|4 years ago :: Dec 23, 2008 - 9:41PM #1|
Hello all and Namaste,
I have read sgi-chris's 'call for peace between sgi and Nikken (not the magnet company).
I think I have read this before, many years ago, it is a wonderful sentiment that I hope is
felt and followed widely. I hope to see the "Soka spirit" lose spirit as it is a concept of
disunity and hate.
I have read some of autex's profile, I hope to get to know him better too as a fellow Nichiren buddhist.
I AM of SGI-USA based in California.
I read Truth 47's post on his 'take' of what Buddhism is about.
I would wish to post a view that is hard to get and controversial as well. I never fail to get 'flack' for
The Golden Rule, worse thing ever done to man. Good on general prinicple when all else is missing, but
really, so obvious and basic. Why I would disparage it is that like Caesar said, any rule is a good thing when
it is made , but after it becomes a precendent it defeats its purpose and becomes a burden.
The father who loving art gives an art book to his son who hopes to become a world champion baseball player,
the mother raising her son to become a perfect little daughter, and lady, seeking to live her life vicariously
through her children.
The son, working slavishly to support an uncle and mother who have fallen on harder times. All these examples of
how selflessness becomes a sick extention of self-gratification and ego puffing.
We do, as Shakamuni/Siddhartha directed, need to EXAMINE our motives.
Did the wife's husband fall ill and into a stuper, and she keeps him at home taking care of him, is it out of
gulit, and out of having 'purpose' that she does it our is it because she is doing it for his best interest
above all things. Surely ifyou asked her, she would claim she is driven by desires of love to keep him
vegative in his wheel chair, but shouldn't he be cared for at a home properly.
A case, one case, but there are many cases where the APPARENT reasons a person does what they do
looks like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but so often this rule is quoted to justify
evil and selfish intent, intent that is not even clear to the person doing it ever, or until they truly
and deeply seek within to find out the answers to questions.
q: what would ""I "" feel like if I didn't do this?
Is doing this in the personal, best interest of HIM/Her to discover and FULFILL their own unique SELF?
Is it what THEY want, or what I want them to want?
Are my motives to do for them what they would appreciate and benefit from, or is it my wish to
seek their appreciation and approval?
IF they gave no approval, no warmth, would I still do this for this person or would I be offended...>>
real question. (WHAT do I get out of giving this? am I seeking self-validation?).
So often we give then in oh so minor ways lash out in passive-aggressiveness when we are
neglected to be fawned over because of the present or effort. Not often but I have seen a person get
out right mad, violent for not being complimented profusely for a gift.
The word GIFT means, something giving or done for which there is not expected remuneration. Doesn't
most of what is 'given' fail to meet this criteria? We attach strings and requirements to what we give,
praying so that we are seen, or that we should not be squashed, giving for the tax break or hope of
getting something also (quid pro quo), or being loved or approved?
When you give something or begin to buy a gift, ask yourself. What would happen if I was disapproved of
or the reaction I got was scornful, but I suspect they really would use or need or like it , IN spite of the
way they acted toward me; How would I feel about giving the gift.
LIke Shariputra who plucked out his own eyes for the request of a Brahman, there would probably
be that scorn and insillence.
So often the "do unto others as we would have them do unto us" is because we would want that
ART book, or opera pass, where as "the recepeint' cares nothing for what we are giving, It is
not to the best interest of their OWN UNIQUE n individual nature.
WHAT would should do, is to do for others what is according to their OWN UNIQUE nature, and do for
them or to them what they universe would have us do.
when we do for others as we would have them do for us, we error, in that we neglect and abuse them
by treating them as if their nature does not matter.
Should I treat a woman as if she were a man, I neglect her. Should I treat a child as an adult I neglect their
being. Should I treat an artist as an engineer I neglect their nature and likes.
Should I treat anyone as if they are me, then I can provide them basic food, basic clothes, basic ettique, but
beyond that it requires a deeper and intimate understanding of HOW they need to hear their appproval, their
love, their gifts, their clothes style, their pasttimes interests and all this.
Thank you to Truth47 for the inspiration to share this topic
|4 years ago :: Dec 25, 2008 - 1:11AM #2|
"I have read sgi-chris's 'call for peace between sgi and Nikken"
Just to be clear it is the Shoshu sect not the Nikken sect. That is tantamount to calling the SGI the Ikeda sect and Nikken is retired BTW.
|4 years ago :: Dec 29, 2008 - 9:53PM #3|
Thank you for clearing that up. The forum that I came from would have a penchant
for tactics of debate such as using "Nikken" Buddhism or some such.
Though I have no problems with the Shoshu sect, the sect under Nikken
directive I do not feel acheived all it might best be called to do.
(wow, there is an understatement!)
There are many people in SGI and in the other sects of Nichiren faiths, the people
need to draw forth their Buddha natures and does the Sects themselves.
for your preventing my misleading any who might read my post.
|4 years ago :: Jan 04, 2009 - 11:54AM #4|
|2 years ago :: Aug 08, 2011 - 2:59AM #5|
Where you stand depends on where you sit... Just as Theravadans are likely insulted when we call them "Hinayana" sects eh?
However, I would also point out an issue here:
I think this is quite relevant, we do NOT have to call them "Shoshu" unless we do think their school IS correct. I understand that saying "The Nikken Sect" is offensive, but so might their use of "Shoshu" to those who would disagree.... I'm not sure what they should be called to be fair and take the middle path.... But I don't think this issue is as clear cut as the above statements make it sound. I for one don't think SGI or let's call it "The Nichiren Priesthood" (to avoid being offensive) are the "Shoshu".