Below is a comment written by my brother, Don, which is also in the "comments" following the "Islam is Dangerous" entry. I liked it well enough that I copied it and pasted it here as a main entry, slightly edited (because I can). I don't exactly agree with all of Don's opinions, and haven't checked all his facts, but I think his perspective on this issue is interesting and contributory. I liked it, anyway. >8^)
Don does not practice any particular religious philosophy, that I know of (unless "curmudgeonism" qualifies) and is a pretty smart guy. He lives in Washington (state) with our Dad and a couple of antique cats. Enjoy. AH
==========================
I read a book on Islam and what went wrong, and I think a couple of points of this book may be relevent here. The book describes the history of Islam in our world, and in particular, when the Moslem empire began to lose ground to the Christian west. I can't argue with the premise that Islam was the best thing going, literally the light of the world, until about the 12th century. For science, philosophy and enlightenment, Islam ruled the world at a time when Europe was trying to figure out how to dig an outhouse. (The book does not deal with Nichiren, nor whether he could dig an outhouse. It pretty much ignores the East. In fact disciples of Nichiren ought to appreciate the 12th century AD, or CE as it is so correctly and politically referred to, as a happening time.)
Many think the Crusades did some damage to the empire of Mohammed -- wrong. Many think it was Genghis Khan who weakened the Moslem empire -- wrong. What happened was the warriors of Mohammed, when they failed on any front, became obsessed with the word of the prophet as a static thing, the final word so to speak, and tried to revert to the past... always a bad idea.
The Christian/West threat was minimal and ignored, and of course, the conquerors were assimilated by the conquered in the case of the Mongol Hordes. For a while this was good enough to let the new Moslem (Ottoman) empire cruise, until about the 16th century when Europe began to catch up.
Pretty soon we had, instead of coffee exports from Yemen, trade through and bypassing the Ottomans from new coffee plantations in the fertile grounds of Africa. The economics of the situation continue to this day, as witnessed in the fact that the exports of Belgium excede those of the entire Arab world, minus oil (explored and exploited by the non-Arab world).
Somewhere around the 16th century (I'm working from memory here) the Ottomans started losing ground to the West in the Balkans (see Dracula), and in the 19th century Napoleon (followed by the Brits) showed them that the Moslem world was incapable of withstanding an attack from Europe.
Egypt and Palestine fell, and we all know the incredible mess made by the interaction of Europe and Islam in the 20th century, in which Islam generally allied itself with Hitler, except for a new place in false power by the lackeys of the winners. You might recognize some names like "Hussein" if you've ever seen Lawrence of Arabia, but we are talking Syria here, not Saddam. And Ibn Saud.
So what's my point? My point is, Mohammed created a church-state, a theocracy. Mohammed IS the final word, the final prophet. There is no room for change. The Koran and the Sharia (?sp?) are not only the best ruling orders, they are the only ruling orders. By command of Mohammed, straight from God, there can be no other. Hence, theocracy. Church rules state.
And the lesson? For those of us in the United States, it should be obvious. Our founding fathers labored both in article II of the Articles of Confederation and in the 1st amendment to the Constitution to separate church and state. We let "in god we trust" slip in on our coinage during the civil war, and "under god" as indoctrination during the cold war. The lesson is, when you mix religion, abhorent of change, with government, it's bad to the bone. Times change. People change. The Moslems proved it, and if they would only use a bit of the science they preserved for the Western world 1000 years ago, they would know it.
I'm trying to think of a sub-moral for disciples of Nichiren here, be they attached to this faction or that, and I'm tempted to say if Nichiren Dai Shonen (sic) were alive today he'd say,
"Hey, I lived almost a millenia ago and was concerned about my world. If I'd seen yours, I'd have been wiser than the idiots who have used my name (and my teachings) in vain. I never had the arrogance to say mine is the last (or only) word."
I know there are a bunch of devout desciples ready quote the last word, but it's silly. Jesus, Sidhartha, Mohammed, Lau Tsu, Confusious, anybody else, and I think you who are reading this with any common sense will recognize that times change, people evolve (hopefully) and there can be no last word to a seed that will become an oak yet doesn't know where to put its limbs. That's us, humans, possible predecessors to the inheritors of the world, be they dolphin survivors of our human plague or cockroaches.
The book is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lews, by the way, and the opinions and mistakes are my own.
--
Don A. Hanlen
Comments
..."curmudgeonism"? Now that's slander.
You of all people should know that I am a Donist. You can find my teachings in the holy Donomatapoedia. For those who want to receive a copy of this work, please send me $100 and you'll get a copy as soon as I get it published. I promise!
--
don
How the HELL can someone LOOK like his brother without any visuals of either one?
P.
Hey Peter, you need to get beyond looks. It's not our fault if we are stud muffins, and there are three of us.
Your problem is that you need to go from the physical plane, via the mundane, to a reasonably priced plane to somewhere in the sun.
--
don
OK. Islam is irrational and immoral. Now just how does that distinguish it from other theistic systems? - Brian
"Hey Peter, you need to get beyond looks. It's not our fault if we are stud muffins, and there are three of us.Your problem is that you need to go from the physical plane, via the mundane, to a reasonably priced plane to somewhere in the sun."--Don
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andy!
I thought you said yer brother was never in SGI. He gives guidance worthy of a zone gruppenfurher!
P.
Say Peter...
I've never been in SGI, but I had a few good years in NSA (and if you think that's the National Security Agency, I may have to shoot ya!)
The truth is, I got a lot out of Nichiren Shoshu. Considering the fact that I lack the faith to be an atheist, you might consider me to be a practicing/bumbling pragmatic buddhist who has issues with organized religion. As far a guidance goes, it ain't spin if it's good advice!
--
don
"The truth is, I got a lot out of Nichiren Shoshu."
Yeah, I got a lot out of SGI; my BUTT, as soon as I realized what was going on!
; )
OK, I'll tone it down now.
P.
P.S. Andy, you may want to reconsider using your initials (A.H., in case you weren't sure) when signing a note such as you did to the intro to Don's bit on the blog. ; )
Hi Don,
Nice post. I enjoyed your perspective. I too have tried to articulate, somewhat clumsily, what the doctrinal question means to me in terms of change and modernity over the years.
I think you have touched on a central issue that is pervasive in so many organizations, institutions, traditions and cultures. There are strong and significant lessons to be learned from history in general and the history of change/its effect on society in particular.
Perhaps one could sum up by saying that most religious, philosophical and even political doctrine have the potential to become mere "antiquated views" over time. However, and fortunately, there are also certain doctrines that contain universal and timeless truths, and can be applied throughout the millenia based on what we observe to be "static" tendencies in the human character.
I think that perhaps one's evaluation of the flexibility of a particular philosophy's doctrine could be based on the "antiquated view quotient" it may contain. For example, and in my own opinion, the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin are on the whole, rather timeless. They have the luxury of being valid in spite of their stasis. This is due to the keen insight of Nichiren, and his deep understanding of human nature and the universe.
There is also an issue of stasis in doctrine based on travel! The SGI's "travel" from Japan to the rest of the world comes to mind. The tricky question is, has this organization had the flexibility and wisdom to evolve past its cultural roots (Japan), or has it remained relatively static (NSA of old)? Some argue the degrees of change of the SGI, and whether it's been fast enough or not to accomodate enough growth. However, in comparison to other philosophies (note the example of the slow-crawl-"evolotion" of Catholic dogma over the centuries), perhaps the SGI ain't so bad.
My perception of Islam's "condition of stasis", primarily based on TV movies and the media - and without really knowing any Muslims personally - is that Islam has essentially remained stuck in about the 9th century culturally and dogmatically. Perhaps this is unfair. But as you mentioned, and as we have seen, this is fuel for many fires and problems in a fast-paced ever-evolving world.
I think it is encumbent upon our SGI to remain at the forefront and expand its role in the world as an "adaptable" organization. This precedent alone will force other religious leaders to notice, and over time, set an example and further prove the wisdom of Nichiren's ideals.
Arn Johnson
Arn, I have a very different opinion and experience of SGI's level of adaptability. In my time at SGI, I found it deeply defended against change and lacking in openness to any ideas generated outside of its authority structure. I experienced it as much more domineering and self referential than Catholicism ever was in my life (and I was an altar boy). In my way of thinking, simply comparing favorably to Catholicism or some forms of Islam seriously undermines SGIs (almost constant) claim to some sort of greatness. Just because SGI didnt have an inquisition (or at least one where no one was burned at the stake) doesnt mean its adherents arent engaging in hyperbole when they call SGI the spearhead of world peace. And SGI IS carrying out a Jihad of sorts; a holy battle against the negative influence of the evil Nikken.
My field is organizational change, and from what Ive seen in SGI, much of its stated primary task of practicing Buddhism has been discarded for some defensive group processes such as 1) dependence upon the leader and 2) fight/flight response to outside influences (especially N.Shoshu).
Im sure Andy isnt going to want this thread to continue here and I wont say I blame him. You can meet me elsewhere on the web if you feel you need to respond.
I have a yahoo board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Crossroads-Daimoku/ where we can go back n forth as much as we want.
Peter
(This is don talking, noted here because I have problems with the format of this blog, so you will know
who is talking before you read the following...)
I don't think any of you have paid any attention to Brian Holly's question. He asked if Islam was
irrational and immoral, how does one distinquish it from other theistic systems? That is exactly my
question! How does one base one's beliefs on the absolute and very very final word of anyone who
spoke one, two, three thousand years ago? The answer is, it's not possible.
It's not possible to base a rational system today completely on the beleifs of yesterday. What you do
is you take the good, get rid of the bad and silly, and take into account the industrial revolution, the
invention of TNT and nuclear weapons and supersonic transport, the advent of Napoleon and Hitler
and Madonna, and live with it. In order of time, Moses, Sidhartha, Jesus and Mohamed said some
good things, many many years ago. If we can use their teachings, and not the dogma based on their
teachings, we can procede into the 21st century with some clue about what is needed. In the
particular context of this discussion, those of you who put down Islam need to realize that at about
700 AD, complete with it's classification of beleivers, women, slaves, people of the book, and infidels,
Islam was the most enlightened thing going. Believe me, if you had a choice you'd rather be living in
Baghdad 1000 years ago than Rome or Japan. The lesson is, it ain't so anymore, nor are the works
based on the societies of any of the above. It's called growth. Live with it or go extinct with it.
Arn Johnson makes some interesting points, but I think somebody has to point out here that
buddhism did not originate in Japan. Nichiren was a very Japanese-type buddhist. And he was
dealing with a very Japanese society when he made an observation that transcends the law an the
prophets, so to speak. To devote oneself to the mystic law of cause and effect is basically the be-all
and end-all of religion. Jesus said the same thing. Different times, different words. Does anyone
have any problem (other than arguments about god(s) ) with loving god, and loving your neighbor as
yourself, and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets? That's what Jesus
said. I don't think that, given the times, it's very much different from what Nichiren said.
I just listened to Bill Orielly's concern about a secular state --again. Bill'ls very big on this issue due, I
think, to his Roman Catholic origins. He hates the concept, the idea, the basis of a secular state, but
isn't that what we are really talking about here? I am proud to be a citizen of the very very very first
secular state. The founding fathers of the United States of America included in both Article II of their
Articles of Confederation, and in the first amendment to their Constitution the separation of church
and state. There are some concepts we can agree on, like killing is bad, living is good, but when you
mix church into government, you get... well, .. I hate to use the word "evil". Examine your own beliefs,
see if they are very different from the beliefs of others, and above all, avoid the sin of modern day
Islam, and don't call the beliefs of others, that evil word, "evil". I prefer to look to the future rather than
attempt to revert to some "purity" of past society or "civilization".
I didn't think there was anything to add to Brian's post except perhaps that ALL spiritual beleif systems are irrational, even mine as far as I'm concerned.
P.
I didn't think there was anything to add to Brian's post except perhaps that ALL spiritual beleif systems are irrational, even mine as far as I'm concerned.
P.
To Peter:
Well, you're probably preaching to the choir on some level in your response to me. I can definitely hear what you're saying about "adaptability" in the SGI. All I'm saying is that if the bar of change is as low as say.. ok, well Catholicism really seems to be a strong example of this (sorry Don), the SGI ain't so bad. Does that make this fact a GOOD thing? Probably not in terms of the Buddhism of Nichiren. The contradiction here is that the bar needs to be MUCH higher for the SGI to accomplish its stated goals. It's plain and simple, and I think you've said it.
We've all had differening degrees of experience when it comes to dissapointment with the SGI/lack of fulfillment of our expectations of it. But also, I think it's important to understand that the rate of change is largely dictated by a couple of things. Namely, culture and dogma. Human nature will always dictate the level of change in any group. The SGI is no exception. I think it's important that we realize that, and then operate within the parameters of that understanding.
No goin' back and forth necessary. Also, if Andy turned on the commenting feature on his blog, it means he wants us to comment. But I can also see what you mean about moving off to another forum. I don't know that we're at that point yet.
To Don:
Well, I must confess that I didn't follow the thread all the way back (it's a little confusing in the blog format), and I really just read your article as a stand-alone device. If I have time I'll go back and read the other stuff (like Brian's) and comment.
Sorry to tangent from our overall subject, but I must bring something up. One thing I must strongly disagree with you is your attempt to compare the philosophy of Nichiren (or Buddhism in general) to the supernatural-diety based religions of Christianity, Islam and others.
Buddhism to some degree, and definitely Nichiren, focused on the power of the the individual life of the self, and it's one-ness and duality with the existence of the universe. I won't go into a Buddhist doctrinal course here (I'm sure your brother has touched on this w/ you from time to time), but I think it's safe to say that they are as different as night and day on a fundamental level.
Sure, there's the whole "love your neighbor" thing in Buddhism, which is core. We call it compassion. But to a large degree, the similarities end there.
In Buddhism, we have cause and effect or karma. We're 100% responsible for it. In Christianity, it's God's will. We're "sort of" responsible for that, except for small babies stricken with cancer, then it's "God works in mysterious ways", over which we have no control. Ok, I know I'm oversimplifying, but it basically illustrates my point.
Also, to say that "Nichiren was a very Japanese-type buddhist" is pretty incorrect. In fact, he was persecuted by the Japanese largely due to his continuous protest of the folly of following "Japanese-type Buddhism". Further examination of the history of Buddhism reveals that, in fact, Nichiren was more of a Shakyamuni-in-Nepal-type Buddhist than a Japanese one. Incidentally, this is one of the central points of Nichiren Buddhism.
While it is incredibly important to respect others' choice of faith, it is also imcumbent, IMHO, to carefully dissect the differences and the truths. It is true that some faiths lead people, doctrinally speaking, to actions that can only be described by the word "Evil". To expect otherwise is to expect everyone to have non-discerning views. I think that's a dangerous tendency in the history of humanity.
Best,
Arn
"But also, I think it's important to understand that the rate of change is largely dictated by a couple of things. Namely, culture and dogma. Human nature will always dictate the level of change in any group. The SGI is no exception."
Partially true, but incomplete. Leadership. Leadership of an organziation is the single most important component of an organziation's culture. Not the only component, but the one factor that is most potent in and of itself. Leadership has an absolutely global effect on the pace of change in an organization.
P.
Say Andy (and others)...
You might want to check out
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/thebook.html,
it's an unusual viewpoint coming from a Muslim woman.
--
don