The Gain & Loss or Benefit & Curse Inscriptions
robek
presence of the Blessing/Curse inscriptions on the Yashiro Memorial
Daimandara, aka Taisekiji Daigohonzon, aka Ita Mandala. On the Camphor
Wood Daimandara Gohonzon at Taisekiji, and also on many of the
transcriptions of Great Mandalas from Taisekiji, such as the SGI
Nichikan, the precious Nittatsu, and the Nikken; the following
inscriptions are found, in the top row, located on either side of the
Daimoku, outside of, or flanking, the two Buddha and four bodhisattvas:
Left side, facing: U kuyo sha fuku ka jugo-Those who make offerings
will gain good fortune surpassing the ten honorable titles.
Right side facing: Nyaku noran sha zu ha shichibun-Those who vex and
trouble [the practitioners of the Law] will have their heads split into
seven pieces.
The phrases themselves are from the Lotus Sutra. They are the Blessing
and the Curse of Kishimonjin and the Jurasetsunyo, from the Dharani
Chaper.
<snip>
Question: "Is it true that no authentic Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren
bears this admonition."
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/000730.html#more
Mark P.
>Another bone of contention, often raised in Independent circles, is the
>presence of the Blessing/Curse inscriptions on the Yashiro Memorial
>Daimandara, aka Taisekiji Daigohonzon, aka Ita Mandala. On the Camphor
>Wood Daimandara Gohonzon at Taisekiji, and also on many of the
>transcriptions of Great Mandalas from Taisekiji, such as the SGI
>Nichikan, the precious Nittatsu, and the Nikken; the following
>inscriptions are found, in the top row, located on either side of the
>Daimoku, outside of, or flanking, the two Buddha and four bodhisattvas:
This inscription is found in the Lotus Sutra! Do you have a problem
with an inscription that is in the Lotus Sutra, or didn't you know
that is where it comes from? Did we forget we are the Hokke sect?
Mark Porter
"The mirror of our mind and the mirror of the Buddha's mind are in fact the same mirror."
Try the new refined search feature on 175 Gosho at
http://perltng.com/lotus/
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2005 19:45:59 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >Another bone of contention, often raised in Independent circles, is the
> >presence of the Blessing/Curse inscriptions on the Yashiro Memorial
> >Daimandara, aka Taisekiji Daigohonzon, aka Ita Mandala. On the Camphor
> >Wood Daimandara Gohonzon at Taisekiji, and also on many of the
> >transcriptions of Great Mandalas from Taisekiji, such as the SGI
> >Nichikan, the precious Nittatsu, and the Nikken; the following
> >inscriptions are found, in the top row, located on either side of the
> >Daimoku, outside of, or flanking, the two Buddha and four bodhisattvas:
>
> This inscription is found in the Lotus Sutra! Do you have a problem
> with an inscription that is in the Lotus Sutra, or didn't you know
> that is where it comes from? Did we forget we are the Hokke sect?
Follow the link and read the article and that shall answer your
question.
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/000730.html#more
And, BTW, it is not in the blog, but the origin even goes back before
the LS Sutra, to the Buddha's discourses with Brahmins.
r
robek
> On 6 Dec 2005 19:45:59 -0800, "robek" wrote:
> The phrases themselves are from the Lotus Sutra. They are the Blessing
> and the Curse of Kishimonjin and the Jurasetsunyo, from the Dharani
> Chaper.
>
> <snip>
>
> Question: "Is it true that no authentic Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren
> bears this admonition."
>
> http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/
>
> http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/000730.html#more
Mark P. replied:
> This inscription is found in the Lotus Sutra! Do you have a problem
> with an inscription that is in the Lotus Sutra, or didn't you know
> that is where it comes from? Did we forget we are the Hokke sect?
Reading IS Fundamental
r
Michael Cody
> Another bone of contention, often raised in Independent circles, is the
> presence of the Blessing/Curse inscriptions on the Yashiro Memorial
> Daimandara, aka Taisekiji Daigohonzon, aka Ita Mandala.
Snip "research". Bush is a known genocidist, warmongering terrorist.
Bush & Co. are the antithesis of kosen rufu. You goes on and on about
how knowledgeable he is, how he knows all the Buddhist terms in the
language of your choice, as in this very post, yet he supports the far
right, fanatical fundie Christians.
We are waiting for an explanation, Robin. Can you do it?
Cody
Mark P.
>Reading IS Fundamental
>
I'm sorry, but I generally don't read everything you write. I just
wonder why you're bringing this up?
Chris
> Another bone of contention, often raised in Independent circles, is the
> presence of the Blessing/Curse inscriptions on the Yashiro Memorial
> Daimandara, aka Taisekiji Daigohonzon, aka Ita Mandala.
To Cody:
Robin, I think, is just inquiring to find out where the truth lies on
this issue about the daimandara (and other ones). You don't have to be
a genius or a scholar to research the available materials and try to
figure out where the truth lies. And he's done something kind of
precious Cody. He's manage to synthesize some of the materials that
prove that the Kempon Hokke slander of the Dai-Gohonzon for those two
inscriptions on the Dai Gohonzon are just that.
To Cody, Dave, all:
If more members would take the time to do a little in depth study --
expecially members like you, Dave, or others with a little time under
their belt others of these issues could be resolved. But to do that
demands just a little independence of spirit Cody, to shift the focus
from the BS and politics of religion and personalities (should we trust
Nikken or Ikeda, should we follow one line of dogma or another, should
we believe the propaganda and gossip about the various people, should
we march in lockstep or on our own... that sort of thing) to what is
really important (should we master our minds or follow precepts and
"guidance," should we take sources literally or interpret them
according to our own circumstance, should we include non-buddhist
thinking or focus only on the Lotus, should we chant according to a
formula, or is our Buddhist practice more flexible than that, that sort
of thing). All of these things can be gotten at by focusing on the
question "what is the best way to teach the Lotus and save sentient
beings from suffering?" And by recognizing that the "devil of the sixth
heaven" is our own personal devil and may take many forms most of which
are figurative things like whether to wake up on time, get mad at
someone, or defend the indefensible.
The blessing/curse portion of the Dai-Gohonzon is an important part of
it's effort to convey the gravity of correct worship and focus in
Buddhism. Cause and effect govern whether people receive "blessings" or
"curses."
Chris
Michael Cody wrote:
> Snip "research". Bush is a known genocidist, warmongering terrorist.
> Bush & Co. are the antithesis of kosen rufu. You goes on and on about
> how knowledgeable he is, how he knows all the Buddhist terms in the
> language of your choice, as in this very post, yet he supports the far
> right, fanatical fundie Christians.
>
> We are waiting for an explanation, Robin. Can you do it?
Robin knows all this. He also has relatives and strong influences who
represent this fanatical fundie effort. For a while he acted like it
was fun to spin and play around with what the administration was saying
on the grounds that they were right and only using the various spins
and lies as expedient means in order to do what was right for the
country. For instance he showed me how Bush never actually said that
Saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction but used indirection to
convey that impression. To me this did me a favor and was very
masterful proof that Bush knew he was lying.
But all this is out of context on a discussion about the Dai-Gohonzon
and so only serves as a kind of red herring for a discussion on the
Dai-Gohonzon and the inscriptions on it. And considering that personal
loyalty to a group can cause people to do flip flops, belly flops, and
cartwheels even when talking about minor personages like Nikken or
Ikeda, it shouldn't be surprising that somebody should show similar
loyalty to a political party and to the imperfect head of that party.
It is equally wrong to use the politics of you to fashion an ad-hominem
of say you Cody or Derek, supporting the High Priest "No matter what",
as it is of Robin supporting Bush "no matter what."
Now it can be a great way to raz the guy when he starts getting pompous
about Buddhism. But it has nothing to do with the actual discussion or
with the quality of his presentation unless one is dealing with one of
his presentations on Bush and company which may show bias on that
account.
Chris
Michael Cody
Count the times you used the words "you should" in this post. You're an
arm chair "Buddhist", Chris, with no seeking spirit other than
satisfying your own ego through your pseudo-intellectual musings. You
have no followers. You are doing *nothing* for Kosen Rufu.
Robin has done *nothing* but show how he can mentally masturbate and go
round in circles, just like you.
Cody
Michael Cody
Yawn. I will continue to bug Robin about the fact that supporting the
Bush war machine is contrary to Kosen Rufu. If you don't like it, tough.
Cody
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2005 20:52:29 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Reading IS Fundamental
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but I generally don't read everything you write. I just
> wonder why you're bringing this up?
The presence of these inscriptions, or lack thereof, in authenticated
Mandalas, has been tossed around for years.
It appears they are present on at least 4. But they are not part of the
Daimandara per se, they are side inscriptions or personal notes.
So Kempon Hokke told the truth; and Nittastsu told the truth. But what
both said was misleading.
Just as one can technically lie, but not deceive; one can technically
tell the truth, but still deceive.
r
Yelps
"Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133964822.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
More pinhead excuses Chris you are just another brand of literalist
dc
Chris
> Now it can be a great way to raz the guy when he starts getting pompous
> about Buddhism. But it has nothing to do with the actual discussion or
> with the quality of his presentation unless one is dealing with one of
> his presentations on Bush and company which may show bias on that
> account.
> Yawn. I will continue to bug Robin about the fact that supporting the
> Bush war machine is contrary to Kosen Rufu. If you don't like it, tough.
Go for it. On politics I mostly agree with you anyway. At least right
now. This is the worst, the most dishonest and the most brutal
administration this country has had in my life time.
He'll just ignore you anyway.
Chris
Mark P.
>The presence of these inscriptions, or lack thereof, in authenticated
>Mandalas, has been tossed around for years.
>
>It appears they are present on at least 4. But they are not part of the
>Daimandara per se, they are side inscriptions or personal notes.
Yes they are side notes by the High Priest or Abbot. The Gohonzon only
has minimal rules for inscription, like I said earlier. It is up to
the priest to add or take away what he wants as long as the main
inscription of Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo Nichiren is down the middle
surrounded by the Four Boddhisatva's. If the Priest that inscribed it
felt he needed to add the curse/benefit inscription at the time, then
he did so of his own accord. There is no mystery about this!
>So Kempon Hokke told the truth; and Nittastsu told the truth. But what
>both said was misleading.
I don't see why you guys get caught up in this stuff. If you take the
time to study then all is revealed. The KHK were just trying to
demonize Nichiren Shoshu so they tossed out a red herring for you guys
to follow, and thats not the only one out there.
>Just as one can technically lie, but not deceive; one can technically
>tell the truth, but still deceive.
>
Follow the words and you'll always be decieved. Follow intent and you
can weed out the liars.
Michael Cody
Agreed.
>
> He'll just ignore you anyway.
>
> Chris
Of course he will. One cannot defend the indefensible.
Cody
robek
The best way to deal with trolls is to ingnore them.
Cody THINKS he has found a way to attack me. That is his MO, attack
the person, over and over and over. They ignore him, he claims victory,
Watch him. He will post this same thing every time I post.
My response to inquiries about political views:
I have not paid sufficient attention to form an in-formed opinion.
It is not that I lack interest. But right now there are other things
on which I wish to spend my limited attention allowance. I hope that
is okay with everyone if I remain a Republican and an SGI member
while recognizing that both have flaws.
r
Chris
>I have not paid sufficient attention to form an in-formed opinion.
This didn't stop you from actively, vociferously, and enthusiastically
debating the subjects involved for two years at the yahoogroups
buddhist_dialogue group. You actively argued for Bush's re-election,
defended the issues of the Administration, promoted the Iraq war,
defended claims of WMD and later defended that the administration had
made no such claims. I find it interesting, now that everything you
claimed during that time has turned into a scandal you finally admit
you weren't paying attention to what was going on to have formed an
informed opinion.
> It is not that I lack interest. But right now there are other things
> on which I wish to spend my limited attention allowance. I hope that
> is okay with everyone if I remain a Republican and an SGI member
> while recognizing that both have flaws.
No problem Robin.
Chris
dere...@netscape.net
Chris wrote:
> > I have not paid sufficient attention to form an in-formed opinion.
>
> This didn't stop you from actively, vociferously, and enthusiastically
> debating the subjects involved for two years at the yahoogroups
> buddhist_dialogue group. You actively argued for Bush's re-election,
> defended the issues of the Administration, promoted the Iraq war,
> defended claims of WMD and later defended that the administration had
> made no such claims. I find it interesting, now that everything you
> claimed during that time has turned into a scandal you finally admit
> you weren't paying attention to what was going on to have formed an
> informed opinion.
Many Republicans have become dissatisfied with George II and his court.
Derek Juhl
robek
Chris wrote:
I find it interesting, now that everything you
> claimed during that time has turned into a scandal you finally admit
> you weren't paying attention to what was going on to have formed an
> informed opinion.
No. Sorry if I was unclear. I was half way following events. But not
recently.And am I not interested in re-arguing the same points. You are
free to misrepresent past things all you want. I am here to discuss
Buddhism, not chase red herrings,
r
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 11:08:35 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The presence of these inscriptions, or lack thereof, in authenticated
> >Mandalas, has been tossed around for years.
> >
> >It appears they are present on at least 4. But they are not part of the
> >Daimandara per se, they are side inscriptions or personal notes.
>
> Yes they are side notes by the High Priest or Abbot. The Gohonzon only
> has minimal rules for inscription, like I said earlier. It is up to
> the priest to add or take away what he wants as long as the main
> inscription of Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo Nichiren is down the middle
> surrounded by the Four Boddhisatva's. If the Priest that inscribed it
> felt he needed to add the curse/benefit inscription at the time, then
> he did so of his own accord. There is no mystery about this!
I was referring to Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren himself, Mark.
Also, Nichiren often signed them off the the side,
And the BOE are not always present.
r
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> I am here to discuss Buddhism
Are you really? Or are you here to pontificate?
Derek Juhl
robek
Huh? Where do get that? I have no wish to be a pope and have followers
or tell others what to think. In fact, I am a heretic.180 degrees from
a pontiff.
r
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> > Are you really? Or are you here to pontificate?
>
> Huh? Where do get that? I have no wish to be a pope and have followers
> or tell others what to think. In fact, I am a heretic.180 degrees from
> a pontiff.
Cute smart-ass response, but doesn't answer the question. You know
exactly what I meant.
Derek Juhl
Mark P.
>I was referring to Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren himself, Mark.
>
>Also, Nichiren often signed them off the the side,
>
The curse/benefit inscription is in the Lotus Sutra and if Nichiren
wanted to put it on the Gohonzon then I guess he had the right to do
so. Do you disbelieve the inscription?
Do you know what head breaking into seven pieces means? Simply it
means mental instability, which is evident in many people that slander
the Dharma.
robek
No, I am here to exchange opinions & information.
r
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 13:32:22 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I was referring to Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren himself, Mark.
> >
> >Also, Nichiren often signed them off the the side,
> >
>
> The curse/benefit inscription is in the Lotus Sutra and if Nichiren
> wanted to put it on the Gohonzon then I guess he had the right to do
> so.
I agree. The discussion was, did Nichiren put them on any Mandalas?.
That is all.
Do you disbelieve the inscription?
```````````````
No.
>
> Do you know what head breaking into seven pieces means?
``````````````````````````
Yes.
>Simply it means mental instability, which is evident in many people that slander
> the Dharma.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Not really. Though I see it as a metaphor for a defensive, frightened,
and confused state of mind. There is a related thread in the other
group. I may post something there later
r
Kurt
"robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How about the effect of religion and politics on individuals? Certainly
on topic.
The problem with this is that you can't lecture as an authority... ;-)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
robek
Kurt wrote:
> > r
>
> How about the effect of religion and politics on individuals? Certainly
> on topic.
> The problem with this is that you can't lecture as an authority... ;-)
>
> --
Hard to take an empirical approach to something that subjective.
r
Mark P.
>The discussion was, did Nichiren put them on any Mandalas?.
>That is all.
>
You seem to have proven that he did.
>Not really. Though I see it as a metaphor for a defensive, frightened,
>and confused state of mind. There is a related thread in the other
>group. I may post something there later
>
It's not a metaphor at all. Witness Marc's decline over the years,
completely out of Buddhism into christianity. Witness the decline of
Chas and others that constantly slander the Dharma. Witness Craig
Bratchers finally dropping off of arbn. All you have to do is open
your eyes to reality instead of spinning it into something more
agreeable to the senses.
Slander isn't confined to people in the so called heretical sects. It
can and does affect people in all sects that think they can justify
their actions because they think their goal is a glorious one. That
includes slandering other people, no matter their affiliation with a
sect, that believe in the Lotus Sutra, even Marc!
robek
Mark P. wrote:
>
> Slander isn't confined to people in the so called heretical sects. It
> can and does affect people in all sects that think they can justify
> their actions because they think their goal is a glorious one. That
> includes slandering other people, no matter their affiliation with a
> sect, that believe in the Lotus Sutra, even Marc!
We agree again. It comes off as corny; but it pains me to see us abuse
each other, I am in a Kuan Yin group that is very diverse. When a
member even has a sick pet, they all send prayers, each in their own
way -- Xian, Taoist, Pagan, Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren, Shingon, Tibetan,
Theravadin, Hindu, ....
r
Mark P.
>Hard to take an empirical approach to something that subjective.
>
The empirical approach isn't effective when it comes to Buddhism. That
is why scholars will never understand what it is they attempt to talk
about. Buddhism takes faith and insight in order to penetrate the
intent of the teachings. Scholarly research requires empirical proof
that will never be satisfied.
Mark P.
With the people that are not believers in the Lotus Sutra the effect
isn't magnified, but it makes no sense to slander anyone just as a
matter of cause and effect. In my life, anyone that has ever slandered
me in any way has had their careers ended, even when I wasn't
practicing. This is something I have noticed over time.
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 18:14:34 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Hard to take an empirical approach to something that subjective.
> >
>
> The empirical approach isn't effective when it comes to Buddhism. That
> is why scholars will never understand what it is they attempt to talk
> about. Buddhism takes faith and insight in order to penetrate the
> intent of the teachings. Scholarly research requires empirical proof
> that will never be satisfied.
That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
theoretical proofs.
r
Mark P.
>That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
>another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
>theoretical proofs.
>
Why do you think that scientists and others that require empirical
proof are intelectuals? Because they use a methodology to prove their
hypotheses doesn't mean they are necessarily inteligent. Granted, the
good ones are, but not all. The methodology has been put into place
for a reason, especially in the realm of science, but not as much in
regards to history, which is interpreted.
robek
Mark P. wrote:
In my life, anyone that has ever slandered
> me in any way has had their careers ended, even when I wasn't
> practicing. This is something I have noticed over time.
Ugh. I guess you have the mojo working.
r
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 20:26:46 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
> >another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
> >theoretical proofs.
> >
>
> Why do you think that scientists and others that require empirical
> proof are intelectuals? Because they use a methodology to prove their
> hypotheses doesn't mean they are necessarily inteligent. Granted, the
> good ones are, but not all. The methodology has been put into place
> for a reason, especially in the realm of science, but not as much in
> regards to history, which is interpreted.
It works better if one intertprets facts rather than fantasy,
r
Michael Cody
You're not Nichiren Daishonin. You're a psuedo-intellectual who is
constantly putting on the style to cover up your inferiority complex.
Cody
Michael Cody
And, being as you don't have a time machine, you won't know the facts,
all you have is others' interpretations. Hence, you're like a cat
chasing his tail.
Cody
Mark P.
>Ugh. I guess you have the mojo working.
>
No, this concept is just cause and effect at work. What it means to me
is that I don't have to make bad causes trying to seek revenge. I can
just ignore what others do to me and continue on the path.
Chris
Chris
As I said:
> This didn't stop you from actively, vociferously, and enthusiastically
> debating the subjects involved for two years at the yahoogroups
> buddhist_dialogue group. You actively argued for Bush's re-election,
> defended the issues of the Administration, promoted the Iraq war,
> defended claims of WMD and later defended that the administration had
> made no such claims. I find it interesting, now that everything you
> claimed during that time has turned into a scandal you finally admit
> you weren't paying attention to what was going on to have formed an
> informed opinion.
I didn't 'misrepresent' anything.
It seems to me that until recently you were at least posing as someone
who knew a little more than "half way" about what was going on. I guess
by 'half" you mean that you accepted the "half arguments" of the Bush
Administration and it's paid spokesmen in the press and punditry. But I
can't read your mind so maybe you mean something else.
I am all for your discussing Buddhism and digging up more history,
issues, doctrines, old writings, etceteras... But I can't blame Cody
for bringing the politics up.
I tend to take it personally when I catch people lying to me --
expecially when I believe them -- and Bush and company lied about
Saddam and their reasons for the Iraq war. That is one of my reasons
for being interested in history.
Chris
Michael Cody
Chris
>That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
>another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
>theoretical proofs.
> Why do you think that scientists and others that require empirical
> proof are intelectuals? Because they use a methodology to prove their
> hypotheses doesn't mean they are necessarily inteligent.
Intelligence, wisdom, science and religion are all related but not the
same things Mark. There are stupid scientists (not very many) who are
very competant, brilliant scientists who have made spectacular
mistakes, scientists who prefer Sports to science, and non-scientists
who know more about a given subject than those paid to pursue it. The
only difference between an intellectual and an ordinary person is one
of inclination, access, status and degree of effort. Some people have
access to things the rest of us don't get to look at -- that gives them
a bit of an advantage.
Mark:
> Granted, the good ones are, but not all. The methodology has been put into place
> for a reason, especially in the realm of science, but not as much in
> regards to history, which is interpreted.
What matters with science, history and religion, expecially Buddhism,
is proof.
But before we start worrying about that we need to be clear on what
needs to be proved. Nichiren proved that his approach to Tendai
Doctrines was superior to Tendai Esotericism and developed a unique
praxis (practice) suitable for his and our age. Literal, theoretical
and actual proofs are in the end actual proofs. We accept a teaching
because the content is true, not because the Jacket is true. Nagarjuna
supposedly found the Wisdom sutras in the Ocean. The tibetan book of
the dead was "found" by Karma Lingpa who claimed to be the
reincarnation of Padma Sambava. The Lotus Sutra can be experienced in
our minds (our hearts as it were) through our practice. The point of
the Upaya chapter was to convince Shariputra of this fact (that the
content counts more than the jacket).
Raw History is an attempt to gather facts about the stories, bios, and
events that have occured around us. History is "interpreted" because
that is the use that those facts can have. We hope to divine patterns
from prior events so that we can avoid bad patterns in future or
current events.
Kurt
"robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
And subjective discussion of religion is OT here? LOL
Chris
Robin:
> > That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
> > another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
> > theoretical proofs.
Cody replies with an ad-hominem.
> You're not Nichiren Daishonin. You're a psuedo-intellectual who is
> constantly putting on the style to cover up your inferiority complex.
Robin is doing nothing wrong here by talking about these things. I
don't see any evidence of an "inferiority complex" on this topic. He
doesn't deserve such a flame. This is purely an attack, which is
ironic since you accused him of ad-hominems at the beginning of this
thread.
I really hate that term "psuedo" intellectual. It demeans the millions
of amateurs who make an attempt to pursue the subjects they love. Not
that there aren't "false" people in every walk of life.
Michael Cody
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Robin:
>
>>>That comes off anti-intellectual. But I agree in one sense, just not in
>>>another. Nichiren was tedious when it came to accurate documentary &
>>>theoretical proofs.
>
>
> Cody replies with an ad-hominem.
>
>>You're not Nichiren Daishonin. You're a psuedo-intellectual who is
>>constantly putting on the style to cover up your inferiority complex.
>
>
> Robin is doing nothing wrong here by talking about these things.
Yes, he is. Someone might take him seriously. The only reason I can
think that he is coming on as a great intellectual is due to an
inferiorty complex. Really great intellectuals would not post here and
would not put on the style like he does.
> I
> don't see any evidence of an "inferiority complex" on this topic. He
> doesn't deserve such a flame. This is purely an attack, which is
> ironic since you accused him of ad-hominems at the beginning of this
> thread.
The truth is not an ad hominem.
>
> I really hate that term "psuedo" intellectual.
I can imagine, being as you are one.
> It demeans the millions
> of amateurs who make an attempt to pursue the subjects they love.
You obviously don't understand the term.
> Not
> that there aren't "false" people in every walk of life.
Yeah, and the sun rises in the east and today's Friday, right?
Cody
robek
Kurt wrote:
> And subjective discussion of religion is OT here? LOL
>
> --
`````````````````````````````````````
I am not the topic police.
r
robek
Michael Cody
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
> "intellectuals would not post here"
>
Are you so desperate that you need to quote me out of context? The real
quote:
"Really great intellectuals would not post here".
Cody
Michael Cody
You are in relation to what you will respond to. I can understand your
embarassment, though, after what Bush turned out to really be.
Let's see, you were against Hillary's universal health care plan and pro
spending billions on bombing the shit out of Iraq, am I correct?
Cody
robek
You are likely right. I thought this might be a decent forum to discuss
ideas with adults. I was likely mistaken. Oh well, I was duly warned.
But I was not really looking for great intellectuals here anyway. One
guy suggested that this is your turf and that my presence here looks
like I am harrassing you. Not my intent, but he may have been on to
something.
Mostly, I was curious. This place is synonymous in Nichiren e-circles
with disrespectful and uncivil discourse, so I wanted to see for
myself. It is not really all THAT bad. Maybe it has changed? Maybe I
have a thick skin?
r
robek
You are rather good at mean spirited spin. That is a skill. Consider
that a compliment.
r
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> > Let's see, you were against Hillary's universal health care plan and pro
> > spending billions on bombing the shit out of Iraq, am I correct?
>
> You are rather good at mean spirited spin. That is a skill. Consider
> that a compliment.
You didn't support the bombing of Iraq?
Derek Juhl
robek
You mean when Clinton was President? Did you?
Michael Cody
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
>>robek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Cody wrote:
>>>
>>>"intellectuals would not post here"
>>>
>>
>>Are you so desperate that you need to quote me out of context? The real
>>quote:
>>
>>"Really great intellectuals would not post here".
>>
>>Cody
>
> ````````````````````````````````````````````
> You are likely right.
No shit. You misquoted me.
> I thought this might be a decent forum to discuss
> ideas with adults.
You don't want to discuss ideas. You want to teach.
> I was likely mistaken. Oh well, I was duly warned.
> But I was not really looking for great intellectuals here anyway. One
> guy suggested that this is your turf and that my presence here looks
> like I am harrassing you. Not my intent, but he may have been on to
> something.
>
> Mostly, I was curious. This place is synonymous in Nichiren e-circles
> with disrespectful and uncivil discourse, so I wanted to see for
> myself. It is not really all THAT bad. Maybe it has changed? Maybe I
> have a thick skin?
>
> r
Get over yourself and your phony morality and phony research. Go to some
group that is naive enough to think you know what you're talking about
if you need that kind of feedback.
Cody
Michael Cody
I consider it an ad hominem attack.
> r
>
You're not very good at responding to content. In fact, you rarely do.
Cody
Michael Cody
Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
Yes ___
No ____
Can you handle simplicity or do you always have to answer questions with
questions and through in something totally irrevelant?
Cody
robek
Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad? Or
the Chinese Embassy in Serbia? Do you support free abortion on demand?
Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Had sex with a minor? Are you
required to answer those questions? If you decline, are you dodging,
evading, or back pedalling?
r
robek
robek wrote:
> `````````````````````````````````````
> Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad? Or
> the Chinese Embassy in Serbia? Do you support free abortion on demand?
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Had sex with a minor? Are you
> required to answer those questions? If you decline, are you dodging,
> evading, or back pedalling?
>
> r
```````````````````````````````````````
Can't Answer?
Do you like it when others treat you like you treat them? I have been
around gang mernbers and bullies. I can handle them. Go pick on someone
smaller than you. I have no wish to take the gloves off and destroy
you.
r
Michael Cody
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
>>robek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>robek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Let's see, you were against Hillary's universal health care plan and pro
>>>>>>spending billions on bombing the shit out of Iraq, am I correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>You are rather good at mean spirited spin. That is a skill. Consider
>>>>>that a compliment.
>>>>
>>>>You didn't support the bombing of Iraq?
>>>>
>>>>Derek Juhl
>>>
>>>````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>You mean when Clinton was President? Did you?
>>>
>>
>>Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
>>
>>Yes ___
>>
>>No ____
>>
>>Can you handle simplicity or do you always have to answer questions with
>>questions and through in something totally irrevelant?
>>
>>Cody
>
> `````````````````````````````````````
> Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad?
I don't support bombs, much less bombing.
> Or
> the Chinese Embassy in Serbia?
IBID
> Do you support free abortion on demand?
Personally, I am against it but it's not my body.
Now, you're getting personal. My point was that supporting bombing or
war by *any* president is contrary to world peace, kosen rufu and
Buddhist principles.
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Had sex with a minor? Are you
> required to answer those questions?
Not the personal ones, no.
> If you decline, are you dodging,
> evading, or back pedalling?
Of course not.
>
> r
Back to the question:
Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
Yes ___
No ____
I will add another:
Do you support the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism and don't you
think that it's possible to solve the problems without resorting to
raping countries and bombing the living shit out of their civilians? For
some reason, I think that's a tad more relevant to kosen rufu than if a
Gosho is kosher or not.
Then, again, you and Chris put more emphasis on the ivory tower
approach, not the "let's give peace a chance" approach.
Cody
robek
Michael Cody wrote:
>
> Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
>
> Yes ___
>
> No ____
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
I have no idea which bomb-bing you mean.
Did you?
Did you support the terrorist bombing in Spain?
Do you think Saddam complied with all UN resolutions?
How about the WW II bombing of Berlin?
r
Michael Cody
Hmm, touched a nerve, eh? If you can't take the heat ... go on, don't be
shy, "take the gloves off" or are you just bluffing, huffing and puffing?
>
> r
>
Patience is a virtue and ARBN is not a chat room. You may have to wait
hours or days for a reply.
Here's my reply, posted 3 minutes after you posted this one :
robek wrote:
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
>> robek wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> robek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see, you were against Hillary's universal health care plan
and pro
>>>>>> spending billions on bombing the shit out of Iraq, am I correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are rather good at mean spirited spin. That is a skill. Consider
>>>>> that a compliment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't support the bombing of Iraq?
>>>>
>>>> Derek Juhl
>>>
>>>
>>> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>> You mean when Clinton was President? Did you?
>>>
>>
>> Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
>>
>> Yes ___
>>
>> No ____
>>
>> Can you handle simplicity or do you always have to answer questions with
>> questions and through in something totally irrevelant?
>>
>> Cody
>
>
> `````````````````````````````````````
> Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad?
I don't support bombs, much less bombing.
> Or
> the Chinese Embassy in Serbia?
IBID
> Do you support free abortion on demand?
Personally, I am against it but it's not my body.
Now, you're getting personal. My point was that supporting bombing or
war by *any* president is contrary to world peace, kosen rufu and
Buddhist principles.
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Had sex with a minor? Are you
> required to answer those questions?
Not the personal ones, no.
> If you decline, are you dodging,
> evading, or back pedalling?
Of course not.
>
> r
Back to the question:
Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
Yes ___
No ____
I will add another:
Michael Cody
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
>
>>Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
>>
>>Yes ___
>>
>>No ____
>>
>
>
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````
> I have no idea which bomb-bing you mean.
All of them.
>
> Did you?
No.
>
> Did you support the terrorist bombing in Spain?
No.
>
> Do you think Saddam complied with all UN resolutions?
No. I also think there is no excuse to bomb the living shit out of people.
>
> How about the WW II bombing of Berlin?
No.
> r
>
I don't support the bombing of anyone, sorry. I'm kind of strange that
way but I'm not the only one. Maybe you could join us some day and the
world could live as one.
Ball's in your court.
Cody
Kurt
"robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
...At least Rush Limbaugh gives straight, non-rhetorical answers.
I'm not afraid to discuss my political leanings, why are you?
Michael Cody
It's called embarassment.
Cody
robek
Kurt wrote:
> ...At least Rush Limbaugh gives straight, non-rhetorical answers.
>
> I'm not afraid to discuss my political leanings, why are you?
>
> --
Because a proper discussion requires time and effort. It often takes me
quite a while to type a paragraph. It is also painful. Why should I
take the time and effort to discuss something I have no wish to
discuss? I would add that it is pointless. I have no political
influence. What I think and write about politics is meanigless.
I have chosen to limit my on line activity to:
1}. Buddhism.
*Chanting Meditation
*Guided Meditation
*Events After Nichiren's Passing
--Nikko's Fuji-Ha Successors
Kleshas & Bonno Soku Bodai
*Life and legends of Nichiren
--Nichiren's Gohonzon for Practicing Kanjin
--Origins of Nichiren as True Buddha
*Meditative States
*Mikkyo & Tiantai
*Refuting Other Schools
*Three-Fold Training
2. College Basketball
3. Anything else I choose to add.
U gotta prolem wit dat? r
robek
Michael Cody wrote:
> > ...At least Rush Limbaugh gives straight, non-rhetorical answers.
> >
> > I'm not afraid to discuss my political leanings, why are you?
> >
>
> It's called embarassment.
>
> Cody
``````````````````````````````````
Why won't you discuss Meditative states with me?
Are you afraid to?
Why do respond to my threads about Buddhism by asking political
questions?
Could it be you know very little about Buddhism?
r
Kurt
"robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
You have a definite slant on Buddhism. Not to begrudge this, as it is
based on your life experience. Invariably, your written views will be
influenced by this. History is written by many points of view. What we
understand today to be historical fact comes from combining all the
views written from those of the time, as well as those handed down. As
individuals, we then make personal judgments as to what the actual truth
really was. Even what actually transpired could plausibly differ from
what we know as "fact" today, simply from the bias' of the historians or
other factors.
Your Buddhist experience has influenced you political views and, I
think, vice-versa.
robek
Kurt wrote:
> Your Buddhist experience has influenced you political views and, I
> think, vice-versa.
>
> --
Why should I take the time and effort to discuss something I have no
wish to
discuss? Do you?
r
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> > You didn't support the bombing of Iraq?
>
> You mean when Clinton was President?
Either, or.
> Did you?
No.
Derek Juhl
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad?
No.
> the Chinese Embassy in Serbia?
No.
> Do you support free abortion on demand?
Yes.
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse?
I've never been married.
> Had sex with a minor?
No.
> Are you required to answer those questions? If you decline, are you dodging,
> evading, or back pedalling?
See how easy that was? Why don't you have a go at it.
Derek Juhl
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> Why should I take the time and effort to discuss something I have no
> wish to discuss?
You are a bit dodgy...
Derek Juhl
Michael Cody
> Michael Cody wrote:
>
>
>>>...At least Rush Limbaugh gives straight, non-rhetorical answers.
>>>
>>>I'm not afraid to discuss my political leanings, why are you?
>>>
>>
>>It's called embarassment.
>>
>>Cody
>
> ``````````````````````````````````
> Why won't you discuss Meditative states with me?
I didn't say I wouldn't and the first thing I would say is that they
have nothing to do with the Buddhism of the Daishonin.
> Are you afraid to?
Of course not.
> Why do respond to my threads about Buddhism by asking political
> questions?
"Your" threads? Are you new to Usenet?
> Could it be you know very little about Buddhism?
>
> r
I know more than you ever will.
Cody
Michael Cody
You've spent a lot of time and effort trying to weasal out of discussing it.
Cody
Michael Cody
<dere...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1134205415....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Because he knows that his support for Bush the Terrorist Warmonger is
contrary to kosen rufu.
Cody
Kurt
dere...@netscape.net wrote:
Just a bit... LOL
robek
Kurt wrote:
> In article <1134205569.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > robek wrote:
> >
> > > Why should I take the time and effort to discuss something I have no
> > > wish to discuss?
> >
> > You are a bit dodgy...
> >
> > Derek Juhl
>
> Just a bit... LOL
>
> --
Look Kurt, Rush has a staff working 24/7/365.
Now, are you willing to spend a lot of time and effort discissing
simething that does not interest you?
Do I try to force yiou to give opinions on matters you have no wish to
discuss?
Are you another of Cody's Toadies?
You do not have to answer.
r
dere...@netscape.net
robek wrote:
> Look Kurt, Rush has a staff working 24/7/365.
Nice dodge.
Derek Juhl
Michael Cody
> Kurt wrote:
>
>>In article <1134205569.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>robek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why should I take the time and effort to discuss something I have no
>>>>wish to discuss?
>>>
>>>You are a bit dodgy...
>>>
>>>Derek Juhl
>>
>>Just a bit... LOL
>>
>>--
>
> ````````````````````````````````````````````
> Look Kurt, Rush has a staff working 24/7/365.
You post 24/7/365 on over ten boards. Your point?
>
> Now, are you willing to spend a lot of time and effort discissing
> simething that does not interest you?
More like you took a stand that has proven to not only be based on lies
but the greatest threat to the survival of humankind and it doesn't
interest you!?
>
> Do I try to force yiou to give opinions on matters you have no wish to
> discuss?
No one is forcing you to do anything but if you post here with a
patronizing air and posting endless drivel, you can bet your booty,
someone will make a comment or two.
>
> Are you another of Cody's Toadies?
Oh no, yet another ad hominem.
>
> You do not have to answer.
>
> r
How magnaminous of you.
Cody
dere...@netscape.net
Michael Cody wrote:
> > See how easy that was? Why don't you have a go at it.
>
> Because he knows that his support for Bush the Terrorist Warmonger is
> contrary to kosen rufu.
Out one side of his mouth, he claims to want "dialogue" and "exchange
information."
Out the other, he says, "Now, are you willing to spend a lot of time
and effort discissing something that does not interest you? ... Do I
try to force yiou to give opinions on matters you have no wish to
discuss?"
Go figure.
Derek Juhl
robek
dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> Go figure.
>
> Derek Juhl
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
humor:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/robbeck/Bp.jpg
I have to go somewehere else now. e you later.
r
Michael Cody
> dere...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>>Go figure.
>>
>>Derek Juhl
>
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> humor:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/robbeck/Bp.jpg
I like that. Good one.
>
> I have to go somewehere else now. e you later.
>
> r
Bye.
Cody
Chris
> Really great intellectuals would not post here and
> would not put on the style like he does.
Later:
Kurt:
> And subjective discussion of religion is OT here? LOL
I guess objective discussions are impossible and subjective discussions
are off topic on ARBN.
I guess the only thing allowed is canned spam and flame wars.
Chris
Chris
> You are rather good at mean spirited spin. That is a skill.
> Consider that a compliment.
I'm beginning to see Cody's point. Come on Robin, good historical
analysis is not mean spirited or spun.
Chris
Chris
> Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad?
r: > Or the Chinese Embassy in Serbia?
CHH: No, and from what I understand nobody did. It was an accident.
r: > Do you support free abortion on demand?
No. But I do support a woman's right to choose her own destiny without
some asshole telling her she has to go to a back alley to have it.
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse?
CHH: No. Have you?
> Had sex with a minor?
CHH: No.
> Are you required to answer those questions?
CHH: No.
> If you decline, are you dodging, evading, or back pedalling?
CHH: Robin, you are.
> Can't Answer?
Robin:
> Do you like it when others treat you like you treat them? I have been
> around gang mernbers and bullies. I can handle them. Go pick on someone
> smaller than you. I have no wish to take the gloves off and destroy
> you.
Cody:
> Hmm, touched a nerve, eh? If you can't take the heat ... go on, don't be
> shy, "take the gloves off" or are you just bluffing, huffing and puffing?
I would love to see you folks go at it. When I've debated Robin about
politics before he's tended to just pull the plug, cuss me out, and
then delete messages.
> Patience is a virtue and ARBN is not a chat room. You may have to wait
> hours or days for a reply.
Yep. Or in my case sometimes years.
> Here's my reply, posted 3 minutes after you posted this one :
> Question: Did you support the bombing of Iraq?
> >>
> Yes ___
Unfortunately I did when I thought it was to "save lives."
> No ____
Cody:
> Can you handle simplicity or do you always have to answer questions with
> questions and through in something totally irrevelant?
Robin has considered himself a "spin-master" in my previous discussions
with him. I used to call him 'Taz'.
Robin:
> > Did you? Did you support the bombing of an aspirin factory in Chad?
Cody:
> I don't support bombs, much less bombing.
Robin:
> > Or the Chinese Embassy in Serbia?
Cody:
> IBID
Robin:
> > Do you support free abortion on demand?
Cody:
> Personally, I am against it but it's not my body.
Cody:
> Now, you're getting personal. My point was that supporting bombing or
> war by *any* president is contrary to world peace, kosen rufu and
> Buddhist principles.
Robin:
> Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Had sex with a minor? Are you
> required to answer those questions?
Cody:
> Not the personal ones, no.
Robin:
> > If you decline, are you dodging,
> > evading, or back pedalling?
Cody:
> Of course not.
>
Cody:
> I will add another:
> Do you support the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism and don't you
> think that it's possible to solve the problems without resorting to
> raping countries and bombing the living shit out of their civilians?
Chris: I agree with you that it is possible to "fight terrorism"
without resorting to the methods and insanity of "dirty war." I've been
supporting the "war" in Iraq but not the way it's been waged because it
seemed there was no other choice. Before the war because I deluded
myself into thinking that maybe the Prez wasn't lying this time.
> For some reason, I think that's a tad more relevant to kosen rufu than if a
> Gosho is kosher or not.
Actually, whether the way Buddhism is taught is truthful or not is more
important to Kosenrufu than even the war in Iraq. There will be no
Kosenrufu unless those teaching Buddhism can make the distinction
between the "wrapper" and the contents and not be so literal about the
"wrappers."
People are fighting because of a kind of demented literalism on the
part of the majority of the folks doing the fighting directed by a
secretive darwinism on the part of those directing them to fight. When
people wake up to the truth of the Lotus Sutra they aren't so easily
manipulated.
> Then, again, you and Chris put more emphasis on the ivory tower
> approach, not the "let's give peace a chance" approach.
Ivory towers are a luxury of untested principles and untested ideas.
The treasure tower needs to be opened not worshipped from afar.
Chris
Michael Cody
Um, ARBN is not moderated.
Cody
Chris
Nichiren/Nikko/ etceteras history by attacking his alliances and
political beliefs. The result was a round robin discussion out of Alice
in Wonderland.
Kurt:
> And subjective discussion of religion is OT
> here? LOL
Cody:
> Um, ARBN is not moderated.
Which is why Robin can talk about what he likes. And you can try to
divert the subject if you want to. Heck I like to razz him too.
Chris
Yelps
"Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134318635....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
A Real True Buddhist when studying history should know what is of primary
importance.
If so and so said...."blah blah blah......is a forgery ...etc." and one
gathers up a bunch of words of people who all agree with that ...a REAL
Buddhist will say:
"This is what these people say which demeans our unity, or the unwritten
teachings.....the Mind of the Buddha---but they do not understand the
expedient means of the buddha and they break the unity of Itai Doshin, even
though they call themselves scholars."
There is alot of things in the history of Buddhism that is "interesting" to
a handful of people who get off on that----but to be studying and claiming
to be seeking the "truth," of Buddhism through that kind of study, and to be
pushing a view that breaks the unity of the very Buddhist organization they
themselves swore at one time to defend. This is the CLASSIC case of Ha
Wagoso.
Real Buddhism does not come in words and the words that are chosen to
explain it, should be designed to be consumed by new believers and
mainstream non-buddhsits------SHAKUBUKU-----------not those anal retentive
sleaze-bags who break the unity of believers and make causes in real life
that separates themselves from the "sangha," in which they appeared in the
first place.
People like that are delusional because they think Buddhism is all those
words rather then action and experience and making real change in the
world--which of course means Itai Doshin, a generic Protocol and a meshing
of all types and kinds of people.
Real Enlightenment can come from solving these real problems of Human Itai
Doshin during the process of World Wide Shakubuku and will never come from
"study" not based in this fundamental hon'nin-myo Buddhism.
dc
Kurt
"Chris" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or discussions of obscure doctrine...
Kurt
"robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
I'm up here to freely talk about things. The more people know about
where I'm the more they'll understand my point when I make one.
You expend far more energy dodging questions than simply answering them.
No different than Marc.
robek
Kurt wrote:
> Or discussions of obscure doctrine...
Nichiren Shoshu is an obscure school with obscure doctrines. Even
Nichiren Buddhism is rather obscure. Most people have never heard of
us. Many people think the Buddha was fat. I have met Gakkai members who
know next to nothing about Buddhism.
r
Michael Cody
And????????
Cody
Mark P.
You haven't ever read Nichiren Shoshu doctrine so how can you comment
on it?
Mark Porter
"The mirror of our mind and the mirror of the Buddha's mind are in fact the same mirror."
Try the new refined search feature on 175 Gosho at
http://perltng.com/lotus/
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> You haven't ever read Nichiren Shoshu doctrine so how can you comment
> on it?
I haven't? What was I doing from 1972 to 1996?
r
Mark P.
You read SGI doctrine that is different than Nichiren Shoshu. Why do
you think they got excommunicated?
Chris
> You haven't ever read Nichiren Shoshu doctrine so how can you comment
> on it?
> >```````````````````````````````
> >I haven't? What was I doing from 1972 to 1996?
Robin:
> You read SGI doctrine that is different than Nichiren Shoshu. Why do
> you think they got excommunicated?
The SGI got excommunicated because Nikken and Ikeda are both alpha
males and the Gakkai waged an "Uchi Iri" campaign of revenge/"justice"
between 1972 and 1991 that reached it's penultimate when Ikeda had the
effrontery to criticize the High Priest at the 35th anniversary leaders
meeting and spies from one of the SGI enemy groups recorded him.
It had something loosely to do with doctrines. Nichiren Shoshu had
spent the previous 20 years trying to convince Gakkai members to be
"good" Nichiren Shoshu members and really respect the priests. They
wanted believers to believe in the priests and the High Priest
specifically and to regard lay leaders such as Ikeda as simply lay
leaders. Gakkai leaders in the 70's had wanted members to believe that
Ikeda was the 'true Buddha" or at least his reincarnation -- and this
had caused Nittatsu to demand Ikeda resign from the Presidency of the
Sokagakkai. Both sides will pretend it was about doctrines, I only wish
that it had been.
Chris
robek
Mark P. wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 12:38:35 -0800, "robek" <rrob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark P. wrote:
> >> You haven't ever read Nichiren Shoshu doctrine so how can you comment
> >> on it?
> >```````````````````````````````
> >I haven't? What was I doing from 1972 to 1996?
> >
>
> You read SGI doctrine that is different than Nichiren Shoshu. Why do
> you think they got excommunicated?
Uhm,
I was at the ground breaking ceremony for Myogyoji. I hosted the first
Gojukai held in Urbana IL, officiated by Reverend Yamada. I did not
just get off a Banana Boat.
r
Yelps
"Mark P." <del...@delete.perltng.com> wrote in message
news:439e324b....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Ugh. Dumb Mark. When did you join? When you say dumb things like this it
is just so incredibly ignorant. Painful to read such silly naivete.
dc
Michael Cody
If one goes to the Treasure Tower without a seeking spirit, one comes
back with nothing.
The fact that you lay importance on being the first writes volumes.
Cody
Michael Cody
Good old Yelper, insulting everyone again and not making a single point.
Cody