because he may have wanted a precept platform anyone could go to instead of just a precept platform for well-connected elite monastics.
2. Nichiren left a fingerprint on one of the Omandalas. Prof. Nakao brought a picture of this. Way cool!
3. Nichiren's kao (signature) below the Odaimoku on the Omandalas may either be a highly stylized form of Myo or it may be the Sanskrit letter that represents "Great Sun." Apparently there are different opinions about this in scholarly circles.
4. In any case, Nichiren's kao changed over time and six different forms of it
have been identified, and these are correlated to different years. This is one way they check the authenticity of an Omandala, by making sure the date on it matches the kao.
5. Just to make sure I asked him if anyone knew for sure why Kuan Yin
Bodhisattva had been left off the Omandala. He confirmed that scholars do not know as Nichiren never said why in any extant writing. Also, he affirmed that all the buddhas and bodhisattvas are included in the Omandala by implication.
6. He explained that in the past, people would write the names of their deceased
relatives on the Omandalas. In the case of picture mandalas, the pictures of the deceased would be put on the Omandalas. This practice was not common and only done by those who could afford to have the portrait Omandalas done.
7. Many of the Omandalas Nichiren made were used as Omamoris (sort of like a
protective paper amulet) and they were folded up and worn by samurai into battle. Apparently several of these have been found (and are probably among those in the Gohonzon Shu collection though I would not know which ones). He also said that new Omandalas were still occasionally found and authenticated to this day.
So those were some of the things that I learned from his talks. He also spoke a
lot about papermaking in medieval Japan and the construction of the Omandalas. Prof. Nako, btw, is regarded in Japan as an expert not in just religious history but also is an expert in Japanese national treasures, many of which he has examined himself in the course of his work. He and his students were also involved in some way with the establishment of the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco though I am not clear about in what capacity.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
This is let you all know that on Thursday April 6 from 7 to 9 pm Prof. Takashi Nakao, leading authority on the history of Nichiren Shu Buddhism at Rissho University, will be giving lecture at the NBIC entitled "Nichiren - A Buddhist Reformer of Japan in the 13th century"
The Nichiren Buddhist International Center is at 29490 Mission Blvd. in Hayward. Phone number (510) 690-1222.
Also, Prof. Nakao will be giving a lecture on the morning of 4/9 at the San Jose Buddhist Temple on "Nichiren Shonin and the Lotus Mandala (Gohonzon)." This will be after the 10 am Hanamatsuri Service (which celebrates the birth of Shakyamuni Buddha).
The San Jose Temple is at 3570 Mona Way, San Jose, CA 95130
I highly encoruage anyone who can to attend these lectures as it is a rare chance to hear, meet with, and talk with one of the leading scholars from Rissho University.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei