T'ien T'ai Four Teachings of Doctrine

[WorkingOnIt]

As to 'this person', isn't that like looking for a specific second coming?

Sort of like that. Leaders do emerge and have a lasting influence.

Yes, but my point is that 'this person' has to be anyone who steps up anytime or anyplace.  Not someone limited to either schools or regions of the planet as you expressed.  Hence the question, in line with Buddhist reasoning would you not consider yourself, or anyone you know capable of being 'this person' or do you think rebirth is required? 

If its not the case that its anyone anywhere anytime then would not all talk of being a Buddha [or any leader for that matter] in any lifetime other than a lifetime that happened to align with a very specific set of conditions be meaningless. 

Everything required for Buddha appearance is always right here right now.  The unconditioned cannot be bound to time, space or conditions.

Reality check, for all of Shakymuni's efforts humanity in total has not veered much off the path that it was traveling while he was walking the planet.

I think he had a profound influence, especially given the time he lived and that neither he or his disciples recorded anything. Others have also steered history, for better or worse. If some believes that he no impact, I would wonder why even be a Buddhist? Que Sera Sera?  

What I meant here is that his life and teaching did not cause world peace or anything close to it.  And though he clearly shows the mechanism by which to go forward he did not have unarguable demonstrative global success in the check-mark you have indicated being a sign  "steer humanity away from infatuation with instant gratification toward goals that result in a more lasting satisfaction". 

So it seems a stretch to think that the next on deck entity will have greater success with overall humanity.   

What his teaching did do was to open, show, awaken and cause to enter those who choose to study, reflect and put into action the wisdom gained.  Even a Buddha cannot force the profound on those only capable of receiving the shallow.  And neither can a Buddha hide the profound from a shallow person who is steadfast in their determination to become awakened.  If so then it seems to indicate that any salvation of the whole of humanity is dependent more so on the collective effort of each human.  Any one of them can disrupt all of a saints excellent work.  SGI I think gets this and excels when they keep to the message of focusing on every individual.

As the teachings are fundamentally the truth of reality they are applicable to all humanity and observable even were no Buddha to expound them.  A Buddha is always striving and always teaching because, as indicated in the teachings, he is incapable of doing otherwise.

Obviously. the Laws of Gravity existed before Newton expounded them. Are you saying that Buddhas are just blown along by the four winds? Or that they have no choice but to not be blown along by the four winds? The Buddha made a conscious decision to propagate his teaching. Are you denying that? I am a believer in volition and karma, and even the power of Citta Mind to override Karma. It almost sounds like you believe in conditioned fate?  I suppose that is one way to read dependent co-arising? That is not how I read it. Or maybe I have no choice but to not read it that way?

Buddha's (Shakymuni variety), according to the texts and logic really have only 2 choices upon awakening.  Nirvana or teach.  Its not like they can choose to just hang out with the mortals and still remain a Buddha. 

Buddhas, have no consideration of acting otherwise and are incapable of doing so from the moment they make the determination to teach.  (A Buddha that says 'I quit'.  How would that work?)

But realize that this isn't teaching towards any goal.  They don't count numbers saved, temples built, donations made.  And what they teach is awakening to what cannot be taught. 

So Buddhas teach only from the basis of Dharma, pure and unadulterated truth - no sugar coating, no false praise or modesty, no manipulation to attain a particular future state, leverage or advantage.  Conversion is not their intention.  But they teach to individuals the truth whereby the individual may convert themselves.

Never thought of it in terms of dependent co-arising.  One chooses to be a parent.  Some from the moment of choice never think or act otherwise.  Maybe the unconditioned at work on the 'unreal'?   

[robby]

So it seems a stretch to think that the next on deck entity will have greater success with overall humanity.

One of the predictions about Metteya is that he appears in time when the oceans have shrunk, so he is able to walk from continent top continent. Well, I heard that somewhere. Anyway, I am just looking at the imagery of the Lotus Sutra and present causes and conditions. I think humanity is prepared to be steered in the direction I suggested. Someone appears in response. One translation of Nirmana Kaya is the Response Body.   

Everything required for Buddha appearance is always right here right now.  The unconditioned cannot be bound to time, space or conditions.

The tradition is that a Sammasambuddha can only appear when there are specific causes and conditions. There can not be any Dharma of a Sammasambudhha extant in the world. There can not even be any other Arahants present. In the unconditioned sense, a Buddha never appears, and is never absent.

What I meant here is that his life and teaching did not cause world peace or anything close to it.

Be patient.

If its not the case that its anyone anywhere anytime then would not all talk of being a Buddha [or any leader for that matter] in any lifetime other than a lifetime that happened to align with a very specific set of conditions be meaningless.

huh?

Hence the question, in line with Buddhist reasoning would you not consider yourself, or anyone you know capable of being 'this person' or do you think rebirth is required?

 
I probably believe in rebirth; but I do not think that is necessary. I think there are some things going on. The Thai Forest tradition has some powerful meditative technologies. With the Internet and other material technologies, people have access to information beyond anything I could have imagined 30 years ago. I also think the spread of Daimoku is making people more receptive. Meanwhile, the Tibetans and Chinese do a lot of interesting and attractive things with music and visual aids.

Can something like this compete, culturally, with Big Foot Monster Trucks and the WWF?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qVRg3qFg0I

[WorkingOnIt]

One of the predictions about Metteya is that he appears in time when the oceans have shrunk, so he is able to walk from continent top continent.

That will be possible in the next ice age.  Scheduled for ~90,000 years from now give or take.  But it is a chaotic system.  Might be next year. 

I think humanity is prepared to be steered in the direction I suggested. Someone appears in response. One translation of Nirmana Kaya is the Response Body.   

And one meaning is simply that Dharma always appears in truth in ones environment and allows one to partake of as much as one can handle.  So 'someone' is here now.  And for others in need it is sometimes you 

Everything required for Buddha appearance is always right here right now.  The unconditioned cannot be bound to time, space or conditions.

The tradition is that a Sammasambuddha can only appear when there are specific causes and conditions. There can not be any Dharma of a Sammasambudhha extant in the world. There can not even be any other Arahants present. In the unconditioned sense, a Buddha never appears, and is never absent.

No argument about Sammasambuddha.  There can only be one.  Its the rest of us that I'm talking about.

What I meant here is that his life and teaching did not cause world peace or anything close to it.

Be patient.

Where does Buddhism talk about resigned patience?  Certainly not for personal awakening and peace.  I fully believe that an individual can achieve for themselves a life condition that feels like world peace regardless where the individual finds themselves.  "Be patient" after almost 3000 years is to me a bit too 'back of the bus for you but your children s, children s, children will ride up front.  Trust me.'    

[quote ]

If its not the case that its anyone anywhere anytime then would not all talk of being a Buddha (or any leader for that matter) in any lifetime other than a lifetime that happened to align with a very specific set of conditions be meaningless.

huh?
[/quote]

Funny, I say the same thing when I read it.  I know what I want to say but its hard to express.  Simply, if there is at any point a requirement for a Buddha to arise at a specific place and time then it cannot be the case that anyone can attain it in any lifetime.  Logically the case can be made for only one (Sammasambuddha) to be first to rediscover what is lost.  But would not #2->N have to be possible anytime and anyplace after the first occurrence for 'in this lifetime' to make any sense? 
 

I probably believe in rebirth; but I do not think that is necessary. I think there are some things going on. The Thai Forest tradition has some powerful meditative technologies. With the Internet and other material technologies, people have access to information beyond anything I could have imagined 30 years ago. I also think the spread of Daimoku is making people more receptive. Meanwhile, the Tibetans and Chinese do a lot of interesting and attractive things with music and visual aids.

Can something like this compete, culturally, with Big Foot Monster Trucks and the WWF?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qVRg3qFg0I

I would love for the fun to continue forever.  But having an eternal view to me would not be much different in effect than the view we are Buddha just as we are.  In the latter case whatever we do must be enlightened.  In the former anything we do is in the big scheme of things irrelevant to the totality so what if its not enlightened but just feels good this time round. 

I sense value in the neither-view but cannot adequately explain why. 

I read a book on poker once that taught you should play certain hands the same way even if you know precisely the cards everyone else is holding.  The idea is to make response to certain situations automatically correct according to statistical probability. 

The Buddha is not a statistician but I do see some indication of encouragement to practice continuously with the same intensity towards the Dharma even if the future is perfectly clear.  Indicating that simply practice itself is always correct, always its own reward.

[buku]

As to 'this person', isn't that like looking for a specific second coming?

Sort of like that. Leaders do emerge and have a lasting influence.

Yes, but my point is that 'this person' has to be anyone who steps up anytime or anyplace.  Not someone limited to either schools or regions of the planet as you expressed.  Hence the question, in line with Buddhist reasoning would you not consider yourself, or anyone you know capable of being 'this person' or do you think rebirth is required?

If its not the case that its anyone anywhere anytime then would not all talk of being a Buddha [or any leader for that matter] in any lifetime other than a lifetime that happened to align with a very specific set of conditions be meaningless.  

Everything required for Buddha appearance is always right here right now.  The unconditioned cannot be bound to time, space or conditions.

Reality check, for all of Shakymuni's efforts humanity in total has not veered much off the path that it was traveling while he was walking the planet.

I think he had a profound influence, especially given the time he lived and that neither he or his disciples recorded anything. Others have also steered history, for better or worse. If some believes that he no impact, I would wonder why even be a Buddhist? Que Sera Sera?  

What I meant here is that his life and teaching did not cause world peace or anything close to it.  And though he clearly shows the mechanism by which to go forward he did not have unarguable demonstrative global success in the check-mark you have indicated being a sign  "steer humanity away from infatuation with instant gratification toward goals that result in a more lasting satisfaction".  

So it seems a stretch to think that the next on deck entity will have greater success with overall humanity.    

What his teaching did do was to open, show, awaken and cause to enter those who choose to study, reflect and put into action the wisdom gained.  Even a Buddha cannot force the profound on those only capable of receiving the shallow.  And neither can a Buddha hide the profound from a shallow person who is steadfast in their determination to become awakened.  If so then it seems to indicate that any salvation of the whole of humanity is dependent more so on the collective effort of each human.  Any one of them can disrupt all of a saints excellent work.  SGI I think gets this and excels when they keep to the message of focusing on every individual.

As the teachings are fundamentally the truth of reality they are applicable to all humanity and observable even were no Buddha to expound them.  A Buddha is always striving and always teaching because, as indicated in the teachings, he is incapable of doing otherwise.

Obviously. the Laws of Gravity existed before Newton expounded them. Are you saying that Buddhas are just blown along by the four winds? Or that they have no choice but to not be blown along by the four winds? The Buddha made a conscious decision to propagate his teaching. Are you denying that? I am a believer in volition and karma, and even the power of Citta Mind to override Karma. It almost sounds like you believe in conditioned fate?  I suppose that is one way to read dependent co-arising? That is not how I read it. Or maybe I have no choice but to not read it that way?

Buddha's (Shakymuni variety), according to the texts and logic really have only 2 choices upon awakening.  Nirvana or teach.  Its not like they can choose to just hang out with the mortals and still remain a Buddha.  

Buddhas, have no consideration of acting otherwise and are incapable of doing so from the moment they make the determination to teach.  (A Buddha that says 'I quit'.  How would that work?)

But realize that this isn't teaching towards any goal.  They don't count numbers saved, temples built, donations made.  And what they teach is awakening to what cannot be taught.  

So Buddhas teach only from the basis of Dharma, pure and unadulterated truth - no sugar coating, no false praise or modesty, no manipulation to attain a particular future state, leverage or advantage.  Conversion is not their intention.  But they teach to individuals the truth whereby the individual may convert themselves.

Never thought of it in terms of dependent co-arising.  One chooses to be a parent.  Some from the moment of choice never think or act otherwise.  Maybe the unconditioned at work on the 'unreal'?  


[/quote]



Dear WOI:

Limiting this to the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren, from the KHK perspective, the BOEs are the manifestation of the Bodhisattva Realm of the Eternal Buddha. I believe you are correct that there is a collective function, but there is also an individual function. These two functions correspond to the general and the specific. The BOEs are composed of a group of perfectly equal individuals, regardless of the size of their retinues [those awakened by each individual BOE who, in turn, becomes BOEs themselves]. Each Bodhisattva corresponds both to a principle [un-named] and to an individual [un-named]. There are Four Great Leaders also corresponding to both a principle [named] and individual [named]. This same structure also corresponds to Buddhas and the Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni and all individual beings and principles of the Ten Worlds. When talking about power and influence, the named beings and principles have greater power and influence. Therefore, Shakyamuni, Taho, Jogyo, Jyogyo, Anryugyo, Muhengyo, Brahma, Shakra, Kishimojin, etc. and all the named principles and individual beings highlighted in the Lotus Sutra, have a greater power and influence than the unnamed principles and individuals. It is not just anyone who wishes to stand up who can influence the multitude. For most people in this Latter Age, it is enough to know one's identity as a Bodhisattva of the Earth to function as the Bodhisattva Realm of the Eternal Buddha. There are however certain individuals who have a greater power and sphere of influence wherever they find themselves and we find ourselves on earth. One such individual was Shakyamuni Buddha and another was Bodhisattva Superior Practices. You are correct. The power and influence of Shakyamuni did not extend to all beings but in the history of Buddhism on this planet, probably several hundred millions became Enlightened thanks to this Buddha [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally]. Likewise, in the Latter Day, thanks to Bodhisattva Superior Practices [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally], several tens of millions of people became Enlightened. In the entire universe, these numbers can be inconceivably multiplied. From the perspective of Lord Shakya of the Orignal Doctrine, he is specifically responsible for the Enlightenment of every last being throughout the Three Existence and generally, his disciples and believers [Sangha]. Of course, his teachings are the Treasure of the Law and in the Latter day, the Law is Namu Myoho renge kyo.

Thus we must always keep in mind both the specific and the general to generate a correct faith and to repay our debts of gratitude. The SGI confuses the general and the specific since I can find no named individual in the Lotus Sutra who corresponds to Daisaku Ikeda. Were they to grant him the same status as all the other BOEs who receive guidance from the Eternal Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Now, as far as the next "named" individual who manifests himself, he too may not have a universal influence but he will surely have a greater power and influence than you or I.

Pertaining to "nirvana' or "teaching", It is not an either or proposition. This is explained in the Juryo Chapter. Teaching is Nirvana. Nirvana is teaching and Teacher is preeminent [among the principles of Parent, Teacher, and Sovereign, at least to Nichiren].

Once again, I agree with you that the numbers of awakened are not kept in mind by the one doing the awakening. However, to achieve an Enlightened harmonious world, a certain critical mass that is beyond my powers of prediction, will have to be met.

"Never thinking or acting otherwise" depends on a myriad of factors. In my case, it is always effortful but not without joy. I am hoping to emulate the Master Nichiren, to practice 24/7 but as yet, that eludes me.

The unconditioned [Buddhahood] and the conditioned [Nine Worlds] are one, as are Purified Citta and the Skandas. They operate through both the real and the unreal, through delusion and Enlightenment, through  the Three Truths, through body and mind, and through the Three Existences. Not sure that knowing this [acknowledging that I may not] is even the least bit important.

Buku

  

[Queequeg]

Reality check, for all of Shakymuni's efforts humanity in total has not veered much off the path that it was traveling while he was walking the planet.

I think he had a profound influence, especially given the time he lived and that neither he or his disciples recorded anything. Others have also steered history, for better or worse. If some believes that he no impact, I would wonder why even be a Buddhist? Que Sera Sera?  

What I meant here is that his life and teaching did not cause world peace or anything close to it.  And though he clearly shows the mechanism by which to go forward he did not have unarguable demonstrative global success in the check-mark you have indicated being a sign  "steer humanity away from infatuation with instant gratification toward goals that result in a more lasting satisfaction". 

So it seems a stretch to think that the next on deck entity will have greater success with overall humanity.   

What his teaching did do was to open, show, awaken and cause to enter those who choose to study, reflect and put into action the wisdom gained.  Even a Buddha cannot force the profound on those only capable of receiving the shallow.  And neither can a Buddha hide the profound from a shallow person who is steadfast in their determination to become awakened.  If so then it seems to indicate that any salvation of the whole of humanity is dependent more so on the collective effort of each human.  Any one of them can disrupt all of a saints excellent work.  SGI I think gets this and excels when they keep to the message of focusing on every individual.

I saw this before and wanted to interject a comment but had no time.

I think that the Buddha's teachings have had society wide effects at times in history, not for all humanity, because his teachings had not spread that far.

First, in India, Buddhism spread across the entire sub-continent and even transformed the other religious traditions that had to evolve to match Buddhism's profundity.  In the process, India for a time became a relatively peaceful continent where warfare stopped being an obsession.  Consequently, the militaries across the continent shrank, and when the Mughals showed up, there wasn't much of an army to fight them.  The Mughals then proceeded to eradicate Buddhism from India.

Another instance could be seen in Japan during the Heian period where there was relative peace for almost 400 years under a structure of State Sponsored Buddhism.  This ended with the Kamakura period.

A third instance is closer to our time - Tibetans were once feared as fierce warriors.  After their transformation through Buddhism, they could hardly raise an objection to the Chinese invasion.  There is the well known story of one of the generals destroying an arms cache to avoid fighting.

I'm not saying that these are perfect examples, but you can see the influence that Dharma can have on a state wide basis when it is broadly taken up by members of the society. 

I think you are going too far if you deny that there are macro effects from people widely taking up Dharma on a personal level.

[WorkingOnIt]

I saw this before and wanted to interject a comment but had no time.

I think that the Buddha's teachings have had society wide effects at times in history, not for all humanity, because his teachings had not spread that far.

First, in India, Buddhism spread across the entire sub-continent and even transformed the other religious traditions that had to evolve to match Buddhism's profundity.  In the process, India for a time became a relatively peaceful continent where warfare stopped being an obsession.  Consequently, the militaries across the continent shrank, and when the Mughals showed up, there wasn't much of an army to fight them.  The Mughals then proceeded to eradicate Buddhism from India.

Another instance could be seen in Japan during the Heian period where there was relative peace for almost 400 years under a structure of State Sponsored Buddhism.  This ended with the Kamakura period.

A third instance is closer to our time - Tibetans were once feared as fierce warriors.  After their transformation through Buddhism, they could hardly raise an objection to the Chinese invasion.  There is the well known story of one of the generals destroying an arms cache to avoid fighting.

I'm not saying that these are perfect examples, but you can see the influence that Dharma can have on a state wide basis when it is broadly taken up by members of the society. 

I think you are going too far if you deny that there are macro effects from people widely taking up Dharma on a personal level.

I never denied that there are macro effects from large numbers but large numbers are here unnecessary.  In a chaotic system there are macro effects from small numbers.  And that's the complication.  The components are constantly changing sides and working at odds- one Buddhist step, two non Buddhist steps.

Shakyamuni's clan got wiped out by members "peaceful Indian society".
 
The Chinese too had Buddhist knowledge and that still did not keep them from becoming China the militarist conqueror.  Both Tibet and Japan are small relatively isolated land masses.   That they had notable periods of no external conflict is not too surprising.  So did many Pacific Islanders, Eskimos, and Inuits. 

Though there may not be revealed conflict between states there is conflict within states.   And when there isn't revealed conflict within states there is conflict within persons.  And as there are myriad persons there are myriad conflicts.  Hence the Mongols are always in the neighborhood.  And even if elsewhere on the planet the rain may not fall hard enough to bend a leaf inside your own home a cat 5 hurricane can still rage. 

Its not a matter of being Buddhist in name. It comes down to being Buddhist in line with being in opposition to what is said to be non Buddhist.  And that requires total commitment by the individual.  And, is the only thing that gives the wisdom to know when to fight, how and for what cause.  What gives a sanctimonious general the right to commit his entire population to slavery?  Where is that in the Buddhist teachings?

Walk through the world spreading the true Dharma and removing the darkness from the eyes of others.  According to the travel guide you experience Utopian existence while remaining fully immersed in reality of this Saha world.  The middle way.  And though it would be wonderful were there to be companions, your wondrous trip does not depend on anyone else necessarily coming along. 

I would agree that were a majority to simultaneously really grok and stand on Buddhist reasoning as opposed to non Buddhist then the world would become for awhile more ideal.  Were there enough of a push then the system could be swung into new norm.  Though 3000 years of applied effort has shown, at any given moment there are a lot of inertial fetters, hormones and general idiocy to be overcome.

Buddhism is opposed to idealism.

[WorkingOnIt]

Dear WOI:

Limiting this to the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren, from the KHK perspective, the BOEs are the manifestation of the Bodhisattva Realm of the Eternal Buddha. I believe you are correct that there is a collective function, but there is also an individual function. These two functions correspond to the general and the specific. The BOEs are composed of a group of perfectly equal individuals, regardless of the size of their retinues [those awakened by each individual BOE who, in turn, becomes BOEs themselves]. Each Bodhisattva corresponds both to a principle [un-named] and to an individual [un-named]. There are Four Great Leaders also corresponding to both a principle [named] and individual [named]. This same structure also corresponds to Buddhas and the Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni and all individual beings and principles of the Ten Worlds. When talking about power and influence, the named beings and principles have greater power and influence. Therefore, Shakyamuni, Taho, Jogyo, Jyogyo, Anryugyo, Muhengyo, Brahma, Shakra, Kishimojin, etc. and all the named principles and individual beings highlighted in the Lotus Sutra, have a greater power and influence than the unnamed principles and individuals. It is not just anyone who wishes to stand up who can influence the multitude. For most people in this Latter Age, it is enough to know one's identity as a Bodhisattva of the Earth to function as the Bodhisattva Realm of the Eternal Buddha. There are however certain individuals who have a greater power and sphere of influence wherever they find themselves and we find ourselves on earth. One such individual was Shakyamuni Buddha and another was Bodhisattva Superior Practices. You are correct. The power and influence of Shakyamuni did not extend to all beings but in the history of Buddhism on this planet, probably several hundred millions became Enlightened thanks to this Buddha [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally]. Likewise, in the Latter Day, thanks to Bodhisattva Superior Practices [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally], several tens of millions of people became Enlightened. In the entire universe, these numbers can be inconceivably multiplied. From the perspective of Lord Shakya of the Orignal Doctrine, he is specifically responsible for the Enlightenment of every last being throughout the Three Existence and generally, his disciples and believers [Sangha]. Of course, his teachings are the Treasure of the Law and in the Latter day, the Law is Namu Myoho renge kyo.

Thus we must always keep in mind both the specific and the general to generate a correct faith and to repay our debts of gratitude. The SGI confuses the general and the specific since I can find no named individual in the Lotus Sutra who corresponds to Daisaku Ikeda. Were they to grant him the same status as all the other BOEs who receive guidance from the Eternal Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Now, as far as the next "named" individual who manifests himself, he too may not have a universal influence but he will surely have a greater power and influence than you or I.

Pertaining to "nirvana' or "teaching", It is not an either or proposition. This is explained in the Juryo Chapter. Teaching is Nirvana. Nirvana is teaching and Teacher is preeminent [among the principles of Parent, Teacher, and Sovereign, at least to Nichiren].

Once again, I agree with you that the numbers of awakened are not kept in mind by the one doing the awakening. However, to achieve an Enlightened harmonious world, a certain critical mass that is beyond my powers of prediction, will have to be met.

"Never thinking or acting otherwise" depends on a myriad of factors. In my case, it is always effortful but not without joy. I am hoping to emulate the Master Nichiren, to practice 24/7 but as yet, that eludes me.

The unconditioned [Buddhahood] and the conditioned [Nine Worlds] are one, as are Purified Citta and the Skandas. They operate through both the real and the unreal, through delusion and Enlightenment, through  the Three Truths, through body and mind, and through the Three Existences. Not sure that knowing this [acknowledging that I may not] is even the least bit important.

Buku

I agree with many points here.  But some as stated raise questions.

The power and influence of Shakyamuni did not extend to all beings but in the history of Buddhism on this planet, probably several hundred millions became Enlightened thanks to this Buddha [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally].

Likewise, in the Latter Day, thanks to Bodhisattva Superior Practices [specifically and his disciples or Sangha, generally], several tens of millions of people became Enlightened.

Then does this mean that Shakymuni the person had no hand in the attainment of the estimated latter several tens of millions [and maybe by extension no hand in the Mahayana]?

Does the latter number simply disregard that any became enlightened in said 'latter day' without ever having heard of Nichiren [assuming that's who you are referring to as Bodhisattva Superior Practices and his Sangha]?

I would not agree with any of that.

We both do agree that count isn't the 'specific'.  So if you positing the above as relevant to just a general broad outline of the authoritative lineage linking as derived by latter followers I agree with that. 

From the perspective of Lord Shakya of the Orignal Doctrine, he is specifically responsible for the Enlightenment of every last being throughout the Three Existence and generally, his disciples and believers [Sangha].

Exactly!  But this is not a person, nor a name, nor a function. It 'is as it is' right before us.

The SGI confuses the general and the specific since I can find no named individual in the Lotus Sutra who corresponds to Daisaku Ikeda.Were they to grant him the same status as all the other BOEs who receive guidance from the Eternal Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin, I might be inclined to agree with you.

As your prior point made clear none can help but to receive guidance from Dharma.  You cannot get outside the metaverse.  So isn't it the case that were any to make claims that implied going outside would lead to a never ending sequence of one-upmanship? 

Jyogo is a function, and a name, and a metaphor.  I am function manifest.  Even were I to have no name I am never a metaphor or just a function.  I am the reality as it is.

I believe that to be how Nichiren viewed himself with respect to the BOE.  And I suspect similar thinking is held by some in SGI towards Ikeda's relationship. 

It would be an interesting question to pose directly to Ikeda whether he does truly believe that great influence is a matter of just chanting and making up ones own mind, or if in his heart of hearts he feels as you have indicated that it may ultimately be a matter of birthright. 

Certainly being born rich, healthy, good looking, smart and motivated is groovy.  But one can lose even with a stacked deck. 

Once given physical and mental ability I don't believe in birthright setting inevitability of any particular individual having of necessity greater power and influence than any other.  From what I know of Ikeda through his writings and very brief interaction I don't think that he does either.   

The unconditioned [Buddhahood] and the conditioned [Nine Worlds] are one, as are Purified Citta and the Skandas. They operate through both the real and the unreal, through delusion and Enlightenment, through  the Three Truths, through body and mind, and through the Three Existences. Not sure that knowing this [acknowledging that I may not] is even the least bit important.

Per the teacher's teacher it is precisely the lens thorough which the world is revealed.  You have stated it as one who knows it well.  Not surprising you humbly downplay the feat of accomplishment.   

[Queequeg]

Shakyamuni's clan got wiped out by members "peaceful Indian society".

It took over a millenia for Buddhism to soak in.  The destruction of the Shakyans occurred during the Buddha's life - too soon for the Dharma to have had the kind of effect that leads to a society wide pacification.  We are not talking about the same historical periods.

The Chinese too had Buddhist knowledge and that still did not keep them from becoming China the militarist conqueror. 

Many historians look at the time when Buddhism was ascendant and flourished as a Golden period in Chinese history with a refinement of culture that was not matched again. After the Tang, Buddhism in China declined to be replaced by Neo-Confucian ideologies.  One way to look at it, China is fundamentally a Confucian based society, and Buddhism relieved them of that oppressive system for a while.

Both Tibet and Japan are small relatively isolated land masses.   That they had notable periods of no external conflict is not too surprising.  So did many Pacific Islanders, Eskimos, and Inuits. 

Look at the times when Buddhism was ascendant in Tibet and Japan and look at the culture they had.  You won't find perfection, but you will see a qualitative diminution of martial ideals and the rise of spiritual and artistic ideals.

In any event, I don't care enough about convincing you, so take a look at the history books or don't. 

As for the rest, no offense, I think I'll pass on your dharma.  Too misanthropic, too resigned, too defeated, makes me want to shoot myself.  I think you stopped at the first Noble Truth.

I'm kidding you.

No, I'm not.

Yes, I am.

Well, maybe.

[WorkingOnIt]

Look at the times when Buddhism was ascendant in Tibet and Japan and look at the culture they had.  You won't find perfection, but you will see a qualitative diminution of martial ideals and the rise of spiritual and artistic ideals.

In any event, I don't care enough about convincing you, so take a look at the history books or don't. 

As for the rest, no offense, I think I'll pass on your dharma.  Too misanthropic, too resigned, too defeated, makes me want to shoot myself.  I think you stopped at the first Noble Truth.

I'm kidding you.

No, I'm not.

Yes, I am.

Well, maybe.

LOL. 

Its your right to make assumptions about what I know of history. 

The history under discussion as documented points to many factors such as a singular strong hand controlling both arms and production, largely homogeneous populations living in a relative Eden given population size, market forces, lack of outside interference on and on.  Some, mainly Buddhists, might attribute the fortuitous surrounding conditions to Buddhist Gods.  Others, mainly non Buddhists, might see it as just a moment in the normally recurring cycle of human gain and loss. 

It could be as you surmise were it not for the fact that pretty much every culture has had their imperfect-but-better long running days in the sun.  Some linger, some burn out quickly none manage to stay at the top of their game.   We can only say for certain that Buddhist societies were no less able to maintain relatively peaceful, artistic and fruitful societies than the others.  Which is totally inline with the the Buddhist teachings.

Why would you think convincing is called for in an open forum of ideas? 

Idea, I think the trick is to getting beyond the first truth is to acknowledge reality.  Idea, I think is its not my Dharma, its a shared resource.  Idea, I think the Buddhist teachings indicate looking squarely at the world as it is and proceeding with the conviction that where I stand lacks no aspect of the land of tranquil light, period.  Bang! 

I'm kidding you.

No, I'm not.

Yes, I am.

Well, maybe.

(All very Dr Who like.....)

[Queequeg]

From this perspective, he taught that everyone in this time period who chants Namu Myoho renge kyo with faith that Namu Myoho renge kyo is Enlightenment and who has faith in the Three Treasures and Three Great Secret Laws [hidden in the depths of the Lotus Sutra], is Supremely and Perfectly Enlightened [but not necessarily in conduct]. What bridges the gap between Supreme and Perfect Enlightenment and Buddhahood [Supreme and Perfect Conduct]? Nichiren taught that absolute faith bridges the gap. He should know because he is Bodhisattva Superior Conduct.

Are you saying that faith that NMRK is enlightenment and faith in the three treasures and 3GSL is different than absolute faith that bridges the gap?

[Queequeg]

LOL. 

Its your right to make assumptions about what I know of history. 

The history under discussion as documented points to many factors such as a singular strong hand controlling both arms and production, largely homogeneous populations living in a relative Eden given population size, market forces, lack of outside interference on and on.  Some, mainly Buddhists, might attribute the fortuitous surrounding conditions to Buddhist Gods.  Others, mainly non Buddhists, might see it as just a moment in the normally recurring cycle of human gain and loss. 

It could be as you surmise were it not for the fact that pretty much every culture has had their imperfect-but-better long running days in the sun.  Some linger, some burn out quickly none manage to stay at the top of their game.   We can only say for certain that Buddhist societies were no less able to maintain relatively peaceful, artistic and fruitful societies than the others.  Which is totally inline with the the Buddhist teachings.

Why would you think convincing is called for in an open forum of ideas? 

Idea, I think the trick is to getting beyond the first truth is to acknowledge reality.  Idea, I think is its not my Dharma, its a shared resource.  Idea, I think the Buddhist teachings indicate looking squarely at the world as it is and proceeding with the conviction that where I stand lacks no aspect of the land of tranquil light, period.  Bang! 

I'm kidding you.

No, I'm not.

Yes, I am.

Well, maybe.

(All very Dr Who like.....)

I can only go on what you write here. I don't know what you know.  I can only go on your vague references to your achievements and your knowledge.  When I made reference to a period of Indian history 1000-1300 CE you responded by referring to 600 BCE.  What should I have drawn from that?  I actually didn't draw much except to point out where we were talking about different periods of history.

I agree that you have a point that the isolation of Japan and Tibet probably contributed to their peaceful eras, but Tibet is far from a paradise - it's probably one of the most inhospitable populated areas on Earth.  You would more likely expect people living in caves and eating bark off of trees than a concentration of some of the most adept mind scientists until the last 50 years.  Despite Japan's bounty, they still could not help breaking down into a century of war after the collapse of the State that supported Buddhism culminating in the destruction of the Mt. Hiei and slaughtering of thousands of monks and destruction of ancient institutions from which the Japanese Buddhist movement has never recovered.  Nichiren's explanation is that the Buddhist movement was based on a counterfeit doctrine.

To the extent that any society has experienced a flourishing period, it is because ideas of light were ascendant.  As you have argued in this thread and elsewhere, Buddha Dharma is, at least an aspect of it (I think you go too far in reducing Buddhism to this), is reality as it is and anyone who has opened their eyes, if they can clear the dust away enough, will see it.  This would be true even if a Buddha does not appear.  This is why Buddhism accounts for Pratyekabuddhas.

Practically speaking, one problem with communities that are able to advance is that though they are able mitigate the grosser expressions of the three poisons, it becomes exponentially more difficult to get at the roots, and the inablity to get at the roots can lead to self destruction.  This is one of the causes of descrtuction for these types of communities.  Getting at the root of human frailty society wide takes centuries and we have yet to see it happen completely.  You conclude that its impossible.  I have seen enough examples of what happens when you tend toward that goal, in addition to Buddhist texts that project societies where this happens, that I am not ready to say I have to resign myself to walking alone and smiling to myself.  (You must have read Siddhartha and agreed with Hesse?)  Realistically speaking, getting at the root is an intergenerational process.   Buddhism operates on the individual level, but it is a movement, not just an individualistic pursuit, especially Mahayana where the first step is the generation of resolve to save all living beings. 

You complain about nothing having happened in 3000 years.  3000 years is not a long time.  250,000 years ago we emerged as a species.  Large organized societies did not emerge until less than 10,000 years ago.  200 years ago, most of our ancestors were illiterate peasants.  The Buddha appeared in an obscure village in the foot hills of the Himalayas only 2600 years ago.  Europeans came to North America 500 years ago, the US is 230 years old.  Buddhism came to American society in any substantial aspect in the last 50 years and got traction only in the last 25 years. 

In the big picture I'd say humanity is doing pretty well in terms of overcoming nature, materially as well as spiritually.  If we want to see a broad, humanity wide flourishing, we need to have a sustained period of several generations where the basic needs of people are satisfied and people are afforded the time and resources to pursue the life of the mind and spirit.  I know you talk about being able to walk in this Saha world and be enlightened.  You are a better person than me.  Better person than most.  I am in the rat race, worrying about the things I need to do to make a living for me and my family, and so while Buddhism is a pursuit that I live for, I can only fit in when I have down time.  I look forward to the time Robby is enjoying now in another few decades.

In Buddhism, we talk about the prerequisites of entering the path.  These include basic abilities such as uncompromised senses, a modicum of intelligence, etc. but more importantly, the leisure, someone to teach you, the motivation to learn, etc.  These latter conditions only get better the stronger the Buddhist movement is established.  Bob Thurman calls what happens when Buddhism is established the Free Lunch - anyone who wants to live modestly instead of run around chasing wealth and fame can devote their time and energy to the life of the mind and spirit.  In fact, they are encouraged to do so, with all of their material needs provided for out of the bounty of the community.  The returns may not be measured in material gain directly, but the return in terms of amelioration of violence and the other negative aspects of the human character is inestimable.  Imagine what happens when the percentage of the population devoted to intellectual and spiritual development hits critical mass points of say 10% or 15% or 25% - the heights reached in societies where the Buddhist Movement became firmly established.  These are our brothers and sisters, friends and relatives, our children, our teachers... the character of a single person devoted to the spirit is remarkable, imagine when tangible segments of society are like this and organized into institutions devoted to refining this aspect of the human character.  I look at societies where Buddhism has long been established or was in the history and I see the gentleness of people.  Maybe it is some other factor that made them gentle, not Buddhism, but those aspects are not the characteristics of a martial people.

But these periods when enlightened ideas and sensibilities spread in a population also make that community vulnerable because violence and militarism as a way of life tend to not make sense anymore to the people, so the swords get turned into ploughshares.  People start refining their aesthetics senses, they see the beauty in each other, and instead of reacting in fear and loathing, curiosity and affection is allowed to develop.  If you survey humanity, you will see that these types of advancement has tended to happen in pockets, so you might have one community of people advance materially, technologically, spiritually, and then their neighbor fall far behind.  As the advancing society pacifies, they become vulnerable to the unpacified society.  The result has played out repeatedly.  Sometimes they are not brought down violently, but in the process of mixing the advanced and relatively unadvanced, the achievements of the former are not able to be sustained with the influx of the relatively unenlightened.  So these periods of flourishing are not able to run their course and grow, at least so far in human history.  The people cannot act fast enough on the aggressive people to tame them before they are destroyed.  Reacting with violence to defend themselves, even if these peaceful societies could, would actually nullify the advancements they made.

I don't know how much to believe this, but supposedly, armed conflict has not been as isolated and limited as it is right now in centuries.  More people are living workaday, relatively peaceful lives, enjoying the company of their family and friends than has ever been.  People are getting more and more leisure time.  We might be getting close to a humanity wide pacification that will usher in an age when movements like the Buddhist one can be firmly established and we reorganize our economies to support the individual pursuits of the mind and spirit.

You can aspire to walk alone.  I'm looking forward to when we can crawl out of our shells, our isolations, and rejoice on Eagle Peak here and now.  I don't think its that far off.  Might not look like what we envision it to be now, but I sense it is closer than you think.

[WorkingOnIt]

You complain about nothing having happened in 3000 years.  3000 years is not a long time.  250,000 years ago we emerged as a species.  Large organized societies did not emerge until less than 10,000 years ago.  200 years ago, most of our ancestors were illiterate peasants.  The Buddha appeared in an obscure village in the foot hills of the Himalayas only 2600 years ago.  Europeans came to North America 500 years ago, the US is 230 years old.  Buddhism came to American society in any substantial aspect in the last 50 years and got traction only in the last 25 years.  

Maybe you think that I have an agenda.  I didn't 'complain', I simply stated a fact.  Christianity came into existence ~2000 years ago.  The Veda's long before Buddhism.  All have some influence today.  To follow what I think is your line of reasoning here is that they do not come into play or that they have significantly diminished roles to play.

Again, I understand there to be Buddhist reasoning in line with the Dharma Middle Way and non Buddhist reasoning leading to illusions and false paths.  So the trick to any idealized world would be not getting more named Buddhists but rather more actual Buddhist reasoning applied to understanding fully and unemotionally both the truth and falsehood in any other philosophy or way of being.  

This is on a different level then just the label of Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Christian.  Its more like the the Garland presentation of Buddhas being everywhere, in all schools, all walks of life.  

It could be that we are talking about the same thing but are missing each other on the particular meaning of the overloaded term Buddhism.  

But nevertheless as Buddhist reasoning does not accept idealism its hard to reconcile it being a vehicle to a universal garden-o-eden.  

What is absolutely clear in Buddhist reasoning is that any individual who carries through on the task of making Buddhist reasoning their total way of being enjoys the pleasures and benefits of a garden-o-eden existence.  Even while surrounded by and lending support to others who, in the same physical environment, flounder in the depths of hell.  This is what I mean by standing alone, entering and leaving the burning house at will.  That is the sutras example, teaching and one  guarantee.  

In the big picture I'd say humanity is doing pretty well in terms of overcoming nature, materially as well as spiritually.

I once said a similar thing to Ted Osaki. I was a 22 year old ex vet and a 4 year "can do it" LA trained YMD.  He smiled and said "when you walked over the bridge in Subic Bay and looked at the poor people lining the edges offering you their daughters or unloaded down range, were they included?"

I am not 'a better person' than anyone.  As I would take lives I would offer my daughter.  As I would become enlightened I would help them do so too.  Just a person being a person.

I am in the rat race, worrying about the things I need to do to make a living for me and my family, and so while Buddhism is a pursuit that I live for, I can only fit in when I have down time.  I look forward to the time Robby is enjoying now in another few decades.

Hey Robby, did you become a recluse monk isolated from the rest of us rats?  And is dealing with grand kids being out of the rat race or is it just another part of the maze?  Last I looked they too have the 10 worlds and ample ability to bring the grand parents into their race.  

As we are always a rat could the Buddha's point be to get fully into the race?  Of course we do what we can do.  Don't take me as minimizing, discounting or downplaying yours or anyone elses efforts.  But ever expanding effort and capacity seem to be what is implied by vigorous exertion.  Not sure how one retires from that or if there is ever a better time to fully engage.

My questions, probing and responses are only aimed at better understanding of Dharma.  If its in line with reason and observed reality I smell Buddhism.  If its not then I am either smelling my own ignorance or non Buddhism.  I really only want to know which it is so that i can try and adjust accordingly.  

This forum was I thought a place to explore, if we wanted, these kinds of questions.

We might be getting close to a humanity wide pacification that will usher in an age when movements like the Buddhist one can be firmly established and we reorganize our economies to support the individual pursuits of the mind and spirit.

I'm looking forward to when we can crawl out of our shells, our isolations, and rejoice on Eagle Peak here and now.  I don't think its that far off.  Might not look like what we envision it to be now, but I sense it is closer than you think.

This opinion is wonderful.  Of great hope and vision.  And is precisely the recurring message of Ikeda and others.  There is nothing to argue against its desireablity.

What is not opinion is that in just this the richest country in the world at this moment not far from you or I are people trapped in generational poverty, ignorance, and primed to make a different reality.  But who have no intention of making one on anything other than fear, superstition and desire to right past injustice by shedding blood. This in turn is multiplied many fold throughout the world.  

The majority of the world in fact do not share the view that for them "more people are living workaday, relatively peaceful lives, enjoying the company of their family and friends than has ever been".  And in some cultures 'getting even' is a virtue.

What upsets the applecart will not necessarily come from without.  

Buddhism does not get hung up on realism either.  It just takes into account the totality.

I do get what you are saying.   I am working on my end to make your vision a reality.

I am not at all misanthropic, resigned or defeated precisely because of seeing the Buddha's example of what condition of life exits for one who fully stands firm against the tide.  

I do not see any other way to realistically do the work that must be done.  Hoping that others come along or that a nirvanic-rapture occurs surely isn't enough.  And whether or not you believe it you stand alone too.  Its something we do together.  

Thanks for that.

[Queequeg]

Maybe you think that I have an agenda.  I didn't 'complain', I simply stated a fact.  Christianity came into existence ~2000 years ago.  The Veda's long before Buddhism.  All have some influence today.  To follow what I think is your line of reasoning here is that they do not come into play or that they have significantly diminished roles to play.

I misspoke.  You did not complain.  Your overall post, though, seems resigned to nothing having improved very much in 3000 years, which to me might be worse than complaining.  At least if you complain, it indicates you have a dog in the fight.  What I'm getting out of you is a little too Dr. Manhattan.

No, I don't think you have an agenda, but I suspect your view is a little heavy on the sunyata side of the equation.

Where mind and spirit become priorities over guns and ammo, I would think many higher teachings would be there in the conversation taking place.  To refer to Bob Thurman again, I heard him tell about a conversation he had with the abbott of a Catholic Monastery, (I think it was quite empty these days) trying to convince him to open it up to monastics of all faiths so that a real spiritual center could be established, not of any particular tradition, but rather the spiritual center of monasticism would itself be the ideal.  That's what I would see as more likely than anything else - there won't be a one-third conversion of Buddhism.

Again, I understand there to be Buddhist reasoning in line with the Dharma Middle Way and non Buddhist reasoning leading to illusions and false paths.  So the trick to any idealized world would be not getting more named Buddhists but rather more actual Buddhist reasoning applied to understanding fully and unemotionally both the truth and falsehood in any other philosophy or way of being.  

This is on a different level then just the label of Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Christian.  Its more like the the Garland presentation of Buddhas being everywhere, in all schools, all walks of life.  

It could be that we are talking about the same thing but are missing each other on the particular meaning of the overloaded term Buddhism.  

But nevertheless as Buddhist reasoning does not accept idealism its hard to reconcile it being a vehicle to a universal garden-o-eden.  

What is absolutely clear in Buddhist reasoning is that any individual who carries through on the task of making Buddhist reasoning their total way of being enjoys the pleasures and benefits of a garden-o-eden existence.  Even while surrounded by and lending support to others who, in the same physical environment, flounder in the depths of hell.  This is what I mean by standing alone, entering and leaving the burning house at will.  That is the sutras example, teaching and one  guarantee.  

The Buddha, according to the Lotus Sutra is constantly asking himself, how do I make all beings equal to me and cause them to quickly gain the body of a Buddha?  I read that as something more than "unemotionally" applying Buddhist reasoning.  It might be characterized by equanimity - this might be an idiosyncratic reading, but equanimity to me seems full - of what I don't know, while unemotional sounds like a vacuum of emotion.

In the big picture I'd say humanity is doing pretty well in terms of overcoming nature, materially as well as spiritually.

I once said a similar thing to Ted Osaki. I was a 22 year old ex vet and a 4 year "can do it" LA trained YMD.  He smiled and said "when you walked over the bridge in Subic Bay and looked at the poor people lining the edges offering you their daughters or unloaded down range, were they included?"

I think Ted Osaki gave you a red herring low blow.  That's a variation on the white guilt trip.  Doom and gloom TV.  24/7 disaster coverage.  There are pockets of humanity that make the advances, and the idea is to get the pockets to grow and be more inclusive, not for us who are privileged to be in the pockets to become guilt tripped for the vagaries of fate.  What exactly are we supposed to do in the face of that suffering?  Take the shirt off our back and give it to them?  Empty our pockets and bank accounts to alleviate their need?  Give a man a fish... teach him how to fish...  Yes, we have a ways to go, but no one improves if we all drop to the lowest common denominator.  In this sense, as much as I regret to admit it, Ayn Rand made a good point about people of means and ability leading the rest of us out of the jungle. 

Hey Robby, did you become a recluse monk isolated from the rest of us rats?  And is dealing with grand kids being out of the rat race or is it just another part of the maze?  Last I looked they too have the 10 worlds and ample ability to bring the grand parents into their race.  

As we are always a rat could the Buddha's point be to get fully into the race?  Of course we do what we can do.  Don't take me as minimizing, discounting or downplaying yours or anyone elses efforts.  But ever expanding effort and capacity seem to be what is implied by vigorous exertion.  Not sure how one retires from that or if there is ever a better time to fully engage.

Well, I can't speak for Robby, but I look at my parents who are retired, and sure I sometimes can give them grief, but my dad has never been so happy getting to all the projects he meant to do for the last 30 years.  My mom takes advantage of her leisure to research and study gosho with her circle of old ladies.  You don't engage any more or less, but the nature of your activity changes over time.  I sure as heck don't act like I did when I was 25, and I'm sure I won't be acting like I am now when I'm 45, or 55, or 85.  I think you misunderstand my point.

This forum was I thought a place to explore, if we wanted, these kinds of questions.

it sure is.  but you'll get disagreements, too.  i know i do. and that's why I come back.  I didn't want to engage on the history topic because I sense that we are so far apart in our views on something very fundamental that the thought of it exhausted me.  Sorry.

This opinion is wonderful.  Of great hope and vision.  And is precisely the recurring message of Ikeda and others.  There is nothing to argue against its desireablity.

What is not opinion is that in just this the richest country in the world at this moment not far from you or I are people trapped in generational poverty, ignorance, and primed to make a different reality.  But who have no intention of making one on anything other than fear, superstition and desire to right past injustice by shedding blood. This in turn is multiplied many fold throughout the world.  

There are no revolutionaries from the poor classes anymore - the success at social mobility killed that possibility.  The only revolutionaries right now are probably on the Right fringe.  There are angry disenfranchised people, but frankly, they are too dumb, and always have been too dumb, to do anything more than lash out from time to time.  If they had a minimum of ability and foresight, they would get themselves and their children onto a better trajectory.  Sorry, I deal with people all day every day, and some of us who find ourselves in tight spots over and over just aren't all that smart or not using the brain we have to avoid or work out problems.

BTW, in my opinion, angry middle class people make up revolutions for the most part.  I'd be afraid of tea baggers. 

The fallout from this recession/depression, maybe some revolutionary movements will form... but I doubt it.  Maybe we get a Waco or Ruby Ridge, or some more jack asses flying planes into IRS buildings.

The majority of the world in fact do not share the view that for them "more people are living workaday, relatively peaceful lives, enjoying the company of their family and friends than has ever been".  And in some cultures 'getting even' is a virtue.

you seem so sure of that.  have you looked at optimism surveys lately?  http://www.livescience.com/culture/090524-world-optimism.html

You seem so stridently on a pessimistic, maybe even tending to Nihilistic, bent lately.  Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

[WorkingOnIt]

You seem so stridently on a pessimistic, maybe even tending to Nihilistic, bent lately.  Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

Yes everything is well. 

We may disagree on relative prioritization of life's meaningful things.  Relative to you that may make me seem nihilistic.   

Funny that one is called lots of things for simply speaking what is on their mind.  Is it a case of being or just another's perception of being?  A matter of a simple word having the illusion of shared meaning when in reality for each of the parties involved, meaning and objectives are orthogonal.

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/pearls-before-swine#id=/comics/100306/cx_pearls_umedia/20100603

 

[markp]

You know that both of you are right!

WOI is right in his pessimism because he see's that reality is as-it-is and there is no room for idealism, yet Q is right in his optimism because Buddhism has found itself finally in the west after thousands of years, just as predicted.

WOI is seeing the reality finally, and I am impressed. This reality is sometimes a bit depressing because it can be very bleak, yet to delve deeper reveals that we are on track even though the people of desire will suffer along the way. There is no way that the path can be altered now, but through faith we can be assured that the path leads to a great society of people that are free of affliction. It will take some time, but I think it will come within the next hundred years, but of course I wouldn't want that to be a prediction.